Petersburg Outfitter 

and Guide 

Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Tongass 

National Forest 

R10-MB-706 

December 2009 
Abbreviations and Common Acronyms 

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Plan NAGPRA 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

ADGC 

Alaska Department of Government 

Coordination NFS National Forest System 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

BMP Best Management Practices PCDSCW Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck 

Wilderness 

CCR Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report PRD Petersburg Ranger District 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations RSNT Remote Setting Nature Tours 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act RVD Recreation Visitor Day 

DMLW Division of Land, Mining, Land and SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

DN Decision Notice SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions 

EA Environmental Assessment SUA Special Use Authorization 

ESA Environmental Species Act T&E Threatened and Endangered 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact TBKW Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses 

FS Forest Service TLMP Tongass Land Management Plan 

FSH Forest Service Handbook TNF Tongass National Forest 

FSM Forest Service Manual TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

LNT Leave No Trace VCU Value Comparison Unit 

LUD Land Use Designation WA Wilderness Area 

Cover photo: View from Raven’s Ridge on Mitkof Island. Sukoi Islands in Frederick Sound with the Coast Range in 

the background. Photograph by Marina Whitacre.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest 

Service 

Alaska Region 

Tongass National Forest 

Petersburg Ranger District 

P.O. Box 1328 

Petersburg, AK 99833-1328 

Phone: (907) 772-3871 

Fax: (907) 772-5995

 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 1950-1 

Date: December 14, 2009 

 

Dear Planning Participant, 

Enclosed is your copy of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan on the Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. This document 

describes two action alternatives; Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 2 (Increased 

Solitude). Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative; however, please review both alternatives 

since either alternative, combination of alternatives, or a new alternative within the range of 

these alternatives may be selected in the final decision. 

Since the distribution of the project’s scoping letter in January 2009, a second action alternative 

(Increased Solitude) was developed to further address user conflicts in the 

Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays (12A) and Keku Strait/Port Camden (14) study areas. 

Similar to Alternative 1, Recreation Visitor Days are proportioned out by season, but with 

reduced outfitter and guide allocations in the spring and fall in Study Areas 12A and 14. Setting 

allocated use in the spring and fall seasons closer to actual use in these study areas restricts 

growth in the areas’ outfitter and guide use. The intended result would be fewer user conflicts 

due to a greater opportunity for solitude. 

As the Petersburg District Ranger, I am the Responsible Official for this project. I will make the 

decision on how to manage the outfitter and guide special use program by allocating a portion of 

the total recreation carrying capacity for commercial use while taking into account the needs of 

unguided users and forest resources. 

The 30-day comment period on the EA will begin on the date the Notice of Availability is 

published in the Petersburg Pilot, the newspaper of record. Comments should be provided prior 

to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to 

participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. 

Comments received in response to this solicitation; including names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted 

anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide 

the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial 

review. 

Please send written comments to me, Petersburg District Ranger, or Marina Whitacre, Team 

Leader/Writer-Editor, Attn. Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan, U.S. Forest 

Service, PO Box 1328, Petersburg, AK, 99833-1328. Comments may also be e-mailed to 

comments-alaska-tongass-petersburg@fs.fed.us, with Petersburg Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan in the subject line. 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need For the Proposed Action ......................................................... 1-1

Document Structure ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

Background .................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................................ 1-4

Project Area Description .............................................................................................................. 1-5

Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................ 1-5

Decision Framework ..................................................................................................................... 1-5

Scoping ......................................................................................................................................... 1-7

Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 1-9

Chapter 2 – Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 2-1

Key Terms .................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-3

Existing Condition ........................................................................................................................ 2-3

Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................................................. 2-3

Mitigations .................................................................................................................................... 2-5

Implementation ............................................................................................................................. 2-9

Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................2-11

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2-13

Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 2-14

Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ....................................................... 2-19

Chapter 3 – Environmental Considerations ................................................................................ 3-1

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

Environmental Considerations ...................................................................................................... 3-2

Findings and Disclosures ............................................................................................................ 3-34
Chapter 4 – References and Lists ................................................................................................ 4-1

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 4-1

List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................... 4-11

List of EA Recipients .................................................................................................................. 4-12

References .................................................................................................................................. 4-14

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... A-1

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report ................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... B-1

Wilderness Needs Assessments ................................................................................................... B-1

Appendix C .................................................................................................................................... C-1

Biological Assessments for the Petersburg Outfitter Guide Environmental Assessment ............ C-1

 View from USFS Kake bunkhouse. Photograph by Heath Whitacre. 
CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

Document Structure ______________________________ 

The Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, has prepared this 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State law and regulation. This EA discloses 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives. The document has four chapters plus appendices: 

 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. This chapter includes 

information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose and need for the 

project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. It also 

details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the 

public responded. 

 Chapter 2 – Alternatives. This chapter provides a more detailed description of the 

agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This 

discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this chapter 

provides a summary table of the environmental considerations associated with 

each alternative. 

 Chapter 3 – Environmental Considerations. Organized by resource area, this 

chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action 

and other alternatives. 

 Chapter 4 – References and Lists. This chapter provides a glossary, list of 

preparers and EA recipients, references and an index. 

 Appendices. These provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the EA. 

The project record, located at the Petersburg Ranger District (PRD) office in Petersburg, 

AK, has additional documentation and more detailed analyses of project area resources. 

Background _____________________________________ 

Outfitting and guiding services are a permitted activity on National Forest System (NFS) 

lands under a variety of laws established by Congress. National policy allows the Forest 

Service (FS) to issue either temporary or priority special use permits to qualified 

outfitters and guides. 

Temporary special use permits are issued for minor, non-recurring outfitting and guiding 

activities in amounts of up to 200 service days in a 180-day period and are not be subject 

to renewal. They may be offered on a first-come, first-served or lottery basis and are 

issued only for intermittent or transient outfitting and guiding conducted on National 

Forest System lands (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 41.53j). 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 1
Priority special use permits may be issued for up to ten years with a probationary 2-year 

permit term for new priority use permit holders that may be extended for up to 8 years 

based upon satisfactory performance. Priority use permits may be issued to institutional 

and semi-public groups, such as youth, educational, and religious groups (FSH 2709.11, 

Chapter 41.53l). 

Priority use permit allocation is based on the highest amount of actual use in one calendar 

year during a five year period. Permit holders with 1,000 service days or less can acquire 

an additional 25 percent of their highest actual use year and permit holders with more 

than 1,000 service days can acquire an additional 15 percent, provided that the total does 

not exceed the allocation when the permit was issued (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 41.53m). 

This approach to review use allocations takes into account market fluctuations, 

availability of state hunting licenses, and natural phenomena. 

In addition to temporary and priority use permits, temporary and priority use pools may 

be established. These allow priority use permit holders to apply for a short-term 

allocation of use to meet a seasonal need (FSH 2700 Chapter 41.53k and n). The process 

of allocating a percentage of use to the temporary and priority use pools will be 

determined by the authorized officer who, in this situation, is the Petersburg District 

Ranger (ibid.). 

This 2009 EA replaces the Petersburg Ranger District portion of the 1997 Stikine Area 

Outfitter and Guide EA. It will not address or authorize assigned sites1

, ground disturbing 

activities, and other forms of development. These activities will require a site specific 

analysis and further NEPA review. 

Through this NEPA analysis, the PRD will decide how recreation visitor capacity will be 

allocated to outfitters and guides by considering the long-term and cumulative effects of 

issuing temporary and priority use permits. In allocating visitor capacity, the FS will 

consider uses that serve the public need for outfitter and guide services in ways that 

protect the natural and cultural resources of the area, and the more primitive social setting 

desired for an “Alaskan experience”. 

History of the project 

In 2004 a review of the 1997 Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide EA was completed to take 

into account the growth of the outfitter and guide industry. All recommended changes 

were minor. Calculations or numbers were corrected based on better information or to 

address public concerns. No change required any further environmental analysis or was 

significant enough to require a new Decision Notice. 

Since the 2004 review, actual use of the PRD by the outfitter and guide industry 

increased in 2005, then steadily decreased from 2005-2008 (see Table 3.2). To examine 

the district's ability to accommodate growth, a carrying capacity study (the Petersburg 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report) was completed in December 2009. The 

 

1

 An assigned site is a specific site designated and authorized for use by a permit holder. 

1 Purpose and Need 2 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
analysis, or allocation process, allows the PRD to manage its recreation use in accordance 

with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum2

 (ROS) (USDA 2008, Appendix I) and Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA 2008, pp. 4-45 to 4-49). These capacity numbers 

estimate how many people can use a given area annually and helped formulate 

alternatives responsive to the issues identified in scoping (see Chapter 2 for alternatives). 

For a detailed explanation of how the carrying capacity report numbers are generated, see 

the Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report in Appendix A of this document. 

The Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report for the Petersburg Ranger District shows 

that despite an increase in commercial use of Forest Service lands, use has not exceeded 

capacity and there is room for additional growth of the outfitter and guide industry. 

There have been some changes in allocation of RVDs by study area and study area acres 

since the 1997 Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide EA and the 2004 update3. Other changes 

incorporated into this EA include: 

 New Tongass Forest direction regarding permitting outfitter and guide services 

within wilderness. In 2007 the Forest Supervisor determined a need existed for 

outfitter and guide services within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass. The amount, 

type and extent of services necessary is determined at the district level prior to 

issuing outfitter and guide permits in Wilderness (Wilderness Act, FSH 2709.11 

41.53e, USDA 2007). Two Determinations of Need for Commercial Services 

were conducted prior to this EA’s analysis: one for the Petersburg Creek – 

Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness and another for the Tebenkof Bay – Kuiu 

Wildernesses. Both analyses are filed in the Petersburg Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan EA project record. 

 New Washington Office direction on the administration of outfitter and guide 

permits (FSH 2709.11 – 41.53). The updated FSH sets forth new direction on 

authorizing and administering temporary and priority use permits and establishing 

and operating priority and temporary use pools for permit holders. The 2008 

changes do not affect the total allocation of commercial use on National Forest 

System lands. Instead it changes how allocated use might be distributed. 

 Study area boundaries. All but three study areas changed during the analysis 

completed for the Petersburg Carrying Capacity Report. These changes were an 

effort to group similar recreation uses within a study area. The changes were also 

a result of five additional years of use data. 

 Recreation place boundaries. There were boundary changes made to the 

recreation places which fall within the larger study areas. These changes were due 

to land status changes, a re-evaluation of recreation attractors, new information, 

 

2

 ROS helps identify, quantify and describe the type of recreation settings the district provides. 

3

 These changes are listed in Table C of the 2009 Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report for Petersburg 

Ranger District. 

Purpose and Need 1

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 3
and the most recent use data. As a result, there are 70,976 fewer recreation place 

acres today than in 2004. 

 An increase in net RVDs. Based on the Proposed Action, there are approximately 

95,434 more RVDs available today than when the 2004 update was completed4

. 

Purpose and Need for Action _______________________ 

The purpose of this initiative is to: 

 Respond to special use permit applications; 

 Allocate appropriate outfitter and guide use in the Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt 

Chuck, Tebenkof Bay, and Kuiu Wilderness Areas while protecting wilderness 

character (based on individual Wilderness Needs Assessments); and 

 Allocate outfitter and guide recreation use on the Petersburg District to minimize 

potential impacts to all resources. 

This action is needed to analyze the potential impacts of outfitter and guide use on NFS 

lands and to set reasonable levels of use based on social and environmental conditions. 

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Tongass Forest Plan, and 

helps move the PRD towards the desired conditions described in the plan (USDA 2008a, 

p. 2-1). The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines to authorize the services of 

qualified outfitters and guides to the public where the need for the service has been 

identified, is compatible with the objectives and management direction of the affected 

Land Use Designation (LUD) (USDA 2008a, p. 4-46) and to issue priority use permits, 

whenever possible, supplemented with temporary permits (id.). 

Forest Service policy (FSM 2720 and FSH 2709.11) allows for the issuance of special 

use authorizations for up to 10 years. Applications for multi-year permits allow outfitters 

and guides to make financial commitments necessary to continue to provide service to the 

public. 

In 2007, the Forest Supervisor determined a need for outfitter and guide services within 

Wilderness Areas on the Tongass. To address this need, the PRD has written two 

Determinations of Need for Commercial Services (Determinations): one specific to the 

Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness areas and another for the Petersburg Creek-Duncan 

Salt Chuck Wilderness area. Both Determinations demonstrated need for commercially 

guided hunting, freshwater fishing and Remote Setting Nature Tours (RSNT). The 

Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Determinations also demonstrated a need for 

commercially guided camping. Because these services are deemed appropriate for these 

 

4

 This increase is largely due to a change made to a variable (Length of Stay) in the formula used to 

calculate RVDs (see Appendix A, Recreation Carrying Capacity Report). In 2004 Length of Stay (LOS) 

was determined by the average amount of time a recreationist was estimated to stay at the recreation place. 

In the current analysis, LOS reflects the amount of time a recreation place could be occupied by 

recreationists. For example, many LOSs for recreation places increased from two hours in 2004 to eight 

hours in 2009. As a result, 2009 net and allocated RVDs increased. 

1 Purpose and Need 4 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Wilderness areas, the FS may issue Special Use Authorizations (SUAs) to individual(s) 

or organization(s) (USDA 2008a, p. 3-20) to provide the said service(s). 

Project Area Description __________________________ 

The project area consists of the National Forest System lands encompassing the 

Petersburg Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest (TNF), totaling approximately 

1.9 million acres in central Southeast Alaska, including Mitkof, Kupreanof, Woewodski, 

and Kuiu Islands, a section of the mainland, and several smaller islands. It encompasses 

the communities of Petersburg, Kupreanof, and Kake. A map displaying the project area 

is presented in Figure 1. For the purpose of this project, the district is divided into 20 

study areas5

. 

Proposed Action _________________________________ 

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to authorize 

outfitter and guide operations through the issuance of special use permits, based on the 

Petersburg Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report (see Appendix A). The Petersburg 

Ranger District (PRD) is proposing to allocate outfitter and guides up to 10 percent of the 

capacity within and 25 percent outside an identified home range6. These allocations 

would be proportioned out by season; 10% in the spring (April 1 – May 31), 65% in the 

summer (June 1 – August 31), 15% in the fall (September 1 – October 31) and 10% in the 

winter (November 1 – March 31) (Table 2.3). Allocating use by season is an effort to 

limit outfitter and guide use in the spring and fall to reduce user conflicts, provide more 

opportunities for solitude and indirectly manage outfitter and guide recreation use by 

activity. 

The proposal would authorize up to approximately 39,605 RVDs across the PRD for use 

by outfitters and guides. The use authorized may be temporary in nature (less than one 

year) or could be for multiple years. For those operators who have demonstrated 

satisfactory performance, the District Ranger may issue priority use permits, for a period 

of up to 10 years, in accordance with FSH 2709.11. 

Decision Framework ______________________________ 

The Petersburg District Ranger will decide how to manage the outfitter and guide special 

use program by allocating a portion of the total recreation use carrying capacity for 

commercial use while taking into account the needs of unguided users and forest 

resources. In order to maintain a quality recreation experience and a balance between 

 

5 Study area Study area boundaries were determined using the Forest Plan, Value Comparison Units 

(VCUs), ROS Classes (2008 Forest Plan, Appendix I), and Watershed Analysis Areas. In some instances 

study area and recreation place boundaries were revised to better represent where use is occurring and to 

group lands according to their location. These changes are documented in Table D of Appendix A. 

6

 The allocation of 10% and 25% is by recreation place, not by study area. 

Purpose and Need 1

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 5
guided and unguided use, the District Ranger will also decide what level of guided use 

will trigger additional review by study area. The type of recreation use for any given 

recreation place7

 will not be established by this document. 

Given the purpose and need, the District Ranger will review the proposed action and the 

other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: 

 The locations, limitations, management, and terms of outfitter and guide 

permits and opportunities on the PRD for the next five to ten years; 

 The extent, type, amount, and location of commercial use to allocate 

within the Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck, Tebenkof Bay, and Kuiu 

Wilderness Areas; 

 How best to manage outfitter and guide use on the PRD to minimize 

potential impacts to all resources; and 

 What, if any, mitigation measures and monitoring are needed. 

The District Ranger will not address proposals for development8 in this document. 

Development proposals, authorized under different Forest Service authorities and 

policies, are beyond the scope of this analysis. 

The decision will be implemented through the Special Uses administrative process. 

Commercial use permits will be authorized under the direction of the Special Uses 

Management Manual (FSM 2700) and Handbook (FSH 2709.11). Mitigation measures 

will be implemented through permit requirements and provisions, and administration and 

program monitoring. Monitoring will occur during the administration of Special Use 

permits and as part of the ongoing program of monitoring forest resources (sensitive and 

invasive plants, wilderness campsites, etc). 

Outfitter/guide activities involving the taking of fish or game will be implemented under 

Alaska Board of Game, Alaska Board of Fisheries, and Federal Subsistence Board 

regulations. 

When commercial use in specific study areas approaches the allocated levels, commercial 

requests for use may be redirected to other locations. If this measure is not sufficient to 

accommodate demand, resulting in a competitive interest, use will be allocated among 

qualified outfitters and guides through a competitive process. 

 

7 Recreation places are areas used for recreation activities and are easy to access. They are identified based 

on patterns of use associated with protected boat anchorages and landings, aircraft landing sites and roads; 

for example, beaches or campgrounds. 

8 Development would include construction of resorts, cabins, tent platforms, or any other structure or 

facility. 

1 Purpose and Need 6 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Scoping ________________________________________ 

Schedule of Proposed Activities 

The Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Environmental Assessment has 

been listed quarterly on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since April 2008. 

Open Houses 

On May 5, 2008, the Petersburg Ranger District hosted an open house at the district 

office. A second open house was held in Kake on July 8, 2008. A draft of Petersburg’s 

study area maps were posted for viewing at both locations. PRD received no written 

comments. 

Government-to-Government Consultation 

Consultation letters were sent to the Petersburg Indian Association, the Organized Village 

of Kake and the Wrangell Cooperative Association in April and December 2008. The 

groups also received the project scoping letters mailed in July 2008 and January 2009. 

Kake Tribal was mailed a consultation letter in April 2008 and received both scoping 

letters. In July 2008 Forest Service personnel attended a meeting with the Organized 

Village of Kake. The Outfitter and Guide Management Plan was discussed and maps of 

the project were provided. 

Indian Tribe consultations are an important part of cultural resource management. In 

Alaska, Indian Tribes, as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act, include 

federally recognized tribes and villages and regional corporations created by the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. The Organized Village of Kake, the Petersburg Indian 

Association and the Wrangell Cooperative Association are the tribes that have a cultural 

affiliation to the project area and were consulted with during the course of project 

development, as noted above. We also contacted Kake Tribal Corporation, Tlingit and 

Haida tribes of Alaska and Sealaska. 

Scoping Letter 

In July 2008, PRD mailed approximately 360 scoping letters requesting comments on the 

proposed action. In January 2009, PRD mailed an updated scoping letter to the same 

recipients that included a revised proposed action that resulted from the concerns and 

feedback received from the first scoping letter. Three main changes were made: 

 Analyze Petersburg and Wrangell Ranger Districts separately. Initially it was 

proposed to analyze the Wrangell and Petersburg Ranger Districts together and 

publish one EA. However, the public comments received during the first round of 

scoping demonstrated that there are different issues on each district that require 

different alternatives. 

Purpose and Need 1

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 7
 The proposed action was revised to manage outfitter and guide us on a seasonal, 

rather than annual, basis. Many of the responses from our initial proposed action 

raised concerns about the proposed RVD allocations being too high in many of 

the PRD study areas. To address these comments, the project’s interdisciplinary 

team decided to limit commercial use during the spring and fall seasons as a 

means to reduce user conflicts and provide more opportunities for solitude. 

 Revise the reported Recreation Visitor Days associated with day use hunting 

operations. This user group spends relatively little time on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands, but can spend a considerable amount of time in areas adjacent to the 

National Forest. This is especially true for boat-based hunting operations. This 

use can displace other users, even when not occurring entirely on NFS lands. To 

account for this incidental use of NFS lands, a multiplier of three was factored 

into the reported day use hunting that did occur on NFS lands, and is reflected in 

the 5-year (2004-2008) actual use RVD average. 

Response to Scoping 

July 2008 scoping letter 

PRD received eleven responses to the July 2008 scoping letter. Respondents included 

commercial outfitters, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and State of Alaska (Office 

of Project Management and Permitting). Comments included: 

 Project clarification requests; 

 Outfitter and guide use is over-allocated. Study areas specifically mentioned were 

2, 10, 12B, 14 and 16; 

 Over-allocation has created conflicts between users, specifically in the spring and 

fall hunting season; 

 Permitted uses conflict. Security Bay (12A) was specifically mentioned. It was 

suggested to authorize different permitted uses at different times; 

 There is intentional underreporting in Study Area 12A; 

 The Forest Service should assign priority hunts; 

 The Forest Service needs a prospectus; 

 Kah Sheets and Petersburg Creek receive heavy use; 

 Dialog with permitted users and the USFS would be helpful to develop reasonable 

use levels for the various permitted activities on the Tongass; 

 The Forest Service not put restrictions on visitor numbers (guided or unguided) in 

Wilderness areas. 

The concerns and feedback received resulted in conversations with some of the 

commercial bear hunting operators (Savage 2008) and a revised proposed action and 

scoping letter. 

1 Purpose and Need 8 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
January 2009 scoping letter 

PRD received seven responses to the January 2009 scoping letter. Respondents included 

a private citizen, commercial outfitters, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Department of the Army, City of Kupreanof mayor, and State of Alaska (Office of 

Project Management and Permitting). No new issues were identified. Comments 

included: 

 Requests to revise the calendar days of use for the spring and summer season; 

 Statements about commercial user conflicts; 

 Outfitter and guide use is over-allocated; 

 Request for group size restriction for outfitters and guides using the Petersburg 

Lake Trail and the Petersburg Mountain Trail (addressed in Table 2.2 Mitigation 

Measures by Study Area). 

Issues _________________________________________ 

Key Issues 

Key issues help define or predict the resources or uses that could be most affected by the 

management of NFS lands. These issues are used as a basis to formulate management 

alternatives or to measure differences between alternatives. 

Non-significant issues were those identified as: 

1) Outside the scope of the proposed action; 

2) Already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level 

decision; 

3) Irrelevant to the decision(s) to be made; or 

4) Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation 

in Sec. 101.7 “...identify, and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec 1506.3)...” A 

list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant 

is in the project record. 

With regard to key issues, the PRD identified two: 

 Issue 1: The proposed action may not provide stable business opportunities for 

the outfitter and guide industry.

Measurements 

o Comparison of alternatives will include the percentage of total RVDs 

allocated to outfitter and guides for the project area. 

o Comparison of alternatives will include the number of RVDs allocated to 

outfitters and guides for each study area by season. 

Purpose and Need 1

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 9
 Issue 2: The proposed action may not adequately address conflicts within the 

outfitter and guide industry. 

Measurements 

o Comparison of alternatives will include the percentage of total RVDs 

allocated by recreation management season. 

o Comparison of alternatives will include the percentage of outfitter and guide 

allocations for spring and fall seasons. 

Other Issues and Concerns 

The following issues were considered but determined not to drive an alternative. The 

rationale is included below. 

Recreation Demand 

In the 1997 Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment, an issue 

discussed and analyzed was the ability of the proposed action to provide adequate 

recreation opportunities for guided and unguided forest users. This issue was dropped for 

this analysis since the number of RVDs allocated to guided and unguided users has not 

limited use in the past. 

Affects on Forest Resources 

The project’s effects to forest resources were also discussed as a significant issue in the 

1997 Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide EA. However, because the previous EA and 

subsequent monitoring has shown no effect to forest resources, the issue was dropped for 

the current analysis and is no longer a concern that drives an alternative. It is important to 

note that affects on forest resources are still considered in the project analysis. 

Meetings and Consultation with Agencies and Others 

State of Alaska – Department of Natural Resources 

The office of Project Management and Permitting coordinated a State agency review of 

the project. The State concurs with the Forest Service’s determination of consistency with 

the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). See the Findings and Disclosures 

section of Chapter 3. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Forest Service coordinates planning efforts with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species on National Forest lands. This coordination assures the continued 

protection of important habitat. 

On March 17, 2009, a Forest Service Aquatics specialist discussed the appropriate course 

of action regarding an Essential Fish Habitat determination for this project’s proposal 

with a Fisheries Biologist at the National Marine Fisheries Service. The project, potential 

effects to EFH, and the analysis conducted and documented in the EA were explained. 

The NMFS Fisheries Biologist agreed the potential effects were minimal and suggested 

1 Purpose and Need 10 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
an official EFH determination in the EA was not necessary. The Chapter 3 section in this 

EA documenting effects to aquatic resources was sufficient for the agency’s review. 

However, a follow-up conversation with a Tongass National Forest Fisheries Biologist 

suggested including an official EFH determination highlighting the agreement between 

the USDA Forest Service (Alaska Region) and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(document is filed in the project record). A 30-day comment period, initiating the 

consultation process, will begin when NMFS receives a copy of this EA with the EFH 

determination. 

State of Alaska – State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

The SHPO reviews compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, a process to determine the effects of alternatives on cultural resources. 

Federal and State Permits, Licenses and Certifications 

Prior to implementation of the proposed allocation of RVDs to outfitters and guides, 

various permits need to be obtained from other Federal and State agencies. Some permits 

are already in place; others would have to be obtained. 

Prior to outfitting and guiding on NFS lands, the State requires: 

 that commercial outfitters and guides are state licensed, regardless of where they 

are operating; 

 any operator that uses state lands in the course of their commercial activities must 

either register with the Alaska Department of Natural Resource, Division of 

Mining, Land and Water (DMLW) under 11 AAAC 96.018, or obtain a permit 

under AS 38.05.850 or lease under AS 38.05.070. More information on 

commercial day-use registration and DMLW authorizations may be found at 

http://www.dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/permit_lease/index.cfm; and 

 the operator must also be in compliance with outfitter and guide regulations 

issued by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic 

Development which address operations primarily occurring on state tidelands and 

related incidental activities occurring on federal uplands. Regulation details can 

be found at http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pgui5.htm. 

Prior to outfitting and guiding on NFS lands, the Federal Government may require 

verification of current business or operating licenses such as Coast Guard License, State 

of Alaska Sport Fishing License, etc. 

Outfitter and Guide Permit Conditions 

Permitted activities include, but are not limited to: photography, sightseeing, hiking, 

kayaking, canoeing, wildlife viewing, flying tours, power boating, fishing, hunting, and 

interpretive services. Short-term overnight camping may also occur when no leveling or 

Purpose and Need 1

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 11
ditching of campsites is made, when Leave No Trace9

 practices are used, and when the 

permit includes the R10-X117 Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries Clause. This 

analysis will not address or authorize development of new recreation structures, ground 

disturbing activities or activities that involve any type of collecting, such as 

beachcombing. 

Outfitters and guides operate under National Forest System permits that include several 

cultural resource stipulations. Outfitters and guides, who are also responsible for the 

actions of their clients, are prohibited from collecting artifacts or disturbing cultural 

resources. Outfitters and guides have an affirmative responsibility to report cultural 

resource discoveries made in the course of their business. Outfitters and guides must 

comply with all federal laws and regulations including the National Historic Preservation 

Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act. Non-compliance with permit stipulations could result in 

permit revocation and/or prosecution under the various federal statutes and regulations. 

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 

Shown below is a partial list of Federal laws and executive orders pertaining to projectspecific planning and environmental analysis on Federal lands. While most pertain to all 

Federal lands, some of the laws are specific to Alaska. Disclosures and findings required 

by these laws and orders are contained in Chapter 3 of this EA. 

 The Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977 

 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 

 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 - includes a 

variety of provisions with direct or indirect implications for recreation 

management on national forests such as access, traditional activities in wilderness, 

and taking of fish and wildlife. 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

 Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 

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

 Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) 

 Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) 

 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (as amended) 

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) 

 Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources) 

 

9

 Go to: http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/outdoor_ethics/leave_no_trace/intro/lnt_principles_v2.shtml and LNT 

main website (http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/9200/leave_no_trace.html) for more information 

about Leave No Trace practices. 

1 Purpose and Need 12 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
 Executive Order 11988 (floodplains) 

 Executive Order 11990 (wetlands) 

 Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice) 

 Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries) 

 Executive Order 13007 (American Indian sacred sites) 

 Executive Order 13084 (consultation and coordination with tribal governments) 

 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive plant species) 

 Executive Order 13175 (government-to-government consultation) 

 Executive Order 13186 (migratory bird protection) 

 Executive Order 13443 (hunting heritage and wildlife conservation) 

 Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 - “assists in preserving, 

developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States of 

America...such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be 

available and are necessary and desirable...by providing funds for federal 

acquisition of certain lands and other areas.” This act also provides for collection 

of recreation use fees for recreation sites, facilities, equipment, or services. 

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended 1936 and 1972) 

 Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 - clarifies the purposes for which 

national forests were established, which include outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, wildlife, and fish. 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 

 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended) 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) 

 National Trails System Act of 1968 - established a national system of recreation, 

scenic and historic trails “in order to provide for the ever-increasing outdoor 

recreation needs of an expanding population.” 

 National Transportation Policy (2001) 

 Organic Act of 1897 - instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to preserve and 

regulate occupancy and use of the national forest. 

 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986 - established a system to 

preserve rivers with “outstandingly remarkable” scenic, recreational, geological, 

fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar values. 

Purpose and Need 1

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 13
 Wilderness Act of 1964 (as amended) - 1964—established the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, consisting of federal lands designated among 

other purposes, to preserve their “primeval character and influence.” 

Availability of the Project Record 

An important consideration in preparation of this EA has been reduction of paperwork as 

specified in 40 CFR 1500.4. In general, the objective of the EA is to furnish enough sitespecific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental 

impacts of the alternatives. The project record contains supporting material that 

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

publication of the EA. The project record is located at the Petersburg Ranger District 

office in Petersburg, Alaska. Reference documents, such as the Forest Plan, are available 

for review at public libraries and Forest Service offices throughout Southeast Alaska, 

including the Petersburg Ranger District. The Forest Plan is available on CD-ROM and 

on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/. 

Tongass National Forest. Photograph by Ashley Atkinson.

1 Purpose and Need 14 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/fig_1.mxd M.P. 5/26/09

Study Area Boundary

Water

Petersburg Ranger District

Study Areas

Figure 1

24

PETERSBURG CREEK/

DUNCAN SALT CHUCK

PRINCE

OF WALES ISLAND

KUIU

ISLAND

KUPREANOF

ISLAND

MITKOF

ISLAND

WRANGELL

TEBENKOF

BAY

WOEWODSKI

IS.

12A

8

9

12B

23

1

24

22

21

6

10

11

13

16

14

2

4

7

5

PETERSBURG

FREDERICK SOUND

SUMNER

STRAIT

15

ZAREMBO

ISLAND WRANGELL

IS.

SOUTHEAST ALASKA VICINITY MAP

PROJECT AREA SHOWN IN GRAY

Petersburg

Ketchikan

Juneau

Purpose and Need 1

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 1 - 15
Fishing at Blind River Rapids on Mitkof Island, Petersburg Ranger District. Photograph by Carin Christensen.

1 Purpose and Need 16 - Chapter 1 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES 

Key Terms_______________________________________ 

Carrying capacity (recreation) – Carrying capacity is the estimated number of users that can 

be accommodated, in a given area, without a loss in the quality of the natural environment or the 

recreation experience. 

Commercial use or activity – Any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where 

an entry or participation fee is charged or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or 

service and, in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit 

(36 CFR 251.51) (FSH 2709.11, 41.53d). 

General forest – For this analysis, general forest is any area that is outside of a developed 

recreation site. 

Home range – Home range is a recreation area near a community that is especially important to 

local residents. Generally, a home range on the Petersburg Ranger District is within a fifteen mile 

radius of the communities of Petersburg, Kake, Port Protection or Point Baker. Home range 

recreation places are easy to get to for day trips and receive a fair amount of use. Travel time and 

the amount of exposed water are factors that limit or extend home range. 

Hunt – A hunt is an authorization for one guided client on National Forest System lands for the 

purpose of hunting one or more species in one general geographic area. A hunt does not typically 

exceed 10 days in length and can be considerably less based on the species pursued. A hunt is an 

authorization for a land use activity which may or may not result in the harvest of an animal. 

Mitigation – Measures designed to counteract or reduce environmental impacts. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A system for planning and managing 

recreation. It categorizes recreation opportunities into seven classes. 

Recreation Place – Areas within a study area that include a recreation attractor, such as a trail, 

a lake, a beach, or a popular fishing stream. 

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) – One RVD is equal to 12 hours of recreation use on 

National Forest System lands or water by an outfitted or guided client(s). One RVD may be one 

client for 12 hours, 12 clients for one hour, or any combination that equals 12 hours of use on 

National Forest System lands. 

Service Day – A day or any part of a day on National Forest System lands for which an outfitter 

or guide provides services to a client. One client on the National Forest for 15 minutes in one day 

is equivalent to one service day. One client on the National Forest for 24 hours in one day is also 

equivalent to one service day. 

Study Area – The PRD is divided into 20 study areas and is made up of recreation places and 

general forest. Study area boundaries were determined using the Forest Plan, Value Comparison 

Units (VCUs), ROS Classes, and Watershed Analysis Areas. It is at the study area scale that the 

Forest Service tracks actual use data submitted by permitted commercial operators. 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 1
Kayaks at Happy Cove, Petersburg Ranger District. Photograph by Carin Christensen.

2 Alternatives 2 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Introduction ____________________________________ 

This chapter summarizes the development of alternatives considered by the Forest 

Service to meet the purpose and need and respond to the significant issues described in 

Chapter 1. Two alternatives are discussed in detail. The alternatives include the Proposed 

Action (Alternative 1) and the Increased Solitude Alternative (Alternative 2). 

There will not be a No-Action alternative in this analysis due to the study area boundary 

changes made during the update to the Petersburg Recreation Use Carrying Capacity 

Report. The boundary changes do not allow for a meaningful comparison of past and 

proposed management actions. Instead, alternatives will be compared to the existing 

condition, which is represented by five years of actual use numbers (2004-2008) for the 

newly drawn study area boundaries (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 41.22). 

Existing Condition________________________________ 

Actual use by commercial outfitters and guides is recorded annually by study area and is 

used in this analysis to describe the existing condition of commercial recreation use on 

the district. The average actual use by outfitters and guides for 2004-2008 was 4,257 

RVDs. The following table shows a breakdown of annual use by season. 

Table 2.1. Average actual use by commercial outfitters and guides on the Petersburg 

Ranger District. Data shown is from 2004-2008. 

Spring 

(April 1 – May 

31) 

Summer 

(June 1 – Aug 

31) 

Fall 

(Sept 1 – Oct 

31) 

Winter 

(Nov 1 – Mar 

31) 

Annual 

361 RVDs 3,450 RVDs 380 RVDs 66 RVDs 4,257 RVDs

8% 81% 9% 2% 100%

The annual five-year actual use average is approximately 11 percent of what is available 

to outfitters and guides in both action alternatives (39,605 RVDs). See Table 2.3 for a 

comparison of actual use numbers and proposed allocation numbers by season and 

alternative.

For detailed descriptions and maps of each study area and recreation place, see Appendix 

A (Part II) of this document.

Alternatives Considered in Detail ___________________ 

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action 

The action proposed to meet the purpose and need is to authorize outfitter and guide 

operations through the issuance of special use permits, based on the Petersburg 

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 3
Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report. In this alternative the district proposes to 

allocate outfitter and guides up to 10 percent of the capacity within an identified home 

range and 25 percent outside an identified home range10. These allocations would be 

proportioned out by season; 10 percent in the spring, 65 percent in the summer, 15 

percent in the fall and 10 percent in the winter (Table 2.3). Allocation by season puts 

greater limitations on commercial use in the spring and fall, aims to reduce user conflicts 

by providing more opportunities for solitude and helps indirectly manage outfitter and 

guide recreation use by activity (i.e., spring and fall outfitter and guide use is mostly for 

guided black bear hunting). 

The proposal would authorize up to approximately 39,605 RVDs across the district for 

use by outfitters and guides (3,961 RVDs in the spring, 25,743 RVDs in the summer, 

5,941 RVDs in the fall and 3,961 RVDs in the winter). The use authorized may be 

temporary in nature (less than one year) or could be for multiple years. For those 

operators who have demonstrated satisfactory performance, the District Ranger may issue 

priority use permits, for a period of up to 10 years, in accordance with FSH 2709.11. 

Response to Issues 

Issue 1: Provide stable business opportunities for the outfitter and guide industry. 

Eleven percent of the total RVDs available in the project area will be allocated to 

outfitters and guides. All but one of the study areas11 have significantly lower actual use 

numbers than the proposed allocated use, which would allow for the growth of the 

outfitter and guide industry and help provide stable business opportunities. 

Issue 2: Adequately address conflicts within the outfitter and guide industry. 

In the past, user conflicts have been reported in the spring and fall. Allocating use by 

season allows the Petersburg Ranger District to set outfitter and guide use levels close to 

actual use during the time of year when conflicts have occurred. As a result, there may be 

more opportunities for solitude with fewer user conflicts (i.e., a better recreation 

experience). 

Alternative 2 – Increased Solitude 

This alternative provides a greater opportunity for recreation experiences with solitude in 

two study areas that have had reported user conflicts. In particular, it is designed to limit 

conflict among black bear hunting guides and between black bear hunting guides and 

fishing guides in the spring and fall. 

 

10 The allocation of 10% and 25% is by recreation place, not by study area. 

11 In Study Area 6 (Kupreanof Island – North Shore) the average actual use is higher than the proposed 

allocated use. Approximately 90 percent of the use is by one outfitter and guide in one recreation site. No 

user conflicts or resource damage has been reported at the site. 

2 Alternatives 4 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
In Alternative 2 RVD allocation is the same as Alternative 1, except that Study Areas 

12A (Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays) and 14 (Keku Strait/Port Camden) have a 

smaller percentage of use allocated to the spring (7 percent) and fall (10 percent) seasons 

(Table 2.3). As a result, outfitters and guides use is more restricted in the spring and fall 

in Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays and Keku Strait/Port Camden. 

Response to Issues 

Issue 1: Provide stable business opportunities for the outfitter and guide industry. 

Eleven percent of the total RVDs available in the project area will be allocated to 

outfitters and guides. All but one of the study areas12 have significantly lower actual use 

numbers than the proposed allocated use, which would allow for the growth of the 

outfitter and guide industry. 

The increased restriction of outfitter and guide use in Study Areas 12A and 14 in the 

spring and fall seasons may provide greater business stability for the industry by 

providing an improved recreation experience for clients. 

Issue 2: Adequately address conflicts within the outfitter and guide industry. 

By further restricting outfitter and guide use in Study Areas 12A and 14 in the spring and 

fall seasons, this alternative aims to reduce user conflicts in these areas by setting 

allocated use closer to actual use, thereby not allowing for an increase in outfitter and 

guide use. 

Action Common to Both Alternatives 

Currently the annual actual use for all study areas on the Petersburg Ranger District is 

less than what is proposed in either action alternative (Table 2.3). However, if a study 

area nears or exceeds recreation carrying capacity in the future, the Petersburg Ranger 

District will allocate a percentage of outfitter and guide RVDs by season to temporary 

and priority use pools as directed in FSH 2709.11 (41.53k and 41.53n). The process of 

allocating a percentage of use to the temporary and priority use pools will be determined 

by the authorized officer who, in this situation, is the Petersburg District Ranger (ibid.). 

Mitigations ______________________________________ 

General Mitigation (All Areas) 

The following mitigations are currently required within the Outfitter and Guide Special 

Use Permit. These standard mitigations are in addition to those listed by study area in 

Table 2.2. 

 

12 In Study Area 6 (Kupreanof Island – North Shore) the average actual use is higher than the proposed 

allocated use. Approximately 90 percent of the use is by one outfitter and guide in one recreation site. No 

user conflicts or resource damage has been reported at the site. 

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 5
 Land ownership is mixed and it is the responsibility of the permit holder to 

determine ownership and obtain proper authorization for use of private, Native 

Corporation, and/or local government-held lands. 

 Outfitters and guides will incorporate Leave No Trace skills13 into all activities on 

National Forest Lands. 

 Outfitter guide camps are prohibited within one mile of any Forest Service 

recreation cabin unless specifically authorized by the permit. 

 Outfitter and guide use of public use recreation cabins or their amenities (e.g. 

skiffs, firewood, fire rings) is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the 

permit. 

 All campfires should be built below high tide, as mound fires (a Leave No Trace

technique13) or in firepans. 

 Within designated Wilderness, no more than 12 people (including guides) can 

occupy a site at one time, unless specifically authorized by the permit. “Site” is 

defined as an area on the National Forest occupied by persons not within sight and 

sound of other Forest users. 

 Beach Meadows: Outfitters and guides will not establish camps, or allow their 

clients to camp in these areas. When walking through these areas, people should 

stay on existing paths and game trails to avoid trampling or damaging vegetation 

in beach meadows. Located at the margin between marine beaches and the forest 

fringe, beach meadows are characterized by the presence of tall grasses, beach 

pea, Indian paintbrush, Pacific silverweed, yarrow, chocolate lily, pretty shooting 

star, and Nootka lupine. These meadows often have between 20-40 different plant 

species, some of which are on the sensitive species list. 

 Impacts on Bald Eagle Nest Sites: The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service have a Memorandum of Understanding which establishes a 

minimum 330-foot radius habitat management zone around each bald eagle nest 

tree. Guided groups are prohibited from camping in this zone. 

Mitigation by Study Area 

Some areas have special concerns due to competition between outfitter and guide groups 

and other unguided forest users, resource impacts from increased use, or the area is 

already under a special use permit. Table 2.2 lists the mitigation measures by study area. 

Refer to Figure 1 for study area location. 

 

13 For more information about Leave No Trace principles, visit: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/outdoor_ethics/leave_no_trace/intro/lnt_principles_v2.shtml or the Leave No 

Trace website: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/9200/leave_no_trace.html 

2 Alternatives 6 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Table 2.2. Mitigation measures by study area. 

Study 

area 

Location Recreation 

Place Concern Mitigation 

1 

Blind Slough Picnic 

Area, Manmade Hole 

Recreation Area, 

Trumpeter Swan 

Observatory, Mitkof 

Island 

21004.00 

Groups over 20 

people at recreation 

sites, from June to 

September 

Outfitter/guide groups are limited to 20 

people (including guides) from June 1 

through September 30. 

1 

Blind River Rapids Trail 

and Ohmer Creek 

Interpretive Trail, Mitkof 

Island 

21004.00 

Groups over 20 

people at recreation 

sites. 

Tours exceeding 20 people (including 

guides) at one time shall break up into 

groups not to exceed 20 people (including 

guides). A separation of at least 15 minutes 

between groups will be maintained. 

Operators conducting tours with over 20 

people (including guides) at one time are 

encouraged to contact other 

outfitters/guides that use these sites to work 

out schedules that will help avoid 

crowding. 

2 Castle River 21042.01 

High use of best 

fishing areas by 

outfitter and guide 

groups during peak 

season. 

Outfitter and guide freshwater fishing on 

Castle River is limited to Monday through 

Friday. No weekend use will be authorized.

2 Kah Sheets Creek 

21045.00 

High use of best 

fishing areas by 

outfitter and guide 

groups during peak 

season. 

Outfitter and guide freshwater fishing on 

Kah Sheets Creek is limited to Monday 

through Friday. No weekend use will be 

authorized. 

21045.01 

21045.02 

5 Harvey Lake 21128.01 

Outfitter and guide 

impacts on unguided 

users at public 

recreation cabin. 

Outfitter/guide activities are restricted to 

the beach area of the lake. Groups will stay 

as far away from the Harvey Lake 

recreation cabin as practical to avoid 

disturbing cabin users. Group size is 

limited to no more than 40 people 

(including guides). Tours exceeding 40 

people shall break into groups not to 

exceed 40 people. A separation of at least 

15 minutes between groups will be 

maintained. 

7 

Petersburg Creek –

Duncan Salt Chuck 

Wilderness 

All rec. places 

within this 

Wilderness 

Outfitter and guide 

impacts on unguided 

users and resources. 

Group size limited to 12 people (including 

guides) at one time unless specifically 

authorized. 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 7

Alternatives 2
Study 

area Location Recreation Place Concern Mitigation 

7 

Petersburg Lake Trail 

and Petersburg Mountain 

Trail

All rec. places 

along these trails

Outfitter/guide 

impacts on private 

land owners adjacent 

to trails.

Use of the Petersburg Lake Trail and the 

Petersburg Mountain Trail involve the use 

of six-foot wide trail easements through 

private property. Use adjacent to private 

property along these trails is limited to this

easement. 

Tours exceeding 20 people (including 

guides) at one time shall break up into 

groups not to exceed 20 people (including 

guides). A separation of at least 15 minutes 

between groups will be maintained.

7 Petersburg Creek 21054.12

Noise from motorized 

boats in the 

Wilderness. Impacts 

from boat wakes on 

stream banks. 

Outfitters and guides on Petersburg Creek 

will minimize motorized boat use above the 

high tide trailhead, and will not be 

permitted above the log jam (1.8 miles 

upstream from the Wilderness boundary).

10 Agate Beach 21146.00 Resources 

Collecting agates and other material on 

National Forest System lands adjacent to 

Agate Beach is prohibited.

13 Kuiu Wilderness

All rec. places 

within this

Wilderness

Outfitter and guide

impacts on unguided 

users and resources

Group size limited to 12 people (including 

guides) at one time unless specifically 

authorized.

13 Tebenkof 

BayWilderness

All rec. places 

within this

Wilderness

Outfitter and guide

impacts on unguided 

users and resources

Group size limited to 12 people (including 

guides) at one time unless specifically 

authorized.

14 Kadake Creek

21081.01 High use of best 

fishing areas by 

outfitter and guide 

groups during peak 

season.

Outfitter and guide freshwater fishing on 

Kadake Creek is limited to Monday 

through Friday. No weekend use will be 

21081.02 authorized.

22 Cascade Creek, Thomas 

Bay 21019.00

Outfitter and guide 

impacts on unguided 

users at public 

recreation cabin. 

Outfitters and guides intending to hike

Cascade Creek Trail may not put their 

clients ashore at the beach adjacent to the 

Forest Service recreation cabin. Clients 

must go ashore near the trailhead at the 

mouth of Cascade Creek. 

 

2 Alternatives 8 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Mitigation by Resource 

Botany

Impacts of recreational users on all types of vegetation are mitigated by informal surveys 

of recreation sites by district recreation staff, permit requirements that include Leave No 

Trace14 best practices and permit stipulations. Leave No Trace practices minimize 

damage to vegetation and should effectively confine damage to areas already impacted. 

Most impacts to dispersed campsites consist of trash and discarded materials which are 

easily cleaned up with little to no permanent impacts. 

Informational pamphlets describing some of the most aggressive invasive plants in 

Alaska will be distributed to outfitters and guides to increase their awareness of invasive 

plants and to encourage them to report any infestations they find. Recreation staff is 

sufficiently trained in plant identification to recognize invasive plants during their 

surveys of recreation sites. 

Cultural Resources

The Forest Service has determined that a finding of No Historic Properties Affected is 

appropriate for this project. Our Programmatic Agreement (2002) with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation recognizes that 

the undertakings this EA addresses have little to no potential to affect historic properties 

because of their nature and size. Outfitter and Guide compliance with permit stipulations 

that require Leave No Trace14 practices and a post-activity site monitoring plan will 

mitigate potential effects to historic properties. 

Karst and Cave Resources

The Petersburg Ranger District has a limited but significant cave15 resource. All outfitter 

and guide permits will be monitored to determine if they are using or affecting the cave 

resource. The monitoring will determine the number of outfitters and guides operating on 

known karst landforms16 and of these how many are using caves as part of their permit. 

Wilderness

To address concerns due to competition between outfitter and guide groups, as well as 

with other unguided forest users, mitigation measures were developed to reduce conflicts 

 

14 For more information about Leave No Trace principles, visit: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/outdoor_ethics/leave_no_trace/intro/lnt_principles_v2.shtml or the Leave No 

Trace website: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/9200/leave_no_trace.html 

15 Cave is any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs 

beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge and which is large enough to permit an individual 

to enter whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or human made. 

16 Karst landforms are any irregular limestone regions with sinkholes, collapse channels, underground 

streams, caves, and caverns. 

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 9
and control resource impacts. The Mitigation Measures are included with all Outfitter and 

Guide Special Use Permits as Special Stipulations and therefore become part of the 

permit. Failure to adhere to the Special Stipulations would be a violation of the terms in 

the Special Use Authorization and could lead to the suspension, revocation or termination 

of the permit. 

Mitigation measures: 

1. Campsites will be located at least one mile from recreation cabins, unless 

specifically authorized in the permit. 

2. Campsites will be located on durable surfaces, unless specifically provided for 

otherwise in the permit. 

3. Campfires will be with firepans, below high tideline not on vegetation, or as 

mound fires; all fires will apply Leave No Trace techniques. 

4. Use Reports will reflect specific locations of use. 

5. In the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness areas, remain at least 100 yards (length 

of football field) from whales, dolphins, porpoises; and sea otters, seals and sea 

lions that are on land, or rock (Alaska Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines). 

6. Outfitters and guides will be encouraged to work together to minimize conflicts 

by scheduling trips to avoid working in the same areas at the same time. 

7. Outfitters and guides on Petersburg Creek will be encouraged to minimize 

impacts from motorized traffic on the creek. Commercially guided, motorized use 

will be minimized above the high tide trailhead and not permitted above the log 

jam (1.8 miles upstream from the Wilderness boundary). 

The FAA requests that all aircraft maintain a 2,000 minimum altitude above the surface 

of the lands and waters of the congressionally designated wilderness areas identified on 

the sectional aeronautical charts. Safety is a factor and the recommendations do not 

supersede pilot decisions for the operation of the aircraft. 

Mitigation measures/special stipulations will continue to evolve in response to current 

conditions/trends and will continue to be used as a management tool to respond to 

impacts or conflicts that become apparent during the monitoring efforts. 

Wildlife

The state is responsible for the management, protection, maintenance, enhancement, 

rehabilitation, and extension of the fish and wildlife resources for the State of Alaska 

based on the sustained yield principle. The Federal Subsistence Board is responsible for 

ensuring that the taking of fish and wildlife on federal public lands for non wasteful 

subsistence uses shall be given priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands 

for other purposes (Federal Subsistence Board 2008). 

The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a Memorandum of 

Understanding which establishes a minimum 330-foot radius habitat management zone 

around each bald eagle nest tree. Guided groups are prohibited from camping in this 

zone. 

2 Alternatives 10 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
The National Marine Fisheries Service establishes regulation to manage and protect 

marine mammals. Enforcement of these regulations is provided by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and the United States Coast Guard. Special use permits require 

compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Outfitter and guide 

compliance with the marine mammal regulations will mitigate potential impacts to these 

species. 

Mountain goat kidding and wintering habitat will receive protection from aircraft 

disturbance. Current mitigation by the State of Alaska and the Forest Service for 

permitted or approved flights requires 1,500 feet vertical and horizontal clearance from 

such areas and 2,000 feet if flying over wilderness. Flights over kidding areas will be 

avoided between May 15 and June 15, and between November 15 and December 15, 

during the breeding season. 

While hunting is allowed, populations of waterfowl and shorebirds will continue to be 

protected by implementing the standards and guidelines provided in the 2008 Forest Plan. 

Implementation __________________________________ 

The success of implementation is a function of adequate staffing for enforcement, 

education and awareness, and the cooperation of permit holders. The amount of field 

administration needed will likely vary depending upon the use by permit holders, the 

compliance to conditions of the permits, and behavior of forest users on the Petersburg 

Ranger District. Where observed uses do not conform to the management of the National 

Forest, administrative actions (such as permit suspension, revocation, or termination) 

may occur. Depending upon the severity of the actions, legal actions could and may be 

taken as appropriate to correct the problem. 

Monitoring ______________________________________ 

Monitoring and evaluation provide the public and the Forest Service with information on 

the progress and results of implementing National Forest management decisions. 

Monitoring and evaluation comprise an essential feedback mechanism to help be 

responsive to changing conditions. There are two distinct types of monitoring: 

implementation and effectiveness. Implementation monitoring determines if the 

permitted activities comply with adopted standards and guidelines: “Did we do what we 

said we would?” Effectiveness monitoring determines whether the standards and 

guidelines achieve desired results: “Were the results what we expected?” 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be accomplished through the 

administration of the special use permits issued as a result of this decision. These 

measures include: 

1) Special use permits authorized will be monitored as described in Forest 

Service Handbook 2709.11. This monitoring will consist of routine 

inspections for permit compliance and compliance with State and Federal 

regulations. 

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 11
2) Field inspections of special use permit operations or approved use areas. 

Field inspections of a permit holder's operations or approved use will be 

necessary to ensure compliance with permit provisions. Inspections of 

approved use areas would provide information regarding site conditions and 

whether or not additional administrative actions are required. 

Permit holders are required to provide actual use reports17 to the Forest 

Service within 30 days of the end of their operating season. 

3) Information provided by the yearly use reports will be compiled and available 

to all resource disciplines or other areas as requested. 

Aquatics

Forest Service staff can readily identify high-use sport fishing locations because outfitters 

and guides are required to report their activities on National Forest System lands. 

Periodic site visits to sport fishing locations by district fishery biologists or hydrologists 

help evaluate resource status and determine if additional administrative controls or 

rehabilitations are necessary to protect aquatic resources. 

Botany

Botanists will periodically visit a sample of recreation places and follow standard survey 

protocols to search for sensitive and rare plants. If any sensitive or rare plants are found, 

mitigation measures would be implemented at that time on a case-by-case basis. These 

plant surveys would also be used to document any invasive species present. If invasive 

species are found, measures to control or prevent further spread of the populations would 

be recommended based on site criteria, such as the invasiveness of the species, size of the 

population, and the control methods appropriate for the site. 

Cultural Resources

Although Forest Service archeologists have determined that recreational activities will 

not affect sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, monitoring can help 

ensure that the operation of such activities do not adversely affect cultural resources 

through soil disturbance, rutting, compaction and erosion. Monitoring also addresses 

issues of outfitter and guide use that may increase the potential for deliberate looting or 

inadvertent disturbance of fragile sites. 

Prior to the start of a season, most outfitters and guides are uncertain exactly where they 

may take clients on any given day. Factors such as weather, sea conditions and the 

presence of other people all influence ultimately where an outfitter and guide may take 

clients. All outfitter and guide permit holders are required to submit annual use and 

location reports. This information will continue to enable us to visit known use areas. 

 

17 Actual use reports A form completed by outfitter and guide permit holders and submitted to the District 

Office at the end of the holder’s operating season. The form includes the following information: date(s) of 

use, number of clients, location(s), and a description of the activity(s) at each location. 

2 Alternatives 12 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Archeologists will periodically visit a sample of use areas and follow standard monitoring 

protocols. They will conduct a visual inspection of the use area, focusing particular 

attention on areas with known cultural resources. Soil probes and other subsurface tests 

may be used to determine the integrity of buried sites. Photographic reference or 

waypoints will be established at each monitored location to serve as a visual baseline as 

future visits are made. Information gathered during monitoring will be recorded on 

standard forest monitoring forms that will be kept on file. Maps, drawings and other 

references will also be collected to gauge future site conditions. 

Summary _______________________________________ 

Implementation and monitoring of special use permits is a part of the ongoing 

management of resources at the district level. The programs and strategies used to 

manage resources include education and awareness, field visits, site inspections, and 

visitor feedback. Methods may vary depending upon resources that are impacted. 

If the threshold limits are reached or social and/or environmental issues become a 

concern, additional use may not be authorized until further site specific review is 

completed. This review will include all active permits including priority use permits and 

all pending permit applications. 

Fog over the Sukoi Islands in Frederick Sound. Photograph by Heath Whitacre.

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 13
Comparison of Alternatives_________________________ 

Table 2.3. Summary of actual use (existing condition) and proposed recreation visitor 

days (RVDs) available to outfitters and guides in Alternatives 1 and 2. Existing Condition 

numbers are the average RVDs reported from 2004-2008. RVDs available to outfitters 

and guides in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) are proportioned out by season; 10 percent 

in the spring, 65 percent in the summer, 15 percent in the fall and 10 percent in the 

winter. RVDs in Alternative 2 are proportioned out by season the same way as 

Alternative 1 except with reduced allocations in the spring and fall in Study Areas 12A 

and 14; 7 percent in the spring, 73 percent in the summer, 10 percent in the fall and 10 

percent in the winter. 

Study Area 

 

Comparison 

Recreation Visitor Days 

Spring 

(April 1 – 

May 31) 

Summer 

(June 1 – 

Aug 30) 

Fall 

(Sept 1 – 

Oct 31) 

Winter 

(Nov 1 – 

Mar 31) 

Total 

Annual1

1 Existing Condition 22 391 16 0 429 

Mitkof Island Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 1,278 8,308 1,917 1,278 12,781 

2 Existing Condition 4 60 2 0 66 

Duncan Canal – 

West Side 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 112 729 168 112 1,122 

4 Existing Condition 0 0 0 0 0 

Duncan Canal – East 

Side 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 50 324 75 50 499 

5 Existing Condition 0 27 4 0 31 

Wrangell 

Narrows/Woewodski 

Is 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 175 1,136 262 175 1,747 

2 Alternatives 14 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Study Area 

 

Comparison 

Recreation Visitor Days 

Spring 

(April 1 – 

May 31) 

Summer 

(June 1 – 

Aug 30) 

Fall 

(Sept 1 – 

Oct 31) 

Winter 

(Nov 1 – 

Mar 31) 

Total 

Annual1

6 Existing Condition 6 3492

 8 0 363 

Kupreanof Island – 

North Shore 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 45 291 67 45 448 

7 Existing Condition 35 179 14 0 228 

Petersburg 

Ck/Duncan Salt 

Chuck 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 126 821 189 126 1,263 

8 Existing Condition 11 151 37 8 207 

North Lindenberg 

Peninsula 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 137 892 206 137 1,373 

9 Existing Condition 0 8 0 0 8 

Central Kupreanof 

Is/Road System 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 353 2,293 529 353 3,528 

10 Existing Condition 17 365 2 0 384 

Southwest Kupreanof 

Island 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 147 955 220 147 1,469 

11 Existing Condition 26 89 16 1 132 

Rowan Bay/Bay of 

Pillars 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 96 627 145 96 964 

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 15
Study Area 

 

Comparison 

Recreation Visitor Days 

Spring 

(April 1 – 

May 31) 

Summer 

(June 1 – 

Aug 30) 

Fall 

(Sept 1 – 

Oct 31) 

Winter 

(Nov 1 – 

Mar 31) 

Total 

Annual1

12A Existing Condition 90 308 94 2 494 

Saginaw/Security/ 

Washington Bays 

Proposed Action 129 839 194 129 1,291 

Alternative 2 90 942 129 129 1,291 

12B Existing Condition 23 66 72 1 162 

Kuiu Island Road 

System 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 213 1,381 319 213 2,125 

13 Existing Condition 54 363 7 2 426 

Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu 

Wilderness 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 289 1,880 434 289 2,893 

14 Existing Condition 45 283 40 3 371 

Keku Strait/Port 

Camden 

Proposed Action 156 1,015 234 156 1,562 

Alternative 2 109 1,140 156 156 1,562 

15 Existing Condition 7 264 0 1 272 

South Kuiu Island Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 126 816 188 126 1,255 

16 Existing Condition 6 136 1 0 143 

Reid/No Name Bays Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 112 728 168 112 1,120 

2 Alternatives 16 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Study Area 

 

Comparison 

Recreation Visitor Days 

Spring 

(April 1 – 

May 31) 

Summer 

(June 1 – 

Aug 30) 

Fall 

(Sept 1 – 

Oct 31) 

Winter 

(Nov 1 – 

Mar 31) 

Total 

Annual1

21 Existing Condition 0 134 47 31 212 

Muddy River Area Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 129 841 194 129 1,294 

22 Existing Condition 13 239 13 17 282 

Thomas Bay/Point 

Vandeput 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 126 820 189 126 1,261 

23 Existing Condition 1 30 1 0 32 

Farragut Bay/Cape 

Fanshaw 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 120 780 180 120 1,200 

24 Existing Condition 1 8 6 0 15 

Baird/Patterson 

Glaciers 

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 2 41 265 61 41 407 

1

Totals may vary due to rounding. 

2 This number is higher than proposed allocation; however, 90 percent of the use is from one outfitter and guide in one 

recreation place. The recreation place is a camp located on a hardened site and it does not experience many impacts. 

There is some bear hunting and other use in this study area, but conflict between users has not been reported. 

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 17
Table 2.4. This table briefly outlines the existing condition and each of the alternatives 

and shows the differences through a comparison of issues and effects. 

Issue Existing Condition 

(Actual Use) Proposed Action Alternative 2 

Issue 1. Does the alternative provide stable business opportunities? 

Measurements 

Guided user RVDs within the project 

area (percentage of total RVDs) 1.2% 11% 11% 

Guided user RVDs by 

season 

Spring 361 3,960 3,874 

Summer 3,450 25,741 25,969 

Fall 380 5,939 5,796 

Winter 66 3,960 3,960 

Issue 2. Does the alternative address conflicts within the commercial outfitter and guide 

industry? 

Measurements

Allocates use by season to limit 

outfitter and guide use in the spring 

and fall to provide for more 

opprotunites for solitude? 

Not applicable Yes Yes 

Addresses conflict between users in 

Study Areas 12A and 14 by further 

limiting commerical use in the spring 

and fall? 

Not applicable No Yes 

2 Alternatives 18 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Further 

Study___________________________________________ 

A wilderness alternative was considered during the planning process that would have 

reduced the allocation of outfitter and guide use within study areas that include the 

Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck, Tebenkof Bay, and Kuiu Wilderness areas. 

However, it was decided that, at this time, there is no need to further reduce or restrict use 

by commercial outfitters in wilderness on PRD. Also, restricting commercial use in 

wilderness would contradict the Commercial Services Needs Assessments completed for 

the three wildernesses on the district. The Needs Assessments support the use of 

commercial guides to help the public access wilderness for some activities (see Appendix 

C). 

West Point Forest Service Cabin, Petersburg Ranger District. Photograph by Marina Whitacre.

Alternatives 2

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 2 - 19
Sea lions at Horn Cliffs, east of Petersburg. Photograph by Chuck Ressler. 

2 Alternatives 20 - Chapter 2 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Introduction _____________________________________ 

This chapter briefly describes the environmental consequences of each alternative by 

issue and affected resource. Other considerations are disclosed as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Included in Appendix A are maps and existing 

condition summaries for each study area. 

Issue 1 - Provide stable business opportunities for the outfitter and guide 

industry. 

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action 

This alternative allocates use for both guided and unguided recreation use. In home 

ranges, outfitters and guides are allocated up to 10 percent of the capacity. Unguided 

users will account for the remaining capacity. Outside home ranges, guided visitors are 

allocated up to 25 percent of the carrying capacity. 

Alternative 2 – Increased Solitude 

This alternative provides the same allocations of use to guided and unguided users for all 

study areas as Alternative 1 with the exception of Study Areas 12A and 14. In these study 

areas guided use is reduced in the spring and fall by 3 and 5 percent, respectively. 

Issue 2 – Adequately address conflicts within the outfitter and guide 

industry. 

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action 

In this alternative the district proposes to allocate outfitter and guide use by season; 10 

percent in the spring, 65 percent in the summer, 15 percent in the fall and 10 percent in 

the winter (Table 2.3). Allocation by season puts greater limitations on outfitter and guide 

use in the spring and fall, aims to reduce user conflicts by providing more opportunities 

for solitude and helps indirectly manage outfitter and guide recreation use by activity. 

Alternative 2 – Increased Solitude 

This alternative provides the same seasonal allocations of use to outfitter and guide users 

as Alternative 1 with the exception of Study Areas 12A and 14. In these study areas, 

guided use is reduced in the spring and fall by 3 and 5 percent, respectively. By further 

restricting outfitter and guide use in these study areas, this alternative aims to reduce 

black bear hunting guide conflicts and provide more opportunities for solitude. 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 1
Environmental Considerations _____________________ 

Air Quality_______________________________________________________ 

Outfitter and guide use on the Petersburg Ranger District is not expected to affect air 

quality in any of the alternatives. Impacts are approximately the same for each 

alternative. 

Aquatic Resources________________________________________________

This section will primarily address how outfitter and guide use affects the areas’ aquatic 

resources. Four general concerns arise from outfitted and guided fishing. 

1) Outfitted and guided sport fishing may lead to aquatic or riparian habitat 

degradation because popular fishing areas will receive use beyond what would 

normally occur (i.e., use by private individuals only); 

2) Some species or stocks may be negatively affected by outfitted and guided 

sport fishing by direct take (i.e., harvest that results in population reduction), 

delayed mortality from hooking injuries or handling stress, and egg 

destruction from redd (i.e., spawning nest) trampling; 

3) Sport fishing activities may lead to invasive species introduction that may 

cause resource damage through predation, competition, and/or disease 

introduction; and, 

4) Reduced resource availability to subsistence users because of competition 

with sport fishers, including outfitted and guided sport fishers. 

