United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Tongass 

National Forest 

R10-MB-742 

November 2012 

Dargon Point 

Commercial Thinning 

Environmental Assessment 

Thorne Bay Ranger District 

Thorne Bay, Alaska 

 comments-alaska-tongass-ketchikan-mistyfiord@fs.fed.us
Dargon Point EA Acronyms 

ANHP – Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

ANILCA – Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act 

ATM – Access and Travel Management 

BA – Biological assessment 

BE – Biological evaluation 

BMPs – Best Management Practices 

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAI - Culmination of mean annual 

increment 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EFH – Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

FASTR – Financial Analysis Spreadsheet 

Tool-Residual 

FSH – Forest Service Handbook 

FSM – Forest Service Manual 

FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impact 

HUC – Hydrologic unit code 

IDT – Interdisciplinary team 

ITS - Individual-tree selection 

LUD – Land Use Designation 

MAF – Marine Access Facility 

MBF – Thousand Board Feet 

MMBF – Million Board Feet 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NFMA – National Forest Management Act 

NFS – National Forest Service 

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act 

NRIS – Natural Resource Information 

System 

OHV – Off Highway Vehicle 

POG – Productive old-growth 

POW – Prince of Wales Island 

RAW – Reasonable assurance of 

windfirmness 

RMA – Riparian Management Area 

S&G – Standards and Guidelines 

SOPA - Schedule of Proposed Actions 

TES – Threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species 

TM – Timber production 

TTRA – Tongass Timber Reform Act 

VDT – Variable density thinning 

WAA – Wildlife analysis area 

YG – Young-growth 

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

the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, 

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 

(voice and TTY). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

This page intentionally left blank 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Environmental Assessment 

Lead Agency United States Forest Service 

 Thorne Bay Ranger District 

Responsible Official Perry Edwards 

 Thorne Bay District Ranger 

 PO Box 19001 

 Thorne Bay, Alaska 

For Further Information, Contact: Ben Case 

 Tongass National Forest 

 PO Box 309 

 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 
This page intentionally left blank 
Table of Contents 

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

What Is Being Proposed With This Project? .................................................................... 1

Why Is This Project Being Proposed? .............................................................................. 2

What Factors Will Be Used To Make A Decision On This Project? ............................... 3

Who Was Consulted For This Project? ............................................................................ 3

Issues ................................................................................................................................ 4

Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 4

What Would it Mean to Not Meet The Need? ................................................................. 4

Comparison of Alternatives.............................................................................................. 5

What Other Actions Could Meet The Same Need? ......................................................... 7

Mitigation ......................................................................................................................... 7

Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 8

Environmental Effects of the Alternatives ........................................................................... 8

Resources Not Likely to be Affected by Any of the Alternatives ...................................... 11

Heritage .......................................................................................................................... 11

Karst/Caves .................................................................................................................... 11

Old-growth Forest .......................................................................................................... 11

Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 12

Scenery ........................................................................................................................... 12

Soils/Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 12

Resources Which Could be Affected by the Alternatives .................................................. 12

Fisheries Resources ........................................................................................................ 12

Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 12

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 13

Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... 14

Watershed ....................................................................................................................... 15

Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 15

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 15

Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 16

Botany ............................................................................................................................ 17

Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 17

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 19

Invasive Plant Species .................................................................................................... 21

Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 21

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 21

Silviculture ..................................................................................................................... 22

Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 22

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 23

Transportation ................................................................................................................ 27

Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 27

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 28

Wildlife Resources ......................................................................................................... 28

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 28
Affected Environment ................................................................................................. 29

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 32

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 37

Subsistence ...................................................................................................................... 39

Affected Environment ................................................................................................. 39

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 40

Conclusion and Finding .............................................................................................. 41

Timber Economics .......................................................................................................... 42

Affected Environment ................................................................................................. 42

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 42

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ........................................................... 44

Required Permits ................................................................................................................. 48

List of Preparers .................................................................................................................. 48

Literature Cited: .................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix A – Maps ............................................................................................................ 51

Appendix B – Unit and Road Cards ................................................................................... 55
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  1 

Introduction 

The Thorne Bay Ranger District has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. This EA analyzes and discloses the environmental 

consequences of the Proposed Action, an action alternative, and a No-action Alternative 

for the Dargon Point Commercial Thinning project. An EA provides the means to 

determine whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared or whether a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is appropriate. This EA incorporates direction 

established by the 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment (Forest 

Plan FEIS) for the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan 2008 (Forest Plan). 

Additional documentation, including detailed analyses of project area resources, is located 

in the project record located at the Thorne Bay Ranger District Office in Thorne Bay, 

Alaska. 

What Is Being Proposed With This Project? 

The proposed action for this project is to commercial thin and harvest around 1.4 million 

board feet (MMBF) of mature (60-70 years old) young-growth spruce and hemlock from a 

stand, approximately 70 acres in size, that was originally harvested in the 1940s. 

Approximately 1 mile of road would be constructed to allow for ground-based logging 

systems. No road would be constructed within the 1,000-foot beach fringe. 

The proposed silvicultural treatment includes a single entry comprised of two types of 

thinning; 1) a variable density thinning (VDT), with skips and gaps, for approximately 16 

acres that fall in the 1,000-foot beach and estuary fringe (beach fringe), and 2) a crown 

thinning for the remaining portion of the stand within the Timber Production (TM) land 

use designation (LUD). Both proposed treatments are designed to interrupt existing stem 

exclusion conditions and result in healthy, windfirm stands with enhanced understories; 

however, the VDT within the beach fringe will have greater emphasis on a windfirm 

beach fringe with enhanced understory, while promoting advanced seral stand structure 

(USDA FS 2008a, p. 4-5; Beach and Estuary Fringe Standards and Guidelines, Beach2, II 

A.10), whereas treatments for the remaining portion of the stand will emphasize long-term 

timber yield. 

Harvest activities are proposed to begin in 2013. 

Project Area Location 

The 2,276-acre Dargon Point project area is located along the western shore of Prince of 

Wales Island, approximately 3 miles north of the community of Naukati, within the 

Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1, 

Appendix A). The project area includes a portion of wildlife analysis area (WAA) 1422 

and a portion of the Sarkar Creek and Jinhi Bay-Frontal El Capitan Passage (6th level 

HUC) watersheds. This project occurs outside of an inventoried roadless area, and entirely 

within the TM LUD. Overall, the terrain is relatively gentle, comprised of glacial till over 

limestone bedrock. This area has one of the higher concentrations of young-growth (YG) 
2  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

on the Tongass, with a small portion of these YG stands dating back to the early 1900s. 

The area also has a significant amount of YG from more recent harvest that occurred from 

the 1960s through the 1990s. Older harvest in the area originally accessed stands of timber 

from the beach; however, harvest since 1960 has developed a network of roads throughout 

most of the project area. 

Why Is This Project Being Proposed? 

This section outlines three reasons the project is proposed (i.e., the purpose) with 

discussions on the underlying need for each of the actions. 

 Improve forest vegetation conditions for timber production and wildlife habitat. 

A majority of the young-growth stands in the project area have undergone intermediate 

treatment (thinning) for improving future timber production and wildlife habitat; however, 

most of the oldest young-growth stands have not received intermediate treatments. These 

older untreated stands are heavily-stocked, productive young-growth stands, with 

commercial size material and are near, or have reached, culmination of mean annual 

increment (CMAI). Out competed trees are dying or have died, and growth of understory 

vegetation important for wildlife habitat is restricted. 

 Promote forest health. 

The proposed thinning unit is a heavily stocked, productive young-growth stand resulting 

from a 1940s A-frame clearcut. The stand was originally accessed from the beach. 

Currently, a majority of the stand is in the stem exclusion stage. Trees are competing for 

light and few, if any, new trees are being added. Tree canopy closure is high and 

predominantly composed of a single layer of dominant, co-dominant and intermediate 

spruce and hemlock. Average stem height-to-diameter ratios over most of the stand are 

within the range suitable for intermediate treatment; however, portions of the stand consist 

of taller, more spindly trees making these areas unstable if predisposed through thinning to 

wind, snow and ice damage. Pockets of windthrow are present in the southern portion of 

the stand. Minor tree species, if present, consist of western redcedar. Snags and downed 

trees are comprised of mostly intermediate and smaller-sized material from trees that have 

succumbed to suppression mortality. 

Without treatment it is expected that tree growth, and subsequent growth of stand volume, 

will continue to slow. Also, tree height-to-diameter ratios will increase, limiting future 

management options due to the susceptibility of windthrow. 

 Respond to the goals and objectives in the Forest Plan for the management of 

young-growth stands. 

In an effort to implement Forest Plan Goals and Objectives, and due to an increasing 

interest in producing commercial wood products through management of young-growth 

on the Tongass National Forest (Alexander et al. 2010), the IDT has found a need in the 

Dargon Point project area for vegetation treatments on about 70 acres of young-growth. 

This project is designed to maintain or increase the potential to produce sawtimber and 

other forest products, while enhancing wildlife habitat. Forest Plan goals and objectives 

for young-growth management include: 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  3 

 Manage the timber resource for production of sawtimber and other wood products 

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

sustained yield basis, and in an economically efficient manner (USDA FS 2008a, 

p. 2-7). 

 Maintain, prolong, and/or improve understory forage production, and to improve 

habitat distribution, including future old-growth characteristics in young-growth 

timber stands on both suitable and unsuitable lands (USDA FS 2008a, p. 2-9). 

What Factors Will Be Used To Make A Decision On This 

Project? 

Based on the environmental analysis in this EA, and following the goals, objectives and 

desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, the Responsible Official will decide 

whether and, if so, how to make timber available from the Dargon Point project area. 

This decision will include: 

 Whether to authorize the commercial thinning of trees in the Dargon Point younggrowth stand; 

 Whether to authorize the even-aged harvest of trees in the Dargon Point younggrowth stand; 

 Whether to authorize road building and associated activities in support of timber 

harvest; 

 What, if any, specific mitigation measures are required for the project; 

 What, if any, specific monitoring requirements are needed beyond Forest Plan 

monitoring to ensure that established design criteria are implemented; 

 Whether the action results in any significant effects; and 

 Whether or not the action might significantly restrict subsistence uses. 

Who Was Consulted For This Project? 

Public and Agency Involvement 

The project was introduced to the collaborative Staney Community Forest Working Group 

in a June 15, 2011 progress report and reported on again September 23, 2011 by the 

Thorne Bay District Ranger. 

The project has been listed on the Thorne Bay Ranger District Schedule of Proposed 

Actions (SOPA) since April 1, 2012. A scoping letter was sent on April 23, 2012 to 

approximately 140 individuals, organizations, and federal and state agencies that had 

previously shown interest in USDA Forest Service projects within the vicinity of Prince of 

Wales Island, Alaska (http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=38409). The 

scoping letter solicited comments, and summarized the purpose and need and actions 

proposed. One response to scoping was received. To address the comments, the IDT 

developed an alternative to the proposed action. 
4  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Tribal Consultation 

As part of ongoing government-to-government tribal relations and collaborative 

management of resources on Prince of Wales Island, the Craig Community Association 

(CCA), Klawock Cooperative Association (KCA), Hydaburg Cooperative Association 

(HCA), and the Organized Village of Kasaan (OVK) were provided a written overview of 

Thorne Bay Ranger District projects, including this one, on April 26, 2012. 

Issues 

The following issue was identified through external and internal scoping: 1) Thinning a 

stand of this age and size will be uneconomical and will not have a positive impact on 

timber production for the stand. An even-aged harvest will better meet the project 

objectives and will have better financial results. 

The following section, Alternatives, describes the alternative developed to address this 

issue. 

Alternatives 

What Would it Mean to Not Meet The Need? 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Not meeting the need is defined by the No-action Alternative. Under the No-action 

Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the 

project area. Future management activities conducted as part of new environmental 

document decisions would occur (i.e., precommercial thinning, road maintenance and 

timber harvest). In addition: 

 It is expected that tree growth, and subsequent growth of stand volume, will 

continue to slow and be lost if treatment is delayed. 

 Prolonging the rotation period for this stand would delay the transition to younggrowth harvest emphasized in the Transition Framework. 

 Tree height-to-diameter ratios will continue to increase in the stand, limiting future 

management options due to susceptibility to windthrow concerns. 

 Abundance of understory plants and structural diversity within the beach fringe 

that is important for wildlife habitat will take longer to improve and meet desired 

conditions without management that disrupts the stem exclusion phase. 

 Resource managers would be limited in their ability to provide for the production 

of sawtimber and other wood products from suitable lands made available for 

timber harvest on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis. 

 There would not be the opportunity to support the local economy. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  5 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Alternative 1 (No Action) is described above. Alternatives 2 and 3, which would both 

meet the project’s purpose and need, are summarized and compared below. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 proposes to thin and harvest mature young-growth to improve forest 

vegetation conditions to meet the project’s purpose and need. The following list further 

defines specific project components of the proposed action. 

 Commercial thinning a young-growth stand, approximately 70 acres, of spruce and 

hemlock that was originally harvested in the 1940s. 

 Construction of approximately 1 mile of road to allow for ground-based logging 

systems to harvest roughly 1.4 MMBF of sawlog and utility material. No road 

would be constructed within the 1,000-foot beach fringe. 

The proposed silvicultural treatment for this alternative includes a single entry comprised 

of two types of thinning; 1) a variable-density thinning (VDT), with skips and gaps, for 

the approximate 16 acres that are within the 1,000-foot beach and estuary fringe (beach 

fringe), and 2) a crown thinning for the remaining portion of the stand within the TM 

LUD. A crown thinning removes trees from the dominant and codominant crown classes 

to favor the best trees of those same crown classes; whereas, the proposed variable 

density-thinning, with skips and gaps, will remove trees through a crown thinning, the 

creation of small gaps, and retain areas of reserves (skips). Both proposed treatments are 

designed to interrupt existing stem exclusion conditions and result in healthy, windfirm 

stands with enhanced understories; however, the VDT within the beach fringe will have 

greater emphasis on healthy, windfirm beach fringe with enhanced understory, while 

promoting advanced seral stand structure (USDA FS 2008a, p. 4-5), whereas treatments 

for the remaining portion of the stand will emphasize long-term timber yield. 

Variable-density thinning: This treatment would include an approximate 4-acre skip (no 

harvest) corridor adjacent to the beach, along the far western portion of the stand. Outside 

of this no harvest area, trees would be thinned by individual-tree selection (ITS) to 

approximately 50 percent of the existing stand’s basal area. Thinning would be lighter 

along the skipped corridor than within that portion of the beach fringe adjacent to where 

the crown thinning is proposed. Additionally, roughly 10 – 15 percent of this thinned area 

may be converted to small gaps, approximately 1/4 acre in size. Though thinning may 

increase the risk of windthrow within the stand, maintaining at least 50 percent of the 

current basal area, as well as leaving the western portion of the stand adjacent to the beach 

untreated, is intended to provide a reasonable assurance of windfirmness. 

Crown thinning: Approximately 54 acres within the TM LUD will be thinned by an ITS 

crown thinning, retaining 50 percent of the stand’s basal area. This is an intermediate 

treatment designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor and composition of the stand prior to 

a final harvest. A crown thinning removes trees from the dominant and co-dominant 

crown classes in order to favor the best trees of those same crown classes. The resulting 

stand will remain generally even-aged, tending to two-aged where residual trees exist in 

higher concentrations. Trees would be retained on a trees per acre basis. Approximately 70 

trees per acre would be retained based on a spacing of 25 feet, but may vary up to +/- 33 
6  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

percent on an individual tree basis, in order to select the most desirable leave trees. 

Spacing would apply only for hemlock and spruce; all other tree species would be 

retained. 

The harvest of timber associated with all activities is expected to include cutting trees with 

a feller-buncher, which are then yarded with a shovel and forwarded to a haul road where 

they are loaded onto trucks for hauling. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 is designed to manage the timber resource for production of sawtimber in the 

most economically efficient manner from suitable lands made available for timber harvest, 

as well as to enhance wildlife habitat within the approximate 1,000-foot-wide beach 

fringe. The following list further defines specific project components of Alternative 3: 

 Clearcut approximately 54 acres comprised mostly of young-growth spruce and 

hemlock originally harvested in the 1940s. 

