wrangell island project -...

Wrangell Island Project

Draft Recreation Resource Report

Prepared by: Dee Galla

Outdoor Recreation Planner

for: Wrangell Ranger District Tongass National Forest

Final

June 1, 2016

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, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Wrangell Island Project Recreation and Lands Resource Report

i

Table of Contents

Introduction 1 Affected Environment 3 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 7 Effects to ROS 10 Recreation Places on Wrangell Island 21 Effects to North Wrangell 23 Effects to Pat’s Lake, Old Hermit, and Midpoint 25 Effects to Nemo-Skip Loop Road 27 Effects to Salamander Creek and Earl West 29 Effects to Long Lake 31 Effects to Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek Crossing 33 Current Recreation Use on Wrangell Island 34 Special Use Authorizations and Outfitter Guide Use 35 Summary of Effects 37 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives 40 Cumulative Effects 42

List of Tables

Table 1- Recreation Issues/Concerns Addressed 1 Table 2 –Existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory 8 Table 3 – ROS Inventory by Alternative – All Logging Systems 19 Table 4 – ROS Inventory by Alternative – Cable and Shovel Units Only 20 Table 5 – ROS Acres Converted to Roaded Modified (RM) 20 Table 6 – Summary of Direct Effects to Inventoried Recreation Sites 38 List of Figures

Figure 1 – Alternative 1: ROS – Existing Condition 9 Figure 2 – Alternative 2: ROS – Cable and Shovel Units only 11 Figure 3 – Alternative 3: ROS – Cable and Shovel Units only 12 Figure 4 – Alternative 4: ROS – Cable and Shovel Units only 13 Figure 5 – Alternative 5: ROS: - Cable and Shovel Units only 14 Figure 6 – Alternative 2: ROS: - All Logging Systems 15 Figure 7 – Alternative 3: ROS: - All Logging Systems 16 Figure 8 – Alternative 4: ROS: - All Logging Systems 17 Figure 9 – Alternative 5: ROS: - All Logging Systems 18 Figure 10 – North Wrangell 22 Figure 11 – Pat’s Lake, Old Hermit, and Midpoint 24 Figure 12 – Nemo- Skip Loop Road 26 Figure 13 – Salamander, Earl West, and Highbush Lake 28 Figure 14 – Long Lake 30 Figure 15 – Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek 32


1

Introduction The Wrangell Island Project Recreation Resource Report provides an assessment of the current condition of the project area and the potential effects of implementing the proposed action and the alternatives on recreation resources. The analysis addresses the potential effects associated with the proposed timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction on the recreating public. The analyses utilize existing information from spatial GIS data, monitoring results, scientific literature, and other sources.

Issues Addressed and Environmental Components Analyzed The identified issues and concerns relevant to recreation resources within the Wrangell Island project area were developed based on internal review and external scoping comments from the public. The primary issues/concerns surrounding recreation resources are related to potential impacts to: a) recreation settings, b) developed and undeveloped recreation places and sites, c) recreation uses and opportunities, and d) special use permits and outfitter/guide use. The environmental components and indicators used to describe potential effects associated with these issues and concerns are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Recreation Issues/Concerns Addressed and Environmental Components Analyzed within the Wrangell Island project area

Issue/Concern Measure or Indicator Recreation Settings Changes to the existing acres inventoried in different Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings. Recreation Places and Sites

Qualitative assessment of likely impacts from proposed timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction.

Recreation Uses on Wrangell Island


Special Use Permits and Outfitter/Guide Use


Methodology The analysis area for recreation is Wrangell Island. The analysis of existing recreation opportunities is based on the Forest Service ROS system. Key ROS setting characteristics considered in the analysis include remoteness, size of the area, evidence of humans and human activity, user density, and land management objectives. Potential impacts to ROS settings are estimated based on proposed harvest unites and projected system and temporary road construction using GIS analysis. Impacts to recreation places and sites, OHV use, and Special Use Permits and Outfitter/Guide use are assessed qualitatively.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information We have sufficient baseline recreation information to describe the current condition of recreation use on Wrangell Island. Our ability to actually predict changes in recreation use in response to the Wrangell Island Project is limited by the quality of the available existing data and our ability to predict future behavior based on a variety of factors. However, we have sufficient information for the analysis area to provide a credible evaluation and comparison of the magnitude and extent of likely effects of the proposed action and the alternatives for the Wrangell Island Project.


2

Regulatory Framework Management activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands are required to comply with the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Federal and State laws. Relevant standards and regulations intended to protect recreation resources are addressed in the following subsections.

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan The Forest Plan is the governing document for management activities that take place within the Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008a). It consists of three parts that work together to facilitate the development of management activities. These parts include: forest goals and desired conditions for resources; the management prescriptions for each of the 19 land use designations (LUDs); and the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, which apply to all or most areas of the Forest and provide for the protection and management of forest resources.

In the LUDs where land-disturbing activities are proposed (i.e., Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed), the Recreation and Tourism LUD-specific Standards and Guidelines apply (USDA Forest Service 2008a, chapter 3). In addition, there are Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Recreation and Tourism that apply and provide for resource protection across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008a, chapter 4).

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The ROS system is a land classification system developed by the Forest Service to help identify and describe possible combinations of recreation activities, settings, and experiences for management purposes (USDA Forest Service 1982). The ROS system portrays the appropriate combination of activities, settings, and experiences along a continuum that ranges from primitive to highly modified environments. Seven classifications are identified along this continuum:

• Primitive (P) • Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) • Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) • Roaded Natural (RN) • Roaded Modified (RM) • Rural (R) • Urban (U) ROS classes represent a spectrum of possible experiences, from those with a high probability of self-reliance, solitude, challenge, and risk to those with a relatively high degree of interaction with other people.

The 2008 Forest Plan direction for recreation management for LUDs is to provide a spectrum of recreation opportunities that are compatible with timber harvest objectives, as applicable, and manage for the existing ROS setting until approved activities and practices change it. Essentially, ROS is a description given to existing conditions. It is not a prescription for management of these areas unless specifically determined by an additional planning document. Therefore, if the LUD allows for increased development, timber harvest, or increased recreation use, then the descriptive ROS class may be converted to a different, more developed ROS class to incorporate the new development after implementation.


3

Other Laws, Policies, and Relevant Direction

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that established a U.S. national policy promoting the enhancement of the environment and also established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). NEPA's most significant effect was to set up procedural requirements for all federal government agencies to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) to describe the environmental effects of proposed federal agency actions.

EEO 12962 (Aquatic Systems and Recreational Fisheries) Executive Order 12962 directs Federal Agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities.

Forest Service Handbook 2709.14 – Recreation Special Uses Handbook, Chapter 50 – Outfitting and Guiding and Other Concession Services Chapter 50 provides direction for permitting and administering outfitter and guide and other concession services on NFS lands.

Affected Environment Introduction Wrangell Island is within the Wrangell Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest (TNF). The island’s total area is approximately 134,306 acres. Of that total, about 113,100 acres are National Forest System (NFS) lands, and of those NFS acres, approximately 23,000 acres are considered suitable and available for timber management. The island contains seven value comparison units (VCUs): 4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 4800, and 5050. VCUs are comparable to large watersheds and generally follow major topographic divides.