These concerns will be discussed throughout this Aquatic Resources section. 

Affected Environment – Existing Condition of Aquatic Resources 

The affected aquatic resources being considered for this analysis are the submerged and 

riparian lake and stream habitats and the fish populations within the land management 

jurisdiction of Petersburg Ranger District (PRD). It is important to note that the 

management and regulation of fish populations is wholly the responsibility of the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) - sport fish populations are managed by 

applying regulations onto anglers. 

Habitat 

The approximate 1.9 million acres within the PRD contains numerous watersheds of 

varying scale ranging from simple island drainages to larger, glacial mainland systems. 

This region’s streams and lakes are physically complex due to the mixture of island and 

mainland environments, steep topography, and past and present glacial activity. 

Most waters are colored from tannins or glacial silt and are generally unproductive 

because of a limited nutrient base. Most in-stream habitats are formed and controlled by 

bedrock and large woody debris input. In addition to these physical controls, beavers 

(Castor canadensis) can play a key role in altering stream channel morphology. Riparian 

habitats are usually densely forested with forest canopies completely shading stream 

3 Environmental Considerations 2 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
channels. Stream banks are often occupied by dense shrubs and ground-cover (e.g., 

mosses and ferns) with very little exposed mineral soil. Overall, these systems tend to be 

resistant and resilient to most disturbances aside from indiscriminant land management 

practices or major natural occurrences like landslides. 

In general, the aquatic habitats across the analysis area are in good to excellent condition. 

Most watersheds across PRD are largely intact because logging occurred after many 

regulations were in place to protect aquatic resources. 

Trout and Char 

Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), rainbow trout (O. mykiss – see next section), and 

Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) are the only trout/char species found in southeast 

Alaska freshwaters. Cutthroat and Dolly Varden are found in both resident (permanent 

stream/lake dwelling) and anadromous (sea-going) populations throughout the area. Both 

species are routinely sought after in sport fisheries, but resident population individuals do 

not generally attain sizes attractive to sport fishers. Anadromous varieties can be found in 

area streams and lakes in early spring and fall – these individuals spend their summers at 

sea taking advantage of the productive coastal environments. 

Both resident and anadromous populations are likely stable due to general harvest 

restrictions promulgated by ADF&G in 1994, with subsequent revisions. The ADF&G 

manages cutthroat for limited harvest and Dolly Varden for fairly liberal harvest with 

additional restrictions in place to protect particularly high quality fisheries18. However, 

cutthroat are particularly susceptible to sport fishing over-harvest, and despite 

conservative restrictions, population declines can still occur when sport fishing pressure 

increases (Gresswell and Harding 1997). 

Steelhead 

Steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout. They are a popular game fish 

because they are relatively “catchable” with a variety of fishing gear, attain large sizes, 

and are extremely hard-fighting when played on sport tackle. Steelhead tend to prefer 

medium-sized and larger stream systems with abundant areas of turbulent, welloxygenated flows. 

Though most area runs tend to be very small (10s to a few hundred fish), PRD 

encompasses a multitude of systems that support this species. Some of the largest returns 

occur in Kadake Creek on Kuiu Island (Study Area 12B) and Petersburg Creek on 

Kupreanof Island (Study Area 7). Recent data suggest steelhead populations throughout 

Southeast Alaska were once substantially more abundant than they are now (Lohr and 

Bryant 1999; Harding and Love 2008). In fact, significant population declines prompted 

the ADF&G to severely restrict steelhead harvest starting in 1994 and continuing to the 

present day19. Steelhead densities appear to have had a mixed response to these regulation 

changes with some populations during some years having near record returns while 

 

18 Please refer to current Southeast Alaska sport fishing regulations for specific regulations. 

19 Please refer to current Southeast Alaska sport fishing regulations for specific regulations. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 3
others remain stable at very low levels (Harding and Love 2008). The PRD population 

likely falls into the latter category with a few exceptions. 

Salmon 

Salmon – Pink (O. gorbuscha), chum (O. keta), sockeye (O. nerka), coho (O. kisutch), 

and king (O. tshawytscha) salmon can all be found at certain times of year in area 

freshwaters. 

Pink salmon are typically the most abundant in terms of sheer numbers, which can 

substantially fluctuate from year to year. They are widely distributed across PRD. They 

tend to prefer lower gradient and larger streams, but can be found in most every 

physically accessible stream. There is likely little harvest of this species by sport fishers 

because there flesh tends to be pale and soft once they enter freshwater in preparation for 

spawning. 

Chum salmon use similar habitats to pink salmon and share a similar life history. 

However they tend to be far less abundant and attain a much greater size. Their 

distribution across PRD is considerably less than that of pink salmon. Like pink salmon, 

they are typically not highly sought after by sport fishers. 

Sockeye salmon are often intimately linked to watersheds containing large lakes as the 

juvenile of this species mostly rears in these habitats. As such, sockeye have a limited 

distribution across the area and run sizes usually number a few thousand fish. Sockeye 

are highly sought by subsistence fishers because of their localized abundance and 

excellent qualities as a food fish. 

Coho salmon can be very aggressive and are highly regarded as a sport fish because of 

their catchability, size, and quality as a food fish. Coho are widely distributed across 

PRD, but run sizes are typically only a few hundred fish. They are a very successful 

species largely because they have a highly tenacious disposition and are good at 

exploiting a wide range of habitats. Runs in this area are likely stable with minimal to 

moderate fluctuation from year to year. 

King salmon are only found in an artificially maintained run occurs in Blind Slough on 

Mitkof Island (Study Area 1). Kings are prized sport fish because of their large size and 

qualities as a food fish. Though regulations allow for liberal harvest of the Blind Slough 

fishery, ADF&G regulations prohibit fishing for king salmon in freshwaters. Wild stocks 

in this area could be stable but at low densities. 

Subsistence Fishing 

Subsistence and personal use harvest of fishes occurs in both marine and freshwater 

environments. The State of Alaska manages all personal use and saltwater subsistence 

harvest, and the Tongass National Forest regulates the subsistence harvest of fishes 

within the freshwaters of its jurisdiction. There are eight reported personal use and 

subsistence harvest areas on PRD. Kutlaku Creek (Study Area 11) is the most fished 

location on this district. Sockeye salmon are the most harvested personal use and 

subsistence species on the district. 

3 Environmental Considerations 4 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Direct and Indirect Effects to Aquatic Resources 

Alaska’s fisheries and aquatic habitats are virtually pristine compared to many places in 

the world. Despite the areas’ robust aquatic resources, many environmental and manmade factors exist that could quickly change this condition. Sport fishing alone can have 

a profound effect on fisheries resources (Clark and Gibbons 1991; Muoneke and 

Childress 1994; Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Lewin et. al. 2006). Effects may be 

more severe on relatively small fisheries like those found around PRD. This analysis 

examines the effects of outfitter and guide sport fishing on local fisheries. 

There is a moderate amount of outfitted/guided sport fishing in the area and most of it is 

localized to a few key systems. This discussion focuses on those areas that receive the 

most pressure - areas that have over 50 RVDs (total for all years), for the available record 

period. The highest use areas (in RVDs) in PRD are Kah Sheets Creek (300.58), Blind 

River Rapids (251.70), Petersburg Creek (133.88), Big Creek, Mitkof Island (117.25), 

Alecks Creek (66.30), and Twelvemile Creek (50.50). Effect determinations for each 

aquatic resource category will be based primarily on local knowledge and professional 

opinion of these resources and documented information, where available. 

Habitat 

Most fishing locations on PRD are somewhat remote and many require a float plane or 

boat trip to gain access to them. As a result, many locations see very little recreational use 

and are in a relatively pristine condition. Sites that are more accessible generally have 

infrastructure improvements (i.e., designed access corridors) that direct movement to and 

from the fishing location to help minimize habitat disturbance. The combination of these 

two factors suggests that there are likely very little or no negative effects to aquatic 

habitats on PRD as a result of outfitted/guided sport fishing. Because the proposed 

alternatives do not suggest any significant change to the amount of outfitted/guided sport 

fishing in this area, there should be no significant negative effect to aquatic habitats for 

either alternative. 

Fish 

Recreational effects on fish occur primarily through sport fishing, and trout, steelhead, 

and salmon are a primary target for many anglers. Sport fishing may have minor or major 

adverse effects on fish and much of the effect magnitude is dependent upon the fish 

population/species, environmental conditions, angling methods, and fishing pressure 

intensity. Adverse effects to fish species or populations as a result of recreational fishing 

can result from harvest, hooking and/or handling mortality, introduction of diseases or 

non-native organisms, and litter/pollution (Clark and Gibbons 1991; Muoneke and 

Childress 1994; Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Lewin et. al. 2006). The following 

discussion assesses how outfitter and guide recreational fishing activities may affect area 

fish populations. 

Trout and Char – Permitted outfitted and guided sport fishing poses a risk to adversely 

affecting trout and char populations at high-use locations on PRD. This is possible 

because trout and char are highly susceptible to sport fishing gear and techniques, harvest 

is practiced by some anglers and can be high at some locations, and catch-and-release 

mortality is variable and can be high. Petersburg Creek on PRD is a popular fishery and 

trout/char comprise a large part of the catch at this location. Average annual outfitted and 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 5
guided fishing at this location is 9.56 RVDs per year. There is, however, no evidence to 

suggest that this fishery is being negatively affected by outfitted and guided sport fishing 

at this time. Because the proposed alternatives would not change the current permitted 

outfitted and guided sport fishing policy in this area, there should be no significant 

negative effect to trout and char populations. 

Steelhead – Permitted outfitted and guided sport fishing poses a risk to adversely 

affecting steelhead populations at high-use locations on PRD. This is possible because 

steelhead are susceptible to sport fishing gear and techniques, harvest is practiced by 

some anglers, and catch-and-release mortality is variable and can be high. Petersburg 

Creek, Big (Bear) Creek, and Kadake Creek are popular and productive PRD steelhead 

fisheries. Average annual outfitted/guided fishing use at these locations is 9.56, 8.38, and 

7.46 RVD’s per year, respectively. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that these 

fisheries are being negatively affected by outfitted and guided sport fishing at this time. 

Because the proposed alternatives do not suggest any significant change to the amount of 

outfitted and guided sport fishing in this area, there should be no significant negative 

effect to steelhead. 

Salmon – Salmon populations in Southeast Alaska vary considerably in size and 

distribution from year to year. Chum salmon are generally not a popular sport fish and 

have a relatively limited distribution around PRD. Consequently, there is likely no effect 

to chum salmon populations as a result of outfitter and guide fishing activities. Pink 

salmon are widely distributed across PRD and returns to a single system can be in the 

1000s. Pink salmon are not a widely popular game fish, and are often caught while 

fishing for other species. Because of their wide distribution, large overall population size, 

and low popularity as a sport fish, there is likely no risk to negatively affecting pink 

salmon populations as a result of outfitter and guide sport fishing activities. 

King salmon have a limited distribution across PRD and the only legal fishery in the area 

occurs at Blind Slough/Blind River Rapids on Mitkof Island. Because this is an artificial 

or hatchery-supported population, and because there is only one outfitter/guide permitted 

to access this fishery, there is no risk to negatively affecting this resource as a result of 

outfitted and guided sport fishing activities. 

Sockeye salmon have a limited distribution across PRD and are only a moderatelypopular sport fish in this area – sockeye are considerably more important to commercial 

and subsistence fisheries. There are two locations on PRD where sockeye are abundant. 

These include Petersburg Creek and Kah Sheets Creek on PRD. Of these systems, Kah 

Sheets is the only one that has received high outfitter and guide use (21.47 RVDs per 

year). However, because there is no outfitter and guide currently permitted for this 

system, there is no risk to adversely affecting this resource as a result of outfitted and 

guided sport fishing. There would also be little to no risk of negatively affecting sockeye 

populations at Petersburg Creek as a result of outfitter and guide activities. 

Coho salmon are a popular sport fish and can be caught on a variety of tackle. However, 

despite being a widely pursued sport fish in this area, there is likely little risk to 

negatively affecting PRD populations as a result of outfitter and guide sport fishing for 

the following reasons: 1) coho salmon return to area streams and lakes later in the season 

making them less targeted by outfitters and guides; 2) coho populations are widely 

3 Environmental Considerations 6 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
distributed across the region, which distributes sport fishing pressure; and 3) there are no 

coho population concerns in this area. 

Subsistence Fishing 

Subsistence fishing occurs in both salt and freshwaters of Southeast Alaska. A rural 

Alaska resident can legally subsistence fish for all salmon species, trout, char, and 

steelhead. Sockeye salmon are the most harvested subsistence and personal use species in 

this area, and, therefore, have the highest potential to be adversely affected by 

outfitter/guide sport fishing activities. Kutlaku Creek has the highest reported sockeye 

harvest (>1000 fish total from 2001-2007). There should be no effect to 

subsistence/personal use sockeye fisheries at any of these locations because 1) most 

sockeye subsistence/personal use harvest occurs in saltwater and most recreational 

fishing occurs in freshwater (i.e., little spatial overlap-little chance for physical 

interference), 2) the aforementioned location is not a ‘high-use’ outfitter and guide sport 

fishing locations (<50 total RVDs reported from 1994-2007), and sockeye salmon are not 

typically the primary sport fish sought after by recreational anglers in this area. 

There is only minimal subsistence or personal use harvest of coho salmon, steelhead, 

trout, and/or Dolly Varden on PRD. As a consequence, there should be no effect to 

subsistence or personal use harvest of these species as a result of outfitter and guide sport 

fishing activities. 

Cumulative Effects to Aquatic Resources 

As previously mentioned, many factors can contribute to the condition and sustainability 

of a fishery. Some of the more prominent variable categories that can negatively affect 

aquatic resources include natural environmental conditions (climate and habitat), size and 

species of the fish stock, land management activities, fishing pressure (all types), and, 

more recently, invasive species. 

With respect to aquatic systems on PRD, overall environmental conditions, commercial 

fishing, and sport fishing likely have the most impact on these systems. Of these three 

factors, sport fishing likely has the least effect. However, sport fisheries can have 

localized, and even severe, negative effects to aquatic resources in high-use areas like 

Blind River Rapids that necessitated access improvements to decrease environmental 

damage. In general, most negative effects to area aquatic resources should be minimized 

because administrative controls (i.e., fishing regulations, controlled/directed access 

points, etc) are already in place to protect these resources. 

Based on the rationale above, PRD freshwater aquatic resources should not be at risk due 

to the additive cumulative effect of outfitter and guide sportfishing for either alternative. 

Botany__________________________________________________________

Affected Environment – Existing Condition of Botanical Resources 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The only federally listed or proposed plant in Alaska by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is Polystichum aleuticum. It is listed as endangered and is only documented on 

Adak Island in the Aleutian Island chain. It is not expected to occur on the PRD. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 7
Sensitive Species 

Sixteen plant species and one lichen specie are on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List (Bschor 2009) (Table 3.1). 

Table 3.1. Alaska Region Sensitive Species. Species known or suspected in the planning 

area are in bold. 

Scientific name Common name 

Aphragmus eschscholtzianus Eschscholtz’s little nightmare

Botrychium spathulatum spatulate moonwart

Botrychium tunux moosewort fern

Botrychium yaaxudakeit moosewort fern, no unique common name

Cirsium edule var. macounii edible thistle 

Cypripedium guttatum spotted lady’s slipper 

Cypripedium montanum mountain lady’s slipper 

Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens large yellow lady’s slipper 

Ligusticum calderi Calder’s loveage

Lobaria amplissima lichen, no common name

Papaver alboroseum pale poppy

Piperia unalascensis Alaska rein orchid

Platanthera orbiculata lesser round-leaved orchid

Polystichum kruckebergii Kruckeberg’s swordfern

Romanzoffia unalaschcensis Unalaska mist-maid

Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson’s checkermallow

Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. huronense dune tansy

Rare Plants 

Ninety-six plants are considered rare on the Tongass National Forest. Eleven of these 

species are recorded in the TNF rareplant GIS data layer, although more species likely 

exist because the majority of rare plant surveys conducted on the district were not 

recorded in the data layer. 

General Vegetation 

General vegetation cover types include beach fringe, estuarine and supratidal meadows, 

riparian vegetation, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, mixed deciduous-coniferous 

forest, young growth, scrub, peatlands, fens, heath, alpine meadows, and rocky areas. 

Invasive Plants 

Invasive plants are absent from much of the undeveloped areas of the PRD, but are 

common on roadsides and occasionally occur on recreation sites, particularly when they 

3 Environmental Considerations 8 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
are in close proximity to the road system. Invasive plants have been observed growing in 

a handful of undeveloped recreation sites on the PRD. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Botanical Resources 

Both alternatives potentially affect the entire range of plant habitats and vegetation cover 

types present on the PRD. Recreational use can harm plants and vegetation by crushing 

plants under foot and tents, constructing fire rings, moving of natural materials such as 

rocks and logs and constructing semi-permanent structures such as tarpaulin frames (Bell 

and Bliss 1973, Cole and Trull 1992, Monz et al. 2000, Roovers et al. 2004). 

No effects are expected to threatened and endangered plants since none have been 

documented on the district. 

Effects to sensitive species are detailed in the project’s Biological Evaluation, located in 

the project record. A “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing” determination was 

made for 11 of the 16 sensitive plant species. No surveys specific to sensitive plants have 

been conducted within the recreation places covered in this environmental assessment. 

Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, effects to rare species are 

expected to be identical to those outlined for sensitive plants. 

Cumulative Effects to Botanical Resources 

Compared to National Forests in other parts of the United States, recreational use of the 

Tongass is light and widespread. Although some sites may experience high levels of 

impact due to proximity to population centers or unique natural features that are a draw 

for the recreating public, most sites will experience only minor impacts to vegetation. 

The cumulative effects of either alternative are not likely to result in adverse impacts to 

the botanical resources. 

Impacts on all types of vegetation are mitigated by an informal process of recreation site 

evaluation by district recreation staff that has a basic understanding of impacts to 

vegetation by recreational users who are following the principles of Leave No Trace best 

practices20. These practices can be expected to limit harm to vegetation to a reasonable 

degree, but may not prevent all harm to sensitive or rare species. 

Cultural Resources________________________________________________ 

Affected Environment – Existing Condition of Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources on the Tongass National Forest include a diverse array of ancient and 

historical sites and are evidence of at least 10,000 years of human occupation and use. 

Although the exact date of Tlingit occupation is not known, oral histories and 

 

20 For more information about Leave No Trace principles, 

visit:http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/outdoor_ethics/leave_no_trace/intro/lnt_principles_v2.shtml or the Leave No 

Trace website: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/9200/leave_no_trace.html 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 9
ethnographic accounts indicate that the Tlingit people have occupied Southeast Alaska 

for centuries and were expanding their occupation northward at the time of European 

contact. The Petersburg Outfitter and Guide analysis area encompasses the central portion 

of the Tongass National Forest and lies within the traditional territory of the Kake and 

Wrangell or Stikine Tlingit. The Tlingit Indians have left their mark on the land 

evidenced by a variety of sites including villages, seasonal campsites, fish traps and 

weirs, rock art, sacred and religious areas, and subsistence or resource gathering places. 

The Tlingit continue to recreate, hunt and gather on these lands today. 

The historical period in Southeast Alaska began in 1741 when Aleksei Chirikov, a 

member of Russia’s Kamchatka Expedition, sighted land somewhere between Yakobi 

and Chichagof islands. The Russian’s brought back sea otter pelts, which sparked fur 

trade with the Orient. The trade boomed and the British and American traders soon joined 

in the pursuit of this valuable commodity. The Russian-American Company rapidly built 

up its presence in Southeast Alaska and established settlements in Yakutat, Sitka and 

Wrangell. Russia eventually lost control of the sea otter trade, the company became 

financially strapped and maintaining a presence in Southeast Alaska became less 

important. Eventually Russia sold the rights to Alaska to the United States. Since then, 

enterprises including fishing, whaling, mining, fur farming, tourism, and timber harvest 

have developed in the analysis area and left evidence on the land. 

Archaeological work in the analysis area has occurred over the last several decades. The 

work is driven primarily by project compliance requirements specified in the National 

Historic Preservation Act with supplemental Section 110 survey. Most of the work was 

done by forest service archaeologists with occasional assistance from contract 

archaeologists. Research partnerships with academic institutions have also added to our 

knowledge about the area. 

A review of our Tongass Sites Database, which tracks all cultural resource work that 

occurs on the forest, indicates that since 1974, approximately 258 archaeological surveys 

of varying size and intensity have been conducted within the Petersburg Ranger District 

boundaries (Area of Potential Effect). Total cultural surveys have covered about 15,000 

acres and resulted in the documentation of approximately 554 sites within the study area 

boundaries which include some state, private, and municipal holdings. Since 2006, 

Petersburg Zone archaeologists have implemented a monitoring program to assess the 

effects on historic properties from outfitter/guide use on the Petersburg and Wrangell 

Ranger Districts. We have visited 32 Leave No Trace21 campsites on Etolin, Kuiu and 

Kupreanof islands as well as several Day Use Activity areas. All of the outfitter and 

guide sites we monitored were in the high sensitivity zone for cultural resources. No 

effects to historic properties were identified at any of the camp or use sites we monitored. 

 

21 For more information about Leave No Trace principles, visit: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/outdoor_ethics/leave_no_trace/intro/lnt_principles_v2.shtml or the Leave No 

Trace website: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/9200/leave_no_trace.html 

3 Environmental Considerations 10 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
The Forest Service has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on 

outfitter and guide permitting in the past. In 1996, the Forest Service and the SHPO 

agreed that the types of activities addressed in the Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide EA 

(1997) would have no effect to historic properties if no ground disturbance is allowed. 

Results of consultation with the SHPO were similar regarding the Shoreline Outfitter and 

Guide Environmental Impact Statement (2004). The SHPO concurred that there would be 

no adverse effect to historic properties by Shoreline Outfitter/Guide activities if 

stipulations such as Leave No Trace principles21 were followed and archaeologists 

periodically monitored activity sites. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Cultural Resources 

Potential effects to cultural resources due to human use come primarily from vandalism. 

Sites can be dug up, looted, or destroyed. Outfitter and guide permits require the 

protection of cultural resources and therefore permitted guided use has little, if any, direct 

effect. Concentrated recreation use at a site can also cause indirect effects such as site 

trampling, increased erosion, and disturbance and displacement of cultural artifacts. For 

example, trampling the surrounding area can result in site erosion or plant cover loss, 

thereby exposing the site to weathering. Effects on historic properties from guided 

recreation can be eliminated or reduced by avoiding the site or by using mitigation 

measures to reduce the potential impacts. 

Outfitter and guide use will not occur uniformly across the analysis area. Effects on 

cultural resources will be mitigated through permit stipulations such as the use of Leave 

No Trace practices, oversight and enforcement of pertinent cultural resource laws and 

regulations, interpretation, and use restrictions where necessary, as referenced in Chapter 

2. Past monitoring of outfitter/guide permitted use areas has resulted in our conclusion 

that the types of activities permitted under this agreement will have no effect on historic 

properties. 

Cumulative Effects to Cultural Resources 

Cumulative effects on cultural resources occur through natural erosion, weathering, and 

decay, as well as from land development and increased visitation. Increases in recreation 

use may expedite erosion and could lead to vandalism. Monitoring known sites would 

identify site changes and enable early mitigation to reduce cumulative effects. Site 

interpretation that includes a strong stewardship message could help to prevent future 

negative site impacts. 

Based on past monitoring of known cultural sites and recreation use, no cumulative 

effects on cultural resources from the commercial recreation proposed in the alternatives 

are anticipated beyond the natural decaying process. The types of non-ground-disturbing 

recreation activities and the relatively low levels of use over the analysis area as a whole 

combined with mitigation measures, administrative oversight, and enforcement of 

regulations are expected to result in minimal effects. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 11
Forest Health and Productivity______________________________________ 

Affected Environment – Existing Condition of Forest Health and Productivity 

Forest Stand Structure 

Stand structures on PRD include uneven-aged (multi-storied), two-aged (two-storied), 

and even-aged (single-storied). Uneven-aged structure accounts for the majority of the 

suitable timber lands and is typically greater than 300 years old. Western hemlock is 

typically the dominant overstory tree species, with cedars and spruce present in varying 

amounts. Hemlock typically dominates the lower stories too. 

Most timber stands originate from wind disturbance. Single large wind events and several 

smaller wind events have resulted in the variety of stand age and structural characteristics 

found across the landscape. 

Species Composition 

PRD tree species composition by basal area includes: western hemlock, mountain 

hemlock, Sitka spruce, yellow-cedar, western redcedar and shore pine. 

Wind Disturbance 

Wind is the major natural disturbance agent on PRD. It occurs in two forms: small-scale 

gap-phase disturbance and large-scale stand-replacing disturbance. During gap-phase 

windthrow events individual trees, or small groups of trees, blow over during wind 

storms, opening the canopy and allowing young trees to grow to fill the openings. This 

results in complex, multi-aged stands. Areas exposed to severe but infrequent storms are 

subject to large-scale windthrow events resulting in complete or partial stand 

replacement. The resulting stand structure is typically even-aged or two-aged, depending 

on the level of disturbance. Stands in high-risk wind-hazard areas rarely attain ages 

greater than 250 years old, and are more often replaced before reaching 150 years old. 

Nearly all forested lands in Southeast Alaska contain evidence of past windthrow, but not 

all lands are subject to the same windthrow risk (Harris 1989). Wind hazard can be 

strongly influenced by topography (Harris 1989, Harcombe et al. 2004) increasing with 

slope, elevation, soil hazard and aspect (exposure to prevailing winds) (Nowack and 

Kramer 1998, Kramer et al. 2001). Windthrow patches can be the result of single wind 

events or multiple events over time (Harcombe et al. 2004). 

Hemlock Dwarf-mistletoe 

Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense), a parasitic plant, reduces the vigor and growth 

rate of western and mountain hemlock and often produces low quality timber. Cankerous 

swellings often occur at the point of infection on limbs and main stems. These cankers 

offer an entrance for wood-destroying fungi, which can lead to heart rot. 

Yellow-cedar Decline 

Yellow-cedar mortality became abnormal around 1900 and has accelerated (USDA 

2007). Mortality occurs in open canopy stands occupying wet, poorly drained soils 

(Hennon et al. 1997). Research suggests that the primary cause of approximately 500,000 

acres of yellow-cedar mortality in Southeast Alaska is freezing plant tissue (USDA 

2007b). Over the past 100 years, a warming trend has diminished the historic protective 

snow pack at lower elevations, allowing solar radiation to warm up the forest floor 

3 Environmental Considerations 12 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
earlier, triggering early loss of cold tolerance in the cedar’s shallow fine-root system, and 

predisposing the Alaska yellow-cedar to late spring freezing injury (USDA 2007b). Cedar 

mortality ranges in intensity from scattered patches to larger contiguous areas. 

Decay Fungi 

Decay fungi are present on the PRD at various levels. Approximately one-third of the 

volume of old-growth in southeast Alaska is defective due to heart rot (USDA 2007b). 

Root diseases are also considered significant. 

Porcupine Damage 

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) presence is island specific in Southeast Alaska. 

Porcupine can negatively affect tree regeneration, defect, and growth in young stands 

(particularly stands 15 to 35 years of age) (Sullivan and Cheng 1989). The inner bark of 

dominant and co-dominant spruce and hemlock trees is the major foods for porcupine 

during the winter months; in summer they prefer grasses, forbs, and shrubs (Sullivan et 

al.1986). Cumulative porcupine damage to regenerating stands can result in slower tree 

growth, creation of entry points for stem decay due to scarring, and eventual girdling of 

the tree - causing dead tops or tree mortality. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Forest Health and Productivity

Outfitter and guide use on the Petersburg Ranger District is not expected to effect forest 

health and productivity in any of the alternatives. Impacts are approximately the same for 

both alternatives. 

Karst and Cave Resources_________________________________________ 

Affected Environment – Existing Condition of Karst and Cave Resources 

An inventory of many of the karst areas has been completed for the Petersburg Ranger 

District and it has been determined that the district has a limited but significant cave and 

karst resource. 

Most caves22 on PRD are known as solution caves. They form from water dissolving 

soluble carbonate bedrock, usually limestone and marble. As rain falls in Southeast 

Alaska, it absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and soil to produce diluted 

carbonic acid. This carbonic acid migrates directly from the soil through small joints and 

fractures in the limestone. Because the limestone is very soluble, the carbonic acid 

dissolves it and over time creates caverns or caves. Many times the surface above the 

cave collapses and sink holes develop. Areas where these collapse features are 

particularly numerous are said to display karst topography23. 

 

22 A cave is any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs 

beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge. It is large enough to permit an individual to enter 

whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or human-made. 

23 Karst topography is an irregular limestone region with sinkholes, collapse channels, underground 

streams, caves, and caverns. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 13
Carbonate bedrock is less common on the PRD than on other areas of the Forest. 

Therefore, where karst and caves have formed, the specialized habitats and features 

create unique opportunities. 

Limestone caves have the potential for unique and fragile interior mineral formations. 

These formations are called speleothems and can take the form of white strawlike 

structures known as soda straws, hanging curtains of stone, circular pompoms, or soft 

gelatinous white material known as moon milk. 

Another type of cave found on the PRD is the littoral cave. Littoral caves are sea caves 

usually found on shores and formed by wave action. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Karst and Cave Resources 

Outfitter and guide use on PRD is not expected to affect the ecological or geological 

processes that create the karst landforms. Likewise, outfitter and guide use of caves will 

be regulated and little damage is anticipated for all alternatives. 

Recreation and Tourism____________________________________________ 

Affected Environment – Existing Condition 

Recreation 

The Petersburg Ranger District offers an impressive array of features, including muskeg, 

glaciers, offshore islands and bays, and abundant fish and wildlife populations. Forested 

mountains rising from the saltwater provide unique and remote coastal recreation 

opportunities. These experiences impart a feeling of vastness, wildness, and solitude and 

are enhanced by the small resident population and relative absence of development 

compared to most other national forests. There are, however, abundant opportunities for 

local, concentrated recreation use on the district. 

Residents and non-residents alike can enjoy day-use activities, such as hiking, fishing, 

hunting, and scenery and wildlife-viewing on the national forest, just a short distance 

from Petersburg. Other activities such as the winter use of snowmobiles or the use of offroad vehicles and mountain bikes are steadily increasing on the district. The wheelchairaccessible, Blind River Rapids Trail is one of the most popular recreation sites on Mitkof 

Island. It offers visitors a chance for picnicking and also accesses the mouth of Blind 

Slough for excellent coho and king salmon fishing. A few miles south, the Blind Slough 

Recreation Area, Man Made Hole, and the Swan Observatory are also available for 

fishing and sightseeing. The Three Lakes Trail system contains miles of hiking trails, 

with fishing platforms, picnic tables, and rowboats at each of the lakes. The newlyconstructed Adirondack-style shelter on an adjacent lake is also a convenient destination. 

If visitors are seeking overnight accommodations, the Ohmer Creek Campground is open 

most of the year. Ohmer Creek offers fair to good trout and salmon fishing in late 

summer and fall. The Twin Creek Shelter, up the Twin Creek Road from Mitkof 

Highway, has a three-sided shelter with a stove that can also be used for overnight stays. 

In the winter months, the surrounding area offers some of the best skiing, snowshoeing, 

and snowmobiling that the National Forest on Mitkof Island has to offer. 

3 Environmental Considerations 14 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Across the Wrangell Narrows from Petersburg lies the town of Kupreanof, with access to 

the Petersburg Mountain and Petersburg Lake Trails. The hike up Petersburg Mountain 

can be accomplished in a day, and gives visitors a challenging experience with a grand 

view. The Petersburg Lake Trail follows Petersburg Creek, which is popular with hikers 

(both guided and unguided), fishermen, boaters, and kayakers, and opens up to the 

Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness. 

Also within the Petersburg Ranger District is the town of Kake, located on the northwest 

side of Kupreanof Island. It can be reached by the Alaska Marine ferry, boat, or 

floatplane. The north end of Kupreanof Island has an extensive road system, which 

makes available hiking trails and fishing spots on the National Forest. 

Twenty Forest Service public recreation cabins are available for rental, and are scattered 

throughout the district, accessible to the towns of Petersburg, Kupreanof and Kake. They 

are located at remote lakes, streams, and on saltwater beaches, with some only accessible 

by floatplane. The cabins are semi-restricted to non-commercial use. 

The marine setting is a predominant feature within the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu 

Wildernesses, located on Kuiu Island about 50 miles west of Petersburg. Recreation users 

have a higher expectation of wildness and solitude in these areas. Those seeking a remote 

experience often fly to the areas to participate in hiking, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing, 

while traveling by kayak or boat. Visitors often seek the knowledge of commercial 

outfitters and guides for fishing and hunting in these areas. 

Hunting (both guided and unguided) is the predominant recreation activity occurring 

along shorelines in the spring and fall during black bear and deer hunting seasons. Black 

bear hunting occurs mainly along the shoreline and for distances up streams, while deer 

hunting may occur anywhere inland. Residents and non-residents may also hunt for 

moose or mountain goat inland and in the alpine areas. Because the spring and fall hunts 

are in the shoulder seasons (rather than the peak summer season), the number of other 

non-hunting recreation users in spring and fall is less than during the summer season. 

Conflicts in certain areas of the district during the shoulder seasons have occurred, 

however, between some user groups. 

Because of the remote and rugged nature of the Tongass, much of the forest requires 

good outdoor skills and/or specialized equipment for recreation. Many people do not 

have the skills or equipment but have the desire to try a particular activity or visit a 

remote area. For this reason, commercial outfitters and guides are important recreation 

partners with the Forest Service. They are able to provide access to the Tongass National 

Forest, where appropriate, for those people who cannot or do not desire to experience the 

area on their own. Commercial outfitters and guides often provide outdoor education and 

an appreciation of the natural environment. They are also required by their permits to 

follow the Leave No Trace principles24, and limit group size in Wilderness. They can help 

 

24 For more information about Leave No Trace principles, visit: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/outdoor_ethics/leave_no_trace/intro/lnt_principles_v2.shtml or the Leave No 

Trace website: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/9200/leave_no_trace.html 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 15
maintain different classes of recreation settings by distributing people into underused 

areas. Commercial providers of recreation activities base much of their marketing 

strategy on particular environmental settings and identified recreation places within those 

settings. 

Commercial outfitters and guides operating on national forests are required to have a 

special use permit authorizing them to provide commercial services to the public. 

Commercial use is defined as any use of the National Forest for which a fee is charged by 

the outfitter or guide. Types of activities provided by outfitters and guides on the 

Petersburg Ranger District include big game hunting, freshwater fishing, remote setting 

nature tours and wildlife viewing, and camping. They also provide gear, boats, and access 

to the national forest. 

Both residents and non-residents may use the services of outfitters and guides. However, 

non-residents use outfitters and guides more often because they lack the knowledge or 

necessary equipment. Residents express more concerns than non-residents that some 

areas are too crowded or will be too crowded in the near future. There is often a strong 

local interest in maintaining the status quo. Although difficult to predict, areas such as the 

Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses may see an increase in use as more people seek 

remote places for the sense of wildness and solitude. 

There are reports of illegal outfitting and guiding (outfitters and guides without permits to 

operate on National Forest System lands), which does not show up in the actual 

commercial use data; however, this use is minor in relation to the overall amount of 

authorized commercial use. 

Tourism 

The Forest Service recognizes the importance of the tourism industry to the economy of 

Southeast Alaska. Much of the tourism use on the Petersburg Ranger District is 

associated with small cruise ships and ferries that travel southeast Alaska's Inside 

Passage. The majority of tourists experiences the area from the water, and may only go 

ashore in towns and communities. 

Tourists, or non-resident recreation users, can be broadly categorized into two major 

groupings: the independent visitor and the package visitor. The independent visitor 

constitutes a small, but growing group. The independent visitor is one who arrives by 

ferry or airplane and engages in a variety of activities. They are able to spend more time 

in the communities and on the Forest than the package visitor. The independent visitor 

has itineraries that are planned mostly by themselves and may include the services of 

outfitters, guides, motels, and transportation services. Package visitors include cruise ship 

clients, and some who arrive by ferry or airplane. These visitors usually spend less time 

on the National Forest, and often follow pre-planned itineraries. This group uses the 

forest primarily as a scenic resource. Although excursions into the Forest are increasing, 

they are mainly oriented around boat and flight-seeing trips. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Recreation and Tourism 

The effects of either alternative on the recreation and tourism experience are varied. 

While outfitters and guides may accommodate new users or visitors to Alaska, local users 

3 Environmental Considerations 16 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
may be adversely affected by perceived or realized overcrowding. This is especially 

likely at popular fishing, hiking, viewing or hunting areas near the shore of local island or 

mainland recreation places. Once inland, competition or crowding becomes less likely or 

evident. 

Solitude and the Alaska wildland experience are important components of the recreation 

experience for both guided and unguided recreation users. Solitude is a social experience 

measured in terms of the expected number of groups encountered and the size of those 

groups. The opportunities for solitude for each alternative can be measured by the total 

commercial outfitter and guide allocation by season for each study area. Both alternatives 

offer the same opportunities for solitude with the exception of Study Areas 12A 

(Saginaw, Security, and Washington Bays) and 14 (Keku Strait, Port Camden) in 

Alternative 2 where allocated use to outfitters and guide is reduced in the fall and spring 

seasons (Table 2.3). 

Concerns from black bear guides prompted the development of the Increased Solitude 

Alternative (Alternative 2). Black bear guiding activities are directly affected by the 

presence of other user groups, specifically in Study Areas 12A and 14. Black bear 

hunting occurs mainly along the shoreline and up streams, and any disturbance, whether 

from large or small groups, can be unfavorable. In both study areas the allocated use is 

still higher than or equal to the actual use for both alternatives. Other user groups, such as 

sightseeing and fishing outfitters and guides were also considered in Alternative 2, as a 

reduction in spring and fall allocations affects their commercial services as well. 

Both alternatives allow outfitters and guides to continue to facilitate and accommodate 

resident and non-resident recreation users. In every study area on the district, except one, 

the actual use numbers are significantly lower than allocated numbers, allowing for the 

growth of the commercial outfitter and guide industry. 

Cumulative Effects to Recreation and Tourism 

Many of the cumulative effects were analyzed at the Forest Plan level when recreation 

and tourism levels and effects were determined. Given the programmatic nature of this 

planning document, it is not possible to predict site-specific changes that would occur 

under either alternative. Potential impacts to recreation places and recreation activities in 

other areas would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and in accordance with the 

applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines under all alternatives. 

Recreation and tourism in Southeast Alaska and on the Tongass is influenced by a 

number of factors that are largely independent of forest management decisions. For 

example, factors affecting the current level of visitation to the region likely include the 

current economic downtrend. Tourism demand is difficult to predict with any precision 

and no attempt is made to quantify future demand in this analysis. 

Socioeconomics__________________________________________________ 

This EA is limited to the management and allocation of commercial guiding activities on 

the Petersburg Ranger District. The following discussion concentrates mainly on the 

socioeconomic aspects of recreation and tourism within this analysis area. For more 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 17
information on the overall socioeconomic conditions in Southeast Alaska, see the 

analysis completed for the Tongass Forest Plan Amendment EIS (USDA 2008b). 

Affected Environment – Existing Conditions for Petersburg and Kake’s 

Socioeconomics 

Petersburg Community Profile 

Petersburg is the largest community in the analysis area (population approximately 3,050) 

and a center for recreation use by both local residents and out-of-state tourists. Tourism is 

a significant contributor to the local economy during the summer months. Scheduled jet 

flights and air taxis are available at the Petersburg Airport. The Port of Petersburg has a 

variety of marine services such as fuel service, boat ramps, grids and hoist, professional 

marine repair and shipwright services and engine repair. Petersburg’s harbors feature a 

total of 499 berths, 105 transient spaces and can accommodate vessels up to 140 feet. The 

Alaska State ferry system transports people and vehicles between several ports in 

Southeast Alaska, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia and Bellingham, Washington. 

Since its beginning, Petersburg's economy has been based on commercial fishing and 

timber harvests. Petersburg currently is one of the top-ranking ports in the U.S. for the 

quality and value of fish landed. 469 residents hold commercial fishing permits. Several 

processors operate cold storage, canneries and custom packing services. Petersburg is the 

supply and service center for many area logging camps. Independent sportsmen and 

tourists utilize the local charter boats and lodges, but there is no deep water dock suitable 

for cruise ships (ACDED 2009, 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm, accessed July 31, 

2009). 

Kake Community Profile 

Kake is located on the northwest coast of Kupreanof Island, approximately 38 air miles 

from Petersburg. It was once a traditional Tlingit village, but is now home to a number of 

different cultures: Tsimshian, Haida, Yupik as well as some of the Lower 48 native 

cultures. The American Indian (Alaska Native) population accounts for about 75% of the 

community (http://www.kakealaska.com/AboutKake.html, accessed July 31, 2009). The 

village has a fishing, logging and subsistence lifestyle. 

As of 2007 the Kake population was 519. The population has been experiencing a steady 

decline since the 2000 census. The decline is likely due to its economy being hard hit in 

2003 when two of their major employers virtually eliminated their workforce. Kake is 

currently pursuing tourism income and opportunities, but has not experienced the 

increase in tourism that larger communities in the region have (ACDED 2009, 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm, accessed July 31, 

2009). 

Importance of the Tongass National Forest in SE Alaska’s Socioeconomics 

The Tongass National Forest plays an important role in the formal and informal 

economies of Southeast Alaska. The formal economy includes those economic activities 

that are recorded in official statistics. The informal economy includes activities that are 

not typically recorded in official statistics. Elements of the informal economy include 

3 Environmental Considerations 18 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
subsistence activities, in-kind contributions, non-cash income, unpaid labor and labor 

exchanges, and care-giving to the young and old. 

Importance of Recreation and Tourism in SE Alaska’s Socioeconomics 

Recreation and tourism are heavily represented in the economy of Southeast Alaska. 

Recreation and tourism-related activities are distributed over a number of standard 

economic sectors, mainly retail trade and services. 

The largest and fastest growing element of recreation and tourism in Southeast Alaska is 

the cruise ship industry. One estimate places the total number of visitors that could come 

to Petersburg by cruise ship in 2009 at about 8,800 (Viking Travel 2009). Whether this 

expansion can continue, however, is open to question, and anecdotal evidence suggests 

that total tourism growth in Alaska may be slowing (Colt et al. 2002). 

As stated in the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS, the number of visitors to Southeast Alaska has 

grown substantially since the early 1990s. Summer visitors to Southeast Alaska more 

than doubled between 1993 and 2006 (USDA 2008b, p. 3-511). Outfitter and guide data 

for the Tongass indicates a twenty-two percent increase from 2004 to 2005 in the number 

of clients served by outfitters and guides. In the Petersburg area, outfitter and guide use 

increased over 2004 actual use by 25 percent in 2005, 22 percent in 2006, nine percent in 

2007. In 2008 outfitter and guide use decreased 6 percent from 2004. 

Table 3.2. Actual use by study area from 2004 to 2008. 

Study 

Area 

Actual Use (RVDs) 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

1 377 610 487 334 335 

2 79 117 73 43 20 

4 0 0 0 0 0 

5 58 42 7 50 0 

6 397 379 467 344 230 

7 309 339 179 150 164 

8 168 178 355 167 170 

9 0 0 42 0 0 

10 176 619 318 407 396 

11 108 174 147 117 120 

12A 366 479 554 678 396 

12B 189 127 148 188 160 

13 545 456 668 274 187 

14 355 404 388 403 300 

15 177 396 162 208 416 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 19 Environmental Considerations 3
Study 

Area 

Actual Use (RVDs) 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

16 50 128 96 171 273 

21 124 197 348 324 70 

22 246 339 319 221 286 

23 14 12 62 56 17 

24 23 22 6 13 6 

 3,761 5,018 4,826 4,148 3,546 

The majority of clients who utilize Petersburg area outfitters and guides come from 

cruise/tour ships, are independent travelers, or part of a guided group such as the National 

Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS). 

Out-year predictions of the outfitter and guide industry remain speculative. As the 

industry grows, it will be important to anticipate changes in the clientele or local 

conditions to continue prosperous growth. Southeast Alaska generally imparts a feeling 

of vastness, wildness, and solitude. Various management activities on the Forest might 

change how a person/visitor views this vastness, wildness, and solitude to the area. 

Continued growth of the outfitting and guiding industry in Southeast Alaska will not only 

depend upon management influences but on the success of the outfitters and guides to 

provide for the satisfaction of their guests and the ability to market their services 

effectively. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Petersburg’s Socioeconomics 

In Alternative 2 there may be less potential growth in the outfitter and guide industry in 

Study Areas 12A and 14 in the spring and fall seasons due to fewer allocated RVDs. In 

general, however, actual use is much lower than the proposed allocated use in both 

alternatives and as demonstrated in the Carrying Capacity Report for this project 

(Appendix A), the area has the capacity to accommodate more users on National Forest 

System lands. 

Growth in outfitter and guide business does not guarantee business equity. Competition at 

popular locations may diminish the experience for some users or displace other guided or 

unguided users. Coordination within the industry may alleviate some of these problems. 

However, to maintain the integrity of the experience for users or to maintain viable 

businesses there may be some situations where limitations of the number of RVDs or the 

number of permits issued for either a particular location or activity may be considered. 

For local residents, it is reasonable to assume the more commercial use allocated, the 

more potential there is for that use to negatively affect their experience. The total 

capacity allocated to commercial use across the district, however, far exceeds overall use. 

As such there should be very little difference in effects on local users for both 

alternatives. 

20 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA 3 Environmental Considerations
The local economies of Petersburg and Kake would likely find advantages to the increase 

in outfitter and guiding activities as needed fuel, supplies, or goods are likely to be 

purchased in those communities. 

Cumulative Effects to Petersburg’s Socioeconomics 

Cumulative effects of both alternatives in terms of increased employment and revenue on 

Petersburg and Kake’s economies would likely be positive. The higher the alternative’s 

allocation is to outfitters and guides, the more potential the alternative will have for 

cumulative growth in this sector. 

However, another less tangible, but no less important, factor is the amenity values and 

recreation opportunities provided by the national forest. These values and opportunities 

are a major ingredient in the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of Southeast Alaska. 

This analysis centers around how commercially guided recreation fits within the context 

of non-commercial recreation and the area’s natural character, which is highly valued by 

residents and non-residents alike. Growth in regional population and independent 

travelers who do not use outfitting and guiding services will continue to reduce the 

opportunities for experiencing solitude in certain areas. 

Soils____________________________________________________________

Affected Environment – Existing Condition for Soils 

Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specific plants 

or plant communities. It is critical to the forest because it affects the productivity of most 

other forest resources. Soil productivity is a product of soil quality and can be affected by 

on-site disturbances ranging from natural erosion and landslides to human-related 

disturbances, such as roads, boat ramps, recreation trails and picnic areas. Tree growth, 

wildlife and fish habitat, and recreation opportunities are all influenced by soil quality. 

Soil productivity varies between soil types. In mineral soils most nutrients are produced 

and stored in the upper organic layers. Soil drainage, texture, depth, and site 

characteristics (including elevation, slope, and aspect) all determine the soil’s 

productivity. The most productive soils, which generally support coniferous forest stands, 

are well drained to moderately well drained and moderately deep. They are found on 

floodplain terraces, moderately stable alluvial fans, hillslopes, mountain slopes, and 

uplifted beaches. 

Most organic soils are found in non-forested and forested wetlands that support lowvolume forest, scrub-shrub, peat lands and alpine meadow plant communities. Organic 

soils are not considered highly productive, in terms of timber stand volume, but they are 

productive in terms of species richness and biomass. Poorly to very poorly drained 

organic soils support a wide variety of plant communities with high biomass and species 

diversity, and they are home to many species of fish and wildlife. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Soils 

Recreation management practices that tend to reduce soil productivity include 

construction of roads, trails and campgrounds. Loss of productivity is caused by removal 

of surface organic layers and disturbance of surface and subsurface layers. The recreation 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 21
activities proposed in the alternatives do not involve any construction or grounddisturbing activities and will not have an effect on soil productivity. 

Some amount of soil disturbance is an unavoidable consequence of recreation use on the 

land due primarily to trampling. The level of disturbance varies with management 

practices and site characteristics. Soil Quality Standards (FSM 2554) address the 

potential of affecting soils from compaction, puddling, displacement, surface erosion, 

altered wetness, and damage by severe burning. Soil Quality Standards are national 

standards that set the limits on the amount of an activity area that can be in a disturbed 

soil condition. The Soil Quality Standards in the shoreline zone limit soil disturbance to 

15 percent of the activity area. Any greater soil disturbance, exceeding the standards, 

constitutes significant impairment to the productivity of the land. The effects of soil 

disturbance are minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices 

(FSH 2509.22) and mitigation measures provided in Table 2.2. 

The effects of recreation use on soils are not well documented. However, the guided 

recreation uses proposed in the alternatives are not expected to have any significant direct 

or indirect effects on soils because of the relatively low impacts of the activities and the 

low levels of use spread across the analysis area. 

Both alternatives would meet or exceed Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Recreation 

activities proposed in the alternatives might have minor effects depending on the amount 

and type of guided activity that actually occur and the soil type on which it would occur. 

These effects would be mitigated with Best Management Practices and protection 

measures listed in Table 2.2. Monitoring would indicate when recreation use approaches 

Soil Quality Standards. If adverse effects on the soil resource should be noticed, 

recreation use will be limited or restricted or the site will be hardened to prevent or 

mitigate adverse soil effects. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects of the proposed actions on long-term soil productivity are directly 

related to the amount of soil disturbance that occurs through time and the amount of 

recovery that takes place in the soil system in that time. Since the alternatives do not 

propose any activities that cause soil disturbance, no cumulative effects are expected. 

Minor soil disturbance, erosion, and the associated loss of productivity resulting from the 

proposed activities could occur from recreation use. Most effects of recreation would be 

relatively short term; they would last until disturbed sites recover with indigenous species 

sufficient to protect the soil surface and maintain soil productivity. Any necessary revegetation of disturbed sites, either through natural regeneration or by planting, would 

depend on the level of disturbance at each site. 

Cumulatively, the level of soil disturbances from guided recreation use within each study 

area or recreation place is estimated to be far less than 1 percent of these areas. It would 

not exceed or approach the Soil Quality Standard of 15 percent of the area. 

3 Environmental Considerations 22 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Subsistence______________________________________________________

Affected Environment – Existing Condition for Subsistence 

A number of the wildlife species on the PRD are important for subsistence, general 

hunting, or trapping. Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, brown bear, black bear, 

moose, wolf, marten, river otter, and waterfowl (collectively) are all species with hunting 

and/or trapping seasons managed by the ADF&G. These species are also important for a 

variety of native and traditional uses that vary across the geographic area and cultural 

framework of Alaska. 

Section 810 of ANILCA requires the analysis of the potential effects on subsistence uses 

of all actions on federal lands in Alaska. This analysis focuses on those food-related 

resources most likely to be affected by commercial outfitter and guide use. 

Three factors related to subsistence uses are specifically identified by ANILCA: 1) 

resource distribution and abundance, 2) access to resources, and 3) competition for the 

use of resources. These factors are discussed in general terms in the following 

paragraphs. 

Resource Distribution and Abundance 

Southeast Alaska subsistence resources include terrestrial wildlife (including deer, 

moose, mountain goat, black and brown bear, furbearers, and small game), waterfowl 

(including ducks, geese, and seabirds), marine mammals (harbor seal), salmon, other 

finfish, marine invertebrates, plants, and firewood. The abundance and distribution of 

these resources appears to be stable or increasing on the Tongass as described in the 2008 

Forest Plan. Marine mammals are inherent to the coast and are managed through 

regulations issued by NMFS and the USFWS. 

Access to Subsistence Resources 

Southeast Alaska is comprised of isolated islands unconnected by road systems; however, 

with the transportation means available (floatplanes, ferry systems, automobiles, boats), 

Southeast Alaska residents are very mobile in their subsistence resource use activities. 

Petersburg, the fourth largest community in Southeast Alaska, has documented their 

subsistence gathering from the southern tip of Prince of Wales Island to Yakutat, 

covering most of the islands in between (Kruse and Muth 1990, USDA 2008b). The 

majority of community use is on Mitkof Island, Kupreanof Island, and the mainland 

between Le Conte Bay and Thomas Bay. Road management recommendations that have 

the potential to affect access will be carried forward and analyzed during the District 

Access Travel Management process. 

Competition for the Use of Resources 

The Petersburg Ranger District contains large amounts of undeveloped land and includes 

extensive subsistence resources. These resources are not, however, distributed or used 

evenly across the district. Where the resources are confined to island groups or river 

systems and access is costly or nonexistent, use of the resources is low. Where the 

resource is abundant, and a community is present but access by other communities is 

costly, the resource tends to be used primarily by the community that resides in the area. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 23
Where resources are abundant and access is available to local and other communities of 

Southeast Alaska, competition for resources may exist. 

The improvement of access, as well as increased interest in non-consumptive uses, could 

increase the competition for the use of some resources in specific locations. However, an 

increase in competition may not be fully attributed to outfitter and guide use since uses 

by unguided forest users and general population growth in Southeast Alaska will also 

contribute to the competition for resources. Historically, allocations have not been fully 

utilized by guides in most locations, and the increases in allocations in either alternative 

from existing conditions would not necessarily result in increased use of any particular 

area important for subsistence users. 

Of all subsistence species important to local residents, competition for resources with 

guided users is most likely to occur for species that are commonly targeted by hunting 

and fishing guides. Deer, mountain goat, black bear, and steelhead are the most likely 

subsistence resources that could be restricted through competition with guided users. 

Competition does not seem to exist between federally qualified and non-federally 

qualified deer hunters. Few nonresidents hunt deer in Unit 3, and most hunters are local 

residents. Non-residents comprised just 3 percent and 2 percent respectively, of all Unit 3 

deer hunters in 2004 and 2005. Deer populations are greater and seasons and bag limits 

more liberal in other nearby units, attracting most non-local hunters to those areas 

(ADFG 2007). 

Competition exists between federally qualified and non-federally qualified goat hunters. 

This competition is managed by the State and Federal governments to prevent restrictions 

to subsistence users. Goat harvest numbers are reviewed annually and non-federally 

qualified goat hunters may be restricted to maintain subsistence opportunities. 

Demand for black bears as a subsistence resource is thought to be low, and if 

implementation of either alternative in this project results in a restriction to subsistence 

users, permitting of guided bear hunting would need to be reviewed and adjusted to 

ensure that the needs of subsistence users are met. Allocations proportioned out by season 

at 10 percent in the spring, 15 percent in fall and 10 percent in winter are thought to 

address any issues. There is currently a moratorium on the number of outfitters and guide 

hunts for black bear at the 2007 levels on the Tongass National Forest (Cole 2008). Use 

at this time is within the existing limit. No new black bear hunting guide permits will be 

issued through this project. 

Guided steelhead fishing is currently very limited within the project area, which has 

eliminated competition with most local subsistence users for this resource. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Subsistence Resources 

As demonstrated in the Carrying Capacity Report for this project, the area has the 

capacity to accommodate more users on National Forest System lands. An increase in 

outfitter and guide use could occur in both the alternatives presented in this analysis; 

however increasing the allocated use days will not necessarily result in an increase in 

permitted or used allocated use days by guides in general, or by hunting or fishing guides 

3 Environmental Considerations 24 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
in particular. The need to monitor effects of use on subsistence is important to its 

management. 

The Forest Plan provides a comprehensive analysis of subsistence resources and potential 

effects, both Tongass-wide and for each rural community of Southeast Alaska. The Forest 

Plan determined that the primary subsistence resource likely to be significantly affected 

by Forest Plan actions was Sitka black-tailed deer. Therefore, deer are considered the 

“indicator” for potential subsistence resource consequences concerning the abundance 

and distribution of the resources (USDA 2008b, p. 3-428). Neither of the alternatives 

propose ground disturbing activities and none are anticipated to have a negative effect on 

deer habitat or any other subsistence resources. 

Potential Impacts on Distribution and Abundance 

No affect to the distribution and abundance of wildlife is anticipated. Of the wildlife 

species discussed, mountain goat and black bear appear to be the most sensitive species 

to human disturbance on land. Reportedly, these creatures temporarily abandon habitat as 

a result of road building, and other have been found to utilize less of their range due to 

construction noise and human disturbance (USDA 2008b, pp. 3-232 and 3-235). There 

are no ground disturbing activities proposed, and impacts to mountain goats and black 

bears are expected to be minimal. 

Marine mammals can be harvested by Alaska Natives for traditional use. Outfitters and 

guides will not affect the long-term abundance and distribution of marine mammals. 

Potential Impacts on Access 

Neither of the alternatives will unduly result in a significant restriction to subsistence 

access. Instead, the expansion of outfitter and guide activities may facilitate access to 

subsistence resources. Recommendations for additional road closures, use designations, 

and road decommissioning were developed through the update of the Kake Road System 

RAP. While these road management objective recommendations have the potential to 

affect access, they were carried forward and analyzed during the District Access Travel 

Management process (USDA 2009a). Implementation of the road management objectives 

are dependent on the decisions made in the Petersburg District Access and Travel 

Management Plan Decision Notice and FONSI (USDA 2009b). 

Potential Impacts Due To Competition 

Competition for future subsistence resources is difficult to predict. The number of rural 

and urban hunters may increase in the foreseeable future. A continued use and increase in 

non-consumptive guided activities could contribute to the competition for resources. 

Should undue competition between urban and rural residents become a problem for any 

subsistence resource, the Southeast Alaska Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Council may recommend that the Federal Subsistence Board restrict sport or commercial 

competition for subsistence species. Additionally, the State Board of Game may also 

choose to intervene in order to protect the long-term health of wildlife populations. 

ANILCA 810 Subsistence Determination 

This project will not result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction on 

subsistence use of any subsistence resources because it will not affect abundance or 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 25
distribution of any subsistence resource, nor will it change access to or competition for 

those resources. 

Wetlands________________________________________________________ 

Affected Environment – Existing Condition for Wetlands 

Wetlands are defined as: 

“...areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” {40 

CFR 230.41 (a)(1)}. 

According to the wetlands resource inventory database, approximately 842,896 acres or 

44 percent of the PRD is inventoried as wetlands. The major types of wetlands occurring 

in the project area include: muskegs, estuaries, freshwater sedge meadows, forested 

wetlands, and freshwater streams. These wetlands were classified according to the 

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. 

Executive Order 11990, as amended, requires Federal agencies exercising statutory 

authority and leadership over federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Wetlands 

No outfitter or guide activities that result in long-term impacts (filling, dredging, etc.) to 

wetlands will be permitted under this document (USDA Forest Service Manual 2527.01-

04). Therefore, none of the alternatives are expected to have an impact on wetlands 

within the project area. 

Wilderness_______________________________________________________ 

On December 2, 1980 as a part of the enactment of Public Law 96-487, the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Congress designated two 

Wilderness areas on the Petersburg Ranger District (Tebenkof Bay and the Petersburg 

Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck). On November 28, 1990, the President signed Public Law 

101-626, the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). This act amended ANILCA in part, 

and designated an additional Wilderness on the Petersburg Ranger District, the Kuiu 

Wilderness area. 

The National Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 mandates that designated 

“wilderness areas ...shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the 

American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for 

future use and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the 

preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and 

dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as 

wilderness.” 

The Act prohibits commercial services within wilderness but allows for, 

3 Environmental Considerations 26 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
“Commercial services ...within the wilderness areas ...to the extent 

necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or 

other wilderness purposes of the area.” 

Agency policy pertaining to the management of the wilderness is as stated in Forest 

Service Manual 2320 and Regional Supplements. 

A component of the wilderness experience is a sense of solitude, and a feeling of risk and 

challenge associated with use of the wilderness. Increased use by outfitters and guides is 

likely to affect wilderness users several ways. The risk and challenge associated with the 

use of a wilderness may be diminished depending upon the number and types of 

encounters one may have. As most use of the wilderness is water-based, there is likely to 

be some loss of isolation along the perimeter since more persons come to see or visit 

these areas. Persons using the uplands will likely be less affected as this use is generally 

more arduous and infrequent. 

In September 2007, the Forest Supervisor completed a Determination of Need for 

Commercial Services within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass National Forest. In this 

document, the Forest Supervisor determined that there is a need for commercial uses 

within wilderness areas on the Tongass National Forest. Subsequent decisions regarding 

the type, extent, amount, and location of commercial use for all wilderness areas on the 

Tongass are to be made on a wilderness-by-wilderness basis. A Determination of Need 

for Commercial Services has been completed for the three Wilderness Areas on the 

district (see Appendix B). The determinations of need are tiered to the Forest Plan. 

Affected Environment – Existing Condition for Wilderness 

Tebenkof Bay Wilderness 

The 66,812 acre Tebenkof Bay Wilderness is on central Kuiu Island, north of the Kuiu 

Wilderness. The area is a complex system of bays, islets and coves that first attracted the 

Tlingit Indians to the bay long ago. Even the most remote beaches in the bay have had a 

human presence in the past. The land offered hunting, trapping, camping and gardening, 

and the water was rich with a variety of shellfish and saltwater and freshwater fish. In the 

mid-1900’s, fox farm operations were abundant on the small islands, and today 

commercial fishing is an important way of life. Most of the time, it is a serene place, 

where the only sound in the distance is the call of a young sea otter or the blow of a 

humpback whale. 

The area’s main attractions are its: remoteness and solitude, protected waters in relation 

to the surrounding unprotected waters of lower Chatham Strait and the Pacific Ocean, 

terrestrial and marine wildlife, and subsistence value for the community of Kake. 

In 2008 the Tebenkof Bay Wilderness had seven active permits. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 27
Kuiu Wilderness 

The 60,581 acre Kuiu Wilderness is on the south-central portion of Kuiu Island which is 

contained by two large bodies of water: Sumner Strait to the east and Chatham Strait to 

the west. The Tlingit Indians braved these waters and sought protection in the deep bays 

that now make up the Kuiu Wilderness. The remoteness of this wilderness, coupled with 

the challenge and risk of travel by water or land, offers excellent opportunities for 

solitude. Kuiu Island has a high density of black bears, which visitors are more likely to 

encounter than a human. 

There were three active permits in the Kuiu Wilderness in 2008. 

Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness

The 46,849 acre wilderness is composed of two major sections: the Petersburg Creek 

watershed, and the area surrounding the salt chuck at the head of Duncan Canal. The 

eastern border of the wilderness is about five miles west of the City of Petersburg. It 

abuts the small community of Kupreanof on the east. The western side of the wilderness 

can be reached by boating or flying to the Duncan Salt Chuck at the northern end of 

Duncan Canal. Petersburg Lake is in the central portion of the wilderness and can be 

reached by hiking or flying into the lake. 

Petersburg Creek spills down a typical u-shaped glacier-cut basin with mountain peaks 

overlooking the valley. With the close proximity to the communities of Petersburg and 

Kupreanof, the mouth of the creek is enjoyed by residents of Petersburg, Kupreanof and 

visitors alike, for picnicking, fishing for salmon and steelhead, paddling and hiking. The 

Petersburg Lake Trail and the primitive Portage Mountain Loop trail allow access to two 

Forest Service public cabins. The Duncan Salt Chuck, a large, tidally influenced salt 

marsh, offers wonderful opportunities for bird watching, coho and trout fishing, hunting, 

and exploring. 

In 2008, there were two outfitter/guides that operated in the Petersburg Creek – Duncan 

Salt Chuck Wilderness. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Wilderness 

The Forest Service is directed to manage wilderness areas in such as manner as will 

preserve wilderness character (Wilderness Act of 1964). Commercial recreation use in 

wilderness could affect wilderness character, including the qualities of untrammeled, 

natural, undeveloped, and solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Cumulative Effects on Wilderness 

Untrammeled – Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human 

control or manipulation. 

There have been very few, if any, actions that manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, 

water, or fire, within these three wilderness areas. An exception has been the removal of 

very small populations of non-native plants at old fur farm sites in Tebenkof Bay. 

The wilderness has been managed over the years to allow natural processes to operate 

freely and that is expected to continue. 

3 Environmental Considerations 28 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Undeveloped – Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence, and is 

essentially without permanent improvement or modern human occupation. 

There have been few outfitters and guides that use base camps and when they have, there 

has not been any structures built for camp use. Outfitters and guides are required to have 

an annual operation plan and a camp plan if using a camp. The Forest Service has worked 

closely with outfitters and guides with the development of the camp plans to incorporate 

Leave No Trace techniques25 to minimize impacts. 

There can be use by cruise ships in the waters nearby the two wilderness areas on Kuiu 

Island. These highly developed boats with many luxuries, and the boat’s lights and 

sounds, can influence the impression of the wilderness being undeveloped. Even though 

the use is taking place off of the wilderness, the waterways can intertwine with the 

National Forest in a way that allows this use to appear to be within the wilderness area. 

In general, outfitter and guide activities and operations in these three wilderness areas do 

not have a negative effect on the undeveloped character of the wilderness. 

Natural – Ecological systems are substantially free from effects of modern civilization. 

