United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

R10-MB-736e

June 2013

Big Thorne Project

Thorne Bay Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest

Record of Decision
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital 

status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is 

derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in 

any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will 

apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint:

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor 

(PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a 

personnel action. Additional information can be found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint:

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-

9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in 

the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 

20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities:

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and who wish to file either 

an EEO or program complaint, please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800)

877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on 

how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication 

for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

This page intentionally left blank. 
Big Thorne Project

Record of Decision

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Alaska Region

_________________________________________________________________

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Responsible Official: Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor 

Tongass National Forest

Federal Building

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901

For Information Contact: Frank Roberts, 

Thorne Bay Ranger District

P.O. Box 19001

Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919

(907) 828-3250

fwroberts@fs.fed.us

Abstract

The Responsible Official has selected Alternative 3 from the Big Thorne Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, with modifications. This decision will make 

approximately 148.9 million board feet of timber available for harvest from approximately 

6,186 acres of old-growth and 2,299 acres of young-growth commercial forest land.
This page intentionally left blank.
Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 1

Record of

Decision

Big Thorne Project

USDA Forest Service

Thorne Bay Ranger District 

Tongass National Forest Alaska

SUMMARY

Based upon my review of the Big Thorne Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS), and relevant scientific research and monitoring, I have decided to implement 

Alternative 3 (Selected Alternative) (FEIS, Chapter 2), with minor modifications. This 

decision includes the Resource Protection Measures (FEIS Chapter 2) and the Best 

Management Practices (FEIS, Appendix 2) designed for this project. The FEIS is in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA), 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and all other relevant Federal and State 

laws and regulations. The Selected Alternative will harvest timber from 6,186 old growth

acres of commercial forest land and thin 2,299 acres of young growth to contribute 

approximately 148.9 million board feet (MMBF) of sawlog and utility timber volume to 

the Tongass National Forest timber sale program. The timber will be harvested by 

conventional logging systems (shovel or cable) or by helicopter. Even-aged management 

(clearcut) and uneven-aged management (single tree selection) will be used. The Selected 

Alternative includes construction of 46.1 miles of new road and will reconstruct 36.6 

miles of existing National Forest System (NFS) road. This includes 24.1 miles of new 

temporary road construction and 11.9 miles of temporary road construction on 

decommissioned road beds. Small Old-growth Reserves (OGRs) in Value Comparison 

Units (VCUs) 5790, 5800, 5810, 5820, 5830, 5850, and 5950 will be modified (as 

described below). Design features of timber harvest units in this decision are described in 

detail on the unit and road cards in Appendices 1 and 2 to this ROD. Existing log transfer 

facilities (LTFs) will be used if needed.

The Forest Service has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS or 

FEIS) to analyze the potential impacts of timber harvesting and road management in the 

Big Thorne project area. This Final EIS is in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976, 

and all other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.
Record of Decision

2 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

PROJECT AREA

The Big Thorne project area is located in Southeast Alaska on Prince of Wales Island, 

around the community of Thorne Bay and south of Coffman Cove (Figure 1) and covers 

approximately 232,000 acres of lands, including about 14,000 acres of State and private 

lands (non-NFS) and 218,000 acres of NFS lands. Three land use designations (LUDs) 

comprise 84 percent of the project area; these consist of Old-Growth Habitat, Timber 

Production, and Modified Landscape, in descending order of abundance. The Scenic 

River LUD along the Thorne River-Hatchery Creek system also comprises significant 

acreage. The remaining LUDs consist of Scenic Viewshed, Recreational River, Research 

Natural Area, and miscellaneous small acreages. Combined, the three primary timber 

management LUDs (Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed) 

comprises about 124,000 of the 218,000 acres of NFS lands in the project area. A fairly 

extensive road system already exists and an operating medium-sized sawmill exists on the 

island along with numerous small mills. 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 3

Figure 1. Project Area and Vicinity Map
Record of Decision

4 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

DECISION

This ROD documents my decision to implement Alternative 3 from the Big Thorne Final 

EIS, with modifications; 

In making my decision I considered:

• The 2008 Forest Plan and responding to the Tongass Adaptive Management 

Strategy.

• How this project will assist with the transition to young growth management on 

the Tongass National Forest.

• Meeting the purpose and need for this project.

• The need to provide an economic timber offering that will contribute to the annual 

market demand for Tongass National Forest timber.

• Maintaining and enhancing local timber processing capacity while providing 

diverse opportunities for natural resource employment.

• Public comments received for this project regarding issues such as wildlife habitat,

subsistence, cumulative watershed effects, and economics.

• The relative effects and outputs of the No Action Alternative and all four action 

alternatives, discussed in the FEIS.

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

The Selected Alternative includes harvesting approximately 148.9 MMBF of timber on 

about 6,186 acres of old growth using conventional and helicopter yarding systems and 

thinning about 2,299 acres of young growth using conventional yarding systems. The oldgrowth silvicultural prescriptions include up to 3,763 acres of even-aged management 

(clearcutting) and 2,424 acres of uneven-aged management (50 to 75 percent retention). 

The old-growth harvest will include approximately 842 acres in Phase 2 lands of the 

Tongass Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy (USDA Forest Service 

2008b), which will be reserved for small timber sales. Design features for timber harvest 

units in this decision are described in detail on the unit cards in Appendix 1 of this ROD.

Road construction includes approximately 46 miles of new road (10 miles of new NFS 

road and 36 miles of temporary road). Approximately 36.6 miles of existing NFS road 

will be reconstructed. Approximately 32 acres of rock quarries will be developed for road 

construction and reconstruction. The Road Management Objectives (RMOs) for ongoing 

maintenance and design features of new NFS roads and existing NFS roads to be 

reconstructed for this decision are described in detail on the road cards in Appendix 2 of 

the ROD. Temporary roads are shown on the unit cards, in Appendix 1. If needed, log 

transfer facilities (LTFs) may be used to transport the timber from Prince of Wales Island 

to other locations using barging and/or rafting as the permit allows. 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 5

MODIFICATIONS FOR THE SELECTED 

ALTERNATIVE

I am making the following modifications to Alternative 3 as described in the FEIS in this 

decision: 

• To improve economics, all units to be yarded by helicopter will be implemented 

with uneven-aged management silvicultural systems. The amount of prescribed 

retention will be 50 percent of the original basal area except for units prone to high 

wind disturbance which will have 75 percent retention. Effects to biodiversity 

would be expected to be lessened under uneven-aged harvest prescriptions, which 

leave some portion of the trees standing in a unit. Alternatives that include the 

more uneven-aged harvest are expected to maintain more biodiversity and retain 

more old-growth characteristics across the landscape than units harvested using 

even-aged systems. Although uneven-aged prescriptions maintain more forest 

structure and biodiversity within harvested stands, these areas may not reduce the 

current and potential future damage to the stand through removal of insects, 

diseases, and decaying trees as effectively as even-aged harvest. Where unevenaged management is prescribed in place of even-aged management, growing space 

is limited by the retention of overstory trees. Natural regeneration should occur in 

the stand in satisfactory amounts; however, the limited openings in the canopy 

combined with the low ground disturbance of helicopter yarding may favor 

hemlock regeneration and may limit the regeneration of the cedars and spruce. The 

uneven-aged prescriptions offset this by retaining spruce and cedar advanced 

regeneration. Based on the amount of POG selected for harvest, the amount of 

even-aged harvest, and increases in the number of POG patches, effects to 

biodiversity would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 

4, and 1. The effects to biodiversity for the Selected Alternative are between 

Alternative 3 and Alternative 2. 

• In response to the comments requesting road closures to help maintain wolf 

sustainability, I have conferred with a group of interagency wildlife biologists. 

They advised me that it would be better to focus road closures within or 

immediately adjacent to the Honker Divide large OGR which provides a core area 

of secure habitat for area wolf packs. Therefore I have decided to seasonally close 

the following existing roads in Table ROD-1 during wolf trapping/hunting season 

(December 1 to May 1) to reduce the vulnerability of wolves inhabiting this area. 

The roads will be open the rest of the year for public access.
Record of Decision

6 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Table ROD-1. Roads to be Seasonally Gated for Wolf Habitat

3030700

3030750

3035190

3035050

3030850

3030860

3000348

3000346

3000347

3000340

• I have selected alternative locations for small old-growth reserves for VCUs 5790, 

5800, 5810, 5820, 5830, 5850, and 5950 as described in more detail below. These 

modifications resulted in a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan which is 

described in detail in Appendix 3 of this ROD. 

• I have decided to not modify the OGR boundaries as depicted in Alternative 3 for 

VCUs 5840, 5860, 5960 and 5972. This will maintain current connectivity, large 

blocks of POG, low elevation POG, deep snow deer and marten habitat and 

potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat. 

• The Selected Alternative modifies the OGR in VCU 5790 by allowing a small, 5-

acre harvest setting/unit while retaining the westernmost block of POG within the 

OGR. This westernmost block of POG is considered a key element of the corridor 

that this small OGR was designed to protect. This block of POG provides a 

connection to the Honker large OGR complex through the complex of small OGRs 

in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 to the coast and its retention within the OGR 

allows for a comparable achievement of the characteristics sought in an OGR thus 

maintaining connectivity and providing a comparable achievement. 

• Modifications in VCU 5800 maintain the purpose and rationale of maintaining 

OGR protection for the wildlife migration corridor through a low elevation river 

drainage that connects the Honker Large OGR to the coastline through the current 

Small OGRs in VCUs 5800 and 5840 and important winter habitat in the valley 

bottom. Therefore it is determined that the proposed modification does provide a 

comparable achievement. 

• The proposed modification in VCU 5810 makes no changes to the South OGR. 

The north OGR contains about 1,560 acres, of which about 608 acres is POG. In 

2000, under a previous decision changes were made to the OGR that resulted in 

reduction of POG below the Forest Plan requirement. Although on the surface this 

appears to be inconsistent with the Forest Plan, legacy acres and stream buffers 

among these units and extending to the existing OGR maintain some elevation 

travel corridors for wildlife. In addition, the Selected Alternative makes no 

changes to the south OGR which contains 2,188 acres, including about 1,421 acres 

of POG, which will continue to meet the goals and objectives of the Old Growth 

Habitat LUD and fulfill habitat conservation and timber harvest objectives. 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 7

Therefore it is determined that the proposed modification does provide a 

comparable achievement. 

• The modification in VCU 5830 drops all of the old growth units that were in the 

OGR. However the boundary of this OGR is modified as a result of reassigning 

acres that were a part of this OGR but previously mapped in VCU 5820 to the 

OGR in VCU 5820. To increase POG acres in this VCU (5830), acres were added 

along the northern VCU boundary as well as to the southeast portion of the OGR. 

The acres added in the southeast are some of the acres recommended by the 2011 

IRT. Dropping the old growth harvest units maintains the low elevation, high 

volume stands in the area and connectivity to the OGR in VCU 5820. There are 

two commercial thinning units within the modified OGR boundary. Treatments in 

the commercial thinning area will improve wildlife habitat in the area. These 

changes result in the OGR for the Selected Alternative providing a comparable 

achievement.

• The changes in VCU 5850 drops all units in the modified OGR except one, thus 

maintaining most of the high value, low elevation stands, and most of the 

remaining blocks of contiguous low elevation POG in this VCU. The one 

remaining unit is located on the west side of the Sandy Beach road. The coastline 

that provides important salmon, waterfowl, and black bear habitat and has 

documented high recreational use is maintained in the OGR for the Selected 

Alternative. Harvest of the unit remaining will result in a reduction of POG acres 

currently protected by the OGR. The unit itself is about 58 acres and part of those 

acres are single tree selection. It is determined that the OGR in the Selected 

Alternative will provide a comparable achievement.

• The change in VCU 5950 includes all harvest units within the modified OGR. The 

2011 IRT was not opposed to the proposed units in the roaded OGR land base 

along the northern portion of the OGR. There was some discussion on the effects 

of the proposed units in this area severing the connection to the Honker complex to 

the north; however this connection is already severed by the State land selection in 

this area. The modification adds the high-elevation acres along the west side of the 

OGR and will provide comparable achievement of Old-growth LUD goals and 

objectives.

• In response to concerns that we would not be meeting the Old-growth Habitat 

LUD goals and objectives. I have decided to drop the following units from OGRs. 

The LUD modifications associated with the changes to OGRs in the Selected 

Alternative are displayed in the ROD map in the map packet of the FEIS. The net 

change in the area of Old-growth Habitat LUD within the project area will be an 

increase of about 645 acres. Mapped Suitable Timber acres increase by about 543 

acres.
Record of Decision

8 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Table ROD-2. Harvest Units Dropped from Alternative 3

VCU Units

5810 464, 465, 466, 473,475,476, south piece 470

5820 461*, 463, 212, 213

5830 460, 461*

5840 452, 454, 455, 456, 457

5850 435

5860 426,427,428,429,430,431,433,434

5800 439, 446, 448, 450, 447**

5790 424

5972 413, 414,419,420,421,422,423

5950 None

5960 No change to OGR

*461 is in VCUs 5820 and 5830

** Half of the unit in the OGR is dropped and the other half in TM LUD will be kept.

• Most new and reconstructed NFS system roads for this project (that are designated 

to be stored) will remain open for one to five years after the timber contracts close 

to allow for public use and salvage opportunities. At the time of road storage, any 

“red pipes” that do not maintain fish passage through them at all flows on the 

reconstructed roads will be removed. Due to the resource concerns listed below I 

have decided that the following list of roads (Table ROD-3) will not remain open 

for one to five years after the timber contract closes but will be closed as soon as 

possible.
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 9

Table ROD-3. Roads That Will Be Stored As Soon As Possible after the Timber Contract 

Closes

Road 

Number

Reconstruction 

/ New 

Construction

Red 

pipe Concern or Rationale

3000301 Reconstruction No Wildlife concerns, road is in an Old growth Reserve, 

Watershed concerns

3000303 Reconstruction No Wildlife concerns, road is in an Old growth Reserve

3015000 Reconstruction No Wildlife concerns, minimize human disturbance due to 

wolves, connectivity; scenery/recreation concerns

3015200 Reconstruction No

Wildlife concerns, proximity to Honker Divide OGR and 

importance to wolves; scenery/recreation concerns, 

proximity to Scenic River corridor and Snakey Lakes

3015230 Reconstruction No

Wildlife concerns, proximity to Honker OGR and 

importance to wolves; scenery/recreation concerns, 

proximity to Scenic River corridor, Snakey Lakes

3015700 Reconstruction No

Wildlife concerns, minimize human disturbance due to 

wolves, connectivity; scenery/recreation concerns, maintain 

unroaded character

3016400 Reconstruction No Wildlife concerns, proximity to Honker OGR and 

importance to wolves

3023535 Reconstruction No Wildlife concerns, minimize human disturbance, 

connectivity

3012200 Reconstruction Yes Red pipe (MP 0.14) needs to be removed or replaced 

(moderate priority based on habitat and other factors)

3012210 Reconstruction Yes Red pipe (MP 0.76) needs to be removed or replaced (low 

priority based on habitat and other factors)

3017300 Reconstruction Yes Red pipe (MP 0.02) needs to be removed or replaced (low 

priority based on habitat and other factors)

3017350 Reconstruction No Riparian concerns, higher risk of riparian impacts

3018100 Reconstruction Yes

Red pipe (MP 0.89) needs to be removed or replaced 

(moderate priority based on habitat and other factors), 

Watershed concerns, Deer Creek 3.2 to 3.5% basin as roads, 

Salamander 2.9 to 3.2% basin as roads, Slide Creek 2.8 to 

2.9% basin as roads

3018110 Reconstruction Yes

Red pipe (MP 0.47) needs to be removed or replaced 

(moderate priority based on habitat) and red pipe (MP 0.55) 

needs to be removed or replaced (moderately high priority 

based on habitat and other factors), Watershed concerns, 

Deer Creek 3.2 to 3.5% basin as roads, Salamander 2.9 to 

3.2% basin as roads, Slide Creek 2.8 to 2.9% basin as roads

3018250 Reconstruction Yes

Red pipe (MP 0.08) needs to be removed or replaced (high 

priority based on habitat and other factors), Watershed 

concerns, Slide Creek 2.9% basin as roads

3023530 Reconstruction Yes

Red pipe (MP 0.29) needs to be removed or replaced (high 

priority based on habitat and other factors); wildlife 

concerns, minimize human disturbance, connectivity; 
Record of Decision

10 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

riparian concerns, higher risk of riparian impacts

3030100 Reconstruction Yes

Red pipe (MP 1.53) needs to be removed or replaced 

(moderately high priority based on habitat and other 

factors). Recreational access to Eagle Creek corridor.