 Commercially thin (variable-density thinning with skips and gaps) approximately 

16 acres within the 1,000-foot beach fringe. 

 Construct approximately 1 mile of road to allow harvest of roughly 2.5 MMBF of 

sawlog and utility material using a ground-based logging system. No road would 

be constructed within the 1,000-foot beach fringe. 

Clearcutting: Under Alternative 3, clearcutting is proposed for the TM LUD portion of the 

stand that is outside the approximate 1,000-foot beach fringe. Clearcutting is an even-aged 

regeneration method. This regeneration method is appropriate here because: 

 the stand has reached culmination of mean annual increment; 

 of the high risk of windthrow that exists within the stand; 

 clearcutting is an excellent regeneration method for the regeneration of desired 

species such as Sitka spruce; 

 it is economically viable; and 

 it is compatible with the use of standard logging systems. 

Variable-density thinning: Within the approximate 16 acres that fall within the 1,000-foot 

beach fringe, a variable-density thinning, with skips and gaps is proposed. This treatment 

will remove trees through a crown thinning and through the creation of small gaps, while 

retaining areas untreated as reserves (skips). This would include an approximate 4-acre 

skip (no harvest) area, located in the far western portion of the stand adjacent to the 

shoreline. The treatment in the beach buffer is intended to interrupt existing stem 

exclusion conditions and result in a windfirm beach fringe with enhanced understory, 

while promoting advanced seral stand structure. 

As in Alternative 2, the harvest of timber is expected to include cutting trees with a fellerbuncher, which are then yarded with a shovel and forwarded to a haul road where they are 

loaded onto trucks for hauling. 

 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  7 

Table 1. Comparison of alternatives 

Comparison Measure 

Unit of 

Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Variable density thinning (within beach fringe) acres 0 16 16 

Crown thinning (within TM LUD, outside beach 

fringe) 

acres 0 54 0 

Clearcut (within TM LUD, outside beach fringe) acres 0 0 54 

Timber volume1 MMBF 0 1.4 2.5 

New road construction miles 0 1 1 

Logging/Transportation Cost/MBF $/MBF $0 $438 $285 

Road Costs/MBF $/MBF $0 $72.30 $39.76 

Indicated Bid Value/MBF2 $/MBF $0 ($30.20) $123.27 

Number of Annualized Direct Jobs3 # 0 6-8 12-14 

1

 Includes utility volume. 

2

 ( ) indicates negative value. 3

 Range accounts for interstate shipment of 50 percent of total sawlog volume (Housley et al. 2007). 

Maps showing the location of the unit and the existing and proposed road are included at 

the end of this EA in Appendix A. 

What Other Actions Could Meet The Same Need? 

To provide an alternative means to meet the need to improve forest vegetation conditions 

for timber production and wildlife habitat, the Forest Service would have to propose 

treatments for other young-growth stands in this area. Given that most young-growth 

stands in this area have not reached commercial size or require more road construction, the 

treatments would be more costly and may require funding to implement. Younger stands 

in the area would likely not produce sawlog material at this time. Harvest of old-growth 

stands in this area would be needed to meet the timber production component of the 

objectives. This option would require additional NEPA and could result in delays due to 

the time needed to complete additional environmental analyses. 

Mitigation 

The risk of adverse effects such as windthrow of standing timber after harvest, or 

increased sedimentation, are mitigated through application of BMPs and Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. If any previously undocumented goshawk or other raptor nests 

are discovered at any time prior to or during the implementation of this project, the 

appropriate protection measures (nest buffers) would be applied. Other mitigation 

measures, such as equipment cleaning, could be employed to reduce the risk of 

introducing or spreading invasive plant species in the harvest unit or road corridor. 

Other mitigation measures for individual resources are discussed in the resource sections 
8  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives, and listed on the unit card and road cards in 

Appendix B. 

Monitoring 

Routine implementation monitoring is part of the administration of a timber sale contract. 

The sale administrators and road inspectors ensure that the unit silvicultural prescriptions 

and the requisites on the unit and road cards are incorporated into contract documents; 

they then monitor performance relative to contract requirements. Resource staff 

specialists, such as fisheries biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists and engineers provide 

technical advice when questions arise during project implementation. 

Tongass National Forest staff annually conducts a review of BMP implementation and 

effectiveness. The results of this and other monitoring are summarized in a Tongass 

National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report. This report provides 

information about how well the management direction of the Forest is being carried out 

and measures the accomplishment of anticipated outputs, activities and effects. 

Environmental Effects of the Alternatives 

This section focuses on those resources most likely to be affected by the alternatives. 

Detailed analyses of the alternatives are contained in the project resource reports and are 

on file in the project record; they are summarized below. The Responsible Official will 

compare the anticipated benefits and consequences of implementing each alternative. 

Unless otherwise specified, the analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects for 

each resource is the 70-acre young-growth stand. 

All activities proposed with this project comply with required Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines. Resource concerns are mitigated with the prescribed silvicultural treatments 

and unit design which adhere to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and best 

management practices (BMPs). Project-level resource inventories have been conducted 

within the project area. Changes, such as minor boundary location adjustments, can be 

expected during implementation to better meet on-site resource management and 

protection objectives. 

Below is a table summarizing the site-specific potential effects to project area resources 

based on project level investigations. Thorough discussions of the rationale behind the 

determinations found in Table 2 can be found below in this EA and in resource reports 

filed in the project record. 

 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  9 

Table 2. Comparison of direct and indirect effects of the alternatives 

Resource Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternatives 2 and 3 

Recreation No effect No effect 

Scenery No effect No effect 

Fisheries No effect No significant effect: no fish streams in unit; 

no anticipated stream crossings and culverts 

required. 

Watershed: streamflow or 

water quality effects at the 6th

level watershed scale 

No effect No significant effect. Effects would not be 

detected at this scale. 

Watershed: peak flow 

increases at the small 

catchment scale 

No effect Moderate effect at the small catchment-scale 

analyzed; negligible at a 6th level watershed 

scale. No significant effect due to the scale of 

the affected environment. 

Watershed: water quality 

(sediment and turbidity) 

No effect No significant effect. Sediment and turbidity 

would be minor and localized, and would not 

degrade water quality. 

Heritage No effect No effect 

Karst/Caves No effect No significant effect. No caves were found in 

unit. Some ground disturbance is expected 

from logging activities; however, partial 

suspension and no harvest buffer in moderateand high-vulnerability karst areas will protect 

the soils and karst. 

Soils/Wetland No effect No significant effect. No wetlands found in 

unit or road line. Some soil disturbance in unit 

is expected from logging activities; the 

amount will not exceed Region 10 soil quality 

standards. 

Botany: sensitive and rare 

plants 

No effect No significant effect. No sensitive or rare 

plants are known within the direct effects area 

for the proposed action. Some individuals of 

maidenhair spleenwort may be indirectly 

affected, but the project will not affect the 

population and its persistence in the long-term 

due to the small size of the single unit. 

Invasive plant species No effect. Non-project vectors 

(wildlife, wind, drainage flow) 

would continue to influence 

current populations. 

No significant effect. Given the erosion 

control and revegetation measures detailed in 

the Unit Card, a low risk of invasive plant 

introduction and spread is expected. 
10  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Resource Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternatives 2 and 3 

Silviculture No effect. Tree growth and 

mortality would progress 

naturally; growth of stand 

volume would slow. 

No significant effect. Alt 2: Tree growth 

would continue naturally, with increased 

structural diversity, enhanced growth, and 

changes in understory plants in the short term, 

varying according to the treatment applied. 

Alt 3: Clearcut portion of 54 acres would 

result in stand re-initiation; 16 acre thinned 

portion would be similar to Alt 2. 

Transportation No effect. Routine road 

maintenance would continue. 

No significant effect. The 1 mile of new road 

constructed for the project would be closed 

following project activities and motor vehicle 

use eliminated (i.e., no net increase in the road 

system). 

Wildlife: threatened or 

endangered species: Steller 

sea lion, humpback whale 

No effect No significant effect. There will be no effect 

to the marine environment (also see Table 5, 

below). 

Wildlife: sensitive species: 

Queen Charlotte goshawk 

No effect No significant effect. There are no known 

nests in the area. “May impact individuals but 

not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or 

a loss of viability” (also see Table 5, below). 

Wildlife: MIS and other 

species of concern potentially 

occurring in area 

No effect No significant effect. “May impact individuals 

but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing 

or a loss of viability” (also see wildlife 

resource report for more detail). 

Subsistence No change in abundance and 

distribution of, access to, and 

competition for resources. 

No significant effect. There will be no 

significant change in abundance and 

distribution of, access to, and competition for 

resources. 

Timber Economics No effect. Sawtimber to meet 

the purpose and need would 

have to be harvested and 

thinning objectives would have 

to be met from other areas. 

No significant effect. Up to 2.5 MMBF of 

timber could be supplied to meet market 

demand and up to 14 direct annualized jobs 

could be supported. 

1

 Effects are more fully discussed in individual resource reports. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

At this time, there are no other projects ongoing or planned in the project area or vicinity. 

While the Naukati Timber Sale project area is planned approximately 1.6 miles from the 

Dargon Point project area, the Naukati Timber Sale project contributes little to nothing to 

cumulative effects. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are discussed for the 

alternatives in the resource sections below. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  11 

Resources Not Likely to be Affected by Any of the 

Alternatives 

Several resources would be unaffected by implementing any of the alternatives because 

project activities would not overlap with known locations of previously identified 

sensitive resources or because sensitive resource issues/concerns were addressed during 

the development of the Proposed Action. 

Heritage 

An archaeological survey of the project area was undertaken in the summer of 2011 and 

2012, adhering to the stipulations found in the Third Amended Programmatic Agreement 

among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Heritage 

Resource Management on National Forests in Alaska. Any effects (direct or indirect) to 

historic properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places have been mitigated 

according to the guidance in the aforementioned Programmatic Agreement in consultation 

with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation as required. All work conducted will meet all of the applicable Forest Service 

standards including the Forest Service Manual 2300, Chapter 2360- Heritage Program 

Management and the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, section HSS1- 

Heritage Resource Activities. The final determination by Forest Service Heritage 

Resources is that the project will have no effect on historic properties eligible to the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Karst/Caves 

In 2011, Forest Service geologists inventoried the proposed treatment area for karst 

resources and conducted a karst vulnerability assessment. The treatment area is 

completely underlain by limestone with well-developed karst drainage. No significant 

caves were found within the unit. The epikarst in these units is moderate to welldeveloped on knobs and ridge tops with a complex mosaic of Sarkar and McGilvery soils, 

and several small sinks were noted. One significant insurgence feature was found along 

the southern portion of the unit and will be protected by a 100-foot no-harvest buffer. 

Due to previous harvest and thinning, a layer of organic debris is present throughout most 

of the unit. In general, because of this previous disturbance, the overall vulnerability of 

this area is classified as moderate. Partial suspension in the moderate-vulnerability karst 

areas will protect these shallow mineral and organic soils. The Forest Service determined 

that the project will not likely affect the karst resources within the project area. 

Old-growth Forest 

This project proposes harvest in a young-growth stand, so there will be no effect to oldgrowth forest or associated biodiversity. There are no changes proposed to Old-growth 

Reserves. No further analysis for these resources is necessary. 
12  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Recreation 

Recreational resources will be unaffected by implementing any of the alternatives because 

project activities would not overlap with known locations of previously identified 

recreational resources. 

Scenery 

The project is located in the foreground and middleground distance zones of the Tuxekan 

Passage, with a Scenic Integrity Objective of Low and Very Low. In either action 

alternative the harvest design would be fully within the Forest Plan scenery standards and 

guidelines as forested vegetation would screen activities from view. 

Soils/Wetlands 

Ulloa, Sarkar, McGilvery and Kitkun soils were identified within the unit, the proposed 

road line, and existing rock pit, as well as Kitkun soils in the southwestern part of the unit. 

Ulloa soils are well-drained, deep mineral soils overlying limestone. Sarkar soils are welldrained, mineral soils overlying limestone at shallow depths. McGilvery soils are welldrained, dry organic soils overlying bedrock at shallow depths. Kitkun soils are poorly 

drained, shallow organic soils that overlie bedrock. There was little evidence on the 

ground of past logging. Approximately 3 percent detrimental soil disturbance is expected 

to occur within the unit as a result of shovel harvest activities. Detrimental soil disturbance 

in the unit is expected to change from the existing 4 percent to 7 percent. This level of 

disturbance is not considered significant and the implementation of this project would 

meet the Region 10 Soil Quality Standards. 

Unit design and road location are heavily influenced by the project area’s soil resources. 

Factors such as steepness of slope, rock outcrops and riparian areas determine unit 

boundaries, road and landing locations, and intensity of treatment. No wetlands were 

identified in the proposed unit or road line. All applicable BMPs are listed in the unit and 

road cards. 

Resources Which Could be Affected by the 

Alternatives 

Fisheries Resources 

Affected Environment 

Fisheries 

There are no fish streams within the proposed harvest unit. There is one Class I fish stream 

about 100 feet outside of the unit boundary that will be protected by leaving a no-cut 

buffer of at least 130 feet between the harvest boundary and the stream. 

 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  13 

The stream channel types within close proximity to the harvest unit are palustrine and 

floodplain. The original harvest did not leave a stream buffer; however, the proposed unit 

is designed to leave an appropriate buffer for the channel type present so the harvest will 

not impact the stream channel. Risk of windthrow in the area is high; therefore, a 

reasonable assurance of windfirmness (RAW) zone will be reviewed by an 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) prior to implementation. The IDT will determine if the stream 

buffer needs additional protection from windthrow. 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

requires consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for actions or proposed actions that may 

adversely affect essential fish habitat, defined as the waters and substrate necessary to fish 

for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Essential fish habitat (EFH) 

includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water currently and 

historically accessible to anadromous fish, as well as estuarine, intertidal, and marine 

waters. 

There is one Class I stream and one Class II stream adjacent to the proposed unit. 

According to the karst resource report (Kovarik 2011), the proposed unit is completely 

underlain by limestone with well-developed karst drainage. This karst drainage system 

may be connected to the streams adjacent to the unit. The epikarst in this unit is moderate 

to well-developed on knobs and ridge tops with a complex mosaic of Sarkar and 

McGilvery soils, and several small sinks were noted. One significant insurgence feature 

was found along the southern portion of the unit and will be protected by a 100-foot noharvest buffer. According to the watershed resource report (Thompson 2012), both 

catchments may still be experiencing elevated peak flows due to past harvest. With the 

potential elevated peak flows and the connect karst drainage system, there may be an 

increased potential of sediment transported into the stream systems. The effects from these 

short-term sediment deliveries would be minor and localized, and would not degrade fish 

habitat. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Fish Species 

The Forest Service completed a Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) for 

this project. No stocks of Pacific salmon or steelhead originating from freshwater habitat 

in Alaska are listed under the Endangered Species Act. No critical habitat has been 

designated for federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered fish species in 

Alaskan waters and there is no known occupied or unoccupied habitat for these species 

within the project area. However, some individuals of the listed species originating from 

freshwaters in the lower 48 states may occasionally occur in the offshore marine waters to 

the west of Prince of Wales Island. In addition, there are no fish species designated as 

sensitive on the revised 2009 Alaska Region Sensitive Species List. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat 

Stream temperature can increase as a result of timber harvest due to loss of shading when 
14  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

riparian forest is harvested or blown down. Implementation of RMA buffers as prescribed 

on the unit cards will protect water quality and fish habitat by preventing the loss of 

shading and decreasing the risk of blowdown that could lead to increased stream 

temperature. 

Potential effects on streamflow and sediment delivery are explained in the watershed 

section below. Increased streamflow can scour bed substrates, affecting the suitability of 

salmon spawning habitat. Since increased streamflow and sediment delivery effects would 

be short term, minor, and localized, they would not degrade or impair fish habitat in the 

project watersheds or project area. The proposed road construction in the project 

watersheds is not expected to impair stream condition due to implementation of BMPs and 

2008 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 

The Forest Service determined that the Dargon Point project “may affect essential fish 

habitat, but effects would be minor and localized and would not degrade fish habitat.” 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Fish Species 

There will be no effects on federally listed threatened and endangered, or sensitive fish 

species resulting from the planned project because there are no known federally listed 

threatened and endangered, or sensitive fish species within the project area. 

Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impact to aquatic resources are incorporated 

into Region 10 Forest Service best management practices (BMPs) and standards and 

guidelines (S&Gs). All road construction is required to follow all Region 10 S&Gs and 

BMPs, which include measures to protect riparian management areas, assure 

windfirmness along streams, and minimize sedimentation. 

Some of the S&Gs and BMPs required include: 

 leaving riparian management area (RMA) and reasonable assurance of 

windfirmness (RAW) buffers along Class I, II, and III streams; 

 not filling or disturbing productive stream areas; 

 minimizing sedimentation by not allowing harvest activities to accelerate sideslope 

surface erosion or mass wasting into stream channels; 

 timing construction to avoid critical periods in life stages of aquatic resources; 

 road crossings of streams should be designed to all applicable federal and state 

standards, quidelines, and BMPs to control effects of transportation systems on 

water quality and fish habitat; 

 all timing restrictions to protect habitat, maintain fish passage, and mitigate 

adverse sedimentation should be followed during all construction and 

reconstruction of roads. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  15 

Watershed 

Affected Environment 

The project area includes portions of two 6th level watersheds. Both watersheds were 

determined to be “functioning properly” in the national Watershed Condition 

Classification (USDA FS 2011). The total project disturbance (up to 75 acres combined 

timber harvest and road construction) amounts to less than 0.25 percent of either 

watershed and will have negligible direct, indirect, or cumulative effects at this scale. 

Therefore, this analysis is based on “catchment areas” within these large 6th level 

watersheds. The project-scale catchments, feeding first-order streams, are much smaller 

than what would normally be analyzed for a 70-acre project, but provide a hard look at 

potential project effects at a relevant scale. For this project, two catchment areas were 

analyzed and are referred to as Catchment A (which contains about 66 acres of the unit) 

and Catchment B (which contains about 6 acres of the unit). 

The Dargon Point project will require the construction of approximately 1 mile of new 

system road, including 0.26 mile constructed on existing decommissioned roadbed 

(Jacobson 2012). An existing rock pit would be expanded by about 1 acre. There are no 

stream crossings on proposed roads in Catchment A or B. 

Environmental Consequences 

The ability to actually measure changes in streamflow and water quality in response to the 

Dargon Point project is extremely limited due to the lack of baseline data and the natural 

range of variability of these parameters in response to climate and other factors. 

Nonetheless, sufficient information is available to disclose the magnitude and extent of 

likely effects of the project. The level (magnitude and intensity) of effects is characterized 

by descriptors which account for how measurable the effect would be, how widespread the 

effect is likely to be, and how long it is likely to last. Descriptors of effects are: 

 Negligible: Effects would be undetectable or if detected, would be considered 

slight, detectable only at the site, and last less than a day. 

 Minor: Effects would be measurable, although the changes would be small, 

localized to the site or affected stream reach, and last less than a week. 

 Moderate: Effects would be measurable at the stream reach scale, and last more 

than a week. 

 Major: Effects would be readily measurable at the stream reach or sub-watershed 

scale, and would last for years. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives 

Streamflow 

Changes in streamflow are difficult to measure and are likely to be indistinguishable from 

the influence of climate-trends. Harvest area amounts to 22 percent and 4 percent of 

catchment-scale harvest, respectively. The Dargon Point project, when considered alone, 

could result in a minor increase in peak streamflows in Catchment A. It is unlikely to 

affect peak streamflows in Catchment B and is unlikely to affect low streamflows in either 
16  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

catchment. Commercial thinning would have less effect than clearcutting, commensurate 

with the amount of forest canopy and basal area retained. 

At the small catchment scale analyzed here, the Dargon Point project will likely delay 

recovery and extend peak flow increases in both catchments. This effect is considered 

moderate since it might be detected at the stream reach scale in these small catchments 

and would last for years. However, the effect is not significant, due to the very small scale 

analyzed. The total project disturbance (up to 75 acres combined timber harvest and road 

construction) amounts to less than 0.25 percent of the [6th level] watershed and will have 

negligible direct or indirect effects at this scale. This effect is not highly controversial and 

is not likely to adversely affect the environment. More information is in the watershed 

resource report. 

Water Quality (Sediment) 

The slight amount of traffic in general and quick turnarounds for this small project, 

combined with good quality rock present for road construction, suggest the roads are low 

risk for sediment sources. 

Despite the absence of stream crossings, the Dargon Point project could result in a 

temporary increase in sediment delivery to streams during road construction and quarry 

expansion. However, effects of the short-term sediment delivery from these activities 

would be minor and localized, and would not degrade water quality. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

Streamflow 

Given the best available information from peer-reviewed literature and a worse-case 

scenario for recovery, affected steams in these catchments likely experienced increased 

peakflows in the past and have not fully recovered to pre-harvest conditions. These effects 

are diminishing with time as a result of forest regrowth. The total project disturbance (up 

to 75 acres combined timber harvest and road construction) amounts to less than 0.25 

percent of the [6th level] watershed and will have negligible cumulative effects at this 

scale. There are no ongoing or foreseeable projects that will additionally affect streamflow 

in these catchments. 

Water Quality (Sediment) 

Other foreseeable projects include ongoing road maintenance on other roads in these 

catchments. Road maintenance could result in additional temporary increases in sediment 

delivery to streams during road construction and quarry expansion. Effects of the shortterm sediment delivery from these activities would be minor and localized, and would not 

degrade water quality. 

Mitigation 

Mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impact to aquatic resources are incorporated 

into Forest Service BMPs and Region 10 standards and guidelines. 

Key BMPs incorporated into the Dargon Point Project include: 

 All Class I, II, and III streams would receive no-harvest buffers according to 

Tongass Timber Reform Act and the Forest Plan (Brigham 2012) 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  17 

 High vulnerability karst features would receive no harvest buffers (Kovarik 2011) 

 Roads were located to avoid the high vulnerability karst features, as well as other 

karst features (Jacobson 2012). Road sidecast and excess excavation would not be 

placed near karst features. 

 Use of ground-based equipment would minimize yarding disturbance and would 

meet soil quality standards (Saari 2012). 

 Karst features within the proposed unit would be protected by designating them 

with stream protection flagging to minimize adjacent ground disturbance, control 

equipment crossings, and require logging debris removal. 

 Roads would be placed into storage after timber harvest is completed (Jacobson 

2012). 

Site-specific BMPs are listed in the unit and road cards and in the watershed resource 

report. 

Botany 

Affected Environment 

Biological evaluations are required for the sensitive plant resource for any project with 

ground disturbing activity. Once the project is initiated, prefield review is done to 

determine whether or not an on-the-ground survey is required. 

In June 2011, the District ecologist conducted a rare plant survey for this project, in which 

potential suitable habitat was identified for each species of interest. The survey effort was 

focused in those areas. A detailed map showing the exact route of the project area survey 

is on file at the Thorne Bay Ranger District and has been incorporated into the Natural 

Resource Information System (NRIS) survey layer. Complete plant survey field forms can 

also be found in the project record at the Thorne Bay Ranger District. 

No sensitive plants were located within areas likely to be affected by project activities. 

The surveys took place at the appropriate time of year to identify sensitive plants. 

Our known existing condition for rare and sensitive plants is maintained spatially within 

the NRIS national database. 

Sensitive Plants 

On February 2, 2009, the Regional Forester approved an updated sensitive species list for 

the Alaska Region. The following table (Table 3) includes a list of the sensitive plants as 

well as their suspected habitats. 

 
18  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Table 3: Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, known and suspected to occur in 

the Dargon Point project area and on the Thorne Bay Ranger District 

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Occurrence 

In Project On TBRD 

Botrychium 

spathulatum 

Spatulate 

moonwort 

Calcareous areas, 

upper beach meadows, 

well drained 

Suspected Suspected 

Botrychium tunux Moosewort fern 

Calcareous areas, 

upper beach meadows, 

well drained 

Suspected Suspected 

Cypripedium 

parviflorum var. 

pubescens 

Large yellow 

lady’s slipper 

Calcareous, open 

forest, beach/forest 

ecotone 

Suspected Known 

Ligusticum calderi Calder’s loveage Forest edge Suspected Suspected 

Lobaria amplissima Lichen, no 

common name 

beach/forest ecotone Suspected Known 

Piperia unalascensis Alaska rein orchid Open forest Suspected Known 

Platanthera 

orbiculata 

Lesser roundleaved orchid Forest, forest edge, 

open forest 

Suspected Known 

Romanzoffia 

unalaschcensis 

Unalaska mistmaid Forest edge Suspected Known 

Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson’s 

checkermallow 

Beach/forest ecotone Suspected Suspected 

Tanacetum 

bipinnatum subsp. 

huronense 

Dune tansy 

Upper beach meadow Suspected Suspected 

Rare Plants 

Rare plants on the Tongass National Forest are designated due to several factors. Mainly, 

they are uncommon plants with population viability, rarity or conservation concerns. They 

are known or suspected to occur on the Tongass and ranked by Alaska National Heritage 

Program (ANHP) Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List as S1 or S2 within the State (meaning 

that they are imperiled or critically imperiled in the State because of rarity or other factors 

making it vulnerable to extirpation from the State), but they are not listed on the Alaska 

Region Sensitive Species List. The Rare Plants List is developed through consultation and 

agreement by District, Forest and Regional ecologists and botanists. It is a dynamic list 

that has the flexibility to change as taxons are reassessed, increasing numbers of species 

are found, or as concerns arise. Table 4 includes the rare plants suspected and their 

habitats within the project area. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  19 

Table 4: Rare plants suspected in the project area 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Western meadow rue Thalictrum occidentale Streams and lakeshores 

Maidenhair spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes Limestone cliffs at low elevation 

Northern moonwort Botrychium pinnatum Forest 

Lanceleaf grapefern Botrychium lanceolatum Forest, wetland fen 

Angle leaved 

bittercress 

Cardamine angulata Streambanks, disturbed sites, beach 

edge 

Alaska oniongrass Melica subulata Forest edge, near beach or muskeg 

Cutleaf foamflower Tiarella trifoliate spp. 

lacinata 

Forest 

Twinberry 

honeysuckle 

Lonicera involucrata Beach and forest edge 

Rare Plants Known in the Project Area 

The only known rare plant found during field surveys was maidenhair spleenwort 

(Asplenium trichomanes). The maidenhair spleenwort is ranked as a G5S1, meaning the 

species is secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the 

periphery. The species is considered critically imperiled in the State because of extreme 

rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), or because of some 

factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. 

Maidenhair spleenwort is a small fern that grows clustered on short rhizomes. The rachis 

of this fern is black, resembling the more common maidenhair fern from which it has 

adopted its name. At this location, the maidenhair spleenwort was found just outside of the 

young-growth stand proposed for harvest, near saltwater, on short, but nearly vertical 

limestone cliffs. No maidenhair spleenwort was found within the young-growth stand, 

even though suitable habitat is available. All known locations of maidenhair spleenwort on 

the District are in relatively shady areas within old-growth timber at very low elevations 

near saltwater. 

Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action and noaction alternatives to the sensitive and rare plant species and their suitable habitat. 

Direct effects of the proposed project include immediate changes in habitat conditions and 

disturbance to plant populations during project activities. Direct effects occur within the 

footprint of the proposed activities. For example, the use of heavy equipment for thinning 

and harvest work could crush or trample plants. 

Indirect effects include effects that occur later in time as a repercussion of the project, 

such as changes in hydrology, evapotranspiration, and light availability. Since indirect 

effects are difficult to analyze, an area within 100 meters (or approximately three tree 
20  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

heights) is commonly used on the Tongass to distinguish the area in which populations 

and habitats may be indirectly affected. 

Cumulative effects analysis includes the incremental effect of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or individual undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects for rare 

and sensitive plants are typically analyzed on the island-wide scale because it is a natural 

geographic boundary, which can sometimes limit pollination and dispersal. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No-action Alternative, no direct or indirect effects to rare or sensitive plants are 

anticipated as a result of this project. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Sensitive Plants: Under Alternatives 2 and 3, no direct or indirect effects from thinning, 

clearcutting, or road building are anticipated to occur to any known sensitive plants. See 

the Biological Evaluation (Lease 2012) for full analysis for sensitive plants. 

Rare Plants: No rare plants are known to occur within the direct effects area for the 

proposed action. It is possible that undetected individuals and suitable habitat may be 

affected. 

Maidenhair spleenwort is the only known rare plant in the project area. The action 

alternatives, as proposed, are likely to indirectly affect the known populations of 

maidenhair spleenwort found outside of the proposed treatment area. Given the change in 

the light regime for the thinning and clearcut prescriptions, it is possible that the effects 

from adjacent proposed clearcutting may have a slightly higher impact than the indirect 

effects from thinning. However, given the past harvest that has occurred, and the 

persistence of this fern at this location, it is possible these indirect effects may impact 

some individuals of this population, but it is not likely to affect its persistence in the longterm. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The No-action Alternative of this project will not contribute to the overall cumulative 

effects to rare and sensitive plants on Prince of Wales Island, given that no direct or 

indirect effects are anticipated. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Current use of the existing roads, streams, and upland areas including hunting and fishing, 

trapping, berry picking, camping, OHV, guided tourist destinations, free use, commercial 

logging, road maintenance, firewood harvest, and other subsistence and recreation pursuits 

will continue with the action alternatives. These activities have potential to alter suitable 

habitat and impact rare and sensitive plants; however, any future ground-disturbing 

activities on National Forest System land will be addressed through NEPA and a 

biological evaluation will be done for all sensitive plants to disclose and mitigate for any 

potential effects. 

 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  21 

The only known rare or sensitive plant likely to be affected by the action alternatives is 

maidenhair spleenwort; therefore, it is the only rare or sensitive species with potential 

cumulative effects as a result of the proposed project. Given the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area and on the island, it is possible 

individual plants have been adversely affected. However, given the suitable habitat for this 

species, it is unlikely there are future management activities occurring in its suitable 

habitat. On the Thorne Bay Ranger District, this plant has only been found in old-growth 

near saltwater, easily within the area covered by the Beach and Estuary Fringe Standards 

and Guidelines in the Forest Plan. 

Overall, this project is not expected to contribute to any long-term cumulative effects for 

rare or sensitive plants. 

Invasive Plant Species 

Affected Environment 

Non-native (invasive) plant surveys were completed for this project. Surveys were 

completed along closed roads, the existing rockpit along the NFS road 2060130, 

throughout the treatment unit, along the beach, and along karst features adjacent to the 

proposed treatment area. The only high-priority invasive plant found was reed 

canarygrass, which was found along a closed road in one isolated patch, along the beach, 

and in a resurgence/sinkhole next to more-recently harvested young-growth. 

Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project 

alternatives on invasive plant potential introduction and spread. 

The direct effects of timber harvest or thinning are relatively immediate and occur within 

the footprint of the proposed activities. Direct effects can include creating suitable habitat, 

or increasing potential vectors for invasive plant introductions. Indirect effects occur at a 

later time as a result of the project, such as changes in hydrology, evapotranspiration, and 

light availability. Due to the nature of invasive plants, it is difficult to distinguish direct 

and indirect effects. Direct effects can be measured by the amount of potential change in 

habitat or ground disturbance and the change in vector potential. However, whether or not 

an invasive plant has been introduced usually is not known until a later time. 

Cumulative effects analysis includes the incremental effect of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or individual undertakes the actions. Cumulative effects for 

invasive plants are typically analyzed on the island-wide scale because the island is a 

natural geographic boundary which can limit pollination and dispersal. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The No-action Alternative is not expected to have any direct or indirect effects for 

invasive plants. 
22  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Habitat Alteration Expected as a Result of Project: Habitat alterations would be the result 

of ground-based yarding and road construction, resulting in some soil disturbance and 

exposure of mineral soils. 

In addition, the proposed timber harvest associated with the action alternatives will 

increase the light levels, providing habitat more conducive to most invasive plant species. 