The goal is for the trend for the effects of outfitter and guide activities on plant, animal, 

pathogen, physical, and biophysical resources to be stable or decreasing. At this time 

there have been no studies showing otherwise. The natural characteristics of the 

wilderness have had effects from modern civilization upon them, such as introduction of 

non-native plant species, but this change has not been shown to be linked to outfitter and 

guide activities. Past timber harvest activities have also affected the natural 

characteristics, but again are not from outfitter and guide activities. 

The current number of outfitters and the types of uses in PRD wilderness areas are not 

having a negative effect on the natural conditions in the wilderness. 

Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation – Wilderness 

provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

The goal is for a trend that is stable or improving for: remoteness from sights and sounds 

of people inside and outside wilderness; number of facilities that decrease self-reliant 

recreation; number of trails and level of trail classes; and amount of management 

restrictions on visitor behavior. Due to the remoteness of these two wilderness areas, 

solitude is an especially valuable characteristic and the goal is to preserve the 

opportunity. 

While floatplanes are allowed on lakes through enabling legislation (ANILCA), 

permitting guides to conduct this activity does allow a higher level of motorized activity 

and could contribute to a loss of solitude in these areas. As long as these activities are low 

 

25 For more information about Leave No Trace principles, 

visit:http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/outdoor_ethics/leave_no_trace/intro/lnt_principles_v2.shtml or the Leave No 

Trace website: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/9200/leave_no_trace.html 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 29
levels of use, day-use and temporary in nature, they would not be expected to 

significantly impact the natural, untrammeled and undeveloped qualities already present. 

There is potential for permit requests for commercial use in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu 

Wilderness areas by operators using small or medium-sized cruise ships. It was not 

evaluated in the 2009 commercial services needs assessment since this is not an existing 

use nor has there been a demand. If this type of use is requested in the future, it would be 

a significant change in the type of use occurring and the wilderness areas’ needs 

assessment would be revisited (Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, 41.53e). 

The number of outfitters and guides who have used the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt 

Chuck Wilderness area between 2002 and 2008 has ranged from one to three. The RVDs 

have ranged from two to 10. 

The number of outfitters and guides who have used the Tebenkof Bay and the Kuiu 

Wilderness areas between 2002 and 2008 has ranged from seven to 13. RVDs have 

increased over the past five years from 15 to 29. 

Wildlife__________________________________________________________

Affected Environment – Existing Condition for Wildlife 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are formally listed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under 

authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered species 

are those listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range [ESA Section 3(6)]. Threatened species are those likely to 

become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range [ESA Section 3(20)]. 

The humpback whale and Stellar sea lion are federally listed wildlife species within the 

boundary of the Tongass National Forest. Humpback whales are commonly observed in 

the waters adjacent to the project area. No critical habitat for these species has been 

designated on the PRD. 

Sensitive Species 

Sensitive species are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population 

viability is a concern on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the region. The goal 

of the Forest Service Sensitive Species Program (FSM 2670) is to ensure that species 

numbers and population distribution are adequate so that no federal listing will be 

required and no extirpation will occur on NFS land. 

The Queen Charlotte/Northern goshawk, Kittlitz’s murrelet, and black oystercatcher are 

known or suspected to occur within the analysis area. The Aleutian tern is not known on 

the Tongass National Forest outside of the Yakutat area. This project does not propose to 

change or alter any habitat. Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines to maintain 

nesting habitat and general direction for sensitive species and seabird rookeries and 

shorebirds. This project is not expected to disturb sensitive species especially during 

nesting season. If a disturbance occurs it is expected to be infrequent and very short in 

3 Environmental Considerations 30 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
duration, therefore no impacts are expected for these species as a result of the activities 

associated with the project. 

Management Indicator Species 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species whose population changes are believed 

to indicate the effects of management activities (36 CFR 219.19(a)(1), 1982). MIS are 

also used to predict the likely response of other species with similar habitat requirements. 

NFMA regulations of 1982 require the selection of MIS during development of forest 

plans (36 CFR 219.19(a), 1982) with clearly stated rationale. 

Terrestrial MIS species or their habitat found on the PRD include: Alexander’s 

Archipelago wolf, American marten, bald eagle, black bear, brown bear, brown creeper, 

hairy woodpecker, mountain goat, red-breasted sapsucker, red squirrel, river otter, Sitka 

black-tailed deer, and Vancouver Canada goose. 

The Forest coordinates with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), other 

state agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), tribal governments, and other cooperators and partners during the 

planning of activities that may affect these wildlife species. 

Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory birds (referred to as migratory birds) are far ranging species that 

require a diversity of habitats for foraging, breeding, and wintering. Many of the 298 

species of birds that occur regularly in Alaska are migratory, some coming from as far 

away as Central or South America to their nesting, breeding, and rearing grounds in 

Alaska. Approximately 236 species of birds occur regularly in Southeast Alaska. 

Roughly, 160 species are known or suspected to breed in Southeast Alaska (Armstrong 

2000). Migratory birds that occur but generally only winter in or migrate through 

Southeast Alaska include species of seabirds, gulls, and shorebirds. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (amended in 1936 and 1972) prohibits the taking 

of migratory birds, unless authorized by the Secretary of Interior. Executive Order 13186 

(Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds) provides for the 

conservation of migratory birds and their habitats and requires the evaluation of the 

effects of Federal actions on migratory birds, with an emphasis on species of concern. 

Federal agencies are required to support the intent of the migratory bird conventions by 

integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities 

and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory 

birds when conducting agency actions. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the Forest Service 

and the FWS to strengthen migratory bird conservation (USDA 2008c). The MOU 

identifies strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on 

migratory birds through enhanced collaboration between the Forest Service and FWS and 

in coordination with State, Tribal, and local governments. The MOU requires that the 

Forest Service, within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on 

migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their 

priority habitat and key risk factors. This includes, to the extent practicable, evaluating 

and balancing the long-term benefits of projects against short and long-term adverse 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 31
effects, pursuing opportunities to restore or enhance habitat, and considering approaches 

to identify and minimize take. 

Endemics 

The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines endemic as “a species native and 

confined to a certain region; having comparatively restricted distribution.” Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines for endemic mammals direct the Forest to “maintain habitat to 

support viable populations and improve knowledge of habitat relationships of rare or 

endemic terrestrial mammals that may represent unique populations with restricted 

ranges.” 

Due to its historic isolation, ecological complexity and narrow distribution between the 

Pacific Ocean and coastal mountain ranges the North Pacific Coast is considered a hot 

spot of endemism (Cook and McDonald 2001, Cook et al. 2006). Southeast Alaska has 

been found to be a region with an especially high degree of endemism in its small 

mammal fauna, principally because of the combination of its archipelago geography and 

its highly dynamic glacial history (Demboski et al. 1998). In “Conservation of highly 

fragmented systems: The north temperate Alexander Archipelago” (Cook et al. 2006) 

Kupreanof Island rated relatively low as was not considered a real hotspot in comparison 

to other southeast islands. 

The following species are known to occur in the project area: Northern flying squirrel, 

red squirrel, American beaver, meadow jumping mouse, Long-tailed Vole, meadow vole, 

southern red-backed vole, muskrat, Keen's mouse, northern bog lemming, brown rat, 

North American porcupine, common shrew, dusky shrew, water shrew, silver-haired bats, 

Keen’s myotis, little brown bat, long-legged myotis, mountain lion, wolf, black bear, 

wolverine, northern river otter, American marten, northwestern pine marten, ermine, 

American mink, American moose, elk, Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, Canada 

lynx (mainland only), Northwestern salamander, long-toed salamander, rough-skinned 

newt, boreal toad, Pacific treefrog, and Columbia spotted frogs (MacDonald and Cook 

2000, MacDonald and Cook 2007). 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Wildlife 

Impacts to wildlife resources are anticipated to be minimal. There are areas of concern 

that have been listed in this EA in Chapter 2 in the Mitigation section that will be 

monitored. However, it is hard to determine if future impacts will increase from outfitter 

and guide use or general population growth. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Forest Service authorized and approved that concentrated human activities will be located 

as far from known marine mammal haul outs and known concentration areas as feasible 

to meet the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) consistency requirements and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

Direct effects to humpback whales and Steller sea lions can result from disturbances that 

adversely affect individuals or their young. Indirect and cumulative effects can result if 

activities alter potential foraging habitat or reduce limiting habitats or long-term 

productivity. 

3 Environmental Considerations 32 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Humpback whales and Steller sea lions may inhabit shallow coastal areas where they are 

increasingly exposed to human activity. Recovery plans for the humpback whale (NMFS 

1991) and the Steller sea lion (NMFS 2008) identified potential human induced factors 

that could affect individual reproductive success, alter survival, and/or limit the 

availability of habitat for these species. National Forest management activities that could 

have an effect on habitats or populations of these species generally fall into the categories 

of direct disturbance, acoustic disturbance and habitat degradation (including effects to 

prey species). These effects are generally associated with the development and use of 

marine access facilities (MAFs), increased marine activities, and activities that alter 

stream habitats that flow into marine environments. 

Marine transits between the islands and mainland will occur. However, neither the 

humpback whale nor the Stellar sea lion are known to congregate in any known marine 

transit areas where outfitters and guides may be operating with a Forest Service permit. 

Existing permitted levels have not exceeded allowable RVDs with the exception of one 

study area26. 

Though humpback whales and the eastern Distinct Population Segment of Steller sea 

lions regularly occur in the waters surrounding the Tongass National Forest, the proposed 

activities are limited to the land-based permitting system, and would not affect stream or 

marine environments, so would result in a negligible level of influence and “no effect” to 

these species as well. No critical habitat for these species has been designated on the 

PRD. The MMPA (NMFS 2004) and 50 CFR 224 establish measures to protect marine 

mammals. These measures includes prohibiting the harassment, hunting, capturing, or 

killing of any marine mammal and prohibiting approaching within 100 yards of a 

humpback whale. 

Outfitters and guides are expected to abide by the Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines 

(http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm) and are required by the 

Outfitter and Guide special use permit (see Chapter 2 for specific mitigation). 

Sensitive Species 

Neither of the alternatives will impact the habitat of sensitive species. Direct effects can 

result from disturbances that adversely affect individuals or their young. Indirect and 

cumulative effects to bird species can result if activities alter potential nesting or foraging 

habitat or reduce limiting habitats or long-term productivity. Concentrated human 

activities will be located at distances minimizing disturbance at known nesting sites or 

areas of concentration. Both alternatives include mitigation to minimize disturbance. A 

determination of ‘no impact’ was made for all sensitive species. 

Management Indicator Species 

Direct effects to MIS can result from disturbances that adversely affect individuals or 

their young. Indirect and cumulative effects can result if activities alter potential breeding 

 

26 In Study Area 6 (Kupreanof Island – North Shore), 90 percent of the use is from one outfitter and guide in one 

recreation place. The recreation place is a camp located on a harden site and it does not experience many impacts. 

There is some other use the study area, but the users do not conflict. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 33
or foraging habitat or reduce limiting habitats or long term productivity. Neither of the 

alternatives (proposed allocations) will have an impact to habitat for these species. 

Neither of the alternatives propose to alter potential breeding or foraging habitats or 

reduce liming habitats or long-term productivity. Concentrated human activities will be 

located at distances minimizing disturbance at known nesting and denning sites, or areas 

of concentration. Habitat descriptions and other factors looked at with regard to MIS are 

displayed in the Wildlife Specialist Report for this project. 

Migratory Birds 

Direct effects to migratory birds can result from disturbances that adversely affect 

individuals or young including removing active bird nests or causing nest abandonment. 

Indirect effects result from a reduction in perching, foraging, and nesting habitat. 

The magnitude of effects would vary depending on the bird species, the amount of habitat 

altered and the season in which disturbance would occur. Migratory birds would be most 

susceptible to impacts from 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. Productive old growth habitat can be used to assess 

changes in nesting habitat because most migratory bird species use hemlock/spruce/cedar 

forest as primary or secondary habitats. Effects to birds can be minimized by altering the 

season of activity, retaining snags, maintaining the integrity of breeding sites, considering 

key winter and migration areas, and minimizing pollution or detrimental alteration of 

habitats (USDA 2008c). The FWS recommends times to avoid vegetation clearing (USDI 

FWS 2006d) (see Appendix II of Fish and Wildlife Resource Report). Neither of the 

alternatives will have an impact to migratory bird habitat. Neither of the alternatives 

propose to alter potential breeding or foraging habitats or limit habitat or long-term 

productivity. 

Endemics 

Direct effects to endemic species can result from disturbances that adversely affect 

individuals or their young. Indirect and cumulative effects can result if activities alter 

potential breeding or foraging habitat or reduce limiting habitats or long-term 

productivity. Neither of the alternatives will have an impact to habitat for these species. 

Neither of the alternatives proposes to alter potential breeding or foraging habitats or 

limit habitat or long-term productivity. Concentrated human activities will be located at 

distances minimizing disturbance at known nesting and denning sites, or areas of 

concentration. 

Findings and Disclosures _________________________ 

Several of the laws and executive orders listed in Chapter 1 require project specific 

findings or other disclosures. These are included here, and will be included in the 

Decision Notice and FONSI (Findings of No Significant Impacts). They apply to all 

alternatives considered in detail in this EA. 

National Forest Management Act 

All project alternatives fully comply with the Forest Plan. This project incorporates all 

applicable Forest Plan Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and management area 

3 Environmental Considerations 34 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
prescriptions as they apply to the project area, and complies with Forest Plan goals and 

objectives. All required interagency review and coordination has been accomplished; new 

or revised measures resulting from this review have been incorporated. 

The Forest Plan complies with all resource integration and management requirements of 

36 CFR 219 (219.14 through 219.27). Application of Forest Plan direction for the 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan ensures compliance at the project level. 

Endangered Species Act 

Neither of the alternatives is anticipated to have a direct, indirect or cumulative effect on 

any threatened or endangered species in or outside the project area. A Biological 

Evaluation was completed to analyze threatened, endangered, and petitioned species and 

is included in Appendix C. Consultation with the FWS and NMFS is contained within 

that record. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act 

The Bald Eagle Protection Act provides for special management for the bald eagle. Bald 

eagle habitat will be managed in accordance with the Interagency Agreement established 

with USFWS to maintain habitat to support the long-term nesting, perching, and winter 

roosting habitat capability for bald eagles. Coordinate with USFWS for bald eagle habitat 

management. 

Bald eagle nests are protected under agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Currently, a 330-foot radius protective habitat management zone surrounds all identified 

bald eagle nest trees (USDI 2002) and a 1,000 foot beach buffer is maintained along the 

shoreline (USDA 2008a, p. 3-239). Activities of outfitters and guides in all alternatives 

will be restricted away from nest trees through the permitting process. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The Forest Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) includes locating, inventorying and evaluating the National Register of Historic 

Places eligibility of historic and archeological sites that may be directly or indirectly 

affected by scheduled activities. Regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of 

the NHPA require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on sites that 

are determined eligible for inclusion in or are listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places (termed "historic properties"). The Alaska Region of the USDA Forest Service, 

the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation have established streamlined Section 106 review guidelines and stipulations 

in a Programmatic Agreement (Agreement # 02MU-111001-076, 2002). 

Outfitter and guide use is not expected to result in the discovery or disturbance of human 

remains. However, if human remains are discovered, they will fall under the inadvertent 

discovery provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

Outfitter and guide use is also not expected to restrict Alaska Native access to traditional 

religious or spiritual sites that are protected under the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA) and Forest Service standards and guidelines for the treatment of 

sacred sites (USDA 2008a, p. 4-19). 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 35
A Forest Service archeologist has reviewed this project and made a determination of No 

Historic Properties Affected in the area of potential effect for the proposed project. 

Obligations using modified procedures of the 36 CFR 800 review process, as defined in 

the Programmatic Agreement, have been met. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act 

No known significant caves in the project area will be directly or indirectly affected by 

project activities. Forest Plan Karst and Caves Standards and Guidelines are applied to 

areas known or suspected to contain karst resources. 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

An ANILCA Section 810 and 811 subsistence evaluation was conducted. The evaluation 

can be found in the Subsistence section of this chapter. No significant restrictions on the 

abundance and distribution of, access to, or competition for subsistence resources in the 

project area are anticipated. (See the Subsistence Report in the project record.) 

Clean Water Act 

The decision based on this analysis will not authorize any ground disturbance, or use of 

or discharge of potential pollutants. Implementation will not result in non-point or point 

sources of pollution; therefore the project is fully compliant with the Clean Water Act. 

Clean Air Act 

No emissions are anticipated from the implementation of any project alternative; 

therefore the State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50) will not be 

exceeded. 

Coastal Zone Management Act and the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program 

(ACMP) 

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, activities conducted by the 

Forest Service that affect the coastal zone must be consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the enforceable policies of the Alaska Coastal Management Program 

(ACMP). In addition, activities affecting the coastal zone that are conducted by nonfederal parties under a Forest Service permit must also be consistent with the ACMP. The 

types of Forest Service permits that the State of Alaska and the Forest Service have 

agreed are likely to affect the coastal zone—and therefore require ACMP consistency 

review of the permit applicant's proposal—are listed in section 302 of the Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) between the State and the Forest Service on CZMA/ACMP 

consistency reviews. The types of special use permits that will be authorized for issuance 

by this decision are not among those listed in the MOU as requiring ACMP review. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act of 1996 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is the water and substrate necessary for fish spawning, 

breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The marine EFH in Alaska includes estuarine 

and marine areas from tidally submerged habitat to the 200-mile exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ). The freshwater EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and 

other bodies of water currently and historically accessible to salmon. EFH for Pacific 

salmon recognizes six critical life history stages: (1) spawning and incubation of eggs, (2) 

juvenile rearing, (3) winter and summer rearing during freshwater residency, (4) juvenile 

3 Environmental Considerations 36 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
migration between freshwater and estuarine rearing habitats, (5) marine residency of 

immature and maturing adults, and (6) adult spawning migration. Habitat requirements 

within these periods can differ significantly and any modification of the habitat within 

these periods can adversely affect EFH. 

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

states that all federal agencies must consult the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) for actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat. 

The Act promotes the protection of EFH through review, assessment, and mitigation of 

activities that may adversely affect these habitats. On August 25, 2000 the Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, and NMFS came to an agreement on how consultation will be 

accomplished in Alaska. 

This EA satisfies the consultation requirements by providing a description and 

assessment of EFH in the project area, a description of the Petersburg Outfitter and Guide 

Management Plan and its potential impacts on these habitats, and a description of the 

mitigation measures that would be implemented to protect these habitats. The formal 

consultation will start when NMFS receives a copy of the Environmental Assessment 

with the EFH Assessment. NMFS may then respond in writing as to whether it concurs 

with the findings of the assessment or make conservation recommendations. The USDA 

Forest Service must respond to any recommendations made by NMFS within 30 days. 

For specific information on the location and the alternatives under consideration, please 

refer to the EA. 

The project area includes the entire land area of the Petersburg Ranger District of the 

Tongass National Forest. The streams and lakes within the project area support a variety 

of anadromous and resident fish species. Anadromous species that spawn in freshwater 

streams or lakes in the project area include: pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), 

chum salmon (O. keta), sockeye salmon, (O. nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch), chinook 

salmon (O. tshawytscha), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), steelhead (rainbow) trout (O. 

mykiss), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma). The project area also supports 

resident populations coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), Dolly 

Varden char (Salvelinus malma), and non-game fish species including sculpin (Cottus 

spp.) and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). 

The analysis area provides a large amount of EFH and includes all of the freshwaters on 

the Petersburg Ranger District. Since no Marine Access Facilities would be utilized for 

the proposed project, marine habitats would not be affected and are therefore not 

analyzed with this project. 

This EA would authorize a variety of outfitted and guided activities around the 

Petersburg Ranger District. The Aquatic Resources section of this EA specifically 

examines the effects of outfitted and guided sport fishing, which is the primary activity 

that would affect EFH, on the aquatic resources around the district. 

The Forest Service believes that the Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA 

may adversely affect EFH. However, the effects, as described in the EA, will be minimal 

or virtually immeasurable. By implementing Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best 

Management Practices, and Outfitter and Guide permit stipulations, effects to EFH 

should not occur. Additional impacts to EFH may occur only from unforeseen events. 

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 37
Executive Order 11593 

Executive Order 11593 directs federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving, 

restoring and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation. The work 

accomplished in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

for the Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan meets the intent of this 

Executive Order. 

Executive Order 11988 

No outfitter and guide permits will be issued that seek to permanently develop 

floodplains within the project area; therefore the project is fully compliant with Executive 

Order 11988. 

Executive Order 11990 

No outfitter or guide activities that result in short-term (disturbance to wetland vegetation 

and soil drainage) or long-term impacts (filling, dredging, etc.) to wetlands will be 

permitted under this document (USDA Forest Service Manual 2527.01-04). 

Environmental Justice/Civil Rights 

A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decision-making is 

encompassed in the issue of environmental justice and civil rights. As required by law 

and Title XI, all federal actions will consider potentially disproportionate effects on 

minority or low-income communities. Disproportional potential impacts or changes to 

low-income or minority communities in the project area due to the proposed action 

should be considered. Where possible, measures should be taken to avoid impact to these 

communities or mitigate the adverse effects. 

The issuance of outfitter and guide permits will have no disproportionate effect on 

minority or low-income populations. 

Executive Order 12962 

With the application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, including those for riparian 

areas, no significant adverse effects to freshwater or marine resources will occur. 

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

No prime farm land or range land exists in the project area. Forest land will maintain its 

productivity. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES) 

A biological evaluation was completed for TES plants. A biological 

evaluation/assessment was completed for TES vertebrates. Consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to review the effects of 

this project on threatened, endangered, and proposed species is not required. ESA does 

not require consultation for “no effect” determinations. Standards and guidelines have 

been applied as needed to ensure that any listed threatened or endangered species or its 

habitat will not be adversely affected. The Forest Plan contains standards and guidelines 

for each designated sensitive species, and these are incorporated into the project as 

applicable. 

3 Environmental Considerations 38 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Neither alternative will affect rivers eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation. 

Swan Observatory on Mitkof Island, Petersburg Ranger District. Photograph by Carin Christensen.

Environmental Considerations 3

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 3 - 39
Columbine flower, Tongass National Forest. Photograph by Ashley Atkinson.

3 Environmental Considerations 40 - Chapter 3 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
CHAPTER 4 – REFERENCES AND LISTS 

Glossary________________________________________ 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980, Public 

Law 96-487, 96th Congress, 94 Stat. 2371-2551. Passed by Congress in 1980, this 

legislation designated 14 national forest wilderness areas in Southeast Alaska. Section 

810 requires evaluations of subsistence impacts before changing the use of these 

lands. 

Alpine/subalpine habitat 

The region found on a mountain peak above tree growth, generally above 1,500 feet 

in elevation. 

Anadromous Fish 

Fish (such as salmon and steelhead) that spend part of their lives in fresh water and 

part of their lives in salt water. Anadromous fish ascend from the sea to spawn in 

freshwater streams. 

Beach Fringe 

The area, typically forested, that is inland from saltwater shorelines. 

Best Management Practices (BMP)

These are common-sense actions required by law to keep soil and other pollutants out 

of streams and lakes. BMPs are designed to protect water quality and to prevent new 

non-point source pollution. 

Biological Assessment 

A type of biological evaluation conducted for major federal actions requiring an 

environmental impact statement, in accordance with legal requirements under Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). The purpose of the assessment 

and resulting document is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to affect 

a species that has been listed or proposed as an endangered or threatened species. 

Biological Evaluation 

A documented Forest Service review of Forest Service programs or activities in 

sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any species 

that has been listed or proposed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive. 

Carrying capacity (recreation) 

The estimated number of users that can be accommodated, in a given area, without a 

loss in the quality of the natural environment or the recreation experience. 

Cave

Legally defined under federal law as “any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or 

system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or 

within a cliff or ledge and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, 

whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or human-made. Such term shall 

include any natural pit, sinkhole or other feature which is an extension of the 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 1
surface,” (Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988). Speleologists use “cave” 

to refer to all parts, regardless of size, of an underground system that links openings 

and chambers and that may connect the system to the surface. Included in the term 

caves are tree molds and lava tubes associated with lava flows, erosional caves, and 

those formed by dissolution of bedrock. 

Commercial use or activity 

Any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or 

participation fee is charged or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or 

service and, in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to 

produce a profit (36 CFR 251.51). 

Cultural Resources 

The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Cumulative Effects 

The impacts on the environment resulting from the addition of the incremental 

impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

occurring over time. 

Day Use Activity Area 

A developed recreation area/site intended for day use activities. 

Desired Future Condition 

A statement of the ultimate goal for resources and uses of an area. 

Developed Recreation 

Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use of an area, 

such as campgrounds and picnic areas. Facilities in these areas might include roads, 

parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, and buildings (see Dispersed 

Recreation). 

Direct Effects 

Environmental effects that occur at the same time and place as the initial cause or 

action. 

Dispersed Recreation 

Recreation activities that are not confined to a specific place and are generally outside 

developed recreation sites. This includes activities such as scenic driving, hiking, 

backpacking, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and recreation in 

primitive environments (see Developed Recreation). 

Endangered Species 

Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species are identified by the Secretary 

of the Interior as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act. 

4 References and Lists 2 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Environmental Assessment (EA) 

An analytical document authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969. It is prepared with public participation to determine whether an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for a project or action. If an EA 

determines an EIS is not needed, the EA becomes the document allowing agency 

compliance with NEPA requirements. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

Includes all freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish, marine waters, and 

intertidal habitats. This includes all Class I streams, marine waters, and intertidal 

habitats of the Shoreline Outfitter/Guide analysis area. 

Estuary 

An ecological system at a stream mouth, where fresh and saltwater mix, and where 

salt marshes and intertidal mudflats are present. The landward extent of an estuary is 

the limit of salt-intolerant vegetation, and the seaward extent is a stream’s delta at 

mean low water. 

Executive Order 

An order or regulation issued by the President or some administrative authority under 

his direction. 

Flood Plain 

The level or nearly level land with alluvial soils on either or both sides of a stream or 

river that is subject to overflow flooding during periods of high water. 

Forbs 

A category of herbaceous plants that are not included in the grass, shrub, or tree 

categories; generally smaller flowering plants. 

Forest Health 

The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as its 

age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or 

disease, and resilience to disturbance. 

Forest Plan 

The Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan is the source of management 

direction for the Tongass National Forest. It specifies activity and output levels for a 

10–15 year period. 

Forest Land 

Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had 

such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

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. 

General forest 

For this analysis, general forest is any area that is outside of a recreation place. 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 3
Geographic Information System (GIS) 

A computerized map database that is used to store and evaluate site-specific 

information. 

Gross Recreation Visitor Days 

The maximum carrying capacity of an area, excluding off-season use. It includes the 

unguided public and the clients of outfitters and guides. 

Habitat 

The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place that is occupied by an 

organism, population, or community of plants or animals. 

Historic Property 

Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. The term includes 

artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. 

Home Range 

A recreation area near a community that is especially important to local residents. 

Generally, a home range on the Petersburg Ranger District is within a fifteen mile 

radius of the communities of Petersburg, Kake, Port Protection or Port Baker. Home 

range recreation places are easy to get to for day trips and receive a fair amount of 

use. Travel time and the amount of exposed water are factors that limit or extend 

home range. 

Hunt 

An authorization for one guided client on National Forest System lands for the 

purpose of hunting one or more species in one general geographic area. A hunt does 

not typically exceed 10 days in length and can be considerably less based on the 

species pursued. A hunt is an authorization for a land use activity which may or may 

not result in the harvest of an animal. 

Indirect Effects 

Effects that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity but would be 

significant in the foreseeable future. 

Karst 

A type of topography that develops in areas underlain by soluble rocks, primarily 

limestone. Dissolution of the subsurface layer results in areas of well-developed, 

surface drainage that are sinkholes, collapsed channels, or caves. 

Land Use Designation (LUD) 

A defined area of land, identified by the Forest Plan, to which specific management 

direction is applied. 

Large Woody Debris (LWD) 

Any large piece of relatively stable woody material having a least diameter of greater 

than 3.9 inches (10 centimeters) and length greater than 39 inches (one meter) that 

intrudes into the stream channel. 

4 References and Lists 4 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Length of Stay (LOS) 

Represents the amount of time (in hours) a recreation place is available for use per 

day (not the average amount of time a user occupies a site). The LOS varies 

depending on the activity and the attractor. 

Managed Season of Use 

The period of time a recreation place is primarily used. The general recreation season 

for the Petersburg Ranger District is May to September, or approximately 150 days. 

Management Concern 

An issue, problem, or condition that constrains the range of management practices 

identified by the Forest Service in the planning process. 

Management Direction 

A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated land use 

prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Vertebrate or invertebrate wildlife species whose response to land management 

activities can be used to predict the likely response of other species with similar 

habitat requirements. The National Forest Management Act regulations prescribe the 

use of management indicator species. 

Management Practices 

The activities applied to a defined area of land (land use designation as defined in the 

Forest Plan) to attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

An agreement between the Forest Service and other agencies resulting from 

consultation between agencies that states specific measures the agencies will follow 

to accomplish a large or complex project. A memorandum of understanding is not a 

fund obligating document. 

Mitigation 

Measures designed to counteract or reduce environmental impacts. These measures 

may include: avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action or part of an action; 

minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its 

implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 

affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation 

and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or compensating for the 

impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 

Monitoring 

A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project 

and its mitigation plan are being realized. Monitoring can occur at different levels: to 

confirm whether mitigation measures were carried out in the matter called for 

(Implementation Monitoring); to confirm whether mitigation measures were effective 

(Effectiveness Monitoring); or, to validate whether overall goals and objectives were 

appropriate (Validation Monitoring). 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 5
Muskeg 

A bog, often dominated by sphagnum moss, tussocky sedges, and an open growth of 

scrubby trees, frequently with deep accumulations of organic material. Occurs in wet, 

poorly drained northern regions. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

An act declaring a national policy to encourage productive harmony between humans 

and their environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment and the biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of humans; to 

enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to 

the nation and to a Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

A law passed in 1976 that amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act, requires the preparation of Forest plans, requires the identification of 

management indicator species, and defines parameters for timber suitability. 

National Register of Historic Places 

A register of cultural resources of national, state, or local significance, maintained by 

the Department of the Interior. 

No-Action Alternative 

The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if current management 

direction were to continue unchanged. 

Non-commercial use 

In this analysis, refers to unguided use; use for which no special uses permit is 

necessary and for which no one receives financial remuneration or other gain for 

services provided on the national forest. 

Old-growth Forest 

Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old growth 

encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier 

stages in a variety of characteristics that may include larger tree size, higher 

accumulations of large dead woody material, multiple canopy layers, different species 

composition, and different ecosystem function. The structure and function of an oldgrowth ecosystem will be influenced by its stand size and landscape position and 

context. 

Old-growth Habitat 

A contiguous unit of old-growth forest habitat to be managed to maintain the integrity 

of the old-growth forest ecosystem. 

Outfitter/guide 

Those who, generally for compensation, facilitate the use, enjoyment, understanding, 

and appreciation of national forest recreation settings where the need for service has 

been identified and is compatible with objectives and management direction. 

4 References and Lists 6 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Pattern of Use 

The relationship between the average weekend and weekday use of recreation places. 

It recognizes there can be a difference in the amount of use for these periods (e.g. 

more local people generally recreate on the weekends). 

Persons at One Time (PAOT) 

Used to measure how many people can use a recreation site at one time. 

Priority Special Use Permit 

Permits issued to an outfitter/guide who has demonstrated successful performance in 

conducting operations on National Forest System lands for two or more consecutive 

years. Priority use, if authorized by the Deciding Officer, guarantees the operator a 

certain level of use for up to a 10-year period (FSH 2709.11, Chapter 40). 

Productive Old-Growth (POG) 

Old-growth stands of 8,000 or more board feet of timber per acre, capable of 

producing at least 20 cubic feet per acre per year. 

Proposed Action 

An initial proposal by a federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement an 

action. 

Public Participation 

Meetings, conferences, seminars, workshops, tours, written comments, responses to 

survey questionnaires, and similar activities designed and held to obtain comments 

from the public about Forest Service planning. 

Rare Plants 

Those plants with potential conservation concerns on the Tongass National Forest. 

They may be common elsewhere; however, the edge of their range is known or 

suspected to be on the Tongass National Forest, or disjunct populations of the plant 

species occur the Tongass National Forest. The Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

tracks rare plant species, and gives them a state ranking of S1 to S5. This database is 

the basis of the rare plant list for the Tongass National Forest. See the Alaska Natural 

Heritage plant list for guidance on rare plants known or suspected to occur on the 

Tongass National Forest. 

Recreation Carrying Capacity 

A social recreation carrying capacity is the estimated maximum number of people 

who could recreate in an area and still have a specified type of recreation experience. 

Recreation Carrying Capacity Report 

The analysis used to determine the recreation carrying capacity for the Petersburg 

Ranger District (see Appendix A). 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

A system for planning and managing resources that categorizes recreation 

opportunities into seven classes. Each class defines the degree to which certain 

recreation experience needs are met. Classes are based on the extent to which the 

natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of 

outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreation use. 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 7
Recreation Place 

Areas within a study area that include a recreation attractor, such as a trail, a lake, a 

beach, a roadside area, or a popular fishing stream. 

Recreation Site 

A specific site and/or facility occurring within a recreation place. Some examples of 

recreation sites are: recreation cabins, trailheads, picnic areas, and wildlife viewing 

blinds. 

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) 

A measure of recreation use for an area. One RVD is equal to 12 hours of recreation 

use on National Forest System lands or water by an outfitted or guided client(s). One 

RVD may be one client for 12 hours, 12 clients for one hour, or any combination that 

equals 12 hours of use on National Forest System lands. 

Resident Fish 

Fish that are not anadromous and that reside in fresh water on a permanent basis. 

Resident fish include cutthroat trout and arctic grayling. 

Sacred Site 

A place that has traditional spiritual values for Alaska Native people, reverently 

dedicated to a person or object or event or activity, and secured against violation or 

infringement or interference. Executive Order 13007 defines a sacred site as “any 

specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on federal land that is identified by an 

Indian tribe or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative 

representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious 

significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or 

appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the 

agency of the existence of such a site.” 

Scoping Process 

Early and open communication with the public used to determine the scope and 

significance of a proposed action, what level of analysis is required, what information 

is needed, and what level of public participation is appropriate. Scoping focuses on 

the issues surrounding the proposed action and the range of actions, alternatives, and 

impacts to be considered in an EA or EIS. 

Service Day 

A day or any part of a day on National Forest System lands for which an outfitter or 

guide provides services to a client. One client on the National Forest for 15 minutes in 

one day is equivalent to one service day. One client on the National Forest for 24 

hours in one day is also equivalent to one service day. 

Sensitive Species 

Animal and plant species identified by the Forest Service Regional Forester as 

potentially susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or habitat alterations and, 

therefore, in need of special considerations during land management activity 

planning. 

4 References and Lists 8 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Significant Issue 

Under NEPA, refers to issues that are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe 

mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. Issues are ‘significant’ 

because of the extent of their geographic distributions, the duration of their effects, or 

the intensity of interest or resource conflict. ‘Significantly’ requires considerations of 

both context and intensity, as developed in the CEQ regulations, sec. 1508.27. 

Soil Productivity 

The capacity of a soil, in its normal environment, to produce a specific plant or 

sequence of plants under a specific system of management. 

Special Use Authorization 

A permit, term permit, temporary permit, lease, or easement that allows occupancy or 

use of, or rights and privileges on National Forest System lands. 

Special Use Permit 

Permits and granting of easements (excluding road permits and highway easements) 

authorizing the occupancy and use of land. 

Stand 

A group of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in composition, 

age arrangement, and condition as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining 

areas. 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

The official appointed or designated pursuant to Section 101(b)(1) of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, to administer the State Historic 

Preservation Program. 

Study Area 

The PRD is divided into 20 study areas and is made up of recreation places and 

general forest. Study area boundaries were determined using the Forest Plan, Value 

Comparison Units (VCUs), ROS Classes, and Watershed Analysis Areas. It is at the 

study area scale that the Forest Service tracks actual use data submitted by permitted 

commercial operators. 

Subsistence 

Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act defines 

subsistence use as, “the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of 

wild renewable resources for direct, personal or family consumption as food, shelter, 

fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles 

out of non-edible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or 

family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and 

for customary trade.” 

Subspecies 

An aggregate of similar populations of a species generally inhabiting a geographic 

subdivision of the range of the species and differing taxonomically (for example, 

different size or color) from other populations of the species. 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 9
Temporary Special Use Permit 

Permit issued for less than one year.

Threatened Species 

Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that has been designated 

in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior as a threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Threatened Species 

A plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened 

species are identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species 

Act and published in the Federal Register. 

Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 

A distinct geographic area that generally encompasses a drainage basin containing 

one or more large stream systems. Boundaries usually follow easily recognizable 

watershed divides. These units were established in the Forest Plan to provide a 

common set of areas for which resource inventories could be conducted and resource 

value interpretations made. 

Viable Population 

Fish or wildlife populations that have the estimated number and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to ensure their continued existence and that are well 

distributed in the national forest. 

Watershed 

That area that contributes water to a drainage or stream; portion of a forest in which 

all surface water drains to a common point. Can range from a few tens of acres that 

drain a single small intermittent stream to many thousands of acres for a stream that 

drains hundreds of connected intermittent and perennial streams. 

Wetlands 

Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient, 

under normal circumstances, to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that 

requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. 

Wetlands generally include muskegs, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, river 

overflows, mud flats, wet meadows, seeps, and springs. 

Wild and Scenic River 

River or section of a river so recommended or designated under the 1968 Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act or by an act of the Legislature of the state or states through which 

the river flows. 

Wilderness 

Area designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness is defined as 

undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without 

permanent improvements or human habitation. Wilderness areas are protected and 

managed to preserve their natural conditions. In Alaska, the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act of 1990 and ANILCA also have designated wilderness areas. 

4 References and Lists 10 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) 

A division of land used by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for wildlife 

analysis. 

List of Preparers _________________________________ 

Russell Beers Position: Special Use Administrator 

Experience: 34 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: Associate of Science in Forestry Technology 

Tom Cady Position: Wrangell RD Fisheries Biologist 

Experience: 13 years of professional experience - 8 of those years 

 with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BS and MS in Zoology 

Mary Clemens Position: Recreation Forester/Botanist 

Experience: 26 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BS in Forest Management 

Brad Hunter Position: Wilderness and Recreation Forester 

Experience: 30 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BS in Forest Management 

Madonna Parks Position: GIS Technician 

Experience: 17 years with the Forest Service 

Education: 2 years of undergraduate work 

Frank Roberts Position: Team Leader (January – July 2008) 

Experience: 30 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BS in Forestry/Wildlife Management 

Kathy Rodriguez Position: Team Leader (October 2008 – March 2009) 

Experience: 24 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BS in Wildlife Management 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 11
Sandra Skrien Position: Team Leader (July – October 2008) 

Experience: 31 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BS in Biology 

Jane Smith Position: Zone Archaeologist 

Experience: 17 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BS in Archaeology 

Marina Whitacre Position: Writer-Editor 

 Team Leader (since March 2009) 

Experience: 5 years with the USDA Forest Service 

Education: BA in Biology, MS in Range Science 

List of EA Recipients _____________________________ 

The following agencies, organizations, and individuals were provided with a copy of the 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Environmental Assessment. 

Individuals 

Anissa Berry 

Jim Cariello 

Gerry Merrigan 

Mike and Barb Rugo 

Mark Wagner 

Agencies 

State of Alaska, ANILCA Program, 

Office of Project Management and 

Permitting 

State of Alaska, Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

State of Alaska, Department of Fish and 

Game 

State of Alaska, Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Coastal and 

Ocean Management 

US Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Juneau 

Regulatory Field Office 

US Army Engineer District 

US Army Engineers, Pacific Ocean 

Division 

US Coast Guard, Environmental 

Management 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Regional 

Director of Ecosystem Planning 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Regional 

Director of Forest Management 

4 References and Lists 12 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
USDA Forest Service, Alaska Regional 

Ecosystem Planning, Appeals Specialist 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Regional 

Forester 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Regional 

Print Specialist 

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest, Forest Supervisor 

USDA Forest Service, Craig Ranger 

District, Planning Staff 

USDA Forest Service, National Director 

of Ecosystem Management Coordination 

USDA Forest Service, Ketchikan-Misty 

Ranger District, Planning Staff 

USDA Forest Service, Petersburg 

Ranger District, District Ranger 

USDA Forest Service, Petersburg 

Ranger District, Planning Staff 

USDA Forest Service, Petersburg 

Ranger District, Special Use Permit 

Administrator 

USDA Forest Service, Regional 

Publications and Printing Program 

Manager 

USDA Forest Service, Thorne Bay 

Ranger District, Planning Staff 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

Document Production Coordinator 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

Environmental Coordinator 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass Forest 

Supervisor 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass Land 

Management Planner 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

Recreation, Heritage, Wilderness Staff 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

Recreation Planner 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

Recreation, Special Uses, Wilderness 

Program Manager 

USDA Forest Service, Wrangell Ranger 

District, District Ranger 

USDA Forest Service, Wrangell Ranger 

District, Planning Staff 

US Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Protected Resources Management 

Division 

US Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, 

NEPA Coordinator 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

BLM Alaska State Office 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDI National Park Service, Alaska 

Area Region 

US Department of Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

US Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration 

Public Officials and Offices 

City of Petersburg 

Mark Begich, United States Senator 

Lisa Murkowski, United States Senator 

Sean Parnell, Alaska Governor 

Bert Stedman, Alaska State Senator 

Peggy Wilson, Alaska State 

Representative 

Don Young, United States Congressman 

Tribal Governments / Officials 

Central Council Tlingit and Haida Tribes 

of Alaska, President 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 13
Kake Tribal Corporation 

Klawock Cooperative Association, 

President 

Organized Village of Kake, President 

Wrangell Cooperative Association, 

President 

Media 

KFSK Public Radio 

Petersburg Pilot 

Organizations / Businesses 

Alaska Glacier Adventures 

Alaska on the Home Shore 

Alaska Passages, Inc. 

Alaska Waters, Inc. 

Anchor Excursions, Inc. 

Aqua Sports Enterprises 

Bluewater Adventures, Ltd. 

The Boat Company 

Citizen’s Advisory Commission on 

Federal Areas 

Coastal Helicopters, Inc. 

Glacier Guides, Inc. 

Maple Leaf Adventures 

The Nature Conservancy 

Parker Guide Service, Inc. 

Petersburg Chamber of Commerce 

Sealaska Corporation, President 

Sealaska Heritage Institute, President 

Southeast Alaskan Adventures 

Southeast Alaska Regional Subsistence 

Council 

Southern Southeast Regional 

Aquaculture Association 

Stikine River Song Charters 

Temsco Helicopters, Inc. 

Wrangell Resource Council 

Libraries 

Craig Public Library 

Haines Public Library 

Hollis Public Library 

Hyder Public Library 

Kake Public Library 

Kasaan Community Library 

Ketchikan Public Library 

Kettleson Memorial Library 

Pelican Public Library 

Petersburg Public Library 

Quinney Library, Utah State University 

Tenakee Springs Library 

Thorne Bay Community Library 

University of Minnesota Forestry 

Library 

USDA National Agricultural Library 

Wrangell Public Library

References ______________________________________ 

Alaska Department of Commerce Community and Economic Development. 2009. 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm (accessed June 

4, 2009). 

4 References and Lists 14 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Alaska Northwest Books.Bartholomew, A. and J.A. Bohnsack. 2005. A review of catchand-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in 

Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129-154. 

Armstrong, R. H. 2000. Guide to the birds of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Books. 

Bell, Katherine L. and Lawrence C. Bliss. 1973. Alpine disturbance studies: Olympic 

National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 5: 25-32. 

Bschor, D. 2009. Letter to Forest Supervisors and Deputy Forest Supervisors regarding 

Approval of Revised Alaska Region Sensitive Species List. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region. February 2, 2009. 

Cady, Melissa. 2008. Email to Marina Whitacre, 15 December. USDA Forest Service, 

Wrangell Ranger District, Wrangell, AK. 

Clark, R.N. and D.R. Gibbons. 1991. Recreation. In W.R. Meehan, ed., Influences of 

forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2008. 40 CFR Part 230.41. Wetlands. 

Cole, David N., and Susan J. Trull. 1992. Quantifying vegetation response to recreational 

disturbance in the North Cascades, Washington. NorthWest Science 66: 229-236. 

Cole, Forrest. 2008. Letter to Tongass National Forest District Rangers regarding 

Issuance of Black Bear Hunts on the Tongass National Forest. USDA Forest 

Service, Ketchikan, AK. 

Colt, S.; Martin, S.; Tomeo, M.; Twardock, P. 2002. Recreation and tourism in south 

central Alaska: Patterns and prospects. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska, 

Alaska Pacific University, Institute for Social and Economic Research. 

Federal Subsistence Board. 2008. Memorandum of understanding between the Federal 

Subsistence Board and the State of Alaska for Coordinated Interagency Fish and 

Wildlife Management for Subsistence Uses on Federal Public Lands in Alaska. 7 

pp. 

Forest Service Handbook. 2003. FSH 2709.11 – Special uses handbook. Chapter 40 – 

Special uses administration. Supplement No. R10 2709.11-2003-2. 

Forest Service Handbook. 2006. FSH 2509.22 – Soil and water conservation handbook. 

Amendment No. R10 2509.22-2006-2. 

Forest Service Manual. 2004. Chapter 2520 – Watershed protection and management. 

Amendment No. 2500-2004-1. 

Forest Service Manual. 2006. Chapter 2554 – Soil quality monitoring. Supplement No. 

R10 2500-2006-1. 

Forest Service Manual. 2005. FSM 2600 – Wildlife, fish and sensitive plant habitat 

management. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and 

animals. Supplement No. R10 2600-2005-1. 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 15
Forest Service Manual. 2006. FSM 2700 – Special Uses Management. Chapter – Zero 

code. Supplement No. R10 2700-2006-5. 

Forest Service Manual. 2007. FSM 2300 – Recreation, wilderness, and related resource 

management. Chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management. Amendment No. 2300-

2007-1. 

Gresswell, R.E. and R.D. Harding. 1997. The role of special angling regulations in 

management of coastal cutthroat trout. In J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson and R.E. 

Gresswell (eds.), Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future 

conservation. American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. 

Harcombe, P.A.; Greene, S.E.; Kramer, M.G.; Acker, S.A.; Spies, T.A. and Valentine, T. 

2004. The influence of fire and windthrow dynamics on a coastal spruce-hemlock 

forest in Oregon, USA, based on aerial photographs spanning 40 years. Forest 

Ecology and Management 194: 71-82. 

Harding, R.D., K.A. Kondzela, and R.S. Mullen. 2005. Southeast Alaska recreational 

cabin survey. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish and 

Commercial Fisheries, Fishery Data Series No. 05-11, Anchorage, AK. 

Harding, R.D. and D.C. Love. 2008. Southeast Alaska steelhead snorkel surveys of 

regional index streams, 2004 and 2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries, Fisheries Data Series No. 08-

19, Anchorage, AK. 

Harding, R.D. 2008. Southeast Alaska steelhead and Dolly Varden management. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport and Commercial Fisheries, 

Fisheries Special Publication No. 08-21, Anchorage, AK. 

Harris, A.S. 1989. Wind in the forests of Southeast Alaska and guides for reducing 

damage. USDA Forest Service. PNW-GTR-244. July 1999. 

Hennon, P.E., Shaw, C.G., III. December 1997. What is killing these long-lived, defensive 

trees? Journal of Forestry 95 (12). 

Hooten, B. 2001. Facts and issues associated with restricting terminal gear types in the 

management of sustainable steelhead sport fisheries in British Columbia.

Ministry of Environment, Land, and Parks, Nanaimo, British Columbia. 

Kelly, B.P., T. Ainsworth, D.A. Boyce JR., E. Hood, P. Murphy, and J. Powell. 2007. 

Climate change, predicted impacts on Juneau, Scientific Panel on Climate 

Change, City and Borough of Juneau, Report to Mayor Bruce Botelho and the 

City and Borough of Juneau Assembly. April 2007. 

Kramer, M.G., Hansen, A.J., Tapper, M.L., and Kissinger, E.J. 2001. Abiotic controls on 

long-term windthrow disturbance and temperate rain forest dynamics in southeast 

Alaska. Ecology 82: 2749-2768. 

Kruse, J.A., Muth, R.M. 1990. Subsistence use of renewable resources by rural residents 

of Southeast Alaska. A final report prepared for the USDA Forest Service. 

Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 

4 References and Lists 16 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
Lewin, W-C., R. Arlinghaus, and T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and potential biological 

impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. 

Reviews in Fisheries Science 14: 305-367. 

Lohr, S.C. and M.D. Bryant. 1999. Biological characteristics and population status of 

steelhead (O. mykiss) in Southeast Alaska. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-407, Portland, OR. 

Marshall, S.L. 2001. Estimates of the incidental mortality of wild steelhead caught and 

released by Idaho anglers, and recommendations for establishing annual take 

limits under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Bureau of Fisheries, Boise, ID. 

Monz, Christopher A., et al. 2000. The Consequences of trampling disturbance in two 

vegetation types at the Wyoming Nature Conservancy’s Sweetwater River Project 

Area. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5: 153-159. 

Muoneke, M.I. and W.M. Childress. 1994. Hooking mortality: a review for recreational 

fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2(2):123-156. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Recovery plan for the humpback whale

(Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 105 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. The marine mammal 

protection act of 1972 as amended - as amended 2004. NOAA’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, Maryland. 108 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. National Marine Fisheries 

Service Alaska marine mammal viewing guidelines and regulations.

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/mmv/guide.htm (accessed 

3/30/2009). 

Nowacki G.J. and Kramer, M.G. 1998. The effects of wind disturbance on temperate rain 

forest structure and dynamics of southeast Alaska. In Conservation and Resource 

Assessments for the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. C.G. Shaw and 

K.J.R. Julin (eds). USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-421. 

Roovers, P., K. Verheyen, M. Hermy, and H.Gulinck. 2004. Experimental trampling and 

vegetation recovery in some forest and heathland communities. Applied 

Vegetation Science 7: 111-118. 

Savage, C. 2008. Record of Petersburg District Ranger’s conversation with Jimmie 

Rosenbruch, Dale Adams, and Brad Dennison regarding the Petersburg Outfitter 

and Guide Scoping Letter and Proposed Recreation Visitor Days. December 9, 

2008. 

Stuby, L. 2002. An investigation of how catch-and-release mortality of coho salmon in 

the Unalakleet River varies with distance from Norton Sound. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Fisheries Data Series No. 02-26, 

Anchorage. 

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 17
Taylor, M.J., and K.R. White. 1992. A meta-analysis of hooking mortality of 

nonanadromous trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:760-

767. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. 1986 ROS Book, unpublished report, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992, revised 2004. Channel type user guide: Tongass National 

Forest, Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Technical Paper 

R10-TP-26, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Management 

Bulletin R10-MB-346, Stikine Area, AK. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Second amended Programmatic Agreement among the 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the 

Heritage Resource Management of National Forests in the State of Alaska. 

Agreement # 02MU-111001-076. Manuscript on file, USDA Forest Service, 

Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Supervisor's Office, Petersburg, AK. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Determination of Need for commercial services within 

wilderness areas on the Tongass National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Ketchikan, AK. October 12, 2007. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska – 2006. A Forest 

Health Protection Report. R10-PR-11. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 

Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. Tongass 

National Forest. R10-MB-603b. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment. Tongass National Forest. 

R10-MB-603c. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement 08-MU-1113-

2400-264. 13 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Petersburg Ranger District Access and Travel 

Management Plan Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest, Petersburg, AK. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Petersburg Ranger District Access and Travel 

Management Plan Environmental Assessment Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg, 

AK. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Petersburg Ranger District, Recreation Use Carrying 

Capacity Report, unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest, Petersburg, AK. 

4 References and Lists 18 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Memorandum of Understanding between the 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Alaska Region. 6pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Advisory: Recommended time periods for 

avoiding vegetation clearing in Alaska in order to protect migratory birds. 2 pp. 

Viking Travel. 2009. Estimate of cruise ship passengers arriving in Petersburg in 2009, 

unpublished report, Petersburg, Alaska. 

Vincent-Lang, D., M. Alexandersdottir, and D. McBride. 1993. Mortality of coho salmon 

caught and released using sport tackle in the Little Susitna River, Alaska.

Fisheries Research 15:339-356. 

Webster, J.D. 1950. Notes on the birds of Wrangell and vicinity, Southeastern Alaska. 

The Condor 52: 32-38. 

Coho salmon, Tongass National Forest. Photograph by Ashley Atkinson.

References and Lists 4

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA Chapter 4 - 19
Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Tongass National Forest. Photograph by Ashley Atkinson. 

4 References and Lists 20 - Chapter 4 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA
APPENDIX A 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report 

Recreation Use Carrying 

Capacity Report 

Petersburg Ranger District US Department of 

Agriculture 

Tongass National 

Forest 

Petersburg Ranger 

District 

December 2009 

Table of Contents_________________________________ 

Part I - Calculating Recreation Use Carrying Capacity 

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

Existing Direction and Guidance ...................................................................................1 

Process Used to Determine Recreation Use Capacity ...................................................2 

Map of Study Area .........................................................................................................9 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Calculations ..........................................................10 

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................48 

Part II - Existing Condition Narratives and Study Area Maps 

Study Area 1 - Mitkof Island .........................................................................................1 

Study Area 2 - Duncan Canal - West Side .....................................................................7 

Study Area 4 - Duncan Canal - East Side ....................................................................11 

Study Area 5 - Wrangell Narrows/Woewodski Island ................................................15 

Study Area 6 - Kupreanof Island – North Shore ..........................................................19 

Study Area 7 - Petersburg Creek/Duncan Salt Chuck .................................................23 

Study Area 8 - North Lindenberg Peninsula ................................................................27 

Study Area 9 - Central Kupreanof Island/Road System ..............................................31 

Study Area 10 - Southwest Kupreanof Island ..............................................................35 

Study Area 11 - Rowan Bay/Bay of Pillars .................................................................39 

Study Area 12 - Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays .................................................43 

Study Area 12B - Kuiu Island Road System ...............................................................47 

Study Area 13 - Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu Wilderness ........................................................51 

Study Area 14 - Keku Strait/Port Camden ...................................................................55 

Study Area 15 - South Kuiu Island ..............................................................................59 

Study Area 16 - Reid/No Name Bays ..........................................................................63 

Study Area 21 - Muddy River Area .............................................................................67 

Study Area 22 - Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput .............................................................71 

Study Area 23 - Farragut Bay/Cape Fanshaw ..............................................................75 

Study Area 24 - Baird/Patterson Glaciers ....................................................................79 

Part III - ROS Class Study Area Maps 
Kah Sheets Lake, Petersburg Ranger District. Photograph by Jeff Robinson.
Part I

Calculating Recreation Use Carrying Capacity 
 

Low tide at Big John Creek, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District. Photograph by Heath 

Whitacre. 
Introduction______________________________________

The Petersburg Ranger District (PRD), Tongass National Forest, conducted an analysis to 

determine the recreation carrying capacity for the district. The purpose of this document 

is to provide a management tool and rationale to guide decision-making for allocating 

outfitter and guide use. The information in this report will allow managers to 

accommodate a growing outfitter and guide industry while maintaining integrity of the 

resources to the benefit of all users. 

This report was first completed in August 1996 and presented to the public as an 

Appendix to the Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment (EA) 

(November 1996). Many comments to the 1996 EA provided information about how the 

public uses the Tongass National Forest. In 1997, the PRD updated the EA to incorporate 

those comments. 

In 2004 a review of the Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide EA was completed. As a part of 

that process minor revisions to the Petersburg Ranger District recreation carrying 

capacity were made. 

In 2009, the district reviewed and revised the 1997 Stikine Area Recreation Carrying 

Capacity Report and the 2004 update. During this process all but three study area 

boundaries on the PRD were changed. These changes were an effort to group similar 

recreation uses within a study area. The boundary changes were also a result of new 

information and use data from the last five years. Boundary changes were also made to 

the recreation places which fall within the study areas. These changes were due to land 

status changes, a re-evaluation of recreation attractors, new information, and historical 

use data. As a result, there are 70,976 fewer recreation place acres than in the 2004 

update. 

This report replaces the PRD portion of all the previous Stikine Area recreation carrying 

capacity reports. It includes all National Forest System (NFS) lands managed by the 

PRD. Non-NFS lands (state, Native and private), however, were taken into account when 

determining the carrying capacity of adjacent NFS land. 

Why Do an Allocation Process? 

It is the goal of the Tongass National Forest to provide a range of recreation opportunities 

consistent with public demand, emphasizing locally popular recreation places and those 

important to the tourism industry. This analysis, or allocation process, allows the PRD to 

manage its recreation use in accordance with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) (USDA 2008, Appendix I) and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA 

2008, pp. 4-45 to 4-49). ROS helps identify, quantify, and describe the type of recreation 

settings the district provides. 

Existing Direction and Guidance____________________ 

The Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2008) provides Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines for the management of Recreation and Tourism as it relates to 

the ROS system and the Tongass National Forest Recreation Places Inventory. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 1
Process Used to Determine Recreation Use Capacity___ 

In order to determine the recreation capacity for the district, the existing condition and 

recreation carrying capacity for each recreation place were assessed. This process is 

described in detail below. 

A. Existing Conditions 

To determine existing conditions and calculate recreation carrying capacity for this 

analysis both the ROS1 and recreation place2 databases were reviewed and updated in the 

Geographic Information System (GIS). With updated GIS layers, maps from the 1997 

Stikine Area Tongass National Forest Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report were recreated with editorial modifications suggested by team members. The biggest change is, 

as previously mentioned; all but three study area boundaries were changed. Study area 

maps showing recreation places are located with the existing condition cards in Part II. 

Recreation carrying capacity is dynamic. Changes in the landscape (existing condition) 

lead to changes in capacities. For instance, the construction of new roads, trails or other 

facilities change the capability of the land to attract and absorb higher numbers of people 

and may change the expectation of the recreation visitors. If new activities become 

prevalent, such as snowboarding or mountain biking, they can also change the recreation 

picture of recreation places and study areas. This is reflected by a modification in the 

ROS classification and/or by the creation of new recreation places. 

This recreation carrying capacity analysis looks at the existing recreation capacity of the 

PRD. Recreation carrying capacities will continue to be revisited through future carrying 

capacity reports to determine whether they still represent existing conditions. 

B. Recreation Use Carrying Capacity

Recreation carrying capacity is defined as “...a measure, by Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum class, of the maximum number of people who can obtain given kinds of 

recreation experiences at an established standard on the Forest within the constraints of 

the resource capability. Capacity indicates the maximum recreation opportunity supply” 

(USFS 1986, p. IV-21). In other words, carrying capacity determines the number of users 

that can be accommodated, in a given area, without a loss in the quality of the natural 

environment or the recreation experience. 

The Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan EA and Decision Notice will 

accomplish implementation and effectiveness monitoring through the administration of 

special use permits that are issued as a result of that decision. The district will use the 

results of the monitoring set forth in the EA/DN to manage its recreation use. 

The administration of special use permits helps determine any necessary future 

adjustments in the carrying capacity calculations. Since actual use by commercial 

 

1

 The ROS system is a planning tool used by recreation managers to stratify and define classes of outdoor 

recreation environments. It portrays the combination of activities, settings, and experience expectations 

along a continuum that ranges from highly modified to primitive environments (2008 Forest Plan, 

Appendix I). 

2

 Recreation places are areas that are generally easy to access and include a recreation attractor, such as a 

trail, a lake, or a popular fishing stream. 

2 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
outfitters and guides is recorded annually by study area, it is used to track use trends 

across the district. Also through the permit process, the Forest Service Special Use 

Administrator receives comments from commercial users regarding user conflicts and 

public use of the area. These comments also help with future Recreation Visitor Day 

(RVD) allocation recommendations. 

The method used to calculate recreation carrying capacity is guided by the ROS Book3

(USFS 1986, p. IV-21 and 2008 Forest Plan (Appendix I)). There are two ways to view 

or interpret the capacity concept – “maximum theoretical” or “practical maximum.” This 

report uses the “practical maximum” concept, which represents a more realistic 

maximum capacity because it takes into account factors such as usable versus unusable 

acres, weekend versus weekday use, and season of use. 

For this report, recreation carrying capacity is analyzed by recreation place, rather than 

study area, in an effort to primarily include usable acres and the actual footprint of the 

activity. Scenic landscape is excluded as criteria in boundary location. For example, 

Study Area 6 (Kupreanof Island - North Shore) consists of six recreation places – Big 

Creek (upland), Big Creek (shoreline), Schooner Island Anchorage, Turnabout Island, 

Tongass Camp (shore), and Tongass Camp (upland) – which collectively totals 1,478 

acres, or approximately 13 percent of the total area of Study Area 6. If we didn’t narrow 

the analysis down to recreation place(s), the total capacity figure would be very large, 

well above the level of crowding generally expected for Southeast Alaska. 

Recreation carrying capacity is affected by both social and physical factors (i.e., 

expectation for solitude, landtypes, vegetation) and is a function of how these factors 

interact to absorb, or screen the sights and sounds of human activity, and absorb physical 

use (ROS Book, p. 36). Physical and environmental factors were considered but were not 

found to be the critical limiting factors. The current analysis is affected primarily by 

social factors due to the district’s conservative approach to account for the “Alaska 

Experience” many visitors expect. 

The following 11 variables were used to calculate recreation carrying capacity. See Table 

A for a summary of the RVD calculations by study area and Table B for detailed study 

area and recreation area calculations. 

1) Study Areas 

 The 1997 Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Analysis divided the analysis area 

into manageable units identified as study areas. The PRD was divided into 28 

study areas. Study area boundaries were determined by using a combination of the 

1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Value Comparison Units 

(VCUs)4

, ROS classes, and Watershed Analysis Areas to help group areas with 

similar environmental and social characteristics. 

 

3

 The 1986 ROS Book was created to gather a variety of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum material into 

one document, share ideas and concepts, provide Land Management Plan and ROS coordination and update 

the ROS system. The ROS Book is not a decision or policy document. 

4

 VCUs were first developed for the 1979 Tongass Land Management Plan as distinct geographic areas that 

generally encompass a drainage basin containing one or more large stream systems. Boundaries usually 

follow easily recognizable watershed divides. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 3

Part I - Appendix A
The 2009 Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Analysis modified the boundaries of 

all but three (10, 13, and 15) of the original study areas on the PRD. Now the PRD 

is divided into 20 numbered study areas. The main purpose of the boundary 

modification was to better differentiate water-based and road-based recreation 

use. Another goal of the modification was to include road systems into a single 

study area. For example, the Kuiu Island road system was previously in five study 

areas. That road system is now within one. In some instances study area 

boundaries were modified to better coincide with ROS and recreation place 

boundaries. It is expected that the modifications will result in more efficient 

management of outfitter/guide use for both road and water-based activities. 

 A Forest-wide Outfitter and Guide Actual Use Database tracks actual use data 

submitted by permitted commercial operators. The actual use from 2004-2008 is 

included in the Existing Conditions cards developed for each study area (Part II). 

The cards include study area descriptions, non-NFS lands, recreation uses, brief 

descriptions of each recreation place, resource considerations, and actual use by 

outfitters and guides. The Existing Condition cards also document recreation uses, 

especially as it relates to day-use versus overnight-use and its influence on Length 

of Stay (LOS). 

2) Recreation Places 

 As mentioned previously, each study area consists of both recreation places and 

general forest. Recreation places include a recreation attractor, such as a trail, a 

lake, a dispersed campsite, or a popular fishing stream. Recreation places provide 

a basis to make the capacity a “practical maximum” by recognizing recreation use 

in significant numbers does not take place on every acre of the forest. Instead it 

takes place in primary locations that have key recreation attractors. For this report, 

“general forest” is any area outside of a recreation place. 

 All Forest Development Roads classified as “open” in the 2009 Petersburg 

Ranger District Access Travel Management Plan were included in the carrying 

capacity analysis as recreation places. The extent of the recreation place for these 

roads was 300 feet on either side of the road centerline, for a total recreation place 

corridor that is 600 feet wide. 

3) Acres 

 Total acres reported for each study area only include acres that fall within a 

recreation place. For example, study area 6 consists of 11,170 total acres within 

its boundary, but the total recreation place acres equals 1,478 (Big Creek upland = 

209 acres; Big Creek shoreline = 288 acres; Schooner Island Anchorage = 90 

acres; Turnabout Island = 177 acres; Tongass Camp shore = 433 acres; and 

Tongass Camp upland = 281 acres). Recreation place acreage was determined 

using GIS. No private or other non-NFS lands were included in the acre 

calculations. 

 Water acres in recreation places that include a lake less than 100 acres were

included in total recreation place acres. Water acres in recreation places with 

lakes over 100 acres were not included in the total recreation place acres. 

