United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

R 10-MB-736

October 2012

 

Big Thorne Project

Thorne Bay Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

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

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

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

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

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

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer.

Big Thorne Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Alaska Region

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Responsible Official: Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor 

Tongass National Forest

Federal Building

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901

For Information Contact: James Kelly, IDT Leader POW Planning

Thorne Bay Ranger District

P.O. Box 19001

Thorne Bay, Alaska 99919

(907) 828-3220

Abstract: The Forest Service proposes to harvest timber, build new roads, and 

reconstruct roads in the Big Thorne project area on north-central Prince of Wales Island. 

The project area includes the community of Thorne Bay and is adjacent to Coffman Cove. 

The actions analyzed in this EIS are designed to implement the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The EIS describes and analyzes in detail five 

alternatives, which provide differing outputs and responses to the issues identified for this 

project. None of the alternatives include entry into inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) proposes no harvest or roadbuilding activities in the project 

area at this time. Current and on-going management activities would continue.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) proposes to harvest about 123 MMBF of timber on 

about 4,944 old-growth acres, build 35 miles of National Forest System (NFS) and 

temporary road and reconstruct 19 miles of NFS road. No commercial thinning is 

included.

Alternative 3 proposes to harvest about 189 MMBF of timber on about 6,909 old-growth 

and 2,572 young-growth acres, build 56 miles of NFS and temporary road and reconstruct 

39 miles of NFS road. Commercial thinning of young growth is included.

Alternative 4 proposes to harvest about 93 MMBF of timber on about 4,223 old-growth 

and 2,160 young-growth acres, build 19.5 miles of NFS and temporary road and 

reconstruct 21.5 miles of NFS road. Commercial thinning of young growth is included.

Alternative 5 proposes to harvest about 133 MMBF of timber on about 5,012 old-growth 

and 2,081 young-growth acres, build 15.5 miles of NFS and temporary road and 

reconstruct 16 miles of NFS road. Commercial thinning of young growth is included.
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Summary ▪ S-1

SUMMARY

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) to 

analyze the potential impacts of timber harvesting and road management in the Big 

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

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

and all other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.

Project Area

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

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

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

private lands (non-National Forest System [NFS]) and 218,000 acres of NFS lands. Three 

land use designations (LUDs) comprise 84 percent of the project area; these consist of 

Old-Growth Habitat, Timber Production, and Modified Landscape, in descending order of 

abundance. The Scenic River LUD along the Thorne River-Hatchery Creek system also 

comprises significant acreage. The remaining LUDs consist of Scenic Viewshed, 

Recreational River, Research Natural Area, and miscellaneous small acreages. Combined, 

the three primary timber management LUDs (Timber Production, Modified Landscape, 

and Scenic Viewshed) comprise about 124,000 of the 218,000 acres of NFS lands in the 

project area. A fairly extensive road system already exists and an operating medium-sized 

sawmill exists on the island along with numerous small mills. 

These conditions make the area more likely to produce economic and long-term sales. 

Longer-term sales are the best way to provide sufficient assurance of timber supply to 

support the necessary investment in new and upgraded manufacturing facilities by the 

timber industry. 

In implementing Forest Plan direction in accordance with the Council of Environmental 

Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), this Draft EIS answers the following eight 

questions:

1 – What action is proposed?

The proposed action for the Big Thorne Project is to harvest timber on approximately 

4,944 acres of forested lands using various sizes of timber sales, offered over multiple

years, within the roaded land base on Prince of Wales Island. This harvest would include 

approximately 569 acres in Phase 2 lands of the Tongass Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008b), which would be reserved for small 

timber sales. These Phase 2 lands are included because they are not roadless and are very 

close to Thorne Bay. Approximately 35 miles of NFS and temporary roads would be 

constructed and about 19 miles of existing roads would be reconstructed. No harvest or 

road construction/reconstruction would occur within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). 

An estimated 107 million board feet (MMBF) of sawtimber and 16 MMBF of utility 
Summary

S-2 ▪ Summary Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

volume could be made available to industry for harvest. Existing log transfer facilities 

would be used as needed. Harvest would include helicopter, ground-based, and cable 

yarding systems and could include even-aged and uneven-aged harvest prescriptions to 

achieve stand objectives. The proposed action and the action alternatives would meet the 

standards and guidelines and accomplish the goals and objectives of the Tongass National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Site-specific descriptions and resource considerations for each potential harvest unit are 

included as unit cards in Appendix B of the Draft EIS. All roads have been located and 

will be designed to avoid or minimize effects on wetlands. Resource considerations for 

each proposed new system road are included in the road cards in Appendix C of the Draft 

EIS. (40 CFR 1502.4(a); 1508.23; 1502.14; and 1502.5)

2 – Why is the project being proposed?

The Big Thorne Project is proposed at this time to respond to goals and objectives of the 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a), to help move the project area toward the 

desired conditions described in that plan, and to meet the needs of Southeast Alaska 

timber operators and residents. The Forest Plan includes both forest-wide goals and 

objectives and area-specific (LUD) goals, objectives, and desired conditions. The Big 

Thorne Project would respond to the following Forest Plan goals and objectives:

Timber—Goal (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2-7)

 Provide for the continuation of timber uses and resources by the timber industry 

and Alaska residents. 

Timber—Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2-7)

 Seek to provide an economic timber supply sufficient to meet the annual market 

demand for Tongass National Forest timber, and the market demand for the 

planning cycle, up to a ceiling of this Plan’s allowable sale quantity, which is 2.67 

billion board feet in the first decade. 

 Manage young growth to improve habitat for wildlife and commercial timber 

products. 

 Provide 2-3 years supply of volume under contract to local mills and then establish 

shelf volume to maintain flexibility and stability in the sale program. 

 Review the timber sale program and work with State and other partners to 

implement changes that will keep an “economic timber” perspective throughout 

the process and monitor the implementation of these reforms to ensure they are 

consistently employed across the Forest. 

Local and Regional Economy—Goal (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2-5)

 Provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local 

and regional economies of Southeast Alaska. 
Summary

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Summary ▪ S-3

Local and Regional Economy—Objective (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2-5)

 Support a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities within 

Southeast Alaska communities. 

Seeking to meet timber demand for the Tongass National Forest is required by Section 

101 of the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) which states that, “...to the extent 

consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable forest 

resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest..” The 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) for the Big Thorne project found that the timber resources in 

the project area have potentially high value for local economies. 

Southeast Alaska, and locally the Prince of Wales Island area, has experienced a 

significant decline in timber industry employment, with employment dropping sharply in 

the 1990s, following the closure of the region’s two pulp mills, and continuing to decrease 

over the past decade. This decline has been mirrored by a decline in regional sawmill 

production and reduced harvest levels Forest-wide. Allowing the use of renewable timber 

resources would provide Southeast Alaska timber operators with the opportunity to

generate and support jobs and income in the region (see Issue 1 – Timber Supply and 

Economics in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3). 

In addition, given the relevant Forest Plan goals and objectives and based on analysis of 

existing conditions in the project area, the interdisciplinary team found that the roaded 

landscape, tree species composition, and tree quality of the Big Thorne project area 

provides opportunity for economic timber harvest. Further, because of its central location 

on the Prince of Wales Island road system, the Big Thorne project area has economic 

transportation connections to the largest active sawmill and one of the highest 

concentrations of small operators in Southeast Alaska. Therefore, the Big Thorne project 

is proposed at this time to respond to the underlying need for a reliable, economic, and 

long-term timber supply, as well as to respond to the goals and objectives identified for 

the project area by the Forest Plan and to move the project area toward the desired 

condition described in the Forest Plan.

The purpose of and need for project action is further explained in Chapter 1 and in greater 

detail in Appendix A of this document (40 CFR 1502.13).

3 – Alternatives: What other action would meet the same

need?

The proposed action, three action alternatives, and a “No Action” alternative have been 

analyzed in detail. Each action alternative provides a different response to key issues 

while still meeting the stated purpose and need of this EIS. Each of these action 

alternatives represents a site-specific proposal developed through an intensive, fieldverified, interdisciplinary team evaluation of timber harvest unit and road design.

All action alternatives to the proposed action are consistent with the Forest Plan. All 

applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines have been incorporated into the design of 

the proposed units and alternatives. While some alternatives have been designed to 

provide a greater measure of protection than is required by the Forest Plan for some 

resources (e.g., spreading out units and modifying prescriptions to reduce effects on 
Summary

S-4 ▪ Summary Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

wildlife in Alternative 4), all alternatives were designed to meet Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines for all other resources. Additional direction comes from applicable laws and 

Forest Service manuals and handbooks. Each alternative complies with the Tongass 

Conservation Strategy designed to ensure the maintenance of viable populations of all 

vertebrate species on the Tongass by means of a comprehensive approach based on 

principles of conservation biology (see Issue 2 – Wildlife and Subsistence Use in Chapter 

3). Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas are applied to all streams 

within the project area. 

The following is a brief discussion of how the alternatives respond to the key issues 

identified for the Big Thorne project. A detailed comparison of these issues by project 

alternative is summarized in Chapter 2, and a full examination of effects of each 

alternative relative to key issues as well as other resource concerns is provided in Chapter 

3. None of the action alternatives include harvest or road construction in IRAs.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative in the EIS. Under this alternative, no timber 

harvest or road building would take place at this time. As a result, this alternative would 

not meet the purpose and need for the project.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 (see “1 – What action is proposed?”) addresses Issue 1 – Timber Supply and 

Sale Economics, while limiting effects on other issues and resources. It would produce 

107 MMBF of sawtimber plus 16 MMBF of utility volume (123 MMBF total volume) by 

harvesting 4,944 acres of old growth, building 35 miles of new roads (including formerly 

decommissioned roads), and reconstructing 19 miles of stored roads. It completely avoids 

harvest or road construction in IRAs. Alternative 2 would meet the purpose and need for 

the project.

Alternative 3

This alternative gives greatest priority to Issue 1 by emphasizing timber production and 

addressing timber sale economics. As such, it maximizes the amount of cable and shovel 

clearcut prescriptions among the alternatives, and includes commercial thinning of 50+ 

year-old stands. This alternative also adjusts the boundaries of small old-growth reserves 

(OGRs) outside of IRAs so that more of these OGRs are placed inside IRAs and the 

vacated roaded portions would be designated as Timber Production or Modified 

Landscape and made available for timber management. It completely avoids harvest or 

road construction in IRAs. Alternative 3 would meet the purpose and need for the project.

It would produce 167 MMBF of sawtimber and 22 MMBF of utility volume (189 MMBF 

total volume) by harvesting 6,909 acres of old growth, 2,572 acres of young-growth 

thinning, building 56 miles of new roads (including formerly decommissioned roads), and 

reconstructing 39 miles of stored roads.

Alternative 4

The primary objective of Alternative 4 is to address Issues 2 and 3, by maintaining 

landscape connectivity, protecting important wildlife corridors, and reducing impacts to 

sensitive plants and wildlife. Under this alternative, impacts to biodiversity and wildlife 
Summary

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Summary ▪ S-5

were minimized by selecting harvest methods and prescriptions that would have a lighter 

touch on the landscape (i.e., resulting in less old-growth removal and less road 

construction); deferring or modifying boundaries of proposed units that could impact 

habitat connectivity or impact sensitive plant populations; and positioning legacy forest 

structure requirements to protect important wildlife habitats. 

This alternative also adjusts the boundaries of small OGRs by incorporating the 

biologically preferred alternative based on an interagency review of small OGRs. Areas 

vacated by small OGR modifications would be designated as Timber Production or 

Modified Landscape and made available timber harvest. It completely avoids harvest or 

road construction in IRAs. Alternative 4 would meet the purpose and need for the project.

Alternative 4 would produce about 83 MMBF of sawtimber and 11 MMBF of utility 

volume (93 MMBF total volume) by harvesting 4,223 acres of old growth, thinning 2,160

acres of 50+ year-old young growth, building 19.5 miles of new roads (including formerly 

decommissioned roads), and reconstructing 21.5 miles of stored roads.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 addresses watershed effects (Issue 4) and other issues raised by minimizing 

road construction, road-stream crossings, reducing cable or shovel logging, and reducing 

harvest in watersheds with high levels of harvest within the past 30 years. This alternative 

increases harvest volume by including commercial thinning units in young-growth stands 

50 years of age or older to benefit watershed function. It completely avoids harvest or 

road construction in IRAs. Alternative 5 would meet the purpose and need for the project.

This alternative would produce about 117 MMBF of sawtimber and 16 MMBF of utility 

volume (133 MMBF total volume) by harvesting 5,012 acres of old growth, thinning 

2,081 acres of 50+ year-old young growth, building 15.5 miles of new roads (including

formerly decommissioned roads) and reconstructing 16 miles of stored roads. Only 1.7 

miles of the new roads would be NFS roads; the remaining 13.8 miles would be temporary 

roads.

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

action?

Not meeting the need for timber production in the project area would mean that Forest 

Plan requirements for continuous yield of timber would have to be met in other areas (see 

Appendix A – Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis of the Big Thorne 

Project). Harvest from micro-sales would continue to occur in the Big Thorne project area 

if this project does not go forward. However, harvest in this manner does not include a 

landscape-level approach, does not provide a balanced view of resource needs, and would 

contribute only a minimal amount of wood fiber to the local and regional economies of 

Southeast Alaska. In the absence of a long-term (i.e., multi-year) stable supply of 

economic timber from the Big Thorne Project or elsewhere, the future viability of existing 

mill operators on Prince of Wales Island and elsewhere in the region would be adversely

affected (see Issue 1 – Timber Supply and Economics in Chapter 3) ((40 CFR 1508.25(b) 

(1); and 1502.14(d)).
Summary

S-6 ▪ Summary Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

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

alternative actions — in comparative format?

The following four issues were determined to be potentially key or significant and within 

the scope of the project decision. The IDT developed the alternatives to the proposed 

action to address these issues. Chapter 2, Alternatives, introduces how the alternatives 

meet the purpose and need for the project, and compares outputs, objectives and effects of 

the alternatives in terms of the key issues (see Table 2-1, Comparison of Alternatives by 

Issue). Chapter 3 examines the existing condition and analyzes the effects or 

consequences of the project as it relates to these issues. The following summarizes these 

effects:

ISSUE 1 – Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics 

Each of the four action alternatives is designed to be responsive to the need for a reliable, 

economic supply of sawtimber to meet market demand. These alternatives also have the 

potential to support timber industry employment and benefit local and regional 

economies. Alternative 3 would produce the largest volume of timber, followed by 

Alternatives 5, 2, and 4 in that order. Assuming constant job/MMBF ratios, the 

alternatives with more volume would have a higher potential to support employment and 

income in local economies. Total estimated direct employment ranges from 391 to 455

jobs (annualized job-years) under Alternative 4 to 792 to 915 jobs under Alternative 3, 

reflecting the relative volumes that would be made available under each alternative. The 

project would also support indirect jobs within the region.

For timber volume to contribute to the stated purpose, it must also be economically viable. 

Current indicated bid values are positive for three of the four action alternatives, ranging 

from about $7/MBF under Alternative 5 to almost $56/MBF under Alternative 2, the 

proposed action. The indicated bid value for Alternative 4 is negative at -$8/MBF under 

current economic assumptions. The quantity of economically viable timber volume 

available at project implementation would depend on a number of factors. Changes in 

regional and global timber markets and other factors such as fuel costs can dramatically 

affect stumpage values and logging costs at the time of implementation and harvest. The 

full economic benefits of a given alternative may not be available under poor market 

conditions. 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), there would be no timber volume available for sale 

through the Big Thorne Project. The project would not meet the purpose and need, which 

is to contribute to a supply of economic timber to industry on Prince of Wales Island and 

Southeast Alaska, in general (including both large and small operators), in a manner that 

is consistent with the multiple-use goals and objectives of the Tongass Forest Plan. The 

Big Thorne project is intended to provide a supply of economic timber and designed to 

include sufficient units and volume to allow the Forest Service to adjust future timber sale 

offerings from the project area to meet fluctuating market conditions, to the extent 

possible.

A stable and economic timber supply is intended to support local operators and encourage 

investment in the wood products industry as it transitions to include more young-growth 

harvesting and restoration activities. Timber from the Big Thorne project would represent 
Summary

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Summary ▪ S-7

a portion of the timber supply available to Southeast Alaska’s economy. A stable timber 

supply in Southeast Alaska depends on the success of many timber sales across the forest. 

As noted above, in the absence of a long-term (i.e., multi-year) stable supply of economic 

timber from the Big Thorne project or elsewhere, the future viability of existing mill 

operators would be adversely affected. Closure of one or more of the existing mills would 

result in a reduction in direct jobs and could also affect local businesses that support the 

sawmill sector. 

ISSUE 2 – Old-growth Habitat LUD Modifications

Modifications to small old-growth reserves (OGRs) are proposed under Alternatives 3 and 

4. Alternative 3 would exchange roaded portions of small OGRs (making these acres 

available for timber harvest) for substitute acres in IRAs. Alternative 4 would modify the 

current locations of small OGRs so that they correspond with biologically preferred 

locations, as identified by an interagency OGR review team. Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 

would not modify small OGR boundaries.