3000301 New 

Construction No Wildlife concerns, part of road is in an Old growth Reserve, Watershed concerns, Ratz Harbor 2.6 to 3% basin as roads

3013154 New 

Construction No Wildlife concerns, near wolf den; recreation concerns, near Angel Lake

3015240 New 

Construction No

Wildlife concerns, proximity to Honker Divide OGR and 

importance to wolves; scenery/recreation concerns, 

proximity to Scenic River corridor

3015241 New 

Construction No

Wildlife concerns, proximity to Honker Divide OGR and 

importance to wolves; scenery/recreation concerns, 

proximity to Scenic River corridor

3016450 New 

Construction No

Wildlife concerns, proximity to Honker Divide OGR and 

importance to wolves; scenery/recreation concerns, 

proximity to Scenic River corridor

• In response to concerns about the effects to sensitive plants I have decided to 

implement a botany monitoring plan that is part of this decision. If any previously 

undiscovered sensitive plants are encountered at any time prior to or during 

implementation of this project, the Forest Service botanist/ecologist shall be 

notified. Following review of the population, avoidance measures or mitigation 

measures may be applied. The Big Thorne Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for 

Rare and Sensitive Plants is recommended for this project, and includes efforts to 

ensure that the mitigation measures are carried through project implementation, 

and to provide information on the direct and indirect effects of harvest on this 

species. The project level monitoring will be done in conjunction with the 

ongoing Forest-wide pilot project to provide additional information of the species 

and population change. This Monitoring and Evaluation Plan has been developed 

to address the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Plants in order to review 

the implementation, effectiveness of conservation actions, and apply adaptive 

management principles in the future. 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

In making my decision, I considered the objectives to meet the purpose and need for this 

project as well as the issues and concerns that arose during scoping and comments on the 

DEIS, both in support and opposition of this project. I considered Forest Plan direction 

relevant to this project and the competing interests and values of the public. I considered 

all viewpoints and incorporated them where feasible and consistent with the purpose and 

need of the project. I evaluated the trade-off between resource protection and social 

values. The Selected Alternative provides a beneficial mix of resources for the public, 

within a framework of existing laws, regulations, policies, public needs and desires, and 

the capabilities of the land, while meeting the stated purpose and need for this project. My 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 11

decision to implement the Selected Alternative conforms to the Forest Plan and National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA).

I considered the need to manage this timber resource on the Tongass National Forest in 

order to produce an even-flow of sawtimber and other wood products. Appendix A of the 

Big Thorne Project Final EIS describes the process that maintains a steady supply of 

timber and how each project goes through a series of steps before timber can be offered 

from the National Forest. I considered the concerns for providing economical timber sale 

offerings and the need to seek to meet annual demand for timber. This decision provides 

148.9 MMBF of timber volume for the timber industry.

The financial efficiency of the Selected Alternative shows this alternative as being 

positive. The Selected Alternative provides support for a projected 600-689 direct 

annualized jobs and opportunities for a variety of sale sizes appealing to small local 

operators as well as larger operators in Southeast.

New and reconstructed system roads will be closed and placed in storage as described in 

the road cards, and all temporary roads will be decommissioned after the completion of 

timber harvest activities. This decision includes gating 15 miles of road to provide a 

seasonal motorized vehicle closure during the wolf hunting/trapping season (December 1 

to May 1). This will affect wolf trappers and subsistence users but will provide better 

habitat security for wolves.

I acknowledge that implementation of the Selected Alternative will result in localized; 

short-term increases in sediment delivery and subsequent turbidity in streams from road 

construction and maintenance activities. However, these will be short-term and within the 

guidelines of the State water quality standards. Implementation of Best Management 

Practices will assure that water quality and fish habitat will not be impaired. I have 

incorporated scheduling of road storage and harvest activities in the Selected Alternative 

to minimize cumulative watershed effects.

I am aware that Prince of Wales Island residents use the project area for subsistence deer 

hunting. Many comments were received during scoping and during the comment period 

for the DEIS that demonstrate public concern for not only subsistence use in the project 

area and related access, but the effects of further harvest in the project area to deer habitat. 

In making my decision; I have weighed the need for access against the need for resource 

protection and Table ROD-3 lists the roads that need to be closed as soon as possible to 

protect the different resources.

I have considered the need of expanded access for resources such as firewood and to 

facilitate short-term forest management activities, such as non-commercial thinning and 

microsales. Therefore, I have identified about 15 miles of road (see road cards for road 

specific information) that will be left open for up to five years after contractual harvest 

activities have been completed.

Collectively, new roads associated with the Big Thorne Project, in addition to those 

resulting from other projects, will temporarily improve access and reduce competition. 

The Selected Alternative will implement the Prince of Wales Island ATM, under which 

additional road closures will occur as funding allows, reducing access to subsistence 

resources over the long term (USDA Forest Service 2009a).
Record of Decision

12 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 

2008b) concluded that the “deer habitat capabilities in areas of the Tongass with heavier 

timber harvest may not be adequate to sustain current and future deer harvest levels, and 

that increased competition for deer harvest may cause a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction in the future.” The cumulative effects analysis in the 2008 Forest 

Plan Final EIS concluded that full implementation of the Forest Plan may result in a 

significant restriction to subsistence use of deer due to the potential effects of projects on 

the abundance and distribution of this resource, and on competition for this resource 

(USDA Forest Service 2008b). I have determined that, in combination with other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, this decision (if implemented through 

project-level decisions and actions) may result in a significant restriction of subsistence 

uses of deer, due to potential effects on abundance and distribution, and on competition. 

This determination is based on the analysis completed for the Big Thorne FEIS 

alternatives and an increase in subsistence activities, and the capability of the habitat to 

produce deer.

Under all alternatives, hunter success would be expected to remain high in WAA 1319, 

decline in WAA 1318, and be directly or indirectly reduced through harvest restrictions or 

difficulty obtaining deer in WAAs 1315 and 1420 at project completion and stem 

exclusion (FEIS Tables WLD-38).

Commercial thinning will improve deer habitat by extending the period during which 

forage is available in the stands. Over time, these actions will increase deer habitat 

capability, and therefore potentially the abundance and distribution of deer available to 

hunters. An Interagency wildlife biologist group has identified some possible areas (more 

details on which areas and the prescriptions are in the project record) near Thorne Bay and 

Coffman Cove where the commercial thinning may improve the deer habitat near those 

communities. To the extent possible I have modified thinning prescriptions to improve 

deer habitat in those areas. This will not create a large change in the Big Thorne project 

area for deer habitat but I believe it will make a small improvement. Improvements in deer 

habitat capability may also reduce necessity for hunting restrictions.

Section 810 of ANILCA requires the Forest Service, in determining whether to withdraw, 

reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of NFS lands in 

Alaska, to evaluate the potential effects on subsistence uses and needs, followed by 

specific notice and determination procedures should there be a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction of subsistence uses. Section 811 of ANILCA requires that rural 

residents engaged in subsistence uses have reasonable access to subsistence resources on 

public lands. The road system within the Big Thorne project area will continue to provide 

rural residents with reasonable access for subsistence uses. The Environmental 

Assessment for the Prince of Wales Access Travel Management (ATM) Plan analyzed 

access for subsistence use on Prince of Wales Island. The decision for the road 

management objectives for the existing roads on Prince of Wales Island and surrounding 

islands was based on this analysis. 

I considered the effects on wildlife habitat by looking at the reduction of productive old 

growth (POG) which impacts habitat connectivity. The Selected Alternative will reduce 

the levels of POG, at all elevations, to 49 percent of the original condition (1954) for the 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province. Uneven-aged prescriptions (50 to 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 13

75 percent retention) have been prescribed in many units in order to maintain structural 

diversity. By retaining a large percentage of the stand, connectivity and other habitat 

values will be maintained in these units. Although volume class will change, these 

prescriptions are not expected to remove all the POG characteristics. Where 75 percent 

retention is prescribed, it is expected that the structural change post-harvest will be only 

minor and the stand will remain in the old-growth structural stage after harvest and into 

the future. 

The Big Thorne ROD and FEIS include modifications to relocate the small OGRs within 

the 2001 Roadless Rule inventoried roadless areas. The purpose is to allocate the portions 

of the current OGRs that contain existing roads and past harvest units to development 

LUDs where timber harvest is allowed. The portions of existing OGRs that were relocated 

under the ROD are reallocated to Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic 

Viewshed LUDs, based on the adjacent LUDs and Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use 

Areas to address scenery concerns. Where necessary, the acres that are allocated from the 

OGRs into development LUDs have been replaced with acres from the Roadless areas. 

The proposed OGR modifications in the Selected Alternative provide a comparable 

achievement of the goals and objectives for the Old Growth Habitat LUD by maintaining 

areas of old-growth forests and their associated natural ecological processes to provide 

habitat for old-growth associated resources. All proposed OGRs maintain areas of old 

growth forests by meeting, or exceeding, the Forest Plan standard and guideline 

requirement of being 16 percent of the Forest Land in the VCU and half of the 16 percent 

being POG acres. By meeting or exceeding the acre requirements the proposed OGRs also 

maintain the objectives of the Old growth habitat LUD by providing old-growth forest 

habitats, in combination with other LUDs, to maintain viable populations of native and 

desired non-native fish and wildlife species and subspecies that may be closely associated 

with old-growth forests; the proposed OGRs contribute to the habitat capability of fish and 

wildlife resources to support sustainable human subsistence and recreational uses by 

including habitats such as Class I fish streams, important deer winter range and low 

elevation POG areas especially along the beach and in estuaries; again the proposed OGRs 

maintain components of flora and fauna biodiversity and ecological processes associated 

with old-growth forests by containing the minimum total acres as well as POG acres and 

areas of rare features such as large tree POG; and the proposed OGRs will allow existing 

natural or previously harvested early seral conifer stands to evolve naturally to old-growth 

forest habitats, or apply silvicultural treatments that accelerate forest succession to achieve 

old-growth forest structural features. The proposed OGRs also generally reduce the 

amount of road included in the OGR. 

Due to the considerable overstory that will remain in the 50 and 75 percent retention 

areas, the brushy stage of stand development seen after even-aged harvesting will

generally not occur. The stem exclusion stage is not expected to occur to the same 

magnitude seen in even-age stands either. Review of the single tree selection harvest 

completed under the Logjam ROD supports this assumption (see STS Review files in 

project record).

After harvest in the 50 percent retention units, the stands will continue to develop and 

should regain old-growth characteristics quickly. As noted above, 75 percent retention 

units are expected to maintain old-growth structure.
Record of Decision

14 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

I considered the wildlife Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and legacy forest structure 

(see the Introduction to Unit Cards in Appendix 1 for an explanation of legacy forest 

structure) is incorporated into harvest units greater than 20 acres in VCUs 5790, 5810, 

5830, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972. Legacy shown on the unit card maps may be modified 

slightly to best meet objectives during layout. The planned purpose of the legacy and the 

amount of legacy needed for the planned acres is discussed in the unit card text. Any 

changes in the planned location of the legacy will be considered during the change 

analysis process. 

The analysis disclosed the effects of climate change on the project and the project on 

climate change, including the near-term effects of the action alternatives and I weighed 

those effects among the other resource considerations. The FEIS identified the difficulties 

in assessing those affects at the project scale, largely due to the level of uncertainty. The 

Forest Plan outlines the considerable uncertainty concerning specific predictions of how 

the climate may change, and even more uncertainty regarding the effects of climate 

change on the resources of the Tongass National Forest. The Tongass National Forest will 

continue to monitor potential effects of climate change through the existing Forest Plan 

monitoring programs, and other studies that are happening regionally and nationally. Any 

need for a different course of action that might affect this decision will be addressed 

through existing procedures to determine whether changes are warranted

The Selected Alternative does not include any harvest units or road building within the 

Inventoried Roadless Areas as described by the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

EFFECTS OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ON 

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Issue 1 – Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

The amount of timber available for sale from national forests and a stable supply affects 

local employment and revenues. This issue concerns both the financial efficiency and the 

salability of the project. It also relates to the potential support to local employment and 

revenues generated for communities in the local area. Project design affects the viability 

of sales and the ability to offer them. Optimizing volume and net return on timber harvest 

will provide for flexibility over the life of the project and the ability to offer economically 

viable timber sales across fluctuating market conditions. It is also critical to match the 

range in the size of sales offered to the range in sizes of industry operators. Operators 

need economical timber to stay in business and loss of those operators would have an 

adverse impact on local economies.

The Selected Alternative responds to this issue by providing 148.9 MMBF for harvest.

Once cleared by this decision, units from the Selected Alternative may be packaged and 

sold to a variety of different operators locally, throughout Southeast Alaska, and beyond, 

depending the market and demand at the time of purchase. 

All helicopter harvest will be modified as follows: harvest retention will be 50 percent 

except for wind prone units. Units that are in wind prone area will have retention of 75 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 15

percent. The modification to helicopter units from even-age management to uneven-aged 

management will improve economics and be less detrimental to wildlife habitat and may 

reduce the amount of firewood available to the public by having less utility volume hauled 

to landings.