The proposed thinning or partial harvest will create less light in the understory, and reach 

the stem exclusion phase faster than clearcutting. Therefore the risk for invasive plant 

introduction or spread due to habitat alteration would be slightly higher in the clearcutting 

alternative than in the thinning alternative. However, given how quickly the vegetation in 

the area is known to regenerate after harvest, and the fact that no invasive species have 

been found within a closed canopy forest condition, it is likely that over the long-term, the 

risks would be similar to the existing condition. 

Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation: The primary potential vectors for 

the spread of invasive plants in this project will be from ground-based yarding and road 

building equipment. 

The expected overall risk of invasive plant introduction and spread, as a result of project’s 

direct and indirect effects, is low. No significant effects are expected. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The No-action Alternative for this project is not expected to contribute to the possible 

cumulative effects for invasive plants on Prince of Wales Island. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Due to the traffic throughout Prince of Wales (including recreation, subsistence, 

community access, and management activities), the overall risk of invasive plant spread 

and introductions is moderate. Recent decision documents that impact potential 

introduction and spread include the Access Travel Management Plan (ATM), and the 

Logjam Timber Sale. The ATM proposes to store or decommission 698 miles (over 65 

percent) of the roads, and convert an additional 10 miles to hiking trails. This will reduce 

the miles of road frequently traveled and decrease the chance of new introductions. 

Given mitigation measures incorporated into the unit cards, the overall cumulative risk of 

invasive plant spread is expected to be low, and no significant affects are expected. 

Silviculture 

Affected Environment 

The proposed harvest area is dominated by Sitka spruce, with western hemlock common, 

with western redcedar represented on a much smaller scale. The species composition in 

the project stand, as computed from stand exam data is 86 percent Sitka spruce, 14 percent 

western hemlock and less than 1percent Western redcedar. 

Trees are competing for light and few, if any, new trees are being established. Tree canopy 

closure is high and predominantly composed of a single layer of dominant, codominant 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  23 

and intermediate spruce and hemlock. Out-competed trees are dying or have died, and 

growth of understory vegetation, important for wildlife habitat, is restricted. Average stem 

height-to-diameter ratios over most of the stand are within the range suitable for 

intermediate treatment; however, portions of the stand consists of taller, more-spindly 

trees making these areas unstable if predisposed through thinning due to wind, snow and 

ice damage. Pockets of windthrow are present in the southern portion of the stand. Snags 

and downed trees are comprised of mostly intermediate and smaller-sized material from 

trees that have succumbed to suppression mortality; however, small groups of larger trees 

of the dominant and co-dominant crown have blown over within the stand. 

Environmental Consequences 

Silvicultural Systems 

The effects analysis area used is the proposed 70-acre Dargon Point project stand, as 

silvicultural treatments are restricted to the project area. Silvicultural treatments outside 

the project area will be covered by future environmental analysis. 

Silvicultural systems are used to manage, harvest, and re-establish stands of forest trees 

for the purpose of meeting pre-determined objectives. The Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines and USDA Forest Service Manual 2400 (Timber Management) provides 

detailed information about the silvicultural systems recommended for the Tongass 

National Forest. Two-aged management results in a seedling stand with varying levels of 

older-aged residual trees. Uneven-aged management results in a stand of younger trees 

interspersed with older trees, either in clumps or distributed across the stand. Even-aged 

management results in the conversion of mature stands to faster growing stands of a single 

age. The post-harvest conditions of the forest stand for all systems are dependent upon the 

existing plant community, the retained canopy structure, and advanced regeneration. 

Species composition is monitored to ensure that the mix of species is roughly the same as 

expected on the existing site. 

The Dargon Point project area analysis used a variety of silvicultural systems tailored to 

site-specific objectives. The objectives include: 

 Maintain, prolong, and/or improve understory forage production, and improve 

habitat distribution, including future old-growth characteristics in young-growth 

timber stands, 

 Maximized wood fiber production for future human use, 

 Favorable timber sale economics and logging feasibility. 

A complete silvicultural prescription for the entire length of the rotation will be written for 

this stand. These prescriptions provide guidance for treatments following the proposed 

timber harvest for this project, including subsequent entries, thinning, and pruning. 

Even-aged System 

All or the majority of the merchantable trees would be harvested. The objectives are to 

create a fast-growing stand of trees to maximize wood fiber production, regeneration of 

desirable species such as spruce, reduction of disease, reduction of windthrow, provide 

favorable timber sale harvest economics and improve logging feasibility. Natural 
24  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

regeneration is used to restock the harvest units. Areas must be reforested with a minimum 

of 300 trees per acre by the fifth year following harvest (FSH 2409.17, p. 5). This is 

monitored with regeneration surveys and certification of successful reforestation. 

Clearcutting: The cutting of all or the majority of the trees, leaving less than 15 percent 

of the original stand’s basal area following one harvest entry. It produces a fully exposed 

microsite for the development of a new age class. 

Justification for clearcutting: Clearcutting is prescribed where there are no other 

conflicting resource issues. This treatment is prescribed to preclude or minimize the 

occurrence of potentially adverse impacts from logging system damage, or windthrow. 

Clearcutting also increases the regeneration of desirable species and removes decayed 

trees. 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment: The age at which a managed stand is 

harvested for regeneration purposes is called the rotation age. The Forest Plan defines this 

as the period between regeneration establishment and final cutting. Agency policy is that a 

rotation age can be no earlier than the age at which 95 percent of culmination of mean 

annual increment (CMAI) occurs (USDA FS 2008b, p. B-14). CMAI is the age in the 

growth cycle of a tree or stand at which the mean annual increment for height, diameter, 

basal area, or volume is at a maximum. For the National Forests, CMAI is based on the 

expected merchantable cubic foot volume growth at the stand level according to the 

management intensities and utilization standards assumed in the Forest Plan. On the 

Tongass, this translates to a range of rotation ages of about 60 to 170 years. CMAI varies 

by stand productivity and past management of the stand. The 70 year old Dargon Point 

stand proposed for harvest with this project is estimated to have reached CMAI. Because 

of this, the stand may be considered for a final cutting according to Forest Plan CMAI 

requirements. 

Stand development after clearcutting is well documented and follows a general pattern: 

 Stand Initiation: A new cohort with thousands of newly germinated trees, as well 

as advance regeneration, occupies the site. Residual shrubs and herbaceous plants 

respond to the increased light for 8 to 10 years, when the conifers begin to overtop 

the shrubs and herbs. Stand species richness is greatest at this stage of 

development. 

 Stem Exclusion: By age 15 to 25 years, the new cohort of trees begins competing 

for light and few, if any, new trees are added to the cohort. Out-competed trees 

begin to die. Understory plants decline rapidly and can be completely eliminated in 

35 years unless openings are created in the overstory. 

 Understory Reinitiation: The new cohort continues to suppress the understory 

shrubs and herbs for up to 100 years with understory plants not re-appearing until 

age 120 to 150 when overstory trees begin to die and allow enough light to reach 

the canopy floor. 

Intermediate Treatments - Thinning 

Removal of the forest overstory alters the microsite conditions that influence density and 

species composition of the understory vegetation. Different components dominate the 

stand at different stages, and the overall forest structure changes as the new stand 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  25 

develops. The level of change depends on age of the stand, site productivity, the type of 

silvicultural treatment applied during harvest and subsequent treatments applied during 

stand development. 

While stagnation almost never occurs in forested stands in Southeast Alaska, many stands 

develop tall and spindly trees and can be unstable, predisposing stands to wind, snow, and 

ice damage. Trees allocate energy in the following order: respiration, needles and roots, 

reproduction, height growth, diameter growth, and lastly resistance to disease. As stands 

enter the stem exclusion, stage trees develop high height-to-stem diameter ratios. For 

unthinned stands, a height-to-diameter ratio of approximately 95 has been found to be too 

high for good stand stability. Thinning stands at the appropriate time can raise average 

diameters and increases the merchantable board foot yield. Stand stability is also improved 

by lowering or maintaining height-to-diameter ratios. 

On the Tongass National Forest, natural regeneration often results in stands with too many 

trees per acre following clearcut harvest, reducing individual tree growth and shading out 

understory vegetation that may be valuable to some wildlife species. Thinning is designed 

to improve future tree growth by reducing stand density, thus reducing the competition 

between trees for sunlight. Increased sunlight as a result of thinning also allows for greater 

shrub and forb growth. Thinning is also used to manipulate species composition, and both 

species of cedar are usually favored as leave trees to increase their abundance in 

previously harvested areas. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The proposed timber harvest would change the understory plant production, create more 

diversity in stand structure within the 1,000-foot beach fringe, create more windfirm 

conditions and provide for both short-term and long-term production of timber. Change 

would vary by alternative based on the silvicultural prescription. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Understory plant production and current stand trajectory toward old-growth conditions 

will not be affected by management activities. Tree growth and mortality will continue to 

progress naturally. Without treatment it is expected that tree growth and subsequently 

growth of stand volume will slow. Tree height-to-diameter ratios will increase, potentially 

limiting future management options due to susceptibility to windthrow concerns. Other 

forestlands with LUDs that allow timber harvest would be needed to meet the objective of 

providing an economic supply of timber to support local jobs. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Crown Thinning: Approximately 54 acres that occur within the TM LUD will be thinned 

by an ITS crown thinning, retaining 50 percent of the stand’s basal area. This is an 

intermediate treatment designed to harvest commercial volume while enhancing growth, 

quality, vigor and composition of the stand prior to a final harvest. The resulting stand will 

remain generally even-aged, tending to two-aged where residual trees exist in higher 

concentrations. Regeneration is not intended with this treatment. Regeneration that results 

from this treatment will be slow growing due to competition with the retained overstory 

trees and would likely be western hemlock given its tolerance for shade. Understory plants 

that are currently present in the stand are expected to become more abundant in this 

portion of the stand compared to understory in the unthinned portion of this stand. Though 
26  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

less windfirm in the short-term than the existing condition or the clearcutting alternative, 

evidence of a similar treatment associated with the nearby Prince of Wales Commercial 

Thinning Study indicates that a crown thinning is relatively windfirm. 

Variable density thinning: This treatment includes an approximate 4-acre skip (noharvest) corridor adjacent to the beach along the far western portion of the stand. Outside 

of this no-harvest area, trees will be thinned by ITS to approximately 50 percent of the 

existing stand’s basal area. Thinning will be lighter along the skipped corridor than within 

that portion of the beach fringe adjacent to the clearcut. Additionally, roughly 10 – 15 

percent of this thinned area may be converted to small gaps, approximately 1/4 acre in 

size. Assuming regeneration establishes in gaps, the resulting stand will be a two-aged 

stand tending towards uneven-aged over time. Stand growth, quality and vigor will be less 

than the crown thinning portion due to a higher retention of slower-growing hemlock trees 

and generally favoring trees that are defective, and desirable for wildlife habitat. Gaps 

approximately 1/4-acre in size may not regenerate with trees, or would be slower to 

regenerate with trees than larger openings that are created by even-aged management. 

Hemlock will likely be the more successful species to establish in these gaps given that 

hemlock is prevalent in this portion of the stand and has a greater tolerance for shade 

compared to spruce or western redcedar. Understory plants currently present in the stand 

are expected to reestablish and be more abundant in these gaps for a greater length of time 

compared to understory conditions in the thinned portion or the unthinned portion of this 

stand. This alternative is expected to yield roughly 1.4 MMBF of sawlog material. 

Alternative 3 

Clearcutting: In this alternative approximately 54 acres will be harvested by clearcutting. 

Rapid natural regeneration of spruce, hemlock and western redcedar is expected, with 

spruce being more prevalent than hemlock and redcedar only a minor component of the 

regeneration. This regeneration will likely be reestablished over this portion of the stand 

within the first 2 to 3 years following harvest. Understory plants such as shrubs and forbs 

are expected to reestablish and become abundant over the next 15 to 20 years. Over time, 

the stand canopy closes and restricts light to the forest floor. Different components 

dominate the stand at different stages, and the overall forest structure changes as the new 

stand develops. The level of change will depend on the type of silvicultural treatment 

applied during stand development. As the stand develops, this portion of the stand will 

show less variability in tree diameter and height than the thinned portion. Management, 

such as thinning the harvested acres, will improve stand conditions for future timber 

production. 

Variable density thinning: The remaining 16 acres of the stand will be treated by a 

variable-density thinning as described above for Alternative 2. 

This alternative is expected to yield roughly 2.5 MMBF of sawlog material. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The analysis area for cumulative effects is the entire Dargon Point project area. 

Cumulative effects to forest vegetation have resulted from timber harvest and intermediate 

silvicultural treatments. Scattered windthrow has occurred along exposed stand boundaries 

after past harvest and road construction activities. 

All previous harvest areas have been certified as regenerated. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  27 

Roughly 480 acres of young-growth have been precommercially thinned in the project 

area to maintain understory plants important for wildlife habitat and improve tree growth 

and vigor. 

Transportation 

Affected Environment 

National Forest Transportation System roads are constructed to provide access to National 

Forest System (NFS) lands and are included in the Forest Development Transportation 

Plan (see Transportation Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan). They 

are considered NFS roads as are other roads that are wholly or partially on NFS lands and 

are intended to be maintained for the long term. With the exception of a few 

administrative sites and campgrounds, most forest roads are single lane, constructed with 

blasted quarry rock, and designed for off-highway loads. 

For the Tongass, the demand for roads has primarily been a function of the demand for 

access to timber resources. The amount of future construction is anticipated to be largely 

determined by the need to access timber resources. 

Road Maintenance and Reconstruction 

The maintenance and reconstruction of the existing NFS roads depends largely on the 

volume of timber hauled and, to a lesser extent, on recreational use. Road maintenance 

consists of superficial periodic repairs to an existing road surface, brushing, cleaning, and 

repairing drainage features. These tasks are performed to keep the roads in the safe and 

useful condition for which they were designed. Repairs may be accomplished as annual 

maintenance. Road reconditioning is heavier maintenance of an existing road, such as 

culvert replacement, surface rock replacement and subgrade repair. 

Maintenance and reconditioning of existing NFS roads is an ongoing process that occurs 

on a periodic basis. Normally this type of work is determined to fit the category of routine 

repair and maintenance of roads that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human environment and may be categorically excluded (FSH 

1909.15, 321.12). The maintenance and reconditioning of NFS roads in the project area 

may occur before, during, and after the project analysis. This work is done through 

separate service contracts to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance, recondition 

roads to comply with BMPs, and maintain the existing infrastructure for National Forest 

management activities. The timing of this work may coincide with this projects analysis, 

but is not part of this project. 

As timber is sold as part of this project, cost collections for maintenance and surface rock 

replacement (where applicable) will take place. The collections offset the cost of road 

maintenance. 

Project Access 

Access for Dargon Point project begins on existing road 2060130. At milepost 0.69 on 

road 2060130, a decommissioned road prism intersects road 2060130. 

Road grades run slightly adverse with maximum adverse grades to 12 percent. 
28  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Topography is moderate; generally side slopes are less than 25 percent. Several hundred 

linear feet have side slopes to 45 percent; this is outside the unit on the approach. No 

streams or drainages are crossed and no culverts are anticipated to be required. 

An existing rock pit is located at milepost 0.65 on road 2060130. This pit is planned for 

additional development to provide roughly 6,500 cubic yards of rock for road 

construction. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

An Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) for NFS roads on Prince of Wales Island 

was completed in September 2009. The Dargon Point EA does not propose any changes to 

the travel management plan as determined in the ATM, but does propose new NFS roads 

that would be used to facilitate timber harvest and then would be put into storage after 

timber harvest is complete. No facilities such as marine access facilities (MAF) are 

located or proposed within the project area. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under this alternative, no new road construction will occur. There will be no change in the 

amount of road or access in the project area. Road maintenance such as road brushing and 

cleaning culverts will continue as part of routine maintenance. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Both action alternatives include approximately 1 mile of new NFS road construction and 

additional development of one rock pit to facilitate this construction. After timber harvest 

activities are completed, the new road will be closed and motor vehicle use will be 

eliminated on the new road. No streams or drainages are crossed and no culverts are 

anticipated to be required. There will be minimal effect by 1 mile of new road that will be 

closed following this project. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The cumulative effects analysis area for the transportation system includes the project area 

and road segments leading into the project area. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

actions considered in this analysis include NFS 2000000 road improvements that may 

increase the use of the area roads as access to the project area will be quicker and easier 

from outlying communities. 