Both Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a net gain in old-growth reserve acres (590 acres 

in Alternative 3 and 4,288 acres in Alternative 4); though Alternative 3 would reduce the 

total amount of POG in small OGRs by 849 acres. Alternative 3 would increase the

amount of suitable forest land available for timber production by 1,331 acres and 

Alternative 4 would reduce suitable and available forest land by 1,541 acres.

All existing and modified small OGRs would be consistent with Forest Plan acreage 

requirements. About half of the small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would 

result in a tradeoff between a reduction in the amount of roads and early seral forest 

included in small OGRs for a reduction in the amount of POG habitats (e.g., deer winter 

range, goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat, and low elevation old-growth), and 

sometimes a decrease in areas important for connectivity, included in the OGRs. 

Modifications in all small OGRs under Alternative 3 would increase the timber available 

to the Big Thorne project. Generally, small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 would 

increase inclusion of POG habitats in the OGRs and encompass important travel corridors, 

while decreasing forest land available for timber production.

ISSUE 3 – Wildlife and Subsistence Use

Alternative 1 (No Action) would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on wildlife 

or subsistence use that are associated with the Big Thorne Project. All action alternatives 

would result in a decrease in productive old-growth (POG) habitat, resulting in a reduction 

of 4 to 7 percent from current amounts within the project area. Resulting impacts to 

biodiversity and landscape connectivity (fragmentation) would be greatest under 

alternatives that harvest the most POG. However, impacts would be reduced under 

alternatives that incorporate more uneven-aged harvest prescriptions. Likewise, impacts 

would be less under alternatives that incorporate more helicopter logging than 

conventional logging systems. Based on acres of POG harvested, the increase in number 

of POG patches, and the proportion of harvest that would be uneven-aged, Alternative 3 

would have the greatest adverse effects to biodiversity, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, 

and 1.
Summary

S-8 ▪ Summary Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Reductions in POG would reduce habitat available for marten, goshawks, Prince of Wales 

flying squirrel, snag-dependent species (red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and 

brown creeper), spruce grouse, endemic species, migratory birds, and other old-growth 

associated species. Habitat for these species is maintained by Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, riparian buffers, beach and estuary fringe, OGRs, other non-development 

LUDs, and other aspects of the Forest Plan conservation strategy. Local reductions in 

populations may occur for these species, either through disturbance, habitat removal, or 

fragmentation (reduced dispersal and/ or population isolation), under all action 

alternatives.

Removal of low elevation POG under all alternatives would reduce the amount of 

available deer winter habitat, and thus would reduce deer habitat capability. Currently, 

deer habitat capability in all of the Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) coinciding with the 

project falls below the Forest Plan standard of 18 deer per square mile considered 

necessary to maintain a sustainable wolf population and meet human harvest demands. 

Further reductions in deer habitat capability resulting from the action alternatives may 

result in local declines in the deer population, reducing the number of deer available to 

wolves and subsistence hunters. However, wolves are highly mobile within their 

territories and adjacent WAAs with higher deer densities would continue to support 

wolves in the vicinity of the project. 

All action alternatives would increase road density. Current road densities in all the 

WAAs coinciding with the project are higher than the Forest Plan recommended threshold 

of 0.7 to 1.0 mile per square mile for areas where wolf mortality has been identified as a 

concern. Resulting total road densities (NFS and non-NFS lands) range from 1.7 to 2.8 

miles per square mile depending on the WAA and alternative. Increased road density 

indirectly affects wolves, as well as other harvested species (marten and black bears), by 

increasing human access which may lead to increased harvest rates. 

ISSUE 4 – Cumulative Watershed Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative watershed effects 

associated with the Big Thorne Project. All action alternatives would result in minor 

(effects would be measurable, with only small, localized changes to the site, lasting less 

than a week) to moderate (effects would be measurable at the stream reach or 

subwatershed scale, and last more than a week) effects on sedimentation and aquatic 

habitat. Alternative 3 would have the most effects, followed by Alternative 2. Compared 

to Alternatives 3 and 5, Alternatives 2 and 4 are similar to each other, and would have less 

effect on sedimentation and aquatic habitat than Alternative 3, but more effect than 

Alternative 5. Alternative 5 proposes the least amount of roads, substantially less road 

miles than Alternatives 2 or 3, and the fewest Class I, II, and III stream crossings, and 

would result in the least effects of all action alternatives. 

(40 CFR 1502.14;1508.8;1502.16)
Summary

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Summary ▪ S-9

6– What factors will be used when making the decision

among alternatives?

The factors that will influence the decision among alternatives include design and location 

of timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, social and economic factors: see 

Issue 1 - Timber Supply and Sale Economics; Issue 2 – Old-Growth Habitat LUD 

Modifications; Issue 3 - Wildlife Habitat and Subsistence Use; Issue 4 – Cumulative 

Watershed Effects; and other resource concerns (also see the section Decision Framework

in Chapter 1).

(40 CFR 1502.23)

7 – Are there any ways to mitigate adverse effects?

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

alternative. Measures have been formulated to mitigate or reduce these impacts, guided by 

direction in the Forest Plan. Entire units and partial units have been deleted from further 

consideration so that impacts can be avoided, because of resource concerns. Adverse 

effects, such as risks from windthrow to standing timber after harvest, have been 

evaluated, and means to minimize windthrow, such as windfirm buffers, are incorporated

into all harvest unit prescriptions, where needed. If any previously undocumented 

goshawk nests are discovered at any time prior to or during the implementation of this 

project, the appropriate protection measures (nest buffers) would be enacted.

Resource specialists from the ID Team used on-the-ground inventories, computer (GIS) 

data, and aerial photographs to prepare unit cards (Appendix B) for each harvest unit in 

the unit pool for the project, and road cards (Appendix C) for each segment of road. The 

cards describe site-specific concerns, and how these concerns would be mitigated or 

avoided in the design of each unit and road segment.

Resource concerns and mitigation measures may be refined further during final layout, 

when specialists have another opportunity to refine their unit and road card 

recommendations.

Some general mitigation common to all alternatives is described in Chapter 2. A more 

detailed discussion by issue and resource is in Chapter 3 (40 CFR 1508.25(b)(3); 

1502.14(f);1502.16(h); 1508.20; and 1500.2(e)).

8 – What monitoring is necessary?

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

The sale administrators and road inspectors ensure that the prescriptions contained on the 

unit and road cards, and the unit silvicultural prescriptions, are incorporated into contract 

documents; they then monitor performance relative to contract requirements. The unit 

cards and road cards for this project are included in Appendices B and C to this Draft EIS, 

respectively. Input by resource staff specialists, such as fisheries biologists, soil scientists, 

hydrologists, and engineers, would be regularly requested during this implementation 

monitoring process. These specialists provide technical advice when questions arise 

during project implementation.
Summary

S-10 ▪ Summary Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Tongass National Forest staff annually conducts a review of Best Management Practice 

(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.

Draft EIS Organization

This Draft EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that 

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. All numbers in this document are 

approximate. The document is organized into four chapters:

• Chapter 1 explains the purpose and need for the proposed action, discusses how 

the Big Thorne Project relates to the Forest Plan, and identifies the significant, or 

key, issues driving the Draft EIS analysis.

• Chapter 2 describes the proposed action, compares alternatives to the proposed 

action including a No-action Alternative, and summarizes the significant 

environmental consequences by issue. 

• Chapter 3 describes the natural and human environments potentially affected by 

the proposed action and alternatives, and discloses what potential effects are 

anticipated. 

• Chapter 4 contains the list of preparers, the Draft EIS distribution list, literature 

cited, a glossary, and an index.

• Appendices provide additional information on specific aspects of the proposed 

project.

Copies of this Draft EIS may be obtained from the Thorne Bay Ranger District office at 

Thorne Bay, Alaska. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of 

project area resources, may be found in the project record located at the Thorne Bay 

Ranger District office.
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Table of Contents ▪ i

Table of Contents 

VOLUME I 

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

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

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

Project Area............................................................................................................. 1-2

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

Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1-4

Need .................................................................................................................... 1-5

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

Decision Framework ................................................................................................ 1-6

Public Involvement................................................................................................... 1-6

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

Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribal Governments and Tribal 

Corporations ........................................................................................................ 1-7

Other Agency Involvement................................................................................... 1-8

State of Alaska..................................................................................................... 1-9

Issues.................................................................................................................... 1-10

Issue 1 – Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ....................................... 1-11

Issue 2 – Old-Growth Habitat LUD Modifications ............................................... 1-12

Issue 3 – Wildlife Habitat and Subsistence Use ................................................. 1-12

Issue 4 – Cumulative Watershed Effects............................................................ 1-13

Other Resource Considerations ......................................................................... 1-13

Relationship to the Forest Plan .......................................................................... 1-14

Other Related Efforts ............................................................................................. 1-18

Stewardship Opportunities in the Project Area ................................................... 1-18

Relationship to the Access Travel Management Plan......................................... 1-19

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders.................................................................. 1-19

Availability of the Project Record ........................................................................... 1-20

Map and Number Qualification .............................................................................. 1-20

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ....................................... 2-1

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 2-1

Alternative Development.......................................................................................... 2-1

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

Alternative 1 (No Action) ...................................................................................... 2-2

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)............................................................................ 2-2

Alternative 3......................................................................................................... 2-3

Alternative 4......................................................................................................... 2-6

Alternative 5......................................................................................................... 2-8

Design Criteria and Mitigation Common to all Action Alternatives ........................ 2-9

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ................................. 2-13

No Roads Alternative ......................................................................................... 2-13

Modification of Small and Large OGRs .............................................................. 2-14

Yellow-Cedar Alternative.................................................................................... 2-14

Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................... 2-15

Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ...................................................................... 3-1

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

Land Divisions ......................................................................................................... 3-1
Table of Contents

ii ▪ Table of Contents Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Project Area .........................................................................................................3-1

Value Comparison Units.......................................................................................3-1

Game Management Units.....................................................................................3-2

Wildlife Analysis Areas .........................................................................................3-2

Watershed............................................................................................................3-2

Inventoried Roadless Area ...................................................................................3-2

Biogeographic Province........................................................................................3-4

Analyzing Effects .....................................................................................................3-4

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects................................................................3-4

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects...........................................3-4

Incomplete and Unavailable Information.............................................................3-11

Other Resources....................................................................................................3-11

Air Quality...........................................................................................................3-11

Land Status ........................................................................................................3-12

Community Profiles................................................................................................3-12

Thorne Bay.........................................................................................................3-12

Coffman Cove ....................................................................................................3-13

Craig ..................................................................................................................3-13

Hollis ..................................................................................................................3-14

Kasaan...............................................................................................................3-14

Klawock..............................................................................................................3-15

Naukati Bay........................................................................................................3-15

Environment and Effects of Significant Issues........................................................3-16

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics..........................................3-17

Issue 2: Old-Growth Habitat LUD Modifications..................................................3-43

Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use................................................................3-93

Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ............................................................3-244

Other Resource Considerations ...........................................................................3-301

Karst.................................................................................................................3-301

Soils .................................................................................................................3-308

Climate Change................................................................................................3-324

Fisheries...........................................................................................................3-326

Wetlands ..........................................................................................................3-350

Botany..............................................................................................................3-365

Invasive Plants .................................................................................................3-389

Timber and Vegetation .....................................................................................3-401

Transportation ..................................................................................................3-425

Recreation........................................................................................................3-442

Scenery............................................................................................................3-464

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness ....................................................3-482

Wild and Scenic Rivers.....................................................................................3-497

Heritage Resources..........................................................................................3-500

Socioeconomics ...............................................................................................3-505

Environmental Justice ......................................................................................3-515

Other Environmental Considerations....................................................................3-517

Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ................. 3-517

Best Management Practices.............................................................................3-518

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects ....................................................3-519

 
Table of Contents

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Table of Contents ▪ iii

VOLUME II 

Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................... 4-1

List of Preparers ...................................................................................................... 4-1

Distribution List........................................................................................................ 4-3

Glossary ................................................................................................................ 4-13

References ............................................................................................................ 4-37

Index...................................................................................................................... 4-66

Appendix A – Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis of the Big 

Thorne Project 

Appendix B – Unit Card Introduction 

Appendix C – Road Card Introduction 

Appendix D – Catalog of Past Harvest and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Projects 

 

VOLUME III (on CD) 

Unit Cards 

 

VOLUME IV (on CD) 

Unit Cards 

VOLUME V (on CD) 

Unit Cards 

VOLUME VI (on CD) 

Road Cards 

 
Table of Contents

iv ▪ Table of Contents Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Forest Plan Land Use Designations and Acreages in the Project Area ... 1-16

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue .......................................................... 2-15

Table TSE-1. Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002–2010.............. 3-19

Table TSE-2. Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2002–2010 ............. 3-20

Table TSE-3. Timber Volume Estimates by Species and Alternative ............................. 3-23

Table TSE-4. Proposed Logging System and Silvicultural System by Alternative........ 3-24

Table TSE-5. Old-growth Stump to Truck Average Logging Costs................................ 3-25

Table TSE-6. Young-growth Stump to Truck Average Logging Costs........................... 3-27

Table TSE-7. Proposed Road Construction and Reconstruction by Alternative........... 3-30

Table TSE-8. Road Storage and Decommissioning Costs by Alternative....................... 3-30

Table TSE-9. Average Truck Speeds Used for Analysis................................................... 3-30

Table TSE-10. Pond Log Values by Species and Alternative............................................. 3-31

Table TSE-11. Proposed Harvest Acres and Volumes in Phase 2 Lands.......................... 3-33

Table TSE-12. Costs and Values by Alternative ................................................................. 3-34

Table TSE-13. Estimated Timber Volume, Employment, and Income by Alternative ... 3-35

Table TSE-14. Estimated Forest Service Financial Costs and Revenues by 

Alternative..................................................................................................... 3-36

Table OGR-1. Forest Plan Land Use Designation Acreage in the Project Area by 

Alternative..................................................................................................... 3-51

Table OGR-2. Comparison of Old-growth Reserves Based On Forest Plan Design 

Criteria .......................................................................................................... 3-55

Table OGR-3. Acres and Volume of Potential Mapped Suitable Timber1/ Within 

Each Small OGR by Alternative, Change in Mapped Suitable and 

Available Timber2/, and Summary Statistics.............................................. 3-81

Table OGR-4. Effects of OGR Modifications on the Number of Units, Acres and 

Volume by VCU and Summary by Alternative for the Big Thorne 

project............................................................................................................ 3-82

Table WLD-1. Existing Total, High-Volume, and Large-Tree POG by 

Biogeographic Province, VCU, and Project Area.................................... 3-100

Table WLD-2. Number of POG Patches and Acreages by Size Class Intersecting the 

Big Thorne Project Area under Existing Conditions.............................. 3-103

Table WLD-3. Existing Deer Winter Habitat Capability on NFS Lands by WAA ....... 3-108

Table WLD-4. Existing Average Snow Winter Habitat, Deep Snow Winter Habitat, 

and Non-Winter Habitat on NFS Lands by WAA................................... 3-109

Table WLD-5. Existing Deer Winter Habitat Capability in terms of Deer Density on 

NFS Lands by WAA................................................................................... 3-111

Table WLD-6. Existing Road Density below 1,200 Feet Elevation on NFS Lands ........ 3-113

Table WLD-7. Original and Existing Deep Snow Marten Habitat.................................. 3-114

Table WLD-8. Existing Road Density for All Elevations on NFS Lands........................ 3-116

Table WLD-9. Priority Landbird Species Potentially Occurring in the Big Thorne 

Project Area ................................................................................................ 3-124

Table WLD-10. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Alaska Region Sensitive 

Species in the Big Thorne Project Area.................................................... 3-126

Table WLD-11. Total Deer Harvested and Annual Average Reported for 

Communities using the Project Area WAAs between 1996 and 2003.... 3-131

Table WLD-12. Harvest of Total POG by Biogeographic Province, VCU, and Project 

Area for Each Alternative.......................................................................... 3-133

Table WLD-13. Harvest of High-volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 67) by Biogeographic 
Table of Contents

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Table of Contents ▪ v

Province, VCU, and Project Area for Each Alternative ......................... 3-134

Table WLD-14. Harvest of Large Tree POG (SD 67) by Biogeographic Province, 

VCU, and Project Area for Each Alternative........................................... 3-135

Table WLD-15. Cumulative POG Harvest by Alternative................................................. 3-140

Table WLD-16. Number of POG Patches and POG acres within Patches by Size 

Class by Alternative.................................................................................... 3-141

Table WLD-17. Comparison of Effects to Corridors with Project Effects by 

Alternative ................................................................................................... 3-149

Table WLD-18. Relative Changes in Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by WAA by 

Alternative for NFS Lands Only ............................................................... 3-161

Table WLD-19. Changes to Average Snow Winter Range, Deep Snow Winter Range, 

and Non-Winter Habitat for Deer by WAA by Alternative (NFS and 

Non-NFS Lands) ......................................................................................... 3-162