Issue 2 – Old-Growth Habitat LUD Modifications

Two alternatives in the Big Thorne FEIS were developed and are evaluated that include 

modifications to Old-Growth Habitat LUD (OGR’s) modifications as a result of the 

Tongass no longer being exempt from the 2001 Roadless Rule. In Alternatives 3, changes 

were made to the OGRs to expand the suitable timber base on the roaded land base 

portions of the OGRs. In Alternative 4, changes were made to modify the reserves for the 

biologically preferred locations. Both sets of modifications may affect the amount and 

quality of wildlife habitat protected by the small OGRs, the amount and quality of suitable 

timber available in the project area, and the effects to other resources including fisheries, 

sensitive plants, scenery, and recreation. All modifications are limited to the small OGRs; 

no changes were proposed to medium or large OGRs. 

According to the Forest Plan Management Prescriptions for Old Growth Habitat LUD 

Standards and Guidelines (FP 3-62 WILD1 B.2), “Alternative reserves must provide 

comparable achievement of Old-growth Habitat LUD goals and objectives. 

Determination as to comparability must consider the criteria listed in Appendix K.” In 

addition to providing direction for when a Project-Level Review is required and how to 

conduct such a review; Appendix K criteria for Small OGR’s requires a review of 

Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Following this direction, I have determined that the 11 alternative reserves listed in the 

Selected Alternative comply with the Forest Plan standard, including that each provides a 

comparable achievement of the Old Growth Habitat LUD goals and objectives (Forest 

Plan, p. 3-57). I have followed the direction for project-level review as directed in 

Appendix K, and in doing so, considered the OGR criteria contained in Appendix K of the 

Forest Plan and Appendix D of the Forest Plan FEIS. As part of this review process, I 

considered the biologically preferred alternative (Alt 4) provided and discussed by the 

Interagency Review Team on June 2-3, 2011 and April 8, 2013. The “Interagency Old 

Growth Reserve Review Big Thorne Project” document dated April, 2013 documents the 

biologically preferred location for the OGRs as well as alternate locations. 

For three (3) of the eleven (11) alternative reserves (VCUs 5800, 5810 and 5850) I am 

aware that site specific conditions of the alternative reserve implemented by this decision 

will not provide physical conditions of kind and like quality to the existing condition of 

these small OGR’s as currently defined by the Forest Plan ROD, 2008. In these 3 

alternative reserves, the primary concerns are over elevational connectivity and the size of 

POG patches remaining in these Small Old Growth Reserves after changes are made. 

Despite changes in some important landscape features, their overall condition still meets 

the Forest Plan and satisfies the Conservation Strategy by meeting the criteria of 

Appendix K of the Forest Plan and Appendix D of the Forest Plan FEIS by maintaining 

important old growth habitat functions on the ground while providing increased capacity 

for harvest in an actively managed landscape. The importance of these changes is 

commensurate with the importance of this alternatives ability to provide a robust and 
Record of Decision

16 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

stable supply of timber upon which the transition of the existing timber industry from old 

growth to young growth is expected. These three alternative reserves also minimize road 

density of the OGR; an important feature for wolves as discussed in the FEIS. 

Analysis of each VCU is further provided in Appendix 3 of the ROD and a comparison of 

the criteria considered is listed in Table OGR-2 of the FEIS.

I have considered the effect of all 11 alternative reservations and specifically the three 

with which there are resource concerns. I have compared the landscape features between 

the existing condition and the alternative reserves at the scale of the VCU, and relative to 

the Purpose and Need of the project and have further considered the role of each of these 

OGR’s in the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy. I feel these effects and the process 

followed is a reasoned decision with very limited risk to old growth dependent species in 

the project area. 

VCU 5810

This VCU contains two separate, non-contiguous OGRs. The Forest Plan (Appendix K p. 

K-3) states that for very large, large and medium VCUs, generally larger than 10,000 

acres, the allocated old growth may be mapped in separate reserves as long as each 

reserve has a minimum of 800 acres of productive old growth. However, larger contiguous 

reserves are preferred to multiple smaller reserves. 

Selected Alternative: The north OGR contains about 1,560 acres of old growth habitat and 

about 608 acres of that is POG. 

The mapped reserve in the northern portion (1,560 acres) of this VCU includes 3 harvest 

units north of Forest Road 3030 road, units 469, 470, and 471. Although on the surface 

this appears to be inconsistent with the Forest Plan, legacy acres and stream buffers 

among these units and extending to the existing OGR maintain some elevation travel 

corridors for wildlife. 

In addition, the Selected Alternative makes no changes to the south OGR which contains 

2,188 acres of old growth habitat and 1,421 acres of POG, which will continue to meet the 

goals and objectives of the Old Growth Habitat LUD and fulfill habitat conservation and 

timber harvest objectives. 

Refer to Table OGR-2 of the FEIS for a detailed comparison of values changing between 

the existing OGR and the Modified OGR to be implemented with the Selected 

Alternative. 

VCU 5820

Selected Alternative: Retains the biologically preferred (IRT Recommended location) and 

re-organizes the accounting of acres within the VCU resulting in net change of acres or 

conservation measures. The decision reassigns acres that are currently mapped as part of 

the reserve in this VCU; but are presently accounted for as reserve acres in VCU 5830. 

Those acres will now be counted as reserved acres in this VCU (5820 resulting in a net 

increase of 386 acres of OGR. 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 17

VCU 5830

Selected Alternative: All of the old growth harvest units that were in this OGR previously 

displayed in the DEIS have been dropped. However, the boundary of this OGR has been 

modified as a result of reassigning acres that were a part of this OGR (in VCU 5830) but 

in VCU 5820 to the OGR in VCU 5820. Acres have been added to the OGR to meet 

minimum total acres and POG acre requirements. The proposed modifications will 

enhance wildlife habitat near Trumpeter Lake by improving forage availability and 

removing the stand for the stem exclusion phase for the duration of rotation.

VCU 5840

Selected Alternative: Maintains 2008 Forest Plan OGR which is also biologically 

preferred OGR.

VCU 5850

Selected Alternative: The Selected Alternative drops all units in the modified OGR except 

one, thus maintaining most of the high value, low elevation stands, and most of the 

remaining blocks of contiguous low elevation POG in this VCU. One of the larger blocks 

of POG remaining in the VCU is not included in the current, biologically preferred OGR. 

The one remaining harvest unit carried forward in the Selected Alternative is located on 

the west side of the Sandy Beach road. Harvest of the unit will result in a reduction of 

POG acres currently protected by the OGR. The coastline to the east of the road; the 

uneven age harvest of the partial unit; the limited size of the planned even-age opening in 

relationship to surrounding lands; and the ability of this VCU to meet the minimum 

requirements of Appendix K in the Forest Plan allows for the remaining old growth stands 

to provide the majority of conservation benefits in this modified reserve, while providing 

increased opportunity for timber management in a heavily managed and roaded landscape 

upon which timber management is being increasingly focused. 

VCU 5860

Selected Alternative: Maintains currently mapped and biologically preferred OGR that 

meets the goals and objectives of the Old Growth Habitat LUD.

VCU 5800

Selected Alternative: The Selected Alternative drops all of the units in the flatter valley 

bottom of this OGR, thus maintaining the purpose and rationale of maintaining OGR 

protection of the wildlife migration corridor through a low elevation river drainage that 

connects the Honker Large OGR to the coastline through the current Small OGRs in 

VCUs 5800 and 5840 and important winter habitat in the valley bottom. Additionally, the 

modified OGR maintains and protects more acres of POG than the current delineated 

OGR.
Record of Decision

18 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

There are two units in the modified OGR which will be harvesting using mostly single 

tree selection (both 50 percent retention and 75 percent retention); part of one unit is 

proposed for clearcut harvest. The net result is that clearcutting unit 440 will likely result 

in the loss of the elevation corridor in this area; however, partial harvest of unit 444 will 

likely maintain this elevational corridor to some extent. Given the mitigating factors 

associated with the partial harvest prescription of unit 444; the net increase in acres of Old 

Growth acres associated with the OGR in this VCU; the increase in Large Tree POG and 

the balance of all additions and deletions of other conservation functions in this landscape 

(See Table OGR-2); this modified OGR will still maintain the goals and objectives of the 

Old Growth Habitat LUD. 

VCU 5790

Selected Alternative: Moves 5 acres of OGR to harvest in unit 83. The Selected 

Alternative does not remove the westernmost block of POG (identified as a key element 

for connectivity in this area and one that the OGR was designed to protect) from the OGR. 

The modified OGR exceeds the minimum acre requirements from Appendix K, will 

continue to meet the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan Old Growth Habitat LUD and 

provides for increased harvest opportunities within the roaded landbase where the timber 

activities have recently been concentrated. 

VCU 5950

Selected Alternative: The Selected Alternative retains all harvest units within the modified 

OGR proposed in the FEIS. The net result is a further severing connection to the Honker 

complex to the north that is already severed by the State land selection in this area. While 

the Selected Alternative does not physically provide a comparable achievement between 

the proposed change and existing condition it does add high elevation acres on the west 

side of the VCU and thus provides a comparable achievement and meets the goals and 

objectives of the Old Growth Habitat LUD.

VCU 5960

VCU 5960 contains both large and small OGR acres. The Small OGR includes the area 

south of the paved highway and east of Control Lake. The rest of the OGR acres in this 

VCU are part of the Honker Large OGR complex.

Selected Alternative: Maintains currently mapped OGR thus providing a comparable 

achievement and meet the goals and objectives of the Old Growth Habitat LUD. 

VCU 5972

Selected Alternative: Maintains currently mapped OGR thus providing a comparable 

achievement and meet the goals and objectives of the Old Growth Habitat LUD.
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 19

The following table shows the changes by VCU from Alternative 3 for the Selected 

Alternative in the ROD.

Table ROD-4. Change To Harvest Units in OGRs

VCU Units Dropped from Alternative 3 Units remaining 

5810 464, 465, 466, 473,475,476, south piece 470 469, 470 and 471

5820 461*, 463, 212, 213 None

5830 460, 461* 560 and 561

5840 452, 454, 455, 456, 457 None

5850 435 438

5860 426,427,428,429,430,431,433,434 None

5800 439, 446, 448, 450, 447** 440 and 444

5790 424 83 (small piece)

5972 413, 414,419,420,421,422,423 None

5950 None 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, and 407

5960 No change to OGR N/A

*461 in in VCUs 5820 and 5830;

** half of the unit in the OGR is dropped, and the other half in TM LUD will be kept.

The modification of the Old-growth Habitat LUDs also impacts the amount of protection 

provided to rare and sensitive plants. The following table shows the changes in 

populations and individuals for the two plant species affected by the modifications.

Table ROD-5. Rare and Sensitive Plants within Old-Growth Reserves

Type Affected

Alternative 3 Selected Alternative

Lesser 

RoundLeaved

Orchid

Whiteflower 

Rein Orchid

Lesser 

RoundLeaved

Orchid

Whiteflower 

Rein Orchid

Populations within OGRs 23 9 22 12

Estimated Percentage of Known 

Populations within OGRs in the Project 

Area2/

19% 30% 18% 40%

Individuals within OGRs in the Project 

Area3/ 764 580 1045 673

Estimated Percentage of Known 

Individuals within OGRs in the Project 

Area 4/

19% 44% 26% 51%

In addition, due to the modifications to the Selected Alternative from Alternative 3, there 

is a decrease in the project activities and effects to lesser round-leaved orchid, a sensitive 

plant. This is a decrease in the number of direct and indirect effects to both populations 

and individuals. Similar to all action alternatives analyzed for this project the Selected 
Record of Decision

20 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Alternative may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The following 

table (Table ROD-7) shows the anticipated effects to populations and individuals. 

Table ROD-6. Direct and Indirect1/ Effects to Lesser Round-Leaved Orchid

Type Affected

Alternative 3 Selected Alternative

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Populations Affected 31 23 30 20

Estimated Percentage of Known Populations 

Potentially Affected in Project Area2/ 26% 23% 25% 17%

Individuals Affected3/ 276 622 235 381

Estimated Percentage of Known Individuals 

Potentially Affected in Project Area 4/ 7% 16% 6% 9%

1/ Populations potentially indirectly affected in the table include only those in addition to the ones directly affected to 

avoid double counting

2/ There are 120 known populations in the project area.

3/ Number of individuals estimated by multiplying the number of individuals identified in a population by the proportion 

of that population area within the direct or indirect effect zone (see Methods Section in the FEIS). 

4/ There are approximately 4,019 known individuals in the project area.

Issue 3 – Wildlife Habitat and Subsistence Use

Public and agency comments expressed concerns about wildlife and subsistence use in the 

project area. Concern was noted relative to deer, wolf, goshawk, black bear, marten, and 

other species. Of special concern are project effects on deer because of their importance 

to wolves and subsistence users. Because of its proximity to residents of Thorne Bay, 

Coffman Cove, Klawock, Craig, and Naukati, the Big Thorne project area is considered an 

important deer hunting area for these communities. The cumulative effects on old-growth 

habitat associated with additional harvest combined with past harvest and increasing road 

density were noted concerns. 

The Big Thorne EIS tiers to the analysis of cumulative effects at the Forest scale in the 

2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c). This analysis fully considered 

the levels of past and likely future harvest and associated development on NFS and nonNFS lands, accounting for projects such as Big Thorne. The 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS 

concluded that with full implementation of the Forest Plan, extensive areas in reserves, 

distributed across the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province, would be 

maintained through the conservation strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008c). No gaps in 

the distribution of organisms within the province were anticipated (USDA Forest Service 

2008c) however this determination was made with the existing OGRs. No IRT 

determination has been done for the Selected Alternative therefore under the Selected 

Alternative gaps in distribution may occur. The movement capabilities of organisms with 

low mobility may be limited, potentially resulting in gaps in distribution and a reduced 

likelihood of local population persistence. The Big Thorne EIS tiers to the viability 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 21

assessments for goshawks, marten, wolves, other terrestrial mammals (well-distributed 

mammals and endemic mammals), and marbled murrelets; and the analysis of cumulative 

effects at the Forest scale in the 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 

These analyses fully considered the levels of past and likely future harvest and associated 

development on NFS and non-NFS lands, accounting for projects such as Big Thorne. 

The 2008 Final EIS concluded that full implementation of the Forest Plan (in 100+ years) 

is expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood of maintaining habitat that supports 

viable and well-distributed populations of wildlife (USDA Forest Service 2008c).

BIODIVERSITY

The North Central Prince of Wales Island biogeographic province historically contained 

more POG than any other biogeographic province on the Tongass (Forest Plan 2008b). It 

has also experienced the highest amount of harvest relative to other biogeographic 

provinces, with 70 percent of the total original (1954) POG on all ownerships remaining, 

ranging from 40 to 100 percent by VCU (Table WLD-1 of the FEIS). There are 

approximately 569,005 acres of POG currently within the North Central Prince of Wales 

biogeographic province (Table WLD-1 of the FEIS). 