Southeast Alaska Recreation opportunities in Southeast Alaska have grown with increased tourism to the area. An estimated 1,064,000 out-of-state visitors came to Southeast Alaska from May 2011 through April 2012, the most recent year that comprehensive data are available, with the majority of these visitors arriving by cruise ship (McDowell Group 2013). In addition to experiencing the Tongass from the deck of the cruise ship and exploring ports of call, many passengers take at least one trip to the Forest during their visit (McDowell Group 2005). Non-cruise visitors tend to either use package deals designed to provide transportation, lodging, meals and activities or visit as independent travelers. These independent travelers design their own travel itineraries and tend to utilize public transportation systems and stay in the local communities. For the majority of Alaska visitors, it is important to experience the natural resources, cultural history and wildness of the region. Many have expectations of seeing glaciers, wildlife or being able to bring home wild game and fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_environmental_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._environmental_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Environmental_Quality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._federal_government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_agency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Impact_Statement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_assessment


4

The visitor industry in Alaska is very seasonal, with the majority of visitation between May and September. The McDowell Group (2013) estimated that total visitor-related employment supported 10,200 jobs and $370 million in labor income in Southeast Alaska from May 2011 through April 2012, about 21 percent of total regional employment and 15 percent of total labor income. Supplemental analysis of the USDA Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program data estimated that the Tongass received 2.3 million annual visits, with average spending per party of $287.20. This analysis estimated that every 10,000 visits supported 13.7 direct local jobs (White and Stynes 2010).

Wrangell Island Wrangell Island is in the Alexander Archipelago of Southeast Alaska. The archipelago stretches approximately 500 kilometers (km) (300 miles) from Dixon Entrance north to Cross Sound, and contains numerous islands and fjords. The Alexander Archipelago lies within the Pacific Mountain System (Fenneman 1946), which is further subdivided into three physiographic divisions; the Pacific Border Range, the Coastal Trough, and the Coastal Mountains (Wahrhaftig 1965:18, 36–43). Wrangell Island lies within the Coastal Foothills physiographic province, which is within the larger Coastal Mountains physiographic division. The island is separated from the mainland by the Eastern Passage and the narrow Blake Channel. The northern end of Wrangell Island lies at the mouth of the Stikine River. To the west are Woronkofski Island and Zimovia Strait. Etolin Island is located to the west and southwest, and Deer Island and Ernest Sound lie to the south. The city of Wrangell, situated at the northern end of the island, is located approximately 238 km (148 miles) southeast of Juneau and 130 km (81 miles) northwest of Ketchikan.

The topography of Wrangell Island is generally steep and mountainous, with high mountain ridges bisected by broad valleys and creeks. Mountains up to 826 meters (m) (2,710 feet) in elevation make up much of the island, many rising 1,640 feet (500 m) in 1 km (0.6 mile) or less. Steep creeks draining from alpine lakes; numerous freshwater, anadromous fish streams; and muskegs are found throughout the island.

General Ecosystem and Landscape

The ecological subsection, the Zimovia Strait Complex, can be used to describe Wrangell Island (Nowacki et al. 2001:172–173). During the Pleistocene, glaciers eroded much of the surface of the island, producing rounded ridge tops with steep sidewalls and broad U-shaped valleys. Underlying most of the island are stratified sedimentary rocks and volcanic inclusions of granodiorite and tonalite. Numerous small streams flow from slopes that have cut into the underlying bedrock. Although many mountain streams coalesce in the valley bottoms, few are large enough to develop any substantial floodplains. Roughly half of the island is productive forest land, with the rest in wetlands, forested wetlands, and bogs that developed on poorly drained till underlying a layer of organic soils. Alpine vegetation covers relatively small areas because most elevations are below 609 m (2,000 feet). The lower mountain slopes support forests of hemlock (Tsuga sp.), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), and cedar (Thuja plicata and Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). Common mammals include Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canus lupus ligoni), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), marten (Martes americana), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), mink (Neovision vision), and three species of shrew: common shrew (Sorex cinerus), dusky shrew (S. monticolus), and water shrew (S. palustris).


5

Climate and Precipitation

Wrangell Island is part of the world’s largest temperate rain forest and lies within a maritime climatic zone. The climate is generally characterized by mild winters with snow, cool summers, and year-round rainfall. Areas near the coast are insulated by proximity to the ocean while inland areas are subject to more extreme temperature ranges. Rainfall is abundant throughout the year, although the period from May through August marks a distinct dry season on the island. The average annual rainfall for the island is 209.3 centimeters (cm [82.4 inches]), and the average annual snowfall is 162.5 cm (64.0 inches). The January average temperature is -0.8° Celsius (30.5° Fahrenheit [F]), and the July average temperature is 14.5° C (58.1° F).

Geology

The geology of Wrangell Island consists mainly of granitic plutons, with small outcrops of fossil-free phyllite of the Taku terrane, greenschist, and metamorphosed andesite (Connor and O’Haire 1988:37–39).

Vegetation

A diversity of habitats typical of Southeast Alaska’s coastal rainforest is found on the island. Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Alaska yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and shore pine (Pinus contorta) are the main components of the coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests found on Wrangell Island. Tall and low shrubland areas include vegetation such as young trees, Vaccinium sp., devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), and rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea). Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), deer cabbage (Fauria crista-galli), and marsh marigold (Caltha biflora), among others, are found in moist areas, including swamps, fens, and wet meadows. Other wetland plants include crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus), bog laurel (Kalmia microphylla), and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.). Several species of ferns are commonly found on Wrangell Island and grow in a variety of habitats, including moist forests, swamps, avalanche and landslide tracks, rocky slopes, and rocky seepages. Upland plants include bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), five-leaved bramble (Rubus pedatus), and trifoliate foamflower (Tiarella trifoliate). Other vegetation-supporting habitats on the island include rocky areas and rock outcrops, ridgetops, cliffs, gravel, scree, talus, boulder fields, riparian areas, streambanks, waterfalls, lake margins, ponds, shallow fresh water, swamps, sphagnum bogs, heaths, areas dominated by moss or lichen, dry meadows, grasslands, and sandy areas.

One plant species categorized as sensitive and six plant species categorized as rare have been identified on Wrangell Island. Invasive species, especially reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), are common in disturbed areas, including roads and rock pits.

Wildlife

Wildlife on Wrangell Island or in open-ocean or near-shore marine habitats near Wrangell Island include pelagic birds, seabirds, marine shorebirds, cetaceans, forest birds, forest mammals, freshwater birds, raptors, bats, and alpine-subalpine species. Special status species that may be present on Wrangell Island or in marine habitats near Wrangell Island include federally protected species, species of high-level Forest Service concern, Forest Service sensitive species, and Forest Service management indicator species (MIS).


6

Surface Hydrology

Streams

There are approximately 965 km (600 miles) of mapped streams on Wrangell Island. Of these streams, 15 are named streams that may support anadromous fish in their lower reaches. Numerous streams on the island contain fish habitat supporting mostly resident fish species (cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden). The upper reaches of streams are typically high gradient and do not provide fish habitat. The only gauged stream on the island is upper Earl West Creek, which has flows that range from 3.3 to 50.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) (USGS 2010). The drainage area of Earl West Creek is relatively similar to the other named streams on Wrangell Island, and therefore flow ranges are expected to also be similar for these other streams.

Lakes

There are approximately 150 mapped lakes on Wrangell Island; four of the lakes are named: Thoms Lake, Pat’s Lake (also known as Trout Lake), Long Lake, and Highbush Lake. The named lakes provide habitat for fish, invertebrates, amphibians, and water birds, and are used recreationally by Wrangell residents and visitors. Mapped lakes on Wrangell Island cover 1,274 acres, or approximately 1% of the island. In addition to these lakes, there are numerous small unmapped lakes and wetland ponds on the island.