Table WLD-20. Relative Changes Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by WAA by 

Alternative for All Lands (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) Including 

Reasonably Foreseeable Projects............................................................... 3-163

Table WLD-21. Cumulative Effects to Average Snow Winter Habitat, Deep Snow 

Winter Habitat, and Non-Winter Habitat for Deer by WAA and by 

Alternative on all Lands (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) Including 

Reasonably Foreseeable Projects............................................................... 3-164

Table WLD-22. Harvest by Prescription by WAA.............................................................. 3-166

Table WLD-23. Effects of Timber Harvest on Deer Density by WAA (NFS Lands 

Only)............................................................................................................. 3-172

Table WLD-24. Road Density below 1,200 feet Elevation on NFS Lands Only after 

Implementation of the Alternatives........................................................... 3-173

Table WLD-25. Cumulative Impacts to Deer Habitat Capability by WAA (NFS and 

Non-NFS Lands) ......................................................................................... 3-175

Table WLD-26. Cumulative Road Density on All Ownerships Below 1,200 Feet 

Elevation by Alternative............................................................................. 3-178

Table WLD-27. Impacts to Deep Snow Marten Habitat by WAA and by Alternative.... 3-186

Table WLD-28. Road Density at All Elevations on NFS Lands Only after 

Implementation of the Alternatives........................................................... 3-187

Table WLD-29. Cumulative Effects to Deep Snow Marten Habitat by WAA and by 

Alternative ................................................................................................... 3-188

Table WLD-30. Cumulative Road Density on All Ownerships at All Elevations by 

Alternative ................................................................................................... 3-189

Table WLD-31. Productive Old-growth Harvest by WAA under each Alternative ........ 3-196

Table WLD-32. Cumulative POG Harvest by WAA .......................................................... 3-197

Table WLD-33. Summary of Effects Determinations for Threatened, Endangered, 

Candidate, and Sensitive Species............................................................... 3-224

Table WLD-34. Hunter Demand by WAA of Current (2012) and Projected Deer 

Habitat Capability by Alternative (NFS and non-NFS1/ lands) 

Incorporating Past and Foreseeable Projects........................................... 3-234

Table WTR-1. Watershed Issues/Concerns Addressed and Environmental 

Components Analyzed for the Big Thorne Project Area ........................ 3-244

Table WTR-2. Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne Project Alternatives ................ 3-249

Table WTR-3. Past Harvest in Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives.................................................................................................. 3-253

Table WTR-4. Existing Roads in Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives.................................................................................................. 3-260

Table WTR-5. Past Riparian Harvest in Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne 
Table of Contents

vi ▪ Table of Contents Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Project Alternatives.................................................................................... 3-263

Table WTR-6. Proposed Harvest (including road clearing) by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives in Affected Subwatersheds................................................... 3-268

Table WTR-7. Proposed Road Construction by Big Thorne Project Alternatives........ 3-275

Table WTR-8. Proposed Road-Stream Crossings by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives in Affected Watersheds ........................................................ 3-279

Table WTR-9. Cumulative Harvest by Big Thorne Project Alternative ........................ 3-283

Table WTR-10. Cumulative Percent Road Area by Big Thorne Project Alternatives.... 3-285

Table WTR-11. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives in Affected Subwatersheds................................................... 3-287

Table KST-1. Changes to Total Harvest on Karst for the Big Thorne Project Area... 3-306

Table SOIL-2. Total Mapped Landslides within the Big Thorne Project Area ............. 3-311

Table SOIL-3. Landslides in Harvested Areas and Non-Harvested POG during the 

Past 40 Years (1971-2010).......................................................................... 3-311

Table SOIL-4. Estimated Acres of Detrimental Soil Conditions from 

Implementation of the Alternatives .......................................................... 3-314

Table SOIL-5. Proposed Harvest Unit Acreage with Slopes Greater than 72% that 

Meet the Slope Stability Analysis Criteria for Timber Harvest (oldgrowth harvest and young growth thinning1,2,3/)...................................... 3-316

Table SOIL-6. Estimated Acres of Cumulative Detrimental Soil Disturbance by 

Alternative................................................................................................... 3-320

Table FISH-1. Brief Description of Process Groups......................................................... 3-328

Table FISH-2. Stream Miles by Process Group by Subwatershed.................................. 3-330

Table FISH-3. Known Stream Miles by AHMU Class and Basin Area by 

Subwatershed.............................................................................................. 3-331

Table FISH-4. Lake Area by AHMU Class in the Project Area Subwatersheds........... 3-332

Table FISH-5. Known Anadromous and Resident Fish Species Presence by 

Subwatershed in the Project Affected Area ............................................. 3-334

Table FISH-6. Fish Passage in the Project Area by Subwatershed................................. 3-337

Table FISH-7. Changes in Red Culvert Status by Alternative in the Big Thorne 

Project Area ................................................................................................ 3-340

Table FISH-9. Marine Species and Their Life Stages that could be Affected by the 

Big Thorne Project ..................................................................................... 3-346

Table FISH-10. Salmon Species and Their Marine Life Stages that could be Affected 

by the Big Thorne Project.......................................................................... 3-347

Table WET-1. Existing Road Construction and Timber Harvest on Wetlands............. 3-354

Table WET-2. Road and Timber Harvesting Impacts on Wetland Types by Action 

Alternative................................................................................................... 3-356

Table WET-3. Estimated Acres of Cumulative (Existing, Project, and Foreseeable) 

Wetland Impacts from Harvesting by Alternative .................................. 3-361

Table BOT-1. Known or Suspected Plants in the Thorne Bay Ranger District............ 3-367

Table BOT-2. Percentage of Known Populations and Estimated Percentage of 

Individuals of Alaska Rein Orchid Directly or Indirectly Affected in 

the Project Area by the Big Thorne Project............................................. 3-378

Table BOT-3. Percentage of Known Populations and Estimated percentage of 

Individuals of Lesser Round-Leaved Orchid Directly or Indirectly1/ 

Affected in the Project Area by the Big Thorne Project......................... 3-383

Table INV-1. High Priority Invasive Plant Species found in the Project Area ............ 3-390

Table INV-2. Specific Invasive Plant Populations for which Treatment is 

Recommended............................................................................................. 3-392

Table INV-3. Summary of Acres Harvested by Logging System, Prescription, and 
Table of Contents

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Table of Contents ▪ vii

Alternative ................................................................................................... 3-394

Table INV-4. Summary of Acres Harvested, Road Construction, Number of 

Stream Crossings, and Acres of Rock Quarry as a result of the Big 

Thorne Project ............................................................................................ 3-395

Table INV-5. Cumulative Timber Harvesting Impacts.................................................. 3-398

Table TBR-1. Original, Eliminated, and Resulting Big Thorne Unit Pool Acres ......... 3-404

Table TBR-2. Gross Volume per Acre by Volume Strata............................................... 3-405

Table TBR-3. Silvicultural System and Prescription Acres by Alternative and 

Yarding System........................................................................................... 3-411

Table TBR-4. Pre-Harvest Wind Risk Rating by Silvicultural System and 

Alternative (acres)....................................................................................... 3-422

Table TRAN-1. Big Thorne Analysis Area NFS Roads...................................................... 3-428

Table TRAN-2. Big Thorne Analysis Area OBML and RMO Plan.................................. 3-432

Table TRAN-3. Big Thorne Area Existing and Proposed Roads1/..................................... 3-435

Table TRAN-4. Big Thorne Road Development Costs....................................................... 3-435

Table TRAN-5. Estimated Costs of Road Storage and Decommissioning........................ 3-440

Table TRAN-6. Travel Management Plan for Project Area after Implementation of 

Proposed RMOs (miles).............................................................................. 3-441

Table REC-1. ROS Designations within the Big Thorne Project Area .......................... 3-444

Table REC-2. Developed Recreation Sites in the Big Thorne Project Area .................. 3-448

Table REC-3. Estimated Use of Undeveloped Recreation Sites in the Big Thorne 

Project Area Identified as Receiving Consistent Use............................... 3-451

Table REC-4. Outfitter and Guide Locations and Use in the Big Thorne Project 

Area.............................................................................................................. 3-452

Table REC-5. ROS Settings by Alternative ...................................................................... 3-453

Table SCEN-1. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for the primary LUDs in the 

project area as identified in the Forest Plan ............................................ 3-464

Table SCEN-2. Acreage of Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) in the Project Area........ 3-468

Table SCEN-3. Existing Visual Condition/Existing Scenic Integrity in the Project 

Area.............................................................................................................. 3-468

Table SCEN-4. Clearcut (CC) and Partial Cut (PC) Harvest Acreage by Scenery 

Integrity Objective under the Action Alternatives .................................. 3-474

Table SCEN-5. Road Construction (Con) and Reconstruction (Rec) Mileage by 

Scenery Integrity Objective under the Action Alternatives.................... 3-474

Table SCEN-6 Cumulative Visual Disturbance in terms of Cumulative VCU 

Harvest (<30 yr-old young growth) and Percent of VCU Area 

Harvested for All Lands (includes past harvest, future Big Thorne 

harvest, other future NF harvest, and future State harvest)1/................. 3-480

Table IRA-1. Roadless Characteristics and Discussion Sections................................... 3-482

Table IRA-2. Inventoried Roadless Areas Located within the Big Thorne Project 

Area (partially or wholly)........................................................................... 3-483

Table IRA-3. Kogish IRA Acres by LUD......................................................................... 3-485

Table IRA-4. Karta IRA Acres by LUD........................................................................... 3-487

Table IRA-5. Thorne River IRA Acres by LUD.............................................................. 3-489

Table IRA-6. Ratz IRA Acres by LUD............................................................................. 3-491

Table WSR-1. Harvest and Thinning Acres Proposed within the Recreational River 

LUD.............................................................................................................. 3-498

Table SOC-1. Population, 2000 and 2010 ......................................................................... 3-506

Table SOC-2. Race and Ethnicity 2010............................................................................. 3-507

Table SOC-3. Annual Employment and Earnings in the Prince of Wales-Hyder 

CA, 20101/..................................................................................................... 3-508
Table of Contents

viii ▪ Table of Contents Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. Project Area and Vicinity Map ..................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-2. Big Thorne Project Area Land Use Designations and Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Existing Conditions......................................................... 1-15

Figure 2-1. Alternative 3 LUD Map and Inventoried Roadless Areas after OGR 

Modifications (compare with Figure 1-2, the Existing LUD Map). ........... 2-5

Figure 2-2. Alternative 4 LUD Map and Inventoried Roadless Areas after OGR 

Modifications (compare with Figure 1-2, the Existing LUD Map). ........... 2-7

Figure 3-1. Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) in the Big Thorne Project Area ............. 3-3

Figure OGR-1. Existing Old-growth Reserves in the Big Thorne Project Area ............... 3-46

Figure OGR-2. Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the Big Thorne Project 

Area................................................................................................................ 3-61

Figure OGR-3. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the North Portion 

of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes........................... 3-62

Figure OGR-4. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the Central 

Portion of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes............. 3-63

Figure OGR-5. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the South Portion 

of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes........................... 3-64

Figure OGR-6. Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the Big Thorne Project 

Area................................................................................................................ 3-72

Figure OGR-7. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the North Portion 

of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes........................... 3-73

Figure OGR-8. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the Central 

Portion of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes............. 3-74

Figure OGR-9. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the South Portion 

of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes........................... 3-75

Figure WLD-1. Probable wildlife movement corridors within the Big Thorne Project 

Area.............................................................................................................. 3-105

Figure WTR-1. Watersheds within the Big Thorne Project Area..................................... 3-247

Figure WTR-2. Subwatersheds within the Big Thorne Project Area............................... 3-248

Figure WTR-3. Typical Streamflow Regime in Watersheds and Subwatersheds 

Affected by Big Thorne Project Alternatives........................................... 3-251

Figure KST-1. Geologic Map of the Big Thorne Project Area ........................................ 3-303

Figure TBR-1. Current NFS Land Classifications in the Big Thorne Project Area ...... 3-402

Figure TBR-2. Big Thorne Project Area Harvest Acres by Decade ................................ 3-406

Figure REC-1. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Settings within the Big Thorne 

Project Area ................................................................................................ 3-445

Figure REC-2. Recreation Sites in the Big Thorne Project Area..................................... 3-447

Figure SCEN-1. Major Visual Priority Routes & Use Areas in Big Thorne Project 

Area.............................................................................................................. 3-466

Figure SCEN-2. Scenic Integrity Objectives in the Big Thorne Project Area .................. 3-469

Figure SCEN-3. Scenic Integrity Objectives with Alternative 3 in the Big Thorne 

Project Area ................................................................................................ 3-472

Figure SCEN-4. Scenic Integrity Objectives with Alternative 4 in the Big Thorne 

Project Area. ............................................................................................... 3-473

Figure IRA-1. Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Big Thorne Project Area ................. 3-484
Chapter 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

FOR ACTION
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-1

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR 

ACTION

Document Structure ______________________________

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) has prepared this 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts 

that would result from the proposed action and alternatives for the Big Thorne Project. 

The document is organized into four chapters: 

 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on 

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

agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details 

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

responded. 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a 

more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative 

methods for meeting the stated purpose and need. These alternatives were 

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

This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a 

summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative. 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

discloses the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other 

alternatives. This analysis is organized with the three issues examined in detail 

presented first, followed by other resources for which effects may occur.

 Chapter 4. References and Lists: This chapter provides a list of preparers, the 

distribution list for the EIS, a glossary, and references used in EIS development. 

The last section of this chapter is an index. 

 Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the environmental impact statement.

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

may be found in the project planning record located at the Thorne Bay Ranger District.

Background _____________________________________

On September 17, 2008, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 

Environment directed the Forest Service to develop a work plan and proposed budget 

necessary to offer four 10-year timber sales, each with the capability of providing an 

average annual harvest of 15 to 20 million board feet (MMBF) per year for 10 years. The 

Chief’s reply to the Under Secretary identified five areas that could meet the requirements 
1 Purpose and Need

1-2 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

for a 10-year timber sale. Prince of Wales Island was among those areas listed, and the 

Big Thorne Project is one of the first two of these larger scale projects under study. 

A Project Plan for the Big Thorne Project was completed in April 2010 in response to the 

above direction. The Forest Supervisor reviewed the Big Thorne Project Plan and 

determined that the proposed project is feasible to prepare, that it will be consistent with 

the 2008 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management (Forest Plan), and that 

further investment of resources and capital was warranted.

A fairly extensive road system already exists in the project area and an operating mediumsized mill along with many small mills exist on the island. These conditions make the 

area more likely to produce economic timber sales. Sales with higher volume provide 

more assurance to support any necessary investment in new equipment and upgraded 

manufacturing facilities by the timber industry. 

After the Project Plan was completed, changes occurred to the management of the 

Tongass timber program. These included the shift from three mid-sized mills to one midsized mill and many smaller mills, a transition strategy to young-growth forest 

management and more emphasis on the use of stewardship contracting. For these reasons,

the proposed action was designed to be more flexible as a “...multi-year timber sale 

component of a larger stewardship effort that will include opportunities such as restoration 

and enhancement activities that will be identified through other environmental analyses.” 

The proposed action was developed and public scoping began in February 2011. To 

respond to the comments on this project, continuing emphasis on the transition to the 

young-growth harvest, and the court decision that vacated the exemption to the 2001 

Roadless Rule, alternatives were developed to the proposed action. This included adding 

commercial thinning of young-growth timber to the alternatives. The proposed action and 

the alternatives to the proposed action are described in Chapter 2. 

Project Area _____________________________________

Prince of Wales Island is one island among a group or chain of islands in the southeastern 

Alaska panhandle known as the Alexander Archipelago. At approximately 2,577 square 

miles, Prince of Wales Island is one of the largest islands in the United States —third in 

size only to Hawaii (the Big Island) and Kodiak Island, AK—and is about the size of the 

State of Delaware.

The Big Thorne project area encompasses roughly 232,000 acres of north Prince of Wales 

Island in Southeast Alaska near Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove. The elevation ranges 

from sea level to over 3,000 feet (Figure 1-1). Annual precipitation may exceed 100 

inches, with the highest rainfall occurring during October and the lowest in June. 

Individual storms vary dramatically and can produce intense rainfall and high winds. 
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-3

Figure 1-1. Project Area and Vicinity Map
1 Purpose and Need

1-4 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

The Tongass National Forest including Prince of Wales Island is covered primarily by 

temperate rainforest consisting of Sitka spruce and western hemlock, with lesser amounts 

of mountain hemlock, western redcedar, Alaska yellow cedar, and lodgepole pine. Red 

alder is locally abundant. The majority of the forest is old-growth forest (older than 150 

years), but about 33 percent of the productive forest land in the project area is in younggrowth forest, mostly the result of past timber harvest. The project area includes

approximately 48,477 acres mapped as forest land that is suitable for timber production, 

including 22,387 acres of old-growth and 26,090 acres of young growth. Forest regeneration 

is rapid after timber harvest and most logged areas in the project area are covered by 

dense stands of 10- to 50-year-old trees. 