4 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
4) ROS Capacity Coefficient 

 ROS capacity coefficient was determined using the inventoried ROS class and 

capacity coefficient ranges shown in Table 8 of the ROS Book (1986). For each 

ROS class there is a range of coefficients that may be applied to a recreation 

place. For example: the coefficient for the Primitive ROS class ranges from 0.002 

to 0.025. The general strategy was to apply the lower or more conservative 

coefficient to provide for a more primitive type of experience (the “Alaska 

Experience”) most visitors expect. However, the district applied variations of that 

strategy. For example, higher ROS values were sometimes used for recreation 

places that have recreation cabin use, which results in a higher capacity. Other 

examples of where higher ROS values were used are in recreation places that 

have a high number of contacts between recreation users and where users expect 

other people at the site. Professional judgment and knowledge of public use 

patterns were the basis for these changes. These exceptions are identified in Table 

C. 

5) Persons at One Time (PAOT) 

 PAOT was calculated by multiplying recreation place acres by the ROS capacity 

coefficient. For example, Study Area 5, Whiskey Pass recreation place is 909 

acres and in ROS class Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). We used a ROS 

coefficient of 0.008, which represents the low end for that ROS class. Thus: 

PAOT = (recreation place acres) x (ROS coefficient) 

or 

PAOT = (909 x 0.008) or 7.272 (rounded to 7.0) 

 In other words, the maximum number of forest users allocated to this recreation 

place at one time is 7. 

 In instances where a Forest Service recreation cabin is located within a recreation 

place, and the PAOT for the recreation place was calculated to be less that the 

design capacity of the cabin, the PAOT was revised to equal the design capacity 

of the cabin. These exceptions are identified in Table C. 

 In some instances the calculated PAOT was revised to a lower value for roads that 

are identified as recreation places. This occurred when professional judgment 

indicated that visitors would expect to see few other users on the more remote 

road systems. These instances are identified in Table C. 

6) Managed Season of Use 

 Managed Season of Use (MS) is the period of time a recreation place is primarily 

used. The general recreation season for PRD is May to September, or 

approximately 150 days. In some instances the season varied, depending on the 

existing recreation use in each recreation place (i.e., MS for most of the road 

system recreation places on Mitkof Island = 180 days). 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 5

Part I - Appendix A
7) Pattern of Use 

 Pattern of Use (PU) is the relationship between the average weekend and weekday 

use of recreation places. It recognizes there can be a difference in the amount of 

use for these periods (i.e., more local people generally recreate on weekends). 

 Pattern of Use ranges from 0.65 (ratio of 1:2 - weekday to weekend use) to 1.00 

(ratio of 1:1 - weekday to weekend use). PU for the Kah Sheets Trail recreation 

place is 0.80. 

8) Length of Stay 

 Length of Stay (LOS) is intended to represent the amount of time (in hours) a 

recreation place is available for use per day (not the average amount of time a 

user occupies a site). The LOS varies depending on the activity and the attractor. 

 Some recreation places include recreation attractors in addition to the overnight 

site/facility. These places tend to have a higher LOS (up to 24 hours) since the 

user may take part in an activity within that recreation place during day light 

hours. Conversely, when the only attractor is the overnight site or facility, the 

LOS tends to be smaller. 

 When a recreation place has existing day use and overnight use, we calculated 

each use separately, and then added them together. We based potential for 

overnight use upon whether the recreation place has overnight facilities, camp 

sites, and current camping use (i.e., for Kah Sheets Lake day LOS = 4; overnight 

LOS = 24). 

 Overnight use is not included when the use is only related to cabins and tent 

platforms authorized by Special Use Permits. These capacities were not included 

in the total because these facilities are not used by outfitters and guides. 

9) Gross Recreation Visitor Days 

 The gross RVD5 number reflects the total public “practical maximum” carrying 

capacity, excluding off-season use. It includes the unguided public and the clients 

of outfitters and guides. 

 To calculate the gross RVDs for the proposed action, we used the following 

equation: 

RVD = (PAOT) x (MS) x (PU) x (LOS)

 12 

Where: 

 PAOT = (recreation place acres) x (ROS coefficient); 

 MS = Managed season of use, in days; 

 

5 One RVD is equal to 12 hours of recreation use on National Forest System lands or water by an outfitted 

or guided client(s). One RVD may be one client for 12 hours, 12 clients for one hour, or any combination 

that equals 12 hours of use on National Forest System lands. 

6 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
 PU = Pattern of use, or the relationship between the average 

weekend use and average weekday use of sites and/or areas; 

 LOS = Average length of time the area or site is occupied, in 

hours; 

 12 is the constant for 12 hrs or one RVD; 

 If we continue with our example of Study Area 2, recreation place Kah Sheets 

Lake: 

Gross day RVDs = (13.88) x (150) x (0.65) x (4)

 12 

Gross day RVDs = 451 (rounded) 

Gross night RVDs = (13.88) x (150) x (0.65) x (24)

 12 

Gross night RVDs = 2,707 (rounded) 

Gross total RVDs = 451 + 2707 = 3,158 (rounded) 

10) Cabin Capacity 

 The Forest Service recreation cabins on the PRD are available for outfitters and 

guides to use in their operations on a limited basis. Direction given by the Deputy 

District Ranger (USDA 2006) identifies: each cabin and the corresponding time 

periods and number of days the cabins are available for commercial use. 

 The Cabin Capacity RVDs, as used in Table B (Capacity Calculations by 

Recreation Place) is the number of RVDs that cabins are not available for 

commercial use, as directed by the above-referenced letter (USDA 2006). Those 

RVDs were subtracted from the gross RVDs and are not included in the net RVDs 

(i.e., there are 990 Cabin Capacity RVDs not available for commercial use for the 

Kah Sheets Lake recreation place). 

11) Net Recreation Visitor Days 

 Using the Kah Sheets Lake recreation place in Study Area 2 as an example, net 

RVDs (2,168) were calculated by subtracting Cabin Capacity RVDs (990) from 

gross RVDs (3,158). Refer to Table A for net RVDs by study area and Table B 

for net RVDs by recreation place. 

 The calculated net RVDs in Table B are the recreation carrying capacity available 

for further analysis in the 2009 Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

EA. For example in the 1997 Decision Notice, outfitters and guides were 

allocated 10 percent of the net RVDs in the Kah Sheets Lake recreation place 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 7

Part I - Appendix A
since it is within an identified home range6

 (2,168 x 10 percent = 217 RVDs 

available for commercial use). Alternatives will be developed and analyzed in the 

2009 EA which will help the Decision Maker determine how to allocate capacity 

to outfitters and guides. 

C. Findings 

There is opportunity for growth of the recreation and tourism industry on the Petersburg 

Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, based on the following assumptions: 

 funding for maintenance and reconstruction of recreation facilities will allow for 

maintenance at an acceptable level for the health and safety of the public; 

 the public will continue to learn about Leave No Trace practices to lessen their 

impacts; 

 fish and wildlife populations will remain healthy; 

 and the PRD will have adequate funding to monitor and administer outfitter and 

guide activities. 

Actual use by commercial outfitters and guides is recorded annually by study area. These 

numbers also show that there is opportunity for growth in the recreation and tourism 

industry due to low actual commercial use in all study areas. Actual commercial use is 

less than 10 percent of the net RVDs available for the managed season of use for all study 

areas. The three study areas with the highest documented commercial actual use are 

Study Area 6 (Kupreanof Island – North Shore), Study Area 15 (South Kuiu Island) and 

Study Area 12A (Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays) with 8.1, 5.4 and 4.1, respectively, 

percent usage of the net RVDs. 

There are two study areas that have experienced conflicts between user groups (12A – 

Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays and 14 – Keku Strait/Port Camden) even though 

actual use is 4.1 and 2.4 percent of the net RVDs available for the managed season of use. 

These conflicts are attributed to black bear guiding activities being directly affected by 

the presence of other user groups. Bear hunting occurs mainly along the shoreline and up 

streams, and any disturbance, whether from large or small groups, can be unfavorable. 

Concerns from black bear guides will likely prompt the development of an alternative 

that reduces the number of RVDs available for commercial use in these study areas. 

Periodically revisiting the calculations in Table B will be necessary to adjust for 

unforeseen circumstances and changes in recreation use carrying capacity. 

 

6

 The district allocates outfitter and guides 10 percent of the recreation place capacity when the recreation 

place is within an identified home range and 25 percent of the recreation place capacity when the recreation 

place is outside of an identified home range. 

8 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/fig_1.mxd M.P. 5/26/09

Study Area Boundary

Water

Petersburg Ranger District

Study Areas

Figure 1

24

PETERSBURG CREEK/

DUNCAN SALT CHUCK

PRINCE

OF WALES ISLAND

KUIU

ISLAND

KUPREANOF

ISLAND

MITKOF

ISLAND

WRANGELL

TEBENKOF

BAY

WOEWODSKI

IS.

12A

8

9

12B

23

1

24

22

21

6

10

11

13

16

14

2

4

7

5

PETERSBURG

FREDERICK SOUND

SUMNER

STRAIT

15

ZAREMBO

ISLAND WRANGELL

IS.

SOUTHEAST ALASKA VICINITY MAP

PROJECT AREA SHOWN IN GRAY

Petersburg

Ketchikan

Juneau

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 9

Part I - Appendix A
Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Calculations________

Introduction to Tables 

Table A provides a summary of the net Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) by study area on 

the Petersburg Ranger District as calculated using direction from the ROS Book, Chapter 

4, p. 23 (USDA 1986). Also included are the average actual use numbers by outfitters and 

guides from 2004 through 2008 and a list of the primary commercial uses within each 

study area. Table B provides a display of the numbers used for the recreation carrying 

capacity calculations. Table C provides an explanation of special circumstances for the 

recreation carrying capacity calculations and the adjustments by recreation place that 

influence a study area’s total net RVDs. 

Raven’s Roost recreation cabin on Mitkof Island near Petersburg, Alaska. Photograph by Marina 

Whitacre.

10 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Table A. A summary of the net Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) by study area on the 

Petersburg Ranger District as calculated using direction from the 1986 ROS Book 

(Chapter 4, p. 23). Also included are the average actual use numbers by outfitters and 

guides from 2004 through 2008 and a list of the primary commercial uses within each 

study area. 

Study 

Area 

Net Recreation 

Visitor Days 

(RVDs) for 

Managed Season 

of Use 

Average 

Actual Use 

by Outfitters 

and Guides 

from 2004-

2008 

Primary Commercial 

Uses7

1 

Mitkof Island 127,806 429 

Sightseeing, hiking 

swimming, picnicking, 

fishing, camping, black 

bear hunting 

2 

Duncan Canal – West Side 10,349 66 

Sightseeing, hiking, 

fishing, camping, black 

bear hunting 

4 

Duncan Canal – East Side 4,989 0 None 

5 

Wrangell Narrows/Woewodski 

Island

17,466 31 Hiking, sightseeing, 

camping 

6 

Kupreanof Island – North 

Shore

4,484 363 

Hiking, sightseeing, 

camping, black bear 

hunting 

7 

Petersburg Creek/Duncan 

Salt Chuck

12,634 228 Fishing, hiking , 

sightseeing, black bear 

hunting 

8 

North Lindenberg Peninsula 12,220 207 Fishing, camping, hiking, 

sightseeing, black bear 

and deer hunting 

9 

Central Kupreanof 

Island/Road System

34,621 8 Camping 

10 

Southwest Kupreanof Island 12,302 384 Camping, black bear 

hunting, sightseeing 

 

7

 For more detailed use descriptions for each study area, see the Existing Condition Cards in Part II of this 

document. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 11 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Net Recreation 

Visitor Days 

(RVDs) for 

Managed Season 

of Use 

Average 

Actual Use 

by Outfitters 

and Guides 

from 2004-

2008 

Primary Commercial 

Uses7

11 

Rowan Bay/Bay of Pillars 4,996 132 

Camping, hunting (black 

bear, deer, wolf), 

sightseeing, fishing 

12A 

Saginaw/Security/Washington 

Bays

11,982 494 

Camping, hunting (black 

bear, deer, wolf), 

sightseeing, fishing 

12B 

Kuiu Island Road System 21,247 162 

Camping, hunting (black 

bear, wolf), sightseeing, 

fishing 

13 

Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu 

Wilderness

11,573 426 

Camping, hunting (black 

bear, wolf), sightseeing, 

fishing 

14 

Keku Strait/Port Camden 15,621 371 

Camping, hunting (black 

bear, deer), sightseeing, 

fishing 

15 

South Kuiu Island 5,064 272 Camping, hunting (black 

bear, wolf), sightseeing 

16 

Reid/No Name Bays 11,190 143 Camping, black bear 

hunting, sightseeing 

21 

Muddy River Area 12,944 212 

Camping, hunting (deer, 

mountain goat, wolf, 

black bear), guided 

trapping, outfitting 

kayaks, sightseeing 

22 

Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput 12,149 282 

Camping, hunting (deer, 

mountain goat, wolf, 

black bear), guided 

trapping, outfitting 

kayaks, sightseeing, 

fishing 

23 

Farragut Bay/Cape Fanshaw 4,802 32 

Camping, hunting 

(mountain goat, black 

bear, wolf), outfitting 

kayaks, sightseeing, 

fishing 

24 

Baird/Patterson Glaciers 1,630 15 Helicopter landing tours, 

mountain goat hunting 

Total 350,071 4,257 

12 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Table B. Capacity calculations by Recreation Place. 

Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

1 December Cove 21003.00 46 RN 0.083 3.8 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 246 0 0.10 246 1 Blind Slough 21004.00 3,660 RN 0.083 267.0 150 0.65 12.0 16.0 60,743 0 0.10 60,743 1 South Blind Slough 21004.02 209 RM 0.083 17.4 150 0.65 12.0 0.0 1,695 0 0.10 1,695 1 Snake Ridge 21006.01 136 RM 0.083 11.3 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 731 0 0.10 731 1 Crystal Mt. 21006.02 1,346 SPNM 0.008 10.8 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 700 0 0.10 700 1 3 Lakes Trail Head 21007.01 238 RN 0.083 19.7 150 0.65 12.0 0.0 1,922 0 0.10 1,922 1 

3 Lakes 

Recreation 

Area 

21007.08 1,381 SPNM 0.016 22.1 150 0.65 12.0 0.0 2,154 0 0.10 2,154 

1 Ideal Cove (northwest) 21007.09 403 SPM 0.008 3.2 150 0.80 10.0 0.0 322 0 0.10 322 1 

Twin Creek 

Recreation 

Area 

21012.00 2,899 RM 0.083 50.0 150 0.65 12.0 0.0 4,875 0 0.10 4,875 

1 

Ravens 

Roost 

Cabin 

21012.01 139 SPNM 0.008 6.0 150 0.65 8.0 20.0 1,365 900 0.10 465 

1 

Pt. 

Alexander 

(1 mile 

east) 

21209.00 21 RN 0.083 1.7 150 0.65 0.0 16.0 225 0 0.10 225 

1 Road 6246 21210.00 270 RM 0.083 22.4 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 2,620 0 0.10 2,620 1 Road 6280 21211.00 101 RM 0.083 8.4 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 982 0 0.10 982 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 13 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

1 Road 6281 21212.00 244 RM 0.083 20.3 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 2,374 0 0.10 2,374 1 Road 6282 21213.00 334 RM 0.083 27.7 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 3,239 0 0.10 3,239 1 Roads 6245, 6286 21215.00 692 RM/RN 0.083 57.5 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 6,723 0 0.10 6,723 1 Road 6233 21218.00 9 RM 0.083 0.7 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 87 0 0.10 87 1 Road 6224 21219.00 27 RM 0.083 2.3 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 264 0 0.10 264 1 Road 6222 21220.00 57 RM 0.083 4.7 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 551 0 0.10 551 1 Road 6221 21221.00 135 RM 0.083 11.2 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 1,315 0 0.10 1,315 1 Road 6220 21222.00 57 RM 0.083 4.8 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 557 0 0.10 557 1 Roads (several) 21224.00 3,223 RM/RN 0.083 267.5 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 31,301 0 0.10 31,301 1 Road 6235 21225.00 56 RM 0.083 4.6 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 540 0 0.10 540 1 Road 6205 21235.00 80 RM 0.083 6.6 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 772 0 0.10 772 1 Road 6206 21236.00 80 RM 0.083 6.6 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 778 0 0.10 778 1 Road 6207 21237.00 132 RM 0.083 11.0 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 1,282 0 0.10 1,282 1 Blind Slough LTF 21238.00 7 RN 0.083 0.6 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 71 0 0.10 71 1 Road 6204 21239.00 28 RN 0.083 2.3 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 272 0 0.10 272 

Totals 16,009 127,806 

2 Towers Arm 21039.00 136 SPM 0.008 4.0 150 0.65 8.0 24.0 1,040 600 0.25 440 2 

Castle 

River 

(upper) 

21042.00 265 SPNM 0.008 2.1 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 169 0 0.10 169 

14 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

2 

Castle 

River 

(mouth) 

21042.01 1,248 SPM 0.008 10.0 150 0.80 8.0 24.0 3,194 1,980 0.10 1,214 

2 

Castle 

Islands 

(north) 

21043.00 252 SPM 0.083 20.9 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 1,361 0 0.10 1,361 

2 

Castle 

Islands 

(south) 

21043.01 24 RM 0.083 2.0 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 127 0 0.10 127 

2 Kah Sheets Bay 21045.00 955 RM 0.010 9.6 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 2,293 792 0.10 1,501 2 Kah Sheets Trail 21045.01 350 SPNM 0.008 2.8 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 224 0 0.10 224 2 Kah Sheets Lake 21045.02 694 SPM 0.020 13.9 150 0.65 4.0 24.0 3,158 990 0.10 2,168 2 

Kah Sheets 

Bay 

(northeast) 

21046.00 211 SPM 0.083 17.5 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 1,137 0 0.10 1,137 

2 Level Island 21067.00 205 RM 0.083 17.0 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 1,108 0 0.10 1,108 2 Breiland Slough 21196.00 132 SPM 0.083 11.0 150 0.65 8.0 16.0 2,139 1,380 0.10 759 2 Indian Point 21197.00 26 SPM 0.083 2.2 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 142 0 0.25 142 

Totals 4,498 10,349 

4 Mitchell Slough 21047.00 212 SPM 0.016 3.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 271 0 0.10 271 4 Ohmer Slough 21054.01 497 RM 0.016 7.9 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 636 0 0.10 636 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 15 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

4 

Tonka 

Road 

System 

21201.00 3,536 RM 0.083 40.0 180 0.65 10.0 0.0 3,900 0 0.10 3,900 

4 

Ohmer 

Slough 

(north) 

21202.00 142 SPM 0.016 2.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 181 0 0.10 181 

Totals 4,386 4,989 

5 Alexander Cove 21002.00 326 RN 0.083 27.1 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 1,760 0 0.10 1,760 5 Green Rocks 21049.00 240 RN 0.083 19.9 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 1,990 0 0.10 1,990 5 

Green 

Rocks Lake 

and Trail 

21049.01 130 SPNM 0.083 10.8 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 1,075 0 0.10 1,075 

5 

Green 

Rocks Lake 

Trail 

21049.02 80 SPM 0.083 6.7 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 667 0 0.10 667 

5 Beecher Pass 21126.00 626 RN 0.083 20.0 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 6,000 824 0.10 5,176 5 Whiskey Pass 21127.00 909 SPM 0.008 7.3 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 473 0 0.10 473 5 

Harvey 

Lake Trail 

Head 

21128.00 109 RN 0.083 9.1 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 589 0 0.10 589 

5 Harvey Lake 21128.01 830 SPM 0.020 16.6 150 1.00 8.0 24.0 6,637 900 0.10 5,737 

Totals 3,250 17,466 

16 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

6 Big Creek (upland) 21056.00 209 SPNM 0.016 3.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 267 0 0.10 267 6 Big Creek (shoreline) 21056.01 288 SPM 0.016 4.6 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 1,106 0 0.10 1,106 6 

Schooner 

Island 

Anchorage 

21064.00 90 SPM 0.008 0.7 150 0.65 8.0 16.0 141 0 0.10 141 

6 Turnabout Island 21070.00 177 SPM 0.008 1.4 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 92 0 0.10 92 6 

Tongass 

Camp 

(shore) 

21157.00 433 SPM 0.030 13.0 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 2,597 0 0.10 2,597 

6 

Tongass 

Camp 

(upland) 

21157.01 281 SPNM 0.008 2.2 150 1.00 10.0 0.0 281 0 0.10 281 

Totals 1,478 4,484 

7 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21054.00 320 SPNM 0.008 2.6 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 166 0 0.10 166 7 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21054.04 202 P 0.002 0.4 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 26 0 0.10 26 7 

Petersburg 

Lake and 

Trail 

21054.05 1,030 SPM 0.010 10.3 150 0.65 8.0 18.0 2,175 1,200 0.10 975 

7 

Petersburg 

Lake & Mt. 

Trail Head 

21054.07 78 R 0.830 65.1 150 0.65 10.0 0.0 5,286 0 0.10 5,286 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 17 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

7 

Lower 

Petersburg 

Lake Trail 

21054.12 867 SPM 0.016 13.9 150 0.80 10.0 0.0 1,388 0 0.10 1,388 

7 Salt Chuck 21054.13 1,553 SPM 0.008 12.4 150 0.65 8.0 24.0 3,230 2,100 0.10 1,130 7 

Petersburg 

Mt. Trail 

(lower) 

21054.15 342 SPM 0.016 5.5 150 0.65 10.0 0.0 444 0 0.10 444 

7 

Petersburg 

Mt. Trail 

(upper) 

21054.16 89 P 0.016 1.4 150 0.65 10.0 0.0 115 0 0.10 115 

7 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21207.00 261 SPNM 0.008 2.1 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 136 0 0.10 136 7 

Petersburg 

Mt. Trail 

(bottom 

section) 

21240.00 44 R 0.830 36.5 150 0.65 10.0 0.0 2,967 0 0.10 2,967 

Totals 4,786 12,634 

8 

Fivemile 

Creek and 

lower trail 

21053.00 116 SPM 0.016 1.9 150 0.65 8.0 16.0 362 0 0.10 362 

8 

Colp Lake and upper 

trail 

21053.01 609 P 0.008 4.9 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 317 0 0.10 317 

8 Portage Bay (head) 21054.02 1016 RM 0.083 84.4 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 5,483 600 0.10 4,883 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21054.14 56 RM 0.083 4.7 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 304 0 0.10 304 8 Dry Cove 21055.00 720 SPM 0.008 5.8 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 375 0 0.25 375 

18 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

8 Todahl Anchorage 21077.00 78 RM 0.083 6.5 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 421 0 0.10 421 8 Twelvemile Creek 21080.00 206 SPM 0.008 1.6 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 107 0 0.10 107 8 West Point Cabin 21147.00 430 SPM 0.025 10.8 150 0.65 8.0 16.0 2,099 1,800 0.25 299 8 Portage Bay LTF 21148.00 60 RM 0.083 5.0 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 325 0 0.25 325 8 Sukoi Islands 21198.00 205 SPM 0.083 17.0 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 1,106 0 0.10 1,106 8 

Portage 

Bay Road 

System 

21199.00 2,914 RM 0.083 40.0 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 2,600 0 0.10 2,600 

8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.00 53 RM 0.083 4.4 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 284 0 0.10 284 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.01 96 RM 0.083 8.0 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 518 0 0.10 518 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.02 173 SPNM 0.008 1.4 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 90 0 0.10 90 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.03 41 RM 0.083 3.4 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 221 0 0.10 221 8 Stop Island 21242.00 18 SPM 0.008 0.1 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 9 0 0.25 9 

Totals 6,791 12,220 

9 Bohemia Lake 21050.01 649 SPNM 0.008 5.2 150 0.65 10.0 0.0 422 0 0.10 422 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 19 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

9 Towers Lake 21051.00 845 SPNM 0.008 6.8 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 440 0 0.25 440 9 

Big John 

Bay upland 

trail 

21062.06 30 RM 0.083 2.5 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 199 0 0.10 199 

9 Seal Point 21063.00 182 RM 0.083 15.1 180 0.65 12.0 0.0 1,771 0 0.10 1,771 9 Point Macartney 21069.00 27 RM 0.083 2.3 180 0.80 10.0 0.0 270 0 0.10 270 9 Hamilton Trail 21135.00 64 RM 0.083 5.3 180 0.80 12.0 0.0 768 0 0.10 768 9 Cathedral Falls Trail 21136.00 62 RM 0.083 5.2 180 0.80 12.0 0.0 744 0 0.10 744 9 Irish Lakes 21155.01 750 SPNM 0.008 6.0 180 0.80 10.0 0.0 720 0 0.10 720 9 Kake Road System 21204.00 5,039 RM 0.083 100.0 180 0.80 12.0 0.0 14,400 0 0.10 14,400 9 Kake Road System 21204.01 585 RN 0.083 48.6 180 0.80 12.0 0.0 6,997 0 0.10 6,997 9 Kake Road System 21204.02 346 RM 0.083 28.7 180 0.80 12.0 0.0 4,131 0 0.10 4,131 9 

Lakes 4 mi. 

north of 

Irish Lakes 

21205.00 341 SPNM 0.008 2.7 150 0.80 12.0 0.0 328 0 0.10 328 

9 

Lakes 4 mi. 

north of 

Irish Lakes 

21205.01 156 RM 0.083 13.0 150 0.80 12.0 0.0 1,556 0 0.10 1,556 

9 Irish Lakes 21206.00 141 RM 0.083 11.7 150 0.80 12.0 0.0 1,401 0 0.10 1,401 9 Goose Lake 21253.00 143 SPNM 0.008 1.1 150 0.80 12.0 0.0 137 0 0.10 137 

20 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

9 

Goose 

Lake 

trailhead 

21254.00 34 RM 0.083 2.8 150 0.80 12.0 0.0 339 0 0.10 339 

Totals 9,395 34,621 

10 Totem Bay 21037.00 796 SPM 0.008 6.4 150 0.65 8.0 16.0 1,242 0 0.10 1,242 10 Little Totem Bay 21037.01 947 RM 0.083 12.0 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 780 0 0.10 780 10 Totem Creek 21037.02 295 P 0.002 0.6 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 47 0 0.10 47 10 Totem Creek 21037.03 157 SPNM 0.008 1.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 100 0 0.10 100 10 Kushneahin Creek 21038.00 134 RM 0.083 11.2 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 2,679 0 0.10 2,679 10 Kushneahin Creek 21038.01 237 SPNM 0.008 1.9 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 152 0 0.10 152 10 Douglas Bay 21065.00 1,843 RM 0.083 20.0 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 1,600 0 0.25 1,600 10 

Moss 

Island 

Anchorage 

21066.00 165 RM 0.083 13.7 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 1,099 0 0.10 1,099 

10 Agate Beach 21146.00 519 RM 0.083 43.0 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 4,304 0 0.10 4,304 10 Rocky Pass (south) 21195.00 373 SPM 0.008 3.0 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 299 0 0.10 299 

Totals 5,467 12,302 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 21 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

11 

Bay of 

Pillars 

Shelter 

21074.00 97 SPM 0.016 1.6 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 466 0 0.25 466 

11 Kutlaku 21074.09 90 SPM 0.083 7.4 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 745 0 0.10 745 11 Kutlaku Lake 21074.10 138 P 0.002 0.3 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 28 0 0.10 28 11 

Rowan 

Bay, south 

side 

anchorage 

21075.00 264 RM 0.083 21.9 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 2,192 0 0.25 2,192 

11 Rowan Bay (head) 21076.00 704 SPM 0.016 11.3 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 1,127 0 0.10 1,127 11 

Bay of 

Pillars 

Outside 

21144.00 187 SPM 0.008 1.5 150 1.00 0.0 18.0 337 0 0.25 337 

11 

Bay of 

Pillars 

Anchorage 

21145.00 128 SPM 0.008 1.0 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 102 0 0.25 102 

Totals 1,608 4,996 

12A 

Halleck 

Harbor 

(south) 

21090.00 258 RM 0.083 21.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 1,716 0 0.10 1,716 

12A 

Halleck 

Harbor 

(north) 

21090.01 170 SPM 0.008 1.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 109 0 0.10 109 

12A 

Halleck 

Harbor, 

cove SE 

21090.02 51 SPM 0.008 0.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 33 0 0.10 33 

22 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

12A Saginaw Bay (head) 21092.00 885 RM 0.083 73.4 150 0.80 10.0 0.0 7,344 0 0.10 7,344 12A Security Bay (head) 21094.00 523 SPM 0.008 4.2 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 335 0 0.10 335 12A Washington Bay 21095.00 645 SPM 0.008 5.2 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 516 0 0.25 516 12A 

Washington 

Bay, 1 mile 

south 

21187.00 28 SPM 0.008 0.2 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 45 0 0.25 45 

12A 

Washington 

Bay, 4 

miles north 

21188.00 38 SPM 0.008 0.3 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 61 0 0.25 61 

12A 

Security 

Bay (east 

side) 

21189.01 52 SPM 0.008 0.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 33 0 0.10 33 

12A 

Security 

Bay (east 

side) 

21189.02 253 RM 0.083 21.0 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 1,678 0 0.10 1,678 

12A 

Security 

Bay (west 

side) 

21190.00 73 SPM 0.008 0.6 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 47 0 0.10 47 

12A 

Security 

Bay 

(outside) 

21191.00 103 SPM 0.008 0.8 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 66 0 0.10 66 

Totals 3,079 11,982 

12B 

Bay of 

Pillars 

Portage 

21074.03 113 RN 0.083 9.4 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 937 0 0.10 937 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 23 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

12B Threemile Arm (head) 21074.06 350 RM 0.083 29.0 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 2,902 0 0.10 2,902 12B 

Port 

Camden 

(head west) 

21074.08 85 RM 0.083 7.1 150 1.00 8.0 12.0 1,767 0 0.10 1,767 

12B Kadake Creek 21081.02 925 RM 0.030 27.8 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 1,804 0 0.10 1,804 12B Ledge Lake 21093.01 107 SPM 0.008 0.9 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 56 0 0.10 56 12B 

Cool 

Lake/Ledge 

Lake 

21093.02 371 RM 0.083 30.8 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 1,999 0 0.10 1,999 

12B Hillar 21121.00 645 RM 0.083 53.5 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 5,355 0 0.10 5,355 12B 

Port 

Camden 

(south) 

21137.00 172 RM 0.083 14.3 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 1,428 0 0.10 1,428 

12B 

Kuiu Island 

Road 

System 

21192.00 5,622 RM/RN 0.083 50.0 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 5,000 0 0.10 5,000 

Totals 8,390 21,247 

13 Piledriver Cove 21072.00 194 P 0.002 6.0 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 1,800 0 0.25 1,800 13 

Alecks 

Creek and 

Lake 

21073.01 793 P 0.002 1.6 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 159 0 0.25 159 

13 Explorer Basin 21100.00 415 P 0.002 6.0 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 1,800 0 0.25 1,800 

24 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

13 Gedney Harbor 21101.00 355 P 0.002 0.7 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 71 0 0.25 71 13 

Port 

Malmesbur

y (north 

shore) 

21102.00 362 P 0.002 0.7 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 72 0 0.25 72 

13 Bear Harbor 21106.00 1,609 P 0.002 3.2 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 965 0 0.25 965 13 

Port 

Beauclerc 

(west side) 

21109.00 526 P 0.002 1.1 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 105 0 0.25 105 

13 

Petrof/Affle

ck portage 

trail 

21117.00 446 P 0.002 0.9 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 267 0 0.25 267 

13 

Head of 

Port 

Beauclerc 

21119.00 532 P 0.002 1.1 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 106 0 0.25 106 

13 Shelter Cove 21142.00 87 P 0.002 0.2 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 17 0 0.25 17 13 Lisa Point 21160.00 35 P 0.002 0.1 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 21 0 0.25 21 13 Orel Anchorage 21161.00 112 P 0.002 0.2 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 67 0 0.25 67 13 

Port 

Beauclerc 

(east side) 

21180.00 60 P 0.002 6.0 150 1.00 0.0 24.0 1,800 0 0.25 1,800 

13 Edwards Island 21181.00 185 P 0.002 0.4 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 37 0 0.25 37 13 

Port 

Beauclerc 

(south) 

21182.00 260 P 0.002 0.5 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 52 0 0.25 52 

13 Windfall Islands 21183.00 21 P 0.002 6.0 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 1,200 0 0.25 1,200 13 Long Island 21184.00 19 P 0.002 6.0 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 1,200 0 0.25 1,200 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 25 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

13 Happy Cove 21185.00 221 P 0.002 6.0 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 1,800 0 0.25 1,800 13 Troller Islands 21186.00 160 P 0.002 0.3 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 32 0 0.25 32 

Totals 6,393 11,573 

14 Devil's Elbow 21036.00 856 SPM 0.008 6.8 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 1,644 900 0.10 744 14 Horseshoe Island 21060.00 669 SPM 0.008 5.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 428 0 0.10 428 14 Entrance Island 21061.00 51 SPM 0.008 0.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 32 0 0.10 32 14 Hamilton Bay 21062.02 786 SPM 0.008 6.3 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 409 0 0.10 409 14 Big John Bay 21062.05 1,783 SPM 0.008 14.3 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 3,423 600 0.10 2,823 14 Dakaneek Bay 21071.00 541 SPM 0.008 4.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 346 0 0.10 346 14 

Port 

Camden 

Anchorage 

21074.07 210 SPM 0.008 1.7 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 168 0 0.10 168 

14 Kadake Bay 21081.01 243 SPM 0.008 6.0 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 1,440 900 0.10 540 14 

Beach N. of 

Slippery 

Creek 

21082.00 485 SPM 0.008 3.9 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 388 0 0.10 388 

14 

Anchorage 

S. of 

Slippery Cr. 

21082.01 560 SPM 0.008 4.5 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 448 0 0.10 448 

26 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

14 Slippery Creek 21086.00 106 SPM 0.008 0.8 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 85 0 0.10 85 14 Slippery Lake 21086.01 894 P 0.008 7.2 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 715 0 0.10 715 14 Gil Harbor 21088.00 691 RM 0.083 57.4 150 0.65 8.0 0.0 3,730 0 0.10 3,730 14 Cornwallis Peninsula 21091.00 247 SPM 0.008 2.0 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 474 0 0.10 474 14 Crane Creek 21120.00 85 SPM 0.008 0.7 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 68 0 0.10 68 14 North Rocky Pass 21122.00 216 SPM 0.008 1.7 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 139 0 0.10 139 14 Hamilton Trail 21135.01 300 SPM 0.083 24.9 180 0.80 8.0 0.0 2,389 0 0.10 2,389 14 Point Camden 21193.00 18 SPM 0.008 0.1 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 30 0 0.10 30 14 Point Hamilton 21194.00 89 SPM 0.008 0.7 150 0.80 0.0 16.0 114 0 0.10 114 14 Tunehean Creek 21251.00 555 SPM 0.008 4.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 355 0 0.10 355 14 Irish Creek 21252.00 624 SPM 0.008 5.0 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 1,198 0 0.10 1,198 

Totals 10,009 15,621 

15 Kell Bay (Central) 21097.00 462 P 0.008 3.7 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 1,109 0 0.25 1,109 15 

Kell Bay 

(South 

Shore) 

21098.00 767 P 0.008 6.1 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 614 0 0.25 614 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 27 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

15 

Port 

McArthur/ 

Howard 

Cove 

21099.00 963 P 0.008 7.7 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 2,312 0 0.25 2,312 

15 Crowley Bight 21139.00 82 P 0.008 0.7 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 196 0 0.25 196 15 Kell Bay (North Arm) 21140.00 537 P 0.008 4.3 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 430 0 0.25 430 15 Pt. St. Albans 21153.00 27 P 0.008 0.2 150 1.00 0.0 24.0 66 0 0.25 66 15 

3 miles 

north of 

Table Bay 

21171.00 50 P 0.008 0.4 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 80 0 0.25 80 

15 

4 miles NE 

of Pt. St. 

Albans 

21172.00 26 P 0.008 0.2 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 42 0 0.25 42 

15 

5 miles NE 

of Pt. St. 

Albans 

21173.00 7 P 0.008 0.1 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 10 0 0.25 10 

15 

5.5 miles 

NE of Pt. 

St. Albans 

21174.00 46 P 0.008 0.4 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 74 0 0.25 74 

15 

1 mile NW 

of Pt. 

Amelius 

21175.00 13 P 0.008 0.1 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 21 0 0.10 21 

15 

1.5 miles 

NE of Pt. 

Amelius 

21176.00 30 P 0.008 0.2 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 48 0 0.10 48 

15 Table Bay 21177.00 39 P 0.008 0.3 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 63 0 0.25 63 

Totals 3,050 5,064 

28 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

16 No Name Bay (head) 21073.00 260 RM 0.030 7.8 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 780 0 0.10 780 16 Seclusion Harbor 21084.00 636 SPM 0.008 5.1 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 1,527 0 0.10 1,527 16 Reid Bay (southeast) 21111.00 161 P 0.008 1.3 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 257 0 0.10 257 16 Alvin Bay 21112.00 690 RM 0.083 20.0 150 1.00 0.0 12.0 3,000 0 0.10 3,000 16 No Name Bay (south) 21113.00 285 RM 0.053 15.1 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 4,536 0 0.10 4,536 16 No Name Bay 21113.01 201 SPM 0.008 1.6 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 161 0 0.10 161 16 Reid Bay 21115.00 476 P 0.008 3.8 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 381 0 0.10 381 16 Reid Bay (south) 21152.00 75 P 0.008 0.6 150 1.00 0.0 16.0 120 0 0.10 120 16 Sumner Island 21158.00 102 SPM 0.016 1.6 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 163 0 0.10 163 16 Strait Island 21159.00 55 SPM 0.016 0.9 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 265 0 0.10 265 

Totals 2,942 11,190 

21 Wood Point 21017.00 156 SPM 0.008 1.2 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 300 0 0.10 300 21 

Brown 

Cove and 

Icy Cove 

21018.00 524 SPM 0.016 8.4 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 2,010 0 0.10 2,010 

21 Thomas Bay Roads 21243.00 379 RM 0.083 15.0 180 0.80 8.0 0.0 1,440 0 0.10 1,440 21 Muddy River Road 21244.00 265 RM 0.083 20.0 180 0.80 8.0 16.0 5,760 0 0.10 5,760 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 29 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

21 Muddy River 21245.00 1,025 RM 0.016 16.4 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 1,312 0 0.10 1,312 21 

Patterson 

River Road, 

south 

21246.00 90 RM 0.016 1.4 180 0.80 8.0 0.0 139 0 0.10 139 

21 Patterson Lake 21247.00 348 SPNM 0.008 2.8 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 835 0 0.10 835 21 

Patterson 

River Road, 

north 

21248.00 163 RM 0.016 2.6 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 208 0 0.10 208 

21 

Point 

Agassiz 

Road 

21249.00 55 RM 0.083 4.5 180 0.80 8.0 0.0 435 0 0.10 435 

21 Patterson River 21250.00 395 RM 0.016 6.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 505 0 0.10 505 

Totals 3,398 12,944 

22 

Cascade 

Creek 

Cabin and 

Trail 

21019.00 276 RM 0.083 22.9 150 0.80 8.0 20.0 6,405 792 0.10 5,613 

22 

Upper 

Cascade 

Trail and 

Falls Lk 

21019.01 255 SPNM 0.008 2.0 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 163 0 0.10 163 

22 Swan Lake 21019.02 715 P 0.008 5.7 150 1.00 4.0 24.0 2,002 1,500 0.10 502 22 Scenery Cove 21021.00 143 SPM 0.016 2.3 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 551 0 0.10 551 22 Scenery Creek 21021.01 198 SPNM 0.008 1.6 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 127 0 0.10 127 

30 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

22 Scenery Creek 21021.02 335 P 0.008 2.7 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 215 0 0.10 215 22 Spurt Lake 21021.03 510 SPNM 0.008 4.1 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 327 0 0.10 327 22 DeBoer Lake 21023.00 442 P 0.008 6.0 150 0.80 0.0 24.0 1,440 900 0.10 540 22 

Baird 

Glacier 

(terminus) 

21132.00 941 SPM 0.016 15.1 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 3,614 0 0.10 3,614 

22 Spurt Cove Cabin 21133.00 311 SPM 0.016 5.0 150 0.80 0.0 16.0 795 600 0.10 195 22 Dry Bay 21156.00 158 SPM 0.008 1.3 150 0.80 8.0 16.0 303 0 0.25 303 

Totals 4,284 12,149 

23 

Farragut 

Bay, North 

Arm 

21029.00 333 SPM 0.008 2.7 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 213 0 0.25 213 

23 Farragut River 21030.00 756 SPM 0.016 12.1 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 968 0 0.25 968 23 Francis Anchorage 21034.00 456 SPM 0.016 7.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 584 0 0.25 584 23 Cat Creek 21124.00 375 SPM 0.008 3.0 150 1.00 8.0 14.0 825 0 0.25 825 23 

Farragut 

Bay (east 

flats) 

21130.00 204 SPM 0.016 3.3 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 261 0 0.25 261 

23 

Farragut 

Bay (north 

flats) 

21131.00 239 SPM 0.016 3.8 150 0.80 8.0 0.0 306 0 0.25 306 

23 Cape Fanshaw 21151.00 327 SPM 0.016 5.230211 150 1.00 8.0 16.0 1,569 0 0.25 1,569 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 31 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area 

Recreation 

Place 

Name 

Rec Place 

Number 

Rec 

Place 

Acres 

ROS 

Class 

ROS 

Coeff 

Persons 

At One 

Time 

Managed 

Season of 

Use 

Pattern 

of Use 

Length 

of Stay 

(day) 

Length of 

Stay 

(overnight) 

Gross 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

Cabin 

Capacity 

(RVDs) 

Within 

Home 

Range? 

Net Rec 

Visitor 

Days 

(RVDs) 

23 

Tangent 

Peak 

(shore) 

21154.00 63 SPM 0.008 0.501578 150 1.00 0.0 12.0 75 0 0.25 75 

Totals 2,753 4,802 

24 

Farragut/ 

Glory 

Lakes 

21026.00 2,688 P 0.002 5.375445 150 1.00 0.0 24.0 1,613 0 0.25 1,613 

24 

Patterson 

Glacier 

(Temsco 

site 1) 

21208.00 11 P 0.002 0.022244 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 2 0 0.25 2 

24 

Patterson 

Glacier 

(Temsco 

site 2) 

21255.00 11 P 0.002 0.022244 150 1.00 8.0 0.0 2 0 0.25 2 

24 Devils Thumb 21256.00 11 P 0.002 0.022229 150 1.00 0.0 24.0 7 0 0.25 7 24 Baird Glacier 21257.00 11 P 0.002 0.022229 150 1.00 0.0 24.0 7 0 0.25 7 

Totals 2,732 1,630 

District 

Totals 104,697 370,329 20,258 350,071 

32 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Table C. Notes. 

Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

1 December Cove 21003.00 Petersburg home range 1 Blind Slough 21004.00 Petersburg home range, overnight use from campground, PAOT lowered to reflect actual capacities of developed recreation sites. 1 South Blind Slough 21004.02 Petersburg home range 1 Snake Ridge 21006.01 Petersburg home range 1 Crystal Mt. 21006.02 Petersburg home range 1 3 Lakes Trail Head 21007.01 Petersburg home range 1 3 Lakes Recreation Area 21007.08 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect "high" use of trails and at lakes. 1 Ideal Cove (northwest) 21007.09 Petersburg home range 1 Twin Creek Recreation Area 21012.00 Petersburg home range, PAOT lowered to reflect user's expectation of a less crowded experience. 1 Ravens Roost Cabin 21012.01 Petersburg home range; PAOT reflects capacity of Ravens Roost Cabin. 1 Pt. Alexander (1 mile east) 21209.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6246 21210.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6280 21211.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6281 21212.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6282 21213.00 Petersburg home range 1 Roads 6245, 6286 21215.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6233 21218.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6224 21219.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6222 21220.00 Petersburg home range 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 33 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

1 Road 6221 21221.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6220 21222.00 Petersburg home range 1 Roads (several) 21224.00 Petersburg home range, PAOT not revised (large amount of local use, roads are easily accessible from Petersburg, reflects expectation of seeing other users). 1 Road 6235 21225.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6205 21235.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6206 21236.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6207 21237.00 Petersburg home range 1 Blind Slough LTF 21238.00 Petersburg home range 1 Road 6204 21239.00 Petersburg home range 2 Towers Arm 21039.00 PAOT reflects capacity of Towers Arm cabin 2 Castle River (upper) 21042.00 Petersburg home range 2 Castle River (mouth) 21042.01 Petersburg home range 2 Castle Islands (north) 21043.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect "high" use at Castle Islands. 2 Castle Islands (south) 21043.01 Petersburg home range 2 Kah Sheets Bay 21045.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect the fact that there are no roads that are actually open in this area. 2 Kah Sheets Trail 21045.01 Petersburg home range 2 Kah Sheets Lake 21045.02 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the cabin use in this area. 2 Kah Sheets Bay (northeast) 21046.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect high amount of boat traffic in this area. 2 Level Island 21067.00 Petersburg home range 2 Breiland Slough 21196.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect cabin use and high boat traffic in this area. 

34 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

2 Indian Point 21197.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect large amount of boat traffic in this area. 4 Mitchell Slough 21047.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect boat traffic and fishing use in this area. 4 Ohmer Slough 21054.01 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. for RM lowered to reflect the fact that most of the use at Ohmer Slough is not associated with the road system. 4 Tonka Road System 21201.00 Petersburg home range, PAOT lowered to reflect the expectation of hunters and fishers to see few other users on this remote road system. 4 Ohmer Slough (north) 21202.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect nearby special use permit cabins. 5 Alexander Cove 21002.00 Petersburg home range 5 Green Rocks 21049.00 Petersburg home range 5 Green Rocks Lake and Trail 21049.01 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect relative easy accessibility from Petersburg and nearby private land owners. 5 Green Rocks Lake Trail 21049.02 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect relative easy accessibility from Petersburg and nearby private landowners. 5 Beecher Pass 21126.00 Petersburg home range, PAOT lowered to reflect a more realistic level of use. 5 Whiskey Pass 21127.00 Petersburg home range 5 Harvey Lake Trail Head 21128.00 Petersburg home range 5 Harvey Lake 21128.01 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect use at Harvey Lake cabin. 6 Big Creek (upland) 21056.00 Kake home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the relatively high amount of use at this location. 6 Big Creek (shoreline) 21056.01 Kake home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the relatively high amount of use at this location. 6 Schooner Island Anchorage 21064.00 Kake home range 6 Turnabout Island 21070.00 Kake home range 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 35 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

6 Tongass Camp (shore) 21157.00 Kake home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the high amount of use at this location for an outfitter/guide base camp. 6 Tongass Camp (upland) 21157.01 Kake home range 7 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21054.00 Petersburg home range 7 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21054.04 Petersburg home range 7 Petersburg Lake and Trail 21054.05 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the relatively high amount of use expected due to the cabin at Petersburg Lake and from the Petersburg Lake Trail. 7 Petersburg Lake & Mt. Trail Head 21054.07 Petersburg home range 7 Lower Petersburg Lake Trail 21054.12 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised due to the high use of the Petersburg Lake Trail and high volume of boat traffic. 7 Salt Chuck 21054.13 Petersburg home range 7 Petersburg Mt. Trail (lower) 21054.15 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the relative high amount of use on the tail, which is very close to Petersburg and the City of Kupreanof. 7 Petersburg Mt. Trail (upper) 21054.16 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the relative high amount of use on the tail, which is very close to Petersburg and the City of Kupreanof. 7 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21207.00 Petersburg home range 7 Petersburg Mt. Trail (bottom section) 21240.00 Petersburg home range 8 Fivemile Creek and lower trail 21053.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised due to the use of the Colp Lake Trail, which is close to Petersburg. 8 Colp Lake and upper trail 21053.01 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised due to the use of the Colp Lake Trail, which is close to Petersburg. 8 Portage Bay (head) 21054.02 Petersburg home range 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21054.14 Petersburg home range 

36 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

8 Dry Cove 21055.00 8 Todahl Anchorage 21077.00 Petersburg home range 8 Twelvemile Creek 21080.00 Petersburg home range 8 West Point Cabin 21147.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect relative high use at the West Point cabin. 8 Portage Bay LTF 21148.00 8 Sukoi Islands 21198.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect the high volume of boat traffic in the area and the close proximity to Petersburg. 8 Portage Bay Road System 21199.00 Petersburg home range, PAOT lowered to reflect the expectation of hunters to see few other users on this remote road system. 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.00 Petersburg home range 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.01 Petersburg home range 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.02 Petersburg home range 8 Portage Mt. Loop Trail 21200.03 Petersburg home range 8 Stop Island 21242.00 9 Bohemia Lake 21050.01 Kake home range 9 Towers Lake 21051.00 9 Big John Bay upland trail 21062.06 Kake home range 9 Seal Point 21063.00 Kake home range 9 Point Macartney 21069.00 Kake home range 9 Hamilton Trail 21135.00 Kake home range 9 Cathedral Falls Trail 21136.00 Kake home range 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 37 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

9 Irish Lakes 21155.01 Kake home range 9 Kake Road System 21204.00 Kake home range, PAOT lowered to reflect the expectation of subsistence users to see few other users on a road system accessible from a small community. 9 Kake Road System 21204.01 Kake home range 9 Kake Road System 21204.02 Kake home range 9 Lakes 4 mi. north of Irish Lakes 21205.00 Kake home range 9 Lakes 4 mi. north of Irish Lakes 21205.01 Kake home range 9 Irish Lakes 21206.00 Kake home range 9 Goose Lake 21253.00 Kake home range 9 Goose Lake trailhead 21254.00 Kake home range 

10 Totem Bay 21037.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 10 Little Totem Bay 21037.01 Point Baker and Port Protection home range, PAOT lowered to reflect a more realistic level of use for an area mostly used as an anchorage. 10 Totem Creek 21037.02 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 10 Totem Creek 21037.03 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 10 Kushneahin Creek 21038.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 10 Kushneahin Creek 21038.01 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 10 Douglas Bay 21065.00 PAOT lowered to reflect a more realistic level of use from camping, bear hunting, and use as an anchorage. 10 Moss Island Anchorage 21066.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 10 Agate Beach 21146.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 10 Rocky Pass (south) 21195.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 

38 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

11 Bay of Pillars Shelter 21074.00 ROS coeff. raised due to use of the Bay of Pillars Forest Service shelter. 11 Kutlaku 21074.09 Kake home range. ROS raised to reflect visitor anticipation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 11 Kutlaku Lake 21074.10 Kake home range 11 Rowan Bay, south side anchorage 21075.00 11 Rowan Bay (head) 21076.00 Kake home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor anticipation of a less primitive experience when using this area due to relatively high use in this bay. 11 Bay of Pillars Outside 21144.00 11 Bay of Pillars Anchorage 21145.00 

12A Halleck Harbor (south) 21090.00 Kake home range 12A Halleck Harbor (north) 21090.01 Kake home range 12A Halleck Harbor, cove SE 21090.02 Kake home range 12A Saginaw Bay (head) 21092.00 Kake home range 12A Security Bay (head) 21094.00 Kake home range 12A Washington Bay 21095.00 12A Washington Bay, 1 mile south 21187.00 12A Washington Bay, 4 miles north 21188.00 12A Security Bay (east side) 21189.01 Kake home range 12A Security Bay (east side) 21189.02 Kake home range 12A Security Bay (west side) 21190.00 Kake home range 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 39 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

12A Security Bay (outside) 21191.00 Kake home range 12B Bay of Pillars Portage 21074.03 Kake home range 12B Threemile Arm (head) 21074.06 Kake home range 12B Port Camden (head west) 21074.08 Kake home range 12B Kadake Creek 21081.02 Kake home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect expectations of users to see few other users in this relatively large and remote area. 12B Ledge Lake 21093.01 Kake home range 12B Cool Lake/Ledge Lake 21093.02 Kake home range 12B Hillar 21121.00 Kake home range 12B Port Camden (south) 21137.00 Kake home range 12B Kuiu Island Road System 21192.00 Kake home range, PAOT lowered to reflect the expectation of hunters and fishers to see few other users on this remote road system. 

13 Piledriver Cove 21072.00 PAOT modified to reflect actual use of a campsite in this recreation place by outfitters/guides. 13 Alecks Creek and Lake 21073.01 13 Explorer Basin 21100.00 PAOT modified to reflect actual use of a campsite in this recreation place by outfitters/guides. 13 Gedney Harbor 21101.00 13 Port Malmesbury (north shore) 21102.00 13 Bear Harbor 21106.00 13 Port Beauclerc (west side) 21109.00 

40 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

13 Petrof/Affleck portage trail 21117.00 13 Head of Port Beauclerc 21119.00 13 Shelter Cove 21142.00 13 Lisa Point 21160.00 13 Orel Anchorage 21161.00 13 Port Beauclerc (east side) 21180.00 PAOT modified to reflect actual use of a campsite in this recreation place by outfitters/guides. 13 Edwards Island 21181.00 13 Port Beauclerc (south) 21182.00 13 Windfall Islands 21183.00 PAOT modified to reflect actual use of a campsite in this recreation place by outfitters/guides. 13 Long Island 21184.00 PAOT modified to reflect actual use of a campsite in this recreation place by outfitters/guides. 13 Happy Cove 21185.00 PAOT modified to reflect actual use of a campsite in this recreation place by outfitters/guides. 13 Troller Islands 21186.00 14 Devil's Elbow 21036.00 Kake home range 14 Horseshoe Island 21060.00 Kake home range 14 Entrance Island 21061.00 Kake home range 14 Hamilton Bay 21062.02 Kake home range 14 Big John Bay 21062.05 Kake home range 14 Dakaneek Bay 21071.00 Kake home range 14 Port Camden Anchorage 21074.07 Kake home range 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 41 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

14 Kadake Bay 21081.01 Kake home range; PAOT reflects capacity of Kadake Bay Cabin. 14 Beach N. of Slippery Creek 21082.00 Kake home range 14 Anchorage S. of Slippery Cr. 21082.01 Kake home range 14 Slippery Creek 21086.00 Kake home range 14 Slippery Lake 21086.01 Kake home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 14 Gil Harbor 21088.00 Kake home range 14 Cornwallis Peninsula 21091.00 Kake home range 14 Crane Creek 21120.00 Kake home range 14 North Rocky Pass 21122.00 Kake home range 14 Hamilton Trail 21135.01 Kake home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area due to close proximity to the Kake road system. 14 Point Camden 21193.00 Kake home range 14 Point Hamilton 21194.00 Kake home range 14 Tunehean Creek 21251.00 Kake home range 14 Irish Creek 21252.00 Kake home range 15 Kell Bay (Central) 21097.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 Kell Bay (South Shore) 21098.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 Port McArthur/Howard Cove 21099.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 

42 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

15 Crowley Bight 21139.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 Kell Bay (North Arm) 21140.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 Pt. St. Albans 21153.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 3 miles north of Table Bay 21171.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 4 miles NE of Pt. St. Albans 21172.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 5 miles NE of Pt. St. Albans 21173.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 5.5 miles NE of Pt. St. Albans 21174.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 1 mile NW of Pt. Amelius 21175.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 1.5 miles NE of Pt. Amelius 21176.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 15 Table Bay 21177.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 16 No Name Bay (head) 21073.00 Kake home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect visitor expectation of a more primitive experience when using this area (no open roads in the area). 16 Seclusion Harbor 21084.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range 16 Reid Bay (southeast) 21111.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 16 Alvin Bay 21112.00 Point Baker and Port Protection home range, PAOT lowered to reflect a more realistic level of use for an area used mostly for camping and as an anchorage. 16 No Name Bay (south) 21113.00 Kake home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect visitor expectation of a more primitive experience when using this area (no open roads in the area). 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 43 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

16 No Name Bay 21113.01 Kake home range 16 Reid Bay 21115.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 16 Reid Bay (south) 21152.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 16 Sumner Island 21158.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 16 Strait Island 21159.00 Point Baker, Port Protection home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 21 Wood Point 21017.00 Petersburg home range 21 Brown Cove and Icy Cove 21018.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 21 Thomas Bay Roads 21243.00 Petersburg home range, PAOT lowered to reflect the expectation of users to see few others on this remote road system. 21 Muddy River Road 21244.00 Petersburg home range, PAOT lowered to reflect the expectation of users to see few others on this remote road system. 21 Muddy River 21245.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect visitor expectation of a more primitive experience when using this area than in a typical Roaded Modified area. 21 Patterson River Road, south 21246.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect visitor expectation of a more primitive experience when using this area than in a typical Roaded Modified area. 21 Patterson Lake 21247.00 Petersburg home range 21 Patterson River Road, north 21248.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect visitor expectation of a more primitive experience when using this area than in a typical Roaded Modified area. 21 Point Agassiz Road 21249.00 Petersburg home range 21 Patterson River 21250.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. lowered to reflect visitor expectation of a more primitive experience when using this area than in a typical Roaded Modified area. 

44 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

22 Cascade Creek Cabin and Trail 21019.00 Petersburg home range 22 Upper Cascade Trail and Falls Lk 21019.01 Petersburg home range 22 Swan Lake 21019.02 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness, and with access from the Swan Lake cabin. 22 Scenery Cove 21021.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 22 Scenery Creek 21021.01 Petersburg home range 22 Scenery Creek 21021.02 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. 22 Spurt Lake 21021.03 Petersburg home range 22 DeBoer Lake 21023.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, located outside of Wilderness. PAOT reflects capacity of DeBoer Lake Cabin. 22 Baird Glacier (terminus) 21132.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 22 Spurt Cove Cabin 21133.00 Petersburg home range. ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, which includes the Spurt Cove cabin. 22 Dry Bay 21156.00 23 Farragut Bay, North Arm 21029.00 23 Farragut River 21030.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, which is adjacent to private land, with the land owners living nearby. 23 Francis Anchorage 21034.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, which is adjacent to private land, with the land owners living nearby. 23 Cat Creek 21124.00 23 Farragut Bay (east flats) 21130.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, which is adjacent to private land, with the land owners living nearby. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 45 Part I - Appendix A
Study 

Area Rec Place Name 

Rec. 

Place 

Number Notes 

23 Farragut Bay (north flats) 21131.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area, which is adjacent to private land, with the land owners living nearby. 23 Cape Fanshaw 21151.00 ROS coeff. raised to reflect visitor expectation of a less primitive experience when using this area. 23 Tangent Peak (shore) 21154.00 24 Farragut/Glory Lakes 21026.00 24 Patterson Glacier (Temsco site 1) 21208.00 24 Patterson Glacier (Temsco site 2) 21255.00 24 Devils Thumb 21256.00 24 Baird Glacier 21257.00 

46 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Literature Cited___________________________________ 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. 1986 ROS Book, unpublished report, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Management 

Bulletin R10-MB-346, Stikine Area, AK. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Authorized cabins and levels of use for commercial 

recreation service providers. Letter from Petersburg District Deputy Ranger to 

Recreation Service Providers. December 20, 2006. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Land and Resource Management Plan. Tongass National 

Forest. R10-MB-603b. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 47 Part I - Appendix A
Fly fisherman and bear on Kuiu Island, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District. Photograph by 

Emil Tucker

48 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part I
Part II 

Existing Condition Narratives and Study Area 

Maps 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 49
View from Indian Point Camp, Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Photograph by Marina Whitacre. 

50 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 1 

Mitkof Island 

 

Description

The Mitkof Island study area includes Mitkof Island. Frederick Sound is to the north and east, the Wrangell 

Narrows is to the west, and Sumner Strait is to the south. The 28 recreation places are the main features of this 

study area.

Communities The community of Petersburg is within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are many parcels of City of Petersburg, State of Alaska, and privately owned lands within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21003.00 

December 

Cove 

46 acres. Includes a small cove 1⁄2 mile south of December Point and a special use permit 

cabin. ROS – Roaded Natural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21004.00 

Blind Slough 

3,660 acres. Includes north and south Blind Slough, Blind River Rapids Trail, Trumpeter 

Swan Observatory, Blind Slough Picnic Area, Man-Made Hole Picnic Area, Ohmer Creek 

Interpretive Trail, Ohmer Creek Campground, and two special use permit cabins. An 

artificially maintained king salmon run occurs at Blind Slough. ROS – Roaded Natural. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21004.02 

South Blind 

Slough 

209 acres. Includes the southwest portion of south Blind Slough. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21006.01 

Snake Ridge 

136 acres. Includes the undeveloped access route to the Crystal Mountain alpine ridge. 

ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21006.02 

Crystal Mt. 

1,346 acres. Includes Crystal Mountain and the undeveloped access route to this peak. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21007.01 

3 Lakes Trail 

Head 

238 acres. Includes the trailheads to Sand, Hill, and Crane Lakes. ROS – Roaded Natural. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

 21007.08 

3 Lakes 

Recreation 

Area 

1,381 acres. Includes Sand, Hill, and Crane Lakes; and the Three Lakes Trail. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21007.09 

Ideal Cove 

(northwest) 

403 acres. Includes a portion of beach along Frederick Sound and the Ideal Cove 

Trailhead. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21012.00 

Twin Creek 

Recreation 

Area 

2,899 acres. Includes Roads 6209, 6210, and 6212. The Twin Creek Ski Area/Trails and 

the Twin Creek Shelter are in this recreation place. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

21012.01 

Ravens Roost 

Cabin 

139 acres. Includes the Raven’s Roost recreation cabin and a portion of the Raven Trail. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 51 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 1 

Mitkof Island 

Recreation Places (continued)

21209.00 

Pt. Alexander 

(1 mile east) 

21 acres. Includes a small cove with gravel beach. ROS – Roaded Natural. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

21210.00 

Road 6246 

270 acres. Includes the Snake Ridge Road. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home 

Range. 

21211.00 

Road 6280 

101 acres. Includes a spur road off of the Woodpecker Cove Road. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21212.00 

Road 6281 

244 acres. Includes a spur road off of the Woodpecker Cove Road. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21213.00 

Road 6282 

334 acres. Includes a spur road off of the Woodpecker Cove Road. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21215.00 

Roads 6245, 

6286 

692 acres. Includes a portion of the Woodpecker Cove Road, a spur road, beach and an 

undeveloped campsite. ROS – Roaded Modified and Roaded Natural. Petersburg Home 

Range. 

21218.00 

Road 6233 

9 acres. Includes a spur road north of the Mitkof Highway near Blind Slough. ROS – 

Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21219.00 

Road 6224 

27 acres. Includes a spur road off of Mitkof Highway near south Blind Slough. ROS – 

Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21220.00 

Road 6222 

57 acres. Includes a spur road off of south Mitkof Highway. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21221.00 

Road 6221 

135 acres. Includes a spur road off of south Mitkof Highway. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21222.00 

Road 6220 

57 acres. Includes a spur road off of south Mitkof Highway. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21224.00 

Roads (several) 

3,223 acres. Includes most of the Three Lakes Loop Road, Dry Straits Road, Froot Loop 

Road, a portion of the Frederick Road, and several additional spur roads. ROS – Roaded 

Modified and Roaded Natural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21225.00 

Road 6235 

56 acres. Includes a portion of the Three Lakes Loop Road near Falls Creek. ROS – 

Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21235.00 

Road 6205 

80 acres. Includes a spur road off of the Frederick Road. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21236.00 

Road 6206 

80 acres. Includes a spur road off of the Frederick Road near Cabin Creek. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

52 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 1 

Mitkof Island 

Recreation Places (continued)

21237.00 

Road 6207 

132 acres. Includes a spur road off of the Frederick Road. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21238.00 

Blind Slough 

LTF 

7 acres. Includes the Blind Slough Log Transfer Facility and undeveloped boat ramp. 

ROS – Roaded Natural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21239.00 

Road 6204 

28 acres. Includes a small portion of the Frederick Road. ROS – Roaded Natural. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

Commercial Use Sightseeing, hiking, swimming, picnicking, fishing, camping, black bear hunting. 

Non-commercial 

Use 

Driving, sightseeing, firewood cutting, hunting (deer, moose, black bear, waterfowl, 

grouse), fishing, skiing, snowmobiling, hiking, swimming, picnicking, camping.

Use Patterns This study area receives use from Petersburg residents, and non-residents with 

transportation. All recreation places are within Petersburg’s Home Range. 

Concerns Potential for crowding at Blind River Rapids during summer season due to high levels of 

use by local, non-resident, and guided users. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Blind River Rapids (king salmon) and Big Creek (steelhead) are the second and forth most 

highly used systems by guided sport fishers on the district. Blind River Rapids averages 18 

RVDs/year by outfitters and guides and Big Creek averages 8.38 RVDs/year. 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 29 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

378 610 487 334 336 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg B3, C2, C3, D3.

Part II Appendix A

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 53
Kayaker near Troller Islands in Tebenkof Bay Wilderness. Photograph by Carin Christensen. 

54 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Dry Strait

Blind Slough

Sumner Strait

gell Narrow

s

gell Narrow

s

225.00

224.00

218.00

4.00

6.01

235.00

12.00

7.09

4.00

6.02

7.08

7.01

224.00

221.00

222.00

220.00

219.00 211.00

212.00

213.00

214.00

3.00

209.00

215.00

210.00

4.02

238.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/1_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 5/29/09

Appendix A - 55

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

56 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 2 

Duncan Canal – West Side 

Description

The Duncan Canal –West Side study area includes the western side of Duncan Canal, Kah Sheets Bay, and Level 

Island. Sumner Strait is to the southeast. The 12 recreation places are the main features of this study area. 

Communities No communities are located within this study area. 