Maintenance of existing NFS roads will be ongoing in the project area regardless of the 

alternative selected. Effects to the transportation resource are not significant because no 

overall change to the existing conditions is anticipated. 

Wildlife Resources 

Introduction 

General effects to wildlife from this project will include a slight increase in road density 

and temporary disturbances while survey and implementation activities are underway. 

Changes to habitat structure would be expected under the action alternatives, including 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  29 

opening of the canopy, increased forage production in the understory, and return of 

proposed clearcut areas to stand initiation conditions. Treatments, in the beach buffer, will 

be designed to improve wildlife habitat and facilitate wildlife movement through the 

stand. Wildlife surveys for raptor nests and animal dens were conducted in 2011 within 

the proposed treatment area. Additional surveys were completed in spring and summer of 

2012. 

The following sections summarize the effects of the proposed activities on selected 

threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed species (TES), and Alaska Region 

sensitive species that may occur in or near wildlife analysis area (WAA) 1422. More 

information on other species, such as management indicator species, endemic mammals 

and migratory birds, is available in the wildlife resource report in the project record, 

including a summary of species and anticipated effects. 

Analysis Area 

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is WAA 1422, encompassing 

about 198 square miles of old-growth forest, muskeg, lakes and young-growth stands of 

varying ages on the western shore of north-central Prince of Wales Island. The project 

area is located in the west-central portion of this WAA. 

Affected Environment 

Approximately 38 percent of the productive forest lands in WAA 1422 have been 

harvested. Most of that harvest occurred between the 1970s and 1990s, and much of it is 

either already in or about to enter stem exclusion. Recent analyses have been conducted in 

WAA 1422 for the Big Thorne Timber Sale, so these analyses provide the best and most 

recent estimates of existing condition in this area. Current deer habitat capability is about 

16.5 deer/mi2. That number is expected to decrease over time as more deer habitat enters 

the stem exclusion stage in WAA 1422 (estimated at about 15 deer/mi2 by 2039; USDA 

FS unpublished data (July 19, 2012 v2) located in the Big Thorne project record). 

Below 1,200 feet in elevation, road density in WAA 1422 is currently about 1.9 miles/mi2

for existing roads (not including the decommissioned roads), and 2.1 miles/mi2

 for total 

roads (including decommissioned roads). 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

Species listed as threatened or endangered, or sensitive, which do not occur in or around 

the analysis area, and for whom key habitats do not occur, will not be addressed further in 

this document. Species that could occur in or near marine waters or terrestrial areas in or 

near the project area include humpback whales (endangered), Steller sea lions 

(threatened), and goshawks (sensitive). These are discussed in more detail in the wildlife 

resource report. Also see Table 5. 

Humpback whales 

Humpback whales are the most abundant of the seven species of endangered whales that 

occur in Southeast Alaska waters, from Yakutat Bay south to Queen Charlotte Sound. The 

local distribution of humpbacks in Southeast Alaska appears to be correlated with the 

density and seasonal availability of prey, particularly herring (Clupea harengus) and 

euphausiids (NMFS 1991, p.18). They feed in Southeast Alaskan panhandle waters from 
30  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

about May through December, although some have been seen every month of the year. 

Peak numbers of whales are usually found in near shore waters during late August and 

September, but substantial numbers usually remain until early winter (NMFS 1991). 

Specific Forest Plan direction for humpback whale is given on pages 4-98 to 4-99 (USDA 

FS 2008a). 

Steller sea lion 

Steller sea lion habitat includes marine and adjacent terrestrial areas of the Tongass 

National Forest. Adult Steller sea lions congregate at rookeries on remote islands, often in 

exposed areas not easily accessed by humans or mammalian predictors. The breeding 

season generally extends from late May to early July (NMFS 2008, p. I-2). During fall and 

winter many sea lions disperse from rookeries and congregate at haulout areas which can 

include rocks, reefs, beaches, breakwaters, navigational aids, or floating docks. Specific 

Forest Plan direction for sea lions is given on pages 4-93 and 4-98 to 4-99 (USDA FS 

2008a). 

Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for 

which population viability is a concern on NFS lands within the region. Discussions for all 

five Region 10 Sensitive species can be found in the wildlife resource report, but Queen 

Charlotte goshawk will be discussed here in detail. 

Queen Charlotte / northern goshawk 

Goshawks inhabit forested lands favoring dense stands of Sitka spruce or western hemlock 

trees in mature to old-growth forest types (productive old-growth or POG) providing a 

dense canopy and a diverse understory. The mean percentage of canopy cover value of 50 

percent in Southeast Alaska was lower than that reported in the literature for this species, 

which generally ranges from 60 to 95 percent (Iverson et al. 1996, p. 52). Occasionally, 

goshawks will nest in younger forests or in smaller patches of trees, and forage in young 

forest as well as along edges and in openings (Boyce et al. 2006). The Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines for goshawks (USDA FS 2008a, pp. 4-99 to 4-100) protect nest 

areas by maintaining an area of not less than 100 acres of POG, if it exists, generally 

centered over the nest tree or probable nest tree. There are no known goshawk nests in the 

project area, nor was any evidence of goshawks found during field reconnaissance of the 

area during site visits in 2011 and 2012. 

MIS are vertebrates or invertebrate species whose response to land management activities 

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

requirements (FSM 2631.3). MIS on the Tongass are associated with POG forest whose 

canopy provides important cover and forage habitat for wildlife, and reduces snow 

accumulations in the understory during the winter but is open enough to provide 

understory vegetation during the spring, summer, and fall. Ten of the thirteen wildlife MIS 

identified for the Tongass may occur in the project area, including wolf, marten, bald 

eagle, black bear, brown creeper, hairy woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, river otter, 

Sitka black-tailed deer, and Vancouver Canada goose. Six of the MIS also specifically use 

stream (riparian) habitats and five of the species use estuarine habitats. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

The Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) was selected as a management 

indicator species for the Forest Plan because of population viability concerns in some 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  31 

areas of the Tongass National Forest. This species inhabits the mainland and the larger 

islands south of Frederick Sound (MacDonald and Cook 2007) where its densities are 

closely tied to the population levels of their prey (primarily Sitka black-tailed deer). 

Important components of wolf management include maintaining core area habitats with 

low road density and providing, where possible, adequate deer habitat to support a deer 

population capable of sustaining wolves, generally thought to be about 18 deer/mi2

(USDA FS 2008a, p. 4-95). 

Current deer habitat capability is estimated to be about 16.5 deer/mi2 in WAA 1422 

(USDA FS, unpublished data (July 19, 2012 v2) located in the Big Thorne project record). 

This suggests that, based on modeled deer densities alone, the project area WAAs may not 

be capable of sustaining wolves without deer immigration from neighboring areas. 

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 2011); the potential benefits of young-growth management for deer 

habitat and road management for controlling hunter access; or the presence of large core 

habitat areas in the central part of the island with no roads [Honker Divide Large OGR 

(200,000+ acres) and the Karta Wilderness (about 40,000 acres)]. Changes in estimated 

deer densities and road access and deer habitat provide general measures of effects. 

Human access on roads may result in wolf mortality by both legal and non-legal harvest 

(USDA FS 2008b, p. 3-284). The Forest Plan states that a road density of 0.7 to 1.0 

mi/mi2 or less may be necessary to reduce harvest-related mortality risk where locally 

unsustainable wolf mortality has been identified. Person et al. (1996) reported that wolf 

harvest increased twofold when total road density below 1,200 feet elevation exceeded 0.7 

mi/mi2. 

Although most wolves (i.e., 59 percent) are harvested by hunters and trappers working 

from boats, harvest-related wolf mortality is correlated with roads and other habitat 

features which influence their vulnerability to harvest (Person and Russell 2008; Person 

and Logan 2011). Person and Russell (2008) found that rate of harvest of both resident 

and non-resident wolves increased with density of roads, which provide access to hunters 

and trappers; however, road densities of 1.5 mi/mi2 (0.9 km/km2) or greater had little 

additional effect on harvest rates. This study did not differentiate between open and closed 

roads though the authors stated that road status likely had an important influence on wolf 

mortality. 

Changes in road access and deer habitat provide general measures of effects. Road density 

in WAA 1422 is currently about 1.9 mi/mi2 for existing roads below 1,200 feet in 

elevation, and 2.1 mi/mi2 for total roads below 1,200 feet in elevation (including 

decommissioned roads). This road density exceeds both the Forest Plan recommendation 

(0.7 mi/mi2) as well as the threshold of 1.5 mi/mi2 suggested by Person and Russell 

(2008). 

Alexander Archipelago wolf has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act and USFWS is currently assessing this petition. 

The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines to maintain sustainable wolf 

populations, protect den sites, provide prey habitat and manage road access (USDA FS 

2008a, p. 4-95). 
32  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects for Threatened and Endangered Species – 

All Alternatives 

Threatened and Endangered species that could occur in or near the project area include 

humpback whales and Steller sea lions. Direct effects to humpback whales and Steller sea 

lions from timber harvest-related activities can include direct or acoustic disturbance, or 

habitat degradation that adversely affects individuals or their young. These effects are 

generally associated with the development and use of marine access facilities (MAFs), 

increased marine activities, and activities that alter stream habitats that flow into marine 

environments. No effects to marine environment are anticipated since no MAF 

development or use is proposed and there will be no alteration of stream habitats with this 

project. 

Indirect and cumulative effects can result if activities alter potential forage resources or 

long-term productivity. Marine activities such as boat use may disturb humpback whales 

and sea lions while they are feeding, resting, or traveling. The Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (NMFS 2004) and 50 CFR 224 establish measures to protect marine mammals. These 

measures include prohibiting the harassment, hunting, capturing, or killing of any marine 

mammal and prohibiting approaching within 100 yards of a humpback whale. The Forest 

Plan has specific standards and guidelines for marine mammals (USDA FS 2008a, p. 4-

93). 

No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any marine mammals are anticipated as a 

result of any of the proposed alternatives for this project because there will be no effects to 

the marine environment. 

Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species 

Goshawks are the only sensitive species likely to be affected by the proposed activities 

associated with this project. Discussions regarding other sensitive species are found in the 

wildlife resource report. Goshawks are likely most affected by reductions in POG forest 

that alter nesting and foraging habitat and disturbances to nest sites. While no POG is 

proposed for harvest, this project may result in a reduction of potential young-growth 

nesting habitat where canopy cover is reduced. Alternative 3 reduces potential nesting 

habitat more than Alternative 2. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolves have recently been petitioned for listing and are the only 

MIS species addressed in detail in this Environmental Assessment. Further discussion of 

other MIS species and additional species of concern can be found in the wildlife resource 

report. 

The short length of new road could improve hunting and trapping opportunities or reduce 

denning opportunities but this would not be measurable. Human activity could be 

disruptive to individuals, and some foraging and nesting habitat could be removed or 

altered. The magnitude of effects would vary depending on the species, the amount of 

habitat altered and the season in which disturbance would occur. 

This project would result in negligible to minor effects to management indicator species. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  33 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The No-action Alternative will not result in additional direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects beyond the existing condition. Managed stands will continue to move slowly 

through succession and will provide little forage or structural diversity during the stem 

exclusion stage. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Treatment proposed under Alternative 2 includes an approximate 4-acre skip (no harvest) 

corridor adjacent to the beach, along the far western portion of the stand. Outside of this 

no harvest area, trees would be thinned by individual-tree selection (ITS) to approximately 

50 percent of the existing stand’s basal area. Thinning would be lighter along the skipped 

corridor than within that portion of the beach fringe adjacent to where the crown thinning 

is proposed. Additionally, roughly 10 – 15 percent of this thinned area may be converted 

to small gaps, approximately 1/4 acre in size. Though thinning may increase the risk of 

windthrow within the stand, maintaining at least 50 percent of the current basal area, as 

well as leaving the western portion of the stand adjacent to the beach untreated, it is 

intended to provide for a reasonable assurance of windthrow. 

Approximately 54 acres that occur within the TM LUD will be thinned by an ITS crown 

thinning, retaining 50 percent of the stand’s basal area. 

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 would include short-term disturbance from the 

presence of humans in the area during project activities and noise from operating heavy 

equipment. An increase in road density could improve access for harvest for some species, 

and vegetation structure and habitat would be changed. Both action alternatives may result 

in temporary displacement of wildlife during project implementation. 

Current deer habitat capability in WAA 1422 is about 16.5 deer/mi2 (USDA FS, 

unpublished data (July 19, 2012 v2) located in the Big Thorne project record). This 

alternative would not have a measurable direct or indirect effect to the current estimated 

deer density. 

Direct and indirect effects associated with road construction/reconstruction would include 

human disturbance to local wildlife during construction activities. The road would 

contribute to existing access for harvest of wildlife in the area by hunters, trappers, and 

subsistence users. However, the road is not planned to be left open to the public for 

motorized travel after the harvest is complete. After project implementation, road densities 

below 1,200 feet in elevation would remain about 1.9 mi/mi2

 for existing roads (not 

including decommissioned roads) and 2.1 mi/mi2

 for total roads (including 

decommissioned roads) in WAA 1422. The small amount of road to be added, and the fact 

that the road will not remain open to the public postharvest limits the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects related to road construction, so there will be no measureable effect. 

Harvest of trees, particularly during the summer, may cause some local, temporary 

disturbance to wildlife species: this disturbance does not result in a measurable effect. 

Removal of overstory trees will open the canopy and bring light to the understory, which 

will promote the growth of understory plants such as blueberry, salmonberry, forbs, and 

ferns. Snow interception may be reduced if the canopy is opened, making locomotion and 

finding forage more difficult for wildlife during deep snow winters. While removal of 
34  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

commercial trees will reduce slash loading normally associated with thinning (where 

everything cut is left on the ground), it is likely that slash accumulation may still present a 

temporary impediment to movement for some ground-dwelling species. Heavy slash loads 

increase the metabolic cost of locomotion, may increase vulnerability to predators, and 

can be particularly difficult for young deer and other animals. Snow interception may also 

be reduced if the canopy is opened, making locomotion and finding forage more difficult 

for wildlife during snowy winters. 

Though thinning may increase the risk of windthrow within the stand, maintaining at least 

50 percent of the current basal area, as well as leaving the western portion of the stand 

adjacent to the beach untreated, is intended to provide for a reasonable assurance of 

windthrow. 

Both proposed treatments are designed to interrupt existing stem exclusion conditions and 

result in healthy, windfirm stands with enhanced understories; however, the VDT within 

the beach fringe will have greater emphasis on a windfirm beach fringe with enhanced 

understory, while promoting advanced seral stand structure (USDA FS 2008a, p. 4-5, 

Beach and Estuary Fringe Standards and Guidelines, Beach2, II A.10). 

Overall the effects will be too small to measure through habitat modeling and will not 

change the character of the landscape in this area. 

Benefits to wildlife of this activity include increased forage production, improvement in 

stand structural diversity, and acceleration of stand succession toward old-growth 

conditions. 

Goshawk 

Goshawks are likely most affected by reductions in productive old-growth (POG) forest 

that alter nesting and foraging habitat and disturbances to nest sites. 

While no POG is proposed for harvest, this alternative will result in a reduction of 

potential young-growth nesting habitat. The mean percentage of canopy cover in goshawk 

nesting areas value is about 50 percent in Southeast Alaska (Iverson et al. 1996, p. 52). 

The proposed thinning is estimated to result in canopy retention equal to or greater than 

the mean percentage canopy cover for goshawks in Southeast Alaska. 

Harvest of trees, particularly during the summer, may cause some local, temporary 

disturbance to wildlife species: this disturbance does not result in a measurable effect. 

The effects of Alternative 2 may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to 

federal listing or a loss of viability. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

Sitka black-tailed deer are the primary prey for wolves on POW Island. This alternative 

would not have a measurable direct or indirect effect to the current estimated deer density. 

Current deer habitat capability is estimated to be about 16.5 deer/mi2

 in WAA 1422 

(USDA FS, unpublished data (July 19, 2012 v2) located in the Big Thorne project record). 