Low elevation, larger-tree stands have been disproportionately harvested on the Tongass 

because these highly productive and economical sites (i.e., those easiest to access) were 

targeted in the early years of commercial timber harvest (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Within the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province, approximately 62 

percent of the original high-volume POG (ranging from 18 to 100 percent by VCU) and 

63 percent of the original large-tree POG (ranging from 13 to 100 percent by VCU) on all 

ownerships remain (Table WLD-1 of the FEIS). The North Central Prince of Wales 

biogeographic province currently includes over 10 and 20 percent of all the remaining 

high-volume and large-tree POG on the Tongass, respectively (USDA Forest Service 

2008b). Based on the definition of an intact landscape used in the 2008 Forest Plan Final 

EIS, (a VCU with at least 95 percent of the original POG remaining), three project area 

VCUs (5750, 5820, and 5960) are intact, and thus likely to maintain a high degree of 

biodiversity. Although landscapes with higher amounts of past harvest likely remain fully 

functional, this threshold represents an index used to identify areas that are in relatively 

pristine conditions and thus have the highest biological importance. 

The Selected Alternative will reduce POG by 5,996 acres in the project area (for a total 

reduction of 38 percent of the 1954 amount). Uneven-aged management (50 to 75 percent 

retention) has been prescribed in many units in order to maintain structural diversity and 

for other reasons. By retaining a large percentage of the stand, connectivity will be 

maintained in these units. Although volume class will change, these prescriptions are not 

expected to take stands out of a POG classification. Where 75 percent retention is 

prescribed, it is expected that the structural change post-harvest will be only minor and the 

stand will remain in the old-growth structural stage after harvest and into the future. 

The patch size classes presented in Table WLD-2 (in the FEIS) represent fragmentation at 

multiple scales. Patches at the sub-stand and stand levels (i.e., the smallest size classes) 

represent scales of influence important to organisms such as lichens, fungi, plants, 

invertebrates, and small bodied mammals which may be locally endemic; occur in very 

specific forest structure or soil conditions; or have limited dispersal capabilities. Larger 
Record of Decision

22 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

patches represent scales of influence important to wider-ranging species such as deer, 

marten, and forest-dwelling birds of prey. 

Conclusion

The Selected Alternative will reduce the amount of POG on the landscape. The Selected 

Alternative results in a 6 percent reduction in POG in the project area from the current 

amount and a 38 percent reduction from 1954. At the Biogeographic province scale the 

Selected Alternative results in a 1 percent reduction from current POG acres and a 49 

percent reduction from 1954. The Selected Alternative results in a 7 percent reduction in 

HPOG in the project area from the current amount and a 47 percent reduction from 1954. 

At the Biogeographic province scale the Selected Alternative results in a 1 percent in 

reduction from current HPOG acres and a 59 percent reduction from 1954. The Selected 

Alternative results in a 7 percent reduction in large tree POG in the project area from the 

current amount and a 45 percent reduction from 1954. At the Biogeographic province 

scale the Selected Alternative results in a 1 percent in reduction from current large tree 

POG acres and a 57 percent reduction from 1954. 

Effects of POG harvest are expected to be less under uneven-aged management which 

leaves a substantial portion of the trees standing in a unit. The Selected Alternative 

proposes less even-aged management than was proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, so the 

effects from even-aged management will be less for the Selected Alternative.

The Selected Alternative will increase fragmentation by increasing the number of patches 

in the small size class and reducing interior forest acres. The number of patches in the 

smallest patch size class (0-25 acres) will increase from 308 (current) to 926 (after 

implementation), similar to Alternative 3. The changes in all other patch size classes in the 

Selected Alternative are very similar in all other alternatives.

Species with limited dispersal capabilities (i.e., flying squirrel) appear to be more sensitive 

to habitat loss and fragmentation than species with greater dispersal capabilities (i.e., 

goshawks; D’eon et al. 2002). 

The Big Thorne project will increase the number of VCUs where cumulative harvest is 

greater than 33 percent of the original total POG. In these VCUs, additional habitat loss 

and fragmentation could locally hinder the mobility of species with low dispersal 

capabilities (e.g., Prince of Wales flying squirrel). 

Of the three intact VCUs, all would remain intact after implementation of the Selected 

Alternative. 

FRAGMENTATION/CONNECTIVITY/CORRIDORS

During public scoping and based on local knowledge of the project area, some locales 

were identified as having past harvest and future alterations which could reduce natural 

connectivity and limit the ability of land-based species to disperse or migrate (Figure 

WLD-1 in the FEIS). (Note that these areas are identified in Figure WLD-1 as “probable” 

movement corridors, and were identified based on characteristics listed in wildlife 

standard and guideline WILD1.VI.A.2 Landscape Connectivity [USDA Forest Service 

2008a] including a visual assessment of remaining blocks of POG on the landscape.)

Effects to biodiversity are expected to be lessened using uneven-aged harvest; which leave 

some portion of the trees standing in a unit thereby maintaining some habitat suitability 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 23

and connectivity. Young-growth management could increase biodiversity in previously 

harvested stands. This should increase habitat suitability for old-growth associated species 

and improve landscape connectivity over the long-term. 

Indirectly, timber harvest and associated activities fragment and reduce the quality of 

remaining habitats. Edge effects such as changes in vegetation structure, plant and 

wildlife species composition, predation rates, and disturbance may occur, with some 

effects extending up to 1,640 feet (500 meters) from the forest edge (see the Biodiversity 

affected environment discussion for additional detail). Fragmentation may remove 

linkages between habitat patches, making it harder for some wildlife to move across the 

landscape. A continuously distributed population could become a series of small, 

subpopulations that rely on the ability of dispersing individuals of genetic interchange and 

recolonization in the event of local extirpation. Remaining habitat patches may become 

smaller and less suitable for species associated with interior forest conditions. It can be 

assumed that the alternatives that harvest the most POG and result in the greatest increases 

in the number of POG patches on the landscape will result in the greatest edge effects and 

have the greatest adverse effects to biodiversity.

Assuming the minimum travel distance for marten of 8 miles (13 km) reported by Flynn 

(1991 as cited in Flynn and Schumacher 2001) and that corridors through POG are 

optimal, small OGR modifications under the Selected Alternative will slightly reduce 

functional connectivity by slightly reducing the width of the OGR in VCU 5800 which 

provides connectivity between the Honker large OGR and the OGR in VCU 5840 to 

saltwater; and between the north small OGR in VCU 5810 and the small OGR in VCU 

5720; modification to the OGR in VCU 5950 will reduce the connectivity due to harvest 

units; OGR modifications in other VCUs will maintain the existing level of connectivity. 

The OGR modifications in the Selected Alternative will result in reducing the suitability 

of these areas for marten travel corridors. 

Based on the maximum reserve spacing suggested by Smith et al. (2011) of 0.6 mile (1 

km) for flying squirrels, the small OGR modifications under the Selected Alternative may 

slightly reduce functional connectivity among reserves in some VCUs. But it is likely to 

continue facilitating back-and-forth exchange between source populations in larger 

reserves and small OGRs.

Conclusion

The Selected Alternative will result in timber harvest in the vicinity of the areas identified 

as being important as travel corridors and areas important to connectivity. It will not 

affect the corridors in the Cutthroat drainage, Control Creek drainage, and the tributary to 

the North Thorne River near Thorne Lake, all of which are corridors associated with the 

Honker Divide, or in the Rio Roberts drainage. Uneven-aged prescriptions would maintain 

more forest structure within harvested stands and therefore is assumed to maintain the 

functioning of the corridor more than even-aged harvest. The Selected Alternative clear 

cut harvests fewer acres than what was proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3; single tree 

selection more acres than Alternatives 2 and 3 and add more helicopter single tree 

selection acres than Alternatives 2 and 3. 

The Selected Alternative will result in timber harvest within potential corridors, and the 

small OGR modifications under the Selected Alternative will reduce connectivity. The 
Record of Decision

24 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Selected Alternative will reduce connectivity along Luck Lake/Eagle, Ratz Harbor, Sal 

Creek, Clarence Strait Shoreline, Rio Beaver, Steelhead, and Rush Peak. This reduced 

connectivity may affect species such as the marten and flying squirrel.

The Forest Plan conservation strategy would continue to provide for extensive areas in 

reserves distributed across the province. In addition, within matrix lands the 

implementation of the Legacy Forest Structure and Riparian standards and guidelines, as 

well as the beach and estuary fringe, would maintain some travel ways, corridors, and 

connectivity.

WILDLIFE

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species whose response to land management 

activities can be used to predict the likely response of other species with similar habitat 

requirements (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2631.3). In accordance with the 1982 

Planning Regulations, 13 wildlife species were identified as MIS in the Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a). Of these, three wildlife species (brown bear, mountain 

goat, and red squirrel) do not occur in the project area. The Sitka Black-tailed deer and 

Alexander Archipelago wolf are summarized here.

DEER

Forest Plan standards and guidelines require the use of the most recent version of the 

interagency deer habitat capability model to assess impacts to deer habitat 

(WILD4.XIV.A.2; USDA Forest Service 2008a). The deer model takes into account 

snow depth (indicative of typical, moderate winter severity), elevation, aspect, and forest 

vegetation to provide a habitat suitability index (HSI) of habitat capability. High model 

scores represent features that are correlated with high value deer habitat. These features 

include closed canopy (based on volume class rather than canopy cover), low elevation 

south facing slopes, and average snow depth. Habitat capability values are used in this 

analysis to estimate changes that result from timber harvest, but do not reflect actual deer 

numbers. 

To compare alternatives, changes in habitat capability are presented in terms of units (deer 

habitat capability units or deer per square mile) and as a percent. Results from this 

modeling exercise are also used to evaluate impacts to wolves and subsistence resources. 

The Forest Service recently issued direction on the use of the deer model including 

required analyses and model assumptions for wolves and subsistence (USDA Forest 

Service 2011b). 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines require, where possible, the provision of sufficient 

deer habitat capability to first maintain sustainable wolf populations, and then to consider 

meeting estimated human deer harvest demands. This is generally considered to equate to 

the habitat capability to support a minimum of 18 deer per square mile (using habitat 

capability model outputs; USDA Forest Service 2008a). However, other factors (e.g., 

local knowledge of habitat conditions) are to be considered by the biologist, as well, rather 

than solely relying upon model outputs. 

Currently none of the project area WAAs supports 18 deer per square mile (FEIS Table 

WLD-5). This suggests that, based on modeled deer densities alone, the project area 

WAAs may not be capable of sustaining wolves without immigration from neighboring 

areas (see the Deer subsection in the FEIS for information on deer population trends 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 25

within GMU 2). However, this does not take into account the fact that wolves are highly 

mobile and move between WAAs and thus wolf packs may be supported by a number of 

adjacent WAAs (Person and Logan 2012); the potential benefits of young-growth 

management for deer habitat and road management for controlling hunter access; or the 

presence of the Honker Divide Large OGR complex (200,000+ acres) and the Karta 

Wilderness (about 40,000 acres) both adjacent to the project area. For example, wolves 

occupying the Honker Divide OGR also use areas of North and East Thorne River that are 

within the project area (Person 2001).

Conclusion

Over the long-term, reductions in habitat capability could reduce carrying capacity, or the 

numbers of deer an area is capable of supporting given the available resources. This could 

lead to a decline in the deer population, particularly following severe winters, if the 

demand for resources (e.g., food or habitat) exceeds that which is available. Uneven-aged 

would lessen reductions in habitat capabilities as both some cover and forage would be 

maintained in harvested stands. The Selected Alternative clear cut harvests fewer acres 

than what was proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3; single-tree-selection harvests more acres 

than Alternatives 2 and 3, and harvests more helicopter single-tree selection acres than 

Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Likewise, reductions in deer habitat capability over the long-term may reduce the access 

to and availability of deer to subsistence hunters. 

Cumulative past harvest activities have reduced deer habitat capability to between 55 and 

92 percent of the estimated capability in these WAAs in 1954 (FEIS Table WLD-21). 

Additional harvest on NFS and other lands would further reduce deer habitat capability.

Deer habitat capability would be reduced under all alternatives. Deep snow winter, 

average snow winter, and non-winter habitat would also be reduced under all action 

alternatives. Commercial thinning treatment would mitigate to some extent the effects of 

timber harvest by improving deer habitat.

Small OGR modifications under the Selected Alternative would also reduce inclusion of 

deer winter habitat and low-elevation POG (indicative of higher value habitat) in the 

reserve system. 

Reductions in habitat capability in combination with periodic severe winters may result in 

a local decline in the deer population, particularly given recent declines observed on 

Prince of Wales Island, which could limit the number of deer available to wolves and 

hunters. The 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c) predicts that with 

full implementation of the Forest Plan, WAAs 1315, 1318, 1319, and 1420 will retain 47, 

75, 64, and 40 percent of the historic (1954) habitat capability in 100+ years, respectively, 

on NFS lands. Predictions including non-NFS lands would likely be lower (USDA Forest 

Service 2008c). Regardless of the alternative chosen for the Big Thorne Project, 

management activities would retain habitat capability (taking only NFS lands into 

account) above these predicted levels in all WAAs at project completion and at stem 

exclusion (FEIS Table WLD-19). 

In response to the comments to help maintain wolf sustainability, I have conferred with a 

group of interagency wildlife biologists. This group recommended that treating older past 
Record of Decision

26 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

harvest areas near subsistence communities would have the most benefit. Several of the 

areas recommended by this group are already included in the Big Thorne EIS. 