Non-National Forest System Lands 

Two small parcels of privately owned land are located on the Castle Islands. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21039.00 

Towers Arm 

136 acres. Includes the head of Towers Arm and the Forest Service recreation cabin. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21042.00 

Castle River 

(upper) 

265 acres. Includes the upper reaches of Castle River. ROS – Semi-Primitive NonMotorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21042.01 

Castle River 

(mouth) 

1,248 acres. Includes the lower portion of Castle River, and the Castle Flats and Castle River 

Forest Service recreation cabins. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home 

Range. 

21043.00 

Castle 

Islands 

(north) 

252 acres. Includes High Castle Island, Coverleaf Island, and Big Castle Island. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21043.01 

Castle 

Islands 

(south) 

24 acres. Includes several small islands south of Big Castle Island. A portion of the islands 

are privately owned. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21045.00 

Kah Sheets 

Bay 

955 acres. Includes Kah Sheets Bay and Kah Sheets Bay Forest Service recreation cabin. 

ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21045.01 

Kah Sheets 

Trail 

350 acres. Includes the middle portion of the Kah Sheets Lake Trail and Kah Sheets Creek. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21045.02 

Kah Sheets 

Lake 

694 acres. Includes the upper portion of Kah Sheets Creek, the area around Kah Sheets Lake, 

and the Kah Sheets Lake Forest Service recreation cabin. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21046.00 

Kah Sheets 

Bay 

(northeast) 

211 acres. Includes the northeast portion of Kah Sheets Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 57 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 2 

Duncan Canal – West Side 

Recreation Places (continued)

21067.00 

Level Island 

205 acres. Includes a portion of Big and Little Level Islands. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21196.00 

Breiland 

Slough 

132 acres. Includes the Breiland Slough Forest Service recreation cabin and the adjacent 

area. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21197.00 

Indian Point 

26 acres. Includes Indian Point in Duncan Canal. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not 

within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Sightseeing, hiking, fishing, camping, black bear hunting. 

Non-commercial 

Use Sightseeing, hunting (deer, moose, black bear, waterfowl), fishing, camping. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from Petersburg residents, and non-residents with transportation. 

Most of the recreation places are within Petersburg’s Home Range. 

Concerns Potential for crowding at lower Kah Sheets Creek due to high levels of use by local, nonresident (boats provided by lodges), and guided users. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Kah Sheets Creek (sockeye salmon) is the most highly used system by guided sport fishers on 

the district (average of 21.47 RVDs/year). It is also the fourth most highly used creek for 

subsistence and personal use harvest of sockeye on the district (5 RVDs/year). 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 2 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

79 118 73 43 20 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg B4, C4, D4, D5. 

58 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Sumner Strait

Douglas Bay

Totem Bay

ell Narro

ws

Duncan Canal

42.00

42.01

45.02

45.01

45.00

46.00

196.00

43.00

43.01

67.00

PORTAGE BAY

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/2_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 5/29/09

STUDY AREA 2 - Duncan Canal - West Side

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 2 4 1 Miles

Appendix A - 59

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

60 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 4 Duncan Canal – East Side

Description

The Duncan Canal –East Side study area includes the east side of Duncan Canal, a portion of south Lindenberg 

Peninsula, and the Tonka road system. The 4 recreation places are the main features of this study area. 

Communities No communities are located in this study area. 

Non-National Forest System Lands 

None 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21047.00 

Mitchell 

Slough 

212 acres. Includes the south side of Mitchell Slough. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.01 

Ohmer 

Slough 

497 acres. Includes Ohmer Slough and three special use permit cabins. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21201.00 

Tonka Road 

System 

3,536 acres. Includes the mainline and spur roads of the Tonka road system. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21202.00 

Ohmer 

Slough 

(north) 

142 acres. Includes the mouth of Duncan Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

Commercial Use None 

Non-commercial 

Use 

Driving, ATV use, sightseeing, hunting (deer, moose, black bear, waterfowl), fishing, 

camping, trapping. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use primarily from Petersburg residents. All recreation places are 

within Petersburg’s home range. 

Concerns None known. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 7 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 61 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 4 Duncan Canal – East Side

Deer-cabbage (Fauria crista-galli) in muskeg, Tongass National Forest. Photograph by Ashley Atkinson.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual use 

0 0 0 0 0 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg C3, C4, D4. 

Appendix A - Part II 62 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
ell Narrows

Duncan Canal

47.00

201.00

201.00

STUDY AREA 4 - Duncan Canal - East Side

0 0.9 1.8 0.45

Miles

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/4_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 5/29/09

Appendix A - 63

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

64 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 5 

Wrangell Narrows/Woewodski Island 

Description

The Wrangell Narrows/Woewodski Island study area includes the west side of the Wrangell Narrows, Woewodski 

Island, and Butterworth Island. The 8 recreation places are the main features of this study area. 

Communities The southern portion of the City of Kupreanof is located within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are several State and private parcels of land within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21002.00 

Alexander 

Cove 

326 acres. Includes Alexander Cove on the east side of Woewodski Island. ROS – Roaded 

Natural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21049.00 

Green Rocks 

240 acres. Includes the Wrangell Narrows shoreline south of the Green Rocks Lake 

trailhead. ROS – Roaded Natural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21049.01 

Green Rocks 

Lake and 

Trail 

130 acres. Includes the western portion of the Green Rocks Lake Trail and Green Rocks 

Lake. ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21049.02 

Green Rocks 

Lake Trail 

80 acres. Includes the middle portion of the Green Rocks Lake Trail. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21126.00 

Beecher Pass 

626 acres. Includes the north shore of Woewodski Island and a special use permit cabin. 

ROS – Roaded Natural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21127.00 

Whiskey Pass 

909 acres. Includes Butterworth Island and the Whiskey Pass area on Woewodski Island. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21128.00 

Harvey Lake 

Trail Head 

109 acres. Includes the western shore of Woewodski Island adjacent to the Harvey Lake 

trailhead. ROS – Roaded Natural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21128.01 

Harvey Lake 

830 acres. Includes the area around Harvey Lake and the Harvey Lake Forest Service 

recreation cabin. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

Commercial Use Hiking, sightseeing, camping. 

Non-commercial 

Use Hiking, sightseeing, camping, deer hunting, fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from Petersburg residents, and non-residents with transportation. 

All recreation places are within Petersburg’s Home Range. 

Concerns None known. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 65 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 5 

Wrangell Narrows/Woewodski Island 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 15 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

58 42 7 50 0 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg C3, C4, D3, D4. 

Appendix A - Part II 66 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Duncan Canal

49.01

2.00

128.01

126.00

128.00

127.00

49.02

49.00

49.00

127.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/5_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/1/09

STUDY AREA 5 - Wrangell Narrows/Woewodski Is.

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 2 4 1

Miles

Appendix A - 67

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

68 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 6 

Kupreanof Island – North Shore 

Description

The Kupreanof Island – North Shore study area includes the northwest shore of Kupreanof Island. The 6 recreation 

places are the main features of this study area. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

A large portion of the west side of this study area in owned by Sealaska Corporation and Kake Tribal Corporation. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21056.00 

Big Creek 

(upland) 

209 acres. Includes the uplands adjacent to Big Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive NonMotorized. Kake Home Range. 

21056.01 

Big Creek 

(shoreline) 

288 acres. Includes the shoreline adjacent to Big Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Kake Home Range. 

21064.00 

Schooner 

Island 

Anchorage 

90 acres. Includes the area just south of Schooner Island. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Kake Home Range. 

21070.00 

Turnabout 

Island 

177 acres. Includes Turnabout Island in Frederick Sound. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Kake Home Range. 

21157.00 

Tongass 

Camp (shore) 

433 acres. Includes Tongass Kayak Adventures’ outfitter/guide base camp and the shoreline 

area adjacent to the camp. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21157.01 

Tongass 

Camp 

(upland) 

281 acres. Includes the uplands adjacent to Tongass Kayak Adventures’ outfitter/guide base 

camp. ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

Commercial Use Hiking, sightseeing, camping, black bear hunting. 

Non-commercial 

Use Hiking, sightseeing, camping, black bear hunting, fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from Kake and Petersburg residents, and non-residents with 

transportation. All recreation places are within Kake’s Home Range. 

Concerns None known. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 69 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 6 

Kupreanof Island – North Shore 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 1 historic site is documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

397 379 467 344 229 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Sumdum A5, A6; Sitka A1. 

Appendix A - Part II 70 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Frederick Sound

Kake

Point

Macartney

70.00

64.00

56.01

56.00

157.01

157.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/6_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/1/09

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

STUDY AREA 6 - Kupreanof Island -

North Shore

Trails

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 71 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

72 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 7 

Petersburg Creek/Duncan Salt Chuck 

Description

The Petersburg Creek/Duncan Salt Chuck study area includes the Petersburg Creek/Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness. 

The 10 recreation places are the main features of this study area. 

Communities The City of Kupreanof is within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are State and privately owned parcels of land within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21054.00 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

320 acres. Includes a portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail between Portage Bay and Salt 

Chuck. ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.04 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

202 acres. Includes a portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail between Petersburg Lake and 

Portage Bay. ROS – Primitive. Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.05 

Petersburg 

Lake and Trail 

1,030 acres. Includes the area adjacent to Petersburg Lake, the Petersburg Lake Forest 

Service recreation cabin, and a portion of the Petersburg Lake Trail. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.07 

Petersburg 

Lake & Mt. 

Trail Head 

78 acres. Includes the trailheads for the Petersburg Lake Trail and the Petersburg Mt. Trail. 

ROS – Rural. Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.12 

Lower 

Petersburg 

Lake Trail 

867 acres. Includes the lower portion of the Petersburg Lake Trail, the lower portion of 

Petersburg Creek, and four special use permit cabins. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.13 

Salt Chuck 

1,553 acres. Includes Salt Chuck, a portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail, and the Salt 

Chuck East Forest Service recreation cabin. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

21054.15 

Petersburg 

Mt. Trail 

(lower) 

342 acres. Includes a portion of the Petersburg Mt. Trail. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.16 

Petersburg 

Mt. Trail 

(upper) 

89 acres. Includes the upper portion of the Petersburg Mt. Trail. ROS – Primitive. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21207.00 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

261 acres. Includes a portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail between Petersburg Lake and 

Portage Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21240.00 

Petersburg 

Mt. Trail 

(bottom 

section) 

44 acres. Includes bottom section of Petersburg Mountain Trail. ROS – Rural. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 73 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 7 

Petersburg Creek/Duncan Salt Chuck 

Recreation Use (continued)

Commercial Use Fishing, hiking, sightseeing, black bear hunting.

Non-commercial 

Use Hiking, sightseeing, camping, hunting, (black bear, deer, waterfowl), fishing.

Use Patterns This study area receives use from Petersburg residents, and non-residents with 

transportation. All recreation places are within Petersburg’s Home Range.

Concerns

Large amount of fishing use at Petersburg Creek in the spring by local and guided users. 

Use of the Forest Service trails by large numbers of guided users adjacent to private 

property within the City of Kupreanof.

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence

Wildlife

Fisheries Petersburg Creek (trout/char, steelhead and sockeye) is the third most highly used system 

by guided sport fishers on the district (average of 9.56 RVDs/year).

Botany/Invasive 

Plants

Cultural 5 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use

309 339 179 150 164 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg D3, D4, D5.

Appendix A - Part II 74 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Duncan Canal

derick 

Wrangell N

54.13

54.00

54.12

54.16

54.07

54.05

54.04

207.00

240.00

54.15

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/7_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/1/09

0 0.512

Miles

STUDY AREA 7 - Petersburg Creek/

Duncan Salt Chuck 0 0.5

12

Miles

Trails

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 75 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

76 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 8 

North Lindenberg Peninsula 

Description

The North Lindenberg Peninsula study area is to the south and west of Frederick Sound and includes Portage Bay. 

The Petersburg Creek/Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness is to the south of this study area. The 16 recreation places are 

the main features of this study area. 

Communities There are no communities in this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are two private parcels of land near the mouth of Fivemile Creek within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21053.00 

Five mile 

Creek and 

lower trail 

116 acres. Includes the mouth of Fivemile Creek and the lower portion of the Colp Lake 

Trail. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21053.01 

Colp Lake 

and upper 

trail 

609 acres. Includes Colp Lake and the upper portion of the Colp Lake Trail. ROS – 

Primitive. Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.02 

Portage Bay 

(head) 

1,016 acres. Includes the shoreline at the head of Portage Bay and the Portage Bay Forest 

Service recreation cabin. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21054.14 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

56 acres. Includes a small portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail between Portage Bay and 

Salt Chuck. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21055.00 

Dry Cove 

720 acres. Includes the area around Dry Cove on the northwest side of Portage Bay. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21077.00 

Todahl 

Anchorage 

78 acres. Includes the shoreline near the mouth of Todahl Creek on north Kupreanof Island. 

ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21080.00 

Twelvemile 

Creek 

206 acres. Includes the area adjacent to the mouth of Twelvemile Creek. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21147.00 

West Point 

Cabin 

430 acres. Includes the West Point Forest Service recreation cabin and the area on the 

northwest shore of Portage Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home 

Range. 

21148.00 

Portage Bay 

LTF 

60 acres. Includes the shoreline north of the Portage Bay Log Transfer Facility. ROS – 

Roaded Modified. Not within a Home Range. 

21198.00 

Sukoi Islands 

205 acres. Includes the three Sukoi Islands. ROS - Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 77 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 8 

North Lindenberg Peninsula 

Recreation Places (continued)

21199.00 

Portage Bay 

Road System 

2,914 acres. Includes the road system accessible from the Portage Bay Log Transfer Facility. 

ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21200.00 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

53 acres. Includes a small portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail near the head of Portage 

Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21200.01 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

96 acres. Includes a small portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail between Petersburg Lake 

and Portage Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21200.02 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

173 acres. Includes a small portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail between Petersburg Lake 

and Portage Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21200.03 

Portage Mt. 

Loop Trail 

41 acres. Includes a small portion of the Portage Mt. Loop Trail between Petersburg Lake 

and Portage Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21242.00 

Stop Island 

18 acres. Includes Stop Island in Portage Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not 

within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing, black bear and deer hunting. 

Non-commercial 

Use Hiking, sightseeing, camping, hunting (black bear, deer, water fowl), fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from Petersburg residents, and non-residents with transportation. 

Most of the recreation places are within Petersburg’s Home Range. 

Concerns Black bear hunting guides have expressed concerns with “crowding” during hunting season. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries Twelvemile Creek is frequented by guided sport fishers (3.61 RVDs/year). 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 31 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

167 178 355 167 170 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg D3, D4, Sumdum A4, A5. 

Appendix A - Part II 78 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
P

o

rtage

Bay

Frederick Sound

198.00

148.00

147.00

77.00

54.14

200.02

200.01

80.00

200.03

200.00

242.00

55.00

54.02

53.01

53.00

199.00

199.00

199.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/8_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/1/09

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

STUDY AREA 8 - North Lindenberg Peninsula

Trails

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 79 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

80 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 9 

Central Kupreanof Island/Road System 

Description

This study area includes the interior portion of Kupreanof Island and the National Forest road system accessible 

from Kake. It does not include Lindenberg Peninsula. The 16 recreation places are the main features of this study 

area. 

Communities The community of Kake is located within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are extensive portions of northwest Kupreanof Island within this study area that are owned by Sealaska 

Corporation and Kake Tribal Corporation. There are also many parcels of private land within this study area in the 

community of Kake. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21050.01 

Bohemia Lake 

649 acres. Includes the area adjacent to Bohemia Lake. ROS – Semi-Primitive NonMotorized. Kake Home Range. 

21051.00 

Towers Lake 

845 acres. Includes the area adjacent to, and north of, Towers Lake. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21062.06 

Big John Bay 

upland trail 

30 acres. Includes a portion of the Big John Bay Trail between the Kake road system and 

Big John Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21063.00 

Seal Point 

182 acres. Includes Seal Point and the Little Hamilton Log Transfer Facility on the north 

side of Hamilton Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21069.00 

Point 

Macartney 

27 acres. Includes Point Macartney. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21135.00 

Hamilton Trail 

64 acres. Includes a portion of the Hamilton Creek Trail. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake 

Home Range. 

21136.00 

Cathedral 

Falls Trail 

62 acres. Includes a portion of the Cathedral Falls Trail. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake 

Home Range. 

21155.01 Irish 

Lakes 

750 acres. Includes the area around Irish Lakes. ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. 

Kake Home Range. 

21204.00 

Kake Road 

System 

5,039 acres. Includes a large portion of the Kake road system. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Kake Home Range. 

21204.01 

Kake Road 

System 

585 acres. Includes a portion of the Kake road system. ROS – Roaded Natural. Kake Home 

Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 81 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 9 

Central Kupreanof Island/Road System 

21204.02 

Kake Road 

System 

346 acres. Includes a portion of the Kake road system. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake 

Home Range. 

21205.00 

Lakes 4 mi. 

north of Irish 

Lakes 

341 acres. Includes a lake 4 miles north of Irish Lakes near the Kake road system. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21205.01 

Lakes 4 mi. 

north of Irish 

Lakes 

156 acres. Includes a lake 4 miles north of Irish Lakes near the Kake road system. ROS – 

Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21206.00 Irish 

Lakes 

141 acres. Includes a portion of the area between the Kake road system and Irish Lakes. 

ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21253.00 

Goose Lake 

143 acres. Includes Goose Lake and a portion of the Goose Lake Trail. ROS – SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21254.00 

Goose Lake 

trailhead 

34 acres. Includes a portion of the Goose Lake Trail. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home 

Range. 

Commercial Use Camping. 

Non-commercial 

Use 

Hiking, sightseeing, camping, hunting (black bear, deer, water fowl, moose), fishing, berry 

picking, firewood cutting. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use primarily from Kake residents, with some use by non-residents 

with transportation. All but one recreation place are within Kake’s Home Range. 

Concerns In the past Kake residents have expressed concerns that outfitter/guide fishing and hunting 

could negatively affect their subsistence use in the area. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 50 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

0 0 42 0 0 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg C4, C5, C6, D5, D6, Sumdum A5, A6, Sitka A1

Appendix A - Part II 82 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
R

ocky P

ass

Duncan Canal

Big John

Bay

Kadake

Bay

Ham ilton Bay

204.01

205.00

253.00

50.01

51.00

204.00

204.00

63.00

204.00

204.00

204.00

136.00

254.00

62.06

206.00

155.01

205.01

135.00

STUDY AREA 9 - Central Kupreanof Island/

Road System

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/9_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/1/09

0 2.5 5 1.25 Miles

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

Appendix A - 83

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map. 

84 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 10 

Southwest Kupreanof Island 

Description

This study area includes the southwest portion of Kupreanof Island. Sumner Strait is the southern boundary of this 

study area. The 10 recreation places are the main features of this study area. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are no known non-National Forest lands within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places 

21037.00 

Totem Bay 

796 acres. Includes a portion of the north side of Totem Bay and the mouth of two creeks 

known locally as Totem Creek and Zim Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Point 

Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21037.01 

Little Totem 

Bay 

947 acres. Includes Little Totem Bay and the west shore of Totem Bay. ROS - Roaded 

Modified. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21037.02 

Totem Creek 

295 acres. Includes the upper portion of a creek known locally as Totem Creek. ROS – 

Primitive. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21037.03 

Totem Creek 

157 acres. Includes a portion of a creek known locally as Totem Creek. ROS – SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21038.00 

Kushneahin 

Creek 

134 acres. Includes the lower portion of Kushneahin Creek. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21038.01 

Kushneahin 

Creek 

237 acres. Includes the upper portion of Kushneahin Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive NonMotorized. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21065.00 

Douglas Bay 

1,843 acres. Includes the shoreline of Douglas Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. Not within a 

Home Range. 

21066.00 Moss 

Island 

Anchorage 

165 acres. Includes Moss Island, located just south of Douglas Bay. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21146.00 

Agate Beach 

519 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline west of Totem Bay, known locally as Agate 

Beach. ROS - Roaded Modified. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21195.00 

Rocky Pass 

(south) 

373 acres. Includes the shoreline along Keku Strait at the mouth of Lovelace Creek. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, black bear hunting, sightseeing. 

Non-commercial 

Use Camping, black bear and deer hunting, sightseeing, fishing. 

Use Patterns 

This study area receives use from the residents of Point Baker, Port Protection, Petersburg, 

and non-residents with transportation. All but one recreation place is within the Home 

Range of Point Baker and Port Protection. 

Concerns None known. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 85 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 10 

Southwest Kupreanof Island 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 46 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

176 619 318 407 395 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg B4, B5, B6, C4, C5, C6.

86 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Sumner Strait

Douglas Bay

Totem Bay

Three Mile Arm

195.00

38.01

38.00

37.03

37.01

65.00

66.00

146.00

37.00

251.00

36.00

159.00

159.00

37.02

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/10_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/2/09

STUDY AREA 10 - Southwest Kupreanof 

Island

Trails

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 87 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

88 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 11 

Rowan Bay/Bay of Pillars 

Description

This study area includes Rowan Bay and Bay of Pillars on the west side of Kuiu Island. Chatham Strait is the west 

boundary of the study area. The 7 recreation places are the main features of this study area. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There is a large parcel of State land at Rowan Bay, a small parcel of private land on the south side of Bay of Pillars 

at an old abandoned cannery site, and a small parcel of Sealaska land on the north side of Bay of Pillars within this 

study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places 

21074.00 

Bay of Pillars 

Shelter 

97 acres. Includes the Forest Service recreation shelter at Bay of Pillars. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21074.09 

Kutlaku 

90 acres. Includes the area around the mouth of Kutlaku Creek. ROS Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21074.10 

Kutlaku Lake 

138 acres. Includes the area around the outlet of Kutlaku Lake. ROS – Primitive. Kake 

Home Range. 

21075.00 

Rowan Bay, 

south side 

anchorage 

264 acres. Includes a portion of the south shore of Rowan Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Not within a Home Range. 

21076.00 

Rowan Bay 

(head) 

704 acres. Includes the head of Rowan Bay and the mouth of two creeks known locally as 

Brown’s Creek and Rowan Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21144.00 

Bay of Pillars 

Outside 

187 acres. Includes a portion of the southwest shore of Bay of Pillars. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21145.00 

Bay of Pillars 

Anchorage 

128 acres. Includes a portion of the southeast shoreline of Bay of Pillars. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (black bear, deer, wolf), sightseeing, fishing. 

Non-commercial 

Use Camping, black bear and deer hunting, sightseeing, fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from residents of Kake, and non-residents with transportation. 

Three recreation places are within the Home Range of Kake. 

Concerns None known. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 89 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 11 

Rowan Bay/Bay of Pillars 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries Kutlaku Creek has the highest reported harvest of subsistence and personal use sockeye on 

the district (198 RVDs/year). It is also used by outfitters and guides (2.9 RVDs/year). 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 29 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

108 174 147 117 120 

Refer to the following USGS map for reference: Port Alexander C1.

Appendix A - Part II 90 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Bay of Pillars

Rowan Bay

Chatham Strait

75.00

76.00

144.00

74.09

145.00

74.00

74.10

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/11_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/2/09

0 0.45 0.9 1.8

Miles

STUDY AREA 11 - Rowan Bay/

Bay of Pillars

Trails

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 91 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

92 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 12A 

Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays 

Description

This study area is located on the northwest side of Kuiu Island. Chatham Strait is to the west and Frederick Sound is 

to the northwest. The main features of the study area are Saginaw, Security, and Washington Bays. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are large parcels of State of Alaska land, and some privately owned land at Security Bay. There are two small 

parcels of Sealaska land at Halleck Harbor in Saginaw Bay. There is a small parcel of land about 1⁄2 mile west of the 

old abandoned cannery site at Saginaw Bay that is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21090.00 

Halleck Harbor 

(south)

258 acres. Includes the southeast shore of Halleck Harbor. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake 

Home Range. 

21090.01 

Halleck Harbor 

(north) 

170 acres. Includes the north shore of Halleck Harbor. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Kake Home Range. 

21090.02 

Halleck 

Harbor, Cove 

SE 

51 acres. Includes the east side of small cove just southeast of Halleck Harbor. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21092.00 

Saginaw Bay 

(head) 

885 acres. Includes the shoreline at the head of Saginaw Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Kake Home Range. 

21094.00 

Security Bay 

(head) 

523 acres. Includes the shoreline at the head of Security Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21095.00 

Washington 

Bay 

645 acres. Includes the shoreline at Washington Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Not within a Home Range. 

21187.00 

Washington 

Bay, 1 mile 

south 

28 acres. Includes a small cove about one mile south of Washington Bay. Used as a 

campsite by guided kayakers. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home 

Range. 

21188.00 

Washington 

Bay, 4 miles 

north 

38 acres. Includes a small cove about four miles north of Washington Bay. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21189.01 

Security Bay 

(east side) 

52 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the east side of Security Bay. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21189.02 

Security Bay 

(east side) 

253 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the east side of Security Bay. ROS – 

Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 93 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 12A 

Saginaw/Security/Washington Bays 

Recreation Places (continued)

21190.00 

Security Bay 

(west side) 

73 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the west side of Security Bay. ROS - SemiPrimitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21191.00 

Security Bay 

(outside) 

103 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline near the entrance to Security Bay. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (black bear, deer, wolf), sightseeing, fishing. 

Non-commercial 

Use Camping, hunting black bear and deer, sightseeing, fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from the residents of Kake, and non-residents with 

transportation. Nine of the recreation places are within the Home Range of Kake. 

Concerns Black bear hunting guides have expressed a concern with crowding during hunting season, 

primarily in Saginaw Bay. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries Security Creek receives subsistence and personal use harvest for coho (2.86 RVDs/year) and 

sockeye (2.86 RVDs/year) salmon. 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 64 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

365 479 554 678 396 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Port Alexander C1, C2, D1, D2. 

Appendix A - Part II 94 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Rowan Bay

Chatham Strait

Security Bay

Rowan Bay

188.00

95.00

187.00

92.00 191.00

190.00

94.00

189.02

189.01

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/12A_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/2/09

STUDY AREA 12A - Saginaw/Security/

Washington Bays

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 2 4 1

Miles

Appendix A - 95

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

96 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 12B 

Kuiu Island Road System 

Description

This study area is located on the north end of Kuiu Island. It includes the mainline and spur roads on Kuiu Island. 

The roads extend to Saginaw Bay, Security Bay, Rowan Bay, Bay of Pillars, Port Camden, and Three Mile Arm. 

The main features of the study area are the road system and eight other recreation places. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

A small portion of State-owned lands at Rowan Bay and Security Bay are within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21074.03 

Bay of Pillars 

Portage 

113 acres. Includes the area adjacent to the head of the Bay of Pillars and a small portion of 

the kayak portage between Bay of Pillars and Port Camden. ROS – Roaded Natural. Kake 

Home Range. 

21074.06 

Threemile Arm 

(head) 

350 acres. Includes the area at the head of Threemile Arm adjacent to Roads 6434 and 

6478. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21074.08 

Port Camden 

(head west) 

85 acres. Includes the area at the head of Port Camden, and a small portion of the kayak 

portage between Port Camden and Bay of Pillars. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home 

Range. 

21081.02 

Kadake Creek 

925 acres. Includes the upper portion of Kadake Creek. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake 

Home Range. 

21093.01 

Ledge Lake 

107 acres. Includes a portion of Ledge Lake near Road 46251. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21093.02 

Cool 

Lake/Ledge 

Lake 

371 acres. Includes Cool Lake and Ledge Lake near Road 46251. ROS – Roaded Modified. 

Kake Home Range. 

21121.00 

Hillar 

645 acres. Includes the shoreline at the mouth of Hillar Creek at Threemile Arm. ROS – 

Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21137.00 Port 

Camden 

(south) 

172 acres. Includes a portion of the area at the south end of Port Camden. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21192.00 Kuiu 

Island Road 

System 

5,622 acres. Includes the Kuiu Island road system, extending to Saginaw Bay, Security Bay, 

Rowan Bay, Bay of Pillars, Port Camden, and Three Mile Arm. ROS – Roaded Modified 

and Roaded Natural. Kake Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (black bear, wolf), sightseeing, fishing. 

Non-commercial 

Use Camping, hunting black bear, sightseeing, fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from the residents of Kake, and non-residents with 

transportation. All of the recreation places are within the Home Range of Kake. 

Concerns None known. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 97 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 12B 

Kuiu Island Road System 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Kadake Creek is popular for guided steelhead sport fishing (7.46RVDs/year). Saginaw 

Creek receives the third highest reported subsistence and personal use sockeye harvest on 

the district (11.86 RVDs/year). 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 18 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

189 127 148 188 159 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg C6, D6, Port Alexander C1, C2, D1, D2. 

Appendix A - Part II 98 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Three Mile Arm

Tebenkof Bay

Bay of Pil al rs

Port C

a

m

d

e

n

Port C

a

m

d

e

n

Bay

Rowan Bay

Chatham Strait

81.02

192.00

192.00

74.06

137.00

121.00

192.00

74.08

74.03

192.00

192.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/12B_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/2/09

STUDY AREA 12B - Kuiu Island Road System

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Appendix A - 99

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

100 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 13 

Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu Wilderness 

Description 

This study area is located on Kuiu Island and includes the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas. The main 

features of the study area are Tebenkof Bay, Port Malmesbury, the northern portion of Affleck Canal, and Port 

Beauclerc. There are 19 recreation places within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

Sealaska Corporation owns one small parcel of land in Port Malmesbury, and five small parcels of land in Elena 

Bay. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21072.00 

Piledriver 

Cove 

194 acres. Includes the shoreline around Piledriver Cove. Outfitter/guide kayak-touring 

campsite. Not within a Home Range. 

21073.01 

Alecks Creek 

and Lake 

793 acres. Includes Alecks Creek and the area adjacent to Alecks Lake. ROS – Primitive. 

Not within a Home Range. 

21100.00 

Explorer 

Basin 

415 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the south end of Explorer Basin. An 

outfitter/guide kayak-touring campsite is within this recreation place. ROS – Primitive. Not 

within a Home Range. 

21101.00 

Gedney 

Harbor 

355 acres. Includes the southern shoreline of Gedney Harbor. ROS – Primitive. Not within 

a Home Range. 

21102.00 

Port 

Malmesbury 

(north shore) 

362 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the north side of Port Malmesbury. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21106.00 

Bear Harbor 

1,609 acres. Includes Bear Harbor on the west side of Affleck Canal. ROS – Primitive. Not 

within a Home Range. 

21109.00 

Port 

Beauclerc 

(west side) 

526 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the west side of Port Beauclerc. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21117.00 

Petrof/Affleck 

portage 

446 acres. Includes the kayak portage trail between Petrof Bay and Affleck Canal. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21119.00 Head 

of Port 

Beauclerc 

532 acres. Includes the shoreline at the north end of Port Beauclerc. ROS – Primitive. Not 

within a Home Range. 

21142.00 

Shelter Cove 

87 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the south end of Elena Bay. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21160.00 

Lisa Point 

35 acres. Includes a portion of three small islands at Lisa Point in Tebenkof Bay. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 101 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 13 

Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu Wilderness 

Recreation Places (continued)

21161.00 

Orel 

Anchorage 

112 acres. Includes three small islands at Orel Anchorage in Tebenkof Bay. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21180.00 

Port 

Beauclerc 

(east side) 

60 acres. Includes the shoreline at an outfitter/guide kayak-touring campsite. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21181.00 

Edwards 

Island 

185 acres. Includes the southern shoreline of Edwards Island in Port Beauclerc. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21182.00 Port 

Beauclerc 

(south) 

260 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the south end of Port Beauclerc. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21183.00 

Windfall 

Islands 

21 acres. Includes the south end of the largest Windfall Island. A kayak-touring campsite is 

located in this recreation place. ROS – Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21184.00 

Long Island 

19 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite on the north end of an island in Tebenkof Bay 

know locally as Long Island. ROS – Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21185.00 

Happy Cove 

221 acres. Includes Happy Cove and small islands to the west. This recreation place is used 

as a campsite and is located on the north end of Tebenkof Bay. ROS – Primitive. Not 

within a Home Range. 

21186.00 

Troller Islands 

160 acres. Includes a portion of the Troller Islands in Tebenkof Bay. ROS – Primitive. Not 

within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (black bear, wolf), sightseeing, fishing. 

Non-commercial 

Use Camping, hunting black bear, sightseeing, fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from outlying communities and non-residents with 

transportation. None of the recreation places are within a Home Range. 

Concerns None known. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries Alecks Creek is frequented by guided sport fishers (4.74 RVDs/year). It is also receives the 

second highest reported use for personal and subsistence harvest of sockeye (74.4 RVDs). 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 168 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

545 456 668 274 186 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg A6, B6, C6, Port Alexander A1, B1, C1. 

Appendix A - Part II 102 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Affleck Canal

Sumner Strait

Table Bay

Chatham Strait

100.00

160.00

119.00

102.00

180.00

106.00

109.00

181.00

182.00

117.00

101.00

183.00 184.00

161.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/13_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/2/09

STUDY AREA 13 - Tebenkof Bay/

Kuiu Wilderness 

0 2 4 1 Miles

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

Appendix A - 103

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

104 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 14 

Keku Strait/Port Camden 

Description

This study area is located on northeast Kuiu Island and west Kupreanof Island. The main geographic features 

include Keku Strait, Port Camden, Hamilton Bay, Big John Bay, Rocky Pass, and Kadake Bay. There are 21 

recreation places identified within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

The State owns High Island in Rocky Pass. A private individual owns a parcel of land on the north side of Kadake 

Bay. There are large parcels of land on north Kuiu Island owned by Sealaska Corporation and Kake Tribal 

Corporation. Sealaska Corporation owns several small parcels of land in the Keku Islands and Dakaneek Bay areas. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21036.00 

Devil’s Elbow 

856 acres. Includes the Devil’s Elbow Forest Service recreation cabin and a portion of the 

shoreline on the west side of Rocky Pass on Kuiu Island. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21060.00 

Horseshoe 

Island 

669 acres. Includes Horseshoe Island near Big John Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21061.00 

Entrance Island 

51 acres. Includes Entrance Island near Big John Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Kake Home Range. 

21062.02 

Hamilton Bay 

786 acres. Includes a portion of the southern shore of Hamilton Bay on Kupreanof Island. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21062.05 

Big John Bay 

1,783 acres. Includes the head of Big John Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake 

Home Range. 

21071.00 

Dakaneek Bay 

541 acres. Includes Dakaneek Bay. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home 

Range. 

21074.07 

Port Camden 

Anchorage 

210 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline at the southeast end of Port Camden. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21081.01 

Kadake Bay 

243 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the south side of Kadake Bay and the 

Forest Service recreation cabin. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21082.00 Beach 

N. of Slippery 

Creek 

485 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the east side of Port Camden. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21082.01 

Anchorage S. of 

Slippery Cr. 

560 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline south of Slippery Creek at Port Camden. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21086.00 

Slippery Creek 

106 acres. Includes the mouth of Slippery Creek at Port Camden. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21086.01 

Slippery Lake 

894 acres. Includes the upper portion of Slippery Creek and the area around Slippery 

Lake. ROS – Primitive. Kake Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 105 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 14 

Keku Strait/Port Camden 

Recreation Places (continued)

21088.00 

Gil Harbor 

691 acres. Includes the shoreline at Gil Harbor. ROS – Roaded Modified. Kake Home 

Range. 

21091.00 

Cornwallis 

Peninsula 

247 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline southeast of Cornwallis Point on north Kuiu 

Island. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21120.00 Crane 

Creek 

85 acres. Includes the shoreline at the mouth of Crane Creek at Port Camden. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21122.00 

North Rocky 

Pass 

216 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline at the north end of Rocky Pass on Kuiu 

Island. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21135.01 

Hamilton Trail 

300 acres. Includes the mouth of Hamilton Creek and a portion of the Hamilton Creek 

Trail. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21193.00 

Point Camden 

18 acres. Includes a campsite used by outfitter/guide kayak tours, approximately one mile 

south of Point Camden. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21194.00 

Point Hamilton 

89 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the west side of Hamilton Bay. This 

recreation place includes a campsite used by outfitter/guide kayak tours. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21251.00 

Tunehean Creek 

555 acres. Includes the shoreline at the mouth of Tunehean Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21252.00 

Irish Creek 

624 acres. Includes the lower portion of Irish Creek and the shoreline at the mouth of the 

creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (black bear, deer), sightseeing, fishing. 

Non-commercial 

Use Camping, hunting (black bear, deer, waterfowl), sightseeing, fishing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from Kake residents and non-residents with transportation. 

All of the recreation places are within the Home Range of Kake. 

Concerns In the past Kake residents have expressed a concern that outfitters/guides may interfere 

with residents’ recreation and subsistence activities. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 27 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

354 404 388 403 300 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg C5, C6, D5, D6, Port Alexander D1.

Appendix A - Part II 106 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Port C

a

m

d

en

Bay

Port C

a

m

d

en

Bay

Three Mile Arm

No Name Bay

Tebenkof Bay

Bay of Pil al rs

Rowan Bay

Kadake

Bay

122.00

60.00

86.01

86.00

82.01

120.00

82.00

251.00

36.00

252.00

193.00

81.01

60.00

82.01

74.07

STUDY AREA 14 - Keku Strait/Port Camden

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 2 4 1 Miles

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/14_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/3/09

Appendix A - 107

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

108 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 15 

South Kuiu Island 

Description

This study area is located on south end of Kuiu Island. Chatham Strait is to the west and Sumner Strait is to the east. 

There are 13 recreation places identified within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There is a 216 acre parcel of private land at the southern tip of Kuiu Island that includes the Cape Decision 

Lighthouse. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21097.00 

Kell Bay (Central) 

462 acres. Includes a portion of the western shore of Kell Bay and extends to the 

shoreline at Table Bay. ROS – Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21098.00 

Kell Bay (South 

Shore) 

767 acres. Includes the south shoreline of Kell Bay. ROS – Primitive. Not within a 

Home Range. 

21099.00 

Port 

McArthur/Howard 

Cove 

963 acres. Includes the shoreline of Port McArthur and extends west to the shoreline of 

Howard Cove. ROS – Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21139.00 

Crowley Bight 

82 acres. Includes the shoreline at Crowley Bight. ROS – Primitive. Not within a 

Home Range. 

21140.00 

Kell Bay (North 

Arm) 

537 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline of the north arm of Kell Bay. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21153.00 

Pt. St. Albans 

27 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21171.00 

3 miles north of 

Table Bay 

50 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21172.00 

4 miles NE of Pt. 

St. Albans 

26 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21173.00 

5 miles NE of Pt. 

St. Albans 

7 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21174.00 

5.5 miles NE of Pt. 

St. Albans 

46 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21175.00 

1 mile NW of Pt. 

Amelius 

13 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups. ROS – 

Primitive. Point Baker/Port Protection Home Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 109 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 15 

South Kuiu Island

Recreation Places (continued)

21176.00 

1.5 miles NE of Pt. 

Amelius 

30 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups. ROS – 

Primitive. Point Baker/Port Protection Home Range. 

21177.00 

Table Bay 

39 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide campsite used by kayak tour groups on the south 

shoreline of Table Bay. ROS – Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (black bear, wolf), sightseeing. 

Non-commercial Use Camping, hunting black bear, sightseeing. 

Use Patterns 

This study area receives use from the residents of Point Baker and Port Protection and 

non-residents with transportation. Two of the recreation places are within the Home 

Range of Point Baker and Port Protection. 

Concerns None known. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 4 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

178 396 162 208 416 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg A6, Port Alexander A1, B1.

Appendix A - Part II 110 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Howard

Cove

Louise

Cove

Table Bay

Sumner Strait

140.00

97.00

98.00

177.00

139.00

173.00

174.00

153.00

172.00

99.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/15_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/3/09

STUDY AREA 15 - South Kuiu Island

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 2 4 1 Miles

Appendix A - 111

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

112 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 16 

Reid/No Name Bays

Description

This study area is located on the east side of Kuiu Island. Keku Strait is to the east and Sumner Strait is to the 

southeast. There are 10 recreation places identified within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities within this study area.

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There is a 3 acre parcel of private land at Seclusion Harbor. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21073.00 

No Name Bay 

(head) 

260 acres. Includes a portion of the northwest shore of No Name Bay. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21084.00 

Seclusion Harbor 

636 acres. Includes Seclusion Harbor and Salt Lagoon. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21111.00 

Reid Bay 

(southeast) 

161 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the south end of Reid Bay. ROS – 

Primitive. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21112.00 

Alvin Bay 

690 acres. Includes Alvin Bay. ROS – Roaded Modified. Point Baker and Port 

Protection Home Range. 

21113.00 

No Name Bay 

(south) 

285 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the south side of No Name Bay. ROS 

– Roaded Modified. Kake Home Range. 

21113.01 

No Name Bay 

201 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline on the southwest side of No Name Bay. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Kake Home Range. 

21115.00 

Reid Bay 

476 acres. Includes the west shoreline of Reid Bay. ROS – Primitive. Point Baker and 

Port Protection Home Range. 

21152.00 

Reid Bay (south) 

75 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline south of Reid Bay. ROS – Primitive. 

Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21158.00 

Sumner Island 

102 acres. Includes a portion of the north shore of Sumner Island. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

21159.00 

Strait Island 

55 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline of Strait Island in Sumner Strait. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Point Baker and Port Protection Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting black bear, sightseeing. 

Non-commercial Use Camping, hunting black bear, sightseeing. 

Use Patterns 

This study area receives use from the residents of Point Baker, Port Protection, Kake, 

and non-residents with transportation. All of the recreation places are within the Home 

Range of Point Baker/Port Protection, or Kake. 

Concerns None known. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 113 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 16 

Reid/No Name Bays

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 21 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

50 128 96 171 273 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg B6, C6, Port Alexander B1, C1.

Appendix A - Part II 114 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
No Name BayNo Name Bay

Sumner Strait

73.00

113.01

112.00

115.00 158.00

111.00

152.00

159.00

159.00

113.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/16_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/18/09

STUDY AREA 16 - Reid/No Name Bays

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 2 4 1 Miles

Appendix A - 115

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

116 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 21 

Muddy River Area 

Description

This study area is located on the mainland east of Frederick Sound. It includes the Thomas Bay road system, 

Patterson River, Muddy River, Point Agassiz, and a portion of Thomas Bay. There are 10 recreation places 

identified within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities in this study area. However, there are several families that 

live within, or have recreation cabins within, this study area. 

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There is a large parcel of State land, and many parcels of private land, within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21017.00 

Wood Point 

156 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline at the northwest end of Point Agassiz 

Peninsula. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21018.00 

Brown Cove and 

Icy Cove 

524 acres. Includes the shoreline from Brown Cove to Icy Cove. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21243.00 

Thomas Bay 

Roads 

379 acres. Includes a portion of the Thomas Bay road system. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21244.00 

Muddy River Road 

265 acres. Includes the road near Muddy River. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

21245.00 

Muddy River 

1,025 acres. Includes the Muddy River. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home 

Range. 

21246.00 

Patterson River 

Road, south 

90 acres. Includes the road on the south side of Patterson River. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21247.00 

Patterson Lake 

348 acres. Includes the lake at the head of Patterson River. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21248.00 

Patterson River 

Road, north 

163 acres. Includes the road on the north side of Patterson River. ROS – Roaded 

Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21249.00 

Point Agassiz 

Road 

55 acres. Includes the road at Point Agassiz. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

21250.00 

Patterson River 

395 acres. Includes the Patterson River. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home 

Range. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 117 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 21 

Muddy River Area 

Recreation Use (continued)

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (deer, mountain goat, wolf, black bear), guided trapping, outfitting 

kayaks, sightseeing. 

Non-commercial Use Camping, hunting (moose, black bear, deer, mountain goat), sightseeing, fishing, 

firewood cutting, horseback riding, riding ATVs. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from the residents of Petersburg, and non-residents with 

transportation. All of the recreation places are within the Home Range of Petersburg. 

Concerns None known. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 14 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

124 197 348 324 70 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg D2, D3, Sumdum A3. 

Appendix A - Part II 118 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Thom as

Bay

Frederick Sound

18.00

248.00

250.00

246.00

249.00

17.00

247.00

245.00

243.00

245.00

244.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/21_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/3/09

STUDY AREA 21 - Muddy River Area

0 1 2 4

Miles

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 119 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

120 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 22 

Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput 

Description

This study area is located on the mainland northeast of Frederick Sound. It includes the north and east part of 

Thomas Bay, and the area from Thomas Bay to just east of Farragut Bay. There are 11 recreation places identified 

within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities in this study area. 

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are no non-National Forest lands within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21019.00 

Cascade Creek 

Cabin and Trail 

276 acres. Includes the Cascade Creek Forest Service recreation cabin and the trailhead 

of the Cascade Creek Trail. ROS – Roaded Modified. Petersburg Home Range. 

21019.01 

Upper Cascade 

Trail and Falls Lk 

255 acres. Includes the middle portion of the Cascade Creek Trail and Falls Lake. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21019.02 

Swan Lake 

715 acres. Includes the upper portion of the Cascade Creek Trail, and the area adjacent 

to Swan lake. ROS – Primitive. Petersburg Home Range. 

21021.00 

Scenery Cove 

143 acres. Includes the area to the north of, and at the head of, Scenery Cove. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21021.01 

Scenery Creek 

198 acres. Includes a portion of Scenery Creek between Scenery Cove and Scenery 

Lake. ROS – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21021.02 

Scenery Creek 

335 acres. Includes a portion of Scenery Creek west of Scenery Lake. 

ROS – Primitive. Petersburg Home Range. 

21021.03 

Spurt Lake 

510 acres. Includes the area adjacent to Spurt Lake. ROS – Semi-Primitive NonMotorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21023.00 

DeBoer Lake 

442 acres. Includes the area adjacent to DeBoer Lake. ROS – Primitive. Petersburg 

Home Range. 

21132.00 

Baird Glacier 

(terminus) 

941 acres. Includes the terminus of Baird Glacier. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Petersburg Home Range. 

21133.00 

Spurt Cove Cabin 

311 acres. Includes the Spurt Cove Forest Service recreation cabin. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Petersburg Home Range. 

21156.00 

Dry Bay 

158 acres. Includes the shoreline at Dry Bay, northwest of Point Vandeput. ROS – 

Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (deer, mountain goat, wolf, black bear), guided trapping, outfitting 

kayaks, sightseeing, fishing. 

Non-commercial Use Camping, hunting (moose, black bear, deer, mountain goat), sightseeing, fishing, 

trapping. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 121 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 22 

Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput 

Recreation Use (continued)

Use Patterns This study area receives use from the residents of Petersburg, and non-residents with 

transportation. Ten of the recreation places are within the Home Range of Petersburg. 

Concerns None known. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural 5 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

246 339 319 222 286 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg D3, Sumdum A2, A3, A4.

Appendix A - Part II 122 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Tho m as

Ba

Frederick Sound

y

Frederick Sound Fr e de r ic k S o un d

156.00

23.00

21.03

133.00

132.00

19.00

19.01

19.02

21.00 21.01

21.02

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/22_prd.mxd mp 4/29/09

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

STUDY AREA 22 - Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 123 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

124 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 23 

Farragut Bay/Cape Fanshaw 

Description

This study area is located on the mainland north of Frederick Sound. It includes the area from Fanshaw Bay to 

Farragut Bay. There are 8 recreation places identified within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities in this study area. However, there are a few people that 

live on private property at Farragut Bay. 

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are large areas of State land at Fanshaw Bay and Farragut Bay. There are also large parcels of private land at 

Farragut Bay. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places

21029.00 

Farragut Bay, North 

Arm 

333 acres. Includes the head of the North Arm of Farragut Bay. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21030.00 

Farragut River 

756 acres. Includes the lower portion of the Farragut River. ROS – Semi-Primitive 

Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21034.00 

Francis Anchorage 

456 acres. Includes a portion of the east shore of the South Arm of Farragut Bay. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21124.00 

Cat Creek 

375 acres. Includes the area around Cat Creek. ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

Not within a Home Range. 

21130.00 

Farragut Bay (east 

flats) 

204 acres. Includes a portion of the east shoreline of the South Arm of Farragut Bay. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21131.00 

Farragut Bay (north 

flats) 

239 acres. Includes a portion of the north shore of the South Arm of Farragut Bay. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21151.00 

Cape Fanshaw 

327 acres. Includes Cape Fanshaw and a portion of the shoreline at Fanshaw Bay. 

ROS – Semi-Primitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

21154.00 

Tangent Peak 

(shore) 

63 acres. Includes a portion of the shoreline south of Tangent Peak. ROS – SemiPrimitive Motorized. Not within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Camping, hunting (mountain goat, wolf, black bear), outfitting kayaks, sightseeing, 

fishing. 

Non-commercial Use Camping, hunting (moose, black bear, waterfowl), sightseeing, fishing. 

Use Patterns 

This Study Area receives use from the people who reside at or own property at 

Farragut Bay, from the residents of Petersburg, and from non-residents with 

transportation. None of the recreation places are within a Home Range. 

Concerns None known. 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 125 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 23 

Farragut Bay/Cape Fanshaw 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive Plants 

Cultural 18 historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

14 12 62 56 17 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Sumdum A4, A5, B4, B5.

Appendix A - Part II 126 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Frederick Sound

Farragut Bay

Fanshaw Bay

151.00

124.00

154.00

29.00

131.00

34.00

30.00

30.00

130.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/23_fin_rec_prd.mxd mp 6/3/09

0 0.4 0.8 1.6

Miles

STUDY AREA 23 - Farragut Bay/ Cape Fanshaw

Trails

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 127 Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

128 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 24 

Baird/Patterson Glaciers 

Description

This study area is located on the mainland northeast of Frederick Sound. It includes the Baird and Patterson 

Glaciers. There are 5 recreation places identified within this study area. 

Communities There are no communities in this study area. 

Non-National Forest System Lands 

There are no non-National Forest lands within this study area. 

Recreation Use

Recreation Places 

21026.00 

Farragut/Glory 

Lakes 

2,688 acres. Includes the area around Farragut Lake and Glory Lake. ROS – Primitive. 

Not within a Home Range. 

21208.00 

Patterson Glacier 

(Temsco site 1) 

11 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide helicopter landing site on Patterson Glacier used 

by Temsco Helicopters, Inc. ROS – Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21255.00 

Patterson Glacier 

(Temsco site 2) 

11 acres. Includes an outfitter/guide helicopter landing site on Patterson Glacier used 

by Temsco Helicopters, Inc. ROS – Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21256.00 

Devils Thumb 

11 acres. Includes a campsite used by mountain climbers near Devils Thumb. ROS – 

Primitive. Not within a Home Range. 

21257.00 

Baird Glacier 

11 acres. Includes a campsite used by hikers on Baird Glacier. ROS – Primitive. Not 

within a Home Range. 

Commercial Use Helicopter landing tours, mountain goat hunting. 

Non-commercial Use Mountain goat hunting, glacier hiking, mountain climbing, camping, sightseeing. 

Use Patterns This study area receives use from the residents of Petersburg, and from non-residents 

with transportation. None of the recreation places are within a Home Range. 

Concerns None known. 

Management/Resource Considerations

Subsistence 

Wildlife 

Fisheries 

Botany/Invasive 

Plants 

Cultural No historic sites are documented within the study area.

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 129 Part II - Appendix A
Existing Conditions 

Study Area 24 

Baird/Patterson Glaciers 

View from Happy Cove in Tebenkof Bay Wilderness, Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Photograph by 

Carin Christensen.

Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) Outfitter and Guide Actual Use

2004 Actual Use 2005 Actual Use 2006 Actual Use 2007 Actual Use 2008 Actual Use 

23 22 7 14 6 

Refer to the following USGS maps for reference: Petersburg D2, D3, Sumdum A1, A2, A3, A4, B2, B3. 

Appendix A - Part II 130 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Tho m a

B

s

ya

Frederick Sound

Wrangell Narrows

208.00

255.00

256.00

257.00

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/prdstudymaps/24_fin_rec_prd2.mxd mp 6/3/09

STUDY AREA 24 - Baird/Patterson Glaciers

Study Area Boundary

Recreation Places

Other Ownership and State Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Existing Roads

Major Streams

Trails

0 4 8 2

Miles

Appendix A - 131

Part II - Appendix A
Backside of map.

132 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part II
Part III 

ROS Class Study Area Maps 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 133
Beach debris and crab claw. Photograph by Sandy Frost.

134 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - Part III
Dry Strait

Blind Slough

l Narro

w

s

Sumner Strait

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/1fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

Appendix A - 135

Part III - Appendix A
136 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Sumner Strait

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/2_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

Appendix A - 137

Part III - Appendix A
138 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
s

Duncan Canal

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/4fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 4 - Duncan Canal - East Side

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 0.75 1.5 0.375 Miles

Appendix A - 139

Part III - Appendix A
140 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
w

s

Duncan Canal

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/5fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 5 - Wrangell Narrows/Woewodski Is.

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 2 4 1 Miles

Appendix A - 141

Part III - Appendix A
142 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Kake

Frederick Sound

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/6fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 6 - Kupreanof Island - North Shore

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 143 Part III - Appendix A
144 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Petersburg

Duncan Canal

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/7fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 7 - Petersburg Creek/Duncan 

Salt Chuck ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0124

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 145 Part III - Appendix A
146 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Po

rtage

Bay

Frederick Sound

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/8fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 8 - North Lindenberg Peninsula

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 147 Part III - Appendix A
148 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
R

ocky P

ass

Kake

Duncan Canal

Big John

Bay

Kadake

Bay

Ha m ilton Bay

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/9_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

Appendix A - 149

Part III - Appendix A
150 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Sumner Strait

Douglas Bay

Totem Bay

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/10fin_ros_prd2.mxd mp 8/11/09 MP

STUDY AREA 10 - Southwest Kupreanof Island

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 151 Part III - Appendix A
152 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Bay of Pillars Rowan Bay

Chatham Strait

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/11fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 11 - Rowan Bay/Bay of Pillars

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads 0 0.4 0.8 1.6

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 153 Part III - Appendix A
154 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Rowan Bay

Chatham Strait

ay

Security Bay

Rowan Bay

STUDY AREA 12A - Saginaw/Security

Washington Bays ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 2 4 1 Miles

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/12Afin_ros_prd.mxd mp 6/16/09

Appendix A - 155

Part III - Appendix A
156 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Three Mile Arm

Tebenkof Bay

Bay of Pil al rs

Port C

a

m

d

e

n

Port C

a

m

d

e

n

Rowan Bay

Chatham Strait

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/12B_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 12B - Kuiu Island Road System

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 3 6 1.5 Miles

Appendix A - 157

Part III - Appendix A
158 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Affleck Canal

Sumner Strait

Tebenkof Bay

Chatham Strait

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/13fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

Appendix A - 159

Part III - Appendix A
160 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Port C

a

m

d

en

Keku Strait

Ham ilton Bay

Big John

Bay

Port C

a

m

d

en

Keku Strait

Ham ilton Bay

Big John

Bay

Saginaw Bay

ecurity Bay

Three Mile Arm

No Name Bay

Tebenkof Bay

Bay of Pil al rs

Rowan Bay

Kadake

Bay

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/14fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

Appendix A - 161

Part III - Appendix A
162 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Howard

Cove

Louise

Cove

Table Bay

Sumner Strait

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/15fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 6/16/09

Appendix A - 163

Part III - Appendix A
164 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
No Name BayNo Name Bay

Sumner Strait

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/16fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

Appendix A - 165

Part III - Appendix A
166 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Thom as Bay Frederick Sound

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/21fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 21 - Muddy River Area

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0124

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 167 Part III - Appendix A
168 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Thom as

Ba

Frederick Sound

y

Frederick SoFr e de r ic k S ou nd

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/23fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 22 - Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

I need to fix this and ask you about P1 

and P2. I also need to clip this study area.

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 169 Part III - Appendix A
170 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Frederick Sound

Farragut Bay

Fanshaw Bay

I need to fix this and ask you about P1 

and P2. I also need to clip this study area.

Please talk to me when you get to this map.

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/23fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 6/16/09

STUDY AREA 23 - Farragut Bay/Cape Fanshaw

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads

0 1 2 4

Miles

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report Appendix A - 171 Part III - Appendix A
172 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
Thom a Bs ya

Frederick Sound

c:/workspace/outfitter/prd_covs/ros/prd_ros_maps/24fin_ros_prd.mxd mp 5/11/09

STUDY AREA 24 - Baird/Patterson Glaciers

ROS Classes

Primitive

Rural

Roaded Modified

Roaded Natural

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Urban

Other Ownership and State Selected Lands

Lakes, Rivers and Saltwater

Study Area Boundary

Major Streams

Existing Roads 0

36 1.5 Miles

Appendix A - 173

Part III - Appendix 

A
174 - Appendix A Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report
APPENDIX B 

Wilderness Needs Assessments 

Commercial Services Needs Assessment for the 

 Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness 

Petersburg Ranger District 

Tongass National Forest 

Prepared by: Brad Hunter, Kathy Rodriguez, Russ Beers 

Date: November 2009 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, developed the Commercial Services 

Needs Assessment for the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness (Needs 

Assessment) to determine the type, extent, and location of outfitter/guide use that could take place 

in the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness (PCDSCW). A needs assessment is a 

method for determining if there is a ‘need’ for private enterprise to assist the agency in providing 

access, services and/or other assistance for the recreating public to safely and properly enjoy 

National Forest Wilderness Areas, and if so, the extent necessary. This document is tiered to the 

Tongass Forest Plan as amended in February 2008 and the Determination of Need for 

Commercial Services within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2007). 

The PCDSCW area includes Petersburg Creek which spills down a typical u-shaped glacier-cut 

basin with mountain peaks overlooking the valley and the Duncan Salt Chuck, a large, tidally 

influenced salt marsh with opportunities for bird watching, kayaking, salmon and trout fishing, 

hunting, and exploring. The PCDSCW area has a moderate to high quality of wilderness character. 

It is highly untrammeled; the area largely operates without human management or manipulation. 

The ecosystems are largely intact with few non-native species and good native populations, 

providing for a high level of naturalness. There is little human development in the wilderness. The 

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities are moderate to high depending upon 

the location and season that a person is visiting the wilderness. The lower Petersburg Creek area 

has the highest boat and foot traffic, while most of the wilderness can experience aircraft overflights. The PCDSCW area also provides many opportunities for solitude. 

As managers, the Forest Service (FS) will strive to maintain a natural environment so that it may be 

relatively free from modern human manipulation and impacts and relatively free from the 

encumbrances and signs of modern society. The FS will strive to maintain a balance of uses by 

authorizing permitted operators to conduct suitable activities in a Wilderness setting while the 

casual, unguided visitor may also have an opportunity for solitude. The FS will continue monitoring 

to ensure that the balance is properly maintained. 

A commercial services needs assessment for freshwater fishing, remote setting nature tours 

(RSNT) and hunting is as follows: 

Freshwater fishing: Low amounts of guided fishing takes place within this Wilderness Area, 

although Petersburg Creek is one of the highest recreational use fishing areas on the Petersburg 

Ranger District. The guided use has ranged from 10 RVDs in 2002, to 1 RVD in 2005 (Table 1). 

The primary location for fishing is Petersburg Creek. There have been impacts in the past from 

steelhead fishers camping along the stream banks. If a new proposal was submitted for overnight 

use, development of a Leave No Trace plan specific to that campsite would be necessary for a 

successful outcome. In the past decade there has been an increase in the amount of jet skiff 

traffic on Petersburg Creek. This has resulted in concerns about damage to fish habitat, and it has 

affected fishers in the stream when the boat passes them. If a guide proposed using a jet skiff to 

travel up the stream, the Plan of Operations should address how to minimize the impacts. 

Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 1
Appendix B 2 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
I. Introduction 

The Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, developed this Needs Assessment to determine 

the type, extent, and location of outfitter/guide use that could take place in the Petersburg Creek – Duncan 

Salt Chuck Wilderness (PCDSCW). Needs assessments are a tool use to determine if there is a ‘need’ for 

commercial enterprise to assist the agency in providing access, services and/or other assistance for the 

recreating public to safely and properly enjoy National Forest Wilderness Areas, and if so, the extent 

necessary. This document is tiered to the Tongass Forest Plan as amended in February 2008 and the 

Determination of Need for Commercial Services within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass National Forest

(USDA Forest Service 2007). 

Commercial activities identified in the Tongass National Forest needs assessment that currently take place 

in this Wilderness Area include: 

 freshwater fishing; 

 black bear hunting; and 

 remote setting nature tours (RSNT). 

Assumptions 

The following are assumptions made to aid in the assessment of the need for outfitter/guide operations: 

 Visitor use is expected to remain at current levels or continue to increase (TLRMP Amendment 

Record of Decision 2008). There may be shifts in use patterns (timing and location) and user 

types (hikers, backpackers, day users, etc.). However, with the current economic downturn, it 

is difficult to predict if this expectation will remain true for the next 2-5 years. 

 Some people will not visit the wilderness without an outfitter or guide because they lack the 

skills, knowledge, equipment, or ability to do so on their own. 

 Conflicts between outfitter/guide operations and the non-outfitted/guided public have the 

potential to increase as overall use increases. 

Activities proposed by guides are wilderness dependent (i.e. experience depends upon a wilderness 

setting) and appropriate to a wilderness setting. 

II. Wilderness Management Direction 

See Appendix 1. Wilderness Management Direction. 

Goals and Objectives for Wilderness 

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. 

 Manage wilderness as a place where self reliance and primitive skills are needed and can be 

honed by the public. 

 Provide for public use of the wilderness in accordance with ANILCA provisions for motorized 

and non-motorized access and travel, including reasonable access to traditional subsistence 

resources. 

 Provide trails and primitive facilities that are in harmony with the natural environment and that 

promote primitive recreation opportunities. Feature facilities designed primarily to provide 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 3
resource protection and encourage smaller group size. Facilities and trails tend to allow for 

challenge and risk instead of convenience. 

 Maintain the wilderness to provide information on natural ecological processes. 

 Preserve and perpetuate biodiversity. Inventory and reduce or eliminate invasive species in 

wilderness. 

III. Visitor Use and Commercial Use 

Historical Use of the Wilderness Areas by Outfitters and Guide 

Since 2002, permitted use has included fishing, big game hunting, and sightseeing (remote setting nature 

tours). There is sightseeing from kayak groups boating up Petersburg Creek but they rarely come ashore. 

Note that in the Petersburg Ranger District Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report (2009), Petersburg 

Creek is considered within the home range of Petersburg and the City of Kupreanof. As a result, a smaller 

portion of recreation use is allotted to commercial operators on Petersburg Creek. 

Actual use has ranged from two permit holders using two recreation visitor days (RVDs) in 2008, to three 

operators with 10 RVDs in 2002 (Table 1). 

Table 1. RVDs used by Outfitters/Guides from 2002 through 2008. 

 Activity 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fishing 10 2 4 1 3 5 0

RSNT* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Black bear or 

wolf hunting 

0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Total RVDs 10 2 4 3 3 5 2

*RSNT – remote setting nature tours, includes sightseeing, hiking, wildlife viewing, etc. at remote sites (not accessed by 

road system). 

Niche and Description 

Petersburg Creek spills down a typical u-shaped glacier-cut basin with mountain peaks overlooking the 

valley. With the close proximity to the communities of Petersburg and Kupreanof, the mouth of the creek is 

enjoyed by residents of Petersburg, Kupreanof, and visitors alike, for picnicking, fishing for salmon and 

steelhead, paddling, and hiking. The Petersburg Lake Trail and the primitive Portage Mountain Loop trail 

allow access to two Forest Service public cabins. The Duncan Salt Chuck, a large, tidally influenced salt 

marsh, offers wonderful opportunities for bird watching, coho and trout fishing, hunting, and exploring. 

The 46,849 acre wilderness is composed of two major sections: the Petersburg Creek watershed, and the 

area surrounding the salt chuck at the head of Duncan Canal. The eastern border of the wilderness is about 

five miles west of the City of Petersburg. It abuts the small community of Kupreanof on the east. The 

western side of the wilderness can be reached by boating or flying to the Duncan Salt Chuck at the northern 

end of Duncan Canal. Petersburg Lake is in the central portion of the wilderness and can be reached by 

hiking or flying into the lake. 

Existing Condition 

One way existing condition can be assessed is to divide wilderness character into the four components of 

untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation: 

 Untrammeled. This quality describes the degree to which management actions “hinder” or 

“control” the land and natural processes. For example, the Wilderness Area has 

Appendix B 4 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
remained free of management activities that have altered natural systems, such as dams 

or regulations that govern visitor activities 

 Natural. This quality describes the ecological effects of management actions that 

manipulate vegetation, soils, air quality, or other physical and biological components of 

wilderness. Wildlife found within the area includes black bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, and 

wolf. Moose exist in the area, but in relatively small numbers. The list of smaller fur 

bearing animals common to the area include beaver, mink, American marten, land otter, 

and weasel. Annual surveys for native and non-native plants began in 2003. The 

Wilderness Area has relatively intact native plant communities, with the exceptions being 

a significant population of brass button (Cotula coronopifolia) in the upper Duncan Canal 

tideflats, and other minor plant populations at existing public and special use cabin 

locations. 

 Undeveloped. This quality describes the effects of structures, habitations, or other 

evidence of human presence or occupation. There are two public recreation cabins 

within the Wilderness Area, one at Petersburg Lake and one in the Duncan Salt Chuck. 