The small amount of road to be added, and the fact that the road will not remain open to 

the public postharvest mitigates the direct or indirect effects related to road construction. 

Alternative 2 will have no effect to wolves since it will not result in a change to the deer 

density or road density in WAA 1422. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  35 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 is designed to manage the timber resource for production of sawtimber in the 

most economically efficient manner from suitable lands made available for timber harvest, 

as well as to enhance wildlife habitat within the approximate 1,000-foot-wide beach 

fringe. The treatment in the beach buffer is intended to interrupt existing stem exclusion 

conditions and result in a windfirm beach fringe with enhanced understory, while 

promoting advanced seral stand structure. The following list further defines specific 

project components of Alternative 3: 

 clearcutting of approximately 54 acres of mostly young-growth that was originally 

harvested in the 1940s. 

 commercial thinning (variable-density thinning with skips and gaps) of 

approximately 16 acres within the 1,000-foot beach fringe. 

Direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 would include short-term disturbance from the 

presence of humans in the area during project activities and noise from operating heavy 

equipment. A slight increase in road density could improve access for harvest for some 

species, and vegetation structure and habitat would be changed. Both action alternatives 

may result in temporary displacement of wildlife during project implementation. 

The main difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 is the proposed prescription in the stand 

outside of the beach buffer. Clearcut harvest on 54 acres outside of the beach buffer would 

return that part of the stand to stand initiation conditions. Snow interception in that portion 

of the stand would be eliminated, reducing the stand’s value to wildlife during winters of 

deep snow. Understory shrub and forb production would be higher, which would benefit 

some species during the summer and winters during periods of little or no snow. 

Nesting and foraging habitat for species dependent on mature forests would be reduced in 

the clearcut portion of the stand. Slash loading in the clearcut portion would likely be 

higher, because more trees are being harvested and processed. Also, understory shrub and 

forb production would likely be higher, which would benefit some species during the 

summer and winters during periods of little or no snow. 

In this alternative, acceleration toward old-growth would still be improved in the beach 

buffer, but return of the remainder of the stand to stand initiation conditions will restart the 

successional process and delay the progression of this stand toward old-growth conditions 

for up to a century or more. Furthermore, the structural contrast between the thinned and 

clearcut areas of the stand may leave the thinned areas, including the beach buffer, more 

exposed and susceptible to wind and possible blowdown. However, leaving a windfirm 

buffer of unharvested trees along the first 200 feet of the beach buffer should help 

alleviate this risk. Negative effects would be slightly higher for Alternative 3 than for 

Alternative 2 because of the removal of additional denning or nesting structure, and loss of 

snow interception associated with the clearcut prescription. 

Current estimated deer habitat capability in WAA 1422 is about 16.5 deer/mi2

 (USDA FS, 

unpublished data (July 19, 2012 v2) located in the Big Thorne project record). This 

alternative would not have a measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative effect to the current 

estimated deer density and therefore no effect to wolves. 
36  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Adding approximately 1 mile of road in this area will not add to cumulative effects in a 

meaningful way at the scale of this analysis area (WAA 1422). 

Overall the effects will be too small to measure through habitat modeling and will not 

change the character of the landscape in this area. 

Goshawk 

Canopy cover will be reduced to zero on the acres proposed for clearcutting; however 

given the scale that goshawks are usually analyzed, the effects on 54 acres would be too 

small to measure through habitat modeling and will not change the overall character of the 

landscape in this area. 

Harvest of trees, particularly during the summer, may cause some local, temporary 

disturbance to wildlife species: this disturbance does not result in a measurable effect. 

The effects of Alternative 3 may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to 

federal listing or a loss of viability. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

This alternative would not have a measurable direct or indirect effect to the current 

estimated deer density. Current deer habitat capability is estimated to be about 16.5 

deer/mi2

 in WAA 1422 (USDA FS, unpublished data (July 19, 2012 v2) located in the Big 

Thorne project record). 

The small amount of road to be added, and the fact that the road will not remain open to 

the public postharvest mitigates the direct or indirect effects related to road construction. 

Alternative 3 will have no effect to wolves since it does not result in a change to the deer 

density or road density in WAA 1422. 

Cumulative Effects 

Over time (year 2039), as more deer habitat enters the stem exclusion stage in the area, the 

estimated deer density in WAA 1422 may drop to about 15 (USDA FS, unpublished data 

in the Big Thorne project record). 

Adding approximately 1 mile of road in this area will not add to cumulative effects in a 

meaningful way at the scale of this analysis area (WAA 1422). After project 

implementation, road densities below 1,200 feet in elevation would remain about 1.9 

mi/mi2

 for existing roads and 2.1 mi/mi2 for total roads (including decommissioned roads) 

in WAA 1422. Adding approximately 1 mile of road in this area will not add to 

cumulative effects in a meaningful way at the scale of this analysis area (WAA 1422). 

Although considerable timber harvest has taken place in WAA 1422 (approximately 38 

percent of the original productive old growth has been harvested), the additional proposed 

harvest under either action alternative does not contribute measurably to these cumulative 

effects. There are major road improvements underway on Forest Road 43 that passes 

through this WAA, but no additional road mileage will be added. There are no other forms 

of human disturbance in the area and no additional roads planned. Some roads will likely 

be decommissioned in the future as the ATM (USDA FS 2009) is implemented. 

While Alternative 3 proposes even-aged management, since the stand is currently in stem 

exclusion this will not contribute additional stem exclusion acres over the long term. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  37 

Rather, it will provide short-term summer forage during stand initiation before re-entering 

the stem exclusion stage. The cumulative effect is too small to measure through habitat 

modeling and will not change the character of the landscape in this area. The main 

outcome cumulatively for wildlife is the delay of the return of a portion of this stand (54 

acres) to old-growth conditions. 

The risk of wind-generated blowdown must be considered when designing prescriptions 

under either action alternative. A sizable blowdown event in the beach buffer would likely 

not move the beach buffer toward desired future conditions. Though thinning may 

increase the risk of windthrow within the stand, maintaining at least 50 percent of the 

current basal area, as well as leaving the western portion of the stand adjacent to the beach 

untreated, is intended to provide for a reasonable assurance of windfirmness. The 

treatment in the beach buffer is intended to interrupt existing stem exclusion conditions 

and result in a windfirm beach fringe with enhanced understory, while promoting 

advanced seral stand structure. In general, Alternative 2 has more beneficial and less 

detrimental effects than Alternative 3, but for either action alternative, effects would be 

too small to measure through habitat modeling and will not change the character of the 

landscape in this area. While the cumulative effects of this activity are expected to benefit 

wildlife, the area treated is very small compared to the overall scale of the WAA. 

For further discussion of additional species, refer to the wildlife resource report in the 

project record. 

Goshawk 

Harvest of trees, particularly during the summer, may cause some local, temporary 

disturbance to wildlife species: this disturbance does not result in a measurable effect. 

The effects of the proposed alternatives may impact individuals but not likely to cause a 

trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

The proposed alternatives would not have a measurable cumulative effect to the current 

estimated deer density. Current deer habitat capability in WAA 1422 is estimated to be 

about 16.5 deer/mi2

 (USDA FS, unpublished data (July 19, 2012 v2) located in the Big 

Thorne project record). The estimated deer density for the entire WAA is expected to 

decline to about 15 deer/mi2 by the year 2039 as other previously harvested stands enter 

the stem exclusion phase. The small amount of road to be added, and the fact that the road 

will not remain open to the public postharvest mitigates the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects related to road construction, so there will be no measurable effect to 

wolves. 

Summary 

The table below (Table 5) summarizes the effects of the proposed activities to species 

discussed above. There will be no effect to threatened, endangered, or candidate species, 

and no impact to any sensitive species, except goshawks. Due to the harvest of larger 

young-growth trees, this project may impact individual goshawks but is not likely to cause 

a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. See the wildlife resource report for 

information on the other species. If any previously undiscovered endangered, threatened, 
38  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

candidate or sensitive species are encountered at any point in time prior to or during the 

implementation of this project, a District Biologist would be consulted and appropriate 

measures would be enacted. 

ESA does not require consultation for “no effect” determinations. Therefore consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to review 

the effects of this project on threatened, endangered and candidate species is not required. 

Table 5: Summary of effects of the proposed activities to species that occur or are 

likely to occur on the Tongass National Forest or in adjacent waters. 

 Presence Direct, indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Species/Issue 

Species 

Present 

in 

Analysis 

Area1

Species 

Habitat 

Present 

in 

Analysis 

Area 

Level of 

Influence2,4 

Determination 

Reason for Determination/ 

 Level of Influence 

Threatened and Endangered3

Humpback 

Whale Yes Yes 

§402.03(b)(3)(i) 

not measurable 

Negligible/ 

No Effect 

There will be no effects to the marine environment. 

Steller Sea Lion 

(western/eastern) Yes Yes 

§402.03(b)(1) 

Negligible/ 

No Effect 

There will be no effects to the marine environment. 

There are no known haul outs or rookeries in the area. 

Sensitive 

Queen Charlotte 

Goshawk Yes Yes 

Minor/ may 

impact 

individuals but 

not likely to 

cause a trend to 

federal listing 

or a loss of 

viability 

There are no known goshawk nests in the area, nor was 

any evidence of goshawks found during field 

reconnaissance of the area during site visits in 2011 and 

2012. This project may result in a reduction of potential 

young-growth nesting habitat where canopy cover is 

reduced. Alternative 3 reduces potential nesting habitat 

more than Alternative 2. 

Management Indicator Species 

Alexander 

Archipelago 

Wolf 

Yes Yes No effect 

There are no known den sites in the area. An increase in 

human activity associated with timber harvest and 

opening of a short length of road may increase 

opportunities for wolf harvest to a small degree, but this 

would not be measureable. The proposed alternatives 

would not have a measurable direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effect to the current estimated deer density.

1

 “Yes” if the species is known or is likely to occur in the analysis area or in marine waters adjacent to the analysis area. 

“No” if the species has not been documented or is not likely to occur in the analysis area. 2

 Determinations are only required for listed and sensitive species. Determinations for threatened and endangered species 

include “no effect”, “not likely to adversely affect”, or “likely to adversely affect” (Bosch 2004). Determinations for 

candidate species include “no effects”, “not likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical 

habitat”, or “likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat”. Determinations for 

sensitive species include "no impacts", "beneficial impacts", "may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to 

federal listing or a loss of viability", or "likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability" (Bosch 2004). 3

 There will be negligible/no effect to other listed or candidate species because these species do not or rarely occur 

and/or key habitats are not present in or around the analysis area. 4

 §402.03(b)(1): no effects to T&E species or to designated critical habitat; §402.03(b)(3)(i): Effects are not capable of 

being measured or detected in a manner that permits meaningful evaluation. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  39 

Subsistence 

Subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering activities are a major focus of life for 

many Southeast Alaska residents. Nearly all rural Alaska communities depend on 

subsistence resources to meet some portion of their nutritional needs or to perpetuate 

cultural customs and traditions. The Forest Plan determined that the primary subsistence 

resource likely to be significantly affected by Forest Plan actions was Sitka black-tailed 

deer. Deer are considered the “indicator” for potential subsistence resource consequences 

concerning the abundance and distribution of the resources (USDA FS 2008b, p. 3-428) 

and will be the only species addressed in this analysis. 

In compliance with Section 810, Title VIII of ANILCA, a federal agency having 

jurisdiction over public lands in Alaska must analyze the potential effects of proposed land 

use activities on subsistence uses and needs, and include a finding on whether the 

proposed action may significantly restrict subsistence uses. Subsistence analyses usually 

focus on three factors: 1) abundance and distribution of the resource; 2) access to the 

resource; and 3) competition for the resource. This EA and the wildlife resource report 

describe the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives 

on deer subsistence resources in the analysis area. 

Affected Environment 

Deer harvest in WAA 1422 is very important for subsistence hunting on POW Island. This 

WAA has provided the highest annual deer harvest of any WAA in Game Management 

Unit 2 from 2005 to 2009 (ADFG, unpublished data), with an average of 368 deer 

harvested annually from this WAA alone, compared to the Island-wide average of 2,324 

during that same time period (ADFG, unpublished data). 

Abundance and Distribution 

The abundance and distribution of deer is generally based on assessing the number and 

location of deer available for hunter harvest. The abundance and distribution of deer on 

the Tongass is described in the 2008 Forest Plan (USDA FS 2008b, pp. 3-427 to 3-429). 

Deer habitat capability in WAA 1422 is currently estimated at 16.5 deer/mi2

. Despite 

being low, this WAA has consistently produced the highest deer harvest of any WAA on 

POW Island in recent years. A number of factors may have contributed to this 

discrepancy, including uneven hunter effort across the landscape, and more than a decade 

of mostly low-snow winters in recent years coincide with forage availability in young 

clearcuts before they enter the stem exclusion stage. 

Access 

Subsistence users typically hunt and fish in traditional areas surrounding their 

communities. Appendix H to the 1997 Forest Plan Final EIS describes traditional 

household deer hunting areas for the 32 communities in Southeast Alaska. Prince of Wales 

Island contains an extensive road system connecting the island’s communities and 

providing access to hunting and fishing areas and can affect subsistence both positively 

and negatively by providing access, dispersing hunting and fishing pressure, and creating 

the potential for increased competition. While road systems tend to bring more people into 

an area, they also give subsistence hunters access to previously remote regions and 
40  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

provide a greater opportunity for subsistence harvest (USDA FS 2008b, p. 3-420). WAA 

1422 is accessible by road and receives relatively moderate hunting pressure. 

Competition 

Subsistence resources are not distributed or used evenly across the Forest. Where 

resources are confined to island groups or river systems and access is costly or 

nonexistent, use of the resources is low. Where the resource is abundant, and a community 

is present but access by other communities is costly, the resource tends to be used 

primarily by the community that resides in the area. Where resources are abundant and 

access is available to local and other communities of Southeast Alaska, competition for 

resources may exist. Prince of Wales Island is a popular hunting area not only for POW 

communities but other communities as well. The nearest community, Naukati, gets about 

2/3 of its deer from WAA 1422. While most hunters using this WAA are from POW 

communities, the WAA is also hunted by non-POW (primarily Ketchikan) hunters who 

arrive via ferry, boat, or floatplane (1997 Forest Plan FEIS, p. H-82). Increased 

competition may result when less-expensive access to the area or within the area is 

provided. When areas historically not used for subsistence purposes are made available 

because of easier, or more cost-effective access, the new area then tends to be used. When 

communities with road access to abundant resources are connected to the ferry systems or 

to commercial air services, competition for the resources may be generated from outside 

communities with lower abundance of the same resource. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives 

Abundance and Distribution 

The No-action Alternative will not further impact deer distribution and abundance because 

it will not change the trajectory of stand succession. The stand will continue to grow in 

stem exclusion and provide little forage for decades to come until it reaches maturity and 

natural canopy gaps begin to form. There is some evidence that that process is beginning 

to occur, but without treatment the return of old-growth conditions and forage production 

will be slow. 

Both action alternatives will result in temporary displacement of deer during project 

implementation as animals will likely temporarily leave the area due to disturbance from 

humans and heavy machinery. Alternative 2 would provide more benefit to deer 

populations because it would open most of the stand to provide light to the understory, 

thereby increasing forage production, while not removing all of the overstory (providing 

some snow interception). The stand would move toward old-growth conditions sooner 

under this treatment, when compared to being left untreated. This alternative will not 

result in a measureable change to deer populations within the next several decades. 

Alternative 3 would return most of the stand to stand initiation conditions. This alternative 

will not result in a measureable change to deer populations within the next several 

decades. However, the stand would return to stand initiation stage and thus delay the 

return to old-growth conditions in the clearcut portion of the stand. 

 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  41 

Access 

Alternative 1 will not affect access. 

Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, rebuilding old and constructing new roads 

(approximately 1 mile) could temporarily increase access for some users in the project 

area. This road will be closed to motorized use when project activities are completed. This 

will not contribute to restriction of subsistence resources. No additional existing roads are 

proposed to be closed with this project. 