City and Borough of Wrangell

The City and Borough of Wrangell is the largest community on Wrangell Island, having approximately 2,000 residents. Thoms Place, located on the southwest coast of Wrangell Island, is a community of approximately 35 cabins and houses. Thoms Place is populated by approximately five residents in the winter and 22 residents in the summer. Residents of these two communities are primarily not of Alaska Native heritage, although the location of Old Town near Thoms Place was originally a Tlingit winter village. Other notable nearby residential areas include Olive Cove, Meyers Chuck, and Union Bay. Olive Cove is a community located on the eastern side of nearby Etolin Island; it comprises approximately 27 subdivided properties, two of which are owned by the Alaska Mental Health Trust. Meyers Chuck is a community located on the northwest tip of Cleveland Peninsula and within the Borough of Wrangell). Meyers Chuck is primarily a fishing community, although many of the 48 housing unit owners live in the community only seasonally. Nearby Union Bay, formerly the site of the local cannery, is now a small community comprising approximately 15 subdivided lots and a few permanent residents.

Wrangell’s economy traditionally has been based on mining, timber harvesting, manufacturing, fishing, and seafood processing. However, tourism has played a larger role in Wrangell’s economy in recent years, and the City and Borough of Wrangell are actively seeking diversification and economic growth.

Although Wrangell Island includes only a small amount of tribal allotment and native corporation–owned lands, the island was historically used by the Tlingit. Wrangell Island is located in the heart of the territory traditionally claimed by the Stikine Tlingit (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998 [1946]:73–74). Prehistoric archaeological sites, including petroglyphs, fish weirs, and lithic reduction sites are evidence of a history of Tlingit occupation on Wrangell Island (Esposito and Smith 2002). The fur trading activities of the Russian-American Company and the Hudson’s


7

Bay Company, gold rushes, and the founding of Christian churches and mission schools were also integral in shaping the history of Wrangell Island (Neal 2007).

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a system for planning and managing recreation resources that categorize recreation opportunities into seven classes. Each class is defined in terms of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience needs based on the extent to which the natural environment has been modified, types of facilities provided, the degree of outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area, and the relative density of recreation use. In timber planning projects, roads tend to have the most influence in changing the setting from a more natural setting to a more developed one. Harvest units can have an effect as well, depending on the prescription used. The seven classes (from most natural to least natural) are: Primitive (P); Semi-Primitive Non-motorized (SPNM); Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM); Roaded Natural (RN); Roaded Modified (RM); Rural (R); and Urban (U). Following is a brief description of each class (summarized from Appendix I of the Forest Plan):

Primitive (P): These areas provide for primitive recreation opportunities in unroaded and non-motorized settings. Unmodified natural and natural-appearing settings dominate the physical environment. These areas provide opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and risk, with on-site controls or restrictions rare. Encounters with other users, and signs of other users, are minimal.

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM): These areas provide for non-motorized recreation opportunities in unroaded and non-motorized settings. A natural-appearing setting dominates the physical environment, with only subtle or minor evidence of human-caused modifications. These areas offer opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and risk, with minimum of on-site controls and restrictions. Other user encounters should be generally low, with low levels of the sights and sounds of other users.

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM): These areas provide for motorized recreation opportunities in semi-primitive settings. In areas seen from travel routes and high-use areas, a natural-appearing setting dominates the outdoor physical environment with only subtle or minor evidence of human-caused modifications. Areas not seen from travel routes and high-use areas could have more dominant alterations. These areas offer opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and risk with little on–site controls and restrictions. Encounters with other users should be generally low; however, the sounds of other users may be evident due to motorized uses.

Roaded Natural (RN): These areas provide for a wide range of recreation activities that are focused along travel routes in natural appearing, roaded, motorized settings. Recreation facilities may be highly developed, but focused on blending with the surrounding landscape. Encounters with others may be moderate to high. The key to Roaded Natural settings is the scenery seen from the travel route. Although the travel route itself may be highly developed, the scenery viewed from it is natural appearing.

Roaded Modified (RM): These areas provide for a range of recreation experiences that are consistent with substantially modified, motorized settings in which the sights and sounds of humans are readily evident and interaction between users can be moderate to high. Recreation facilities may be dispersed to highly developed, with impacts from human development (such as harvest units) obvious to the casual observer.


8

Rural (R): These areas are characterized by recreation sites that can be used by large numbers of people at one time. Recreation opportunities offered are usually managed, with facilities designed for user comfort. Vegetation in and around recreation sites is often manicured or managed to appear natural.

Urban (U): These areas are characterized by the typical facilities and developments you would find within towns and cities. Characteristics of these areas include highly developed user comforts, high encounters with others, and no expectation of solitude.

As described above, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum inventory for Wrangell Island is based on the existing physical condition of specific areas on the island. Areas that are closer to roads and existing harvest units are inventoried in a more “urban” class than areas that are far removed from the sights and sounds of human activity. Mapping protocols define buffers for roads at 1,200’ from the transportation route, and buffers for harvest units at 600’ from the harvest boundary. Based on these protocols, the existing ROS inventory for Wrangell Island is displayed in Figure 1, with acres for each class shown in Table 2.

Table 2 – Existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory (Alternative 1)

ROS Class Acres

Urban 1,234

Rural 1,433

Roaded Modified 59,681

Roaded Natural 2,858

Semi-Primitive Motorized 28,113

Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized 40,987

Total Acres 134,306


9

Figure 1 – Alternative 1: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Existing Condition


10

Effects to ROS To analyze the effects the alternatives would have on the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) inventory after the sale was complete, we used GIS mapping protocols described in the Affected Environment section. Harvest units yarded by helicopter present a dilemma to mapping real effects as it is difficult to argue that a 50 acres unit yarded by helicopter has the same effect as a 50 acre roaded unit yarded by shovel or cable methods. To better display true effects, the resulting ROS inventories for each alternative were mapped using two strategies for helicopter yarded units; one in which the helicopter units are treated the same as all road based units, and then a second strategy showing the same alternative with helicopter units treated as “no real effect” on the physical characteristics of the recreation opportunities since the area would still remain inaccessible by motorized use (authorized or otherwise). Figures 2-9 show the resulting inventories mapped based on the two strategies. Figures 2-5 display the alternatives with only shovel and cable units buffered; Figures 6-9 display the alternatives with all harvest units buffered.


11

Figure 2 – Alternative 2: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – Cable and Shovel Units only-


12



13



14



15

Figure 6 – Alternative 2: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – All Logging Systems


16



17



18



19

The following tables display the total acreages that would be inventoried in the various ROS classes as a result of implementing each alternative. The Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban ROS classes are combined due to their relatively small acreages and minimal impacts to them. Table 3 matches the earlier figures for each alternative labeled “all logging systems” (Figures 6-9). In those figures, a ½ mile buffer is applied to new roads and harvest unit boundaries, regardless of the harvest strategy. Table 4 displays the resulting ROS acreage when helicopter yarded units are not included in the mapping. In both tables, the total acreage that would be inventoried in each class after implementation of the alternatives is displayed, along with the resulting total percentage each class represents on the island. Table 3- Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory by Alternative – All Logging Systems