WOLVES

Deer

Effects to wolves from reductions in deer habitat capability would occur under all 

alternatives (Table ROD -7 and ROD -8*). None of the project area WAAs alone 

provides a habitat capability of 18 deer per square mile, generally considered under the 

Forest Plan to be sufficient to maintain sustainable wolf populations and taking into 

account hunting. Additional, project-related effects to deer habitat capability under the 

action alternatives, and reductions due to forest succession in previously harvested stands, 

have the potential to reduce the prey base for wolves. Accordingly, there will be some 

reduction in the ability of project area WAAs to maintain a sustainable wolf population, 

based on deer habitat capability alone. 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 27

Table ROD-7. Effects of Timber Harvest on Deer Density by WAA (NFS Lands Only)

WAA Year Density or % 

Existing 

Condition Alt. 1 ROD

1315

1954 deer/mi2 28.3 -- 28.3

2013 deer/mi2 16.7 -- 16.7

% of 1954 59% --

2014 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 16.6 15.9

% reduction from 2013 -- 0% 96%

% of 1954 59% 56%

2040 at Stem Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 15.5 14.8

% reduction from 2013 -- -7% 95%

% of 1954 -- 55% 52%

1318

1954 deer/mi2 14.7 -- 14.7

2013 deer/mi2 13.6 -- 13.6

% of 1954 92% -- 92%

2014 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 13.5 12.9

% reduction from 2013 -- 0% -5%

% of 1954 -- 92% 88%

2040 at Stem Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 12.9 12.3

% reduction from 2013 -- -5% -9%

% of 1954 -- 88% 84%

1319

1954 deer/mi2 20.9 -- 20.9

2013 deer/mi2 16.0 -- 16.0

% of 1954 76% -- 76%

2014 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 15.9 15.0

% reduction from 2013 -- -1% -6%

% of 1954 76% 72%

2040 at Stem Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 15.3 14.4

% reduction from 2013 -- -4% -10%

% of 1954 -- 73% 69%

1420

1954 deer/mi2 21.5 -- 21.5

2013 deer/mi2 11.8 -- 11.8

% of 1954 55% -- 55%

2014 after 

Implementation deer/mi2 -- 11.8 11.1

2014 after 

Implementation

% reduction from 2013 -- 0% 94%

% of 1954 -- 55% 52%

2040 at Stem Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 10.5 9.9

% reduction from 2013 -- -11% -16%

% of 1954 -- 49% 46%

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Biogeographic 

Province (all 

WAAs)

1954 deer/mi2 24.28 -- 24.28

2013 deer/mi2 17.95 -- 17.95

% of 1954 59% -- 59%

2014 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 17.89 17.73

% reduction from 2013 -- -1% -1%

% of 1954 -- 74% 73%

2040 at Stem Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 17.36 17.23

% reduction from 2013 -- -4% -4%

% of 1954 -- 72% 71%
Record of Decision

28 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Table ROD -8. Cumulative Impacts to Deer Habitat Capability by WAA (All Lands)

WAA Year

Density or % 

of 1954 Existing Alt. 1 ROD

1315

1954 deer/mi2 15.9 -- 15.9

2013 deer/mi2 9.4 -- 9.4

% of 1954 59% -- 59%

2014 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 9.4 8.9

% of 1954 -- 59% 56%

2040 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 8.8 8.3

% of 1954 -- 55% 52%

1318

1954 deer/mi2 6.6 -- 6.6

2013 deer/mi2 6.1 -- 6.1

% of 1954 92% -- 92%

2014 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 6.1 5.8

% of 1954 -- 92% 88%

2040 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 5.8 5.5

% of 1954 -- 88% 84%

1319

1954 deer/mi2 20.7 -- 20.7

2013 deer/mi2 15,8 -- 15,8

% of 1954 76% -- 76%

2014 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 15.7 14.9

% of 1954 -- 76% 95%

2040 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 15.1 14.3

% of 1954 -- 73% 95%

1420

1954 deer/mi2 19.4 -- 19.4

2013 deer/mi2 10.5 -- 10.5

% of 1954 54% -- 54%

1420 (cont.) 2014 after 

Implementation deer/mi2 -- 10.5 9.9

% of 1954 -- 54% 51%

2040 at Stem 

Exclusion deer/mi2 -- 9.2 8.6

% of 1954 -- 48% XX

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Biogeographic 

Province (all 

WAAs)

1954 deer/mi2 19.8 -- 19.8

2013 deer/mi2 14.6 -- 14.6

% of 1954 74% -- 74%

2014 after 

Implementation deer/mi2 -- 14.5 14.4

% of 1954 -- 74% 73%

2040 at Stem 

Exclusion deer/mi2 -- 14.1 14.0

% of 1954 -- 71% 71%

Conclusion

The cumulative effects of the Selected Alternative associated with ongoing and future 

timber harvest on NFS and lands in other ownership result in an additional reduction of 

deer habitat capability. Collectively this has the potential to result in localized declines in 

the deer population, and thus the prey base for wolves. At project completion, none of the 

project area WAAs (all land ownerships included) would support 18 deer per square mile, 

though none of them do currently (FEIS Table WLD-26). Wolves are highly mobile 

within their territories and nearby WAAs with higher deer densities (e.g., WAAs 1323 and 

1332) would continue to support wolves in the vicinity of the project. 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 29

The 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c) predicts that with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan, WAAs 1315, 1318, 1319, and 1420 will retain 47, 75, 

64, and 40 percent of the historic (1954) habitat capability in 100+ years, respectively, on 

NFS lands. Predictions including non-NFS lands would likely be lower (USDA Forest 

Service 2008c). With the Selected Alternative for the Big Thorne Project, habitat 

capability (taking only NFS lands into account) would be retained above these predicted 

levels in all WAAs at project completion and at stem exclusion (FEIS Table WLD-19).

Roads

All action alternatives involve the construction of roads and will result in an increase in 

road density. While the roads associated with timber harvest may increase the risk of 

hunting and trapping related wolf mortality by increasing human access they should be 

examined in the context of the existing road system. New roads constructed in drainages 

with an extensive system of existing roads would be expected to have less of an increase 

on harvest-related mortality risk than new roads entering undisturbed areas which may 

provide new points of access for hunters and trappers. All proposed roads under the Big 

Thorne Project consist mainly of short segments with none of the roads accessing 

previously inaccessible areas. Such effects may be counteracted to some extent through 

additional road closures (Prince of Wales Island ATM); open roads would be expected to 

have a greater effect than roads that are closed (either through storage or 

decommissioning) following their use (Person and Russell 2008). However, Person and 

Logan (2012) modeled the effects of such closures and found them to have little influence 

on mortality risk. 

Existing road densities in WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1420 exceed the 1.5 mile per square 

mile (0.9 km per square km) threshold suggested by Person and Russell beyond which 

they found road density to have little additional effect on harvest rates. However, the 

Forest Service acknowledges that concern over wolf mortality rates still exists where road 

densities are at or above 1.5 miles per square mile. Harvest rates would potentially 

increase in WAA 1318 because current total road densities are below this threshold; 

however, increases under all alternatives would be 0.2 mile per square mile or less (FEIS 

Table WLD-25). The effects of roads on wolf mortality risk may be exacerbated in 

WAAs that have beach access (WAAs 1420 and 1315) used by hunters and trappers.

As a result of the road building associated with the Selected Alternative, the road density 

under 1,200 feet in elevation will increase (see Table ROD-4). The construction of roads 

will increase human access in the project area which may lead to an increased harvest of 

wolves. All temporary roads will be closed or decommissioned once timber harvest is 

complete. Most system roads (that are designated to be stored) will remain open for three 

to five years after the timber contract closes to allow for potential salvage and micro sales 

opportunities and subsistence opportunities. Public access will be allowed on these 

systems roads until they are stored. 

Conclusion

None of the project area WAAs alone provides a habitat capability of 18 deer per square 

mile, generally considered under the Forest Plan to be sufficient to maintain sustainable 

wolf populations and taking into account hunting. Additional, project-related effects to 

deer habitat capability under the action alternatives, and reductions due to forest 
Record of Decision

30 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

succession in previously harvested stands, have the potential to reduce the prey base for 

wolves. Accordingly, there will be some reduction in the ability of project area WAAs to 

maintain a sustainable wolf population, based on deer habitat capability alone. However, 

the Forest Plan standard and guideline was intended to apply at a broader scale. At the 

scale of the biogeographic province, the cumulative effect of all alternatives would be the 

maintenance of approximately 13.9 to 14.0 deer per square mile 25 years after harvest (at 

stem exclusion). The effects presented here for all alternatives are within the range 

disclosed by the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c), to which this 

analysis tiers. Thus, they are consistent with determinations made for subsistence and 

viability.

Some benefits to wolves in the project area would be provided indirectly (by improving 

habitat for deer) through young-growth management. With respect to road management

affecting wolf sustainability, the number of road miles within the Big Thorne project area 

is so high that there is little that can be accomplished to reduce risk of wolf mortality by 

closing a small number of roads. However, closing or seasonally gating roads that 

penetrate or are immediately adjacent to the Honker OGR is the most immediate and 

locally beneficial measure. I have decided to seasonally close roads during wolf hunting 

and trapping season (December 1 to May 1). The roads will be open the rest of the year 

for public access. Some of these roads would have been left open under the Prince of 

Wales Access and Travel Management Plan but will now be seasonally closed.

Roads to be Seasonally Gated for Wolf Habitat include the following roads: 3030700,

3030750, 3035190, 3035050, 3030850, 3030860, 3030860, 3000348, 3000346, 3000347, 

and 3000340.

Although wolf population viability has a high likelihood of being maintained, concerns 

have been expressed on wolf sustainability. These concerns are at a more localized scale 

than the viability concerns. The Forest Service is working with other Federal and State 

agencies to address these concerns. The interagency group will continue to evaluate 

measures such as development of season and harvest limit proposals for submission to 

ADFG Board of Game and Federal Subsistence Boards; and development of a wolf 

habitat management program, including road access management in conjunction with 

ADFG. The Forest Service will continue to work with ADFG and USFWS as part of a 

technical working group to fill information gaps and evaluate potential conservation 

measures identified by the group that initially met October 2011.

Issue 4 – Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Concern was expressed regarding the intensity of past harvest and road construction in the 

project area, and potential cumulative effects on watersheds and fish associated with 

additional harvest. The project area includes a number of streams with high fisheries 

value.

Cumulative effects of past and proposed harvest and existing and proposed roads in the 

Big Thorne project area may increase sedimentation and impact aquatic habitat. Past, 

present and future road construction, road maintenance, and road crossing construction all 

generate a level of disturbance and contribute sediment to project area streams. 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 31

The available data suggest that turbidity ranges in the affected subwatersheds are within 

ranges observed in unmanaged watersheds and subwatersheds and within the criteria 

established by the state. 

Riparian harvest occurred in all of the affected subwatersheds, except in the Doughnut, 

Luck Point, and North Sal subwatersheds prior to 1991, even along fish streams. Past 

riparian harvest could have resulted in stream temperature increases during warm weather, 

but recovery of at least deciduous (alder) shade has likely occurred in these harvested 

riparian areas. 

The lack of a predictive relationship between harvest and elevated stream temperatures on 

Prince of Wales Island, and implementation of riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, 

II, and III streams for any future harvests, suggests that stream temperature is not likely to 

be measurably affected by harvest activities.

Effects on streamflow in the North Big Salt Lake, North Kasaan Bay Frontage, and North 

Sal subwatersheds could be moderate; but it is unlikely that streamflow increases would 

be measurable. The Big Thorne Project alternatives are unlikely to increase peak flows in 

any of the other subwatersheds. Although cumulative harvest may result in moderate 

streamflow increases, this assumes harvest of NEPA-cleared units, proposed state lands, 

and Big Thorne Project alternatives would occur in the same year. This assumption is not 

correct because this harvest is likely to occur over many years (the Big Thorne Project 

may occur over 10 years). Because of this timeframe, subwatershed canopy cover in midaged harvest areas (those near 30 years since last harvest) would approach normal canopy 

cover, reducing effects on streamflow. Total cumulative harvest (without Big Thorne 

harvest) would be less than 20 percent of the basin area by 2015 in all subwatersheds, 

except the North Kasaan Bay Frontage, Pin, and Thorne Bay subwatersheds, which would 

not be less than 20 percent of the basin area until 2024, 2041, and 2017, respectively. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that streamflow increases associated with cumulative harvest 

would be measurable in any subwatersheds except possibly the North Kasaan Bay 

Frontage, Pin, and Thorne Bay subwatersheds. 

Rock sources will be examined for potential acid rock drainage (ARD) and questionable 

sources will not be used. In areas where full-bench construction is anticipated and the 

underlying bedrock (containing pyrite) may be mineralized, the Forest geologist will 

provide on-site inspection during excavation and construction to identify potential 

mineralized zones. If rock with potential for ARD is disturbed, mitigation will include 

lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential 

mineralized zones exposed during full bench construction. See the discussion of Water 

Quality in Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for a moredetailed discussion.

In order to minimize any effects of harvest on stream flow in the North Big Salt Lake 

(Steelhead Creek) subwatershed, annual harvest levels will be limited to ensure that less 

than 20 percent of the subwatershed is in previously harvested areas that are 30 years old 

or younger at any point in time. To do this, harvest will be limited as follows:

• Up to 151 acres can be harvested in 2015 and no harvest is allowed prior to 2015;
Record of Decision

32 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

• Up to 226 additional acres can be harvested in 2016 (plus any remainder from 

2015);

• Up to 114 additional acres can be harvested in 2017 (plus any remainder from 

2015 and 2016);

• Up to 171 additional acres can be harvested in 2018 (plus any remainder from 

2015, 2016, and 2017);

• No limitation in 2019 or later.

All temporary roads will be closed or decommissioned once timber harvest is complete. 

Most system roads (that are designated to be stored) will remain open for one to five years 

after the timber contract closes to allow for potential salvage and micro sales 

opportunities. Public access will be allowed on these systems roads until they are stored. 

At the time of road storage all “red pipes” on the road will be pulled. See Table ROD-3 

for a list of roads that will not remain open for one to five years and see the road cards for 

road specific information (if it will be open).

Errata

NFS Road 3023530 was washed out over the winter. This road accesses Units 167, 168, 

169, 177, 555, 556, 557 and 558. Until further analysis is completed there is no access to 

these units. 

NFS Road 3018125 is shown in the Unit Card maps as a proposed temporary road over 

decommissioned road bed accessing Unit 520. It is instead an existing system road. Due 

to a difference in databases there is no map for NFS Road 3018125, though there is the 

text road card.

NFS Road 3000140 is shown in the corporate database as a State of Alaska road, this is 

correct. NFS Road 3000140 was incorrectly shown as a Forest Service Road in the GIS 

layer that was used for the development of the alternative maps.

In June, an indication of a marbled murrelet nest was found in Unit 147. We are going to 

defer harvest in units 146 and 147 for the next two years to protect the marbled murrelet 

nest. A 600 foot buffer around the nest makes commercial logging infeasible. During the 

next two years we will monitor the nest for activity and the units may eventually be part of 

a small sale.

Other Environmental Consequences

All resources were evaluated for the effects of the Selected Alternative. Analyses of the 

effects on other resources for the Selected Alternative, including the cumulative effects 

with other projects, are summarized in the FEIS with additional information in the project 

record.
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 33

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Five alternatives were considered in detail in the EIS released for public comment. All 

alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1, respond to the purpose and need. All 

action alternatives respond to the issues identified in varying degrees as discussed in the 

Big Thorne Project Final EIS.

The Final EIS analyzed the following alternatives in detail:

Alternative 1 - No Action

This alternative proposed no new Forest Service timber harvest or road construction in the 

project area. It does not preclude timber harvest from other areas or from the project area 

in the future. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) 

require that a no action alternative be analyzed in every EIS.