Competition 

None of the alternatives in this project are expected to affect competition between hunters 

for subsistence deer. The slight and temporary increase in access associated with the 

action alternatives may serve to temporarily distribute hunters more widely while the road 

is open, but this access will deteriorate once the roads are closed after project 

implementation. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

Direct and indirect effects of this project alone are not expected to affect abundance and 

distribution, access to, or competition for deer as a subsistence resource, as stated above. 

The Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b) concluded that full implementation 

of the Forest Plan would cause a significant possibility of a significant restriction to 

subsistence deer resources as a result of cumulative effects over the course of the rotation 

due to reductions in habitat capability relating to large scale timber harvest, mostly related 

to loss of forage in stem excluded stands. Because this stand is already stem excluded, 

none of the alternatives in this project are expected to decrease deer abundance further 

because the current value of the stand to deer is very low with little forage available. 

Adding approximately 1 mile of road in this area will not add to cumulative effects in a 

meaningful way at the scale of this analysis area (WAA 1422). After project 

implementation, road densities below 1,200 feet in elevation would remain about 1.9 

mi/mi2 for existing roads and 2.1 mi/mi2 for total roads (including decommissioned roads) 

in WAA 1422. This road will be closed to motorized use when project activities are 

completed. 

Conclusion and Finding 

Consistent with section 810 of ANILCA, the potential effects of this project on 

subsistence opportunities and resources were evaluated. This project may result in 

temporary displacement of deer and other wildlife during project implementation due to 

disturbance. However, because there would be no reduction in abundance and distribution 

of, access to, and competition for subsistence resources, the proposed project will not 

result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence resources and 

uses. 
42  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Timber Economics 

Affected Environment 

The analysis area for the effects to timber economics is Southeast Alaska. About 74,000 

people live in towns, communities, and villages located on islands and coastal lands of 

Southeast Alaska (ADCCED 2009). The Southeast Alaska region accounts for about 12 

percent of the State's population and 6 percent of the land base. Federal lands comprise 

about 95 percent of Southeast Alaska, 80 percent within the Tongass National Forest. 

Southeast Alaska communities, which are within or adjacent to the Tongass National 

Forest, are largely dependent on the Forest to provide natural resources for employment. 

Analysis Methods 

The Alaska Region Financial Analysis Spreadsheet Tool-Residual Value (“FASTR”) 

version March 23, 2012, was used to compare the project alternatives. The FASTR model 

uses the same logging costs and manufacturing costs developed for the Alaska Region 

timber sale appraisal program. Costs reflect production studies and data collected from 

timber sale purchasers in Southeast Alaska. The FASTR model runs are one tool to gauge 

current economics for an alternative, but it does not provide a complete picture. More 

information about FASTR and the method of analysis is located in the project record. 

Timber volume estimates used in the Dargon Point financial analysis are based on sitespecific stand examination information collected from plots within the proposed harvest 

areas. 

Factors Affecting Timber Sale Economics 

The main factors that influence the economic value of timber sales are logging systems, 

length of haul to the nearest manufacturing centers, road construction, and proposed 

timber management including quantity and quality of timber. 

It is assumed for this project that trees will be cut with a feller-buncher where possible. 

For trees that are too big for a feller-buncher, or where the slope is too steep for 

equipment, trees will be felled by hand. In some cases logs will be processed in the woods. 

Where commercial thinning is prescribed, trees will be placed in a “herringbone” fashion 

to the skid trail. A shovel and forwarder could be used to swing logs to the haul road. A 

processor may be used to cut to length logs where damage to standing trees can be 

avoided. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Both action alternatives respond to the goals and objectives identified by the Forest Plan 

and help move the area toward the desired conditions as described in the Plan. Each action 

alternative is responsive to the need to manage the timber resource for production of 

sawtimber and other wood products from suitable lands made available for timber harvest 

on an even-flow, long-term sustained yield basis, and in an economically efficient manner. 

By meeting this need, each alternative has the potential to support timber industry 

employment and benefit local and regional economies. The extent to which each 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  43 

alternative meets this need is correlated directly to the total volume of timber harvest for 

that alternative. For timber volume to contribute to the stated purpose, it must also be 

economically viable. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 proposes no timber to be harvested and no roads to be constructed. This 

alternative produces no sawtimber from suitable lands made available for timber harvest 

on the Tongass National Forest. Sawtimber needed to meet the purpose and need would 

have to be harvested from other suitable lands made available for timber harvest on the 

Tongass National Forest. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

The proposed action makes approximately 1.4 MMBF of sawtimber available from the 

project area to meet the project’s purpose and need. Additional aspects of Alternative 2 

relative to timber economics include: 

 commercial thinning using conventional ground-based yarding systems, 

 less volume than Alternative 3, 

 construction of approximately 1 mile of road, 

 a lower indicated bid value (-$30.20/MBF) than Alternative 3, 

 provides less project employment opportunities (6-8 direct annualized jobs) than 

Alternative 3, 

 provides for an additional entry or final harvest in the future of the retained crop 

trees within the 56-acre portion of the stand that was commercially thinned. 

Current indicated bid value estimates show a negative value for Alternative 2. The higher 

cost associated with commercially thinning compared to clearcutting is estimated to be a 

difference of $96/MBF ($106/MBF for clearcutting and $202/MBF for thinning). 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 is designed to improve timber harvest opportunities. This alternative better 

addresses timber economics by proposing a greater volume (2.5 MMBF) of sawlog 

material and clearcutting that lowers logging costs. Consequently, Alternative 3 has a 

much higher indicated bid value - four times that of Alternative 2. Aspects of Alternative 

3 include: 

 clearcutting and commercial thinning using conventional ground based yarding 

systems, 

 construction of approximately 1 mile of road, 

 a higher indicated bid value (+$123.27 per MBF), than Alternative 2. 

 more project employment opportunities (12 to 14 direct annualized jobs) than 

Alternative 2. 

At this time, Alternative 3 has the greatest potential to provide wood products in an 

economically efficient manner. 
44  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

Economic effects are analyzed in the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS, 2003 Forest Plan SEIS, and 

most recently in the analysis for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS. Alternatives 2 

and 3 would contribute to the timber-related economy of Southeast Alaska. Alternative 1 

would not contribute to the timber-related economy and timber from other areas on the 

Tongass would have to be used to provide a supply. Past timber sales have contributed the 

development of existing roaded infrastructure which would be used for each action 

alternative. Presently, other timber sale projects in the vicinity include remaining sales 

from the Logjam EIS and the planned Naukati project. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations 

Many federal laws and executive orders pertain to project-specific planning and 

environmental analysis on federal lands. While most of the laws and executive orders 

listed below pertain to all federal lands, some of the laws are specific to Alaska. 

Several of the laws and executive orders listed below require project-specific findings or 

other disclosures. These apply to federal land management projects and activities and are 

included here and in any future Decision Notice. They apply to all alternatives considered 

in this EA. 

National Forest Management Act 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires specific determinations to be 

made for this project: consistency with the Forest Plan and FSM 2410.3, R10 Supp. 2400-

2002-1 (5/7/2002); a determination of clearcutting as the optimal method of harvesting, if 

used; and specific authorizations to create openings over 100 acres in size. Specific 

information and rationale used to develop the unit prescription is located in the project 

record. 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan): 

This project is consistent with the Forest Plan and all project alternatives comply with the 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. This project incorporates all 

applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and management prescriptions, and 

complies with Forest Plan goals and objectives. The Forest Plan complies with all 

resource integration and management requirements of 36 CFR 219 (219.14 through 

219.27). Application of Forest Plan direction for the Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

project ensures compliance at the project level. Therefore, the Dargon Point Commercial 

Thinning Proposed Action is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Even-aged Management as the Optimal Method of Harvesting: 

The Forest Plan (USDA FS 2008a, pp. 4-71 to 4-72) gives guidance on when to use evenaged management. Even-aged management will be used in this project to: 

 achieve timber production objectives; 

 preclude and minimize the occurrence of, and the potential adverse impacts from 

windthrow; and 

 to provide for the establishment and growth of desired trees. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  45 

Harvest Openings over 100 Acres in Size: 

There are no harvest openings over 100 acres proposed for this project. Therefore, the 

Dargon Point Commercial Thinning project is consistent with the Forest Plan and FSM 

2410.3, R10 Supp. 2400-2002-1 and consequently complies with the National Forest 

Management Act. 

Endangered Species Act 

The project alternatives are not anticipated to have a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect 

on any threatened and endangered species in or outside the project area. A biological 

evaluation has been completed for this action which indicates that no federally listed 

threatened or endangered species will be affected by this activity. Consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required because no threatened and endangered 

terrestrial species occur in the project area. ESA does not require consultation for "no 

effect" determinations. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Management activities within bald eagle habitat will be in accordance to a Memorandum 

of Understanding between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Tongass Timber Reform Act 

The Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) prohibits commercial timber harvest within 100 

feet on either side of Class I streams and Class II streams that flow directly into Class I 

streams. TTRA also requires the use of BMPs. The Forest-wide Riparian Standards and 

Guidelines in the Forest Plan incorporate the requirements of TTRA. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on significant historic properties. The Forest 

Service program for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

includes locating, inventorying and evaluating the National Register of Historic Places 

eligibility of historic and archeological sites that may be directly or indirectly affected by 

scheduled activities. Regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of the NHPA 

require federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on sites that are determined 

eligible for inclusion in or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (“historic 

properties”). 

A Forest Service archaeologist has reviewed this project. The final determination by 

Forest Service Heritage Resources is that the project will have no effect on historic 

properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act 

No known significant caves in the project area will be directly or indirectly affected by 

project activities. Forest Plan Karst and Caves Standards and Guidelines will be applied to 

areas known or suspected to contain karst resources. One significant insurgence feature 

was found along the southern portion of the unit and will be protected by a 100-foot noharvest buffer. 

ANILCA Sections 810 & 811, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding 

Consistent with section 810 of ANILCA, potential effects of this project on subsistence 

opportunities and resources were evaluated. Because there will be no reduction in 
46  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

abundance and distribution of, access to and competition for subsistence resources, the 

proposed project will not result in a restriction of subsistence uses of wildlife, fish, or 

other foods. Addition of about 1 mile of road may add to access for some subsistence 

users. Therefore, the Dargon Point Commercial Thinning project is consistent with 

ANILCA. 

Clean Water Act 

Congress intended the Clean Water Act of 1972 as amended in 1977 and 1987 to protect 

and improve the quality of water resources and maintain their beneficial uses. Section 313 

and Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 address federal agency compliance and 

consistency with water pollution control mandates. Sections 208 and 319 address nonpoint 

source pollution caused by activities such as timber harvest. The site-specific application 

of best management practices (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 (ADEC 2007). Annual Tongass National 

Forest BMP monitoring results consistently report a high success rate at applying BMPs 

(USFS 2005-2012). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs as described in the Forest 

Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA FS 2006) as consistent with the 

Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. The BMPs are incorporated into the 

Tongass Land Management Plan. 

The Forest Service recently issued National Core BMPs (USDA FS 2012). Directives for 

using these BMPs are currently in development. The Dargon Point project will implement 

the most up-to-date BMP guidance. A list of key BMPs that would be implemented as part 

of the Dargon Point project is included in the watershed resource report. 

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 BMPs to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological 

characteristics of the waters are not impaired (404)(f)(1)(E). The BMPs are specified in 33 

CFR 323.4(a). These specific BMPs have been incorporated into the Forest Service’s 

BMP 12.5 (USDA FS 2006). 

Currently, there is uncertainty as to whether a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit would be required for stormwater discharges from logging roads 

associated with this project. This uncertainty is due to recent, ongoing court cases, a oneyear Congressional moratorium on permitting, pending legislation, and proposed EPA 

rulemaking. Should it be determined that a NPDES permit is required for this project, the 

Forest Service will comply with any applicable NPDES permitting requirements (USDA 

FS 2012). 

Clean Air Act 

Emissions anticipated from the implementation of any project alternative will be minor 

and of short duration and are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality 

standards (18 AAC 50). Therefore, no significant impact to air quality is expected to occur 

from this project. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  47 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

requires consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for actions or proposed actions that may 

adversely affect essential fish habitat, defined as the waters and substrate necessary to fish 

for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Essential fish habitat (EFH) 

includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of water currently and 

historically accessible to anadromous fish, as well as estuarine, intertidal, and marine 

waters. 

The Forest Service determined that the Dargon Point project “may affect essential fish 

habitat, but effects would be minor and localized and would not degrade fish habitat.” 

Formal consultation with NMFS will start when NMFS receives a copy of the EA with the 

EFH assessment, per agreement, and the Forest Service will continue the consultation 

process. 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) 

Executive Order 11988 directs agencies to avoid construction in and modification of 

floodplains. Although this act deals largely with avoiding flood damage and hazards, it 

also directs agencies to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of 

floodplains while planning for land use. There are no floodplains affected by the Dargon 

Point project. 

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) 

Executive Order 11990 directs agencies to avoid to the extent feasible the destruction or 

modification of wetlands where there is a practicable alternative. It also directs agencies to 

preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values of wetlands in conducting land use 

planning. There are no wetlands affected by the Dargon Point project (Saari 2012). 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the issue of 

environmental justice, i.e., adverse human health and environmental effects of agency 

programs that disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of any of the project alternatives is not anticipated to cause any adverse 

human health or environmental effects; therefore, implementation of any of the project 

alternatives is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or 

environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. Expected effects are similar 

for all populations, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income. 

Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic Systems and Recreational Fisheries) 

Executive Order 12962 directs federal agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic 

systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. 

With the application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, including those for riparian 

areas, no significant adverse effects to freshwater or marine resources will occur. Best 

management practices will be implemented to provide assurance of water quality and 

aquatic habitat protection for all freshwater streams affected by the project. There will be 

no effects to recreational fishing opportunities. 
48  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) 

Executive Order 13007 directs federal agencies to (1) accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies 

shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. Based on consultations with the 

appropriate Indian tribes (EA, pp. 10-11), this project will not affect the integrity of any 

sacred sites or limit access to any sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) 

This order addresses a broader group of not only plants, but other taxa as well. An 

invasive species is one whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. Specifically, EO 13112 directs all federal 

agencies to address the impacts their actions may have on invasive species. This project 

may have a moderate risk of introducing and spreading invasive plant species in the 

harvest unit or road corridor; however, with mitigation measures such as equipment 

cleaning, increased risk would be reduced to low, or minor. 

Required Permits 

Permits will be obtained from federal and state agencies as needed. No permits have been 

identified, as required, for project activities at this time. 

List of Preparers 

Following is a list of the IDT members who participated in completing this environmental 

analysis. 

Ben Case, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Silviculturist, Young-growth Coordinator 

Delilah Brigham, Fisheries Biologist 

Kristen Lease, Ecologist (Botany) 

Johanna Kovarik, Geologist/Karst Resource Specialist 

Tim Marshall, Archaeologist 

Becki Saari, Soil Scientist 

Richard Jacobson, Transportation Engineer 

Melissa Cady, Wildlife Biologist 

Jim Baichtal, Forest Geologist 

Julianne Thompson, Forest Hydrologist 

Sandy Powers, Forest Writer-editor 

Marina Whitacre, Writer-editor 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  49 

Literature Cited 

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (ADCCED) 

2009. Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries. 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CIS.htm (accessed 

10/15/2012). 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 2007. Alaska’s Nonpoint 

Source Pollution Control Strategy. 110 p. 

http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wnpspc/pdfs/2007_NPSStrategy.pdf (accessed 

10/15/2012). 

Alexander, S.J., Henderson, E.B., Coleman, R., 2010. Economic Analysis of Southeast 

Alaska: Envisioning a Sustainable Economy with Thriving Communities. Forest 

Service, Alaska Region Publication R10-MB-725, Juneau, AK, 93 p. 

Bosch 2004. BA and BE effects and determinations of effects for TEPS species. USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region. 2 p. 

Boyce, D.A., Jr., R.T. Reynolds and R.T. Graham. 2006. Goshawk status and 

management: what do we know, what have we done, where are we going? In: 

Morrison M., ed. The northern goshawk: a technical assessment of its status 

ecology, and management. Studies in Avian Biology. 31: 312-325. 