There are three special use cabins located four miles up from the mouth of Petersburg 

Creek. The Petersburg Lake Trail is 10.4 miles long, with six miles inside the wilderness 

from the high tide trailhead to the Petersburg Lake cabin. Approximately 1⁄2 of the trail is 

single wide wood plank with the remainder native tread. 

o The Petersburg Creek drainage is an often used flight path for local airplane 

traffic enroute to Kake or other westerly destinations from the Petersburg airport 

or harbor. 

o Floatplanes land on Petersburg Lake, primarily transporting people to and from 

the cabin. In general, the expectation is that there will be less evidence of human 

occupation as one travels farther inland away from the shoreline. 

o Although there have not been surveys for general public use levels, field crews 

have noticed an increase in the amount of jet boat traffic on Petersburg Creek 

and an increase in the distances traveled up the creek. 

 Opportunities for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation. Visitors to the upland of 

the Wilderness Areas can expect a low-to-moderate probability of experiencing isolation 

from most sights and sounds of humans. Jet skiffs are commonly used to access the 

lower Petersburg Creek drainage, so visitors will see and hear jet boat, outboard, or even 

jet ski traffic on the lower creek. “The Logjam” is typically the upper limit for jet skiffs, 

approximately six miles up from the Wrangell Narrows. Historically outboard skiffs went 

only up the creek on extreme high tides, but the advent of jet skiffs has created higher 

levels of motorized use during a wide range of water levels. Small aircraft use the 

drainage as a flight route so airplanes are a common sight and sound. As an example, 

crews who were monitoring on July 15, 2008 between 0700 and 1800 hours counted 14 

over-flights that included helicopters, floatplanes, and a jet. Visitors on the lower creek 

can often hear distant noises from the community of Petersburg, including noises from 

the canneries, ferries, and airport. 

o The Duncan Salt Chuck area receives much lower boat use than the Petersburg 

Creek area, since the salt chuck is about 40 water miles from town and because 

the rapids at the mouth of the Salt Chuck can only be navigated at high slack 

tide. It is unusual to see another boat there. The sights and sounds of aircraft are 

comparable to, or higher than, the numbers for the Petersburg Creek drainage 

since over-flights include those that use the Petersburg Creek route, as well as 

flights from the more frequently used Duncan Pass route. 

Within 30 days of the end of the operating season, commercial outfitter/guide permit holders submit an 

Actual Use Report that lists the locations (latitude and longitude), type of use, number of clients, and length 

of stay at each location. From this information, the Forest Service can determine the number of RVDs 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 5
utilized at each location, by each group (Table 2). It also provides a mechanism to monitor the amount of 

use at each location. The actual use information is then used to help determine the areas that get field 

checked. 

Table 2. Number of outfitters/guides that used the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck per year.

Year Number of O/G 

2002 3 

2003 1 

2004 1 

2005 2 

2006 1 

2007 3 

2008 2 

Desired Condition 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs “each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be 

responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area.” Section 2(c) of the Act defines four qualities 

of wilderness that managers try to preserve. 

As described in the 2008 Amended Forest Plan, 

All designated wilderness on the Tongass National Forest is characterized by extensive, 

unmodified natural environments. Ecological processes and natural conditions are not 

measurably affected by past or current human uses or activities. Users have the opportunity to 

experience independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness, and may pursue 

activities requiring self-reliance, challenge, and risk. Motorized and mechanized use is limited 

to the minimum needed for the administration of the wilderness. Allow for access to state and 

private lands, subsistence uses, and public access and other uses to the extent provided for by 

ANILCA. 

 Untrammeled – The wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human 

control or manipulation. 

The desired condition is an improving or stable trend in actions that control or manipulate the 

wilderness. These actions include ones that manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, soil, 

water, or fire, whether authorized or unauthorized by the Forest Service. 

 Natural – Wilderness ecological and evolutionary systems are substantially free from the 

effects of modern civilization.

The desired condition is for the trend of the effect of modern civilization on plant, animal, 

pathogen, physical, and biophysical resources to be stable or decreasing. 

 Undeveloped – Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence and has minimal 

evidence of modern human occupation or modification. 

The trends in recreational and non-recreational developments, use of motor equipment and 

transport, and loss of statutorily protected cultural resources is stable or decreasing. 

 Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

– Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience natural sights and 

sounds, solitude, freedom, risk, and the physical and emotional challenges of self-discovery 

and self-reliance. 

The trend is stable or improving for: remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside and outside 

wilderness; number of facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation; number of trails and level of trail 

classes; and amount of management restrictions on visitor behavior. 

Appendix B 6 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Visitor Capacity in the Petersburg 

Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness 

ROS is a system for inventorying and categorizing recreation experience opportunities into seven 

classes as identified in the Tongass Land Management Plan. Each class is defined in terms of the 

degree certain recreation opportunities are possible based on the extent the natural environment has 

been modified, types of facilities provided, the number of interactions expected with other groups of 

people, and the relative density of recreation use. 

The PCDSCW is practically all in the Primitive ROS class. We consider ROS standards and guidelines 

when looking at the need for guided services (Appendix 2, description of this ROS class). The Forest 

Plan directs us to manage wilderness recreation activities to meet appropriate levels of social 

encounters, on-site development, methods of access, and visitor impacts indicated for the Primitive 

ROS class. 

Visitor use capacity is the approximate number of people that can visit a portion of the National Forest 

while having the prescribed recreation (ROS) experience, consistent with the desired conditions. The 

reason to determine capacity is twofold: to ensure both that visitors can enjoy recreational experiences 

that meet their expectations and ensure that the landscape can sustain the given level of use. 

Knowledge of existing use, projections of future demand, capability of an area to withstand impact, and 

useable terrain can be analyzed to determine capacity. For example, an area accessed by foot with 

multiple valleys to hunt would have a greater ability to accommodate a higher capacity of users than a 

small alpine lake, accessed seasonally by float plane, with one flat site for camping. Another challenge 

is that different recreation user groups may have different expectations; i.e., a group of six people from 

a tour boat that has 300 people aboard may have a different comfort level with seeing other people on 

shore in the wilderness, as compared to the solitude anticipated by a pair of sea kayakers who have 

not seen any people for several days. 

There are several aspects in determining capacity, including social, biophysical, managerial, and facility 

capacity: 

 Social. This refers to the sights and sounds of other people, which may impact the 

group’s experience: 

o Is this an area heavily used by residents? 

o Can people spread out over the area with little chance of encounters? 

o How long is the useable season? 

o Are there other types of recreation use that are not compatible with the 

proposed use? 

 Biophysical. This refers to the biological resources found in the area potentially 

impacted by visitors. Biophysical attributes influence whether a setting is capable 

of providing a particular recreation opportunity without degrading an area’s 

ecological processes, structure, composition, resilience, integrity, potential, as 

well as the setting’s ability to restore itself and provide for other resource uses and 

values: 

o Are there plant or wildlife concerns? 

o Are campsites and travel routes located on durable surfaces? 

o Are user-created trails causing erosion or other unacceptable impacts? 

 Facility. This refers to physical attributes of the area that make it useable by visitors: 

o How many campsites are available? 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 7
o Are there adequate locations for camps? 

o Are there adequate anchorages in the saltwater? 

o Is access by foot, water, or plane easy or difficult? 

 Managerial. This refers to policies, management objectives, or rules that can increase 

or decrease visitor capacity in an area. 

Once a need is determined, we estimate the capacity of the area to accommodate the activity by 

evaluating terrain, screening, campsite availability, and other factors. See the 2009, Recreation Use 

Carrying Capacity Report for Petersburg Ranger District.

IV. Special Knowledge and Skills Needed for Activities 

in the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck 

Wilderness 

Potential Categories of Public Need1 for Commercial Services 

Guides can serve as important partners for the Forest Service. In particular, guides can provide 

wilderness awareness, wilderness ethics education, and Leave No Trace education. Resource 

protection activities, such as reporting of invasive plants and illegal activities have been helpful in the 

past and could help the Wilderness Areas achieve a higher level of wilderness character. Guides can 

help build constituency and support for wilderness among those groups of people who might not be 

exposed through typical outreach (for example, big game hunters). 

The following are potential categories of public need for commercial services within the Petersburg 

Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness: 

 People with physical limitations; 

 People pursuing activities where knowledge, equipment, and skill needed makes 

unguided use extremely difficult if not impossible. In addition, people pursuing 

activities where the opportunity does not exist outside of wilderness; 

 People wanting to take trips that focus extensively on wilderness; or

 Wilderness stewardship activities that could be enhanced by outfitter/guides. 

Process for Determination of Public Need 

“Public need” is a need determined to be essential for the well being of the entire public, guided and 

unguided, or to meet the intent of the Forest’s mission to manage and protect resources, provide for 

public safety, and to provide high quality recreation services. Within wilderness the intended use 

should be dependent on the wilderness resource. A guide wanting a permit does not always mean 

there is a public need. 

Evaluation Criteria used for determining the need for outfitter assistance in the management of the 

Wilderness Area: 

Wilderness Dependency. The extent the proposed service can be offered on private or nonwilderness national forest lands. Some examples of these services could be: 

 

 1

 A desire for commercial services or the fact that the presence of a guide could 

enhance a visitor’s experience should not be confused with “need.” 

Appendix B 8 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
a. Trips in which solitude and unconfined, primitive recreation are the central 

components of the experience. 

b. Visits to ecosystems, geological, or physical resources found in wilderness 

for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. 

Forest-wide availability. Does this activity occur elsewhere in other wildernesses on the 

Tongass? For example, if an activity occurs in abundance in other areas, there may 

not be a need to accommodate it in these Wilderness Areas. 

Wilderness Character. Will outfitter/guide activities preserve or improve the four qualities of 

wilderness character? Alternatively will outfitter/guide activities degrade wilderness 

character? For example, will the natural quality or the primitive recreation quality be 

impacted by an increase in fishing guides? Will the natural quality or primitive 

recreation be improved by outfitter/guides that are well-trained in Leave No Trace

education? 

Skills and Equipment. Outfitter/guide skills and equipment are needed by a portion of the 

public because of one or more of the following: 

a. Specific skills required for activities appropriate for the area require 

substantial time and/or talent to learn. 

b. Learning necessary skills and participating in the activity requires acquisition 

and consistent use of expensive, specialized equipment for which the public 

could not, or normally would not, expend the dollars or time. 

c. The skills required are so unique that the use of a guide is almost a 

prerequisite if the public is to have any opportunity to participate in and enjoy 

the activity. 

Knowledge. Guide knowledge of the wilderness resource and the activity area is needed by 

the public, and especially nonresidents, in order to enjoy recreational opportunities in 

a manner that reduces resource damage and user conflicts. This includes knowing 

where and by what method to best access and travel through an area. 

Safety. An outfitter/guide’s special skills and equipment are needed for a reasonable level of 

safety for the participants. Without guide assistance, members of the public could 

seriously endanger their health or lives, or would not visit the wilderness due to safety 

concerns. These criteria are not meant to diminish the wilderness values of selfreliance or the opportunity to challenge oneself or experience a degree of risk. 

Special Management Objectives and/or Issues. An outfitter/guide is needed to ensure special 

management objectives are met and/or issues resolved. Examples include 

recreational opportunities for disabled populations, instilling a wilderness ethic in 

clients, contribution to rural area development and economy of formerly commodity 

based areas, and assistance in reducing critical resource impacts and/or conflicts 

between users. 

Extent Existing Outfitter/Guide Permits are Being Utilized. Are current outfitted or guided 

assignments booked or over-booked, indicating a larger interest in the service? 

Level of Use and Conflict. Are there conflicts between types of users, private and commercial, 

in the wilderness? What is the compatibility of commercial, institutional, and general 

public use, and the amount of use and social capacity within a given area of the 

wilderness? Are use patterns (congestion and number of encounters) a potential 

problem? Is there a temporal congestion pattern—weekend use versus weekday 

use, day versus overnight use? Over time, what is the general trend? Is the 

projected future condition compatible with desired future condition? 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 9
Land Capability & Resource Concerns. Can the guide contribute to the protection of the land 

through his/her educational emphasis? What is the level of interference an 

outfitter/guide operation will have with the natural biological and physical processes of 

the wilderness? Can a guide help minimize impacts from camping by applying Leave 

No Trace skills by choosing beach campsites that are durable, yet also safe for 

overnight use? Can the guide help minimize campfire resource damage by teaching 

the best methods of building fires? Can a fishing guide help minimize streamside 

impacts, including stream bank erosion and fishing tackle litter? 

Public purpose. The Wilderness Act Section 4(b) specifies “wilderness areas shall be devoted 

to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, 

and historical use.” Guide services must help fulfill these purposes of wilderness. 

Does this activity contribute to the public purposes established for this wilderness? 

When considering the extent necessary, can people reasonably participate in this 

activity without a guide or is having a guide a prerequisite? Does this activity serve a 

broad segment of the population or is it limited to a select few? 

Type of Activity and Criteria Rating Summary 

Fishing/day hiking 

(freshwater - foot travel)

Wilderness dependency Low; other streams available 

Forest- wide availability High 

Wilderness character Low impact 

Skills and equipment Moderate to low. Moderate cost for equipment 

Knowledge Moderate 

Safety risk Low to moderate 

Special objectives Low 

Demand/utilization Moderate 

Level of use and conflict Low 

Land capability Moderate, hiking trail provides durable access 

Public purpose High – recreation and scenic 

RSNT (including day kayaking)

Wilderness dependency Moderate – few areas 

Forest- wide availability Low to moderate – few places on the Tongass with similar easy 

access 

Wilderness character Low impact 

Skills and equipment Moderate skill required 

Knowledge Moderate to low, depending on location 

Safety risk Moderate (bears cold water, protected waters) 

Special objectives Moderate 

Demand/utilization Low 

Level of use and conflict Low 

Land capability Moderate 

Public purpose High – non-motorized transportation, traditional skills 

development 

Appendix B 10 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
Type of Activity and Criteria Rating Summary 

Big game hunting

Wilderness dependency Low; other areas available 

Forest -wide availability High 

Wilderness character Low impact with LNT 

Skills and equipment High skill required – high cost/equipment 

Knowledge Moderate 

Safety risk High

Special objectives High 

Demand/utilization Moderate 

Level of use and conflict Moderate 

Land capability Moderate 

V. Need for and Extent of Commercial Use in the 

Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness 

Freshwater fishing 

Wilderness dependency. 

a. National Forest System (NFS) land. Opportunities exist outside of the 

Wilderness Area for freshwater fishing. Approximately two-thirds of the 

Tongass National Forest, including the fresh water streams, is not designated 

wilderness. Most of the non-wilderness streams in Southeast Alaska are open 

for fishing, with a reasonable chance of success. 

b. Non-NFS land. Opportunities for fishing and day hiking are limited. The 

majority of Southeast Alaska, including the fresh water streams, is within the 

Tongass National Forest, and the opportunity for freshwater fishing is 

proportionate. 

Forest-wide availability. The Tongass offers this activity in other Wilderness Areas. 

Wilderness character. Use is temporary in nature and would not negatively impact the 

qualities of naturalness, untrammeled, and undeveloped. Guided and unguided groups alike 

tend to hike and fish in the same attractive areas. Impacts to opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation could occur, particularly in those areas where screening 

by vegetation and topography is low. 

Skills and equipment. Unguided freshwater fishing is common in the Petersburg Creek 

drainage, and to a lesser extent in the salt chuck area. Guided fishing is less common. 

Fishing for steelhead is primarily in April and May, trout fishing is during most of the year, 

and coho is popular in August and September. There is no special skill needed for fishing, 

although fly-fishing can take some time to master. The uplands along Petersburg Creek are 

accessed by the Petersburg Lake Trail. Guides can impart knowledge of catch and release 

techniques, where the runs are occurring, fish identification, avoiding bear encounters on 

fish streams, and proper fish disposal methods. In addition, a boat is normally needed for 

access and not all persons have the skills to successfully navigate a boat to this area, given 

the need for local knowledge of the area (weather, tides, etc.). 

Knowledge. A guide can provide assistance and information to visitors who are unfamiliar 

with the terrain and environment of Southeast Alaska. Many non-resident visitors do not 

where to hike or fish safely and successfully. 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 11
Safety risk. Hazards encountered might include black bears, getting lost, slips and falls, and 

hypothermia. The presence of an outfitter/guide can contribute to a feeling of safety. A 

portion of prospective wilderness visitors may not visit the area on their own because of 

concerns for their safety. 

Special objectives. Outfitters and guides promote proper catch and release techniques and 

an understanding of population dynamics in isolated streams and lakes. Outfitter/guides are 

required to turn in freshwater fishing logs to ADF&G. Results of these are used to determine 

non-resident fishing harvest. 

Demand/utilization. There have been few requests for this activity in the past ten years. 

Relative to the rest of the District the demand is high on Petersburg Creek for fishing, but the 

majority of this use is unguided, and a good portion of it does not take place on National 

Forest or within PCDSCW. Most of the fishing takes place from boats on the lower reaches 

of the stream in the intertidal area. 

Level of use and conflict. There have been some conflict-of-use reports on Petersburg 

Creek between fly fishers and jet skiffs. Conflicts include boats passing fishers standing in 

the water, and logs in the stream being cut out to allow passage of boats upstream of the 

logjam. 

Land capability. Currently, resource concerns from fishing includes litter along stream 

banks, development of ‘fishing paths’, removal of large woody debris from streams to allow 

for passage by small boat (such as cutting logs at the “log jam”), and displacement of 

wildlife. 

Resource concerns from fishers who overnight camp include tree-cutting, litter, fire rings, 

and social trails. Most of the camping occurs in the lower reaches of Petersburg Creek. 

There are currently three known impacted campsites in the wilderness. Campsite monitoring 

measurements have shown that the amount of impact has varied. Some years the 

campsites receive significant impacts, but then a span of time occurs with no use. This 

allows some of the sites to revegetate. Education efforts should encourage the concentration 

of impacts on the previously used campsites, since there are few durable sites within the 

wilderness. 

Public purpose. This activity contributes to the recreational purpose (fishing). 

Remote Setting Nature Tours (RSNT) 

Wilderness dependency. 

a. National Forest System (NFS) land. Opportunities exist outside of the 

Wilderness Area for RSNT. Approximately two-thirds of the Tongass National 

Forest is not designated wilderness. 

b. Non-NFS. Opportunities for RSNT are limited. The majority of Southeast 

Alaska is within the Tongass National Forest, and the opportunity for RSNT is 

proportionate. 

Forest-wide availability. The Tongass offers this activity in several other Wilderness Areas. 

Wilderness character. While floatplanes are allowed on lakes through enabling legislation 

(ANILCA), permitting guides to conduct this activity does allow a higher level of motorized 

activity and could contribute to a loss of solitude in these areas. As long as these activities 

are low levels of use, day-use, and temporary in nature, they will not be expected to 

significantly impact the natural, untrammeled and undeveloped qualities already present. 

Appendix B 12 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
Skills and equipment. RSNT activities include sightseeing, kayaking, hiking, and wildlife 

viewing, at remote (non-road system NFS lands) locations. Hiking is a skill that is relatively 

easy to master. Hiking equipment can be obtained at relatively inexpensive prices at stores 

nationwide. Wildlife viewing equipment such as spotting scopes, cameras, and binoculars 

are obtained at various locations nationwide or they can be provided by the outfitter/guide. 

For flight seeing, an aircraft is required, which the average visitor would not own. 

Knowledge. A guide can provide assistance and information to non-resident visitors who are 

unfamiliar with the terrain and environment of Southeast Alaska. It is unlikely that the 

average non-resident visitor would possess the knowledge where to hike, view wildlife and 

spectacular scenery safely and successfully. Many visitors do not have the knowledge to 

safely navigate the tidal flat and waters to reach this area. Guides can teach visitors the 

techniques of how to minimize their impacts while hiking through the forest or muskegs. 

Guides who frequent the area also have the historical knowledge of the area of where the 

best durable trails are located, as well as what areas to avoid due to previous impacts. 

Safety risk. Hazards encountered might include bears, slips and falls, sudden weather 

changes, and hypothermia. The presence of an outfitter/guide could contribute to the safety 

of non-resident visitors. A portion of prospective wilderness visitors would probably not visit 

the area on their own because of concerns for their safety. 

Special objectives. There is a need for outfitters and guides to provide services to educate 

the public regarding the wilderness resource and Leave No Trace. Visitors who learn these 

skills can use them in other Wilderness Areas. Outfitters whose trip emphasis is based on 

appreciation for the wilderness and educating clients and instilling a wilderness ethic can 

assist in meeting this management objective. An outfitter can also inform the Forest Service 

of their observations, including other groups seen and resource damage observed. 

Demand/utilization. See next paragraph. 

Level of use and conflict. Current level of guided use is low. The lower Petersburg Creek 

area (inside and outside wilderness) receives a high amount of unguided use, primarily 

people in power boats, kayaks on day trips, or hikers coming up the trail. There is guided 

kayak use on the lower creek, but it is usually before the wilderness boundary. 

Land capability. An outfitter/guide must educate visitors on Leave No Trace techniques and 

show them how to minimize visitor impacts from RSNT. 

Public purpose. This activity can contribute to the recreational purpose (RSNT). 

Hunting. 

Wilderness dependency. 

a. National Forest System (NFS) land. Opportunities exist outside of the 

Wilderness Area for hunting. Approximately two-thirds of the Tongass National 

Forest is not designated wilderness. Most of the non-wilderness lands in 

Southeast Alaska are open for hunting. 

b. Non-NFS. There are fewer opportunities for hunting in the vicinity on private or 

state lands. The majority of Southeast Alaska is National Forest system lands, 

and the opportunity for hunting is proportionate. 

Forest-wide availability. Guided hunting is offered in other Wilderness Areas on the 

Tongass, and across most of the other land use designations. 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 13
Wilderness character. ADF&G sets harvest levels. Most clients and guides live on a boat 

and spend very little time in the upland areas of the wilderness during a typical day hunt. 

Guided hunting should have little effect on wilderness character. 

Skills and equipment. Hunters need to have the skill to identify and stalk, in a dynamic, 

challenging environment, and do it in a way that is respectful of the wildlife and the 

wilderness resources. While it is hoped that most hunters will follow proper procedures, a 

guide can ensure that ethical hunting practices and procedures are followed. 

Knowledge. Guides are knowledgeable about animal behavior, as well as how to avoid 

areas where conflict may occur with other recreational or subsistence users. This information 

is not readily available to the average nonresident hunter. Guides can ensure that a hunter 

knows the appropriate Leave No Trace practices for the rainforest environment. 

Safety risk. Hazards that might be encountered include wounded black bears. Guides 

generally have more knowledge about how to track and retrieve animals and have back-up 

rifles in case of emergency. There have been infrequent maulings of hunters by black bear. 

Special objectives. Guides can help accomplish ADFG’s harvest objectives and can ensure 

that hunters care for and process the carcass in accordance with state law. The guide hunt 

records, turned in to the Commercial Services Board, help track harvest locations and hunter 

success rates. Since Duncan Salt Chuck is a valuable waterfowl area, there is potential for a 

permit request for waterfowl hunting. This would be an appropriate use and would not 

interfere with other recreationists since the use levels are low due to reasons previously 

stated. 

Demand/utilization. There is little demand for guided hunting in this wilderness. One 

reason is the State of Alaska has the Petersburg Creek drainage closed to black bear 

hunting. The Duncan Salt Chuck area is open for bear hunting and has been used 

occasionally by one permit holder. The Petersburg Ranger District has a maximum number 

of 188 black bear hunts authorized to outfitter/guides per year on the entire district. 

Level of use and conflict. The State has designated the Petersburg Creek drainage as a 

bear sanctuary and is closed to black bear hunting. The current level of commercial use is 

low in the remainder of the wilderness, and especially in Duncan Salt Chuck. As shown in 

Table 1 the guided RVDs have been low and fairly stable the past five years. 

Land capability. Current resource concerns from hunting are low. Unguided hunters have 

been known to leave carcasses at the Salt Chuck East cabin, but this has not been 

associated with commercial use. Guides may be able to help educate the public about 

proper hunting techniques. 

Public purpose. This activity contributes to the recreational purpose (hunting). 

VI. Determination of Need and Extent 

As stated in the Introduction, above, this document is tiered to the Tongass Forest Plan and the 

Determination of Need for Commercial Services within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass National 

Forest (2007). The Forest-level Determination of Need document, states “subsequent decisions 

regarding the type, extent, amount, and location of commercial use for all Wilderness Areas on the 

Tongass must be made on a wilderness-by-wilderness basis.” It further states, “Future decisions or 

revisions of environmental documents that allow commercial services in a Wilderness Area will be 

specific to each wilderness and include”: 

1. A statement defining the wilderness character; 

Appendix B 14 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
2. Specific information regarding the wilderness values which require monitoring or 

protection; 

3. A finding that commercial services are necessary for that Wilderness Area; 

4. A description of the uses to authorize; 

5. The amount of use to authorize; and 

6. A description of the extent of activities. 

The items specific to the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area are addressed, 

below. 

Statement defining the Wilderness Character of the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt 

Chuck Wilderness Area 

The PCDSC Wilderness Area has a moderate-to-high quality of wilderness character. It is highly 

untrammeled; the area largely operates without human management or manipulation. The ecosystems 

are largely intact with healthy native populations and few non-native species, providing for a high level 

of naturalness. The moderate, undeveloped character of the wilderness is affected by the two public 

recreation cabins, three special use cabins, six miles of improved trail (Class 3), and about 10 miles of 

undeveloped trail (Class 1). The solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities are 

moderate-to-high depending upon the location and season of use. The lower Petersburg Creek area 

has the highest boat and foot traffic, while most of the wilderness can experience aircraft over-flights. 

Finding or Determination of Need for Commercial Use 

Determination of need for commercial use for freshwater fishing: Low amounts of guided fishing 

takes place within this Wilderness Area, although it is one of the highest recreational use fishing 

streams on the Petersburg Ranger District. The guided use has ranged from 10 RVDs in 2002, to one 

RVD in 2005 (Table 1). The primary location for fishing is at Petersburg Creek. There have been 

impacts in the past from steelhead fishers camping along the stream banks. If a new proposal is 

submitted for overnight use, the development of a Leave No Trace plan specific to that campsite will be 

necessary for a successful outcome. In the past decade there has been an increase in the amount of 

jet skiff traffic on Petersburg Creek. This has resulted in concerns about damage to fish habitat and 

effects to fishers in the stream when a boat passes. If a guide proposes using a jet skiff to travel up the 

creek, the Plan of Operations should address how to minimize the impacts. 

By having guided recreationists using Petersburg Creek, the Forest Service will be able to work in a 

partnership with the operator to ensure there will be minimum impacts to the wilderness resource and 

the public will receive an education in wilderness ethics and Leave No Trace practices. 

Fishing from boats in the saltwater is an activity that occurs off National Forest System lands; therefore, 

it is not an activity regulated by the US Forest Service. 

Commercially guided freshwater fishing in the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck 

Wilderness will be authorized through this needs assessment.

Determination of need for commercial use for RSNT: Visitors in this category access the area via 

watercraft or floatplane. Having the knowledge, skills, experience, and equipment, even in good 

weather, to navigate the waters of Southeast Alaska or to fly into Petersburg Lake, are things the 

average visitor may not have. Boat taxis from nearby Petersburg can drop hikers off for independent 

walks. Through interpretation of the area’s natural and cultural history, guides can increase the 

appreciation of the area for the people they are serving, as well as help minimize resource impacts 

through Leave No Trace education. Cruise ships have historically brought large tour groups onto the 

Petersburg Lake Trail but their use stops before the wilderness boundary. 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 15
Commercially guided RSNT in the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness will be 

authorized through this needs assessment where the standards for a Primitive ROS experience 

can be met.

Determination of need for commercial use for hunting: There has been concern expressed by 

hunters and guides that overcrowding is occurring on the Tongass for bear hunting. The Forest Service 

is not aware of this being an issue specific to the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness. 

The State of Alaska does not allow black bear hunting in the Petersburg Creek drainage, which leaves 

only the Salt Chuck area open to bear hunting. Over a five year period, 2002 had two RVDs for hunting 

while the other years had zero RVDs (Table 1). The Duncan Salt Chuck is accessed either by 

floatplane or small boat from Petersburg. The channel that accesses the salt chuck is rife with 

scattered rocks and restricted by the tides, making it difficult for the uninformed boater to navigate. 

Having a guide will improve the safety for boating into the salt chuck. To minimize impacts to 

recreationists who have rented the public recreation cabin in the Duncan Salt Chuck, the operators 

should have a strategy to use the bay in a manner that would minimize impacts to the cabin users. 

Commercially guided hunting in the Petersburg Creek – Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness will be 

authorized through this needs assessment.

Information Specific to PCDSCW Which Requires Monitoring or Protection of 

Wilderness Values 

The amount of visitor use in the lower Petersburg Creek area should be monitored to ensure a primitive 

recreation experience is provided. The area receives a relatively high level of use from the general 

public due to its proximity to the town of Petersburg. 

Types of uses to authorize 

Freshwater fishing 

Remote Setting Nature Tours (RSNT) 

Hunting 

Amount of use to authorize 

The amount of use in wilderness is presented in the Petersburg Ranger District Recreation Use 

Carrying Capacity Report (2009) using the information presented in this needs assessment. 

Appendix B 16 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
Appendix 1. Wilderness Management Direction 

Wilderness Management Direction for a Needs Assessment

Following is a discussion about when a needs assessment may be employed to address commercial 

use requests within wilderness when there is a regional or local wilderness management concern. 

Direction Provided by the 1964 Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 states the purpose of Wilderness is “to secure for the American people of 

present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of Wilderness.” Wilderness being 

an area “affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; . . . has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive unconfined type of recreation; 

. . . and may also contain ecological, geological, or other feature of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value.” 

The Wilderness Act also describes how Wilderness Areas are to be used and managed. Management 

is to focus on preserving the wilderness character of the area; and use of the area “shall be devoted to 

the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, education, conservation, and historical uses.” In 

realizing these uses wilderness provides an opportunity for solitude or primitive unconfined types of 

recreation not attainable in settings more man-made, or influenced by humans. 

In accomplishing the purpose of, and uses of wilderness, the Wilderness Act gives some additional 

direction. Specifically, with one notable exception commercial enterprises are prohibited by Section 

4(c) of the Act. The exception covered in Section 4(d) (6) says “commercial services may be 

performed within the Wilderness area . . . to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for 

realizing the recreation or other Wilderness purposes of the areas.” 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA)

Section 707 of ANILCA states; “Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act, wilderness 

designated by this Act shall be administered in accordance with applicable provisions of the Wilderness 

Act ...” 

Items expressly provided for in ANILCA wilderness are many. Some include; 

1. Section 811 – (a) Ensures rural residents reasonable access to subsistence resources 

and (b) permits the use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface 

transportation traditionally employed for subsistence purposes, subject to reasonable 

regulation. 

2. Section 1010 – Mineral assessments with access by air. 

3. Section 1110(a) – Allows for the use of snowmachines, motorboats, airplanes and 

nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities on conservation 

system units, including designated wilderness, and for travel to and from villages and 

homesites, subject to reasonable regulation to protect the natural and other values of the 

unit or area. 

4. Section of 1303(b)(1) – Allows for the construction of new cabins and administrative 

cabins if necessary for the administration of the area as wilderness 

5. Section 1303(b)(2) – Allows for the continuation of existing cabins. 

6. Section 1310 – Allows for the maintenance of existing and future navigation aids and other 

facilities. 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 17
7. Section 1315(c) – Permitting the continued use and maintenance of public use cabins. 

1315(d) allows for the construction of new cabins if they’re necessary for the protection of 

pubic health and safety. 

8. Section 1316(a) – Allows for existing and future establishment of temporary structures 

necessary for the taking of fish and game subject to reasonable regulation to insure 

compatibility, the continuance of existing uses, and the future establishment, and use, of 

temporary campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and other temporary facilities and 

equipment directly and necessarily related to such activities. Section 1316(b) allows for 

the denial of the temporary facilities if the use of equipment or facilities is determined to be 

detrimental to the wilderness character. 

During the evaluation of commercial recreation use for any one wilderness, an effort should be made to 

consider the long-term effects of accommodating increasing uses or proposals for new use. The 

economic benefits to a business are not a substantive basis of a decision to allow use presented in 

either the Wilderness Act or ANILCA. 

Direction Provided by Regulation

Federal Regulations 36 CFR 293.2 – Objectives, states in part: “Except as otherwise provided in the 

regulations..., National Forest Wilderness shall be so administered as to meet the public purposes of 

recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical uses; and it shall also be 

administered for such other purposes for which it may have been established in such a manner as to 

preserve and protect its wilderness character...To that end: 

a) Natural ecological succession will be allowed to operate freely to the extent feasible. 

b) Wilderness will be made available for human use to the optimum extent consistent with the 

maintenance of the primitive conditions. 

c) In resolving conflicts in resource use, wilderness values will be dominant to the extent not 

limited by the Wilderness Act, subsequent establishing legislation, or the regulations in this 

part.” 

Federal Regulations 36 CFR 293.8 - Permanent structures and commercial services, states in part that: 

“The Chief, Forest Service, may permit . . . commercial services within National Forest Wilderness to 

the extent necessary for realizing the recreational or other Wilderness purposes, which include, but are 

not limited to, the public services generally offered by packers, outfitters, and guides.” 

Agency Direction

USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2004 - 2008

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is based on the relationship between the American people 

and their natural resource heritage. The relationship is founded on the principles of sustaining U.S. 

natural resources for future generations, producing personal and community well-being, and providing 

economic wealth for the Nation. 

The Strategic Plan embodies the Forest Service’s many areas of responsibility, as captured in the 

agency’s mission statement: 

“The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the Nation’s forest and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future 

generations.” 

One of the many goals of the Strategic Plan is to provide high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities 

on forests and grasslands, while sustaining natural resources, to meet the Nation’s recreational 

demands. 

Appendix B 18 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
In 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service adopted the 10-year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge 

(WSC) as recommended by the Chief’s Wilderness Advisory Group. This effort is a renewal of the 

commitment to wilderness by pledging to bring all 406 wildernesses administered by the Forest Service 

to a minimum level of stewardship within 10 years. Element 7 of the WSC identities that, “Needs 

assessments are completed for new operations or for major changes to existing outfitter 

programs.” As clarified in the definitions for this element; “’needs assessments’; a methodology for 

determining if, in fact, there is a ‘need’ for private enterprise to assist the Agency in providing access, 

services and/or other assistance for the recreating public to safely and properly enjoy National Forest 

wilderness.” 

Another part of the WSC related to forest plan management direction is Element 5 – Protecting 

Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. Managing to protect 

“outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation” has 

been perhaps the most controversial aspect of wilderness management to date. Controversy 

typically emerges if managers propose any type of restriction on visitor access or behavior, 

such as use limits, to improve opportunities for solitude. Factors contributing to this controversy 

include: 

1. Lack of clarity over the meaning of solitude thus leading to lack of agreement over 

what the problem really is (e.g. visitors may view the concept holistically while 

managers may focus on the number of encounters in particular locations). 

2. Perception that solitude is too subjective and individualistic for management. 

3. Lack of standards or agreement on standards that define when there is a problem 

requiring corrective action. 

4. Managing for solitude without equal consideration of managing for primitive and 

unconfined recreation opportunities. 

5. The importance of access to visitors even when they support wilderness preservation. 

6. Tension between providing outstanding opportunities for solitude vs. primitive and 

unconfined recreation. 

Forest Service Manual Direction

Forest Service Manual Chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management, has been reserved by the 

Washington Office. Management direction regarding the implementation of specific exemptions for 

wilderness management in the Regional Supplements to the Forest Service Manual, still remain in 

effect. The Forest Service Manual from the Washington Office is expected to be reissued sometime in 

the near future. 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, 41.53e - Needs Assessment, Resource Capacity 

Analysis, and Allocation of Use – Conduct a needs assessment to determine the public or agency 

need for authorized outfitting and guiding activities. When conducting a needs assessment for 

outfitting and guiding activities in a Wilderness Area, assess whether these activities are 

necessary for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the area and the extent to 

which the activities may be authorized consistent with maintaining the wilderness character of the 

area. Review previous needs assessments when reauthorizing use to ensure that they remain 

relevant to current and projected use trends, and update them if necessary. 

Other FSM direction includes 

Under FSM 2340 – Privately Provided Recreation Opportunities 

 2340.2 - Objectives 

To provide, under special use authorization, sufficient, suitable facilities and services that supplement 

or complement those provided by the private sector, State, and local government on private land and 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 19
the Forest Service on National Forest System land to meet public needs, as determined through land 

and resource management planning. 

To facilitate the use, enjoyment, understanding, and appreciation of natural resource settings on the 

National Forest. 

Forest Plan Direction for Wilderness

Goals 

To manage all designated Wilderness to maintain the enduring resource of Wilderness as directed by 

the Wilderness Act of 1964, subject to the special provisions and exceptions in the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 

(TTRA). 

Protect and perpetuate natural biophysical and ecological conditions and processes. Ensure 

Wilderness ecosystems are substantially free from the effects of civilization. 

Provide a high degree of remoteness from the sights and sounds of humans, and opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation activities consistent with Wilderness preservation. 

Keep Wilderness untrammeled and free from human control or manipulation, including actions taken to 

manage Wilderness. 

Protect the undeveloped character of Wilderness by following legislative guidelines regarding 

permanent improvements or human occupation, including mechanized transport and motorized 

equipment. 

Objectives 

Apply a multi-disciplinary focus to Wilderness management; consider stewardship of Wilderness in the 

annual program of work by all resources. 

Manage recreation activities so that the levels of social encounters, on-site developments, methods of 

access, and visitor impacts indicated for the Primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Class 

are emphasized. Areas managed as Semi-Primitive within a Wilderness are an exception and are not 

encouraged. 

Provide for public uses of Wilderness as authorized in the Wilderness Act, but subject to ANILCA 

provisions for motorized and non-motorized access and travel, including reasonable traditional 

subsistence use by rural residents, and provisions of other applicable Wilderness designation acts. 

Maintain trails and primitive facilities that are in harmony with the natural environment and that promote 

primitive recreation opportunities. Feature facilities designed primarily to provide resource protection 

and encourage smaller group size and emphasize challenge and risk instead of convenience. 

Maintain the Wilderness capacity to provide information on natural ecological processes. 

Preserve and perpetuate biodiversity. 

Inventory, reduce, and, when possible, eliminate non-native species in Wilderness. 

Manage Wilderness as a place where self-reliance and primitive skills are needed and can be honed. 

Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment

Appendix B 20 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
In 1997, the Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment (EA) to develop a 

strategy to manage outfitter and guide special use permits was completed for both the Wrangell and 

Petersburg Ranger Districts. A Decision Notice was published in August 1997 describing the rationale 

for the selected alternative. The districts reviewed the EA in April of 2004. The review recommended a 

few minor changes (primarily to address new sites and roads) and determined that no further 

environmental analysis was required and that the 1997 Decision Notice would be extended until the 

next review (scheduled for 2009). 

Included in the 1997 Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment is a 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report, (CCR) developed to determine the maximum 

amount of use that could be accommodated in a given area without loss in the quality of the 

natural environment and/or the prescribed visitor experience (ROS). The CCR provides 

managers with a tool and rationale for apportionment of outfitter and guide use allocations. 

When possible, conservative use variables were used in calculations to take into account the 

more primitive experience that most visitors expect in Alaska. 

The EA includes various Mitigation Measures that are used to address site specific concerns in 

the various study areas. The Mitigation Measures are included with all Outfitter and Guide 

Special Use Permits as Special Stipulations and therefore become part of the permit. Failure 

to adhere to the Special Stipulations would be a violation of the terms in the Special Use 

Authorization and could lead to the termination of the permit. The Special Stipulations that 

address areas of concern include: 

1. Outfitter/Guides will submit revisions of their Operating Plans in writing. 

2. Land ownership is mixed and it is the responsibility of the permit holder to determine 

ownership and obtain proper authorization for use of private, native, and/or local 

government-held lands. 

3. Outfitter-guides will incorporate Leave No Trace skills into all activities on National 

Forest System lands (http://www.lnt.org/index.php). 

4. Outfitter-guided use of public use recreation cabins or their amenities (e.g. skiffs, 

firewood, fire rings) is prohibited. Exceptions may occur as specifically approved for a 

site by the District Ranger. These exceptions must be identified in the permit or 

addressed in District Stipulations. 

5. Within designated Wilderness, no more than 12 people (including guides) can occupy 

a site2

 at one time. 

6. All campfires will be built below high tide, as mound fires (a LNT technique) or in fire 

pans. 

7. Beach Meadows: Outfitter/guides will not establish camps, or allow their clients to 

camp in these areas. When walking through these areas, people should stay on 

existing paths and game trails to avoid trampling or damaging vegetation in beach 

meadows. Located at the margin between marine beaches and the forest fringe, 

beach meadows are characterized by the presence of tall grasses, beach pea, Indian 

paintbrush, Pacific silverweed, yarrow, chocolate lily, pretty shooting star, and Nootka 

lupine. These meadows often have between 20-40 different plant species, some of 

which are on the sensitive species list. 

8. Impacts on Bald Eagle Nest Sites: The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service have a Memorandum of Understanding which establishes a minimum 330-

 

2

 Site: an area on the National Forest occupied by persons that is not within sight and sound of other Forest users. 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 21
foot radius “habitat management zone” around each bald eagle nest tree. Camping in 

this zone is prohibited to guided groups. 

9. A copy of the permit must be with the operator at all times when operating on National 

Forest System lands. 

10. Use Reports will reflect specific locations of use on National Forest System lands. 

11. 36 CFR Ch.11 261.10 The following are prohibited: ...(d) Discharging a fire arm or any 

other implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property: 

(1) in or within 150 yards of a residence, building, developed recreation site or 

occupied area, or (2) across or on a Forest development road or a body of water 

adjacent thereto, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is 

exposed to injury or damage as a result in such discharge. 

 

Appendix B 22 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
Appendix 2. ROS classes for PCDSC Wilderness Area. 

Primitive 

Setting indicators Standards and Guidelines 

Scenic Quality Not to exceed the High Scenic Integrity Objective. An Existing Scenic Integrity level of Very High is 

fully compatible and encouraged 

Access 

Non-motorized cross-country travel and travel on non-motorized trails and on waterways is typical. 

Use of airplanes, helicopters, motorboats, off-highway vehicles, and snowmachines for traditional 

activities, subsistence, emergency search and rescue, and other authorized resource management 

activities may occur but is rare. 

Remoteness 

No or infrequent sights and sounds of human activity are present. Setting is located more than 1.5 

hours walking or paddling distance, or 3 miles, from any human developments other than infrequently 

traveled marine travelways. Areas are generally greater than 5,000 acres, but may be smaller if 

contiguous with a Semi-Primitive class. 

Visitor Management 

On-site regimentation and controls are very rare. Signing is limited to directional information and 

safety. There are no on-site interpretive facilities. There is great opportunity for discovery on the part of 

the users. 

On-site Recreation 

Development 

Structures do not exceed Development Scale I, except for public recreation cabins, and are 

maintained for appropriate levels of use. 

Social Encounters 

User meets less than three parties per day during trip. No other parties are within sight or sound of 

dispersed campsites or cabins. Authorize a party size of no more than 12 persons for any one site or 

activity group for commercial recreation use. Exceptions to the commercial group’s size should be 

rare. A group size of 12 persons or less is recommended for general public use. Refer to REC122 in 

Chapter 3 for exceptions. 

Visitor Impacts 

Visitor-caused impacts to resources are slight and usually not noticeable the following year. Site 

hardening is limited to boardwalk trails and necessary boat moorings or bear-proof food caches and 

rustic public recreation cabins 

Semi-Primitive non-motorized 

Setting indicators Standards and Guidelines 

Scenic Quality Not to exceed the High Scenic Integrity Objective. An Existing Scenic Integrity level of Very High is 

fully compatible and encouraged. 

Access 

Non-motorized cross-country travel and travel on non-motorized trails is typical. Use of airplanes, 

helicopters, motorboats, and snowmachines for traditional activities, subsistence, emergency search 

and rescue, and other authorized resource management activities may occur unless specifically 

restricted for safety and/or resource protection purposes. Use of off-highway vehicles may occur on 

designated routes in accordance with 36 CFR 212, 251, and 261 – Travel Management; Designated 

Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use. 

Remoteness 

Nearby sights or sounds of human activity are rare, but distant sights or sounds may occur. Setting is 

located more than 0.5 hour walk or paddle, or approximately 0.5 mile (greater or less depending on 

terrain and vegetation, but no less than 0.25 mile) from 1) infrequently traveled waterways; 2) roads 

and trails open to motorized recreation use; and 3) clearcut harvest areas. Aircraft access is only 

occasional. Areas are generally greater than 2,500 acres, but may be smaller if contiguous with 

Primitive or Semi-Primitive Motorized classes. 

Visitor Management On-site regimentation and controls are rare. Visitor information facilities may be used to interpret 

cultural and natural resource features, but are not elaborate and harmonize with the setting. 

On-site Recreation 

Development 

Facilities and structures generally do not exceed Development Scale II and are maintained to 

accommodate the types and levels of use anticipated for the site. Forest Service recreation cabins are 

fully compatible. 

Social Encounters 

User meets less than 10 parties per day (6 parties per day in Wilderness) on trails and waterways 

during 80 percent of the primary use season. No other parties are within sight or sound of dispersed 

campsites during 80 percent of the primary use season. Maximum party size for commercial use 

within Wilderness is 12. Exceptions for larger party sizes within Wilderness should be rare. Refer to 

REC122 in Chapter 3 in the Forest Plan for exceptions. A party size of up to 20 people can be 

considered in Semi-Primitive settings outside of Wilderness. Outside of Wilderness, party sizes larger 

than 20 people may occur during less than 15 percent of the primary use season in limited locations 

as appropriate by LUD. 

Visitor Impacts 

Visitor-caused impacts to resources are rare and usually not long-lasting. Site hardening is limited to 

boardwalk trails, boat tramways, moorings and docks, bear-proof food cache facilities, and rustic 

public recreation cabins. 

Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment Appendix B - 23
Semi-Primitive motorized 

Setting indicators Standards and Guidelines 

Scenic Quality Not to exceed the Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective. Existing Scenic Integrity levels ranging from 

Very High through High are fully compatible and encouraged. 

Access 

Travel on motorized and non-motorized trails and Traffic Service Level D roads, although some Traffic 

Service Level C roads provide access to and through the area. Use by high-clearance vehicles and 

motorized water travel is common. Road density is less than 1 mile per square mile. Off-road 

snowmachine travel on snow may occur. 

Remoteness 

Nearby sights or sounds of human activity are rare, but distant sights or sounds may occur. Setting is 

located within 0.5 hour walk or paddle or within 0.5 mile (greater or less depending on terrain and 

vegetation, but no less than 0.25 mile) of infrequently traveled waterways or small aircraft access 

points and/or roads that are open and maintained for passage by high-clearance and four-wheel drive 

vehicles (Maintenance Level 2), and provide access to recreation opportunities and facilities. Areas 

are generally greater than 2,500 acres, but may be smaller if contiguous with Primitive or SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized classes. 

Visitor Management 

On-site regimentation and controls are few. Control facilities consist primarily of informational signs 

and site-specific road closures. Visitor information facilities may be used to interpret cultural and 

natural resource features, but are not elaborate and harmonize with the setting. 

On-site Recreation 

Development 

Facilities and structures generally do not exceed Development Scale II and are maintained to 

accommodate the types and levels of use anticipated for the site and area. Forest Service recreation 

cabins are fully compatible. 

Social Encounters 

User meets less than 10 parties per day (6 parties per day in Wilderness) on trails, roads, and 

shorelines during 80 percent of the primary use season. During 80 percent of the primary use season, 

no other parties are visible from campsites. Maximum party size for commercial uses in Wilderness is 

12 people. Exceptions should be rare. Refer to REC122 in Chapter 3 in the Forest Plan for 

exceptions. A party size of up to 20 people can be considered in Semi-Primitive settings outside of 

Wilderness. Outside of Wilderness, party sizes larger than 20 people may occur during less than 15 

percent of the primary use season in limited locations. 

Visitor Impacts 

Visitor-caused impacts may be noticeable, but not degrading to basic resource elements. Site 

hardening is very infrequent, but, when it occurs, is in harmony with, and appropriate for, the naturalappearing backcountry setting. 

Appendix B 24 - Appendix B Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Needs Assessment
Commercial Services Needs Assessment in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu 

Wildernesses 

Petersburg Ranger District 

Tongass National Forest 

Prepared by: Brad Hunter, Kathy Rodriguez, Russ Beers 

Date: November 2009 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, developed the Commercial Services 

Needs Assessment in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses (Needs Assessment) to 

determine the type, extent, and location of outfitter/guide use that could take place in the Tebenkof 

Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas. Needs assessments are used to determine if there is a ‘need’ for 

private enterprise to assist the agency in providing access, services and/or other assistance for the 

recreating public to safely and properly enjoy National Forest Wilderness Areas, and if so, the 

extent necessary. This document is tiered to the Tongass Forest Plan as amended in February 

2008 and the Determination of Need for Commercial Services within Wilderness Areas on the 

Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007). 

These two Wilderness Areas extend from Point Ellis on Kuiu Island south to Port Malmesbury and 

east to Port Beauclerc. The Tebenkof Bay Wilderness Area was designated by Congress in 1980 

through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation of Act of 1980 (ANILCA). The Kuiu 

Wilderness Area was designated by Congress in 1990 through the Tongass Timber Reform Act 

which amended ANILCA. The area is very remote making it difficult to access which can make it 

expensive and/or hazardous to reach. Both Wilderness Areas can provide exceptional 

opportunities for solitude. They are highly untrammeled; the area largely operates without human 

management or manipulation. 

As managers, the Forest Service will strive to maintain a natural environment and a balance of 

uses by authorizing permitted operators to conduct suitable activities in a Wilderness setting while 

providing all visitors an opportunity for a solitude. The Forest Service will continue monitoring to 

ensure that the balance is properly maintained. 

A commercial services needs assessment for backpacking/camping, hunting, freshwater fishing 

and remote setting nature tours (RSNT) is as follows: 

Camping: Of the permitted activities in these Wilderness Areas to date; camping has had the 

highest amount of use over the years (Table 1). Camping by those not well versed in Leave No 

Trace principles can cause unnecessary impact to an area. By practicing and teaching low impact 

techniques for camping, professional guides are helping to ensure that the wilderness integrity of 

the area is maintained. Use by the guided sector is much easier to track, monitor and regulate and 

can be used as a tool to have groups camp in locations that are best for the resources. Care must 

be taken to ensure that the current levels of solitude are maintained or improved. Camping use is 

appropriate if done in a low impact manner. 

Commercially guided camping will be authorized in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness 

Areas through this needs assessment . 

Hunting: There has been concern expressed by hunters and guides that overcrowding is 

occurring on the Tongass for bear hunting. The overcrowding concern has been expressed 

between hunters and other visitors, as well as between hunters. This concern has been expressed 

for Kuiu Island because of its renowned high black bear densities. 

Currently on the Petersburg Ranger District, commercially guided black bear hunts are capped at 

188 hunts. The total number of black bear hunts that take place on Kuiu Island (commercial and 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 25
Appendix B 26 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
I. Introduction 

The Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, developed this needs assessment to determine 

the type, extent, and location of outfitter/guide use that could take place in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu 

Wilderness Areas. A needs assessment is a means to determine if there is a ‘need’ for commercial 

enterprise to assist the agency in providing access, services and/or other assistance for the recreating 

public to safely and properly enjoy National Forest Wilderness Areas, and if so, the extent necessary. This 

document is tiered to the Tongass Forest Plan as amended in February 2008 and the Determination of 

Need for Commercial Services within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2007). 

The Tebenkof Bay Wilderness and the Kuiu Wilderness are both analyzed in this analysis. Tebenkof Bay 

Wilderness was designated by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980, and 

the Kuiu Wilderness was designated through an amendment to ANILCA by the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act in 1990. The two Wilderness Areas are on the same island, share an adjacent boundary, have similar 

biophysical characteristics and public recreational uses. For these reasons the Forest Service often 

manages these two Wilderness Areas in a similar manner and it was deemed appropriate and efficient to 

combine them for this document. 

The following commercial activities that were identified in the Tongass National Forest Needs Assessment 

and currently take place in these two Wilderness Areas include: 

 guided kayaking and camping; 

 freshwater fishing; 

 big game (black bear/deer/wolf) hunting; and 

 remote setting nature tours (RSNT). 

Assumptions 

The following are assumptions made to aid in the assessment of the need for outfitter/guide operations: 

 Visitor use is expected to remain at current levels or continue to increase (TLRMP Amendment 

Record of Decision 2008). There may also be shifts in use patterns (timing and location) and 

user types (hikers, backpackers, day users, etc.). However, with the current economic 

downturn, it is hard to predict if this will remain true for the next 2-5 years. 

 Some people would not visit the Wilderness without an outfitter or guide because they lack the 

skills, knowledge, equipment, or ability to do so on their own. 

 Conflicts between outfitter/guide operations and the non-outfitted/guided public have the 

potential to increase as overall use increases. 

 Activities proposed by guides are wilderness dependent and appropriate to a wilderness 

setting. 

II. Wilderness Management Direction 

See Appendix 1. Wilderness Management Direction. 

Goals and Objectives for Wilderness 

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. 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 27
 Manage Wilderness as a place where self-reliance and primitive skills are needed and 

can be honed by the public. 

 Provide for public use of the Wilderness in accordance with ANILCA provisions for 

motorized and nonmotorized access and travel, including reasonable access to 

traditional subsistence resources. 

 Provide trails and primitive facilities that are in harmony with the natural environment 

and that promote primitive recreation opportunities. Feature facilities designed 

primarily to provide resource protection and encourage smaller group size. Facilities 

and trails tend to allow for challenge and risk instead of convenience. 

 Maintain the Wilderness to provide information on natural ecological processes. 

 Preserve and perpetuate biodiversity. Inventory and reduce or eliminate invasive 

species in Wilderness. 

III. Visitor Use and Commercial Use 

Historical Use of the Wilderness Areas by Outfitters and Guides 

Permitted use over the past few years has included camping, big game outfitting, fishing, and sightseeing. 

Use has varied (Table 1) from 13 permit holders using 561 recreational visitor days (RVDs) 2

 in 2002, to 10 

operators with 220 RVDs in 2007, with the highest total RVDs being 610 in 2006. 

Table 1. RVDs used by outfitters/guides from 2002 through 2007 

 Activity 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Camping* 510 213 471 397 575 183 

Fishing 20 19 7 2 6 6 

RSNT** 10 5 14 9 0 3 

Black bear or wolf 

hunting 21 15 3 16 29 28 

Total 561 252 495 424 610 220 

*The camping is from guided sea kayak groups. 

**RSNT – remote setting nature tours, includes sightseeing, hiking, wildlife viewing, etc. at remote sites (not accessed by road system). 

Niche and Description 

TEBENKOF BAY 

Tebenkof Bay Wilderness is on central Kuiu Island, north of the Kuiu Wilderness. The area is a complex 

system of bays, islets and coves that first attracted the Tlingit Indians to the bay long ago. Even the most 

remote beaches in the bay have had a human presence in the past. The land offered hunting, trapping, 

camping and gardening, and the water was rich with a variety of shellfish and saltwater and freshwater fish. 

In the mid-1900’s, fox farm operations were abundant on the small islands, and today commercial fishing is 

an important way of life. Most of the time it is a serene place where the only sound in the distance is the call 

of a young sea otter or the blow of a humpback whale. 

The area’s main attractions are its: remoteness and solitude, protected waters in relation to the surrounding 

unprotected waters of lower Chatham Strait and the Pacific Ocean, terrestrial and marine wildlife, and 

subsistence value for the community of Kake. 

 2

 One RVD is equal to 12 hours of recreation use in one day, so 12 people recreating for 1 hour is = one RVD, as is one person 

recreating for 12 hours. 

Appendix B 28 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
KUIU 

Kuiu Wilderness is on the south-central portion of Kuiu Island which is contained by two large bodies of 

water: Sumner Strait to the east and Chatham Strait to the west. The Tlingit Indians braved these waters 

and sought protection in the deep bays that now make up the Kuiu Wilderness. The remoteness of this 

Wilderness, coupled with the challenge and risk of travel by water or land, offers outstanding opportunities 

for solitude. Kuiu Island has a high density of black bears, and visitors are more likely to encounter this wild 

creature than a human. 

Existing Condition 

One way existing condition can be assessed is to divide wilderness character into the four components 

from the Wilderness Act of untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and opportunities for solitude and primitive 

and unconfined recreation: 

 Untrammeled. This quality describes the degree to which management actions “hinder” or 

“control” the land and natural processes. For example, the Wilderness Area has 

remained free of management activities that have altered natural systems, such as dams 

or regulations that govern visitor activities. There has been some logging in the past 

which is difficult for the untrained eye to identify due to the amount of natural regeneration 

that has occurred. The Tebenkof Bay Wilderness has a total of approximately 442 acres 

that have been either clear cut or partially logged; dating from 1918 to 1966 (less than 1% 

of the Wilderness). The Kuiu Wilderness has approximately 950 acres that have been 

previously harvested, with the majority taking place between 1915 and 1948, and 20 

acres in 1986 (1.6% of the Wilderness). 

 Natural. This quality describes the ecological effects of management actions that 

manipulate vegetation, soils, air quality, or other physical and biological components of 

wilderness. Wildlife found within the area includes black bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, and 

wolf. Kuiu Island has some of the highest black bear population densities in North 

America. Local hunters and guides are concerned about black bear population number 

declines (Peacock 2003). The island also has two subspecies of American marten 

(Small, et al. 2002). Moose exist in the area, but in relatively small numbers. The list of 

smaller fur bearing animals common to the area includes beaver, mink, pine marten, land 

otter, and weasel. It is common to see humpback whales and sea otters in adjacent 

saltwater areas, as well as numerous sea birds. Annual surveys for native and nonnative plants began in 1997. Due to the remoteness from human developments these two 

Wilderness Areas have relatively intact native plant communities. Small populations of 

non-native plants are primarily located at previously disturbed sites, such as fur farms and 

fish processing sites. The nearest roads are located to the northeast of Alecks Lake in 

the Three Mile Arm area. The areas that had trees harvested have grown back to where 

they are not readily apparent and have a minimal impact on the visual qualities. 

 Undeveloped. This quality describes the effects of structures, habitations, or other 

evidence of human presence or occupation. There are no public recreation cabins within 

these two Wilderness Areas. There is one special use residence in the Tebenkof Bay 

Wilderness, which historically was a fox farm. The main cabin burned down in 2005 but 

there is still a barn and several smaller buildings. The permit holder currently retains the 

right to replace the old cabin. There is one primitive 1.5 mile long trail that crosses both 

Wilderness Areas between Petrof Bay and Affleck Canal. Saltwater access by 

floatplanes, motorboats, or kayaks, can be challenging and expensive due to the long 

distance that must be traveled from the nearest communities. Chatham Strait also poses 

challenging water conditions for boats and planes. Floatplanes can land on Aleck’s Lake 

and Malmesbury Lake. Except for access afforded from saltwater and lakes, the area is 

relatively inaccessible and undisturbed by the activities of people. The eastern portion of 

the Kuiu Wilderness (Port Beauclerc) is accessed from more protected waters (Sumner 

Strait) than the southern (Affleck Canal) and western side of the Wilderness Area (Port 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 29
Malmesbury). The water access to Tebenkof Bay is only from Chatham Strait, which is 

known for rough water conditions. The remoteness and challenge of accessing these 

areas has minimized human use. The majority of the guided use in the Wilderness is from 

sea kayaking permit holders who camp overnight on the uplands. In general, the 

expectation is there will be less evidence of human occupation as one travels farther in 

from the shoreline. 

 Opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Visitors to the upland 

areas of the Wilderness Areas can expect a moderate-to-high probability of experiencing 

isolation from most sights and sounds of humans. The visitor may see or hear boats on 

the saltwater. Sometimes there are commercial fishery openings that bring several fishing 

boats to a bay, primarily trollers, seiners, or long liners. A saltwater fishing charter 

operation is based in Bay of Pillars, which sends boats to the mouth of Tebenkof Bay 

daily during the summer months. There are also occasional overflights of low flying 

aircraft. In 2008 during a total of 15 days of field surveys by wilderness rangers during the 

months of June and July four aircraft were sighted and 44 were heard. Twenty-eight 

boats were sighted; 21 of which were commercial trollers mostly around the mouths of 

Tebenkof Bay and Port Malmesbury. The majority of these aircraft and boats were rated 

as low impact on solitude (67 low, six medium, and three high). The only maintained 

access route into the uplands is the 1.5 mile Affleck Trail, which is a primitive trail with no 

structural trail components. Shoreline areas are accessed by boat or floatplane giving the 

chance for wilderness visitors to encounter other users. 

Subsistence is an important activity for some people, most of whom travel from Kake. The 

sockeye salmon at the mouth of Alecks Creek in Tebenkof Bay is a traditional fishery in 

July. Residents from Port Alexander and Point Baker also use the two Wilderness Areas 

for deer hunting and trapping. 

Within 30 days of the end of the operating season, the permit holders submit an Actual Use Report that lists 

the locations (latitude and longitude), type of use, the number of clients, and length of stay at each location. 

From this information, we determine the number of RVDs (Table 2) utilized at each location, by each group. 

This provides a mechanism to monitor the amount of use at each location. That information is then used to 

help determine the areas that get field checked. 

Table 2. Number of outfitters/guides operating in these Wildernesses by year.

Year Number of Outfitters and Guides

2002 13 

2003 10 

2004 7 

2005 11 

2006 9 

2007 10 

Desired Condition 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs “each agency administering any area designated as Wilderness shall 

be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area.” Section 2(c) of the Act defines four 

qualities of wilderness that managers try to preserve. 

As described in the 2008 Amended Forest Plan, 

All designated Wilderness on the Tongass National Forest is characterized by extensive, 

unmodified natural environments. Ecological processes and natural conditions are not measurably 

affected by past or current human uses or activities. Users have the opportunity to experience 

independence, closeness to nature, solitude, and remoteness, and may pursue activities requiring 

Appendix B

30 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
self-reliance, challenge, and risk. Motorized and mechanized use is limited to the minimum 

needed for the administration of the Wilderness. Allow for access to state and private lands, 

subsistence uses, and public access and other uses to the extent provided for by ANILCA. 

 Untrammeled – The Wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human 

control or manipulation. 

The desired condition is an improving or stable trend in actions that control or manipulate 

the Wilderness. These actions include ones that manipulate plants, animals, pathogens, 

soil, water, or fire, whether authorized or unauthorized by the Forest Service. 

 Natural – Wilderness ecological and evolutionary systems are substantially free from the 

effects of modern civilization. 

The desired condition is for the trend of the effect of modern civilization on plant, animal, 

pathogen, physical, and biophysical resources to be stable or decreasing. 

 Undeveloped – Wilderness retains its primeval character and influence and has minimal 

evidence of modern human occupation or modification. 

The trends in recreational and non-recreational developments, use of motor equipment 

and transport, and loss of statutorily protected cultural resources is stable or decreasing. 

 Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation – Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience 

natural sights and sounds, solitude, freedom, risk, and the physical and emotional 

challenges of self-discovery and self-reliance. 

The trend is stable or improving for: remoteness from sights and sounds of people inside 

and outside Wilderness; number of facilities that decrease self-reliant recreation; number 

of trails and level of trail classes; and amount of management restrictions on visitor 

behavior. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Visitor Use Capacity in the Tebenkof 

Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas 

ROS is a system for inventorying recreation experience opportunities into seven classes as identified in the 

Tongass Land Management Plan. Each class is defined in terms of the degree certain recreation 

opportunities are possible based on the extent the natural environment has been modified, types of 

facilities provided, the number of interactions expected with other groups of people, and the relative density 

of recreation use. 

The Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu Wilderness study area is all managed for the Primitive ROS class. ROS standards 

and guidelines are considered when looking at the need for guided services (Appendix 2, description of this 

ROS class). The Forest Plan directs us to manage wilderness recreation activities to meet 

appropriate levels of social encounters, on-site development, methods of access, and visitor impacts 

indicated for the Primitive ROS class. 

Visitor use capacity is the approximate number of people that can visit a portion of the National Forest while 

having the prescribed recreation (ROS) experience. The reason to determine capacity is twofold; to ensure 

that visitors can enjoy recreational experiences that meet their expectations and ensure the wilderness 

resource can sustain the potential level of use. Knowledge of existing use, projections of future demand, 

capability of an area to withstand impact, and useable terrain can be analyzed to determine capacity. For 

example, an area accessed by foot with multiple valleys to hunt would have a greater ability to 

accommodate a higher capacity of users than a small alpine lake, accessed seasonally by float plane, with 

one flat site for camping. There are several aspects in determining capacity, including social, biophysical, 

managerial, and facility capacity: 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 31
 Social. This refers to the sights and sounds of other people, which may impact the 

group’s experience: 

o Is this an area heavily used by residents? 

o Can people spread out over the area with little chance of encounters? 

o How long is the useable season? 

o Are there other types of recreation use that are not compatible with the 

proposed use? 

o Are there periods of high use that can be identified? (Salmon runs, 

commercial fishing openings, etc...). 