Purpose and Need for Action_______________________

The purpose and need for the Big Thorne Project is to contribute to a long-term supply of 

economic timber for the timber industry on Prince of Wales Island and on the Tongass 

National Forest in general (including both large and small operators), in a manner that is 

consistent with the multiple-use goals and objectives of the Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan). This would contribute to the timber supply that would 

help sustain the current timber industry while transitioning to a sustainable forest industry 

based on young-growth management. The purpose for the project and its underlying need

are described in greater detail in the following subsections. The detailed rationale for 

scheduling a large sale in the Big Thorne project area is presented in Appendix A of this

EIS. 

Purpose

The purpose of a project can be defined in terms of the goal(s) and objective(s) to be 

achieved. The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008) contains multiple-resource goals 

and objectives, including timber management for commercial use, and defines the desired 

conditions to be attained through the multiple-use goals and objectives (see USDA 2008, 

especially Chapter 2). It is the purpose of this project to implement Forest Plan direction 

and work toward achieving its goals and objectives, including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

Timber—Goal (USDA Forest Service 2008, 2-7)

 Provide for the continuation of timber uses and resources by the timber industry 

and Alaska residents. 

Timber—Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2008, 2-7)

 Seek to provide an economic timber supply sufficient to meet the annual market 

demand for Tongass National Forest timber, and the market demand for the 

planning cycle, up to a ceiling of this Plan’s allowable sale quantity, which is 2.67 

billion board feet in the first decade. 

 Provide 2-3 years supply of volume under contract to local mills and then establish 

shelf volume to maintain flexibility and stability in the sale program. 

 Review the timber sale program and work with State and other partners to 

implement changes that will keep an “economic timber” perspective throughout 
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-5

the process and monitor the implementation of these reforms to ensure they are 

consistently employed across the Forest. 

Local and Regional Economy—Goal (USDA Forest Service 2008, 2-5)

 Provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the local 

and regional economies of Southeast Alaska. 

Local and Regional Economy—Objective (USDA Forest Service 2008, 2-5)

 Support a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities within 

Southeast Alaska communities. 

Need

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

forests (Organic Administration Act of 1897, Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 

and National Forest Management Act [NFMA] of 1976). In addition, the Tongass 

National Forest, specifically, is under national direction to provide a timber supply as a 

result of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Tongass 

Timber Reform Act (TTRA). These statutes identify that it is the Forest Service’s 

obligation, subject to applicable law, “to seek to provide a supply of timber” from the 

Tongass that meets market demand annually and for the planning cycle. The Forest Plan, 

which was prepared under the direction of NFMA, was amended in 2008 and incorporates 

this direction.

The Big Thorne Project is proposed at this time to respond to the underlying need for a 

reliable, economic, and long-term timber supply, as well as to respond to the goals and 

objectives identified for the project area by the Forest Plan and move the project area 

toward the desired condition described in the Forest Plan (see Appendix A to this EIS and 

pages 2-1 and 2-2 of the Forest Plan). In recent years, Southeast Alaska and, more 

locally, the Prince of Wales Island area have experienced a significant decline in 

manufacturing and natural resource employment. This decline has been mirrored by a 

decline in sawmill industry production and harvest levels. Therefore, an underlying need 

exists for a reliable economic supply of sawtimber for Southeast Alaska mills to help 

support the timber industry and employment through the transition years until the industry 

can switch to a stable supply of young growth. 

Given the relevant Forest Plan goals and objectives, the interdisciplinary team (IDT)

found, based on analysis of existing conditions in the project area, that the roaded 

landscape, tree species composition, and tree quality provides opportunity for economic 

timber harvest. Further, because of its central location on the Prince of Wales Island road 

system, the Big Thorne project area has economic transportation connections to the largest 

active sawmill and one of the highest concentrations of small sawmill operators in 

Southeast Alaska. 

Proposed Action _________________________________

The proposed action is defined early in the planning process. It serves as a starting point 

for the IDT and gives the public and other agencies specific information on which to focus 
1 Purpose and Need

1-6 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

comments. Using these comments and information from preliminary analysis, the IDT 

develops alternatives to the proposed action, which are described in detail in Chapter 2.

The proposed action for the Big Thorne Project is to harvest timber using a variety of 

prescriptions on approximately 4,944 acres of forested lands using various sizes of timber 

sales, offered over multiple years, within the roaded land base on Prince of Wales Island. 

Approximately 35 miles of NFS and temporary roads would be constructed and about 19 

miles of existing stored roads would be reconstructed. 

An estimated 107 MMBF of sawtimber could be made available to industry for harvest. 

This proposal would include timber harvest of approximately 569 acres (12.9 MMBF) in 

Phase 2 lands of the Tongass Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy,

which would be managed in accordance with Forest Plan direction (see subsection titled 

Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy later in this chapter). The proposed 

Phase 2 lands are all outside of 2001 inventoried roadless areas. Existing log transfer 

facilities would be used as needed. Harvest would include helicopter, ground-based, and 

cable yarding systems using even-aged and uneven-aged harvest prescriptions to achieve 

stand objectives. All proposed activities would meet the standards and guidelines of the 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Decision Framework ______________________________

Based on the environmental analysis in this EIS and in accordance with Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, and desired conditions, the Tongass Forest Supervisor will decide whether to 

make timber available from the Big Thorne project and the design and location of timber 

harvest units, as well as road construction and reconstruction. The decision will include, 

but is not limited to, the following items: 

 the estimated timber volume to make available from the project, as well as the 

location, and design of timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, and 

silvicultural practices used; 

 road management objectives for all roads in the project area; 

 any necessary project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring requirements; 

 whether or not to enter Phase 2 areas for small sales; 

 whether or not to modify small old-growth reserves (OGR) within the project area, 

which would require a Forest Plan amendment; and

 whether there may be a significant possibility of a significant restriction on 

subsistence uses. 

Public Involvement _______________________________

Public involvement is a key component of the planning process. The following paragraphs 

describe the public involvement activities that have occurred for the project area analysis.
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-7

Scoping

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as “an early and open 

process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the 

significant issues related to a proposed action” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

1501.7). Among other things, the scoping process is used to invite public participation, to 

help identify public issues, and to obtain public comment at various stages of the 

environmental analysis process. Scoping begins early and is a process that continues until 

a decision is made. 

The following is a summary of the letters, contacts, and meetings that have taken place

during the planning of this project:

 April 1, 2010: Project first listed in the 3rd quarter of the Schedule of Proposed 

Actions for the Tongass National Forest.

 February 9, 2011: Scoping letter describing the proposed action, preliminary 

issues, possible alternatives, NEPA schedule, and the location and timing of 

scoping meetings was mailed to over 400 individuals, groups, and agencies. The 

22 responses to this mailing, plus comments received during the scoping meetings, 

identified a range of issues and concerns.

 February 11, 2011: Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS published in the Federal 

Register (Vol. 76, No. 29).

 February 28 to March 3, 2011: Open house scoping meetings were held in Thorne 

Bay, Naukati, Coffman Cove, and Craig. The project background, proposed 

action, unit pool, and resource information was presented. 

 2010-2012: Informal meetings with individuals from the public or stakeholder

groups.

Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribal 

Governments and Tribal Corporations

The following Federally recognized tribal governments and organizations have been

consulted about this project:

 Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

 Craig Community Association (CCA)

 Klawock Cooperative Association (KCA)

 Hydaburg Cooperative Association (HCA)

 Organized Village of Kasaan (OVK)

 Wrangell Cooperative Association (WCA)

 Ketchikan Indian Community

 Haida Corporation

 Kavilco, Inc.
1 Purpose and Need

1-8 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Klawock – Heenya Corporation

 Sealaska Corporation

 Shaan – Seet, Inc.

Tribal governments and organizations have not expressed any concerns about the Big 

Thorne Project during discussions to date. Regular consultation will continue during the 

planning of this project and beyond. 

Other Agency Involvement

The Forest Service is committed to working closely with other agencies at all stages of

planning and is responsible for coordinating project reviews by several other agencies. In

some cases, the reviews are required because another agency has the authority to issue

permits for a specific activity proposed by the Forest Service. In other cases, the reviews

provide a time for dialogue with agencies responsible for ensuring that certain 

environmental conditions are met, such as clean water or healthy wildlife populations. 

This interagency communication helps provide information about area resources. This 

information is used to meet laws and regulations, develop alternatives and to identify 

ways to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. In many cases, an ongoing professional 

dialogue is maintained with these agencies throughout the planning process.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides a general review in 

accordance with their responsibilities under NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and 

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for approving proposals to 

dredge or place fill materials in the coastal waters of the United States under Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act. The Corps also has administrative authority over activities 

associated with wetlands. Any road construction in wetlands is of interest to the Corps 

and the Forest Service must consider and reduce effects on those areas.

A 404 permit from the Corps is not necessary because roads constructed as part of this

project are for silvicultural purposes and will follow the 33 CFR 323 guidelines and Stateapproved Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers the Endangered Species Act. 

The Forest Service has ongoing consultation with the USFWS to determine if the

proposed project will affect threatened or endangered species.
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-9

National Marine Fisheries Service

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over threatened or 

endangered marine life and for all anadromous salmon. The Forest Service consults with 

NMFS concerning possible effects to these species.

State of Alaska

The State of Alaska was involved in the development of the Forest Plan and entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Tongass National Forest in March 2009, 

to promote cooperation between the Tongass and the State in implementing the Forest 

Plan and related environmental analyses and work associated with managing the land and 

resources of the Tongass. Several departments in the State of Alaska were asked to 

participate in the planning of the Big Thorne Project. They provided general comments 

and suggestions, as well as specific reviews.

These departments include:

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) participates in 

cooperative water quality management through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and a 

Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service.

ADEC also issues a certificate of compliance with Alaska Water Quality Standards under 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for log transfer facilities and would be responsible for 

issuing any permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, including those for 

stormwater discharge from forest roads, if necessary.

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.”

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Forest Service have an

MOU to reach concurrence prior to conducting any instream activities. A Title 16 

concurrence must be reached before any work occurs below the ordinary high water for 

fish-bearing water bodies that will use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow 

or bed of water bodies.

An MOU is also in place between ADF&G and the Forest Service that covers wildlife 

research and monitoring and fisheries stream classification programs.

The ADF&G is especially interested in stream activities and other fish, water, wildlife,

and subsistence issues. Discussions focused on wildlife habitat in regards to this project 

have occurred between representatives from the ADF&G and the Forest Service. ADF&G 
1 Purpose and Need

1-10 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

staff participated in issue identification and alternative development during a 3-day Forest 

Service IDT meeting for this project.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Forestry assisted in 

reconnaissance and consultation with the Big Thorne IDT regarding economic timber 

harvest. The ADNR issues tideland permits and the lease or easement necessary for the 

log transfer site. ADNR staff participated in issue identification and alternative 

development during a 3-day Forest Service IDT meeting for this project.

Office of Project Management and Permitting 

The Office of Project Management and Permitting office provides overall coordination for 

the State’s comments for large projects.

Alaska Office of History and Archeology

The Forest Service archeologist determined that no historic properties will be affected by 

any of the proposed alternatives. Under the terms of the existing Programmatic 

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

on Historic Preservation (USDA Forest Service 2010), “the Forest may proceed with the 

undertaking in lieu of a consensus determination of eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4.”

Issues __________________________________________

The IDT used an issue identification process to analyze comments received during 

scoping. This process was used to ensure that all significant issues were identified, and 

that all other issues were meaningfully addressed in the analysis. Comments were 

received from individuals, organizations, State agencies, and other Federal agencies. Each 

of the 300+ comments received during scoping was considered a potential issue, and was 

evaluated to determine in which of the following ways the comment was resolved or 

addressed: 

 Determined to be outside the scope of the project (not site-specific) 

 Already addressed by Forest Plan LUDs, Standards and Guidelines, or BMPs 

 Already decided by law, regulation, or other higher-level decision 

 Can be resolved through project-specific mitigation 

 Can be addressed during processes or impact analyses routinely conducted by the IDT

 Can be addressed through spatial modification of actions during alternative design

 Used to drive or partially drive an alternative 

 Support for the project 

 Opposition to the project
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-11

NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in 

question, rather than amassing needless detail (40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). This ensures that 

the analysis and documentation are focused primarily on the issues that are most important 

to the Big Thorne project area and the decision to be made. Other concerns, listed under 

Other Resource Considerations, are listed below and are summarized in Chapter 3. 

After analysis of scoping comments, the following four issues were determined by the 

IDT to be potentially key or significant and within the scope of the project decision. The 

IDT developed alternatives to the proposed action to address these issues; Chapter 2 of 

this Draft EIS discusses and compares the alternatives. Additional concerns were 

considered but did not form a basis for an alternative to be analyzed in detail; these

concerns are discussed in Chapter 2 under Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Analysis. 

Units of measure were defined to identify how each alternative responds to a significant 

issue. Measures were chosen that were quantitative where possible; predictable; 

responsive to the issue; and linked to cause and effect relationships. These measures 

describe how the alternative affects the resource or resources central to the issue. The 

following issues were used for the alternative development for the Big Thorne project.

Issue 1 – Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: Timber supply and timber sale economics affect the stability of 

Southeast Alaska’s forest products industry and the ability of the industry to contribute to 

the local and regional economies.

This issue concerns both the financial efficiency and the salability of the proposed project. 

It also relates to the potential local employment and revenues generated for communities 

in the local area. Project design affects the viability of sales and the ability to offer them. 

Optimizing volume and net return on timber harvest will provide for flexibility over the 

life of the project and the ability to offer economically viable timber sales across 

fluctuating market conditions. The amount of timber available for sale from national 

forests and a stable supply affects local employment and revenues. It is also critical to 

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

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

have an adverse impact on local economies.

Units of Measure

 Timber volume (old growth and young growth) by species

 Acres of harvest by logging system and prescription

 Miles of road construction and reconstruction

 Logging and road costs

 Indicated bid value ($$ per thousand board feet)

 Number of annualized direct jobs
1 Purpose and Need

1-12 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Issue 2 – Old-Growth Habitat LUD Modifications

Issue statement: Old-Growth Habitat LUD modifications for the small old-growth 

reserves (OGRs) are proposed to expand the suitable timber base within the roaded land 

base and also to modify the reserves for the biologically preferred locations within the 

project area. This may affect the amount and quality of wildlife habitat protected by the 

small OGRs, the amount and quality of suitable timber available in the project area, and 

other resources including fisheries, sensitive plants, scenery, and recreation.

Two alternatives were developed and are evaluated that include Old-Growth Habitat LUD

modifications. As a result, changes were made to the unit pool and the development of 

two alternatives discuss Old-Growth Habitat LUD modification.

As a result of these modifications, there are concerns about effects on the old-growth 

reserve system and the suitable forest land base. Effects on other resources, including 

fisheries, subsistence uses, sensitive plants, recreation, and scenery, are also of concern. 

All modifications are limited to the small OGRs; no changes were proposed to medium or 

large OGRs. 

Units of Measure

 LUD acreage changes;

 Comparison to Forest Plan Appendices D and K criteria;

 Acres and volume suitable for timber production;

 Numbers of sensitive plant populations within OGRs;

Issue 3 – Wildlife Habitat and Subsistence Use

Issue statement: The proposed action combined with past timber harvest would affect 

old-growth habitat and increase road density, which may affect a range of wildlife, 

including deer and wolves, and subsistence use of deer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

density were noted concerns. 

Units of Measure

 Total, high-volume, and large-tree productive old growth (POG) acres by value 

comparison unit (VCU), wildlife analysis area (WAA), project area, and 

biogeographic province;

 Connectivity/fragmentation (qualitative analysis of corridors; reduction of POG

acres; patch size analysis);
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-13

 Road density in miles per square mile (all roads [open and closed]) by WAA

below 1,200 ft and for all elevations;

 Deer habitat capability by WAA and biogeographic province in deer per square 

mile;

 Deer winter habitat acres harvested by WAA;

 Goshawk habitat acres harvested by VCU;

 Marten deep snow winter habitat acres harvested by WAA (acres); and

 Abundance and distribution of, access to, and competition for known subsistence 

resources.

Issue 4 – Cumulative Watershed Effects 

Issue statement: The proposed action combined with past timber harvest would increase

the percentage of each watershed area covered by timber harvest and would increase 

road densities in each watershed, potentially resulting in higher rates of sedimentation 

and/or other effects on aquatic habitats.

Concern was expressed regarding the intensity of past harvest and road construction in the 

project area, and the potential cumulative effects on watersheds and fish associated with 

additional harvest. The project area includes a number of streams with high fisheries 

value.

Units of Measure 

 Watersheds with more than 20 percent of basin area in young growth less than or 

equal to 30 years, including reasonably foreseeable future harvest.

 Watersheds with more than 2.5 percent of basin area in roads, including 

reasonably foreseeable future roads.

 Proposed numbers of Class I, II, and III stream crossings.