Bringham, D. 2012. Dargon Point Project Environmental Assessment. Fisheries Resource 

Report. Tongass National Forest, Thorne Bay Ranger District. 24 p. 

Housley, Robert, Alexander, Susan J., Vaughn Ken. May 29, 2007. Impact on Indicated 

Advertised Value of Limited Interstate Shipments of Unprocessed Sitka Spruce 

and Western Hemlock Timber. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 3p. 

Unpublished document. 

Iverson, G. C., G. D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R. E. Lowell, D. C. CrockerBedford, P. F. Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation Assessment for the 

Northern Goshawk in Southeast Alaska. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR387. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p. 

Jacobson, S. 2012. 0.21Dargon Point Transportation. Transportation resource report. 

Tongass National Forest, Thorne Bay Ranger District. 3 p. 

Kovarik, J. 2011. Karst resource report for Dargon Point CE Commercial Thinning. 

Tongass National Forest, Prince of Wales Island. 

Lease, K. 2012. Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants: Dargon Point. Tongass 

National Forest, Prince of Wales Island. 

MacDonald, S.O. and J.A. Cook. 2007. The mammal fauna of southeast Alaska. 

Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Museum. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Recovery plan for the humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 105 p. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. The marine mammal protection act of 
50  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

1972 as amended - as amended 2004. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Springs, Maryland. 108 p. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus). Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

MD. 325 p. 

Person, D.K., M. Kirchhoff, V. Van Ballenberghe, G.C. Iverson, and E. Grossman. 1996. 

The Alexander Archipelago Wolf: A Conservation Assessment. General Technical 

Report. PNW-GTR-384. 52 p. 

Person, D.K. and B.D. Logan. 2011. A spatial analysis of wolf harvest and harvest risk on 

Prince of Wales and associated islands, Southeast Alaska. Final wildlife research 

report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. USA. 

Person, D.K., and A.L. Russell. 2008. Correlates of mortality in an exploited wolf 

population. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7):1540-1549. 

Saari, B. 2012. Soils and Wetlands Resources Assessment for Dargon Point Commercial 

Thin EA. Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District. 4 p. 

Thompson, J. 2012. Watershed Resource Report for Dragon Point Young Growth Project 

Environmental Assessment. Tongass National Forest, Thorne Bay Ranger District. 

17 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP 

Technical Guide. FS-990. 177 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. FS978. 49 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/watershed_classification_guide.pdf 

(accessed 10/15/2012). 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Access Travel Management Plan. Decision Notice and 

Finding of No Significant Impact. Prince of Wales and Surrounding Islands. Craig 

and Thorne Bay, AK: USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 62 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Management Bulletin. R10-MB-603b. Juneau, AK: USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment, Volumes I and II. 

Management Bulletin. R10-MB-603c and R10-MB-603d. Juneau, AK: USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. R10-2509.22-2006-

2. Chapter 10, Section 14.26. Juneau, AK: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

117 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Tongass and Resource Management Plan revision, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Management Bulletin. R10-MB-338b. Juneau, 

AK: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  51 

Appendix A – Maps 
52  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

This page intentionally left blank
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  53 

Figure 1. Dargon Point Vicinity Map 
54  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Figure 2. LUD map. 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  55 

Appendix B – Unit and Road Cards 
56  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 
Dargon Point Commercial Thinning EA  57 

Unit Data Card 

LUD: TM Logging Systems: Shovel Total Unit Acres: 70 Net Harvest 

Volume MMBF:

Alt 2: 1.4 

Alt 3: 2.5 

SILVICULTURE: 

Existing Stand Condition/Vegetation: The unit is a70 year old even-aged young-growth stand of spruce and hemlock. 

Western redcedar does occur within the unit but to a minor extent. Species composition is estimated to be 86% Sitka 

spruce, 14% western hemlock and <1% redcedar. Currently, a majority of the stand is in the stem exclusion stage. 

Average stem height-to-diameter ratios over most of the stand are within the range suitable for intermediate treatment; 

however, portions of the stand consists of taller, more spindly trees making these areas unstable if predisposed through 

thinning to wind, snow and ice damage. Pockets of windthrow are present in the southern portion of the stand. Minor 

tree species, if present, consist of the occasional western redcedar. Snags and downed trees are comprised of mostly 

intermediate and smaller sized material from trees that have succumbed to suppression mortality; however small 

groups of larger trees of the dominant and codominant crown have blown over within the stand. Windthrow risk high. 

Mistletoe occurance is low, but is present in old growth trees outside of the unit where old growth exists. 

The understory condition relative to deer browse was noted by the IDT as higher than expected for a stand in stem 

exclusion stage. Understory plants include mostly ferns, however vaccinium, fernleaf goldthread, and threeleaf 

foamflower are common and vary significantly throughout. Bunchberry dogwood is lacking overall. 

Silvicultural Prescription: Alt 2: Even-aged management - Intermediate treatment: crown thinning by individual tree 

selection, retaining 50% of the stand’s basal area for the 54 acres in the TM LUD. The remaining 16 acres in the beach 

fringe would be variable-density thinning by individual tree selection, retaining 50% of the stand’s basal area, with a 4-

acre skip and 1⁄4-acre gaps. Thinning intensity should be lighter along the skipped corridor than within that portion of 

the beach fringe adjacent to the clearcut. The resulting stand within the beach fringe would be two-aged tending to 

uneven-aged. 

Alt 3: Even-aged management - clearcut with natural regeneration for the 54 acres in the TM LUD. [Clearcutting is 

prescribed to preclude or minimize the occurrence of mistletoe, windthrow, or logging system damage, increase the 

regeneration of desirable species and remove decayed trees.] The remaining 16 acres in the beach fringe would be 

variable-density thinning by individual tree selection, retaining 50% of the stand’s basal area, with a 4-acre skip and 1⁄4-

acre gaps. Thinning intensity should be lighter along the skipped corridor than within that portion of the beach fringe 

adjacent to the clearcut The resulting stand within the beach fringe would be two-aged tending to uneven-aged. 

TIMBER/LOGGING: Shovel yarding to proposed road. This unit is designed for partial suspension using a shovel in 

conjunction with a feller-buncher where possible, and conventional felling where the feller-buncher cannot be used. 

ENGINEERING/ROADS: Refer to road cards for Routes 2060132, 2060133, 2060134, in this section.

GEOLOGY/KARST: A 100-foot buffer is required around a high-vulnerability karst feature that is located along the 

southern boundary of the unit. Karst features within the proposed unit would be protected by designating them with 

stream protection flagging to minimize adjacent ground disturbance, control equipment crossings, and require logging 

debris removal. 

Fisheries: One Class I stream is located along the north western boundary of the unit. Required no-harvest buffer is 

130 ft. or to the extent of floodplain and riparian vegetation or soils; whichever is greater. One Class II stream located 

along the south western boundary of the unit. Required no-harvest buffer is 100 ft. or to the top of the side-slope break; 

whichever is greater. There is blowdown present along the streams and an IDT review for RAW zone will be required. 

Soils: Avoid the limestone rock outcrop and cliff on the southern boundary of the unit. The trees on the toeslope may be 

directionally felled to the shovel. Use care when operating on slopes greater than 25%.. Generally avoid shovel use on 

slopes over 35% gradient. Use slash to support equipment, especially on multi-pass skid trails. If mineral soils are 

exposed on skid trails, slash and if necessary use waterbars to prevent erosion (R10 BMP 12.17 and National BMPs 

Veg-2 and Veg-4). The puncheon trails should be scattered upon completion of yarding activities. If necessary, a soil 

scientist could visit pre, during, and post harvest. 

 
58  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Wildlife: Provide for leave strips, slash treatments, directional felling, or other mechanisms where possible to promote 

connectivity between stands and reduce immobility associated with high slash loads. Windfirmness in the beach buffer 

is emphasized, as well as promotion of old growth structure including accelerating growth of large, windfirm trees. 

Gaps in the beach fringe should be situated where the best understory recruitment of forage species is likely and avoid 

the largest young-growth or residual trees.

Heritage: Full avoidance of known cultural resources is required. All known cultural resources will be flagged and 

removed from the harvest unit and approved by a heritage specialist prior to implementation.

Invasive Plant Species: In the event that sediment control is necessary, use of silt fence or coconut fiber matting is 

recommended instead of straw bales (since straw bales have been known to introduce invasive species). If reseeding is 

required, utilized contract specifications that specify weed free material, and that the seed contain no more than 0.01% 

other seed, whether identified or not. Native seed may or may not be available, check with the POW Ecologist 

otherwise, typical weed-free mixes tend to include: 40% Annual ryegrass, 40% boreal red fescue, 20% Arctared fescue.

No resource concerns were identified for Recreation and Scenery. 

60  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Road Management Objectives 

Site Specific Design Criteria 

Road 2060132 

ROAD LOCATION: Route utilizes decommissioned road bed. Gentle grades with adverse to 8%. No 

streams along road. 

WETLANDS: Road avoids wetlands (R10 BMP 12.5). 

EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan will be developed by the contractor and subject to approval 

by the Contracting Officer (R10 BMP 14.5 and National BMPs Road-3 and Veg-2). All areas of organic or 

mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded and fertilized (R10 BMPs 12.17, 14.8, 

14.11, 14.12 and National BMP Road-3). After timber harvest, road storage will implement measures to 

intercept, collect, and remove water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that 

reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces without frequent 

maintenance (R10 BMP 14.20). 

ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined by regional specifications), blasting operations will 

be suspended at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibrations may induce mass 

movement (R10 BMP 14.6). Also during these periods, road construction that requires rock supplied from 

quarries shall be suspended in high risk areas on roads where rock hauling would increase the risk of 

mass failure (R10 BMP 14.7 and National BMP Min-5). Potential rock source located at milepost 0.65 on 

road 2060130. 

OTHER RESOURCE INFORMATION (if applicable) 

TIMBER/LOGGING SYSTEMS: no concern 

WILDLIFE: no concern 

BOTANY: no concern 

INVASIVE SPECIES: no concern 

VISUAL/RECREATION: no concern 

CULTURAL: no concern 

LANDS/MINERALS/GEOLOGY/KARST: Road avoids high vulnerability karst features (R10 BMP 14.2). 

Road sidecast, construction slash and excess excavation will not be placed near karst features (R10 BMPs 

14.10, 14.12 and 14.19), 

SOILS/WATER: The proposed route traverses gentle slopes. Apply R10 BMPs 14.2 and 14.7 and National 

BMPs Min-5 and Road-2). All exposed areas of mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass 

seeded and fertilized (R10 BMPs 12.17 and 14.8 and National BMPs Road-3, Road-6, and Veg-2). 

Storage activities would involve culvert removal, water bar placement, and revegetating road bed and 

potential erosion sources (R10 BMPs 14.8 and 14.22 and National BMPs Road-1 and Road-3). 

FISHERIES: no concern 

62  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Road Management Objectives 

Site Specific Design Criteria 

Road 2060133 

ROAD LOCATION: Road traverses gentle terrain with no streams crossed. Route runs slightly adverse, 

maximum adverse to 12%. Several hundred feet of side slopes to 45% are traversed prior to entering unit. 

On the remainder of the route side slopes are less than 25%. Road located to provide access for ground 

based logging system and maximize efficient yarding distance. During construction follow R10 BMPs 14.6, 

14.7, 14.12, 14.19 and National BMPs Road-2, Road-3, Road-7 and Min-5. 

WETLANDS: Road avoids wetlands (R10 BMP 12.5). 

EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan will be developed by the contractor and subject to approval 

by the Contracting Officer (R10 BMP 14.5 and National BMPs Road-3 and Veg-2). All areas of organic or 

mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded and fertilized (R10 BMPs 12.17, 14.8, 

14.11, 14.12 and National BMP Road-3). After timber harvest, road storage will implement measures to 

intercept, collect, and remove water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that 

reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces without frequent 

maintenance (R10 BMP 14.20). 

ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined by regional specifications), blasting operations will 

be suspended at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibrations may induce mass 

movement (R10 BMP 14.6). Also during these periods, road construction that requires rock supplied from 

quarries shall be suspended in high risk areas on roads where rock hauling would increase the risk of 

mass failure (R10 BMP 14.7 and National BMP Min-5). Potential rock source located at milepost 0.65 on 

road 2060130. 

OTHER RESOURCE INFORMATION (if applicable) 

TIMBER/LOGGING SYSTEMS: no concern 

WILDLIFE: no concern 

BOTANY: no concern 

INVASIVE SPECIES: no concern 

VISUAL/RECREATION: no concern 

CULTURAL: no concern 

LANDS/MINERALS/GEOLOGY/KARST: Road avoids high vulnerability karst features (R10 BMP 14.2). 

Road sidecast, construction slash and excess excavation will not be placed near karst features (R10 BMPs 

14.10, 14.12 and 14.19). 

SOILS/WATER: The proposed route traverses gentle slopes. Apply R10 BMPs 14.2 and 14.7 and National 

BMPs Min-5 and Road-2). All exposed areas of mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass 

seeded and fertilized (R10 BMPs 12.17 and 14.8 and National BMPs Road-3, Road-6, and Veg-2). 

Storage activities would involve culvert removal, water bar placement, and revegetating road bed and 

potential erosion sources (R10 BMPs 14.8 and 14.22 and National BMPs Road-1 and Road-3).

FISHERIES: no concern

64  EA Dargon Point Commercial Thinning 

Road Management Objectives 

Site Specific Design Criteria 

Road 2060134 

ROAD LOCATION: Road traverses gentle terrain with no streams crossed. Route runs slightly adverse to 

8% along gently rolling ground. Sideslopes are less than 20%. Road located to provide access for ground 

based logging system and maximize efficient yarding distance. Road entirely within harvest unit. During 

construction follow R10 BMPs 14.6, 14.7, 14.12, 14.19 and National BMPs Road-2, Road-3, Road-7 and 

Min-5. 

WETLANDS: Road avoids wetlands (R10 BMP 12.5). 

EROSION CONTROL: An erosion control plan will be developed by the contractor and subject to approval 

by the Contracting Officer (R10 BMP 14.5 and National BMPs Road 3 and Veg-2). All areas of organic or 

mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass seeded and fertilized (R10 BMPs 12.17, 14.8, 

14.11, 14.12 and National BMP Road-3). After timber harvest, road storage will implement measures to 

intercept, collect, and remove water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that 

reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces without frequent 

maintenance (R10 BMP 14.20). 

ROCK PITS: During periods of high rainfall (as defined by regional specifications), blasting operations will 

be suspended at quarries near potentially unstable sites where ground vibrations may induce mass 

movement (R10 BMP 14.6). Also during these periods, road construction that requires rock supplied from 

quarries shall be suspended in high risk areas on roads where rock hauling would increase the risk of 

mass failure (R10 BMP 14.7 and National BMP Min-5). Potential rock source located at milepost 0.65 on 

road 2060130. 

OTHER RESOURCE INFORMATION (if applicable) 

TIMBER/LOGGING SYSTEMS: no concern 

WILDLIFE: no concern 

BOTANY: no concern 

INVASIVE SPECIES: no concern 

VISUAL/RECREATION: no concern 

CULTURAL: no concern 

LANDS/MINERALS/GEOLOGY/KARST: Road avoids high vulnerability karst features (R10 BMP 14.2). 

Road sidecast, construction slash and excess excavation will not be placed near karst features (R10 BMPs 

14.10, 14.12 and 14.19). 

SOILS/WATER: The proposed route traverses gentle slopes. Apply R10 BMPs 14.2 and 14.7 and National 

BMPs Min-5 and Road-2). All exposed areas of mineral soil exposed during construction shall be grass 

seeded and fertilized (R10 BMPs 12.17 and 14.8 and National BMPs Road-3, Road-6, and Veg-2). 

Storage activities would involve culvert removal, water bar placement, and revegetating road bed and 

potential erosion sources (R10 BMPs 14.8 and 14.22 and National BMPs Road-1 and Road-3). 

FISHERIES: no concern 
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper
Thorne Bay

USDA Forest Service

Ranger District, Tongass National Forest

PO Box 19001

Thorne Bay, AK 99919