ROS Class Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 SPNM 40,987 acres

31% 38,387 acres

29% 39,314 acres

29% 38,981 acres

29% 39,808 acres

30% SPM 28,113 acres

21% 21,545 acres

16% 24,895 acres

19% 24,231 acres

18% 22,567 acres

17% RM 59,681 acres

44% 69,607 acres

52% 64,819 acres

48% 66,048 acres

49% 67,144 acres

50% RN/R/U 5,525 acres

4% 4,767 acres

3% 5,278 acres

4% 5,046 acres

4% 4,787 acres

3% The main change that will occur when re-mapping the ROS inventory after timber sale activities will be the conversion of acreage to a more developed ROS class. Areas that are already roaded and harvested are inventoried in the Roaded Modified (RM) class. When new development activities such as road building and timber harvest are proposed in areas currently mapped in the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) and Semi Primitive Motorized (SPM) classes, those acres are converted to RM. Not all harvest activities are equal in regards to the lasting impacts they have on a setting. Road building probably has the most impact, as it creates a new type of activity that was not associated with the land prior to the development. Whether or not motorized use of vehicles is authorized to the public after the sale activities are complete, the mere existence of the road changes the inherent character of the land and the expectations recreation users have. The same can’t always be said about harvest units. Usually, harvest units that are associated with roads use cable or shovel yarding to remove the trees. This activity can leave impacts that are clearly obvious to recreation users and those impacts will affect the expectations they have. Harvest units that are yarded by helicopter can have a very different impact in regards to what the recreation user experiences. Sometimes, the only obvious impact may be vegetation removal that doesn’t negatively impact their use. The above table treats remote helicopter units and roadside cable units the same. To display how the effects with helicopter yarding might be more minimal, the alternatives were also mapped with a strategy that treats any helicopter yarded units as “no effect” (labeled “no HE Buffered” - Figures 2-5). Table 4 displays the results of that mapping.


20

Table 4- ROS Inventory by Alternative, Cable and Shovel Units Only

ROS Class Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 SPNM 40,987 acres

31% 39,634 acres

29% 39,660 acres

30% 38,605 acres

29% 40,230 acres

30% SPM 28,113 acres

21% 25,149 acres

19% 26,102 acres

19% 25,100 acres

19% 26,051 acres

19% RM 59,681 acres

44% 64,313 acres

48% 63,083 acres

47% 64.392 acres

48% 62,795 acres

47% RN/R/U 5,525 acres

4% 5,210 acres

4% 5,461 acres

4% 5,209 acres

4% 5,230 acres

4% When analyzing impacts to ROS in an area that already is highly modified, it is most helpful to summarize the overall differences between the alternatives by examining how much additional Roaded Modified acreage is added because the development proposed has the effect of converting existing, more primitive lands to the RM class. Table 5 summarizes the acres each alternative converts to Roaded Modified. Table 5– ROS acres converted to Roaded Modified (RM)

Acres Converted to RM

(Cable and Shovel Only)

Acres Converted to RM

(All Harvest Methods)

Alternative 1 0 0

Alternative 2 4,632 9,926




The ranking of the alternatives depends on whether or not helicopter units are included in the inventory for Roaded Modified. If you view all harvest as equal in regards to impact to the recreation resource, Alternative 2 would have the most impact and Alternative 3 the least. If you view helicopter harvest with high retention levels as low or no impact, then Alternative 4 has the most impact and Alternative 5 the least. The action alternatives range from 3,114 acres (Alternative 5, not including helicopter units) to 9,926 acres (Alternative 2, all harvest included). This difference of 6,812 acres represents roughly 5% of the 134,306 acres mapped on Wrangell Island.


21

Recreation Places on Wrangell Island Wrangell Island offers a variety of recreation opportunities with a host of Forest Service recreation developments designed for the public’s use and enjoyment. Although different people have different expectations and reasons for using areas of the island, most of the recreation use revolves around facilities that have been developed over the years. The recreation and lands resource report provides more details about how the various recreation sites and facilities are currently used and how local use may differ from tourism use by outfitter guides, but the ranking of the alternatives comes back to how the proposal will change recreation opportunities overall. Many factors are taken into consideration including the long term scenery effects of harvest as seen from recreation use areas, disturbance associated with harvest activities near popular recreation sites, and long term changes to recreation opportunities for an area. Developments such as cabins, campsites and trails are included in inventoried recreation places, along with roads and recreation opportunities they provide. Dispersed recreation areas that may or may not have highly developed facilities, but are regularly used for recreation activities by the public are also included. To simplify discussion, the island is broken out into six distinct geographical areas (shown in Figures 10 - 15).

• North Wrangell (Figure 10) • Pat’s Lake, Old Hermit, and Midpoint (Figure 11) • Nemo-Skip Loop Road (Figure 12) • Salamander, Earl West, and Highbush Lake (Figure 13) • Long Lake (Figure 14) • Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek (Figure 15)

Please see the following maps that display the six geographical recreation areas identified on Wrangell Island for this project. Harvest units and roads proposed in Alternative 2 are included on the following maps for reference.


22

Figure 10 - North Wrangell

North Wrangell Recreation use is high in North Wrangell because of its interface with the City and Borough of Wrangell. Although the combination of recreation facilities managed by federal, state, and local agencies make up the entirety of the recreation experience people have on Wrangell Island, for the purposes of this discussion only those facilities on National Forest Lands are included. Inventoried recreation places in this area include: Rainbow Falls, Institute, and North Wrangell Trails (including trailheads on Zimovia Highway and out the Spur Road); the Rainbow Falls lower and upper viewing decks; and the Shoemaker Overlook, North Wrangell High Country, and Pond Shelters. Just south of the trail system, there is a section of undeveloped land before the island is bisected by Pat’s Valley. This project proposes timber harvest and road construction is some alternatives that would open up portions of this part of the island to much easier access to dispersed recreational opportunities.


23

Effects of the Alternatives to North Wrangell Inventoried recreation places in this area include: Rainbow Falls, Institute, and North Wrangell Trails (including trailheads on Zimovia Highway and out the Spur Road); the Rainbow Falls lower and upper viewing decks; and the Shoemaker Overlook, North Wrangell High Country, and Pond Shelters. There are no changes proposed to the Access Travel Management Plan in the North Wrangell Area. None of the inventoried recreation facilities north of Pat’s Valley would be affected by the alternatives proposed in the Wrangell Island project since there is no harvest proposed within the sight or sound of them. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 all propose harvest in a parcel of previously undeveloped land north of Pat’s Valley and south of the trail systems often referred to as “the donut” in this planning effort. Implementing any of these alternatives will result in development of a new dispersed recreation area due to the access planned with the different harvest strategies proposed. This new access will likely be used for hiking/exploring and as easier access to hunting areas that were previously more difficult to get into. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose identical road systems and harvest units. The difference to the recreation resource between the alternatives is the post-sale road management strategy. In Alternative 2 the main access road would remain open for vehicles, while it would be closed to the public in Alternative 5. Alternative 4 proposes significantly less timber harvest because the helicopter units proposed in Alternatives 2 and 5 would be deferred for future sale in Alternative 4. However, Alternative 4 proposes the construction of the same main access road to reach shovel units that would be harvested Alternative 2, 4, and 5; but leaves the road open to the public after the sale. Because this new access would actually change the existing condition of that area for the recreation resource more than the helicopter units proposed in Alternative 5, Alternative 4 ranks higher in impacts to the recreation resource than Alternative 5 Therefore the relative ranking of the alternatives in regards to overall impacts for the North Wrangell area focus mainly on the post management road strategy resulting in Alternative 2 having the most impact, Alternative 4 ranking second due to the road remaining open for recreation use, Alternative 5 ranking third because it would still allow for foot traffic to access this area much easier than prior to road construction, and Alternatives 3 and 1 having no change from the existing condition for the North Wrangell area.