 Biophysical. This refers to the biological resources found in the area potentially impacted 

by visitors. Biophysical attributes influence whether a setting is capable of providing a 

particular recreation opportunity without degrading an area’s ecological processes, 

structure, composition, resilience, integrity, potential, as well as the setting’s ability to 

restore itself and provide for other resource uses and values: 

o Are there plants or wildlife concerns? 

o Are campsites and travel routes located on durable surfaces? 

o Are user-created trails causing erosion or other unacceptable impacts? 

 Facility. This refers to physical attributes of the area that make it useable by visitors: 

o How many campsites are available? 

o Are there adequate locations for camps that are on durable surfaces and out 

of site and sound? 

o Are there adequate anchorages in the saltwater? 

o Is access by foot, water, or plane easy or difficult? 

 Managerial. This refers to policies, management objectives, or rules that can increase or 

decrease visitor capacity in an area. 

Once a need is determined, the capacity of the area is estimated to accommodate the activity by evaluating 

terrain, screening, campsite availability, and other factors. See the 2009 Recreation Use Carrying Capacity 

Report for Petersburg Ranger District.

IV. Special Knowledge and Skills Needed for Activities 

in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas

Potential Categories of Public Need3 for Commercial Services 

Guides can serve as important partners for the Forest Service. In particular, guides can provide wilderness 

awareness, wilderness ethics education, and Leave No Trace education. Resource protection activities, 

such as reporting of invasive plants and illegal activities have been helpful in the past and could help the 

Wilderness Areas achieve a higher level of wilderness character. Guides can help build constituency and 

support for Wilderness among those groups of people who might not be exposed through typical outreach 

(for example, big game hunters). 

 

 3

 A desire for commercial services or the fact that the presence of a guide could enhance 

a visitor’s experience should not be confused with “need.” 

Appendix B 32 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
The following are potential categories of public need for commercial services within the Tebenkof Bay and 

Kuiu Wilderness Areas: 

 People with physical limitations; 

 People pursuing activities where knowledge, equipment, and skill needed makes 

unguided use extremely difficult if not impossible; 

 People wanting to take trips that focus extensively on Wilderness; or

 Wilderness stewardship activities that could be enhanced by outfitter/guides. 

Process for Determination of Public Need 

“Public need” is a need determined to be essential for the well being of the entire public, guided and 

unguided, or to meet the intent of the Forest’s mission to manage and protect resources, provide for public 

safety, and to provide high quality recreation services. Within Wilderness the intended use should be 

dependent on the wilderness resource. A guide wanting a permit does not always mean there is a 

public need. 

The principle of wilderness dependency is used to guide visitor management toward preventing overuse. It 

calls for favoring activities most dependent on wilderness conditions. Defining an activity as “wilderness 

dependent” can be difficult. Often it is not the activity itself that is dependent, but the particular style in which 

it is pursued. Hunting or kayak camping in remote locations with little or no human interaction and with more 

primitive techniques, are good examples of activities with a wilderness dependent style. 

Evaluation Criteria used for determining the need for outfitter assistance in the management of the 

Wilderness Area: 

Wilderness Dependency. The extent to which the proposed service can be offered on 

private or non-wilderness national forest lands. Some examples of these services could 

be: 

a. Trips in which solitude and unconfined, primitive recreation are the central 

components of the experience. 

b. Visits to ecosystems, geological, or physical resources found in Wilderness for 

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. 

Forest-wide Availability. Does this activity occur elsewhere in other Wildernesses on the 

Tongass? For example, if an activity occurs in abundance in other areas, there may not 

be a need to accommodate it in these Wilderness Areas. 

Wilderness Character. Will outfitter/guide activities preserve or improve the four qualities of 

wilderness character? Alternatively will outfitter/guide activities degrade wilderness 

character? For example will the natural quality or the primitive recreation quality be 

impacted by an increase in bear hunting guides? Will the solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation quality be affected by increasing use from small tour ships? Will the 

natural quality or primitive recreation be improved by outfitter/guides that are well trained in 

Leave No Trace education? 

Skills and Equipment. Outfitter/guide skills and equipment are needed by a portion of the 

public because of one or more of the following: 

a. Specific skills required for activities appropriate for the area require substantial 

time and/or talent to learn. 

b. Learning necessary skills and participating in the activity requires acquisition and 

consistent use of expensive, specialized equipment for which the public could not, 

or normally would not, expend the dollars or time. 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 33
c. The skills required are so unique that the use of a guide is almost a prerequisite if 

the public is to have any opportunity to participate in and enjoy the activity. 

Knowledge. Guide knowledge of the wilderness resource and the activity area is needed 

by the public, and especially nonresidents, in order to enjoy recreational opportunities in a 

manner that reduces resource damage and user conflicts. This includes knowing where 

and by what method to best access and travel through an area. 

Safety. An outfitter/guide’s special skills and equipment are needed for a reasonable level 

of safety for the participants. Without guide assistance, members of the public could 

seriously endanger their health or lives, or would not visit the Wilderness due to safety 

concerns. These criteria are not meant to diminish the wilderness values of self-reliance 

or the opportunity to challenge oneself or experience a degree of risk. 

Special Management Objectives and/or Issues. Outfitter/guide assistance is needed to 

insure special management objectives are met and/or issues resolved. Examples could 

include recreational opportunities for disabled populations, instilling a wilderness ethic in 

clients, contribution to rural area development and economy of formerly commodity based 

areas, and assistance in reducing critical resource impacts and/or conflicts between users. 

Another example is when a guide is required by the State of Alaska for participating in a 

mountain goat or brown bear hunt. Since neither of these species inhabits Kuiu Island, 

this is not a consideration for this Wilderness. 

Extent Existing Outfitter/Guide Permits are Being Utilized. Are current outfitted or guided 

assignments booked or over-booked, indicating a larger interest in the service? 

Level of Use and Conflict. Conflicts between all types of users, private and commercial in 

the Wilderness. The extent to which already authorized use days or capacity exists for 

existing permit holders to fill the need. What is the compatibility of commercial, 

institutional, and general public use, and the amount of use and social capacity within a 

given area of the Wilderness? Are use patterns (congestion and number of encounters) a 

potential problem? Is there a temporal congestion pattern - weekend use versus weekday 

use, day versus overnight use? Over time, what is the general trend? Is the projected 

future condition compatible with desired future condition? 

Land Capability and Resource Concerns. Can the guide contribute to the protection of the 

land through his/her educational emphasis? What is the level of interference an 

outfitter/guide operation will have with the natural biological and physical processes of the 

Wilderness? Can a guide contribute to minimizing impacts from camping by applying 

Leave No Trace skills in choosing beach campsites that are durable, yet also safe for 

overnight use? Can the guide help in minimizing campfire resource damage by teaching 

best practice methods of building fires? 

Public purpose. The Wilderness Act section 4(b) specifies “Wilderness Areas shall be 

devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, 

conservation, and historical use.” Guide services must help fulfill these purposes of 

Wilderness. Does this activity contribute to the public purposes established for this 

Wilderness? When considering the extent necessary, can people reasonably participate 

in this activity without a guide or is having a guide a prerequisite? Does this activity serve 

a broad segment of the population or is it limited to a select few? The Wilderness Act 

Section 4(c) prohibits commercial services but then allows some use as necessary to 

realize the recreational and wilderness purposes in Section 4(d).) 

Appendix B 34 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
Type of Activity and Criteria Rating Summary 

Camping from guided sea 

kayakers

Wilderness dependency Low 

Forest-wide availability High 

Wilderness character Low impact with LNT, high impact with poor LNT skills 

Skills and equipment Moderate. Moderate cost for equipment 

Knowledge Moderate 

Safety risk High for outside waters, moderate inside bays 

Special objectives High for extended length trips (Leave No Trace skills) 

Demand/utilization Low 

Level of use and conflict Moderate 

Land capability Moderate, depending on location and amount of durable surface 

Public purpose Moderate: only a select group will participate (recreation and scenic 

purposes) 

Fishing/day hiking

(freshwater - foot travel)

Wilderness dependency Low; other streams available 

Forest-wide availability High 

Wilderness character Low impact with a small number of people with LNT skills 

Skills and equipment Moderate to low. Moderate cost for equipment 

Knowledge Moderate 

Safety risk Low to moderate 

Special objectives Low 

Demand/utilization Being met 

Level of use and conflict Low 

Land capability Moderate, depending on location 

Public purpose High – recreation and scenic 

RSNT (fly-in)

Wilderness dependency Low; other lakes/streams available 

Forest-wide availability High 

Wilderness character Moderate – increased floatplane noise 

Skills and equipment Moderate skill due to remoteness. Moderate cost for flying 

Knowledge Moderate to low, depending on location 

Safety risk Moderate (bears, weather) 

Special objectives Low 

Demand/utilization Low 

Level of use and conflict Low 

Land capability Moderate 

Public purpose Moderate – only select group can afford 

Big game hunting

Wilderness dependency Low; other areas available 

Forest-wide availability High 

Wilderness character Low impact with LNT 

Skills and equipment High skill required – high cost/equipment 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 35
Type of Activity and Criteria Rating Summary 

Knowledge High to moderate 

Safety risk High 

Special objectives High 

Demand/utilization High 

Level of use and conflict Moderate 

Land capability Low for camping – there are few LNT camp sites near good bear 

habitat; moderate for boat based 

Public purpose Moderate – only select group can afford/participate 

V. Need for and Extent of Commercial Use in the 

Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas. 

Camping. 

Wilderness dependency. 

a. National Forest System (NFS) land. Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu are Wilderness areas 

that are not near the larger communities in SE Alaska. Use of this Wilderness for 

recreation is from those who choose this as a destination because of its remoteness 

and opportunities for solitude. The primary mode of transport from much of the 

guided and non-guided users is by kayak and smaller boats and the shorelines of 

these Wilderness Areas are the locations where overnight camping must take place. 

The solitude experience available in this Wilderness is dependent upon the low use 

the area receives. 

b. Non-NFS. There are very few opportunities for camping in the immediate vicinity on 

private or state lands. 

Forest-wide availability. This type of use occurs in multiple areas on the Tongass. 

Wilderness character. With small groups in durable locations, and with solid LNT practices, 

impacts to the wilderness character can be low. In addition to providing protection to resources 

from using proper camping techniques, guides knowledgeable about invasive plant species 

have provided the Forest Service with plant information for the Wilderness which improves our 

ability to manage wilderness resources. 

Skills and equipment. Camping in a manner that leaves little or no impacts is a learned skill 

that many visitors and locals have little experience with in this wet and sensitive ecosystem. 

Equipment can be purchased at most outdoor stores with the expense depending upon the 

quality. There are local businesses that rent out or sell equipment to travelers, and maps are 

available to purchase at various locations (sporting good stores, FS offices, etc) and aerial 

photos are available on the internet. 

Knowledge. Recreationists access these two Wilderness Areas by motor boat, kayak, or float 

plane, all of which take certain technical skills and an understanding of weather and water 

conditions in southeast Alaska. Some of the public do access the area with their own motor 

boats or sea kayaks, but the majority depends upon guides to provide knowledge of the local 

conditions for safe passage. The only trail located in the study area is the Affleck Portage Trail; 

otherwise foot access is by off-trail hiking. Good maps and compass skills are essential; a 

GPS and aerial photos will be help. A guide can enhance visitor knowledge and ensure that 

clients don’t get lost and take safe and durable paths to destinations. Guides can also help 

minimize visitor impacts by showing where it is best to concentrate or to disperse impacts 

Appendix B 36 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
depending upon the amount of expected cumulative recreation use and upon the sensitivity of 

the biological resource. 

Safety risk. Hazards that might be encountered while accessing the Wilderness include the 

exposed seas of lower Chatham Strait while accessing the Wilderness, or the steep terrain, 

wildlife, or the cold wet climate. The presence of a guide can contribute to a feeling of safety. 

A portion of prospective wilderness visitors will probably not visit the area on their own 

because of concerns for their safety. 

Special objectives. Guides are required to impart wilderness camping ethics to their clients, 

such as Leave No Trace. In particular, a guide might encourage clients to spread out in alpine 

and muskeg areas rather than walk single file, and will eliminate the use of flagging or rock 

cairns. Current problems at campsites in nearly all Wilderness Areas include the improper 

location of campsites and inappropriate use of campfires. A skilled guide can teach clients 

proper use of fires, such as using the mound, firepan, or durable beach methods. 

Demand/utilization. In the past few years, there has been up to three permit holders in the 

study area for this type of activity. There have been one or two other expressions of interest 

for camping. In 2009 there is only one operator planning to use the area. It appears the cost 

of traveling to this remote Wilderness coupled with recent trends in the economy has 

negatively impacted the current demand. 

Level of use and conflict. The existing permit holder conducts four 30-day long trips with 

groups of twelve. A portion of those trips occur in the Wilderness, varying from two to eight 

days. 

Land capability. Current resource concerns from camping include use of non-durable sites, 

litter, fire rings in inappropriate places, constructing “campsite furniture”, and development of 

social trails. The majority of the impacts have been caused by the unguided public and not the 

clients of the permit holders, but the two user groups often use the same sites, although the 

permittee uses solid LNT practices with few impacts. These impacts have been documented 

by doing Level III campsite monitoring in the spring after unguided bear hunting use, and again 

in late August after the guided kayaking/camping. The guides that use Tebenkof Bay have 

made earnest efforts to improve on Leave No Trace skills by attending training and this has 

resulted in significant improvements. The decreasing trend of impacts from the permitted 

camping has been documented in campsite monitoring performed by wilderness rangers and 

the permit administrator. 

Public purpose. This activity contributes to the public purpose of recreation. It allows visitors 

to experience a remote Wilderness. There are outstanding opportunities for solitude that might 

not be experienced, otherwise. 

Hunting. 

Wilderness dependency. 

a. National Forest System (NFS) land. Opportunities exist outside of the wilderness 

area for hunting. Approximately two thirds of the Tongass National Forest is not 

designated Wilderness. Most of the non-Wilderness lands in SE AK are open for 

hunting. 

b. Non-NFS. There are fewer opportunities for hunting in the vicinity on private or 

state lands. The majority of SE AK is National Forest system lands, and the 

opportunity for hunting is proportionate. 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 37
Forest-wide availability. Hunting is offered in other wilderness areas on the Tongass, and 

across most of land use designations of the Tongass. 

Wilderness character. ADF&G sets harvest levels. Most clients and guides live on a boat and 

spend very little time in the upland areas of the wilderness during a typical day hunt. Guided 

hunting should have little effect on wilderness character. An exception would be if the amount of 

hunters begins to have an effect on their solitude. Any camping would need to adhere to Leave 

No Trace standards to avoid campsite and campfire impacts. 

Skills and equipment. Hunters need to have the skill to identify and stalk, in a dynamic, 

challenging environment, and to do it in a way that is respectful of the wildlife and the wilderness 

resources. While it is hoped that most hunters will follow proper procedures, a guide can help 

ensure that ethical hunting practices and procedures are followed. As a result of having a 

professional guide, there may be a reduced number of wounded bear, deer, and wolf. While 

guides provide a service, the species on Kuiu Island being hunted do not require the use of a 

guide by the State of Alaska. These species include black bear, deer, and wolf. 

Knowledge. Guides are knowledgeable about animal behavior and as well as where issues with 

other users could occur (subsistence, other guides). This information is not readily available to 

the average nonresident hunter. Guides share appropriate Leave No Trace practices with clients 

to help with the protection of the rainforest environment. 

Safety risk. Hazards that might be encountered include wounded black bears. Guides generally 

have more knowledge and skill, know how to track and retrieve animals and have back-up rifles 

in case of emergency. There have been infrequent maulings of hunters by black bear. The 

majority of these were local residents. 

Special objectives. Guides can help accomplish ADFG’s harvest objectives and can ensure that 

hunters care for and process the carcass in accordance with state law. The guide hunt records, 

turned in to the Commercial Services Board, help to track harvest locations and hunter success 

rates. 

Demand/utilization. The maximum number of black bear hunts authorized to outfitter/guides per 

year on the entire Petersburg Ranger District is 188 hunts. The demand for these hunts is 

highest on Kuiu Island. 

Level of use and conflict. The current level of use is moderate. As shown in Table 1 the RVDs 

have increased over the past five years from 15 to 29. For Kuiu Island the black bear harvest has 

increased about 10 percent annually from 1990 to 2000 (Peacock 2001). While there are few 

reported conflicts with local users, there have been conflicts between hunting guides groups as 

well as other recreationists across the Tongass. Bear hunters are generally less tolerant of 

crowding than other recreationists. The carrying capacity for this area is currently being reviewed 

and a decision for the number of hunts is being considered in an environmental analysis. 

Land capability. Current resource concerns from hunters who camp include tree-cutting, litter, 

fire rings, and social trails. Most of these are related to camping from unguided hunters. The 

majority of hunting clients live aboard a boat where resource concerns from that activity are few. 

Public purpose. This activity contributes to the recreational purpose (hunting). 

Freshwater fishing 

Wilderness dependency. 

a. National Forest System (NFS) land. Opportunities exist outside of the Wilderness 

Area for fishing. Approximately two-thirds of the Tongass National Forest is not 

Appendix B 38 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
designated Wilderness. Most of the non-Wilderness lands in Southeast Alaska are 

open for fishing. 

b. Non-NFS. There are fewer opportunities for fishing in the vicinity on private or state 

lands. The majority of Southeast Alaska is National Forest system lands, and the 

opportunity for fishing is proportionate. 

Forest-wide availability. On the Tongass fishing is offered in other Wilderness Areas, and across 

most of the land use designations. 

Wilderness character. ADF&G sets harvest levels. Most clients and guides live on a boat and 

spend very little time in the upland areas of the Wilderness during a typical day. Guided fishing 

should have little effect on wilderness character with the exception of potential impacts to hiking 

routes if the amount of fishing use increases. 

Skills and equipment. Unguided or guided freshwater fishing is uncommon in these two 

Wilderness Areas, partially due to the remoteness and partially due to the few sizable streams or 

lakes. Most of the fishing is an incidental activity, although Alecks Creek and Lake occasionally 

are visited specifically for the purpose of fishing. The streams that have fish do not have trails for 

access, so navigation map and compass skills are needed, and previous experience with the 

route is beneficial. Guides can also impart knowledge of catch and release techniques, where 

the runs are occurring, fish identification, avoiding bears encounters on fish streams, and proper 

disposal methods. In addition, a boat is normally needed for access and not all persons have the 

skills to successfully navigate a boat to this area, given the need for local knowledge of the area 

(weather, tides, etc.). 

Knowledge. A guide can provide assistance and information to visitors who are unfamiliar with 

the terrain and environment of Southeast Alaska. It is unlikely that the average non-resident 

visitor would possess the ability to know where to hike or fish safely and successfully. 

Safety risk. Hazards encountered might include black bears, getting lost, slips and falls, and 

hypothermia. The presence of an outfitter/guide can contribute to a feeling of safety. A portion 

of prospective wilderness visitors would probably not visit the area on their own because of 

concerns for their safety. 

Special objectives. Outfitters and guides promote proper catch and release techniques and an 

understanding of population dynamics in isolated streams and lakes. Outfitter/guides are 

required to turn in freshwater fishing logs to ADF&G. Results of these are used to determine the 

level of fishing effort, as well as the harvest of all species. 

Demand/utilization. There have been few requests for this activity in the past ten years. 

Level of use and conflict. There have been no reports of conflicts of use on the fishing streams. 

The level of use has trended downward over the past five years from 20 to 6 RVDs. 

Land capability. Currently, resource concerns from this activity are litter along streambanks, 

development of ‘fishing paths,’ and displacement of wildlife. 

Public purpose. This activity contributes to the recreational purpose (fishing). 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 39
Remote Setting Nature Tours (RSNT) 

Wilderness dependency. 

a. National Forest System (NFS) land. Opportunities exist outside of the Wilderness 

Area for RSNT. Approximately two-thirds of the Tongass National Forest, are not 

designated Wilderness. 

b. Non-NFS. Opportunities for RSNT are limited. The majority of Southeast Alaska is 

within the Tongass National Forest, and the opportunity for RSNT is proportionate. 

Forest-wide availability. The Tongass offers this activity in several other Wilderness Areas. 

Wilderness character. While floatplanes are allowed on lakes through enabling legislation 

(ANILCA), permitting guides to conduct this activity does allow a higher level of motorized activity 

and could contribute to a loss of solitude in these areas. As long as these activities are low 

levels of use, day-use, and temporary in nature, they would not be expected to significantly 

impact the natural, untrammeled and undeveloped qualities already present. The introduction of 

small cruise ship use would represent a significant change in the type and amount of use in the 

Wilderness Areas. It would have a negative impact on the solitude and the primitive and 

unconfined recreation of the Wilderness. Small cruise ship use would also have the potential to 

impact other aspects of wilderness character. 

Skills and equipment. RSNT activities include sightseeing, hiking, and wildlife viewing, at remote 

(non-road system NFS lands) locations. Hiking is a skill that is relatively easy to master. Hiking 

equipment can be obtained at relatively inexpensive prices at stores nationwide. Wildlife viewing 

equipment such as spotting scopes, cameras, and binoculars are obtained at various locations 

nationwide or they can be provided by the outfitter/guide. For flightseeing, an aircraft (helicopter 

or fixed wing) is required, which the average visitor would not own. These two Wilderness Areas 

are typically viewed from a boat, and the exposed waters require a seaworthy boat, which most 

visitors do not own. 

Knowledge. A guide can provide assistance and information to non-resident visitors who are 

unfamiliar with the terrain and environment of Southeast Alaska. It is unlikely that the average 

non-resident visitor would possess the knowledge of where to hike, view wildlife and spectacular 

scenery safely and successfully. Most visitors do not have the knowledge to safely navigate the 

open waters to reach this area. Guides can teach visitors the techniques of how to minimize 

their impacts while hiking through the forest or muskegs. Guides who frequent the area also 

have the historical knowledge of the area of where the best durable sites are located, as well as 

what areas to avoid due to problems from previous impacts. 

Safety risk. Hazards encountered might include bears, slips and falls, sudden weather changes, 

and hypothermia. The presence of an outfitter/guide could contribute to the safety of nonresident visitors. A portion of prospective wilderness visitors would probably not visit the area on 

their own because of concerns for their safety. 

Special objectives. There is a need for outfitters and guides to provide services to educate the 

public regarding the importance of the wilderness resource, Leave No Trace, and specifically the 

special features unique to the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses. Visitors who learn these 

skills can use them in other Wilderness Areas. Outfitters whose trip emphasis is based on 

appreciation for the Wilderness, educating clients and instilling a wilderness ethic can assist in 

meeting this management objective. An outfitter can also inform the Forest Service of their 

observations, including other groups seen and resource damage observed. 

Demand/utilization. This activity has relatively low demand/utilization within the area. Since 

2002 the RVDs have ranged from 0 to 14 (Table 1). There have been mid-size cruise ship 

Appendix B 40 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
companies who have expressed an interest to have several skiff loads of clients disembark from 

the mother ship and hike in the area. The district determined that having several Zodiac skiffs 

coming to shore with 12 to 50 clients would not meet the standards for wilderness management. 

Level of use and conflict. Current level of use is low. Increases in motorized access from large 

boats or from airplanes could create conflict with users who use less intrusive forms of access. 

Guides who use sea kayaks have complained about the impacts from large motorized boats. 

Land capability. An outfitter/guide must educate visitors on Leave No Trace techniques and 

would show them how to minimize visitor impacts from RSNT. 

Public purpose. This activity can contribute to the recreational purpose. 

VI. Determination of Need and Extent 

As stated in the Introduction, above, this document is tiered to the Tongass Forest Plan and the 

Determination of Need for Commercial Services within Wilderness Areas on the Tongass National Forest

(2007). The Forest-level Determination of Need document, states “subsequent decisions regarding the 

type, extent, amount, and location of commercial use for all Wilderness Areas on the Tongass must be 

made on a wilderness-by-wilderness basis.” It further states, “future decisions or revisions of environmental 

documents that allow commercial services in a Wilderness Area will be specific to each Wilderness and 

include”: 

1. A statement defining the wilderness character; 

2. Specific information regarding the wilderness values which require monitoring or protection; 

3. A finding that commercial services are necessary for that Wilderness Area; 

4. A description of the uses to authorize; 

5. The amount of use to authorize; and 

6. A description of the extent of activities. 

The items specific to Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas are addressed, below. 

Statement Defining the Wilderness Character of the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu 

Wilderness Areas 

The study area has a high quality of wilderness character. They are highly untrammeled; the area largely 

operates without human management or manipulation. The ecosystems are largely intact with very few 

non-native species and good native populations, providing for a high level of naturalness. There is very little 

human development in the Wilderness resulting in it having a high level of being undeveloped. The solitude 

or primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities are excellent due to the remoteness and low levels of 

human use, although subject to impacts from off-forest use on the saltwater or from the air. 

Finding or Determination of Need for Commercial Use 

Determination of need for commercial use for backpacking/camping: Of the permitted activities in 

these Wilderness Areas to date; camping has had the highest amount of use over the years (Table 1). 

Camping by those not well versed in Leave No Trace principles can cause unnecessary impact to an area. 

By practicing and teaching low impact techniques for camping, professional guides are helping to ensure 

that the wilderness integrity of the area is maintained and that visitors are educated in Leave No Trace

principles/techniques. Having experienced and knowledgeable guides can help managers ensure that 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 41
camping use is located on durable sites and resource impacts are minimized. Use by the guided sector is 

much easier to track, monitor and regulate and can be used as a tool to have groups camp in locations that 

are best for the resources. Care must be taken to ensure that the current levels of solitude are maintained 

or improved. Camping use is appropriate if done in a low impact manner. 

Commercially guided camping will be authorized in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas 

through this needs assessment . 

Determination of need for commercial use for hunting: There has been concern expressed by hunters 

and guides that overcrowding is occurring on the Tongass for both black and brown bear hunting. Kuiu 

Island does not have brown bears, but it does have a significant black bear population. The overcrowding 

concern is between hunters, as well as between hunters and non-hunters. This concern has been 

expressed for Kuiu Island because of the renowned high black bear densities on the northern portion of the 

island and the number of people attracted to that phenomenon. 

The Wilderness Act directs the Forest Service to protect the public’s recreation experience and manage 

Wilderness for outstanding opportunities for solitude or undeveloped and primitive recreation. The Forest 

Plan directs the Forest Service to manage the Wilderness land use designation (LUD) primarily for the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class of Primitive, which means that Wilderness Areas are the places that 

the public is most likely to experience isolation from most sights and sounds of humans. Other LUDs are 

managed for higher levels of development and amounts of interaction between people. Therefore, when 

managing for recreation experience on all LUDs across the Forest, Wilderness is the first LUD that is limited 

to preserve the opportunity for uncrowded bear hunting. Current black bear hunting use within the 

Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness is generally lower than other areas on Kuiu Island. Higher bear 

concentrations and easier access focuses the majority of black bear hunting north of Bay of Pillars. 

However, use has increased over the last few years as hunter pressure has displaced hunters further 

south. 

Currently on the Petersburg Ranger District, commercially guided black bear hunts are capped at 188 

hunts. For the foreseeable future, this value will not increase. If the demand in hunter use continues to rise, 

most likely a prospectus will be initiated to allocate future commercially guided hunts. 

Commercially guided hunting in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas at current levels will 

be authorized through this needs assessment. Allocations within Wilderness have been limited to 

10 percent of the Wrangell Ranger District recreation use carrying capacity. In order to protect the 

wilderness hunting experience, it is recommended to maintain this limitation, and to look for 

additional ways to respond to guides and hunters complaints regarding loss of solitude.

Determination of need for commercial use for freshwater fishing: Very little guided freshwater fishing 

takes place within these two Wilderness Areas. The primary location for fishing is at Aleck’s Creek. The 

use has ranged from 20 RVDs in 2000, to 2 RVDs in 2005 (Table 1). Guides are primarily needed to 

access this remote area, both for transport to the area and for route finding in an area without trails such as 

Alecks Creek. 

Guided saltwater fishing from boats is a commercial activity that occurs off of National Forest lands and 

therefore is not an activity regulated by the US Forest Service. 

Commercially guided freshwater fishing in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas will be 

authorized through this needs assessment.

Determination of need for commercial use for Remote Setting Nature Tours: Visitors in this category 

access the area via watercraft or floatplane. Activities such as wildlife viewing, sightseeing, picnicking, 

birding, photography, hiking, nature viewing, etc. would all be grouped into this activity. Having the 

knowledge, skills, experience, and equipment, even in good weather, to navigate the waters of Chatham 

and Sumner Straits, or to fly into the area lakes, are things the average visitor would not have. For most of 

the population, outfitters and guides provide the only means by which they could access or experience the 

Appendix B 42 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
area. Through interpretation of the area’s natural and cultural history, guides can increase the appreciation 

of the area for the people they are serving. Cruise ships have the potential to bring large numbers of 

visitors into the Wilderness, which would bring substantial negative change to the wilderness character, 

especially in light of the extraordinary outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation that the area offers currently. Even a small increase would be a proportionally significant 

change. RSNT opportunities for larger groups exist at many places outside these two Wildernesses. Both 

Wilderness Areas have a niche of providing excellent opportunities for solitude, as well as primitive and 

unconfined recreation. These opportunities are becoming harder to find on the Tongass as the tourism 

industry grows. Management of these Wilderness Areas will ensure protection of these opportunities for 

small groups of the public. 

Commercially guided RSNT in the Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas will be authorized 

through this needs assessment where the standards for a Primitive ROS experience can be met4

; 

an activity group size will not exceed 12 people; exceptions will be rare.

Information Specific to Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness Areas Which Requires 

Monitoring or Protection of Wilderness Values 

The exceptional opportunities for solitude and the primitive and unconfined recreation of this area need to 

be monitored to ensure appropriate management. 

The high quality of the native flora and fauna biological systems need to be monitored to ensure appropriate 

management. 

Description of Uses to Authorize 

Backpacking/camping 

Freshwater fishing 

Hunting 

Remote Setting Nature Tours (RSNT) 

Amount of Use to Authorize 

The amount of use in Wilderness is determined and presented in the Petersburg Ranger District 

Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report using the information presented in this needs assessment.

 4

 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Mgnt. Plan, Wilderness Management Prescriptions, Recreation and Tourism. 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 43
Appendix 1. Wilderness Management Direction 

Wilderness Management Direction for a Needs Assessment

Following is a discussion about when a needs assessment may be employed to address commercial use 

requests within Wilderness based on a regional or local wilderness management concern. 

Direction Provided by the 1964 Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 states the purpose of Wilderness is “to secure for the American people of 

present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of Wilderness.” Wilderness being an 

area “affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; . . 

. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive unconfined type of recreation”; . . . and “may also 

contain ecological, geological, or other feature of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” 

The Wilderness Act also describes how Wilderness Areas are to be used and managed. Management is to 

focus on preserving the wilderness character of the area; and use of the area “shall be devoted to the public 

purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, education, conservation, and historical uses.” In realizing these 

uses Wilderness provides an opportunity for solitude or primitive unconfined types of recreation not 

attainable in settings more man-made, or influenced by humans. 

In accomplishing the purpose of, and uses of Wilderness, the Wilderness Act gives some additional 

direction. Specifically, with one notable exception commercial enterprises are prohibited by Section 4(c) of 

the Act. The exception covered in Section 4(d) (6) says “commercial services may be performed within the 

Wilderness Area . . . to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreation or 

other Wilderness purposes of the areas.” 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA)

Section 707 of ANILCA states “Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act, Wilderness 

designated by this Act shall be administered in accordance with applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act 

...” 

Items provided for in ANILCA wilderness include: 

1. Section 811 – (a) Ensures rural residents reasonable access to subsistence resources and (b) 

permits the use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation 

traditionally employed for subsistence purposes, subject to reasonable regulation. 

2. Section 1010 – Mineral assessments with access by air with reasonable requirements to 

protect the resources of the area. 

3. Section 1110(a) – Allows for the use of snowmachines, motorboats, airplanes and 

nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities on conservation system 

units, including designated Wilderness, and for travel to and from villages and homesites, 

subject to reasonable regulation to protect the natural and other values of the unit or area. 

4. Section of 1303(b)(1) – Allowance for the construction of new cabins and administrative cabins 

if necessary for the administration of the area as Wilderness 

5. Section 1303(b)(2) – Allowance for the continuation of existing cabins. 

6. Section 1310 – Allowing for the maintenance of existing and future navigation aids and other 

facilities. 

Appendix B 44 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
7. Section 1315(c) – Permitting the continued use and maintenance of public use cabins. 

1315(d) allows for the construction of new cabins if they’re necessary for the protection of 

public health and safety. 

8. Section 1316(a) – Allows for existing and future establishment of temporary structures 

necessary for the taking of fish and game subject to reasonable regulation to insure 

compatibility, the continuance of existing uses, and the future establishment, and use, of 

temporary campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and other temporary facilities and equipment 

directly and necessarily related to such activities. Section 1316(b) allows for the denial of the 

temporary facilities if the use of equipment or facilities is determined to be detrimental to the 

wilderness character. 

In ANILCA, there are 17 sections that may influence the character of the wilderness and the consideration 

of commercial use. During the evaluation of commercial recreation use for any one Wilderness, an effort 

should be made to consider the long-term effects of accommodating increasing uses or proposals for new 

use. The economic benefits to a business are not a substantive basis of a decision to allow use presented 

in either the Wilderness Act or ANILCA. 

Direction Provided by Regulation

Federal Regulations 36 CFR 293.2 – Objectives, states in part: “Except as otherwise provided in the 

regulations..., National Forest Wilderness shall be so administered as to meet the public purposes of 

recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical uses; and it shall also be 

administered for such other purposes for which it may have been established in such a manner as to 

preserve and protect its wilderness character...To that end: 

 (a) Natural ecological succession will be allowed to operate freely to the extent feasible. 

 (b) Wilderness will be made available for human use to the optimum extent consistent with the 

maintenance of the primitive conditions. 

 (c) In resolving conflicts in resource use, wilderness values will be dominant to the extent not 

limited by the Wilderness Act, subsequent establishing legislation, or the regulations in this part.” 

Federal Regulations 36 CFR 293.8 - Permanent structures and commercial services, states in part that: 

“The Chief, Forest Service, may permit . . . commercial services within National Forest Wilderness to the 

extent necessary for realizing the recreational or other Wilderness purposes, which include, but are not 

limited to, the public services generally offered by packers, outfitters, and guides.” 

Agency Direction

USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2004 - 2008 

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is based on the relationship between the American people and 

their natural resource heritage. The relationship is founded on the principles of sustaining U.S. natural 

resources for future generations, producing personal and community well-being, and providing economic 

wealth for the Nation. 

The Strategic Plan embodies the Forest Service’s many areas of responsibility, as captured in the agency’s 

mission statement: 

“The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the 

Nation’s forest and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” 

One of the many goals of the Strategic Plan is to provide high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities on 

forests and grasslands, while sustaining natural resources, to meet the Nation’s recreational demands. 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 45
Forest Service Chief’s 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge 

In 2005, the Chief of the Forest Service adopted the 10-year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge (WSC) as 

recommended by the Chief’s Wilderness Advisory Group. This effort is a renewal of the commitment to 

wilderness by pledging to bring all 406 wildernesses administered by the Forest Service to a minimum level 

of stewardship within 10 years. Element 7 of the WSC identities that, “Needs assessments are 

completed for new operations or for major changes to existing outfitter programs.” As clarified in 

the definitions for this element; “needs assessments”; a methodology for determining if, in fact, there is a 

“need” for private enterprise to assist the Agency in providing access, services and/or other assistance for 

the recreating public to safely and properly enjoy National Forest Wilderness.” 

Another part of the WSC related to forest plan management direction is Element 

5 – Protecting Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. 

Managing to protect “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation” has been perhaps the most controversial aspect of 

wilderness management to date. Controversy typically emerges if managers 

propose any type of restriction on visitor access or behavior, such as use limits, to 

improve opportunities for solitude. Factors contributing to this controversy include: 

1. Lack of clarity over the meaning of solitude thus leading to lack of agreement over 

what the problem really is (e.g. visitors may view the concept holistically while 

managers may focus on the number of encounters in particular locations). 

2. Perception that solitude is too subjective and individualistic to manage for. 

3. Lack of standards or agreement on standards that define when there is a problem 

requiring corrective action. 

4. Managing for solitude without equal consideration of managing for primitive and 

unconfined recreation opportunities. 

5. The importance of access to visitors even when they support Wilderness 

preservation. 

6. Tension between providing outstanding opportunities for solitude vs. primitive and 

unconfined recreation. 

Forest Service Manual Direction

Forest Service Manual Chapter 2320 – Wilderness Management, has been reserved by the Washington 

Office. Management direction regarding the implementation of specific exemptions for wilderness 

management in the Regional Supplements to the Forest Service Manual, still remain in effect. The Forest 

Service Manual from the Washington Office is expected to be reissued sometime in the near future. 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, 41.53e - Needs Assessment, Resource Capacity Analysis, 

and Allocation of Use – Conduct a needs assessment to determine the public or agency need for 

authorized outfitting and guiding activities. When conducting a needs assessment for outfitting and 

guiding activities in a Wilderness Area, assess whether these activities are necessary for realizing the 

recreational or other wilderness purposes of the area and the extent to which the activities may be 

authorized consistent with maintaining the wilderness character of the area. 

Other FSM direction includes 

Under FSM 2340 – Privately Provided Recreation Opportunities 

 2340.2 - Objectives 

To provide, under special use authorization, sufficient, suitable facilities and services that supplement or 

complement those provided by the private sector, State, and local government on private land and the 

Appendix B 46 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
Forest Service on National Forest System land to meet public needs, as determined through land and 

resource management planning. 

To facilitate the use, enjoyment, understanding, and appreciation of natural resource settings on the 

National Forest. 

Forest Plan Direction for Wilderness 

Goals 

To manage all designated Wilderness to maintain the enduring resource of Wilderness as directed by the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, subject to the special provisions and exceptions in the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (TTRA). 

Protect and perpetuate natural biophysical and ecological conditions and processes. Ensure Wilderness 

ecosystems are substantially free from the effects of civilization. 

Provide a high degree of remoteness from the sights and sounds of humans, and opportunities for solitude 

and primitive recreation activities consistent with Wilderness preservation. 

Keep Wilderness untrammeled and free from human control or manipulation, including actions taken to 

manage Wilderness. 

Protect the undeveloped character of Wilderness by following legislative guidelines regarding permanent 

improvements or human occupation, including mechanized transport and motorized equipment. 

Objectives 

Apply a multi-disciplinary focus to Wilderness management; consider stewardship of Wilderness in the 

annual program of work by all resources. 

Manage recreation activities so that the levels of social encounters, on-site developments, methods of 

access, and visitor impacts indicated for the Primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Class are 

emphasized. Areas managed as Semi-Primitive within a Wilderness are an exception and are not 

encouraged. 

Provide for public uses of Wilderness as authorized in the Wilderness Act, but subject to ANILCA provisions 

for motorized and non-motorized access and travel, including reasonable traditional subsistence use by 

rural residents, and provisions of other applicable Wilderness designation acts. 

Maintain trails and primitive facilities that are in harmony with the natural environment and that promote 

primitive recreation opportunities. Feature facilities designed primarily to provide resource protection and 

encourage smaller group size and emphasize challenge and risk instead of convenience. 

Maintain the Wilderness capacity to provide information on natural ecological processes. 

Preserve and perpetuate biodiversity. 

Inventory, reduce, and, when possible, eliminate non-native species in Wilderness 

Manage Wilderness as a place where self-reliance and primitive skills are needed and can be honed. 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 47
Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment

In 1997, the Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment (EA) to develop a strategy to 

manage outfitter and guide special use permits was completed for both the Wrangell and Petersburg 

Ranger Districts. A Decision Notice was published in August 1997 describing the rationale for the selected 

alternative. The Districts reviewed the EA in April of 2004. The review recommended a few minor changes 

(primarily to address new sites and roads) and determined that no further environmental analysis was 

required and that the 1997 Decision Notice would be extended until the next review (scheduled for 2010). 

Included in the 1997 Stikine Area Outfitter and Guide Environmental Assessment is a Recreation Use 

Carrying Capacity Report (CCR) developed to determine the maximum amount of use that could be 

accommodated in a given area without loss in the quality of the natural environment and/or the prescribed 

visitor experience (ROS). The CCR provides managers with a tool and rationale for apportionment of 

outfitter and guide use allocations. When possible, conservative use variables were used in calculations to 

take into account the more primitive experience that most visitors expect in Alaska. 

The EA includes various Mitigation Measures that are used to address site specific concerns in the various 

study areas. The Mitigation Measures are included with all Outfitter and Guide Special Use Permits as 

Special Stipulations and therefore become part of the permit. Failure to adhere to the Special Stipulations 

would be a violation of the terms in the Special Use Authorization and could lead to the termination of the 

permit. The Special Stipulations that address areas of concern are: 

1. Outfitter/guides will submit revisions of their Operating Plans in writing. 

2. Land ownership is mixed and it is the responsibility of the permit holder to determine 

ownership and obtain proper authorization for use of private, native, and/or local governmentheld lands. 

3. Outfitter/guides will incorporate Leave No Trace skills into all activities on National Forest 

System lands (http://www.lnt.org/index.php). 

4. Outfitter-guided use of public use recreation cabins or their amenities (e.g. skiffs, firewood, fire 

rings) is prohibited. Exceptions may occur as specifically approved for a site by the District 

Ranger. These exceptions must be identified in the permit or addressed in District 

Stipulations. 

5. Within designated Wilderness, no more than 12 people (including guides) can occupy a site at 

one time. “Site:” an area on the National Forest occupied by persons not within sight and 

sound of other Forest users. 

6. All campfires will be built below high tide, as mound fires (a LNT technique) or in fire pans. 

7. Beach Meadows: Outfitter/guides will not establish camps, or allow their clients to camp in 

these areas. When walking through these areas, people should stay on existing paths and 

game trails to avoid trampling or damaging vegetation in beach meadows. Located at the 

margin between marine beaches and the forest fringe, beach meadows are characterized by 

the presence of tall grasses, beach pea, Indian paintbrush, Pacific silverweed, yarrow, 

chocolate lily, pretty shooting star, and Nootka lupine. These meadows often have between 

20-40 different plant species, some of which are on the sensitive species list. 

8. Impacts on Bald Eagle Nest Sites: The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

have a Memorandum of Understanding which establishes a minimum 330-foot radius “habitat 

management zone” around each bald eagle nest tree. Camping in this zone is prohibited to 

guided groups. 

Appendix B 48 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
9. A copy of the permit must be with the operator at all times, when operating on National Forest 

System lands. 

10. Use Reports will reflect specific locations of use on National Forest System lands. 

11. 36 CFR Ch.11 261.10 The following are prohibited: ...(d) Discharging a fire arm or any other 

implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property: (1) in or within 

150 yards of a residence, building, developed recreation site or occupied area, or (2) across or 

on a Forest development road or a body of water adjacent thereto, or in any manner or place 

whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result in such discharge. 

Appendix 2. ROS classes for Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wilderness 

Areas. 

Primitive 

Setting indicators Standards and Guidelines 

Scenic Quality Not to exceed the High Scenic Integrity Objective. An Existing Scenic Integrity level of Very High is 

fully compatible and encouraged 

Access 

Non-motorized cross-country travel and travel on non-motorized trails and on waterways is typical. 

Use of airplanes, helicopters, motorboats, off-highway vehicles, and snowmachines for traditional 

activities, subsistence, emergency search and rescue, and other authorized resource management 

activities may occur but is rare. 

Remoteness 

No or infrequent sights and sounds of human activity are present. Setting is located more than 1.5 

hours walking or paddling distance, or 3 miles, from any human developments other than infrequently 

traveled marine travelways. Areas are generally greater than 5,000 acres, but may be smaller if 

contiguous with a Semi-Primitive class. 

Visitor Management 

On-site regimentation and controls are very rare. Signing is limited to directional information and 

safety. There are no on-site interpretive facilities. There is great opportunity for discovery on the part of 

the users. 

On-site Recreation 

Development 

Structures do not exceed Development Scale I, except for public recreation cabins, and are 

maintained for appropriate levels of use. 

Social Encounters 

User meets less than three parties per day during trip. No other parties are within sight or sound of 

dispersed campsites or cabins. Authorize a party size of no more than 12 persons for any one site or 

activity group for commercial recreation use. Exceptions to the commercial group’s size should be 

rare. A group size of 12 persons or less is recommended for general public use. Refer to REC122 in 

Chapter 3 for exceptions. 

Visitor Impacts 

Visitor-caused impacts to resources are slight and usually not noticeable the following year. Site 

hardening is limited to boardwalk trails and necessary boat moorings or bear-proof food caches and 

rustic public recreation cabins 

Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment Appendix B - 49
Appendix B 50 - Appendix B Tebenkof Bay and Kuiu Wildernesses Needs Assessment
APPENDIX C 

Biological Assessments for the Petersburg Outfitter Guide 

Environmental Assessment 

Biological Evaluation 

for the 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan 

USFWS, reference # 71440-2009-SL-0062 

Petersburg Ranger District 

Tongass National Forest 

Prepared By: /s/ Matthew T. Moran Date: June 4, 2009_ 

 Matthew T. Moran 

 West Zone Wildlife Biologist, Bighorn National Forest 

Reviewed By: /s/ Chuck Parsley Date: June 4, 2009

Chuck Parsley 

Wildlife Biologist, Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest 

Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 1
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Biological Evaluation for the Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Project, Petersburg 

Ranger District, Tongass National Forest 

I. INTRODUCTION 3

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6

III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE AND PROPOSED SPECIES 6

SPECIES NOT ADDRESSED IN DETAIL 9

Effects Analysis 10

Affected Environment 10

HUMPBACK WHALE 10

STELLER SEA LION 12

Yellow-billed Loon 13

Determinations 14

IV. SENSITIVE SPECIES 16

KITTLITZ’S MURRELET 16

NORTHERN/QUEEN CHARLOTTE GOSHAWK 18

ALEUTIAN TERN 19

BLACK OYSTERCATCHER 21

Determinations 22

VI. REFERENCES 23

VII. APPENDIX 28 

Appendix C 2 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

I. INTRODUCTION

Biological Evaluations (BE) provide a process to review all Forest Service planned, funded, 

executed or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on threatened, endangered, 

proposed or sensitive species (TEPS) (Forest Service Manual 2672.4). BEs are intended to help 

ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability or any native or desired nonnative plant or animal species or contribute to trends toward Federal listing of any species. They 

provide a process and standard to ensure that TEPS species receive full consideration in the 

decision-making process (FSM 2672.41). 

The effects analysis in the BE is required to address any direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of an 

action on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat (50 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 402.02) and on sensitive species or their habitat (FSM 2672.42). This BE also complies with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires all Federal Agencies, in consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to 

insure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened, 

endangered or proposed species or adversely modify their habitat. 

Current management direction on desired conditions for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and 

Sensitive species on the Tongass National Forest can be found in the following documents: 

 Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670/2609) 

 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (referred to as the Forest 

Plan) (USDA 2008a) 

 Species-specific recovery plans that establish population goals for recovery of those species 

 Regional Forester policy and management direction (i.e., Sensitive Species List) 

The Forest is organized into Land Use Designations (LUD) for management purposes. Each LUD 

has specific goals, objectives, desired conditions and management prescriptions which are discussed 

in Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan. LUDs within the project area are included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Acres and percent of project area for each type of Land Use Designation (LUD) 

LUD Acre s Percent of Project Area

LUD II (L2) 3341.53 0.17%

Modified Landscape (ML) 142,548.14 7.31%

Municipal Watershed (MW) 5,538.71 0.28%

Non-National Forest Land 

(NNF) 94,556.07 4.85%

Old Growth (OG) 176,598.58 9.06%

Research Natural Area (RA) 633.65 0.03%

Remote Recreation (RM) 61,892.59 3.18%

Recreation River (RR) 6,519.31 0.33%

Special Interest Area (SA) 19,440.76 1.00%

Semi-Remote Recreation (SM) 660,667.83 33.90%

Scenic Viewshed (SV) 73,517.44 3.77%

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 3
 

Timber Production (TM) 509,085.24 26.12%

Wild River (WR) 19,706.32 1.01%

Wilderness (WW) 172,659.34 8.86%

Wilderness Wild River 

(WWWR) 2,408.49 0.12%

Total 1,949,11 4.00 100.00%

Figure 1. Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Project Area by LUD

The Forest Plan provides specific information on how TEPS species will be managed. Forest-wide 

desired conditions and goals for fish and wildlife are included in Chapter 2 of the Forest Plan. The 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for TEPS species provide the direction for species management 

within the project area (USDA 2008a, pp. 4-14, 4-89 through 4-100). The direction is incorporated 

by reference.

The project area consists of the National Forest System lands encompassing the Petersburg Ranger 

District of the Tongass National Forest (TNF), totaling approximately 1.9 million acres in central 

Southeast Alaska, including Mitkof, Kupreanof, Woewodski, and Kuiu Islands, a section of the 

mainland, and several smaller islands. It surrounds the communities of Petersburg, Kupreanof, and 

Kake. A map displaying the project area is presented in Figures 1 and 2. 

Appendix C 4 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

Figure 2. Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Project Area by study areas.

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 5
 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District is proposing the 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan. The proposed action is to authorize outfitter and 

guide operations through the issuance of special use permits, based on the Petersburg Recreation Use 

Carrying Capacity Report. The District is proposing to allocate outfitter and guides up to 10% of the 

capacity within an identified home range and 25% outside an identified home range. These 

allocations would be proportioned out by season; 10% in the spring, 65% in the summer, 15% in the 

fall and 10% in the winter (Appendix III and IV). This emphasizes more limitation on commercial 

use in the spring and fall to reduce user conflicts and provide more opportunities for solitude. 

The proposal would authorize up to approximately 39,605 Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) across 

the District for use by outfitters and guides. The use authorized may be temporary in nature (less 

than one year) or could be for multiple years. For those operators who have demonstrated 

satisfactory performance, the District Ranger may issue priority use permits, for a period of up to 10 

years, in accordance with FSH 2709.11. 

This action is needed to analyze the potential impacts from outfitter/guide use on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands and to set reasonable levels of use based on social and environmental 

conditions. It responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Tongass Forest Plan (2008), and 

helps move the Petersburg Ranger District towards the desired conditions described in the Forest 

Plan (p. 2-1). The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines to authorize services of qualified 

outfitters and guides to the public, where the need has been identified and is compatible with the 

objectives and management direction of the affected Land Use Designation (LUD), and to issue 

priority use permits, whenever possible, supplemented with temporary permits (p. 4-46). Forest 

Service policy (FSM 2720 and FSH 2709.11) allows for the issuance of special use authorizations 

for up to 10 years. Applications for multi-year permits allow outfitters and guides to make financial 

commitments necessary to continue to provide services to the public. 

Special Use Authorizations permitting individuals, companies, or organizations to provide visitor 

services in Wilderness may be issued if there is demonstrated need for the service(s) and they are 

deemed appropriate for the area proposed (Forest Plan, p. 3-20). In September 2007, the Forest 

Supervisor made a determination of need for the services of outfitters and guides within Wilderness 

Areas to meet recreational purposes on the Tongass. In that document, it specifies that District 

Rangers remain responsible for making the final decision regarding the type, extent, amount, and 

location of commercial use within wilderness. In addition, as Congress has identified each 

wilderness as being separate management units with their own unique characteristics, decisions will 

be made on a wilderness-by-wilderness basis. 

The analysis of this document is tiered to the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (2008a), the Wildlife Specialist Report, and the Subsistence Report for this 

project. These documents are incorporated by reference. 

III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE AND PROPOSED SPECIES

In compliance with the Forest Plan and ESA, species that are listed as threatened, endangered, 

candidate or proposed in this area were identified. Federally listed threatened and endangered 

species are those plant and animal species formally listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or 

National Marine Fisheries Service under authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. An endangered species is defined as one that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

Appendix C 6 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as one that “is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 

Petitioned species are species that are actively being considered for listing. 

The FWS and NMFS Internet web sites were consulted, for the preparation of this document because 

they provide occurrence and habitat information. An email correspondence from Katharine Savage 

(NMFS) to Chuck Parsley (USDA FS) was also obtained for clarification of current listed species 

recognized by NMFS. 

The FWS list of threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species for all of Alaska is shown 

in Table 2 (USDI 2009). The Kittlitz’s murrelet is listed as a candidate species, but will be 

addressed in the Forest Service Sensitive Species listing, further on in the document, and will not be 

covered here. 

Table 2. Threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed species managed by the FWS and location description 

throughout Alaska (USDI 2009).

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Location Description 

Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis Endangered 

Occurred in the arctic and is 

assumed to no longer occur in 

Alaska (USDI 2007a and 

2006a). 

Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered 

Occupies coastal waters in the 

Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian 

Islands (USDI 2001). 

Spectacled Eider Somateria fischeri Threatened 

Occupies coastal waters in 

northern and western Alaska 

(USDI 2004 and 2007). 

Polar Bear Ursus maritimus Proposed 

Lives only in the Northern 

Hemisphere (USDI 2006b, p. 

1). 

Steller's Eider Polysticta stelleri Threatened 

Occurs in northern and 

western Alaska (USDI 2004 

and 2007). 

Steller Sea Lion 

(Eastern AK DPS)* Eumetopias jubatus Threatened 

Includes sea lions born on 

rookeries from CA north 

through Southeast Alaska 

(NMFS 2008). 

Steller Sea Lion 

(Western AK DPS)* Eumetopias jubatus Endangered 

Includes sea lions born on 

rookeries from Prince William 

Sound westward (NMFS 

2008). 

Northern sea otter 

(SW Alaska 

Population) 

Enhydra lutris kenyoni Threatened 

The FWS listed only the sea 

otter populations in southwest 

Alaska as threatened (USDI 

2008, pp. 5-6). 

Leatherback Sea 

Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Species is "known to occur" in 

Alaska (USDI 2009). 

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Endangered Species is "known to occur" in 

Alaska (USDI 2009). 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 7
 

Finback whale Balaenoptera 

physalus Endangered Species is "known to occur" in 

Alaska (USDI 2009). 

Humpback whale Megaptera 

novaeangliae Endangered Species is "known to occur" in 

Alaska (USDI 2009). 

Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii Candidate 

Species is "known to occur" in 

Alaska (USDI 2009). Breeds in 

arctic Alaska. Winters as far 

south as Southeast Alaska 

(USDI 2006d). 

* DPS = Distinct population segment. 

The list of Alaska threatened, endangered, and proposed species from the NMFS is shown in Table 

3. A discussion to validate referenced occurrence information was obtained from an email 

correspondence from Katharine Savage, NMFS, on 12 February 2009. 

Table 3. Summary of NMFS listed threatened, endangered, proposed & candidate species in Alaska (NMFS 2009). 

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Location Description 

Blue whale 

Beluga whale (Cook Inlet) 

Bowhead whale 

Fin whale 

North Pacific right whale 

Sei whale 

Sperm whale 

Balaenoptera musculus 

Delphinaperus leucas 

Balaena mysticetus 

Balaenoptera physalus 

Eubalaena japonica 

Balaenoptera borealis 

Physeter macrocephalus 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

These whales are generally found in 

off-shore (pelagic) marine waters of the 

Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, North Pacific 

Ocean and/or Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 

2009b). Critical habitat has been 

designated for North Pacific right 

whales in the Bering Sea and the Gulf 

of Alaska (NMFS 2009b). 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered This species is likely to occur in waters 

surrounding the Tongass NF. 

Green sea turtle 

Leatherback sea turtle 

Loggerhead sea turtle 

Olive Ridley sea turtle 

Chelonia mydas 

Dermochelys coriacea 

Caretta caretta 

Lepidochelys olivacea 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

These species occur in the Gulf of 

Alaska and some species are found as 

far west as the Aleutian Islands. Adults 

are highly migratory, but the details and 

locations of migrations are largely 

unknown (NMFS 2009c). 

Steller sea lion - 

Western AK DPS* 

Steller sea lion - 

Eastern AK DPS* 

Eumetopias jubatus 

Endangered 

Threatened 

The eastern DPS is likely to occur in 

waters surrounding the Tongass NF. 

There may be an occasional 

occurrence by the western DPS in the 

Yakutat area. Critical habitat has been 

designated. 

Fish Species 

Chinook salmon: 

Lower Columbia River 

Puget Sound 

Snake River spring/summer 

Snake River fall 

Upper Columbia River spring 

Upper Willamette River 

Onchorhynchus tshawytshca 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Listed stocks of salmon and steelhead 

originate from freshwater habitats in 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon and 

California. Some of the listed species 

migrate into marine waters off the coast 

of Alaska. Some individuals are 

occasionally present in the inside 

waters of Southeast Alaska where they 

may feed on prey resources originating 

within marine and estuarine waters of 

the Tongass NF (USDA FS 2008b, p. F7). 

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Onchorhynchus nerka Endangered 

Steelhead: 

Lower Columbia River 

Middle Columbia River 

Snake River Basin 

Upper Columbia River 

Onchorhynchus mykiss 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Appendix C 8 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Location Description 

Upper Willamette River Threatened 

* DPS = Distinct population segment. 

SPECIES NOT ADDRESSED IN DETAIL 

Blue, Right, Finback, Sei, Beluga, and Sperm whales are generally found in off-shore (pelagic) 

marine waters of the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, Cook Inlet, North Pacific Ocean and/or Gulf of 

Alaska (NMFS 1998, NMFS 2006, and NMFS 2005). No critical habitat has been designated for 

these species in Alaskan waters. Bowhead whales are distributed in seasonally ice-covered waters of 

the Arctic and near-Arctic, generally north of 54°N and south of 75°N in the western Arctic Basin. 

The majority of the Western Arctic stock migrates annually from wintering areas in the northern 

Bering Sea, through the Chukchi Sea in the spring, to the Beaufort Sea where they spend much of 

the summer before returning again to the Bering Sea in the fall to overwinter. No critical habitat has 

been designated for this species in Alaskan waters (Shelden and Rugh 1995). These species 

generally are not known to occur in the project areas. Therefore, no effects to these species are 

expected and they will not be discussed further in this document. 

The spotted, bearded, and ringed seals that are listed in Alaska occur further north than the 

Petersburg Ranger District, in the Bering Sea and the Chukchi Sea (NMFS 2009), therefore are not 

effected by our project area, and will not be discussed further in this document. 

The Green, Leatherback, Olive Ridley and Loggerhead sea turtles occur in the Gulf of Alaska and 

some species are found as far west as the Aleutian Islands. Adults are highly migratory, but the 

details and locations of migrations are largely unknown. These turtle species have been documented 

to occur in Southeast Alaska (NMFS 2009), but those sightings are considered incidental and the 

species are not common to the Petersburg Ranger District. These turtle species are suspected to be 

uncommon in Alaska marine waters and critical habitat has not been designated in Alaskan waters 

(NMFS 2007a and NMFS 2009, NMFS and FWS 1998). Leatherback, Green, Olive Ridley and 

Loggerhead sea turtles have not been documented in or around the salt waters of the Petersburg 

Outfitter and Guide project area are not known to occur in habitats likely to be affected by this 

project. Therefore, no effects to these species are expected and they will not be discussed further in 

this document. 

The Yellow-billed loon is an uncommon winterer in Southeast Alaska in offshore and inshore waters 

adjacent to the Tongass National Forest. Allocations would be proportioned by season and is only 

expected to be 10-15% when Yellow-billed loons would occur. Proposed activities are for permitted 

land-based activities, therefore, no effects to this species or its habitat are expected and they will not 

be discussed further in this document. 

The proposed action to increase permitted land based activities is outside of Pacific Herring (Lynn 

Canal DPS). Transportation via boat to get to land based activities is not expected to increase from 

existing use, therefore, no effect to these species is expected and they will not be discussed further in 

this document. 

None of the stocks of Pacific salmon or steelhead known to originate from freshwater habitat in 

Alaska are listed under the Endangered Species Act. However, some individuals of the listed 

species originating from freshwaters in the lower 48 states occur in Alaskan outside waters. No 

critical habitat has been designated for these species in Alaskan water (USDA 2008b, p. F-7). None 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 9
 

of the listed stocks of salmon or steelhead are known to originate in Alaskan streams. However, 

many species and stocks are listed that originated from freshwater habitats in Washington, Idaho, 

Oregon, and California. Some of the listed species migrate into marine waters off the coast of 

Alaska. While distribution of these stocks is primarily in outer coastal waters some are occasionally 

present in the inner waters of Southeast Alaska and they may feed on prey resources originating 

within marine and estuarine waters of the Tongass National Forest (USDA 2008b, p. F-7). Critical 

habitat has not been designated for these species in Alaskan waters, therefore, no effect to these 

species is expected and they will not be discussed further in this document. 

General Forest Plan direction for threatened and endangered species applies (USDA 2008a, p. 4-98 

through 4-100). 

Effects Analysis

The analysis area was analyzed and a determination was made to assess the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the proposed project on proposed, endangered, and threatened species or 

critical habitat (50 CFR 402.14, FSM 2671.44) (Table 4). There will be no effect to the Eskimo 

curlew, Polar bear, Northern sea otter, Short-tailed albatross, Yellow-billed loon, Spectacled eider, 

and Steller’s eider listed by the FWS and the Blue whale, Bowhead whale, Fin whale, Green sea 

turtle, Leatherback sea turtle, Olive Ridley sea turtle, Loggerhead sea turtle, North Pacific right 

whale, Sei whale, or Sperm whale listed by the NMFS have not been documented to occur in 

southeast Alaska, or on the Tongass National Forest, or in habitats likely to be affected by the 

Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Project Area or they are not listed as threatened, 

endangered, or proposed in southeast Alaska. Therefore, there should be no direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects to these species and they will not be addressed further in this document. Informal 

consultation with USFWS (Steve Brockmann, 20 May 2009, reference #71440-2009-SL-0062) 

occurred. 

Affected Environment

The NMFS and FWS listed wildlife species that may occur within the waters surrounding the project 

area include the endangered humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangilae) and the threatened Steller 

sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). This Biological Evaluation will address the Humpback whale and 

Steller Sea Lion in further detail. 

HUMPBACK WHALE 

The NMFS listed the humpback whale as a threatened species because of over-exploitation from 

commercial whaling (NMFS 1991, p.15). Primary objectives of humpback whale recovery include 

maintaining and enhancing habitat and reducing human-related mortality, injury, and disturbance 

(NMFS 1991, p. 7). 

Humpback whales are the most abundant of the seven species of endangered whales that occur in 

southeast Alaska waters. They are common in the inside waters of the Alexander Archipelago and 

are regularly sighted in the Inside Passage and coastal waters of the southeast Alaska panhandle 

from Yakutat Bay south to Queen Charlotte Sound. The local distribution of humpbacks in 

Southeast Alaska appears to be correlated with the density and seasonal availability of prey, 

particularly herring (Clupea harengus) and euphausiids (NMFS 1991, p. 18). Humpback whales 

feed in southeast Alaskan panhandle waters from about May through December, although some have 

Appendix C 10 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

been seen every month of the year. Peak numbers of whales are usually found in near shore waters 

during late August and September, but substantial numbers usually remain until early winter (NMFS 

1991). 

Important feeding areas include Glacier Bay and adjacent portions of Icy Straight, Stephens 

Passage/Frederick Sound, Seymour Canal, and Sitka Sound. Glacier Bay and Icy Straight appear to 

be important feeding areas early in the season, when whales prey heavily on herring and other small, 

schooling fishes. Frederick Sound is important later in summer, when whales feed on swarming 

euphausiids. During autumn and early winter, humpbacks move out of the Sound to areas where 

herring are abundant, particularly Seymour Canal. Other areas of southeast Alaska may also be 

important for humpbacks and need to be evaluated. These include: Cape Fairweather, Lynn Canal, 

Sumner Strait, Dixon Entrance, the west coast of Prince of Wales Island, and offshore banks such as 

the Fairweather Grounds (NMFS 1991). The NMFS has not designated critical habitats for this 

species in Alaskan waters. Humpback whales are known to use the waters of Fredrick Sound and 

Chatham Strait, areas already having high commercial vessel use; slow-moving barge traffic should 

not increase the disturbance of these animals. 

Humpback whales are commonly observed in the waters adjacent to the Tongass NF. Specific 

Forest Plan direction for humpback whale is given on pages 4-98 to 4-99 (USDA 2008a). 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The implementation of the Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan are limited to the landbased permitting system, and would not affect stream or marine environments, so would result in a 

negligible level of influence and “no effect” to this species or its habitat. No critical habitat for this 

species has been designated on the PRD. 

Humpback whales may inhabit shallow coastal areas where they are increasingly exposed to human 

activity. Recovery plans for the humpback whale (NMFS 1991, p. 25) identified potential human 

induced factors that could affect individual reproductive success, alter survival, and/or limit the 

availability of habitat for these species. 