Other Resource Considerations 

Other resource concerns are important, but were not used to drive alternative 

development. A more detailed discussion of these important resources and the protection 

measures used for them can be found in the specialist’s resource reports and is 

summarized in Chapter 3. 

Other resources considered in this analysis are listed below. Detailed discussions for each 

resource and protection measures can be found in specialist resource reports located in the 

project record and in Chapter 3 of this EIS.

 Karst 

 Soils 

 Climate Change

 Fisheries 
1 Purpose and Need

1-14 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Wetlands

 Botany 

 Invasive Species 

 Timber and Vegetation

 Transportation 

 Heritage 

 Recreation 

 Scenery 

 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness

 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

 Socioeconomics

 Environmental Justice

Relationship to the Forest Plan 

The Forest Plan is an extensive forest-level analysis. It provides land and resource 

management direction for the Tongass National Forest. The Big Thorne Project analysis 

and subsequent implementation is designed to achieve the management direction of the 

Forest Plan as outlined in the purpose and need statement. 

The Big Thorne Project DEIS is a project-level analysis; its scope is confined to addressing 

the significant issues and possible environmental effects of the project. It does not attempt to 

address decisions made at higher levels. However, it does implement direction provided at 

those higher levels. Where appropriate, the Big Thorne DEIS tiers to the Forest Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), as encouraged by the 40 CFR 1502.20.

Forest Plan Land Use Designations

The Forest Plan uses Land Use Designations (LUD) to guide the management of NFS 

lands within the Tongass. Each designation provides for a unique combination of 

activities, practices and uses. The Big Thorne project area includes seven LUDs, shown 

in Figure 1-2 and in Table 1-1. The goals and other aspects of each LUD are summarized 

below. Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan contains a detailed description of each LUD. Figure 

1-2 also shows the locations of inventoried roadless areas for the 2001 Roadless Rule in 

relation to project area LUDs since commercial timber harvest and road construction is 

not allowed within inventoried roadless areas in all LUDs, including development LUDs.
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-15

Figure 1-2. Big Thorne Project Area Land Use Designations and Inventoried Roadless 

Areas – Existing Conditions
1 Purpose and Need

1-16 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table 1-1. Forest Plan Land Use Designations and Acreages in the Project Area

Land Use Designation (LUD) Acres Percentage of Project Area

Non-Development LUDs 1/

Research Natural Area 1,621 1%

Old-growth Habitat 74,949 32%

Scenic River 14,180 6%

Recreational River 2,932 1%

Subtotal 93,682 40%

Development LUDs 2/

Timber Production 60,686 26%

Modified Landscape 58,885 25%

Scenic Viewshed 4,426 2%

Subtotal 123,997 54%

Total NFS Lands 217,679 94%

Non-NFS Lands 14,169 6%

Total (NFS + Non-NFS) Lands 231,848 100%

1/ Non-development LUDs generally do not permit timber harvest or road construction. 2/

Development LUDs allow timber harvest and road construction under certain conditions.

Research Natural Area LUD

The project area includes the Rio Roberts Research Natural Area (RNA), which covers 1 

percent of the project area. This RNA was established in 1997 and is adjacent to the 

Thorne River Scenic River LUD. The focus of this LUD is to preserve areas of ecological 

importance in their natural condition for the purposes of research, monitoring, education, 

and/or to maintain natural diversity. Harvest is not proposed in this LUD.

Old-growth Habitat LUD

Approximately 32 percent of all lands in the project area are allocated to the Old-growth 

Habitat LUD. This allocation is represented by 10 small OGRs and the Honker Divide 

large OGR. The focus of this LUD is to maintain areas of old-growth forests and their 

associated natural ecological processes to provide habitat for old-growth associated 

resources. See pages 3-57 through 3-62 of the Forest Plan for an expanded description of 

this LUD. Harvest is not proposed in this LUD; however, boundary adjustments of small 

OGRs are proposed under two alternatives and thinning is proposed in some alternatives 

in specific young-growth stands.

Scenic River LUD

Approximately 6 percent of the project area is allocated to the Scenic River LUD along the 

Thorne River-Hatchery Creek corridor. The focus of this LUD is to manage river 

segments, recommended by the Forest Plan for Scenic River designation, to maintain their 

outstandingly remarkable values and classification eligibility until Congress designates the 

segments or decides not to designate them. Timber harvest on suitable forest land is 

allowed if adjacent lands are being managed for that purpose. See pages 3-81 through 3-87 

of the Forest Plan for an expanded description of this LUD. No timber harvest is proposed 

in this LUD. 
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-17

Recreational River LUD

Approximately 1 percent of the project area is allocated to the Recreational River LUD 

along the lower Thorne River. The focus of this LUD is to manage river segments, 

recommended by the Forest Plan for Recreational River designation, to maintain their 

outstandingly remarkable values and classification eligibility until Congress designates the 

segments or decides not to designate them. Timber harvest on suitable forest land is 

allowed if adjacent lands are being managed for that purpose, with consideration given to 

scenery. See pages 3-88 through 3-94 of the Forest Plan for an expanded description of 

this LUD. Most of the Recreational River LUD in the project area meets the adjacent 

LUD criterion. As a result, some timber harvest is proposed in this LUD. 

Timber Production LUD

The Timber Production LUD makes up approximately 26 percent of the project area. The 

focus of the Timber Production LUD is to emphasize sustained, long-term timber 

production. Timber harvest activities are located and designed to meet timber objectives. 

See pages 3-116 through 3-121 of the Forest Plan for an expanded description of this 

LUD. Harvest is proposed in this LUD.

Modified Landscape LUD

Approximately 25 percent of the project area is allocated to the Modified Landscape 

LUD. Management within this LUD focuses on sustained, long-term timber production 

while minimizing the visibility of development in the foreground distance zone. This 

recognizes the scenic values of forested lands as viewed from identified Visual Priority 

Travel Routes and Use Areas (Forest Plan, Appendix F) and provides for modifying 

timber harvest practices accordingly by reducing the effects to scenery. See pages 3-109 

through 3-115 in the Forest Plan for an expanded description of this LUD. Harvest is 

proposed in this LUD.

Scenic Viewshed LUD

Approximately 2 percent of the project area is allocated to the Scenic Viewshed LUD. 

Management within this LUD focuses on providing a sustainable yield of timber and a 

mix of resource activities while minimizing the visibility of developments as seen from 

Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas (Forest Plan, pages 3-101 through 3-108). Harvest 

is proposed in this LUD.

Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy

In an effort to balance competing demands for timber production and preservation of 

undeveloped areas, the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy was 

approved in the 2008 Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Under this strategy, the operation of the timber sale program will be implemented in three 

phases, as determined by actual timber harvest levels. The majority of the project area 

suitable lands are identified as Phase 1 lands. Phase 1 includes most of the roaded portion 

of the ASQ land base, along with most of the lower value inventoried roadless areas. The 

Phase 1 portion of the land base could sustain a level of timber harvest of about 150

MMBF. The scheduled timber sale program will generally be confined to this land base 
1 Purpose and Need

1-18 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

until such time as the level of timber harvest reaches at least 100 MMBF for 2 consecutive 

years. Until that time, personal use of timber, micro sales, salvage sales, small 

commercial timber sales generally less than 1 MMBF, young-growth management 

projects, and the roads associated with these activities, would be allowed in development 

LUDs outside of the Phase 1 portion of the ASQ land base within Phase 2 lands.

Approximately 569 acres of timber harvest is being considered for Phase 2 lands (see 

Chapter 2). This area includes the Timber Production LUD portion of VCU 5760, which 

occupies an area of land along the southeastern edge of the Honker Divide large OGR and 

the eastern edge of the Scenic River LUD along the Thorne River, and a very small patch 

of VCU 5780 near Control Lake at the south end of the large OGR, which is Scenic 

Viewshed LUD. None of the areas proposed for harvest in either Phase 1 or Phase 2 lands 

are in 2001 inventoried roadless areas.

Other Related Efforts _____________________________

Stewardship Opportunities in the Project Area

Under Section 323 of Public Law 108-7, the Forest Service has been granted authority, 

until September 30, 2013, to enter into stewardship contracting projects. Stewardship 

contracting helps achieve land management goals while meeting local and rural 

community needs, including contributing to the sustainability of rural communities and 

providing a continuing source of local income and employment. On May 26, 2011 the 

Regional Forester approved the Big Thorne Project area as a stewardship area.

Stewardship contracting may be implemented using receipts generated by the Big Thorne

Timber Sale; however, the Forest will identify potential stewardship projects separately

from this environmental analysis. The cumulative effects of these reasonably foreseeable 

restoration and enhancement projects has been considered in this analysis for resources 

within the analysis area to the extent possible, but are not part of this proposed action. 

A collaborative process is ongoing to identify restoration and enhancement projects in the 

Big Thorne project area and elsewhere on Prince of Wales Island. The projects from this 

collaborative effort could be integrated with timber harvest from the Big Thorne Project 

during implementation to develop an Integrated Resource Timber Contract. Direction 

specific to stewardship planning can be found in Forest Service Handbook 2409.19 

Chapter 61. 

The restoration and enhancement activities will be identified through other planning, 

including but not limited to, the Cobble Landscape Assessment, Luck Lake Watershed 

Restoration Plan, the Prince of Wales and Surrounding Islands Access Travel 

Management Plan. Appropriate environmental analysis will be done prior to inclusion in 

a stewardship contract. In addition, because this project extends over multiple years, the 

Forest Service may integrate the project during implementation with future restoration and 

enhancement projects not yet identified. 

Examples of specific restoration and enhancement opportunities include (but are not 

limited to) roads and transportation activities (e.g., repairing ‘‘red pipes’’ or bridges, 

erosion control, vegetation removal, road closures after firewood or other biomass 
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-19

removal, or road relocation); recreation activities (e.g., campground and trails 

improvements, picnic sites, or vegetation management); young-growth stand 

improvement; and wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement projects (e.g., beach fringe 

thinning, or placement of large woody debris in streams).

Relationship to the Access Travel Management Plan

The Big Thorne EIS incorporates by reference the Environmental Assessment for the 

Prince of Wales Access Travel Management Plan (POW ATM) (USDA Forest Service 

2009). The POW ATM project considered the access management objectives for the 

existing NFS roads for the entire Prince of Wales Island. The Big Thorne Project 

considers the road management recommendations for the existing NFS roads and any 

proposed NFS roads needed to access timber for the Big Thorne project area, as described 

in Chapter 3. The Big Thorne Project also analyzes the temporary roads needed for 

timber access. 

Currently, the road management objectives for the existing NFS roads within the Big 

Thorne project area are the same as in the POW ATM, and have been analyzed that way. 

Analyses conducted for the POW ATM Environmental Assessment have been used for the 

Big Thorne Project, as noted in this EIS, and included in the project record.

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 

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

Federal lands, some of the laws are specific to Alaska. 

 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 

 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

 Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1980 

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

 Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 

 Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) 

 Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) 

 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (as amended) 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) 

 Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources) 

 Executive Order 11988 (floodplains) 

 Executive Order 11990 (wetlands) 

 Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice) 

 Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries) 
1 Purpose and Need

1-20 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Executive Order 13007 (Indian sacred sites) 

 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) 

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

 Executive Order 13443 (hunting heritage and wildlife conservation) 

 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (as amended) 

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

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

 Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended) 

 National Forest Management Act of 1976 (as amended) 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 

 National Transportation Policy (2001) 

 Organic Act of 1897 

 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

 Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986 

Availability of the Project Record 

An important consideration in preparing this Draft EIS is reduction of paperwork 

specified in 40 CFR 1500.4. This Draft EIS provides sufficient site-specific information 

to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives 

and ways to mitigate the impacts. The project record contains supporting material that 

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

project implementation. 

The project record is located at the Thorne Bay Ranger District office in Thorne Bay, 

Alaska. Reference documents, such as the Forest Plan and the TTRA, are available for 

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

including the Forest Supervisor's Office in Ketchikan. The Forest Plan and its Final EIS 

are also available on CD-ROM and on the Internet (http://tongass-fpadjust.net/). 

Map and Number Qualification

All map products in this document are reproduced from geospatial information prepared 

by the Forest Service. Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy 
Purpose and Need 1

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action ▪ 1-21

may vary. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created 

may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to 

correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. For more 

information, contact the Thorne Bay Ranger District. 

In addition, the accuracy of calculations made from GIS layers varies with the quality of 

the mapping itself. Numbers presented in tables in this document may not sum correctly 

due to rounding. Other slight anomalies due to rounding may also occur. Therefore, all 

numbers should be considered as approximate.
Chapter 2

Alternatives
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-1

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION

Introduction _____________________________________

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered by the Forest Service for 

the Big Thorne Project. It includes a discussion of how the alternatives were developed, a 

description of each alternative considered, and a map of each alternative considered in 

detail. In addition, it includes a description of monitoring and other features common to 

all action alternatives. This chapter also presents the alternatives in comparative form, 

focusing on the key, or significant issues, with the goal of sharply defining the differences 

among the alternatives and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 

decision-maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives 

is based upon the design of the alternative (e.g., helicopter logging versus ground-based 

and cable logging) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, 

and economic effects of implementing each alternative (e.g., the amount of soil 

disturbance caused by helicopter logging versus ground-based and cable logging). For a 

discussion and analysis of site-specific, project-level effects, consult Chapter 3, 

“Environment and Effects.”

Alternative Development___________________________

An alternative is a set of activities designed to accomplish the goals described in the 

purpose and need section of Chapter 1. The proposed action (Alternative 2) is one of a 

number of possible approaches to accomplishing these goals by harvesting timber in the 

project area. It was developed during the early planning phase of this project. The 

planning phase included completing a Logging System and Transportation Analysis 

(LSTA) for the project area. During this analysis, the suitable timber in the project area 

was divided into logical harvest settings. These groups of settings were used to create the 

harvest unit pool. In addition, the roads needed to access the harvest unit pool were 

mapped. These units and the roads were surveyed in 2010 and 2011. During this field 

verification, the shape of the units and the locations of roads were modified to reflect onthe-ground conditions and many units and roads were modified or dropped from 

consideration because they were determined to be inconsistent with the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (e.g., they had unstable soils).

The IDT considered the significant issues and identified various alternatives to the 

proposed action to provide a reasonable range of options for meeting the purpose and need 

of this project. In addition to addressing the issues identified during scoping (see Chapter 

1), these alternatives were designed to meet Standards and Guidelines defined in the 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008) and applicable laws. Within this range, various 

combinations of alternatives can be considered in determining the selected alternative.

In addition to units and roads modified or dropped for reasons related to consistency with 

the Forest Plan, in early 2011 it was determined that all units and roads would be in the 
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-2 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

roaded landbase outside 2001 inventoried roadless areas. As a result of using the roaded 

landbase outside roadless areas, exchanging the roaded portions of small Old-Growth 

Habitat LUD polygons (OGRs) for development LUDs in roadless areas was investigated. 

In order to maximize available timber, the feasibility of modifying the OGRs to be 

entirely within the roadless areas and still meet Forest Plan criteria was investigated. 

Additional field work was conducted to field verify the shape and location of these units 

and roads and their consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Then 

alternatives were developed that included units and roads in these roaded portions of

Forest Plan OGRs).

In addition, an interagency team (including biologists from the Forest Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game) reviewed the locations of 

the OGRs with regard to roadless areas and their biologically preferred locations. As a 

result, modifications to OGR locations were identified and additional units and roads were 

added to the unit pool. An alternative was developed that incorporated the biologically 

preferred locations for OGRs.

Alternatives Considered in Detail ____________________

The Forest Service developed five alternatives, including the no action, the proposed 

action, and three action alternatives (alternatives to the proposed action). These action 

alternatives were developed in response to significant issues and to provide a reasonable

range of alternatives. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the no action alternative, no timber harvest or road construction would be 

implemented to accomplish Big Thorne Project goals. Current management plans would 

continue to guide management of the project area. Vegetation management activities 

including pre-commercial thinning of young stands (both riparian and wildlife thinning) 

would continue. Road maintenance, culvert replacement, and timber micro-sales would 

continue, and road closures prescribed by the Access Travel Management Plan would 

continue as funding allows. In addition, at some time in the future, a new timber project 

could be developed in the project area that incorporates commercial thinning of younggrowth and/or old-growth harvest. A large-scale, color map of the existing conditions 

(Alternative 1) showing existing roads, existing productive old growth, and past harvest in 

the project area is provided in the map packet and on the CD accompanying this EIS. 

Alternative 1 is analyzed to provide a baseline for evaluation of the effects associated with 

the action alternatives. Unlike the action alternatives, Alternative 1 does not meet the 

purpose and need for this project because it fails to address the timber supply and 

economics concern.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of this project and balances short-term timber 

supply/economic aspects (Issue 1) with the wildlife habitat/subsistence (Issue 3) and 

watershed issues (Issue 4). This alternative implements Forest Plan direction and works 
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-3

toward attaining its goals and achieving its objectives. A large-scale, color map for 

Alternative 2 showing proposed roads and harvest units along with existing roads and past 

harvest is provided in the map packet and on the CD accompanying this EIS. 