24

Figure 11 - Pat’s Lake, Old Hermit and Midpoint

Pat’s Lake, Old Hermit and Midpoint Because it is so close to town, this area is popular for all kinds of recreational activities. Inventoried recreation places in this area include: the Pat’s Valley Road System, Midpoint Road System, Midpoint dispersed recreation area, and the Middle Ridge Public Recreation Cabin. Major activities include firewood gathering, hunting, fishing, berry picking and recreational driving. In winter, when weather allows, the frozen lake provides ice skating opportunities along with snowmobiling, OHV use and ice fishing. Previous harvest and the road building associated with it have opened up two dispersed recreation areas for users; the Hermit area, which mostly consists of the road system, and the Midpoint area. Midpoint is popular for winter recreation use due to its proximity to town and quick access to good snow. The Middle Ridge Cabin, Wrangell Island’s only public recreation cabin available for rental, was constructed in 2009 to provide overnight facilities due to the area’s year-round popularity.


25

Effects of the Alternatives to Pat’s Lake, Old Hermit and Midpoint Inventoried recreation places in this area include: the Pat’s Valley Road System, Midpoint Road System, Midpoint dispersed recreation area, and the Middle Ridge Public Recreation Cabin. Pats Lake is also located in this area, although the lake and area immediately surrounding it are owned by the State. The Forest Service maintains a Right of Way for the Pat’s Valley Road and maintains a gravel boat ramp at Pat’s Lake. There are 4.4 miles of existing road in this area that is currently open to motorized use by the public that are under consideration for changes in the ATMP; 3.8 miles of which are in the Old Hermit area. The 0.6 mile “Pat’s Pit” road off Zimovia Highway at milepost 9.1 is also considered for ATMP changes. The Pats Lake area is popular for locals for year round recreation with its close proximity to town and access to good snow in the winter. Winter users often use the area near the lake for parking their snow machine trailers as a starting point for accessing the Old Hermit and Midpoint areas for winter day use or access to the Middle Ridge Cabin for overnight stays. Although several improvements have been made to the road leading to the cabin, the route is steep and rough and is best travelled by high clearance vehicles. Although the level of development proposed in the action alternatives vary widely across Wrangell Island as a whole, the strategies proposed in this area of the island are quite similar between the alternatives. All propose a new road to access timber to the west of the existing Midpoint road, with varying harvest strategies along the existing road, near the Middle Ridge Cabin, and in the Old Hermit area. The road management strategy adopted for the newly constructed road that would provide access to the Middle Ridge Cabin probably has the most impact regarding how the area is used in the future. Currently there are two strategies for post-sale management proposed; Alternatives 5 would close the road to the public after the sale, while Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 leave it open to the public. Additionally, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in some of the new road construction accessed from the new road managed for OHV trail use. In all alternatives, the existing Midpoint Road would remain open to public use, meaning Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in a loop road, which many users would consider a major improvement to their recreation opportunities. All action alternatives propose harvest activities that will require hauling logs past the cabin which will be disruptive to cabin renters since the cabin is located directly next to the haul road. Differences between the alternatives in this respect center on how much of the proposed volume will be required to be taken out by road. Alternative 5 would result in lower disturbance levels than the other action alternatives so received a lower impact ranking for the Middle Ridge area than the other action alternatives.


26

Figure 12 - Nemo-Skip Loop Road

Nemo-Skip Loop Road The Nemo-Skip Loop Road and its associated recreation facilities are popular with both locals and visitors. Inventoried recreation places in this area include: the Nemo-Skip Road System, Nemo Information/Host site, Yunshookuh, Three Sisters, Anita Bay, and Highline Campsites, and the Saltwater Trail and Turn Island Beach Campsite. Also included are the Thom’s Lake Trailhead and Trail. The area is popular for recreational driving, providing outstanding views overlooking Zimovia Strait. A variety of camping opportunities and settings are available; from walking down a boardwalk trail to a beach campsite overlooking Turn Island, to a loop campsite accessible to RV’s at Yunshookuh.


27

Effects of the Alternatives on the Nemo-Skip Loop Road Inventoried recreation places in this area include: the Nemo-Skip Road System, Nemo Information/Host site, Yunshookuh, Three Sisters, Anita Bay, and Highline Campsites, and the Saltwater trail and Turn Island Beach Campsite. Also included are the Thom’s Lake Trailhead and Trail. There are 1.6 miles of existing road in this area that is currently open to motorized use by the public that are under consideration for changes in the ATMP; 1.0 miles of road 6260 (near Thom’s Lake Trailhead); 0.6 miles with road 50031(between Yunshookuh and Three Sisters Campsites). The group of Nemo campsites overlooking Zimovia Straight are popular recreation attractions that were established in the late 1990’s, in part, as a larger project involving timber harvest, road construction using wood fill left over from the local timber mill operations, and recreation improvements. As a result, the campsites are located within a large block of managed stands, sometimes located on old log landing sites. Due to this setting, most users of this area fully expect their experience to include obvious signs of development associated with timber harvest. The alternatives in this project are quite similar in what they propose in the Nemo-Skip Loop area. For example, all four action alternatives propose almost identical harvest units in the area surrounding the Nemo Campsites with differences in settings and yarding methods, making it difficult to state that any one has significantly more impact than the other. Alternative 2, 3 and 4 received the same score in ranking impacts to this area because the differences between them will not be noticeable to the average recreation user. Their reliance on conventional cable harvest methods will result in increased road traffic and noticeable long term scenic impacts to areas viewed from developed recreation places and along the road. Alternative 5 will result in the least amount of noticeable effects mainly due to helicopter yarding strategy used in many of the units that are proposed for cable yarding in the other action alternatives.

Views to the south (left) and north (right) from the Anita Bay Overlook Campsite. All alternatives propose varying degrees and methods of harvest up to the boundary of the existing managed stand.


28

Figure 13 - Salamander, Earl West and Highbush Lake

Salamander, Earl West and Highbush Lake This area provides for dispersed recreation opportunities from the road, along with several developed sites that are especially popular with local residents. Campsites along Salamander Creek provide for single family use at Upper Salamander or group use at Lower Salamander, both with shallow water swimming opportunities that make them ideal for families with small children. The Salamander Ridge Trail provides access to outstanding views of the Back Channel and Salamander drainage. Dispersed recreation activities are available near Highbush Lake where the Forest Service provides a skiff for public use. The Earl West Marsh is popular for dispersed recreation activities, and the LTF at Earl West provides a boat ramp for those who choose to haul their watercraft, providing short cuts to water routes accessing Berg Bay and the Anan Wildlife Observatory. Inventoried recreation places in this area include: Upper and Lower Salamander Campsites, Salamander Ridge Trail, Highbush Lake Recreation Area, Earl West Recreation Site, Earl West Marsh and the Forest System roads in this area.


29

Effects of the Alternatives to the Salamander Creek Area and Earl West Inventoried recreation places in this area include: Upper and Lower Salamander Campsites, Salamander Ridge Trail and dispersed recreation site, Highbush Lake Recreation Area, Earl West Recreation Site, and Earl West Marsh dispersed recreation area. The 1.8 mile long 50022 road (known locally as the Garnet Pit Road) is the only road segment under consideration for changes in the ATMP in this area.

There are three general areas within this recreation area that have harvest proposed; near the Salamander Ridge Trail, near Earl West Marsh, and near Highbush Lake. Similar to other areas on the island, there is relatively little variation in the strategies proposed with the action alternatives.