This alternative represents the existing condition. It serves as a baseline for comparing the 

action alternatives for resources like wildlife habitat and soil disturbance. This alternative 

does not meet the purpose and need of supplying timber. If the need for timber production 

in the project area is not met, then timber would need to be supplied from other areas.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of this project and balances short-term timber 

supply/economic aspects (Issue 1) with the wildlife habitat/subsistence (Issue 3) and 

watershed issues (Issue 4). This alternative implements Forest Plan direction and works 

toward attaining its goals and achieving its objectives. It completely avoids harvest or 

road construction in inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed to better address the timber supply and economics issue 

(Issue 1). This alternative would provide the most timber volume of all alternatives 

considered in detail. Under this alternative, unit design is such that volume and economic 

efficiency are emphasized within Forest Plan constraints. Alternative 3 meets the purpose 

and need of this project, implements Forest Plan direction, and works toward attaining its 

goals and achieving its objectives. It completely avoids harvest or road construction in 

inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative 3 includes modifications to some of the small OGRs in the project area. These 

modifications relocate portions of the small OGRs to be within the 2001 Roadless Rule 

inventoried roadless areas as much as possible from the current locations where there are 

existing roads. These roaded portions of the existing OGRs would then be allocated to 

LUDs where timber harvest would be allowed: i.e., Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed (see Issue 2 in Chapter 1 of the FEIS). Determination of 

which LUD to allocate to each individual parcel is based on the adjacent LUDs and Visual 

Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas. In two cases, the current OGR exceeded the 

minimum acre requirements and acres were removed from the OGR and units were added 

to these acres with no replacement acres in roadless. The net change in the area of Old 
Record of Decision

34 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Growth Habitat LUD within the project area would be an increase of about 590 acres (+1

percent). Among the development LUDs, Timber Production would decrease by 2 

percent (1,104 acres), Modified Landscape would increase by 887 acres (+2 percent), and 

Scenic Viewshed would decrease by 372 acres (-8 percent) (FEIS Table OGR-1). 

Commercial thinning of older young-growth stands was incorporated into Alternative 3. 

This would provide more volume and respond to the emphasis on transitioning to younggrowth harvest. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 emphasizes the wildlife and subsistence issue (Issue 3), but also considers 

each of the other three issues. It emphasizes landscape connectivity and the protection of 

key wildlife travel corridors and minimizing impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife 

species, including wolves, goshawks, black bears, deer, and marten. Under this 

alternative, impacts to biodiversity and wildlife were minimized by selecting harvest 

methods and prescriptions that would have a lighter touch on the landscape (i.e., resulting 

in less old-growth removal and less road construction) and deferring or modifying 

boundaries of proposed units that could impact habitat connectivity or impact sensitive 

plant populations. Alternative 4 includes commercial thinning of older young-growth 

stands as a mechanism for achieving desired timber volumes while having the benefit of 

improving habitat quality in closed canopy stands. It completely avoids harvest or road 

construction in inventoried roadless areas. Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need of 

this project, implements Forest Plan direction, and works toward attaining its goals and 

achieving its objectives.

A component of this alternative is the incorporation of the biologically preferred location

for small OGRs in the project area as recommended by the interagency review team 

(including biologists from the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game). This resulted in portions of some small OGRs being 

allocated to a Modified Landscape or Timber Production Land Use Designation, as 

appropriate, based on the adjacent LUDs. The net change in the area of Old Growth 

Habitat LUD within the project area would be an increase of about 4,270 acres (+5 

percent). Among the development LUDs, Timber Production would decrease by 1,037 

acres (-2 percent), Modified Landscape would decrease by 2,590 acres (-4 percent), and 

Scenic Viewshed would decrease by 643 acres (-15percent) (FEIS Table OGR-1). 

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 addresses watershed effects (Issue 4) and other issues by minimizing road

construction, road-stream crossings, ground-based logging, and reducing harvest in 

watersheds with high levels of harvest within the past 30 years. Given these primary 

considerations, this alternative attempts to maximize timber supply. Alternative 5 

includes commercial thinning units in older young-growth stands where thinning could 

improve watershed function, benefit wildlife, and contribute to harvest volume.

Alternative 5 completely avoids harvest or road construction in inventoried roadless areas 

and does not adjust OGR boundaries. Alternative 5 meets the purpose and need of this 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 35

project, implements Forest Plan direction, and works toward attaining its goals and 

achieving its objectives. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would result in no environmental disturbance and 

is therefore the environmentally preferred alternative. Of the action alternatives, 

Alternative 4 is the environmentally preferred alternative for the project area. This 

alternative retains the most POG and retains the most connectivity, has the lowest increase 

in total road density, and would cause the least amount of soil disturbance.

Following is a table which compares the outputs and effects of the project alternatives, 

including the Selected Alternative. 

Table ROD-9. Alternative Comparison By Alternative

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 ROD

ISSUE 1: TIMBER SUPPLY AND TIMBER SALE ECONOMICS

Timber Volume Estimates (MMBF)

Sawlog (Net) Volume by Species

Sitka Spruce 0 26.0 42.2 22.2 28.0 35.5

Western Hemlock 0 53.0 76.5 37.8 50.6 65.8

Western Redcedar 0 18.6 26.1 10.0 15.9 22.0

Alaska Yellow-Cedar 0 7.4 10.0 4.8 6.2 8.1

Total Old Growth Sawlog Volume 0 105.0 139.8 62.6 88.6 116.3

Total Young Growth Sawlog 

Volume 0 0.0 15.0 12.3 12.1 15.0

Total Sawlog Volume 0 105.0 154.8 74.8 100.6 131.4

Total Utility Volume 0 16.1 20.9 9.6 13.4 17.5

Total Volume (Sawlog + Utility) 0 121.1 175.7 84.4 114.1 148.9

Acres of Harvest by Logging System and Prescription (acres)

Old-Growth (acres)

Shovel, Even-aged harvest 0 1,875 2,338 405 1,068 2,170

Shovel, Uneven-aged harvest 0 0 0 9 0 0

Shovel, Two-aged harvest 0 0 0 292 0 0

Cable, Even-aged harvest 0 1,341 1,763 305 627 1,593

Cable, Two-aged harvest 0 0 0 26 0 0

Helicopter, Even-aged harvest 0 699 836 272 758 0

Helicopter, Uneven-aged harvest 0 1,205 2,182 3,440 2,999 2,424

Helicopter, Two-aged harvest 0 0 0 8 0 0

 Subtotal Even-aged Harvest 0 3,915 4,938 982 2,453 3,763

 Subtotal Uneven-aged Harvest 0 1,205 2,182 3,449 2,999 2,424

 Subtotal Two-aged Harvest 0 0 0 327 0 0

Total Old Growth Harvest 0 5,121 7,120 4,757 5,452 6,186

Young-Growth (acres)

Cable, Uniform Thin 0 0 478 355 357 478

Cable, Strip Thin 0 0 1,131 891 899 1,131

Ground-based, Uniform Thin 0 0 691 642 594 691

Total Young Growth Thinning 0 0 2,299 1,888 1,850 2,299

Total Treated Acres 0 5,121 9,419 6,645 7,302 8,486
Record of Decision

36 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Table ROD-9 (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 ROD

ISSUE 1: TIMBER SUPPLY AND TIMBER SALE ECONOMICS (continued)

Miles of Road Construction and Reconstruction

New NFS Road 0 6.8 11.6 0.1 0.4 7.7

New NFS Road (Constructed on 

Decommissioned Road Grade) 0 1.5 2.3 0.1 0.4 2.3

New Temporary Road Construction 0 19.6 25.4 3.2 8.1 24.1

New Temporary Road (Constructed 

on Decommissioned Road Grade) 0 4.2 12.1 8.0 7.7 11.9

Total New Road Construction 0 32.1 51.4 11.5 16.6 46.1

Total Reconstruction of Stored 

(ML1) NFS Roads 0 18.1 36.7 19.3 17.5 36.6

Costs and Benefits

Logging Costs ($/MBF) 1/ $0 $240 $264 $318 $303 $247.26

Haul Cost ($/MBF) 2/ $0 $47 $51 $51 $49 $50.85

Road Construction/Maintenance 

Costs ($/MBF) 3/ $0 $55 $60 $33 $29 $63.07

Indicated Bid Value ($/MBF)5/ $0 $58.41 $17.01 ($13.35) $6.75 $23.77

Total Indicated Bid Value ($) $0 $6,130,78

7

$2,633,034 ($998,866) $679,628 $3,115,463

Jobs Related to Logging 4/5/6/ 0 237 350 169 227 297

Jobs Related to Sawmilling 4/5/6/ 0 121-261 181-348 87-155 118-221 154-348

Jobs Related to Transportation and 

Other Services 4/5/ 0 72-120 119-175 62-85 79-114 119-149

Total Annualized Direct Jobs4/5/6/ 0 478-570 706-816 341-386 459-527 600-689

Direct Income ($million) 6/ 0 25.1-26.9 37.0-39.1 17.9-18.8 24.1-25.4 $31.4 -

$36.2

ISSUE 2—OLD GROWTH HABITAT LUD

LUD Modifications (acres)

Change in Old Growth Habitat LUD 0 0 +590 +4,270 0 +645

Change in Development LUDs 0 0 -590 -4,270 0 -645

Change in Suitable Timber (acres)

Change in Mapped Suitable Timber 0 0 +1,174 -1,451 0 +543

Small OGR Modifications Metrics

# Small OGRs Consistent with Forest 

Plan Acreage Requirements

11 of 

11 11 of 11 11 of 11 11 of 11 11 of 11 11 of 11

Net change in POG in Small OGRs 

(acres) 0 0 -843 +2,029 0 +107

Sensitive/Rare Plants

% of Project Area Lesser Roundleaved Orchid Individuals and 

Whiteflower Rein Orchid Individuals 

within OGRs

40%/51

% 40%/51% 19%/44% 42%/59% 40%/51% 26% and 

51%
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 37

Table ROD-9 (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 ROD

ISSUE 3—WILDLIFE AND SUBSISTENCE USE

Acres of Productive Old Growth (POG) Remaining

Total POG

Acres Remaining in Project Area 98,654 93,692 91,748 94,027 93,383 92,658

% Change from Existing 0% -5% -7% -5% -5% -6%

% Change from1954 -34% -37% -39% -37% -38% -38%

Acres Remaining in North Central 

POW Biogeographic Province 569,005 564,043 562,098 564,378 563,734 563,008

% Change from Existing 0% -1% -1% -1% -1% -1%

% Change from 1954 -49% -49% -49% -49% -49% -49%

High-volume POG

Acres Remaining in Project Area 43,867 41,246 40,009 41,255 41,115 40,629

% Change from Existing 0% -6% -9% -6% -6% -7%

% Change from 1954 -42% -46% -48% -46% -46% -47%

Acres Remaining in North Central 

POW Biogeographic Province 248,324 245,703 244,456 245,712 245,571 245,086

% Change from Existing 0% -1% -2% -1% -1% -1%

% Change from 1954 -59% -59% -59% -59% -59% -59%

Large-tree POG

Acres Remaining in Project Area 22,116 20,733 20,122 20,836 20,742 20,543

% Change from Existing 0% -6% -9% -6% -6% -7%

% Change from 1954 -41% -45% -46% -44% -45% -45%

Acres Remaining in North Central 

POW Biogeographic Province 127,295 125,912 125,301 126,015 125,921 125,722

% Change from Existing 0% -1% -2% -1% -1% -1%

% Change from 1954 -57% -57% -57% -57% -57% -57%

Number of POG Patches Remaining by Size Category (in Project Area)

0-25 acres 308 838 923 716 811 926

26-100 acres 96 108 109 105 107 109

101-500 acres 35 36 38 38 37 37

500-1,000 acres 7 6 7 5 6 7

1,000+ acres 8 10 9 9 11 9

% change in total no. patches 0% +120% +139% +92% +114% +140%

Acres of POG in Remaining Patches by Size Category (all patches intersecting Project Area)

0-25 acres 3,039 3,653 3,756 3,350 3,529 3774

26-100 acres 4,726 5,384 5,497 5,153 5,268 5,451

101-500 acres 7,178 8,301 8,938 8,356 8,111 8,757

500-1,000 acres 4,812 4,457 5,276 3,592 4,279 5,292

1,000+ acres 82,604 76,189 72,991 78,567 77,113 73,799

% change in acres of interior forest 

habitat in project area 0% -7% -14% -7% -8% -10%

Deer Winter Habitat Capability Change at Project Completion & After 25 Years (% of 2013 

value/cumulative % change from 1954 value) NFS Land Only

WAA 1315 0%/-7% -4%/-11% -7%/-14% -4%/-11% -5%/-12% -5%/-44%

WAA 1318 0%/-5% -4%/-8% -5%/-9% -3%/-7% -4%/-8% -5%/-12%

WAA 1319 0%/-4% -5%/-9% -6%/-10% -5%/-9% -5%/-9% -6%/-28%

WAA 1420 0%/-11% -5%/-16% -9%/-20% -4%/-15% -5%/-16% -6%/-48%

North Central Prince of Wales 

Biogeographic Province -1%/-4% -1%/-4% -1%/-4% -1%/-4% -1%/-4% -1%/-27%
Record of Decision

38 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Table ROD-9 (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 ROD

ISSUE 3—WILDLIFE AND SUBSISTENCE USE (continued)

Deer Winter Habitat Capability Change at Project Completion & After 25 Years (% of 2013 

value/cumulative % change from 1954 value) All Lands

WAA 1315 -41%/-45% -44%/-47% -45%/-49% -43%/-47% -44%/-48% -11%/-48%

WAA 1318 -8%/-12% -11%/-15% -12%/-16% -11%/-14% -11%/-15% -9%/-16%

WAA 1319 -24%/-27% -27%/-30% -28%/-31% -27%/-30% -27%/-30% -10%-31%

WAA 1420 -46%/-52% -48%/-54% -51%/-57% -48%/-55% -49%/-55% -17%/-54%

North Central Prince of Wales 

Biogeographic Province -26%/-29% -27%/-29% -27%/-29% -27%/-29% -27%/-29% -4%/-29%

Acres of Deer Winter Range Harvest

Acres of deep-snow deer winter 

range harvest (WAAs 1315, 1318, 

1319, 1420)

0 1,537 2,385 1,319 1,613 1,798

% Change from Existing (by 

WAA) 0% -3% to -7% -6% to -13% -2% to -6% -3% to -7% -3% to -7%

% Change from 1954 (by WAA) -35% to -

69%

-39% to -

70%

-40% to -

73%

-39% to -

69%

-39% to -

71%

-40% to -

70%

Goshawk Habitat Harvest

Acres of POG & High Volume 

POG harvest 0/0 4,962/2,621 6,906/3,859 4,627/2,612 5,271/2,752 5,996 and 3,238

% Change from Existing (by 

VCU) 0% 0 to -15%/

0 to -22%

0 to -15%/

0 to -26%

0 to -16%/

0 to -29%

0 to -16%/

0 to -27%

-<1 to -23% 

/ -<1 to -

25%

% Change from 1954 (by VCU) 0 to -

61%/0 to -

82%

-1% to -

65%/-1 to -

84%

-4% to –

66%/-6% to 

-85%

0 to -67%/0 

to -83%

-3% to -

67%; -5% 

to -85%

-1% to -

66%/-1% to 

-85%

Marten Deep Snow Winter Habitat Harvest

Acres of harvest (WAAs 1315, 

1318, 1319, 1420) 0 1,537 2,385 1,319 1,613 1,798

% Change from Existing (by 

WAA) 0% -3% to -7% -6% to -13% -2% to -6% -3% to -7% -3% to -7%

% Change from 1954 (by WAA) -35% to -

69%

-39% to -

70%

-40% to -

73%

-39% to -

69%

-39% to -

71%

-40% to -

69%

Road Density by Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) Below 1,200 feet

Road density—Open & Closed 

Roads (NFS and non-NFS lands) 

WAA 1315

WAA 1318

WAA 1319

WAA 1420

2.7

2.4

1.6

2.4

2.7

2.5

1.7

2.5

2.8

2.5

1.7

2.5

2.7

2.4

1.6

2.4

2.7

2.5

1.7

2.4

2.8

2.5

1.7

2.5

Road density—Open & Closed 

Roads (NFS lands only) 

WAA 1315

WAA 1318

WAA 1319

WAA 1420

2.1

0.7

1.6

2.5

2.3

0.8

1.7

2.6

2.3

0.8

1.7

2.6

2.1

0.7

1.6

2.5

2.1

0.7

1.7

2.5

2.3

0.8

1.7

2.6
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 39

Table ROD-9 (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 ROD

ISSUE 4—CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS7/

Subwatersheds with more 

than 20% of Basin Area 

Harvested from 1981 to 

present (young growth 30 

years of age or younger) 

including reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• N. Kasaan 

Bay Frntge

• Pin8/

• Thorne Bay

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• N. Kasaan 

Bay Frntge

• Pin8/

• Thorne Bay

• Deer Cr.