Timber Harvest: This alternative would produce approximately 107 million board feet 

(MMBF) of old-growth sawtimber, plus 16 MMBF of utility volume. Sales would 

include both moderate to large and small sales and would be spread over about 10 years. 

This alternative includes clear-cutting (even-aged management) and partial harvest 

(uneven-aged management) silvicultural prescriptions, using cable, shovel, and helicopter 

logging systems to harvest old-growth timber from approximately 4,944 total acres 

(including 14 percent partial harvest). Helicopter-yarding would be conducted on 

approximately 33 percent of the acres. No thinning of young growth is included in this 

alternative. No changes to OGRs are proposed. Old-growth harvest would include 569 

acres in Phase 2 lands of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy.

Per the wildlife Forest Plan standards and guidelines, legacy forest structure is 

incorporated into harvest units greater than 20 acres in value comparison units (VCUs) 

5790, 5810, 5830, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972. Acres and volumes presented in this 

document account for reductions due to legacy areas within units. Preliminary locations 

for legacy are shown on the unit card maps (Appendix B).

Roads: Alternative 2 proposes approximately 35 miles of new road construction

(includes 5 miles constructed on previously decommissioned road beds). Most of the new 

roads would be temporary and would be decommissioned after timber harvest and hauling 

is completed; 12 miles of the new roads would be system roads and would remain 

seasonally open for 1 to 5 years after harvest to allow firewood gathering, prior to being 

stored. Approximately 19 miles of existing stored roads would be reconstructed; these 

would also remain open for 1 to 5 years after harvest prior to being stored again.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed to address the timber supply and economics issue (Issue 1). 

This alternative would provide the most timber volume of all alternatives considered in 

detail. Under this alternative, unit design is such that volume and economic efficiency are 

emphasized within Forest Plan constraints. Alternative 3 meets the purpose and need of 

this project, implements Forest Plan direction, and works toward attaining its goals and 

achieving its objectives. 

Alternative 3 includes modifications to some of the small OGRs in the project area. These 

modifications relocate portions of the small OGRs to be within the 2001 Roadless Rule 

inventoried roadless areas as much as possible from the current locations where there are 

existing roads. These roaded portions of the existing OGRs would then be allocated to

LUDs where timber harvest would be allowed: i.e., Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed (see Issue 2 in Chapter 1). Determination of which 

LUD to allocate to each individual parcel is based on the adjacent LUDs and Visual 

Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas. 
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-4 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Commercial thinning of older young-growth stands on medium to high sites was

incorporated into Alternative 3. This would provide more volume and respond to the 

emphasis on transitioning to young-growth harvest. 

The LUD modifications associated with the changes to OGRs are displayed in the revised 

LUD map for Alternative 3 in Figure 2-1. The net change in the area of Old Growth 

Habitat LUD within the project area would be an increase of about 590 acres (1 percent). 

Among the development LUDs, Timber Production would decrease by 1,105 acres (2 

percent), Modified Landscape would increase by 886 acres (2 percent), and Scenic 

Viewshed would decrease by 372 acres (8 percent). A large-scale, color map for 

Alternative 3 showing proposed roads and harvest units along with existing roads and past 

harvest is provided in the map packet and on the CD accompanying this EIS. 

Timber Harvest: This alternative would produce approximately 167 MMBF of oldgrowth and young-growth sawtimber, plus 22 MMBF of utility volume. Sales would 

include both moderate to large and small sales and would be spread over about 10 years. 

The majority of the harvest would be from old-growth timber (approximately 150 MMBF) 

on approximately 6,910 acres (including 16 percent partial harvest), after taking legacy 

areas within units into account. It includes clear-cutting and partial harvest (uneven-aged 

management) silvicultural prescriptions, using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter 

logging systems. Helicopter yarding would be used on 37 percent of the old-growth acres. 

In addition, Alternative 3 includes commercial thinning of 50 to 65 year-old young growth 

using ground and cable logging systems on approximately 2,572 acres, producing 

approximately 17 MMBF (based on volume at time of harvest, ≥ 50 years old). Oldgrowth harvest would include 569 acres in Phase 2 lands of the Timber Sale Program 

Adaptive Management Strategy.

Per the wildlife Forest Plan standards and guidelines, legacy forest structure is 

incorporated into harvest units greater than 20 acres in VCUs 5790, 5810, 5830, 5840, 

5850, 5860, and 5972. Acres and volumes presented in this document account for 

reductions due to legacy areas within units (see unit card map introduction in Appendix B 

and unit cards in accompanying volumes for preliminary legacy locations). 

Roads: This alternative proposes approximately 56 miles of new road construction

(including 15 miles constructed on previously decommissioned road beds). Most of the 

new roads would be temporary and would be decommissioned after timber harvest and 

hauling is completed; 18 miles of new roads would be system roads and would remain 

seasonally open for 1 to 5 years after harvest to allow for firewood gathering, prior to 

being stored. Approximately 39 miles of existing stored roads would be reconstructed; 

these would also remain open for 1 to 5 years after harvest prior to being stored again.
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-5

Figure 2-1. Alternative 3 LUD Map and Inventoried Roadless Areas after OGR 

Modifications (compare with Figure 1-2, the Existing LUD Map).
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-6 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 emphasizes the wildlife and subsistence issue (Issue 3), but also considers each 

of the other three issues. It emphasizes landscape connectivity and the protection of key 

wildlife travel corridors and minimizing impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife species, 

including wolves, goshawks, black bears, deer, and marten. Under this alternative, impacts to 

biodiversity and wildlife were minimized by selecting harvest methods and prescriptions that 

would have a lighter touch on the landscape (i.e., resulting in less old-growth removal and less 

road construction) and deferring or modifying boundaries of proposed units that could impact 

habitat connectivity or impact sensitive plant populations. Alternative 4 includes commercial 

thinning as a mechanism for achieving desired timber volumes while having the benefit of 

improving habitat quality in closed canopy stands. It completely avoids harvest or road 

construction in inventoried roadless areas. Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need of this 

project, implements Forest Plan direction, and works toward attaining its goals and achieving 

its objectives.

A component of this alternative is the incorporation of the biologically preferred 

alternative for small OGRs in the project area as recommended by the interagency review 

team (including biologists from the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game). This resulted in portions of some small OGRs 

being allocated to a Modified Landscape or Timber Production designation, as 

appropriate, based on the adjacent LUDs and viewshed boundaries. The net change in the 

area of Old Growth Habitat LUD within the project area would be an increase of about 

4,288 acres (6 percent). Among the development LUDs, Timber Production would 

decrease by 1,073 acres (2 percent), Modified Landscape would decrease by 2,299 acres 

(4 percent), and Scenic Viewshed would decrease by 916 acres (21 percent). The LUD 

modifications associated with these changes to OGRs are displayed in the revised LUD 

map for Alternative 4 in Figure 2-2. A large-scale, color map for Alternative 4 showing 

proposed roads and harvest units along with existing roads and past harvest is provided in 

the map packet and on the CD accompanying this EIS. 

Timber Harvest: This alternative would produce approximately 83 MMBF of old-growth 

and young-growth sawtimber, plus 11 MMBF of utility volume. Sales would include both 

moderate to large and small sales and would be spread over about 10 years. This alternative 

would harvest approximately 69 MMBF of old-growth timber on 4,223 acres (including 55 

percent partial harvest), after taking legacy areas within units into account. It includes clearcutting and partial harvest (uneven-aged management) silvicultural prescriptions, using cable, 

shovel, and helicopter logging systems. Helicopter yarding would be used on 56 percent of 

the old-growth acres. In addition, Alternative 4 includes commercial thinning of young 

growth using ground and conventional logging systems on approximately 2,161 acres of 50-

to 65-year-old stands (including 72 acres in small OGRs), producing approximately 14 

MMBF (based on volume at time of harvest, ≥ 50 years old). Old-growth harvest would 

include 431 acres of partial harvest (group selection) in Phase 2 lands of the Timber Sale 

Program Adaptive Management Strategy.
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-7

Figure 2-2. Alternative 4 LUD Map and Inventoried Roadless Areas after OGR 

Modifications (compare with Figure 1-2, the Existing LUD Map).
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-8 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Per the wildlife Forest Plan standards and guidelines, legacy forest structure is incorporated 

into harvest units greater than 20 acres in VCUs 5790, 5810, 5830, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 

5972. Acres and volumes presented in this document account for reductions due to legacy 

areas within units (see unit card map introduction in Appendix B and unit cards in 

accompanying volumes for preliminary legacy locations). 

Roads: This alternative proposes approximately 20 miles of new road construction

(includes 8 miles constructed on previously decommissioned road beds). Most of the new 

roads would be temporary and would be decommissioned after timber harvest and hauling 

is completed; 3 miles would be system roads and would remain seasonally open for 1 to 5 

years to allow for firewood gathering, prior to being stored. Approximately 22 miles of 

existing stored roads would be reconstructed; these would also remain open for 1 to 5 

years after harvest prior to being stored again.

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 addresses watershed effects (Issue 4) and other issues by minimizing road 

construction, road-stream crossings, ground-based logging, and reducing harvest in 

watersheds with high levels of harvest within the past 30 years. Given these primary 

considerations, this alternative attempts to maximize timber supply. Alternative 5 

includes commercial thinning units in older young-growth stands where thinning could 

improve watershed function, benefit wildlife, and contribute to harvest volume.

Alternative 5 completely avoids harvest or road construction in inventoried roadless areas 

and does not adjust OGR boundaries. Alternative 5 meets the purpose and need of this 

project, implements Forest Plan direction, and works toward attaining its goals and 

achieving its objectives. 

A large-scale, color map for Alternative 5 showing proposed roads and harvest units along 

with existing roads and past harvest is provided in the map packet and on the CD 

accompanying this EIS. 

Timber Harvest: This alternative would produce approximately 117 MMBF of oldgrowth and young-growth sawtimber, plus 16 MMBF of utility volume. It includes clearcutting (even-aged management) and partial harvest (uneven-aged management) 

silvicultural prescriptions, using cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems to harvest 

approximately 104 MMBF of old-growth timber on 5,012 total acres (including 21 percent 

partial harvest), after taking legacy areas within units into account. Helicopter yarding 

would be conducted on approximately 64 percent of the acres. In addition, this alternative 

includes commercial thinning of older young-growth stands (50 to 65 years old) using 

ground and conventional logging systems on approximately 2,081 acres (including 72 

acres in small OGRs), producing approximately 13 MMBF (based on volume at time of 

harvest, ≥ 50 years old). No changes to OGRs are proposed in this alternative. Oldgrowth harvest would include 485 acres in Phase 2 lands of the Timber Sale Program 

Adaptive Management Strategy.

Per the wildlife Forest Plan standards and guidelines, legacy forest structure is 

incorporated into harvest units greater than 20 acres in VCUs 5790, 5810, 5830, 5840, 

5850, 5860, and 5972. Acres and volumes presented in this document account for 
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-9

reductions due to legacy areas within units (see unit card map introduction in Appendix B 

and unit cards in accompanying volumes for preliminary legacy locations). 

Roads: This alternative proposes approximately 16 miles of new road construction

(includes 6 miles constructed on previously decommissioned road beds). Most of the new 

roads would be temporary and would be decommissioned after timber harvest and hauling 

is completed; 2 miles would be system roads and would remain seasonally open for 1 to 5 

years to allow for firewood gathering, prior to being stored. All new construction would 

begin from the existing road system. Approximately 16 miles of existing stored roads 

would be reconstructed; these would also remain open for 1 to 5 years after harvest prior 

to being stored again.

Design Criteria and Mitigation Common to all Action 

Alternatives

All alternatives are designed to be consistent with the Forest Plan and all applicable Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines have been incorporated into the design of the proposed units 

and alternatives. While some alternatives have been designed to provide a greater 

measure of protection than is required by the Forest Plan for some resources, such as 

limiting road construction to reduce the impacts to sensitive watersheds (see Alternative 

5), all alternatives were designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for these 

and all other resources. Additional direction comes from applicable laws and Forest 

Service manuals and handbooks. 

The analysis documented in this Draft EIS discloses the possible adverse impacts that may 

occur from implementing the actions proposed under each alternative. Timber harvest and 

road construction design measures have been formulated to mitigate or reduce these 

impacts. These measures were guided by direction from the Tongass Forest Plan

previously described (in this chapter and in Chapter 1). Resource specialists from the IDT 

used on-the-ground inventories, computer (geographic information system) data, and 

aerial photographs to prepare unit cards (Appendix B) for each harvest unit in the unit 

pool for the project. Cards are also prepared for each segment of system road (Appendix 

C). 

Site-specific descriptions and resource considerations for each potential harvest unit are 

included as unit cards (see unit card introduction in Appendix B). Unit cards, along with 

supporting documents (e.g., detailed silvicultural prescription cards), serve as the 

prescription or design narrative for implementation of this project after the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is complete. Design elements for the 

construction of new system roads are described in detail in the road cards (see Appendix 

C). Resource specialists have included site-specific concerns on the cards and have 

described how these concerns would be mitigated (if not completely avoided) in the 

design of each unit and road segment. Resource concerns and mitigation measures may 

be refined further during final layout. 
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-10 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Road Management

All temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber harvest. All new system 

roads (new roads and new road construction over decommissioned road grades) and 

reconstructed ML1 stored roads would remain seasonally open for firewood gathering for 

1 to 5 years after timber harvest, with seasonal closures between November 30 and May 1

(as designated on the Motor Vehicle Use Map). At the end of 1 to 5 years, all new system 

roads and reconstructed ML1 stored roads would be designated as not for public motor 

vehicle use and would be placed in a self-maintaining hydrologic status (stored).

Windthrow and Reasonable Assurance of Windfirmness Buffers

Windthrow can affect riparian areas that are otherwise buffered for fish habitat protection, 

in Class I, II, and III streams. In addition to mitigation measures found on unit and road 

cards, each harvest prescription considers the addition of a reasonable assurance of 

windfirmness (RAW) buffer to each Forest Plan minimum buffer in Class I, II, and III 

streams. This would provide additional protection to riparian management areas (RMAs) 

that may be affected by windthrow. As the first step in this consideration for RAW 

buffers, the IDT conducted a review of each stream using maps and local knowledge of 

the wind patterns for the area, and those streams recommended for field RAW review 

were identified. The unit cards (Appendix B) identify the buffers that need additional 

review for windfirmness. These RAW buffers would be applied with interdisciplinary 

consultation during sale layout on a case-by-case basis, because some areas would benefit 

from these additional buffers, while others would have no need for this additional 

measure. The need for this additional measure is most often apparent at the time of 

implementation. 

In addition to RAW buffers along streams, some units include visual buffers for screening 

views from visual priority routes. In the unit cards for these units, it is stated that these 

buffers also need to be reviewed for RAW buffers during implementation.

Legacy Forest Structure 

The intent of the Legacy Standard and Guideline is to ensure that sufficient residual trees, 

snags, and clumps of trees remain in timber harvest units within VCUs that have had 

concentrated past timber harvest activity and are at risk for not providing the full range of 

matrix functions, in order to meet the intent of the conservation strategy while providing 

flexibility to address on-the-ground implementation issues. In the project area, VCUs 

5790, 5810, 5830, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972 require legacy forest structure. As a result, 

30 percent of the original reconnaissance area is incorporated into legacy areas for harvest 

units greater than 20 acres. The reconnaissance area is defined as the original logging 

system/transportation analysis (LSTA) boundary prior to field verification. Legacy areas 

are shown on the unit cards. Acres and volumes presented in this document account for 

reductions due to legacy areas within units. Legacy placement in a unit sometimes varied 

by alternative, depending on the logging system, prescription, and alternative emphasis. 
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-11

Invasive Plants

There will be mitigating actions to reduce the risk of increasing invasive plant 

introduction and spread. Mitigation measures include cleaning of equipment that is 

imported from outside Prince of Wales Island, use of approved rock sources, treatment of 

new introductions of high-priority invasives, and control of specific existing infestations 

in the project area (see Invasive Species in Chapter 3). 

Watersheds and Fisheries

Rock sources will be examined for potential acid rock drainage (ARD) and questionable 

sources will not be used. In areas where full-bench construction is anticipated and the 

underlying bedrock (containing pyrite) may be mineralized, the Forest geologist will provide 

on-site inspection during excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. 

If rock with potential for ARD is disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch 

with limestone aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed 

during full bench construction. See the discussion of Water Quality in Issue 4: Cumulative 

Watershed Effects in Chapter 3 for a more-detailed discussion.

In order to minimize any effects of harvest on stream flow in the North Big Salt Lake 

(Steelhead Creek) subwatershed, annual harvest levels will be limited to ensure that less 

than 20 percent of the subwatershed is in previously harvested areas that are 30 years old 

or younger at any point in time. To do this, harvest will be limited as follows:

 Up to 151 acres can be harvested in 2015 and no harvest is allowed prior to 2015;

 Up to 226 additional acres can be harvested in 2016 (plus any remainder from 

2015);

 Up to 114 additional acres can be harvested in 2017 (plus any remainder from 

2015 and 2016);

 Up to 171 additional acres can be harvested in 2018 (plus any remainder from 

2015, 2016, and 2017);

 No limitation in 2019 or later.