Alternative 2 and 4 scored higher in their impacts than Alternative 3 because of yarding methods proposed in the Salamander Ridge area. Alternative 2 scored 1 point higher than Alternative 4 because of one unit proposed near the Earl West Marsh area that isn’t included in Alternative 4. Alternative 5 received the lowest impact score due to the helicopter and access management strategies proposed for the wildlife resource.


30

Figure 14 - Long Lake

Long Lake Inventoried recreation places in this area include: the Long Lake Roadside Recreation Area and Long Lake Trailhead, the boardwalk around the pond area near the site, the Long Lake Trail and the Long Lake Shelter. The Long Lake roadside facilities provide accessible opportunities for day use with a picnic table, fire ring, and outhouse. Nearby, there are remnants of an old boardwalk trail with paths around a pond area that can be fun for families to explore. The roadside site is the trailhead for the 0.6 mile Long Lake Trail, surfaced completely with boardwalk. At the lake, the Forest Service maintains a three sided shelter with a table, fire ring and outhouse. A skiff with oars is also provided for public use. Once starting down the Long Lake trail, visitors enter a more remote and undeveloped setting with the boardwalk and recreation facilities being the only human developments that are obvious. Once on the lake, visitors can expect solitude from others and a setting with undisturbed natural scenery.


31

Effects of the Alternatives to the Long Lake Inventoried recreation places in this area include: the Long Lake Roadside Recreation Area and Long Lake Trailhead, the boardwalk around the pond area near the site, the Long Lake Trail and the Long Lake Shelter. The roadside facilities provide accessible opportunities for day use, while the trail and shelter provide for both day and overnight use. Although the area is accessed by the road system which takes the users through an obviously developed area; once visitors start down the Long Lake Trail, there are currently no visible impacts from resource development. All the alternatives propose some level of harvest, which will be noticeable to regular users of the Long Lake area since the area is currently in an undisturbed state. Alternatives 3 and 5 take the same approach around Long Lake and defer most of the harvest units that would result in a long term change to the character of the area. Any harvest proposed in these alternatives is going to be viewed at a distance. The sights and sounds of harvest would be easily observed from the lake, but with low harvest levels proposed directly near the lake, the disturbance would be short lived. Once the harvest was complete in Alternatives 3 and 5, people using the lake may be able to see impacts from light harvest in unit 866 to the south, although the alterations would not dominate the landscape. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose timber harvest with helicopter yarding in units 814, 816, 866, and 879, with Alternative 2 proposing slightly more than Alternative 4 with the addition of unit 865. This combination of units basically circumnavigates the lake. Alternatives 2 and 4 do not propose roads that would access harvest near the lake, so the long term effects to scenery would not be as severe as with traditional cable harvest, but the overall character of the setting would change to one that had clearly been altered by human development. Disturbance during harvest would require that the site be closed for the duration of sale activities. After the sale, the long term effects to the surrounding landscape would visually change the character of the Long Lake Recreation Area. Due to its current undeveloped setting, some users may find the activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4 unacceptable for the Long Lake area. Alternatives 3 and 5 propose some changes in this area, but the activities proposed would not result in long-term significant changes to the Long Lake Area. Alternative 1 would result in no change to this area.

View from Long Lake Trail upon arriving at Long Lake


32

Figure 15 - Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek

Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek Recreation use in this area is dispersed with most activities being associated with recreational driving. Thom’s Lake and Creek provides for fishing opportunities, with the Thom’s Lake trail providing access to the lake, and the Thom’s Creek Crossing Campsite on Road 6299 providing good access to the creek for stream fishing. The Fool’s Inlet estuary is popular for waterfowl hunting, with hunters accessing the area from both the saltwater and overland from the road system as there are no trails in this area. . The only developed inventoried recreation place in this area is the Thom’s Creek Crossing Recreation Site, but other inventoried recreation places include the road system, and saltwater use areas at Blake Island Bay, Southeast Cove and Fools Inlet.


33

Effects of the Alternatives to Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek Crossing Inventoried recreation places in this area include Fools Inlet dispersed recreation area Thoms Creek Crossing campsite. Also included within this area are Thoms Lake and Little Thoms Lake. Thoms Lake Trailhead is located on the Nemo-Skip Loop Road, but the trail and lake are within the Fool’s Inlet and Thom’s Creek area. The Forest Service maintains the trail that runs across State owned as it approaches the lake. There is a public recreation cabin at the lake that originally was maintained by the Forest Service, but with land ownership changes is now owned and maintained by the State of Alaska. Little Thoms Lake is a popular dispersed recreation site and is usually accessed by foot from Road 6599.

All of the action alternatives propose harvest to the west of Fools Inlet, with Alternative 2, 3, and 4 proposing additional harvest along the road between Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek Crossing. Near Fools Inlet all propose new harvest in the area of managed stands to the west. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose varying degrees of road construction and harvest units, while Alternative 5 only proposes helicopter harvest or harvest that does not require road building. Because the areas proposed for harvest are already in developed settings, the only noticeable difference in impacts to the recreation resource in this area is that Alternative 5 does not introduce any new public motorized use. Therefore Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have very similar effects to this area, with Alternative 5 having the least impact of the action alternatives. Alternative 1 would have no effect on Fools Inlet


34

Current Recreation Use on Wrangell Island The City and Borough of Wrangell draws visitors from around the world with a variety of recreational opportunities to offer. Most of the recreation visitor use of NFS lands on the Wrangell Ranger District occurs with cruise ship port calls in the summer. Ships are generally in port during daylight hours only, and most of these visitors either stay within the city limits or take day trips to NFS lands nearby at Anan Creek or on the Stikine River.

Although Wrangell Island receives a small amount of summertime tourism use by non-residents, the primary recreation users of NFS lands on the island are local residents and their guests. Residents are familiar with the history of timber harvest on the island and realize that most of the recreational access on the island is a direct result of past harvest activities. A recent study by UAF student Britta Schroeder supports the idea that while most Wrangell residents would like to see timber harvest continue to be an important part of the local economy, they also rate recreation uses and activities on Wrangell Island as the most acceptable use on forest lands.

What this means to managers is that, in general, Wrangell Island users view consumptive uses of forest products (timber harvest) as an accepted and essential component of the landscape. At the same time, the road building associated with past timber harvest provides access to new recreation opportunities and creates areas that become important to residents for different reasons. Areas that become important for recreational activities become locally known, and as recreational use becomes more established, the idea of further development can become less attractive as the recreational “value” to local users increases. As the study mentioned above concludes, identifying areas of conflict early on can help managers involve the public more meaningfully to make better decisions.

Effects to Current Recreation Uses on Wrangell Island

Although the Wrangell Island project proposes activities pretty much all over Wrangell Island, there are only a few areas where significantly different options are presented in areas that are locally important for recreation use. The Long Lake Recreation area probably has the most potential for conflict with established uses when it comes to the activities proposed in the Wrangell Island project alternatives. This is mainly because the Long Lake Trail and Shelter are in an area that is away from the sights and sounds of development, resulting in an opportunity for solitude that is rare on Wrangell Island, especially for the relative ease of access. Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in harvest that circumnavigates the lake. Although this harvest will be done using helicopter yarding methods and retaining a large portion of the trees, the scenic impact will be noticeable and result in a long term change to the character of Long Lake. Alternative 3 and 5 propose some harvest that may be visible from the lake, but will not be noticeable to the casual observer. Alternative 1 would result in no change to the existing conditions of the Long Lake area.