• Luck Lake

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• N. Kasaan 

Bay Frntge

• Pin

• Thorne Bay

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• N. Kasaan 

Bay Frntge

• Pin8/

• Thorne Bay

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• N. Kasaan 

Bay Frntge

• Pin8/

• Thorne Bay

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• N. Kasaan 

Bay 

Frontage

• Pin8/

• Thorne Bay

Total miles of new road 

construction (including 

construction over 

decommissioned road 

beds)

0 32 51 11.5 17 46

Subwatersheds with more 

than 2.5% of basin area in 

roads (includes 

reasonably foreseeable 

and Big Thorne roads)

• Deer Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor

• Salamander

• Slide Creek

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor

• Salamand.8/

• Slide Creek

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 

8,9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin

• Ratz 

Harbor

• Salamander

• Slide Creek

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor

• Salamd.8/

• Slide Creek

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor8/

• Salamd.8/

• Slide 

Creek8/

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor

• Salamander

• Slide Creek

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne 

River 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

New Class I & II stream 

crossings – new roads 0 6 14 0 0 10

New Class I & II stream 

crossings – new 

construction on 

decommissioned road 

beds

0 3 9 5 3 9

New Class III stream 

crossings10/ 0 9 15 3 2 15

Notes:

1/ The harvesting costs for an operator of average efficiency.

2/ Haul Cost: Cost of round-trip truck transport to Klawock or Goose Creek, based on average distance and speed for

each alternative.

3/ Estimated average cost of new road construction, existing road reconstruction, and maintenance.

4/ Memo Employment Coefficients and Indirect Effects, for NEPA planning: 2011 Update; Source: Susan Alexander, 

Alaska Region Economist.

5/ Sawmilling employment is based on a range, from maximum possible shipment out of state (up to 50 percent of 

hemlock and Sitka spruce, and all Alaska yellow cedar), to no shipment of hemlock and Sitka spruce and export of 50

percent of the Alaska yellow cedar. Although all Alaska yellow cedar sold from the Tongass National Forest can be 

exported to foreign markets, regional sawmills often manufacture the species into high value lumber. 

6/ Sawmill income is based on the same assumptions as employment and is presented as a range.

7/ Analysis conducted at both the watershed and subwatershed scales. Cumulative effects presented in this table are for 

subwatersheds. 

8/ No harvest or roads constructed under this alternative. Threshold exceedences are due to past and reasonably 

foreseeable actions.

9/ Clipped to land area and does not contain marine areas.

10/ Includes both new roads and new construction on decommissioned roadbed.
Record of Decision

40 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER 

CONSIDERATION

Several additional alternatives were proposed internally or by the public during scoping 

and review of the Big Thorne Draft EIS. The IDT considered a No New Roads 

Alternative; a Small and Large OGR Modification Alternative; a Yellow Cedar 

Alternative and a Small Sales Alternative. More discussion of these alternatives is located 

in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement is a key component of the planning process; it has been instrumental 

in identifying issues and developing alternatives for the Big Thorne Project. Public 

meetings, Federal Register notices, newspaper ads, government-to-government 

consultation, group and individual meetings, and the Tongass National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Actions (SOPA) were used to seek input for this project.

The Big Thorne Project was first listed in the SOPA for the Tongass National Forest on 

April 1, 2010. Scoping letters were sent out to those on the mailing list on February 9, 

2011 and the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on 

February 11, 2011. Public scoping meetings were held in late February and early March 

2011 in the communities of Thorne Bay, Naukati, Coffman Cove, and Craig. 

The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 

October 26, 2012. EIS meetings and subsistence hearings were conducted in the 

communities of Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, and Craig during early December 2012.

From 2010 to 2012, informal meetings were held regarding the Big Thorne Project with 

members of the public and stakeholder groups. During the same period, government-togovernment consultation on the Project was conducted with federally recognized tribal 

governments and tribal corporations. Meetings, reviews, and professional dialogue also 

occurred with other federal and state agencies during this period.

Chapter 1 of the Big Thorne Project Final EIS provides more detailed information 

concerning public involvement as well as the timing of public involvement activities. A 

complete list of all members of the public, groups, and agencies that received a copy of 

the Draft EIS is located in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. The responses to comments are 

printed in Appendix B of the Final EIS. Documentation of the subsistence hearings is

located in the project record.

PROJECT RECORD

The project record includes the Draft EIS and Final EIS, Forest Plan, all material 

incorporated by reference and other critical materials produced during the environmental 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 41

analysis of this project. The project record is available for review at the Thorne Bay 

Ranger District in Thorne Bay, Alaska.

MITIGATION

The analysis documented in the Final EIS discloses the possible adverse effects of 

implementing the actions proposed under each alternative. Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines were formulated to mitigate or reduce these effects. This direction was applied 

in the development of the project alternatives, including the Selected Alternative, and in 

the design of the harvest units and roads. Appendices 1 and 2 (Unit and Road Cards) of 

this ROD discuss any specific mitigation measures for the Selected Alternative.

Mitigation that is not on the Unit or Road cards is listed below.

• In order to avoid the introduction of new invasive plants into the project area, 

ground-based equipment (road building equipment, yarders, shovels, skidders, 

forwarders, harvesters, processors or feller bunchers, etc.) will be cleaned prior to 

implementation and mobilization, if the equipment is moved to Prince of Wales 

Island from off the island.

• Only Forest Service approved rock sources will be used.

• Any new introductions of high-priority invasive plants found in the Project Area 

will be treated according to Forest Service Manual supplement (TNF 2000-2007-

1), and the Region 10 and Tongass Invasive Plant Management Plan as part of the 

District’s program of work for invasive species management.

• The specific invasive plant populations in FEIS Table INV-2 have been identified 

for manual treatment (hand-pulling) or monitoring based on their limited 

distribution in the project area, potential for spread, and feasibility for treatment.

• Existing and proposed rock pits with the potential for having iron pyrite crystals

will be tested prior to using them. If there would be the potential for Acid Rock 

Drainage (ARD) impacts the rock source will not be used. New road construction 

through areas suspected of having iron pyrite crystals will be tested prior to road 

construction. Present or reasonably foreseeable actions or new construction on 

these roads in this rock formation will be tested for sources with high potential and 

be avoided. If Acid Rock Drainage potential rock is disturbed, mitigation would

include lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to neutralize run-off 

from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench construction.

• Units 1, 4, 22, 26, 405, 516, 520 and 531 may have concerns with property 

boundaries. If, during layout, there appears to be a potential for crossing on to nonNFS land then a landline survey will be completed prior to harvest.
Record of Decision

42 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

MONITORING

Monitoring is a tool which involves gathering data and information and observing the 

results of management activities as a basis for evaluation. Monitoring activities can be 

divided into project-specific monitoring and Forest Plan monitoring. The NFMA requires 

national forests to monitor and evaluate their Forest Plans (36 CFR 219.110). Chapter 6 of 

the Forest Plan includes the monitoring activities to be conducted as part of the Forest 

Plan implementation. Monitoring of the Selected Alternative will be done during 

implementation and as part of the Forest Plan monitoring program. Specific monitoring 

items are outlined in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. These monitoring items (that apply to 

Alternative 3) are part of this decision and will be implemented. There is a botany 

monitoring plan that is part of this decision.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) of 1980; Section 810

Subsistence Evaluation and Findings

The decision on the Forest Plan concluded that “implementation of the Forest Plan may 

result in a significant restriction to subsistence use of deer due to the potential effects of 

projects on the abundance and distribution of these resources, and on competition for 

these resources” (2008 Forest Plan Amendment ROD, p. 61). A subsistence evaluation 

was conducted for the five EIS alternatives, in accordance with Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Section 810. ANILCA 810 subsistence hearings were 

conducted in Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, and Craig, Alaska in early December 2012.

The subsistence evaluation concluded that, the Selected Alternative will not have a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence uses for bear, furbearers, 

marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, other finfish, shellfish, and other foods such as 

berries and roots (Issue 3, Chapter 3, Wildlife and Subsistence section, in the Final EIS). 

However, this evaluation concluded that, in combination with other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, all of the action alternatives may result in a 

significant restriction of subsistence uses of deer, due to potential effects on abundance,

distribution, and competition. This determination is based on an anticipated increase in 

human population, an associated increase in subsistence activities, and the capability of 

the habitat to produce deer and the cumulative and direct effects of past timber harvest and 

the current project/decision. As a result of this finding, the Forest Service will notify the 

appropriate State agencies, local communities, the Southeast Alaska Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Council, and State Fish and Game Advisory Committees.

Section 810 (a)(3) of ANILCA requires that when a use, occupancy, or disposition of 

public lands may result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction, a 

determination must be made whether (1) such a restriction is necessary, consistent with 

sound management principles for the utilization of public lands, (2) the proposed activity 

involves the minimum amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 43

use, and (3) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts on subsistence 

uses and resources resulting from the actions.

Using the information described earlier in this section, the alternatives were evaluated for 

potential effects on subsistence uses and needs, as described above.

Necessary and Consistent with Sound Management of Public Lands

The Selected Alternative has been reviewed to determine whether it is necessary and

consistent with sound management of public lands. In this regard, the National Forest

Management Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass 

Timber Reform Act, the Wilderness Act, the Tongass Land and Resource Management 

Plan, and the Alaska State Forest Resources and Practices Act have been considered.

ANILCA placed an emphasis on the maintenance of subsistence resources and lifestyles. 

However, this Act also required the Forest Service to make timber available for harvest 

from the Tongass National Forest. The Forest Plan determined which uses are suitable for 

various areas of land within the Tongass National Forest through land use designation 

(LUD) and management prescriptions. The Forest Plan allocated many important 

subsistence use areas to LUDs that do not allow timber harvest. The Forest Plan has 

determined that the Big Thorne project area should be managed mostly for varying levels 

of timber production (Timber Production LUD, Scenic Viewshed LUD and Modified 

Landscape LUD) but with recognition of the other resource uses (see Forest Plan, Chapter 

3). The Selected Alternative will help achieve some of these multiple-use management 

objectives in the Forest Plan. Based on the analysis presented in the Big Thorne FEIS, the 

findings in this ROD and the analysis for the Forest Plan, I have determined that the 

Selected Alternative strikes a balance between meeting the resource needs of the public 

and protecting the forest resources.

Amount of Public Land Necessary to Accomplish the Proposed Action

The amount of land necessary to implement the Selected Alternative, considering sound

multiple-use management of public lands, is the minimum necessary to accomplish the

purpose of this project. The entire forested portion of the Tongass is used by at least one 

rural community for subsistence deer hunting, at a minimum. It is not possible to avoid all 

of these areas in implementing resource use activities, such as timber harvesting and road

construction, and attempting to reduce effects in some areas can mean increasing the use 

of others. The current Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and LUD prescriptions 

provide for management or limit activities in many of the areas that are most important for 

subsistence uses, such as beaches and estuaries, and areas with high fish and wildlife 

habitat values.

Reasonable Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses and Resources

Subsistence use is addressed specifically in a Forest-wide Standard and Guideline, and

subsistence resources are covered by the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

wildlife, fish, riparian areas, and biological diversity, among others. Fish and wildlife 

habitat productivity will be maintained at the highest level possible for the Selected 

Alternative, consistent with the overall multiple-use goals and improved protection of the 

Forest Plan. The extent and location of the subsistence use areas in the Big Thorne project 

area make it impossible to completely avoid subsistence areas during timber harvest. 

However, large areas of deer habitat are protected in old-growth habitat reserves, riparian, 
Record of Decision

44 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

beach buffers and other non-development LUDs. Fish habitat is protected in each 

alternative through the application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Existing 

roads and logged areas are currently used for subsistence hunting and food-gathering 

activities. Please refer to Appendix 1 of this ROD, Chapter 3 of the FEIS, and the project 

record for more information.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as 

amended)

The Selected Alternative was designed to be in compliance with the interagency 

agreement established with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to maintain 

habitat to support long-term nesting, perching and winter roosting habitat for bald eagles. 

Specifically, this memorandum of understanding restricts activities inconsistent with bald 

eagle use within a 330-foot radius from active bald eagle nest trees between March 1 and 

August 31. This agreement also places seasonal timing and activity restrictions for 

repeated helicopter flights within a quarter-mile of active nests and for road blasting 

activities within a half-mile of active nests. These requirements will be implemented if 

active nests are located in or adjacent to proposed activities. Almost all known bald eagle 

nest sites within the project area fall within the established 1,000-foot beach fringe buffer,

therefore, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for bald eagle are met. 

The Selected Alternative was designed to be consistent with national bald and golden 

eagle guidelines. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)

Emissions from the implementation of the Selected Alternative will be of short duration 

and are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50).

Clean Water Act (1977, as amended)

Project activities meet all applicable State of Alaska Water Quality Standards. Congress 

intended the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended in 1977 (Public 

Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4) to protect and improve the quality of water 

resources and maintain their beneficial uses. Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and 

Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 addresses Federal agency compliance and 

consistency with water pollution control mandates. Agencies must be consistent with 

requirements that apply to "any governmental entity" or private person. Compliance is to 

be in line with "all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative 

authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water 

pollution."

The Clean Water Act (Sections 208 and 319) recognized the need for control strategies for 

nonpoint source pollution. The National Nonpoint Source Policy (December 12, 1984), 

the Forest Service Nonpoint Strategy (January 29, 1985), and the USDA Nonpoint Source 

Water Quality Policy (December 5, 1986) provide a protection and improvement 

emphasis for soil and water resources and water-related beneficial uses. Soil and water 

conservation practices (also called best management practices, or BMPs) are recognized 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 45

as the primary control mechanisms for nonpoint source pollution on National Forest 

System lands. The EPA supports this perspective in their guidance, "Nonpoint Source 

Controls and Water Quality Standards" (August 19, 1987).