National Forest management activities that could have an effect on habitats or populations of this 

species generally fall into the categories of direct disturbance, acoustic disturbance, and habitat 

degradation (including effects to prey species). The proposed action would have no direct, indirect 

or cumulative effects to the humpback whale. Increasing the allocation of permits is not anticipated 

to result in an increase in boating activity or alter habitat that could affect streams or the marine 

environment. It is anticipated that increased use will cause permittees to use larger, slower boats 

causing no net increase in existing disturbance. 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (NMFS 2007B) and 50 CFR 224 establish measures to protect 

marine mammals. These measures includes prohibiting the harassment, hunting, capturing, or killing 

of any marine mammal and prohibiting approaching within 100 yards of a humpback whale. 

Permit-holders are required to ensure that activities conducted are in a manner consistent with 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and NMFS regulations for approaching 

whales, dolphins, and porpoise. “Taking” of whales is prohibited; “taking” includes but is not 

limited to: harassing or pursuing, or attempting any such activity, as per page 4-99 of the Forest 

Plan. Because permitted individuals are required to comply with all prohibitions and regulations 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 11
 

protecting marine mammals, there is no effect expected to these species. 

Cumulative Effects 

No cumulative effects are expected to the Humpback whale as a result of this project. Permittees are 

required to adhere to regulations and prohibitions governing the “taking” of protected marine 

mammals, therefore no direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected from such activities. 

STELLER SEA LION 

NMFS recognizes two distinct population segments (DPS) of Steller sea lions. The eastern DPS 

includes sea lions born on rookeries from California north through Southeast Alaska; the western 

DPS includes those animals born on rookeries from Prince William Sound westward. The regulatory 

division between DPSs is Cape Suckling (144° west longitude) in the northeast Gulf of Alaska. 

However, frequent movement is seen across this boundary by animals from both populations, 

particularly juvenile animals (NMFS 2008, p. I-3). Due to persistent decline, the western DPS was 

reclassified as threatened, found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/stellersealion.pdf. 

The Western Alaska DPS (distinct population segment) does not occur in within the Petersburg 

Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Project area and will not be discussed further in this 

Biological Evaluation. 

Steller sea lion habitat includes marine and terrestrial areas. Adult Steller sea lions congregate at 

rookeries; a site where breeding occurs and sea lions may haulout during the non-breeding period. 

Rookeries are generally located on relatively remote islands, often in exposed areas that are not 

easily accessed by humans or other mammals. The breeding season generally extends from late May 

to early July (NMFS 2008, p. I-2). During fall and winter many sea lions disperse from rookeries and 

congregate at “haulout” areas. Rookery and haulout locations are specific and use of these sites 

changes little from year to year. Rocks, reefs, beaches, breakwaters, navigational aids, floating docks 

and sea ice may also be used as haulouts. Life history and population information is contained in the 

Recovery Plan (NMFS 2008) and is incorporated by reference. 

Critical habitat for Steller sea lions was designated by NMFS in 1993 (50 CFR 226). Three rookeries 

and 11 haulouts were designated as critical habitat in Southeast Alaska. Since this designation, two 

additional sites, Graves Rocks and Bialy Rocks, appear to have developed into rookeries (NMFS 

2008, p. I-14). Steller sea lion critical habitat includes a 20 nautical mile buffer and three large 

offshore foraging areas (see http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/habitat.htm). 

A known sea lion activity area occurs on the Sukoi Islands off Kupreanof Island near the Five-mile 

Creek drainage and Horn Cliffs near Petersburg, AK. They also occur on small islands at the mouth 

of Keku Strait and on small islands to the north of the project. These areas will not be affected by 

this project. 

Specific Forest Plan direction for Steller sea lion is given on pages 4-93 and 4-98 to 4-99 (USDA 

2008a). 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Southeast Alaska populations have not declined as much as other populations. Harassment or 

displacement of sea lions from preferred habitats by human activities such as boating, recreation, 

Appendix C 12 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

aircraft, log transfer facilities, log raft towing, etc. is a concern with regard to long term conservation 

of the sea lion in Southeast Alaska. Forest-wide S&Gs direct the forest Service to prevent and/or 

reduce potential harassment of sea lions and other marine mammals due to activities carried out by 

or under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. 

Steller sea lions may inhabit shallow coastal areas where they are increasingly exposed to human 

activity. Recovery plans for Steller sea lion (NMFS 2008) identified potential human induced 

factors that could affect individual reproductive success, alter survival, and/or limit the availability 

of habitat for these species. National Forest management activities that could have an effect on 

habitats or populations of this species generally fall into the categories of direct disturbance, acoustic 

disturbance, and habitat degradation (including effects to prey species). The proposed action should 

have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the Steller sea lion. Increasing the allocation of 

permits is not anticipated to result in an increase in boating activity or alter habitat that could affect 

streams or the marine environment. It is anticipated that increased use will cause permittees to use 

larger, slower boats causing no net increase in existing disturbance. A known haul-out occurs on the 

Sukoi Islands off Kupreanof Island near the Five-mile Creek drainage near Petersburg, Alaska. They 

also occur on small islands at the mouth of Keku Strait and on small islands to the north of 

Kupreanof Island, and at Horn Cliffs. These areas are expected to have no effects from this project.

Permit-holders are required to ensure that activities conducted are in a manner consistent with 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act, and to ensure that guidelines for 

approaching seals and sea lions from the NMFS are adhered to. “Taking” of sea lions is prohibited; 

“taking” includes but is not limited to: harassing or pursuing, or attempting any such activity, as per 

4-99 of the Forest Plan. Because permitted individuals are required to comply with all prohibitions 

and regulations protecting marine mammals, there is “no effect” expected to these species. 

Cumulative Effects 

No cumulative effects are expected to the Steller sea lions as a result of this project. Permittees are 

required to adhere to regulations and prohibitions governing the “taking” of protected marine 

mammals, therefore no direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected from such activities. 

These regulations will also protect haulout sites, should Steller sea lions be present. 

YELLOW-BILLED LOON 

The yellow-billed loon is the largest of the loon species. They nest near freshwater lakes in the 

arctic tundra of Alaska on the Arctic Coastal Plain, northwestern Alaska and Saint Lawrence Island, 

and in portions of Canada and Russia. Winter range includes the coastal waters of southern Alaska 

from the Aleutian Islands to Puget Sounds and portions of Asia, Norway and potentially Great 

Britain (USDI FWS 2009). 

Yellow-billed loons nest exclusively in coastal and inland low-lying tundra associated with 

permanent lakes. Lakes are generally larger in size (33 acres), greater than six feet deep, are often 

connected to streams and must be fish-bearing. Important lake features include clear water, 

dependable water levels, and shoreline vegetation. Nests are constructed of mud or peat and are 

located on islands, hummocks, peninsulas or along low shorelines within three feet (one meter) of 

the water (USDI FWS 2009). 

The FWS developed a conservation agreement to protect yellow-loons in 2006. The yellow-billed 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 13
 

loon was designated as a candidate species throughout its range and petitioned for listing as a 

threatened or endangered species in March 2009 (Federal Register 2009). 

Although yellow-billed loon nest areas have not been identified on the Tongass NF, loons may be 

observed along the Pacific coast while migrating to winter habitat. General Forest Plan direction for 

seabirds and shorebird habitats apply to this species (USDA FS 2008a, pp. 4-93 to 94) and direction 

for the protection of beach, estuary and riparian habitats maintain some habitat for this species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Yellow-billed loon would be affected most by activities that occur along the shoreline and in coastal 

habitats. Direct effects can result from disturbances that adversely affect individuals or their young. 

Indirect and cumulative effects can result if activities alter potential nesting or foraging habitat or 

reduce limiting habitats or long term productivity. Factors that could affect yellow-billed loons 

include subsistence harvest, oil and gas development and other contaminants, climate changes, 

fishing by-catch, and marine pollution in wintering habitat. Because permitted individuals are 

required to comply with all prohibitions and regulations protecting marine mammals, there is “no 

effect” expected to these species. 

Cumulative Effects 

No cumulative effects are expected to the yellow-billed loon as a result of this project. Permittees are 

required to comply with all Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. Proportioned allocations will 

only be between 10-15% during times when this species may occur. 

Determinations

A determination was made to assess the effects of the project on threatened, endangered, and 

proposed species or their critical habitat (50 CFR 402.14, FSM 2671.44). Based on the physical and 

biological requirements of the humpback whale and Steller sea lion and considering the potential 

effects from implementing the proposed action, it is my opinion that the proposed action will have 

“no effect” the listed species or their habitats. Proposed action is limited to the land-based 

permitting system and would not affect stream or marine environments. No critical habitat for these 

species has been designated on the PRD. Recovery plans for the humpback whale (NMFS 1991, p. 

25) and the Steller sea lion (NMFS 2008) identified potential human induced factors that could 

affect individual reproductive success, alter survival, and/or limit the availability of habitat for these 

species. National Forest management activities that could have an effect on habitats or populations 

of these species generally fall into the categories of direct disturbance, acoustic disturbance and 

habitat degradation (including effects to prey species). These effects are generally associated with 

the development and use of marine access facilities, increased marine activities, and activities that 

alter stream habitats that flow into marine environments. Marine transits between the islands and 

mainland will occur. However, neither the humpback whale nor the Steller sea lion are known to 

congregate in any known marine transit areas where outfitters/guides may be operating with a Forest 

Service permit. In addition, the increase in RVDs to be allocated in the proposed action is not 

expected to result in increased marine transits between islands where permitted activity occurs. 

Increasing the allocation of permits is not anticipated to result in an increase in boating activity or 

alter habitat that could affect streams or the marine environment. It is likely that increased use may 

cause permittees to use larger, slower boats or float planes which would cause minimal net increase 

in existing disturbance. The number of RVDs has increased as a result of the formula now used for 

calculating carrying capacity and not due to an increase in demand for permitted activity. Existing 

permitted levels have not exceeded allowable RVDs. 

Appendix C 14 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

The yellow-billed loon and Kittlitz’s murrelet (addressed later) would be affected most by activities 

that occur along the shoreline and in coastal habitats. Direct effects can result from disturbances that 

adversely affect individuals or their young. Indirect and cumulative effects can result if activities 

alter potential nesting or foraging habitat or reduce limiting habitats or long term productivity. 

Factors that are suspected to negatively affect Kittlitz’s murrelet populations include cyclic changes 

in the oceanic environment and glacial retreat that may contribute to a reduction in prey or foraging 

habitat. Other factors include predation, oil pollution, disturbance by commercial and recreational 

boaters and flight seeing operations (USDI FWS 2006c). Factors that could affect yellow-billed 

loons include subsistence harvest, oil and gas development and other contaminants, climate changes, 

fishing by-catch, and marine pollution in wintering habitat (USDI FWS 2009). 

I therefore request, that a “no effect” determination be rendered in regard to the humpback whale, 

Steller sea lion, yellow-billed loon, and Kittlitz murrelet for this project. The activity proposed 

would have the possibility of an incidental occurrence by any species in the marine habitat adjacent 

to the project area, but this expected to have no effect on the species viability or critical habitat. All 

project activities would be conducted in a manner consistent with the ESA and regulations. Special 

use permit requests will be considered upon consultation with district wildlife biologists to ensure 

any new information is reflected in the decision prior to issuing any permits. 

Table 4. TES effects to species that occur or are likely to occur on the Tongass National Forest or in waters adjacent to 

the forest. 

Presence Direct, indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Species/Issue 

Species 

Present in 

Analysis 

Area 

Species 

Habitat 

Present 

in 

Analysis 

Area 

Determination1 Reason for Determination/  Level of Influence 

Threatened, Endangered or Proposed 

Humpback Whale Yes Yes No Effect 

Proposed land-based allocations would not 

increase marine disturbance or alter habitat 

that could affect streams or the marine 

environment. Guides don’t currently use their 

total allocated days and increasing the 

allocation will not automatically result in an 

increase in boating activity. 

Steller Sea Lion Yes Yes No Effect 

Proposed land-based allocations would not 

increase marine disturbance or alter habitat 

that could affect streams or the marine 

environment. Guides don’t currently use their 

total allocated days and increasing the 

allocation will not automatically result in an 

increase in boating activity. 

Yellow-billed loon Yes Yes No Effect 

Proposed land-based allocations would not 

increase marine disturbance or alter habitat 

that could affect streams or the marine 

environment. Guides don’t currently use their 

total allocated days and increasing the 

allocation will not automatically result in an 

increase in boating activity. Additionally, this 

species would only likely occur in winter 

where the allocation would be proportioned 

from 10-15%. 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 15
 

1 - Possible determinations for T&E species and Designated Critical Habitat: “no effect”, “not likely to adversely 

affect”, or “likely to adversely affect”. Possible determinations for Proposed Species and Proposed Critical Habitat: “no 

effect”, "not likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat", or "likely to jeopardize 

proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat". 

IV. SENSITIVE SPECIES

Sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern on NFS lands within the region. This is evidenced by a significant 

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

reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). The Forest Service Manual states that viable 

populations and habitat of these species will be maintained and distributed throughout their 

geographic range on NFS lands (FSM 2670.22). As part of the NEPA process, Forest Service 

impacts to these species will be minimized or avoided (FSM 2670.32). The BE should identify all 

sensitive species known or suspected to occur in the analysis area or all sensitive species that the 

project potentially effects (FSM 2672.42). 

The Alaska Region Sensitive Species List was last updated in 2009 (Table 5) (FSM 2600 

Supplement No.: R-10 2600-2009-1). The Regional Sensitive Species List continues to be revised as 

new information dictates (USDA 2009). 

Table 5. Alaska Region (R10) listed sensitive species. 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Kittlitz’s murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris 

Queen Charlotte goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi 

Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica 

Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani 

Dusky Canada Goose Branta Canadensis occidentalis 

* Based on our Alaska Region and National Forest System policy, USFWS and NMFS Candidate species are considered and treated 

as FS Sensitive, analyzed as such per Regional Forester letter to Forest Supervisors, February 2, 2009 (USDA 2009). 

This project was analyzed to assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed 

project activities on sensitive species and/or their critical habitats (50 CFR 402.14, GSM 2671.44). 

The Alaska Region (R10) listed sensitive species that may occur near or within the project area are: 

Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis 

laingi), Aleutian tern (Sterna aleutica), and the Black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). This 

Biological Evaluation will address these four species in further detail. The Dusky Canada Goose 

does not occur outside of the Yakutat Ranger District on the Tongass National Forest and will not be 

addressed further 

KITTLITZ’S MURRELET 

On May 9, 2001, the Secretary of the Interior was petitioned to list the Kittlitz’s murrelet as 

endangered with concurrent designation of critical habitat under the ESA. Petitioners cited dramatic 

reductions in population size over the past decade and declining habitat quality as reasons for the 

requested listing. The species was officially designated a candidate species (warranted, but 

Appendix C 16 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

precluded) on May 4, 2004. A candidate species is a species for which the FWS has sufficient 

information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and 

publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions. The Kittlitz’s murrelet has 

been designated as a sensitive species, added to the R10 sensitive species list. Current Forest Plan 

direction for sensitive species applies (USDA 2009). 

In March of 2009, the Commissioner of the ADFG was petitioned to list the Kittlitz’s murrelet. 

Petitioners cited concerns with rapidly declining global population size and highly restricted 

distribution that make this species vulnerable to extinction from land and sea-based threats including 

global warming, oil spills, mortality in the gillnet fishery, and disturbance from vessel traffic (Center 

for Biological Diversity 2009, p. 1). 

Kittlitz’s murrelet is a small diving seabird that is closely associated with glacial habitats along the 

Alaska mainland coast. The only North American population occurs in Alaskan waters from Point 

Lay south to the northern portions of Southeast Alaska (Endicott and Tracey Arm). The largest 

breeding populations are believed to be in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Prince William 

Sound, Kenai Fjords, and Icy Bay (Kendall and Agler 1998). The Kittlitz’s murrelet population has 

shown a significant decline in Prince William Sound, Glacier Bay and in the Malaspina Forelands 

(USDI 2006c). The Prince William Sound population has shown an 18 percent per year decline and 

an 84 percent decline from 1989 to 2000. The Glacier Bay population declined approximately 80 

percent between 1991 and 2000. In the Malaspina Forelands the population has declined at least 38 

percent (5 percent per year) but possibly up to 75 percent between 1992 and 2002 (USDI 2002). 

Major threats to this species are global warming, which is correlated with a loss of suitable habitat 

(glacial melt) and reduction in prey availability due to warming sea temperatures. Human activity in 

the marine environment, particularly vessel traffic and fishing operations, are additional threats. 

Speculated causes for Kittlitz’s murrelet decline include: glacial recession, oil pollution, gillnet 

mortality, and availability of preferred forage fish (Kuletz et al. 2003; Piatt and Anderson 1996). 

Increased disturbance from helicopter tours and cruise ships may also be a factor. 

They have been seen as far south as Frederick Sound, Snow Passage and Sea Otter Sound (Day et al. 

1999). During the breeding season they congregate near tidewater glaciers and offshore of remnant 

high-elevation glaciers. Breeding sites are usually chosen in the vicinity of glaciers and cirques in 

high elevation alpine areas with little or no vegetative cover (Van Vilet 1993). When present, 

vegetation is primarily composed of lichens and mosses (Day et al. 1983). The species generally 

nests within 0.2 to 47 miles inland and a short distance below peaks or ridges on coastal cliffs, and 

on barren ground, rock ledges, or talus above timberline (Day et al. 1983). During winter and spring, 

the marine distribution of Kittlitz’s murrelet is farther offshore in the Alaska costal Current and midshelf region (USDI 2006c). 

Kittlitz’s murrelets congregate near tidewater glaciers and offshore of remnant high-elevation 

glaciers during the breeding season. Breeding sites are usually chosen in the vicinity of glaciers and 

cirques in high elevation alpine areas with little or no vegetative cover (van Vliet 1993). Nesting 

habitat in Alaska is believed to be unvegetated scree-fields, coastal cliffs, barren ground, rock 

ledges, and talus above timberline in coastal mountains, generally in the vicinity of glaciers, cirques 

near glaciers, or recently glaciated areas. During winter and spring, the marine distribution of 

Kittlitz’s murrelet is farther offshore (USDI 2007). 

Prey consists of fish (Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 17
 

capelin (Mallotus villosus), Pacific sandfish (Trichodon trichodon), euphausiids, amphipods and 

small crustacean (Day et al. 1999). They forage extensively near outflow from glaciers, both 

tidewater and retreated glaciers with turbid glacial streams, primarily within 656 ft (200m) from 

shore (Day et al. 1999). 

Kittlitz’s murrelet is known to occur on the oceanic glaciers that occur on the Petersburg Ranger 

District. These glacial outwashes are within landscapes that fall outside normal land disturbance 

projects and we do not expect Forest Service activities to affect these areas. This habitat is found on 

the mainland portions of the Petersburg Ranger District. It is made up of active glacial terrains and 

boundary range icefields (Nowacki et al. 2001). The majority of these ecological subsection areas 

are managed as natural settings, within wilderness or national monuments. The main areas are the Le 

Conte, Patterson and Baird Glaciers. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The Kittlitz’s murrelet prefers an association with glacial habitat, not abundant on the Petersburg 

Ranger District, except in some areas of the mainland, such as the areas near Le Conte, Patterson, 

and Baird Glaciers. These areas are unlikely to be selected for Outfitter and Guide Management 

Plan activities. General Forest Plan direction for sensitive species applies (USDA 2008a, p. 4-99 

through 4-100). Because of this there are no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts expected to the 

species. The determination as a candidate species is no effect. 

NORTHERN/QUEEN CHARLOTTE GOSHAWK 

The northern goshawk is identified as a species of concern throughout its range and is identified as a 

sensitive species by the Alaska Region of the USFS. In an effort to evaluate the status, population, 

and habitat ecology of the northern goshawk on the Tongass National Forest, the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Forest Service (FS) conducted a goshawk study from 1991 to 

1999. A total of 63 nesting sites in Southeast Alaska were documented as a result of this study. A 

“nest site” is defined as the portion of a goshawk pair’s home range that contains all active and 

inactive nests. Of 47 nest trees (trees that include a nest), 53 percent were in Sitka spruce, 43 percent 

were in western hemlock, and 4 percent were in yellow cedar (ADGF 2006). 

Productive old growth (POG) forest is an important component of goshawk habitat in southeast 

Alaska. POG forest is characterized as an old growth forest type that generally includes older and/or 

larger trees with a dense canopy and a diverse understory. The goshawk is a wide-ranging forest 

raptor that occupies old-growth forest habitat in Southeast Alaska. Goshawks select POG forest 

types at all scales (nest tree, nest site, post-fledging areas). However, non-productive forest types and 

second-growth stands are also used by goshawks for movement and foraging (ADFG 2006). Suitable 

nest site habitat consists of large trees with a dense canopy and generally an open under-story 

averaging 12 to 37 acres in size (Flatten et al. 2001). Although goshawks prefer to place their nests 

in mature to old growth forest types, they will nest in younger forest or in smaller patches of trees, 

and forage in young forest as well as along edges and in openings (Boyce et al. 2006). Although 

there is some documented use of second growth in southeast Alaska, for the most part goshawks are 

associated with older forests. Goshawk nest sites generally occur far from openings, in stands more 

than 600 feet wide, on slopes of less than 60 percent, and near the toe of a slope or on a bench. On 

average, nest trees occur at 423 feet elevation but generally do not occur above 1,100 feet (USDA 

2008b pp. D-22 through D-25; Titus et al. 1994, p. 5). Continuous disturbances likely to result in 

nest abandonment within the surrounding 600 feet of the nest are not permitted from March 15 to 

Appendix C 18 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

August 15, as per General Forest Plan direction. 

Foraging areas comprise the largest percentage of the goshawk’s home range. Foraging habitat is 

characterized by forested stands with a greater diversity of age classes and structural characteristics 

(e.g., snags, woody debris) than nesting areas (Reynolds et al. 1992, p. 16). Breeding season home 

range size is strongly dependent upon the quality of foraging habitat and prey availability. In 

Southeast Alaska, prey remains were dominated by a few key species including Steller’s jays 

(Cyanocitta stelleri), grouse (Dendragapus spp.), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius), red squirrel 

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), ptarmigan (Lagopus spp.), and woodpeckers (Picidae) (Titus et al. 1994, 

p. 6, Lewis et al 2006). 

The FWS completed a review and determined that the subspecies’ populations in British Columbia 

(B.C.) and Alaska each constitute distinct population segments (DPS) of the Queen Charlotte 

goshawk. Based on difference in forest management with substantially greater existing and 

anticipated habitat loss in B.C. than in Alaska, the FWS determined that the B.C. DPS would be 

listed as threatened or endangered but the Alaska DPS would not be listed (Federal Register 2007). 

The General Forest Plan direction includes a conservation strategy for goshawks that includes a 

system of reserves (Old Growth Habitat Reserves and other non-development LUD) and direction 

for managing the matrix between reserves (USDA 2008a, pp. 4-99 and 4-100). Forest Plan provides 

standards and guidelines to maintain nesting habitat for the Queen Charlotte and northern goshawk. 

An area of not less than 100 acres of POG, if it exists, generally centered over the nest tree or 

probable nest tree will be maintained. Continuous disturbances likely to result in nest abandonment 

within the surrounding 600 feet of the nest are not permitted from March 15 to August 15 (USDA 

2008a, pp. 4-99 to 100). 

Eighty-one percent of the confirmed and probable nest sites in Southeast Alaska are south of 

Frederick Sound. The Regional Forester added this species to the Sensitive Species List in 1994, 

and the 2009 revision reflects the same listing (USDA 2009). 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This project does not propose to change alter any habitat, therefore there will not be a decrease POG 

habitat. Queen Charlotte/northern goshawks are known to occur within the project area but 

disturbances from this project area not expected to disturb goshawks especially during nesting 

season. If a disturbance occurs it is expected to be infrequent and very short in duration, therefore 

no impacts are expected for the species as a result of the activities associated with the project. 

Cumulative Effects 

The proposed project would have negligible direct, indirect or cumulative effect to goshawks 

because the project would not affect productive old-growth forest habitat, “no impact” on goshawk 

or its habitat is expected because of this project. 

ALEUTIAN TERN 

The Aleutian Tern (Sterna aleutica) is a coastal, colonial nesting seabird of Alaska and eastern 

Siberia. Discovered in 1868 on Kodiak Island, this species has been little studied to date. The terns 

range is coastal areas of southern and western Alaska. Breeding colonies often shift year to year, 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 19
 

especially in the Northern Bering and Chukchi seas. Breeding colonies have been located along 

coast of Chukchi Sea as far north as Kasegaluk Lagoon, on Seward Peninsula, Yukon-Kuskokwim 

River Delta, along Alaska Peninsula, in scattered locations in the Aleutian Islands, on the Kodiak 

Archipelago, on Kenai Peninsula, Copper River delta, and along the Gulf of Alaska as far east as 

Dry Bay. Aleutian terns may breed farther south and east at Lituya Bay and Glacier Bay (North 

1997). 

On its breeding grounds, this tern frequently associates with Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea) in 

North America. Its distribution, abundance, breeding phenology, and habitat use are fairly well 

known, but its behaviors are not well described (North 1997). 

Colonies in North America are generally located between 51°20’N and 69°50’N latitude. Colonies 

are coastal in North America, up to 3.2 km inland in sub-Arctic and boreal regions. Colonies are 

usually located on flat vegetated islands, dwarf-shrub tundra, grass and sedge meadows, sandy spits 

and islands (usually on inner side of barrier islands, in lagoon systems, or river estuaries), and 

freshwater marshes (North 1997). 

Usually forages in shallow water, including tidal “rips”, along rivers, and over inshore marine 

waters, but not in freshwater lakes along outer Alaska Peninsula. The Aleutian tern forages in nearshore marine waters, up to 11 km offshore from Seward Peninsula, and pelagic waters >50 km 

offshore from other colonies, but, the species reportedly forages nearly exclusively over bays and 

fjords. One flock observed foraging in Prince William Sound where the muddy Copper River water 

and clear marine water meet (North 1997). 

Some causes for Aleutian tern mortality include: [scarcely] shooting and trapping, [historically] 

pesticides and other contaminants; ingestion of plastics, lead, and other toxins, degradation of 

habitat, disturbance at nest and roost sites, and occasionally human research impacts at roost sites 

(North 1997). Data from studies of the Aleutian Tern Working Group recently reviewed the species 

status, natural history, uses, and threats and concluded that data suggests suspected causes of natural 

and human-induced population decline causes (FSM 2600 Supplement No.: R-10 2600-2009-1). 

Population viability concerns have been raised due to reduced size or disappearance of colonies in 

Kodiak, Prince William Sound, Yakutat, and Icy Bay. The largest colonies on record exist or existed 

on the Cordova and Yakutat Ranger Districts. An estimated population in the Cordova area of 

greater than 2,400 individuals in 1980 may be less than 400 now. Whereas some of the colonies are 

in remote sites, others exist in areas where Forest Service permitting can cause or relieve site 

perturbations (FSM 2600 Supplement No.: R-10 2600-2009-1). 

The direction from the Regional Forester on a new “Alaska Region Sensitive Species List,” was 

distributed on February 2, 2009; therefore, this direction is not specifically reflected in the 2008 

Forest Plan; however general direction for sensitive species applies.

General Forest Plan direction for sensitive species and Seabird Rookeries and Shorebirds can be 

found on pages 4-92 through 4-100. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

This species is not known to occur on the Tongass National Forest outside of the Yakutat area. The 

proposed action would not affect the Aleutian Tern or its habitat. 

Appendix C 20 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

BLACK OYSTERCATCHER 

The Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) is an eye-catching, with orange bill and coal black 

plumage, a member of the rocky inter-tidal communities along the west coast of North America. 

Completely dependent on marine shorelines for its food and nesting, this is a monogamous, longlived bird (Andres, B. A. and G. A. Falxa, 1995). In Prince William Sound, AK, nesting pairs 

distributed along shorelines as follows: exposed rocky shores 10%, exposed wave-cut platforms 

21%, mixed sand and gravel beaches 21%, gravel beaches 30%, sheltered rocky shores 15%, and 

sheltered tidal flats 3%. Pairs distributed fairly equitably between rocky (45%) and gravelly (55%) 

shorelines (Andres, B. A. and G. A. Falxa, 1995).

Breeding pairs establish well-defined feeding and nesting territories and generally occupy the same 

areas year after year, usually along low-sloping gravel or rocky shorelines where inter-tidal prey 

species are abundant. Pairs nest just above the high-tide line and use the inter-tidal zone to feed 

themselves and their chicks and their reproductive rates are slow. Rocky shores exposed to surf 

action and on sheltered gravel, cobble, or sandy shores and mudflats of bays and sounds are 

extremely important to microhabitat foraging. Access to foraging habitat is almost exclusively 

dependent on tides changes and surf action, with most feeding done during low tide. They feed on 

inter-tidal marine invertebrates, including molluscs (bivalves, limpets, whelks, and chitons—

generally numerous in areas of rocky substrates); but also crabs, sea urchins, isopods, and barnacles. 

Sea mussels are taken as prey in Southeast Alaska. Oysters, contrary to the name of the bird, are not 

typically a part of the diet (Andres, B. A. and G. A. Falxa, 1995). Black Oystercatchers have been 

known to congregate in the winter months in Prince William Sound where mussel beds are dense; 

prey does not however vary greatly with seasonal changes. 

Black Oystercatchers have a small global population (estimates of 8,500 – 11,000 individuals) with 

distribution from the Aleutian Islands down the Pacific Coast to Baja California. Over half, (65%) 

of the population of Black oystercatchers breeds in Alaska. Populations were affected by the 1989 

Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, recovery has been slow, and oil still lingers in 

nesting areas. Aggregations usually number <100 birds, but have been known to reach 350 birds on 

Kodiak Island and 600 birds in the Glacier Bay area. The highest recorded breeding densities in 

Alaska (and British Columbia and Washington) occur on non-forested islands dominated by shell or 

gravel beaches. Nesting densities in Glacier Bay were 10 times higher on sparsely vegetated islands 

than on heavily vegetated islands (Andres, B. A. and G. A. Falxa, 1995). 

Chick survival is low due to several natural and human-induced factors; including snow conditions, 

timing, prey availability, nest predation, and human use. Data indicates extensive overlap between 

nesting territories and remote shoreline campsites. Viability of this species remains a concern and 

populations in some areas have dramatically declined, due to unknown causes (from 48 pairs to 2 

pairs in Sitka Sound), and there is high overlap between nest sites and areas permitted for 

recreational use (e.g., Prince William Sound) (FSM 2600 Supplement No.: R-10 2600-2009-1). 

Retreat of glaciers, which expose gravel moraines, and uplifting events of earthquakes create new 

nesting habitat in Alaska (Andres, B. A. and G. A. Falxa, 1995). 

The direction from the Regional Forester on a new “Alaska Region Sensitive Species List,” was 

distributed on February 2, 2009; therefore, this direction is not specifically reflected in the 2008 

Forest Plan; however general direction for sensitive species applies.

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 21
 

General Forest Plan direction for sensitive species and Seabird Rookeries and Shorebirds can be 

found on pages 4-92 through 4-100. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

There have been no surveys to document or assess the occurrence of the Black oystercatcher on the 

Petersburg Ranger district, as it is a new addition as of February 2009 to the Region 10 Sensitive 

Species list. The Black oystercatcher forages in rocky inter-tidal habitats that do occur on the 

Petersburg Ranger District, so it is likely that the species may occur within our district boundaries 

and therefore, may also occur within the project area. Because activities associated with the project 

are not expected to take place in rocky inter-tidal habitats that may be occupied by Black 

oystercatchers, we expect the project to have “no impact” to the Black Oystercatcher or its habitat. 

Determinations

Table 6 displays a summary of determinations for fish and wildlife species listed as sensitive in 

Region 10. Determinations were based on current forest direction (Bosch 2004). It is my 

determination that the proposed project should have “no impacts” on the Queen Charlotte goshawk, 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet, Aleutian Tern, Black Oystercatcher, or Dusky Canada Goose or cause any 

detrimental effect on suitable habitat for these species 

Table 6. Summary of determinations for sensitive species for the Petersburg Outfitter and Guide Management Plan.

Presence Direct, indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Species/Issue 

Species 

Present in 

Analysis 

Area 

Species 

Habitat 

Present 

in 

Analysis 

Area 

Level of 

Influence/ 

Determination1

Reason for Determination/ 

 Level of Influence 

Sensitive 

Goshawk Yes Yes Negligible/ No 

Impacts 

Proposed allocations would not reduce or 

affect productive old growth habitat. 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet No No Negligible/ No 

Impacts 

Proposed allocations would not reduce or 

affect recently de-glaciated areas or screeslopes. 

Aleutian Tern No No Negligible/ No 

Impacts This species does not occur on the Tongass 

National Forest outside of the Yakutat area. 

Black 

Oystercatcher 

No No Negligible/ No 

Impacts Proposed allocations would not affect rocky 

shorelines. 

Dusky Canada 

Goose 

No No Negligible/ No 

Impacts 

Species does not occur in the analysis area. 

1 – Potential determinations for Sensitive Species: "no impacts", "beneficial impacts", "may impact individuals but not 

likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability", or "likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of 

viability" (Bosch 2004). 

Additional Management Measures 

If any previously undiscovered endangered, threatened or sensitive species are encountered at any 

point in time prior to or during the implementation of this project, a District Biologist would be 

consulted and appropriate measures would be enacted. 

The Forest Plan contains a comprehensive conservation strategy, using a system of Old Growth 

Appendix C 22 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

LUDs designed to provide old growth habitats in combination with other non-development LUDs to 

maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native fish and wildlife species and subspecies 

that may be associated with old growth forests (USDA 2008b, p. 3-174 through 3-175). This 

strategy, in addition to the implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, was developed to 

maintain species viability. The application of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines is integral to 

protecting and providing habitat to maintain viable fish and wildlife populations.

VI. REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Northern goshawks on the Tongass National Forest—

summary of study findings related to forest management. Slide presentation from the 

Interagency Review of the Tongass National Forest Conservation Strategy Meeting, Ketchikan, 

Alaska. Found at http://tongass-constratreview.net/Documents/Present7-GoshawkLocalNewInfo.pdf

Bosch, M. 2004. BA and BE Effects, and Determinations of Effects, for TEPS Species. USDA 

Forest Service. Region 10. 2 pp. 

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? Pages 312-325 in M. L. Morrison, 

editor. The northern goshawk: a technical assessment of its status, ecology, and management. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 31, Cooper Ornithological Society. 14 pp. 

Code of Federal Regulations. 2007. Rules and regulations. 50 CFR 17. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; response to court on significant portion of the range, and evaluation of 

distinct population segments, for the Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi). Vol. 

72, No. 216. 18 pp. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2006. 50 CFR Part 223. Threatened marine and anadromous 

species. Table 1. 1 p. 

Code of Federal Regulations. 2006. 50 CFR Part 226 and Part 223. Critical habitat for Steller sea 

lions. 7 pp. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=f5ece0c4fc85953a677cd8e2983c44cf&rgn=div5&view=text&node=50:7.0.1.

3.5&idno=50

Code of Federal Regulations. 2004. 50 CFR Part 402. Interagency Cooperation – Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. 4 pp. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=f5ece0c4fc85953a677cd8e2983c44cf&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title50/50cfr402_mai

n_02.tpl

Code of Federal Regulations. 2001. 50 CFR Part 224. Regulations governing the approach to 

humpback whales. Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 105/ Thursday, May 31, 2001/Rules and 

Regulations. 8 pp. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title50/50cfr224_main_02.tpl

Day, R.H., K.J. Kuletz and D.A. Nigro. 1999. Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris). In: 

A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 435. The Birds of North America, 

Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/435

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 23
 

Day, R. H., K.L. Oakley and D.R. Barnard. 1983. Nest Sites and Eggs of Kittlitz’s and Marbled 

Murrelets. Condor 85(3) L265-273. 9 pp. 

Flatten, C., K. Titus and R. Lowell. 2001. Northern goshawk monitoring, population ecology and 

diet on the Tongass National Forest. Grant SE-4-2-6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Douglas, Alaska. 33 pp. 

Forest Service Manual. 2005. Chapter 2600 – Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and 

animals. Supplement No. R-10 2600-2005-1. 19 pp. 

Forest Service Manual. 1995. Title 2670 – Wildlife, fish and sensitive plant habitat management. 

Amendment No. 2600-95-7. 21 pp. 

Forest Service Manual. 1990. Title 2672.24b to 2676.17b – Wildlife, fish and sensitive plant habitat 

management. WO Amendment No. 2600-90-1. 18 pp. 

Kendall, S.J. and B.A. Agler. 1998. Distribution and abundance of Kittlitz’s murrelets in southcentral and southeastern Alaska. Colonial Waterbirds 21(1):53-60. 8 pp. 

Kuletz, K.J., S. W. Stephensen, D.B. Irons, E.A. Labunski, and K.M. Brenneman. 2003. Changes in 

Distribution and Abundance of Kittlitz’s Murrelets (Brachyramphus brevirostris) relative to 

glacial recession in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Ornithology 31:133-140. 7 pp. 

Lewis, S. B., K. Titus, and M. R. Fuller. 2006. Northern Goshawk Diet During the Nesting Season 

in Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4):1151-1160. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Endangered and threatened species under NMFS 

jurisdiction. Updated January 2009. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus). Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 325 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007a. Green, Leatherback and Loggerhead sea turtle website. 

Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007b. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as amended. 

Compiled and annotated by the Marine Mammal commission, Bethesda, MD. 113 pp. 

Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/mmpa.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Draft recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus). Silver Spring, Maryland. 78 pp. Available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/draft_finwhale.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Recovery plan for the northern right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis). Prepared by the Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. 137pp. 

Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_right_northatlantic.pdf

Appendix C 24 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus). Prepared by Reeves R.R., P.J. Clapham, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and G.K. Silber for the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 42 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991b. Recovery plan for the humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 105 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for 

U.S. Pacific populations of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

North, Michael R. 1997. Aleutian Tern (Sterna aleutica), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/291doi:10.2173/bna.291

Nowacki, G. J., M. Shepard, P. Krosse, W. Pawuk, G. Fisher, J. Baichtal, D. Brew, E. Kissinger and 

T. Brock. 2001. Ecological Subsections of Southeast Alaska and Neighboring Areas of 

Canada. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Technical Publication R10-TP-75. October 

2001, 306 pp. 

Piatt, J.F., and P. J. Anderson. 1996. Response of Common Murres to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

and Long-Term Changes in the Gulf of Alaska Marine Ecosystem. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium. 18:720-737. 17 pp. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 217. Ft Collins, CO: USDA, 

Forest service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 93 p. 

Savage, K. 2009. Personal Communication between Chuck Parsley and Katharine Savage regarding 

NOAA listed TEPC species between Feb 12-17, 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service, AK 

Region. 

Shelden, K.E.W. and D.J. Rugh. 1995. The bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus: Its historic and 

current status. Marine Fisheries Review 57(3-4):1-20. 

Titus, K., C.J. Flatten, and R.E. Lowell. 1994. Northern goshawk ecology and habitat relationships 

on the Tongass National Forest (goshawk nest sites, food habits, morphology, home range and 

habitat data): Final Annual Project Report. USDA Forest Service Contract No. 43-0109-0272. 

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. 69pp. + appendices. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Approval of Revised Alaska Region Sensitive Species List. Letter 

from Dennis Bschor, Regional Forester to Forest Supervisors. February 2, 2009. 1 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Forest Service, R10-MB-603c. 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 25
 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Plan Amendment. Forest Service, R10-MB-603c. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and delisted 

species in Alaska, May 2009. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK. 2 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Short-tailed albatross. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B00Y. 2 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni): Southwest 

Alaska Stock. Revised 08/01/2008. Available at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/finalsouthwestalaskaseaottersar01aug2008.pdf. 

7pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. The Steller's eider. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B090. 2 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. The Eskimo curlew. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B01A. 2 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. The polar bear. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0IJ. 3 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006c. Alaska Seabird Information Series. Kittlitz’s murrelet. 

Anchorage, Alaska. Pp. 67-68. Available at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/kimu.pdf. 2 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006d. Conservation Agreement for the Yellow-billed Loon 

(Gavia adamsii). Available at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/pdf/ybl_conservation_agreeement.pdf. 31 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. The spectacled eider. Available at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/media/SpecEider.htm. 2 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Candidate and listing priority assignment form. 

Brachyramphus brevirostris. September 2002. Ecological Services, Anchorage Field Office. 

Van Vliet, G. 1993. Status concerns for the “Global” population of Kittlitz’s Murrelet: Is the 

“Glacier Murrelet” receding? Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin 20(1):15-16. 

Appendix C 26 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
Appendix I. This table represents a list of the Tongass National Forest Neotropical migratory bird species of concern as developed by the

Regional Office in 2002. This list was derived from Boreal Partners in Flight (1999) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Species of 

Concern Lists (2002). Information on abundance and habitats was adapted from Isleib and Kessel (1973). 

Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence1 Abundance 

Habitat2

Tundra Shrub Thickets 

Hemlock/

Sitka 

Spruce/ 

Cedar 

Forest 

Muskeg

Mixed 

Decicuous/ 

Spruce 

Woodlands 

Marsh Lacustrine Waters Fluviatile Waters Cliffs Bluffs & Screes Moraines, Alluvia & Barrier Islands Beaches & Tidal Flats Rocky Shores & Reefs Inshore waters Offshore Waters 

Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica xx+ x x xx x American Dipper 

Cinclus mexicanus B 

Fairly common x xx xx* x 

Arctic Tern 

Sterna paradisaea B 

Fairly common x xx* x x xx* xx* xx xx xx xx 

Black Oystercatcher 

Haematopus bachmani B, W Uncommon xx* x x xx* 

Black Swift 

Cypseloides niger B Rare x+ 

Black Turnstone 

Arenaria melanocephala W, M 

Fairly common x x xx 

Black-footed Albatross 

Phoebastria nigripes B, M Common x xx 

Blackpoll Warbler 

Dendroica striata M Rare 1 x xx+ 

Blue Grouse 

Dendragapus obscurus B, W Common x xx* xx* 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Casual x Chestnut-backed Chickadee 

Poecile rufescens B, W Abundant x xx* 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa B, W Common x xx# xx+ Golden-crowned Sparrow 

Zonotrichia atricapilla M, B 

Fairly common xx# x x x x 

Gray-cheeked Thrush 

Catharus minimus B Rare x x xx* 

Hammond's Flycatcher 

Empidonax hammondii B Uncommon x x+ 

Kittlitz's Murrelet 

Brachyramphus brevirostris B, W Common x# x* xx xx 

Long-billed Curlew 

Numenius americanus Accidental 

MacGillivray's Warbler 

Oporornis tolmiei B Uncommon xx* x x 

Marbled Godwit 

Limosa fedoa beringiae M Rare 1 x 

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus B, W Common xx* xx xx 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 27
Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence1 Abundance 

Habitat2

Tundra Shrub Thickets 

Hemlock/

Sitka 

Spruce/ 

Cedar 

Forest 

Muskeg

Mixed 

Decicuous/ 

Spruce 

Woodlands 

Marsh Lacustrine Waters Fluviatile Waters Cliffs Bluffs & Screes Moraines, Alluvia & Barrier Islands Beaches & Tidal Flats Rocky Shores & Reefs Inshore waters Offshore Waters 

marmoratus 

Northern Goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis laingi B, W Uncommon x xx* xx* x x 

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor W Uncommon x xx x xx xx Northwestern Crow Corvus caurinus B, W Abundant xx* x x x xx xx xx x Olive-sided Flycatcher 

Contopus cooperi B Uncommon x x xx* 

Pacific-slope Flycatcher 

Empidonax difficilis B Common xx* xx* 

Peregrine Falcon 

Falco peregrinus pealei B, W, M Uncommon x xx* x x x 

Red Knot Calidris canutus M Rare 1 xx x Red-breasted Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus ruber B Abundant xx* x x 

Rock Sandpiper 

Calidris ptilocnemis W Uncommon x xx 

Rufous Hummingbird 

Selasphorus rufus M, B Common x xx* x 

Short-billed Dowitcher 

Limnodromus griseus B, M 

Locally common xx* x xx x 

Steller's Jay 

Cyanocitta stelleri B, W Abundant x xx* x x 

Surfbird Aphriza virgata W, M Uncommon x xx Townsend's Warbler 

Dendroica townsendi B Common x xx* xx* 

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius M, B, W Abundant x xx* xx* x xx* x x x x x Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi M, B* Uncommon x# Western ScreechOwl Otus kennicottii B, W Uncommon xx# Western Woodpewee Contopus sordidulus B Uncommon x x xx* Whimbrel 

Numenius phaeopus M Rare 1 x x xx x 

Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii W Uncommon x x 1 Occurrence: 1 = Migration Only, B=Breeding, W=Winter, M=Migration, and *=no record, but thought to breed in the area 2 Habitats are described as preference: xx = primary; x = secondary; * = breeding; # = probable breeding; + = possible breeding. Minor habitat preferences are not included. 

 Appendix C 28 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
Appendix II. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended time periods for avoiding vegetation 

clearing to minimize impacts to birds in Southeast Alaska (USDI 2006). 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 29
 

Appendix III. Study area comparisons of average actual use (2005-2008), by RVD, for outfitter and 

guides on the Petersburg Ranger District for all seasons. 

Average Recreation Visitor Days Used 

STUDY 

AREA 

Spring Summer Fall Winter Total 

Annual 

(April 1-

May 31)

(June 1- 

August 31) 

(Sept 1-

Oct. 31) 

(Nov 1- 

March 31) 

1 

Mitkof Island 22 391 16 0 429 

2 

Duncan Canal – West Side 4 60 2 0 66 

4 

Duncan Canal – East Side 0 0 0 0 0 

5 

Wrangell 

Narrows/Woewodski Island 

0 27 4 0 31 

6 

Kupreanof Island – North 

Shore 

6 349 8 0 363 

7 

Petersburg Creek/Duncan 

Salt Chuck 

35 179 14 0 228 

8 

North Lindenberg Peninsula 11 151 37 8 207 

9 

Central Kupreanof 

Island/Road System 

0 8 0 0 8 

10 

Southwest Kupreanof Island 17 365 2 0 384 

11 

Rowan Bay/Bay of Pillars 26 89 16 1 132 

12A 

Saginaw/Security/Washington 

Bays 

90 308 94 2 494 

12B 

Kuiu Island Road System 23 66 72 1 162 

13 

Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu 

Wilderness 

54 363 7 2 426 

14 

Keku Strait/Port Camden 45 283 40 3 371 

15 

South Kuiu Island 7 264 0 1 272 

16 

Reid/No Name Bays 6 136 1 0 143 

21 

Muddy River Area 0 134 47 31 212 

22 

Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput 13 239 13 17 282 

23

Farragut Bay/Cape Fanshaw 1 30 1 0 32 

24 

Baird/Patterson Glaciers 1 8 6 0 15 

Appendix C 30 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
 

Appendix IV. Study area comparison of proposed RVD allocation for outfitters and guides on the 

Petersburg Ranger District for all seasons. 

Recreation Visitor Days Proposed 

STUDY 

AREA 

Spring Summer Fall Winter Total 

Annual1

10% 65% 15% 10% 100% 

1 

Mitkof Island 1278 8308 1917 1278 12,781 

2 

Duncan Canal – West Side 112 729 168 112 1,122 

4 

Duncan Canal – East Side 50 324 75 50 499 

5 

Wrangell 

Narrows/Woewodski Island 

175 1136 262 175 1,747 

6 

Kupreanof Island – North 

Shore 

45 291 67 45 448 

7 

Petersburg Creek/Duncan 

Salt Chuck 

126 821 189 126 1,263 

8 

North Lindenberg Peninsula 137 892 206 137 1,373 

9 

Central Kupreanof 

Island/Road System 

353 2,293 529 353 3,528 

10 

Southwest Kupreanof Island 147 955 220 147 1,469 

11 

Rowan Bay/Bay of Pillars 96 627 145 96 964 

12A 

Saginaw/Security/Washington 

Bays 

129 839 194 129 1,291 

12B 

Kuiu Island Road System 213 1381 319 213 2125 

13 

Tebenkof Bay/Kuiu 

Wilderness 

289 1880 434 289 2,893 

14 

Keku Strait/Port Camden 156 1015 234 156 1,562 

15 

South Kuiu Island 126 816 188 126 1,255 

16 

Reid/No Name Bays 112 728 168 112 1,120 

21 

Muddy River Area 129 841 194 129 1,294 

22 

Thomas Bay/Point Vandeput 126 820 189 126 1,261 

23

Farragut Bay/Cape Fanshaw 120 780 180 120 1,200 

24 

Baird/Patterson Glaciers 41 265 61 41 407 1

Differences in totals are due to rounding.

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife Appendix C - 31
Appendix C 32 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Wildlife
Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plant Species 

Petersburg Outfitter Guide Environmental Assessment 

Petersburg Ranger District 

Tongass National Forest 

_/s/ Mary A. Clemens_______________________ Date August 23, 2009

Mary A. Clemens 

Botanist, Petersburg Ranger District 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants Appendix C - 33
 

 

Appendix C 34 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants
 

Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plant Species .............................................................. 33

Petersburg Outfitter Guide Environmental Assessment ..................................................... 33

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 36

Summary: ....................................................................................................................36

Guidance: ....................................................................................................................36

Proposed Action: ......................................................................................................... 36

Pre-field review ........................................................................................................... 36

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 37

Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................... 37

Sensitive Species ......................................................................................................... 37

Direct and Indirect Effects .......................................................................................... 37

Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................... 37

Summary of affected environment, effects, risk assessment and determination by species.

............................................................................................................................................. 39

Table 2. Summary of Risk Assessments and Determination for Sensitive Plant Species ...44

Appendix A: Criteria for Risk Assessment ..........................................................................45

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants Appendix C - 35
 

Introduction 

Summary: 

The past effects on sensitive plants by recreational users on the Petersburg Ranger 

District are not well quantified. Guided recreational use on the District is likely to affect 

individual rare and sensitive plants. Effects due to the proposed action are not expected 

to have significant impacts on sensitive plants. No trend leading to federal listing of 

sensitive species is expected due to the proposed action. 

Guidance: 

Forest-wide goals and objectives, and standards and guidelines for this resource are on 

pages 2-1, (Viable Populations), 2-4 (Biological Diversity), 2-5 (Plants), 4-41 through 4-

42 of the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP 2008). Other legal and administrative 

directions are found in: 

 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 governs the protection of listed species and 

the ecosystems upon which they depend. 

 The Forest Service Manual (2672) requires the Regional Forester to identify 

sensitive species occurring within the region. 

 The Forest Service Manual (2672.4) requires that a biological evaluation (BE) be 

prepared for all Forest Service activities to address impacts to Forest Service 

sensitive species. 

Proposed Action: 

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to authorize 

outfitter/guide operations through the issuance of special use permits, based on the 

Petersburg Recreation Use Carrying Capacity Report and the Wilderness Needs 

Assessments. This alternative would allocate outfitter and guide permits for 10 percent of 

the study area capacity within an identified home range and 25 percent of the study area 

capacity outside an identified home range. The proposal would authorize up to 

approximately 41,100 RVDs across the district for use by outfitters and guides (4,110 

RVDs in the spring, 26,716 RVDs in the summer, 6,165 RVDs in the fall and 4,110 

RVDs in the winter). The use authorized may be temporary in nature (less than one year) 

or could be for multiple years. For those operators who have demonstrated satisfactory 

performance, the District Ranger may issue priority use permits, for a period of up to 10 

years, in accordance with FSH 2709.11. 

Pre-field review 

No field work was conducted specifically for this project. Review consisted of 

examining rare plant survey and sighting data in the Tongass GIS library. 

Appendix C 36 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants
 

Affected Environment 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The only plant federally listed or proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

Alaska is Polystichum aleuticum C. Christensen, listed as endangered. It is only known 

from Adak Island in the Aleutian Island chain and is not expected to occur in the 

Petersburg Ranger District. 

Sensitive Species 

Seventeen plant species and one lichen are on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

List. 

Table 1. Alaska Region Sensitive Species. Species known or suspected in the planning 

area are in bold. 

Aphragmus eschscholtzianus Ligusticum calderi suspected 

Botrychium spathulatum Lobaria amplissima known

Botrychium tunux Papaver alboroseum

Botrychium yaaxudakeit Piperia unalascensis suspected 

Cirsium edule var. macounii suspected Platanthera orbiculata suspected

Cochlearia sessilifolia Polystichum kruckebergii suspected

Cypripedium guttatum Romanzoffia unalaschcensis suspected

Cypripedium montanum suspected Sidalcea hendersonii suspected

Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. huronense

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Plants or their habitats can be negatively affected by recreational activities. Effects can 

include crushed or buried plants or habitat. Direct effects occur immediately or soon 

after the implementation of the action (such as habitat loss, crushing or burying actual 

plants, sediment accumulation etc.). 

Indirect effects are those effects that are “reasonably likely” to occur at a later point in 

time after project implementation. Indirect effects include changes in hydrology or solar 

radiation intensities. 

Cumulative Effects 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that planners consider effects of 

accumulating effects on a resource within the planning area (in this case the Wrangell 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants Appendix C - 37
 

Ranger District) by actions in the past, present and foreseeable future in order to prevent 

long-term degradation of the resource. 

Since the overall impacts of guided recreational use on all types of vegetation (sensitive, 

rare, or otherwise) are minimal on a daily basis but can be expected to accumulate over 

time, effects on botanical resources are best evaluated for the proposed action as 

cumulative effects. The cumulative effects of both commercial and private use should be 

considered for sites used by commercial outfitter guides that are also used by private 

recreational parties. Any monitoring of impacts to sites will be unable to distinguish 

effects of private versus commercial use. 

Recreational use harms plants and vegetation by crushing plants under foot and tents, 

construction of fire rings, movement of natural materials such as rocks and logs and 

construction of semi-permanent structures such as tarpaulin frames. (Bell 1973, Cole 

1992, Monz 2000, Roovers 2004). No systematic analysis has been conducted to 

determine the effects of recreational use to botanical resources on the Wrangell Ranger 

District. 

A process of developing carrying capacity for each study area determined the number of 

recreation visitor days the recreation places could accommodate without adverse 

environmental impact. One hundred and fifty-eight sites (recreation places) are being 

allocated use by outfitter guides. Only minimal surveys have been conducted for 

sensitive or rare species on the sites. 

Backcountry recreational use in the Tongass National Forest by private parties is not 

managed. No permitting or allocation process for undeveloped recreation sites, such as 

primitive campsites, is in place. Use is on a first-come basis. Use of cabins and 

developed campgrounds is allocated through an online reservation process. 

Compared to National Forests in other parts of the United States, recreational use of the 

Tongass is light and widespread. Although some sites may experience high levels of 

impact due to proximity to population centers or unique natural features that are a draw 

for the recreating public, most sites will experience only minor impacts to vegetation. 

Commercial group size is limited to twelve persons. Impacts on all types of vegetation 

are mitigated by an informal process of evaluation of sites by district recreation staff that 

have a basic understanding of impacts to vegetation by recreational users, following the 

principles of “leave no trace” best practices. This can be expected to limit harm to 

vegetation to a reasonable degree. But this may not prevent all harm to sensitive or rare 

species. 

Appendix C 38 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants
 

Summary of affected environment, effects, risk 

assessment and determination by species. 

Aphragmus eschscholtzianus Eschscholtz’s little nightmare. 

Affected environment: This species’ range in the National Forests in the Alaska region is 

believed to be restricted to the Chugach National Forest or the very northern part of the 

Tongass National Forest and will not be evaluated further. 

Botrychium spathulatum Spathulate moonwort 

Affected environment: Habitats include upper beach meadows and alpine areas. This 

species has been found in a very few places on Kruzof and Chichagof Islands on the Sitka 

and Hoonah Ranger Districts. It is not suspected to occur on the Petersburg District and 

it will not be evaluated further. 

Botrychium tunux (Moosewort Fern) and Botrychium yaaxudakeit (No common 

name) 

These species are known on the Tongass National Forest only from the Yakutat forelands 

area and will not be evaluated further. 

Cirsium edule var. macounii Edible Thistle 

Affected environment: This species is known only from the Misty Fiords National 

Monument Wilderness. Habitats include Forest edge, streamside riverbank, dry meadow, 

and landslide talus. There is some chance that this species exists in the mainland portions 

of the district. 

Direct and indirect effects: This species could be affected by disturbance due to camping 

and foot travel. One threat that has been cited is due to its resemblance to invasive 

thistles it may be targeted by enthusiastic weed pullers. It often grows in disturbed 

habitat so additional disturbance may favor or disfavor this plant because plants could be 

killed by a disturbance but overall increased habitat could be created by the same 

disturbance event. 

Risk Assessment: Because recreational activities are likely to occur in its habitats that 

could disturb individuals of this species, consequences of effects are moderate due to 

possible adverse effects in habitat or on population. Cumulative effects are possible. 

Likelihood of effects is moderate because recreational activity is not completely 

controllable or intense administration of recreation would be needed to prevent adverse 

effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants Appendix C - 39
 

Cochlearia sessilifolia Sessileleaf scurvygrass 

This species’ range in the National Forests in the Alaska region is believed to be 

restricted to the Chugach National Forest and will not be evaluated further. 

Cypripedium guttatum Spotted lady’s slipper 

This species’ range in the National Forests in the Alaska region is believed to be 

restricted to the Chugach National Forest and will not be evaluated further. 

Cypripedium montanum Mountain lady’s slipper 

Affected environment: Habitats include open forest, beach meadows, and peatlands. 

It is suspected to occur on the Petersburg Ranger District. 

Direct and indirect effects: This plant has strikingly attractive flowers. One threat that 

has been cited to this species in the Alaska Region is that people might pick the flowers 

or attempt to transplant them to a home garden or elsewhere. 

Risk Assessment: Because recreational activates are likely to occur in its habitats that 

could disturb individuals of this species, consequences of effects are moderate due to 

possible adverse effects in habitat or on population. Cumulative effects are possible. 

Likelihood of effects is moderate because recreational activity is not completely 

controllable or intense administration of recreation would be needed to prevent adverse 

effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Yellow lady’s slipper 

Affected environment: Habitat is peatlands. This plant is not suspected to occur on the 

Petersburg Ranger District and will not be evaluated further. 

Ligusticum calderi

Affected environment: Habitats for this species include subalpine meadows in glacial 

refugia. It is suspected to exist on the Petersburg Ranger District. 

Direct and indirect effects: Because meadows are likely to be used by recreationists, 

individuals could be affected by trampling effects from hikers and campers. 

Risk Assessment: Because recreational activates are likely to occur in its habitats that 

could disturb individuals of this species, consequences of effects are moderate due to 

possible adverse effects in habitat or on population. Cumulative effects are possible. 

Likelihood of effects is moderate because recreational activity is not completely 

controllable or intense administration of recreation would be needed to prevent adverse 

effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Appendix C 40 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants
 

Lobaria amplissima

Affected environment: Habitat includes tree trunks and limbs on old- growth beach fringe 

edges that are exposed to large bodies of ocean. It has been found in approximately 20 

locations on the Tongass, including the Petersburg Ranger District where it has been 

found on the Sukoi Islets, southern Mitkof Island, and some outer islands in Tebenkof 

Bay on Kuiu Island. 

Direct and indirect effects: Hikers and campers following leave no trace principles are 

unlikely to affect this plant. Persons who cut down standing live or dead trees for 

firewood or shelter materials could conceivably affect individuals of this species. 

Risk Assessment: Consequences are a questionable adverse effect on habitat or 

populations. No cumulative effects expected. Likelihood of adverse effects is low. 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Papaver alboroseum 

This species’ range in the National Forests in the Alaska region is believed to be 

restricted to the Chugach National Forest and it will not be evaluated further. 

Piperia unalascensis 

Affected environment: Habitat includes dry open sites, tall shrubs in riparian zones, 

mesic meadows, and dry coniferous forests from low elevation to subalpine. 

Direct and indirect effects: Individuals could be trampled by hikers and campers. 

Risk Assessment: Because recreational activities are likely to occur in its habitats that 

could disturb individuals of this species, consequences of effects are moderate due to 

possible adverse effects in habitat or on population. Cumulative effects are possible. 

Likelihood of effects is moderate because recreational activity is not completely 

controllable or intense administration of recreation would be needed to prevent adverse 

effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Platanthera orbiculata 

Affected environment: Habitat includes low-elevation forests and scrub. This species is 

known to occur in four locations on the Wrangell Ranger District but has not yet been 

found on the Petersburg Ranger District. This species is more common and widespread 

than other sensitive species, particularly to the south of Wrangell Ranger District. 

Direct and indirect effects: Individuals could be trampled by hikers and campers. 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants Appendix C - 41
 

Risk Assessment: This species was listed as sensitive due to concerns about the effects 

of logging and road building due to economics leading to targeting of specific timber 

species that are closely associated with it throughout much of its known habitat and 

distribution on the Tongass. Because recreational activities are likely to occur in its 

habitats that could disturb individuals of this species, consequences of effects are 

moderate due to possible adverse effects in habitat or on population. Cumulative effects 

are possible. Likelihood of effects is moderate because recreational activity is not 

completely controllable or intense administration of recreation would be needed to 

prevent adverse effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Polystichum kruckebergii 

Affected environment: Habitat is sheltered cracks in dunite rock of ultramafic outcrops. It 

is known from two locations on the Forest, one on Baranof Island and one on the 

Cleveland Peninsula. It is suspected to occur on the Petersburg Ranger District. 

Direct and indirect effects: No effects from recreational activities are believed to be 

likely. 

Risk Assessment: Likelihood of effects is none; activity will not affect habitat or 

population. 

 

Determination: No effect. 

Romanzoffia unalaschcensis 

Affected environment: Habitat includes gravelly areas along streams, and on ledges and 

crevices in rock outcrops, often along the coast. It is suspected to occur on the Petersburg 

District. 

Direct and indirect effects: Individuals could be trampled by hikers and campers. 

Risk Assessment: Because recreational activities are likely to occur in its habitats that 

could disturb individuals of this species, consequences of effects are moderate due to 

possible adverse effects in habitat or on populations. Cumulative effects are possible. 

Likelihood of effects is moderate because recreational activity is not completely 

controllable or intense administration of recreation would be needed to prevent adverse 

effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Appendix C 42 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants
 

Sidalcea hendersonii

Affected environment: Habitat includes estuarine meadows at forest edge. It is known 

from only one location on the Tongass. It is suspected to occur on the Petersburg Ranger 

District. 

Direct and indirect effects: Individuals could be trampled by hikers and campers. 

Risk Assessment: Because recreational activities are likely to occur in its habitats that 

could disturb individuals of this species, consequences of effects are moderate due to 

possible adverse effects in habitat or on populations. Cumulative effects are possible. 

Likelihood of effects is moderate because recreational activity is not completely 

controllable or intense administration of recreation would be needed to prevent adverse 

effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

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

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. huronense

Habitat includes coastal sand dunes. It is known from only one location on the Tongass. 

It is not suspected to occur on the Petersburg Ranger District and it will not be evaluated 

further. 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants Appendix C - 43
 

Table 2. Summary of Risk Assessments and 

Determinations for Sensitive Plant Species 

Scientific Name Likelihood of 

Negative 

Effects 

Consequence 

of Negative 

Effects 

Determination 

Aphragmus 

eschscholtzianus

None No Effect 

Botrychium spathulatum None No Effect

Botrychium tunux None No Effect

Botrychium yaaxudakeit None No Effect

Cirsium edule var.

macounii 

Moderate Moderate May adversely impact*

Cochlearia sessilifolia None No Effect 

Cypripedium guttatum None No Effect

Cypripedium montanum Moderate Moderate May adversely impact*

Cypripedium parviflorum 

var. pubescens 

None No Effect

Ligusticum calderi Moderate Moderate May adversely impact*

Lobaria amplissima Low Low May adversely impact*

Papaver alboroseum None No Effect

Piperia unalascensis Moderate Moderate May adversely impact*

Platanthera orbiculata Moderate Moderate May adversely impact*

Polystichum kruckebergii None No Effect 

Romanzoffia 

unalaschcensis

Moderate May adversely impact*

Sidalcea hendersonii Moderate Moderate May adversely impact*

Tanacetum bipinnatum 

subsp. huronense

None No Effect 

* Full Text: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the planning area or cause a trend to federal listing. 

Appendix C 44 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants
 

Appendix A: Criteria for Risk Assessment 

Factor 1.Consequence of Adverse Effect from a Particular Activity 

LOW: None, or questionable adverse effect on habitat or population. No cumulative 

effects expected. 

MODERATE: Possible adverse effects in habitat or on population. Cumulative effects 

are possible. 

HIGH: Obvious adverse effects on habitat or population. Cumulative effects are probable. 

Factor 2. Likelihood of Adverse Effect from a Particular Activity 

NONE: Activity will not affect habitat or population. (No further risk assessment 

needed). 

LOW: Activity controllable by seasonal or spatial restrictions and is not likely to affect 

habitat or populations. 

MODERATE: Activity not completely controllable or intense administration of project 

needed to prevent adverse effects on habitat or population. Adverse effects may occur. 

HIGH: Activity not controllable and adverse effects on habitat or populations likely 

to occur. 

Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants Appendix C - 45
Appendix C 46 - Appendix C Biological Evaluation for Plants