The area North of Pat’s Valley is another area that may have significant effects to the recreation resource with different options proposed in the action alternatives. Unlike the Long Lake area, this area proposed for harvest does not have any developed recreation facilities affected by the alternatives so there aren’t impacts to established recreation uses. Alternatives 2 and 4 both propose a road system that would provide for public motorized access after the sale, creating a new dispersed recreation area. Alternative 5 proposes construction of the same road, but would close it to motorized access, resulting in foot access into that same area. Alternatives 1 and 3 would not create any new access into this area.


35

There are other recreation areas on Wrangell Island that are locally important that will also be affected by the alternatives proposed in the project, though the differences between the alternatives aren’t nearly as stark as they are in the Long Lake or North Wrangell areas. The Nemo-Skip Loop Road receives high amounts of recreation use and the alternatives all propose varying levels of road building and harvest that will increase the level of development, but won’t necessarily change the essence of the area because it will still consist of roadside recreation facilities along gravel road with obvious signs of timber harvest along the way – much the same as it is now.

The Midpoint area is another valuable recreation area that people use regularly. The differences in the harvest strategies of the alternatives in this area are slight with the overall impact being further development of an already developed area. The bigger issue in the Midpoint area is the new road construction proposed in all action alternatives and the resulting management strategy regarding motorized vehicles. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose to leave the new road open to all vehicles, creating a loop road with the existing Midpoint road, while Alternative 5 builds the same road, but proposes to close it after the harvest is complete.

The Salamander/Earl West and Fools Inlet/Thom’s Creek areas are both areas where impacts from timber harvest already dominate the landscape. Impacts to recreation use areas in both these areas are similar between the alternatives in that they add visual impacts to areas that already have visual impacts; with the degree following what would be expected based on the proposed volume.

Special Use Authorizations and Outfitter Guide Use For activities that use National Forest system lands—such as outfitting and guiding, aquatic farming, fish camps, military activities, , telecommunication, research, photography and video productions, and road and utility right-of-ways (ROWs)—special use authorizations are required.

Special permits for group activities, recreation events, and other specialized recreational uses are authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(c)). The Wrangell Ranger District administers a variety of recreation special use permits (SUP’s) for isolated cabins permitted for personal recreation, seasonal tent platforms for the taking of fish and wildlife, organizational camps, and outfitting and guiding (O&G) services. Most non-recreation special uses on Wrangell Island are industrial uses such as electrical power transmission right-of-way or monitoring equipment such as weather stations for another agency’s use and will not be affected by the alternatives proposed in the Wrangell Island Project.

On Wrangell Island, the only type of recreation special use permits currently authorized are for O&G services. An analysis of carrying capacity for O&G services was conducted as part of the Wrangell Outfitter Guide Final EA (USFS 2009). Recreation capacity was defined by net recreation visitor days (RVD); an RVD is equal to one person visiting an area for 12 hours. For Wrangell Island, the total net available RVD was calculated to be 149,920, of which 7,583 RVDs were allocated for use by O&Gs (USFS 2009). Actual O&G use trends on the island have varied, but historically have not been reported as over 1,000 RVD’s annually for at least the last decade. Currently, there are four guiding companies authorized to use Wrangell Island in their operations offering remote setting nature tours, hiking,


36

and freshwater fishing. Actual use reports from 2013 document 654 clients for the season, with use occurring in the following locations: Southeast Cove, Fools Inlet, South Wrangell Island, Salamander Creek, Earl West, and the North Wrangell Trail System. Summary of Effects to Outfitter Guide Use

Outfitter and guide use on Wrangell Island is relatively low, with other areas of the district attracting much more tourist attention at present. The majority of actual use (87% in 2013) is attributed to one company, Alaska Island Community Services’ Crossings Expeditions. While Crossings has contributed to the economy of Wrangell due to the size of their program, it is difficult to determine the actual impact this timber sale would have on the Crossings program, and thus on the Wrangell economy. The Crossings services have a different emphasis than most outfitter/guide services, in that they seek different attributes than most for determining their choice of sites. While site amenities might be important, one of the most important attributes is solitude. These programs strive to find areas that are unoccupied by others foremost, with other attributes ranking somewhat lower. Even with a different set of criteria for camping site selection, the Crossing program rarely used sites that would be affected by any of the alternatives proposed in the Wrangell Island Project.

Of the areas with reported commercial use on Wrangell Island, very few of them are affected by the alternatives proposed in this project. With some use reported at Salamander Creek, Earl West, and “South Wrangell”, it is possible that the harvest activities proposed in the various action alternatives will be located in or near areas that are sometimes used. In general, direct impacts may include closure of nearby areas during harvest activities or potential road closures that may affect access to areas. Impacts can be mitigated through a good public communication plan regarding known activities to allow tour operators to avoid delays or adjust locations. Long term affects would include the impacts to scenery and the change in character of the landscape due to the sale. The relative ranking of the alternatives as far as potential to impact the services provided by outfitter /guides follows the level of development proposed in each, with Alternative 2 having the highest potential for negative impacts followed by Alternative 4, Alternative 3 and then Alternative 5.


37

Summary of Effects Wrangell Island provides for both developed and dispersed recreation activities for mostly non-commercial users. The Wrangell Island road system provides for recreational driving opportunities, providing access to both road based, motorized recreation, and access to dispersed recreation areas from the road system. Additionally, the area contains plently of relatively pristine environments with opportunities for recreation activities requiring undeveloped landscapes. Impacts from the proposed alternatives will change the overall character of the landscape people are using for recreation, and the judgement of whether those changes are positive or negative will depend on the recreation user and the expectations they have. In general, alternatives with higher levels of development proposed result in the most change from current conditions, and thus the most potential for negative impacts. Table 6 provides a summary of the ranking for each alternative from all the recreation sites and use areas on Wrangell Island.

Direct effects considered when ranking the alternatives include long term changes to scenic conditions, length of disturbance due to logging activities, transportation strategies for public motorized use once harvest activities are complete and long term changes in recreation opportunities.

In Table 6, the alternatives are relatively ranked (1 through 4) based on the direct effects expected at each site. The higher the number is, the more relative impacts it has, when compared to the other alternatives proposed.

Alternative 1 is considered the “baseline” and is assigned a “0”. If the alternative would result in no impact to a recreation site, that alternative is assigned a “0” as well. In cases when the same harvest strategy is proposed in more than one alternative; the alternatives are assigned the same ranking number.