Marine Access Facility (MAF)

A marine access facility (MAF) is used to transfer materials and equipment from land to 

saltwater or vice versa and that contains a structure such as a mooring buoy, dock, log 

transfer facility (LTF), boat ramp, or a combination of these. An LTF is used to transfer 

logs and timber products from land-based transportation forms to water-based 

transportation forms (or vice versa). Two existing LTFs may be used for the timber sale. 

These are located in Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay. 

Road Management Objectives

All Big Thorne alternatives have been analyzed using the same road management 

objectives for existing National Forest System (NFS) roads as the Prince of Wales Access 

Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment analysis. 
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-12 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Sort Yards

The Forest Service has a log sorting facility at Thorne Bay that may be used for this 

project. 

Best Management Practices and Monitoring 

Best management practices (BMPs) are methods, measures, or practices to prevent or 

reduce water pollution, including but not limited to structural and non-structural controls, 

operation and maintenance procedures, other requirements and scheduling and distribution 

of activities (Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook). They are the result of extensive efforts between the Forest Service and the 

State of Alaska to identify practices that will ensure that timber harvest activities 

minimize soil erosion and protect aquatic habitat. BMPs as applied to unit harvest and 

roads are in the unit and road cards (see Appendices B and C). The Forest Service 

recently issued National Core BMPs (USDA Forest Service 2012). Directives for using 

these BMPs are currently in development. The Big Thorne Final EIS will include the 

National Core BMPs and the project will implement the most up-to-date BMP guidance.

Monitoring

Monitoring activities can be divided into Forest Plan monitoring and project-specific 

monitoring. The National Forest Management Act requires that national forests monitor 

and evaluate their forest plans (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 219.11). Chapter 6 

of the Forest Plan includes the monitoring and evaluation activities to be conducted as part 

of Forest Plan implementation.

The Forest Service is developing a National BMP Monitoring Program that addresses 

implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. Directives for using the monitoring protocols 

are expected in 2013. The Tongass National Forest has tested the national protocols for 

timber harvest and road activities and will adopt these protocols as part of Forest Plan 

Monitoring. Results will be reported in the Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

Implementation (Forest Plan) Monitoring

Implementation monitoring assesses whether the project was implemented as designed 

and whether or not it complies with the Forest Plan. The information on the unit and road 

cards for the project decision is used to prepare the timber sale on the ground. Any 

adjustments are documented in a Change Analysis document and reviewed to see if a 

further NEPA analysis is needed. 

The sale administrators and road inspectors ensure that the prescriptions contained on the 

unit and road cards, and the unit silvicultural prescriptions, are incorporated into contract 

documents; they then monitor performance relative to contract requirements. Input by 

resource staff specialists, such as fisheries biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists and 

engineers, is regularly requested during this implementation monitoring process. These 

specialists provide technical advice when questions arise during project implementation.
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-13

Possible effects to heritage resources are monitored as specified in the Programmatic 

Agreement (2002) with the State Historic Preservation Office by selecting areas of direct 

impact during and/or after actual ground disturbance.

Project-specific Effectiveness Monitoring

Project-specific effectiveness monitoring is designed to determine how well specific 

design features or mitigation measures work in protecting natural resources and their 

beneficial uses. Monitoring for prescription implementation would take place through 

required reforestation surveys and harvest inspection. Monitoring second-growth 

condition class would take place through periodic field surveys and treatment needs 

assessment. Monitoring for new infestations of invasive species and monitoring of 

infestation treatments would occur with project implementation.

The types of monitoring listed above are used to determine if the measures were implemented 

and if they are effective in mitigating the effects of the project or if they need to be revised. 

Information derived from monitoring can be used to develop improved or additional 

treatments to ensure that these safeguards will be effective in the future.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study___________________________________________

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives 

that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in 

response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for 

achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the 

scope of this project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to 

be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number 

of alternatives were considered but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons 

summarized below. 

No Roads Alternative

The IDT considered a no roads alternative but decided that a Minimal Roads Alternative

would satisfy the objectives of this alternative, while coming closer to satisfying the purpose 

and need. This alternative would minimize road construction and the number of fish-stream 

crossings, while maximizing harvest through helicopter-based logging. It would not restrict 

the reconstruction of roads that are in storage or the construction of new roads on previously 

decommissioned roadbeds. This alternative emphasizes aspects of the cumulative watershed 

effects and wildlife and subsistence issues and specifically responds to scoping comments by 

limiting changes in the surface area covered by roads within project area watersheds and by 

limiting any increase in wildlife analysis area (WAA) road densities.

The following alternative design criteria were used to develop an initial version of this 

alternative: 

 Minimize road construction throughout the project area; very short spur roads 

(<0.1 mile) are allowed;
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-14 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Minimize the number of new road-stream crossings; and

 Maintain timber volume by converting cable or shovel settings requiring new 

roads to helicopter settings in units within 1 mile of existing roads.

Timber Harvest: This alternative includes mostly clear-cutting and partial cut (unevenaged) management prescriptions using conventional cable and shovel logging systems and 

helicopter yarding to harvest approximately 100 MMBF of timber on about 5,800 total 

acres. Helicopter yarding would be conducted on approximately 4,500 of these acres (77 

percent). No harvest would occur within inventoried roadless areas. 

Roads: This alternative proposes to construct less than 2 miles of new road. These short 

spurs would be temporary roads and would be decommissioned after timber harvest and 

hauling is completed. All new construction would begin from the existing road system. 

Approximately 8 miles of existing stored roads would be reconstructed. 

While the Minimal Roads alternative responds to watershed and wildlife issues associated 

with road densities, the high percentage of helicopter harvest indicates that the economics 

of this alternative would be very poor. It was decided that the Watershed emphasis 

alternative (Alternative 5) should be modified to reduce road densities further and increase 

the percentage of helicopter harvest, and due to the poor economics, the Minimal Roads 

alternative was moved into the Alternatives Considered, but not in Detail category.

Modification of Small and Large OGRs 

This alternative is the same as Alternative 3 in all aspects, except that it also included 

modification of the large OGR in the Honker Divide area. It was developed to address the 

timber supply and economics issue. This alternative would increase the amount of 

available timber by modifying the roaded portions of both small and large OGRs. 

Under this alternative, the large OGR would be reduced from approximately 178,000 

acres in size to 163,000 acres in size (about 92 percent of original acres). The amount of 

productive old growth inside the large OGR would be reduced from approximately 92,000 

acres to approximately 85,000 acres (about 92 percent of original acres). Both of these 

figures are well above the size criteria for large OGRs. In addition, there is potential for 

the addition of acreage from within adjacent roadless areas. 

The total volume produced by this alternative was estimated at 233 MMBF. 

Approximately 208 MMBF would come from harvest of old growth and approximately 25 

MMBF would be derived from young-growth thinning. The alternative would require 

construction of about 81 miles of new road and reconstruction of about 58 miles of roads 

that are currently in storage. 

Because of the importance and spatial limitations for large and medium OGRs, as 

designated as part of the Tongass Conservation Strategy, this alternative was not carried 

forward for detailed analysis.

Yellow-Cedar Alternative

In response to public comments, related to yellow cedar and yellow cedar decline, an 

alternative that would avoid the harvest of healthy yellow cedar stands was considered. 
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-15

Yellow cedar is commonly found in mixed-conifer stands and as a component of POG

within the project area. Over 50,000 acres of POG occurs within non-development LUDs 

in the project area. This does not include the POG acreage in beach and estuary buffers, 

riparian buffers, and other POG identified as unsuitable for timber production by the 

Forest Plan. Therefore, no timber harvest, including that of yellow cedar, would occur in 

these areas. In addition, yellow cedar is a component of many stands of unproductive old 

growth, which is also not subject to timber harvest. As a result, this alternative was not 

carried forward for detailed analysis.

Comparison of Alternatives ________________________

This section compares outputs and provides a summary of the effects of each alternative 

in terms of the significant issues. Table 2-1 presents a direct comparison of the 

alternatives. This table is summarized from Chapter 3, which should be consulted for a 

full understanding of these and other environmental consequences. 

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

ISSUE 1: TIMBER SUPPLY AND TIMBER SALE ECONOMICS

Timber Volume Estimates (MMBF)

Sawlog (Net) Volume by Species

Sitka Spruce 0 26.7 44.5 24.5 32.7

Western Hemlock 0 53.3 82.0 42.9 59.7

Western Redcedar 0 18.3 27.2 10.0 17.0

Alaska Yellow-Cedar 0 8.3 12.9 5.3 8.0

Total Sawlog Volume 0 106.6 166.6 82.6 117.4

Total Utility Volume 0 16.3 22.3 10.8 15.7

Total Old Growth Sawlog 

Volume 0 106.6 150.0 68.7 103.9

Total Young Growth Sawlog 

Volume 0 0 16.6 13.9 13.5

Total Volume (Sawlog + Utility) 0 122.9 188.9 93.4 133.1

Acres of Harvest by Logging System and Prescription (acres)

Old-Growth (acres)

Shovel, Even-age harvest 0 1,918 2,441 690 1,064

Shovel, Uneven-age harvest 0 15 15 330 0

Cable, Even-age harvest 0 1,383 1,871 699 730

Cable, Uneven-age harvest 0 0 0 145 0

Helicopter, Even-age harvest 0 931 1,474 510 2,148

Helicopter, Uneven-age harvest 0 696 1,108 1,849 1,070

Subtotal Even-age Harvestclearcut 0 4,232 5,786 1,899 3,942

Subtotal Uneven-age Harvestpartial cut 0 711 1,123 2,324 1,070

Total Old Growth 0 4,944 6,909 4,223 5,012

Young-Growth (acres)

Cable, Uniform Thin 0 0 556 418 406

Cable, Strip Thin 0 0 1,174 955 959

Ground-based, Uniform Thin 0 0 842 787 716

Total Young Growth 0 0 2,572 2,160 2,081

Total Treated Acres 0 4,944 9,481 6,383 7,093
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-16 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

ISSUE 1: TIMBER SUPPLY AND TIMBER SALE ECONOMICS (continued)

Miles of Road Construction and Reconstruction

New NFS Road 0 10.5 15.2 2.5 1.7

New NFS Road (Constructed on 

Decommissioned Road Grade) 0 1.5 2.3 0.6 0

New Temporary Road 

Construction 0 19.2 26.0 9.1 7.7

New Temporary Road 

(Constructed on 

Decommissioned Road Grade)

0 3.8 12.6 7.3 6.1

Total New Road Construction 0 35.0 56.1 19.5 15.5

Reconstruction of Stored NFS 

Roads 0 19.3 39.0 21.5 15.6

Costs and Benefits

Logging Costs ($/MBF) 1/ $0 $243 $262 $298 $309

Haul Cost ($/MBF) 2/ $0 $47 $51 $52 $49

Road Construction/Maintenance 

Costs ($/MBF) 3/ $0 $59 $58 $44 $27

Indicated Bid Value ($/MBF)5/ $0 $55.59 $22.31 ($7.51) $6.56

Total Indicated Bid Value ($) $0 $5,926,000 $3,717,000 ($621,000) $770,000 

Jobs Related to Logging 4/5/6/ 0 241 377 187 265

Jobs Related to Sawmilling 4/5/6/ 0 156 - 275 242 - 429 117 - 214 169 - 304

Total Annualized Direct Jobs4/5/6/ 0 507 - 585 792 -915 391 - 455 557 - 646

Direct Income ($million) 0 25.9 - 27.4 40.5 - 42.8 20.0 - 21.3 28.5 - 30.2

ISSUE 2—OLD GROWTH HABITAT LUD

LUD Modifications (acres)

Change in Old Growth Habitat 

LUD

0 0 +590 +4,288 0

Change in Development LUDs 0 0 -590 -4,288 0

Change in Suitable Timber (acres)

Change in Mapped Suitable 

Timber 

0 0 +1,331 -1,541 0

Small OGR Modifications Metrics

# Small OGRs Consistent with 

Forest Plan Acreage 

Requirements

11 of 11 11 of 11 11 of 11 11 of 11 11 of 11

Net change in POG in Small 

OGRs (acres) 0 0 -849 +1,906 0

Sensitive Plants

% of Project Area Lesser Roundleaved Orchid Individuals and 

Alaska Rein Orchid Individuals 

within OGRs

42%/35% 42%/35% 21%/24% 67%/43% 42%/35%
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-17

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

ISSUE 3—WILDLIFE AND SUBSISTENCE USE

Acres of Productive Old Growth (POG) Remaining

Total POG

Acres Remaining in Project Area 98,748 93,956 92,052 94,639 93,900

% Change from Existing 0% -5% -7% -4% -5%

Acres Remaining in North 

Central POW Biogeographic 

Province 

564,306 562,402 564,989 564,250 564,306

% Change from Existing 0% -1% -1% -1% -1%

High-volume POG

Acres Remaining in Project Area 43,902 41,399 40,182 41,483 41,290

% Change from Existing 0% -6% -8% -6% -6%

Acres Remaining in North 

Central POW Biogeographic 

Province 

248,359 245,856 244,639 245,940 245,747

% Change from Existing 0% -1% -1% -1% -1%

Large-tree POG

Acres of Remaining in Project 

Area 22,128 20,810 20,184 20,918 20,822

% Change from Existing 0% -6% -9% -5% -6%

Acres Remaining in North 

Central POW Biogeographic 

Province 

127,306 125,988 125,362 126,096 126,000

% Change from Existing 0% -1% -2% -1% -1%

Number of POG Patches by Size Category Remaining (in the Project Area)

0-25 acres 302 793 901 641 788

26-100 acres 95 104 105 97 103

101-500 acres 35 39 40 40 37

500-1,000 acres 6 5 6 5 6

1,000+ acres 9 10 9 9 9

Number of POG Patches by Size Category Remaining (all patches intersecting Project Area)

0-25 acres 302 834 923 700 818

26-100 acres 95 102 103 96 102

101-500 acres 35 38 40 42 40

500-1,000 acres 7 6 6 5 6

1,000+ acres 8 10 10 9 9

Total change in no. patches (%) 0% +120% +140% +89% +117%

Deer Winter Habitat Capability Change at Project Completion & After 25 Years (% of 

2012 value) 

WAA 1315 0%/-7% -4%/-10% -7%/-13% -3%/-10% -4%/-

10%

WAA 1318 0%/-4% -4%/-8% -5%/-8% -3%/-7% -4%/-7%

WAA 1319 0%/-4% -1%/-8% -6%/-10% -4%/-8% -4%/-8%

WAA 1420 0%/-11% -5%/-15% -9%/-19% -5%/-15% -5%/-

16%

North Central Prince of Wales 

Biogeographic Province 0%/-5% 0%/-5% 0%/-5% 0%/-5% 0%/-5%
2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

2-18 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

ISSUE 3—WILDLIFE AND SUBSISTENCE USE (continued)

Acres of Deer Winter Range Harvest

Acres of deep-snow deer winter 

range harvest proposed (WAAs 

1315, 1318, 1319, 1420)

0 1,484 2,306 1,208 1,518

% Change from Existing 0% -5% -7% -4% -5%

Goshawk Habitat Harvest

Acres of POG & High Volume 

POG harvest (WAAs 1315, 

1318, 1319, 1420)

0/0 4,792/2,503 6,699/3,720 4,109/2,419 4,848/2,612

Marten Deep Snow Winter Habitat Harvest

Acres of harvest (WAAs 1315, 

1318, 1319, 1420) 0 1,485 2,306 1,208 1,519

% Change from Existing 0% -3% to -6% -5% to -13% -2% to -6% -3% to -6%

Road Density by Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) Below 1,200 feet

Road density—Open & Closed 

Roads (NFS and non-NFS 

lands) 

WAA 1315

WAA 1318

WAA 1319

WAA 1420

2.7

2.4

1.6

2.4

2.8

2.5

1.7

2.5

2.8

2.5

1.8

2.5

2.8

2.5

1.7

2.5

2.8

2.5

1.7

2.5

Road density—Open & Closed 

Roads (NFS lands only) 

WAA 1315

WAA 1318

WAA 1319

WAA 1420

2.1

0.7

1.6

2.5

2.3

0.8

1.7

2.6

2.3

0.8

1. 6

2.6

2.2

0.8

1.6

2.6

2.2

0.8

1.7

2.5
Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 2

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ▪ 2-19

Table 2-1. Comparison of Alternatives by Issue (continued)

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

ISSUE 4—CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS7/

Subwatersheds with more 

than 20% of Basin Area 

Harvested from 1981 to 

present (young growth 30 

years of age or younger) 

including reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• Pin8/

• Thorne 

Bay

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• Pin 8/

• Thorne Bay

• Goose Cr.