The Forest Service must apply BMPs that are consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources 

and Practices Act (AFRPA) to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards. The site-specific

application of BMPs, with a monitoring and feedback mechanism, is the approved 

strategy for controlling nonpoint source pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Control Strategy (2007). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs in the Forest 

Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22, July 2006) as consistent 

with AFRPA. This handbook is incorporated by reference into the Forest Plan and this 

project. A discharge of dredge or fill material from normal silvicultural activities such as 

harvesting for the production of forest products is exempt from Section 404 permitting 

requirements in waters of the United States, including wetlands (404)(f)(1)(A). Forest 

roads qualify for this exemption only if they are constructed and maintained in accordance 

with Baseline Provisions to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and 

biological characteristics of the waters are not impaired (404)(f)(1)(E). The Baseline 

Provisions that must be followed are specified in 33 CFR 323.4(a). These specific BMPs 

are incorporated into the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook under BMP 12.5. All 

necessary Clean Water Act permits will be obtained before project implementation, 

including, if necessary, any discharge permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

The Forest Service recently issued National Core Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

(USDA Forest Service 2012). Directives for using these BMPs are currently in 

development. The project will implement the most up-to-date BMP guidance. The use of 

Best Management Practices will maintain State water quality standards.

The design of harvest units for the Selected Alternative was guided by standards, 

guidelines and direction in the Forest Plan and applicable Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks. Appendix 1 (Unit Cards) of this ROD contains specific details on practices 

prescribed to prevent or reduce nonpoint sediment sources.

As a result of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in NEDC v. Brown that held that the 

Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations do not require a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges from logging 

roads into the navigable waters of the United States, it is not anticipated that an NPDES 

permit will be required for this project. However, should it be determined that an NPDES 

permit is required for this project; the Forest Service will comply with any applicable 

permitting requirements.

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

A biological assessment was prepared and sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the Section 7 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS concurred with the findings of 

“not likely to adversely affect” the federally listed species on June 7, 2013 (National 

Marine Fisheries Service 2013). The biological assessment and letter of concurrence is 

included in the project record. No consultation with USFWS occurred as the 

determination for terrestrial species were all “no effect”.
Record of Decision

46 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988

There are occurrences of carbonate rock and associated cave resources in the Big Thorne

project area. Field reconnaissance identified areas of concern. Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines will provide protection of these areas. The activities of the Selected Alternative 

will not have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any significant cave in the Big 

Thorne project area.

Forest Service Transportation Final Administrative 

Policy (Roads Rule) 

The Final EIS and this ROD are prepared to be consistent with the Forest Service 

Transportation Final Administrative Policy and the Tongass National Forest Level Roads

Analysis (2003), Prince of Wales Access and Travel Management (2005) and the Big 

Thorne Project level analysis (2013). I have determined that the proposed road system is 

“the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, 

utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands" (36 CFR 212.5).

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act

The potential effects of the project on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) were included in 

Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. This discussion includes reference to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation Act that requires the Forest Service to consult with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service on projects that may affect EFH. It also includes a description of

EFH in the project area, a description of the proposed activities, and a description of the 

measures that will protect these essential habitats. The Forest Service determined that the 

Big Thorne project may adversely affect EFH because fish streams are directly or 

indirectly affected by harvest and stream crossings. The Selected Alternative would result 

in minor effects on water quality and aquatic habitat. By following the standards and 

guidelines and BMPs in the Forest Plan, the effects on EFH will be minimized.

The Draft EIS was provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service to formally initiate 

the consultation process according to the agreement dated June 26, 2007 between the 

Forest Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS had no comments.

Information on the mitigation measures and applicable standards and guidelines to 

minimize effects to EFH are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS and Appendices 1 

and 2 of this ROD. A copy of the Final EIS and ROD were sent to NMFS. This satisfies 

the EFH consultation requirement based on the 2007 agreement with NMFS.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Actions authorized in the Selected Alternative will not have a direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effect on marine mammals. Marine mammal viewing guidelines administered 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and enforced by the Coast Guard are 

sufficient for their protection. Contractors, purchasers and employees will be required to 

follow provisions on Marine Wildlife Guidelines, including special prohibitions on 
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 47

approaching humpback whales in Alaska as defined in 50 CFR 224.103. NMFS 

administers the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which prohibits the “take” of 

all marine mammal species in U.S. waters. “Take” is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, 

or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Harassment is 

defined in the MMPA as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or has the 

potential to disturb a marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavior 

patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering.”

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as

amended)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires specific determinations in the 

ROD: consistency with existing Forest Plans, a determination of clearcutting as the 

optimal method of harvesting, if used, and specific authorizations to create openings over 

100 acres in size. Information and rationale used to develop unit prescriptions is shown 

on unit cards (Appendix 1 of this ROD), in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, and in the project 

record.

2008 Forest Plan Amendment

The 2008 Forest Plan Amendment was completed with the signing of the Record of 

Decision (ROD) on January 23, 2008. Big Thorne is a Category 3 project as listed in the 

Transition to the Amended Forest Plan, which includes “Timber sale projects for which a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not been released for public comment before 

the effective date of this Plan. These projects shall be based on the amended Plan and will 

be consistent with all applicable management direction” (Forest Plan ROD, p. 70).

The ROD for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment adopts the Timber Sale Program Adaptive

Management Strategy, under which portions of the suitable land base become available 

for project-level planning in three phases. The Big Thorne project area is primarily within 

the Phase 1 portion of the suitable land base, but includes some Phase 2 lands.

I have determined that this decision and the Big Thorne Final EIS are consistent with the 

2008 Forest Plan, except for the OGR modifications.

Clearcutting as the Optimal Method of Harvesting: The 2008 Forest Plan (pp. 4-71 to 

4-72) and 1997 Forest Plan EIS (Appendix G, pp. G-7 to G-9) give guidance on when to 

use even-aged management. Clearcutting (an even-aged method) is used in this project to

preclude or minimize the occurrence of potentially adverse impacts such as to remove or

reduce mistletoe infestations, logging damage or other factors affecting forest health.

Specific information and rationale for use of this prescription is shown in the silvicultural

prescriptions (which are a part of the project record), in the introduction to the unit cards 

and the individual unit cards (ROD, Appendix 1), and in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. 

Where used, this prescription has been deemed optimal related to site-specific 

considerations as described above.
Record of Decision

48 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Harvest Openings Over 100 Acres in Size

I have determined that no openings will be created in excess of 100 acres with the harvest 

of the Selected Alternative units.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as

amended)

Heritage resource surveys of various intensities were conducted in the analysis area in

accordance with the Regional Inventory Strategy. A finding of “no historic properties

affected” was recommended for all alternatives for the Big Thorne Project. Under the 

terms of the existing Programmatic Agreement with the Alaska State Historic Preservation 

Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (USDA 2002, as amended 

2010) “the Forest may proceed with the undertaking in lieu of a consensus determination 

of eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4.”

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 1990

Forest Plan Riparian Standards and Guidelines apply to the Selected Alternative, and no 

commercial timber harvest will occur within 100 feet of any Class I stream or any Class II 

stream flowing directly into a Class I stream, as required in Section 103 of the TTRA. The 

design and implementation direction for the Selected Alternative incorporates best 

management practices (BMPs) and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the 

protection of all stream classes.

Timber harvested under the Selected Alternative will provide part of the timber supply to 

the Tongass National Forest’s timber program as stated in Section 101 of TTRA “... the 

Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained 

yield of all renewable forest resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from the 

Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such 

forest and (2) meets the annual market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.”

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains)

Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent 

possible, the long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains. The Selected Alternative does not affect floodplain 

occupancy. The numerous streams in the Big Thorne project area make it essentially 

impossible to avoid all floodplains during timber harvest and road construction. However, 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines limit riparian harvest to the extent feasible to 

facilitate road construction and logging operations.

The amount of road in floodplains will be minimized whenever possible as stated in the 

BMPs. Roads may be constructed in or through floodplains subject to BMPs, which 

minimize floodplain modification.
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 49

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)

Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long 

and short-term adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands.

There will be minimal loss of wetlands, less than 66 acres, (due to proposed road 

construction) with the Selected Alternative. In some areas, soil moisture regime and 

vegetation composition or structure may be altered due to adjacent road construction; 

however, these altered acres will still be classified as wetlands and function as wetlands in 

the ecosystem.

Road construction through wetlands is avoided to the extent practicable. Where wetlands 

cannot be avoided, road construction will adhere to State-approved BMPs, which include 

at a minimum the federal baseline provisions in 33 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 

323.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to address whether a disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority populations, lowincome populations, or Indian tribes is likely to result from the proposed action and any 

alternatives.

Minority communities in the vicinity of the project area include Klawock and Kasaan, 

both of which are home to federally recognized tribes. Thorne Bay, the only community 

located inside the project area, is predominantly White. None of the alternatives are 

expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on the health or well-being 

of the minority or low-income populations that use the project area. Any changes in 

consumption patterns and wild food resources, as well as other project effects, would be 

equally applicable to the general population. 

The Executive Order directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and 

fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. Although low-income and 

minority people are not the sole users of these resources in Alaska, the effects on these 

resources are addressed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems, Recreational

Fisheries)

Executive Order 12962 requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed 

activities on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries. The Selected Alternative 

minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project design, application of standards 

and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. In the Selected Alternative, 

recreational fishing opportunities will remain essentially the same as the current condition 

because aquatic habitats are protected through implementation of BMPs and riparian 

buffers.
Record of Decision

50 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, provides presidential direction to federal

agencies to give consideration to the protection of American Indian sacred sites and allow

access where feasible. In a government-to-government relationship, the tribal government 

is responsible for notifying the agency of the existence of a sacred site. A sacred site is 

defined as a site that has sacred significance due to established religious beliefs or 

ceremonial uses, and which has a specific, discrete, and delineated location that has been 

identified by the tribe. Tribal governments or their authorized representatives have not 

identified any specific sacred site locations in the project area.

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species)

Executive Order 13112 requires federal agencies (in part) to evaluate whether the 

proposed activities will affect the status of invasive species; and to not carry out activities 

that promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless it has determined that 

the benefits of such action outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and 

that all feasible and prudent measure to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction 

with the actions. The Selected Alternative implements specific measures to minimize the 

introduction and spread of invasive species.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments)

Executive Order 13175 directs federal agencies to respect tribal self-government,

sovereignty, and tribal rights, and to engage in regular and meaningful government-togovernment consultation with tribes on proposed actions with tribal implications.

Throughout the span of the Big Thorne Project, the District Ranger and archaeologists 

have communicated with the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of 

Alaska, Craig Community Association, Klawock Cooperative Association, Hydaburg 

Cooperative Association, Organized Village of Kasaan, Wrangell Cooperative 

Association, Ketchikan Indian Community, Haida Corporation, Kavilco Inc., Klawock –

Heenya Corporation, Sealaska Corporation, and Shaan – Seet Inc., as described in Chapter 

1 of the Final EIS. Tribal consultation does not imply that the tribes endorse the selected 

action or any of the alternatives.

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds)

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. The law provides the 

primary mechanism to regulate waterfowl hunting seasons and bag limits, but its scope is 

not just limited to waterfowl. The migratory species that may stay in the area utilize most, 

if not all, of the habitats described in the analysis for breeding, nesting, and raising their 

young. The effects on these habitats were analyzed for this project.

The decision will not have a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on any

migratory bird species in the project area. There may be direct moderate effects on
Record of Decision

Big Thorne Project Record of Decision ▪ 51

individuals or small groups and their nests from the harvest of timber or the disturbance

caused by harvest and related activities.

Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage 

and Wildlife Conservation)

Executive Order 13443 directs federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their 

habitat. The analysis considered and disclosed the effects on hunting activities. The 

Selected Alternative will maintain the current hunting opportunities by adhering to the 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that maintain habitat for hunted species.

FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS

Federal and State permits necessary to implement the authorized activities are listed at the

end of Chapter 1 in the FEIS.

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND PROCESS FOR

CONSIDERING CHANGES AND NEW 

INFORMATION

Implementation of this decision may occur no sooner than 50 days following publication 

of the legal notice of the decision in the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record, 

published in Ketchikan, Alaska. The timber may be offered in one or more sales.

Appendices 1 and 2 of this ROD contain the Selected Alternative unit and road cards. 

These cards are an integral part of this decision because they document the specific 

resource concerns, management objectives, and mitigation measures to govern the layout 

of the harvest units and construction of roads. These cards will be used during the 

implementation process to assure that the project is implemented within applicable 

standards and guidelines and that resource effects will not be greater than those described 

in the Final EIS. Similar cards will document any changes to the planned layout, which 

may occur during implementation. 

Minor changes are expected during implementation to better meet on-site resource 

protection objectives and improve logging system efficiency. This will usually entail 

adjusting the boundary to coincide with logical logging setting boundaries. Proposed 

changes to the authorized project actions will be subject to the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act, and 

other laws concerning such changes. 

The changes will be within the direction in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2430 and Forest 

Service Handbook FSH 2409.18. This direction provides a link between project planning 

and implementation. This will ensure the proper execution of the decision, environmental 
Record of Decision

52 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project

standards, and mitigations approved by this decision, and compliance with the Forest Plan 

and all applicable laws, policy and direction. 

Changes made during implementation will be reviewed, documented, and approved by the 

Responsible Official through the Tongass Change Analysis process described in FSH 

1909.15-2009-1. In determining whether and what kind of NEPA action is required for 

changes during implementation, the Forest Supervisor will consider the criteria in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)), and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

1909.15, sec. 18 to determine whether to supplement or revise an existing environmental 

impact statement. I will determine whether the proposed change is a substantial change to 

the Selected Alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the change is 

relevant to environmental concerns. I will consider connected or interrelated changes to 

particular areas or specific activities will be considered together in making this 

determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered. 

The implementation unit and road cards, as approved by this process are incorporated into 

the contract. The sale administrators and road inspectors then enforce the contract 

requirements with the operators. 

The implementation record for this project will display:

• Each harvest unit, transportation facility, and other project components as actually 

implemented,

• Any proposed changes to the design, location, standards and guidelines, or other 

mitigation measures for the project, and

• Authorization of the proposed changes.

Implementation of all activities authorized by this Record of Decision will be monitored 

to ensure that they are carried out as planned and described in the Final EIS.

RIGHT TO APPEAL

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to Title 36 CFR Part 

215. Individuals or organizations who submitted comments during the comment period 

specified at CFR 215.6 may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must be in writing, 

meet the appeal content requirements at CFR 215.14 and be filed with the Appeal 

Deciding Officer:

Beth Pendleton, Regional Forester

Alaska Region

US Department of Agriculture

709 W. 9th Street

P.O. Box 21628

Juneau, AK 99802-1628

Email address: FS-appeals-alaska-regional-office@fs.fed.us

Fax (907) 586-7840

Record of Decision

54 ▪ Record of Decision Big Thorne Project