38

Table 6 – Summary of Direct Effects to Inventoried Recreation Sites, not including Roads Area Recreation Site or Use Area Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1 North of Pat’s Valley

North Wrangell Trail System 0 0 0 0 0 Pond Shelter 0 0 0 0 0 North Country Shelter 0 0 0 0 0 Shoemaker Shelter 0 0 0 0 0 Area 1 Summary Ranking 0 0 0 0 0

2 Pat’s Valley/ Hermit/Midpoint

Middle Ridge Dispersed Recreation 0 2 2 2 1 Middle Ridge Cabin 0 2 2 2 1 Old Hermit Dispersed Recreation 0 2 3 2 1 Area 2 Summary Ranking 0 6 7 6 3

3 Nemo-Skip Loop Road

Nemo Point Host Site 0 1 1 1 1 Yunshookuh Loop Site 0 1 1 1 1 Three Sisters Viewpoint Rec Site 0 2 2 2 1 Anita Bay Overlook Rec Site 0 2 2 2 1 Highline Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Island Saltwater Trail 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Island Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0 Thom’s Lake Trailhead 0 0 0 0 0 Area 3 Summary Ranking 0 6 6 6 4

4 Salamander/ Earl West/ Highbush Lake

Upper Salamander Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Salamander Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0 Salamander Ridge Dispersed Recreation 0 3 2 3 1 Salamander Ridge Trail 0 1 1 1 1 Earl West Marsh Dispersed Recreation 0 2 1 1 1 Earl West Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0 Highbush Lake Rec Site 0 2 2 2 1 Area 4 Summary Ranking 0 8 6 7 4

5 Long Lake

Long Lake Roadside Rec Site 0 2 1 2 1 Long Lake Trail 0 2 1 2 1 Long Lake Shelter 0 2 1 2 1 Area 5 Summary Ranking 0 6 3 6 3

6 Fools Inlet/ Thom’s Lake and Creek

Fools Inlet Dispersed Recreation 0 2 2 2 1 Thom’s Creek Crossing Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0 Little Thom’s Lake Dispersed Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 Thom’s Creek Dispersed Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 Thom’s Lake Dispersed Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 Area 6 Summary Ranking 0 2 2 2 1

Island Wide Total

0

28

24

27

19

It is important to note that these rankings are relative, not additive. For example, a “2” does not mean that the alternative has twice as much impact as an alternative with a “1”; it just means the alternative has “more” impacts than the alternative with a “1”. That difference could be very small (like a minor difference in harvest strategy) or quite large (like a 50 acre clear cut instead of no harvest).


39

Conclusions The summary table above helps to display the effects of the alternatives on the island as a whole. Based on the “scores” in Table 6, the alternative ranking shows Alternative 2 having the most impact (scored 28), Alternative 4 having the second most impact (scored 27), Alternative 3 ranks third (with a somewhat lower score of 24), with Alternative 5 having the least impact (scored 19). When it comes to ranking the alternatives in regards to total impacts to the recreation resource, the objective approach is to question which alternative changes the existing conditions the most. Depending on a person’s viewpoint, the impacts associated with any of the alternatives may be judged as “good” or “bad”. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 scored similar overall impacts to the recreation resource on Wrangell Island. All use a combination of traditional and helicopter yarding methods for logging, with slightly varying approaches in some key recreation areas. In the North Wrangell area, Alternative 2 and 4 build a new road that would be accessible by motorized vehicles post sale, while Alternative 3 does not. In the Long Lake area, Alternatives 2 and 4 propose helicopter harvest near the lake that will be noticeable to users, while Alternative 3 does not. Alternative 5 clearly shows the least change from the existing condition, mainly due to helicopter yarding methods and access management strategies that favor the wildlife resource.


40

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives A listing of direct effects to the recreation resource for each alternative is found below.

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 would result in no impact to the existing condition of the recreation resource on Wrangell Island, with the exception of administrative adjustments made to the ATMP.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is ranked first overall in impacts to the recreation resource. • Converts 4,632 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when only cable and shovel units are

included • Converts 9,926 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when all units are included • Area 1 – Ranks highest overall in impacts to this area. Highest proposed harvest and

provides for motorized access to hunting/subsistence activities in area without previous road access.

• Area 2 – Ties with Alternative 4 with second most impact to this area. New road constructed up Midpoint open to public use.

• Area 3 – Ties with Alternatives 3 and 4 with highest impacts to this area. Very similar harvest strategies proposed that will result in more observable visual changes than in Alternative 5.

• Area 4 – Ranks first overall in impacts to this area due to minor harvest strategy differences near the Salamander Ridge Dispersed Recreation area, and the inclusion of harvest near Earl West Marsh.

• Area 5 – Has the same basic harvest strategy for this area as Alternative 4. Ties with Alternative 4 with highest impact to this area. Proposes harvest that will result in visual changes to scenery viewed from Long Lake Shelter and Trail.


Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is ranked third overall in impacts to the recreation resource. • Converts 3,402 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when only cable and shovel units are

included • Converts 5,138 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when all units are included • Area 1 – Does not propose harvest or road building in this area.. • Area 2 – Ranks first overall in impacts to this area. New road constructed up Midpoint

open to public use, creating a loop road. Ranked higher than Alternatives 2 and 4 due to slighter higher amount of open road in the Old Hermit area.



41

• Area 4 – Ranks third overall in impacts to this area. All action alternatives area quite similar in this area, but Alternative 3 proposes the less cable harvest and near the Salamander Ridge Dispersed Recreation area than Alternatives 2 or 4.

• Area 5 – Has the same harvest strategy for this area as Alternative 5. Ties with Alternative 5 as least impact to this area.


Alternative 4

Alternative 4 is ranked second overall in impacts to the recreation resource. • Converts 4,711 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when only cable and shovel units are

included • Converts 6,367 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when all units are included • Area 1 – Ranks second overall in impacts to this area. Proposes the same main road

segment into the area as Alternatives 2 and 5, remaining open to the public for access post-sale. Provides for motorized access to hunting/subsistence activities in area without previous road access.

• Area 2 – Ties with Alternative 2 with second most impact to this area. New road constructed up Midpoint open to public use.

• Area 3 – Ties with Alternatives 2 and 3 with highest impacts to this area. Very similar harvest strategies proposed that will result in more observable visual changes than in Alternative 5

• Area 4 – Ranks second overall in impacts to this area. Has the same harvest strategy near the Salamander Ridge Dispersed Recreation area as Alternative 2, but does not propose harvest near Earl West Marsh.

• Area 5 – Has the same basic harvest strategy for this area as Alternative 2. Ties with Alternative 2 with highest impact to this area. Proposes harvest that will result in visual changes to scenery viewed from Long Lake Shelter and Trail.

• Area 6 - Ties with Alternatives 2 and 3 with highest impacts to this area. Very similar harvest strategies proposed that will result in more observable visual changes than in Alternative 5.

•

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 is ranked fourth overall. Of the action alternatives proposed, it has the least impact to the recreation resource.

• Converts 3,114 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when only cable and shovel units are included

• Converts 7,463 ROS acres to Roaded Modified when all units are included • Area 1 – Ranks third overall in impacts to this area. Proposes the same main road

segment into the area as Alternatives 4 and 5, with the road closed to motorized use after the sale. Provides for foot access to hunting/subsistence activities in area without previous road access.

• Area 2 – Has the least impact to this area. New road constructed up Midpoint closed to public use.


42

• Area 3 – Has the least impacts to this area. Alternative 5’s emphasis on helicopter yarding will help to mitigate scenic disturbance as compared to the other action alternatives.

• Area 4 – Has the least impacts to this area. Alternative 5’s emphasis on helicopter yarding will help to mitigate scenic disturbance as compared to the other action alternatives.

• Area 5 – Has the same harvest strategy for this area as Alternative 3. Ties with Alternative 3 as least impact to this area.

• Area 6 – Has the least impacts to this area due to closure of existing roads in the ATMP and harvest strategies near Fool’s Inlet

Cumulative Effects Harvest and road building activities proposed under the action alternatives are located outside any existing inventoried roadless area and, as noted above, would result in a reduction in SPNM, SPM, and RN acres in the project area (Table 5). Viewed in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, none of the proposed alternatives are expected to contribute to long-term changes to overall patterns of recreation use in the project area. The past, present and reasonably foreseeable effects from other activities on Wrangell Island are not expected to have an effect to recreation occurring in the analysis area. Existing opportunities would continue to be available for those seeking remote and primitive recreation experiences and those seeking access to fishing and hunting opportunities would continue to have those opportunities. .

wrangell island project -...

Documents