• Luck Lake

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• Pin

• Thorne Bay

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• Pin 8/

• Thorne 

Bay

• North Big 

Salt Lake

• Pin 8/

• Thorne Bay

Total miles of new road 

construction 0 35 56 19.5 15.5

Subwatersheds with more 

than 2.5% of basin area in 

roads (includes reasonably 

foreseeable and Big Thorne 

proposed roads)

• Deer 

Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor

• Salamand

er

• Slide 

Creek

• Thorne 

Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz Harbor

• Salamand.8/

• Slide Creek

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 8,9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin

• Ratz Harbor

• Salamander

• Slide Creek

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

• Deer 

Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor

• Salamd.8/

• Slide 

Creek

• Thorne 

Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

• Deer Creek

• Pin8/

• Ratz 

Harbor8/

• Salamd.8/

• Slide 

Creek8/

• Thorne Bay

• Thorne R. 

Intertidal 9/

• Torrent

New Class I & II stream 

crossings10/ 0 9 19 4 1

New Class III stream 

crossings10/ 0 14 28 10 6

Notes:

1/ The harvesting costs for an operator of average efficiency.

2/ Haul Cost: Cost of round-trip truck transport to Klawock or Goose Creek, based on average distance and speed for alternative.

3/ Estimated average cost of new road construction, existing road reconstruction and maintenance.

4/ Memo Employment Coefficients and Indirect Effects, for NEPA planning: 2011 Update Source: Susan Alexander, Alaska Region 

Economist

5/ Sawmilling employment is based on a range, from maximum possible shipment out of state (50% of hemlock and Sitka spruce, 

and export of all Alaska yellow cedar), to no shipment of hemlock and Sitka spruce and export of 50% Alaska yellow cedar. 

Although all Alaska yellow cedar sold from the Tongass National Forest can be exported to foreign markets, regional sawmills often 

manufacture the species into high value lumber. 

6/ Sawmill income is based on the same assumptions as employment and is presented as a range

7/ Analysis conducted at both the watershed and subwatershed scales. Cumulative effects presented in table are for subwatersheds. 

8/ No harvest or roads constructed under this alternative. Threshold exceedences are due to past and reasonably foreseeable actions.

9/ Clipped to land area and does not contain marine areas.

10/ Includes both proposed new roads and proposed new construction on decommissioned roadbed.
Chapter 3

Environment and Effects
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-1

CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENT AND EFFECTS

Introduction _____________________________________

This chapter provides a description of the existing environment in the Big Thorne project 

area and potential environmental effects of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific 

and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2.

Following each resource description is a discussion of the potential environmental effects 

associated with the implementation of each alternative. All significant or potentially 

significant effects, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, are disclosed. 

Effects are quantified where possible; qualitative discussions are also included. The 

means by which potential adverse effects will be reduced or mitigated are described in the 

unit and road cards in Appendices B and C of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), respectively.

The discussions of resources and potential effects includes existing information 

documented in the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c), other project EISs, project-specific resource 

reports, the results of field investigations, and other sources as indicated.

Land Divisions ___________________________________

The land area of the Tongass National Forest has been divided in several different ways to

describe the resources. These divisions vary by resource since the relationship of each 

resource to geographic conditions and zones varies. The allocation of Forest Plan land use 

designations (LUDs) is one such division. Other divisions important for the effects 

analysis are described briefly here.

Project Area

The project area is identified by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to define the boundary 

around the area in which the project will occur. The Big Thorne project area is 

approximately 232,000 acres in size; 48,500 acres are considered suitable for timber 

production. The project area includes approximately 14,000 acres of non-National Forest 

System (NFS) (state and private) land (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2).

Value Comparison Units 

Value comparison units (VCUs) are distinct geographic areas, each encompassing a 

drainage basin containing one or more large stream systems. The boundaries usually 

follow major watershed divides. The Big Thorne project area includes 16 VCUs. 

Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1 shows VCU boundaries and numbers.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-2 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Game Management Units 

Game management units (GMUs) are geographical areas defined by the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to manage wildlife populations. Legal hunting 

and trapping regulations govern each unit. There are 26 GMUs in the State of Alaska, 5

of which are in Southeast Alaska. Prince of Wales Island is GMU 2. 

Wildlife Analysis Areas 

Wildlife analysis areas (WAAs) are land divisions used by the ADF&G for wildlife 

analysis and regulating wildlife populations. The project area includes portions of five 

WAAs, but project activities affect the following four WAAs: 1315, 1318, 1319, and 1420 

(Figure 3-1). Information estimated by WAA is used in the wildlife and subsistence

analyses. 

Watershed 

Watershed refers to the area that contributes water to a drainage or stream and to the 

portion of a forest in which all surface water drains to a common point. Watersheds can 

range from tens-of-acres that drain a single, small intermittent stream, to many thousandsof-acres for a stream that drains hundreds of connected intermittent and perennial streams. 

There are 21 watersheds and 48 subwatersheds with at least a portion of their drainage 

areas within the project boundary. The EIS analyzed 13 watersheds and 37 subwatersheds 

with proposed ground disturbing activities (see Figures WTR-1 and WTR-2 under Issue 

4–Cumulative Watershed Effects). 

Inventoried Roadless Area 

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres 

that met the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act and 

that were initially inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and 

Evaluation (RARE II) process, subsequent assessments, or Forest planning. These areas 

have been modified since that review due to road construction and timber harvest. The 

inventory used for this project is the 2001 Roadless Rule inventory; the IRAs are 

identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service 

Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 dated 

November 2000. This is the inventory used for analysis for the Big Thorne Project. The 

Big Thorne project area includes portions of four roadless areas: the Kogish (#509), Karta 

(#510), and Thorne River (#511) IRAs are partially within the project area and the Ratz 

(#512) IRA is entirely within it (see Figure IRA-1 under Roadless Areas). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-3

Figure 3-1. Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) in the Big Thorne Project Area
3 Environment and Effects 

3-4 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Biogeographic Province 

A biogeographic province designation refers to 21 ecological subdivisions of Southeast 

Alaska that are identified by generally distinct ecological, physiogeographic, and 

biogeographic features (See map in the Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3-132). Plant and animal 

species composition, climate, and geology within each province are generally more 

similar within than among adjacent provinces. Historical events (such as glaciers and 

uplifting) are important to the nature of the province and to the barriers that distinguish 

each province. The Big Thorne project area is located in Biogeographic Province 14, the 

North Central Prince of Wales province. Effects of management at this scale were 

analyzed during the Forest Plan analyses and are also conducted for some analyses in this 

document. 

Analyzing Effects _________________________________

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the 

physical, biological, social, and economic environment. The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

include the following specific categories to use for the analysis of environmental 

consequences. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial 

cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed 

from the activity. Cumulative effects result from incremental effects of actions, when 

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

agency or person undertakes such actions. Reasonably foreseeable actions are those that 

are currently planned or scheduled to occur. The 5-year timber sale plan is the instrument 

through which future timber sales are scheduled. Therefore, for the purpose of this 

analysis, reasonably foreseeable future actions are generally considered to be those that 

are expected to occur within the next 5-10 years. 

In the Environmental Consequences sections, the direct and indirect effects are presented 

first, followed by cumulative effects. For the purpose of evaluating cumulative effects, 

the IDT considered all lands in the project area. For some resources, an expanded 

boundary was evaluated. The cumulative analysis area for each resource is described in 

the appropriate section later in this chapter.

Under CEQ regulations and for the purposes of this analysis, “impacts” and “effects” are 

synonymous and interchangeable. 

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects 

Past Projects

Past projects considered in cumulative effects analysis generally are physically located on 

the landscape, such as roads. The past projects combined with the natural environment, 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-5

represent the affected environment that is described for each resource in this chapter. 

These projects include timber harvest, thinning of harvested stands, recreation 

developments, road construction and LTF construction; housing and building 

development in towns of Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove, and dispersed private lands,; 

and highway construction. The past timber harvest projects are cataloged in Appendix D 

– Part I, which lists acres of harvest by year, by stand, by VCU, and by ownership within 

the project area. 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

The following projects are either present actions or are considered reasonably foreseeable 

actions and are combined with past projects to be considered in the cumulative effects 

analysis. They include timber harvest, thinning, road construction, restoration activities, 

recreation improvements, and others. Reasonably foreseeable future projects are those 

with a developed proposed action. These are analyzed quantitatively if they can be 

identified spatially and qualitatively if the location is not definite. The following

subsections describe the present and reasonably foreseeable projects and Appendix D –

Part II presents a summary of these projects and identifies to which analysis areas they 

apply.

Timber Harvest on NFS Lands inside Project Area

Micro-sales from the Roadside Salvage Environmental Assessment (EA) will continue to 

occur throughout the project area along existing roads. These sales are limited to down, 

dead, or dying trees and usually involve only a few trees per sale. They are reviewed by 

resource specialists and are subject to the same standards and guidelines as the Big Thorne 

Project. In Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012, Roadside EA micro-sales amounted about 7 to 10 

acres per year. Locations cannot be accurately predicted in advance; cumulative harvest 

would likely involve no more than a few acres in each watershed for micro-sales in the 

foreseeable future. No new roads would be constructed. It is assumed that up to 50 acres 

would be harvested in the project area.

Free Use timber harvest is also expected to occur. This can be up to 10 thousand board 

feet (MBF) of saw timber and up to 25 cords of wood per person per year (for Alaska 

residents only). Green sawtimber must also be evaluated and approved by the Forest 

Service prior to their removal. Free Use removal is expected to have similar effects as 

micro-sales, although they may include more live standing trees. It is assumed that up to 

10 acres would be harvested in the project area

Previously NEPA-approved projects that include unharvested units, also account for 

reasonably foreseeable future harvest. These unharvested units were approved by the 

decision on the Control Lake EIS (1998). Harvest of these units could include up to 

approximately 351 harvest acres and approximately 1.2 miles of road construction. These 

units are all within the southwestern portion of the project area with 58 acres in VCU 595 

(Steelhead drainage), 83 acres in VCU 596 (Control Lake area), and 211 acres in VCU 

597.2 (Rio Beaver and Goose Creek subwatersheds).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-6 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Timber Harvest on NFS Lands outside Project Area

Timber harvest and road construction on NFS lands outside the project area but within 

Biogeographic Provinces 14 and 18 are considered since this analysis area is used for 

some resource cumulative effects analyses. The projects included here are those that have 

been NEPA-approved. In addition, as this Draft EIS goes to press, there are two other 

timber harvest projects that are getting closer to this stage and are likely to be deemed 

reasonably foreseeable for the Final EIS. These are the Kosciusko Vegetation 

Management and the Dargon Point Thinning projects. Neither of these projects yet have a 

published draft NEPA document. The Kosciusko project (on Kosciusko Island) proposes 

180 acres of old-growth harvest using clearcutting, up to 6,000 acres of young-growth 

thinning, 2 miles of new road construction, 16 miles of road reconstruction, and 15 miles 

of decommissioned roads being used as forwarder beds for thinning access. The Dargon 

Point project proposes about 70 acres of commercial thinning or clearcutting and about 1 

mile of road construction. It is located northwest of the Big Thorne project area near 

Naukati.

For Biogeographic Province 14 the NEPA-approved projects with remaining harvest units

include the Logjam (2009) and Soda Nick (2007) projects. The Logjam project is 

adjacent to the Big Thorne project area on the northwest side. It was approved for 73 

MMBF of old-growth timber harvest from 3,422 acres. It included 5 miles of NFS road 

and 17 miles of temporary road construction and 3 miles road reconstruction. The Soda

Nick project is another previously NEPA-approved project located south of the project 

area and southeast of Craig and Klawock. It includes an estimated 257 acres of timber 

harvest. For Biogeographic Province 18, only one additional NFS timber sale project is 

included. The Chasina project (1998) has mostly been harvested but includes 

approximately 300 unharvested acres near Chasina Point southeast of Cholmondeley 

Sound.

In addition, in Biogeographic Province 14, two other timber harvest projects are 

under consideration and reasonably foreseeable. These are the Kosciusko Vegetation 

Management and the Dargon Point Commercial Thinning projects. Neither of these 

projects yet has a published NEPA document. 

The Kosciusko project (on Kosciusko Island) currently proposes 180 acres of old-growth 

harvest using clearcutting and up to 6,000 acres of young-growth thinning. To access this 

harvest, there would be 2 miles of proposed road construction, 16 miles of road 

reconstruction, and 15 miles of reconstructed decommissioned roads. The 180 acres of 

proposed old growth harvest on Kosciusko Island would not likely result in any 

measurable change to deer model results for Biogeographic Province 14 (greater than 1.5 

million acres). The commercial thinning of older young growth acres would likely be 

considered a benefit to deer by improving forage availability. 

The Dargon Point project proposes about 70 acres of commercial thinning or clearcutting 

and about 1 mile of road construction. It is located northwest of the Big Thorne project 

area near Naukati. The Dargon Point project is also expected to improve forage 

availability for deer. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-7

Timber Harvest on State Lands inside Project Area

Small to large harvest units totaling about 635 acres and 4 miles of road construction are 

scheduled on state lands in 2011 to 2015; these are identified as the North Thorne 

Bay/Beach Road Area timber sales and the South Thorne Bay Area timber sales (ADNR 

2011). Small sales may occur in the North Thorne Bay area, and are included in the total 

harvest and road figures. Harvest unit acres and road miles were estimated from the 

current state Five-Year Schedule of Timber Sales (ADNR 2011). These timber sales 

would occur in the Pin, Thorne, Thorne Bay, Salamander, and Deer Creek subwatersheds. 

No other harvest or roads are reasonably foreseeable on state lands in the project area. 

State land harvest must comply with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act and 

Regulations, rather than the Tongass Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Timber Harvest on State Lands outside Project Area

Timber harvest and road construction on state lands outside the project area but inside

Biogeographic Provinces 14 and 18 is listed here because this analysis area is used for 

some resource cumulative effects analyses. These harvest units and road miles are 

derived from the state’s Five-Year Schedule of Timber Sales (ADNR 2011). They 

include an estimated 2,170 acres of old-growth harvest, 400 acres of older young-growth 

harvest, and 13.3 miles of new road construction. State land harvest must comply with the 

Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act and Regulations, rather than the Tongass 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Road Management on NFS Lands

As a result of the Prince of Wales Island Access Travel Management Plan (ATM) road 

storage, decommissioning, motorized trail development and other roadwork will be 

implemented in the foreseeable future as funding is available. The ATM was completed 

in 2009 (USDA Forest Service 2009b). The Prince of Wales Island Road Storage contract 

has been awarded and includes approximately 25 miles of road storage work within the 

project area. This contract is scheduled for completion in 2012.

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 (Forest 

Service Handbook [FSH] 1909.15, 31.12). 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. Any effects from 

ongoing road maintenance and reconditioning work are included in the cumulative effects 

analysis for this project.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-8 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Young-growth Treatments on NFS Lands

Pre-commercial thinning of even-age young-growth stands will occur across the Big 

Thorne project area in the future. Currently there are approximately 12,300 acres that are 

expected to need pre-commercial thinning (PCT) over the next 10 years. This includes 

about 2,450 acres in non-development LUDs including Old-Growth Reserves and Scenic 

River (Thorne River Corridor), 75 acres in beach and estuary buffer, 4,980 acres in 

development LUDs (identified by the project wildlife biologist as priority), 950 acres 

within riparian management areas (RMAs) and 3,850 acres in Timber Production LUDs 

without a wildlife priority (R. Sheets, Prince of Wales zone silviculturist, personal 

communication, February 2012). 

About 1,500 acres of PCT of project area young-growth stands is scheduled in the next 5 

years, and has been NEPA-cleared for the Naukati, Coffman Cove, and Thorne Bay areas 

(B. Case, Young Growth Coordinator-Silviculture, personal communication, October 

2011). 

The only commercial thinning that has occurred in the project area to date is 6 acres near 

Gravelly Creek. The no action and the proposed action alternatives do not include 

commercial thinning; three of the action alternatives do include commercial thinning. 

Restoration Activities in the Project Area

Ongoing replacement of culverts in the project area is reasonably foreseeable and will be 

conducted as funding allows. In addition, there is currently a separate and ongoing 

collaborative process to identify stewardship projects in the Big Thorne area. These 

activities include watershed and wildlife restoration planning. Activities are likely to 

include young-growth thinning for wildlife habitat and stand improvement which help, to

achieve older forest conditions at a younger age; riparian young-growth thinning to 

enhance large-woody debris (LWD) recruitment; LWD placement in streams; fish passage 

remediation (culvert replacement or removal for “red pipes”); erosion control; road 

relocation due to resource concerns; road storage and decommissioning; recreation site 

improvements; and invasive species control. These activities would be subject to Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, including BMPs to ensure water quality standards are 

achieved.

A number of documents are at various stages of planning and will identify past, current, 

and future restoration efforts. These include:

 Cobble Landscape Assessment (2004) – Outlined/described overall landscape 

condition and described opportunities for moving the landscape towards desired 

future condition.

 Cobble Watershed Restoration Plan (2006) – Detailed description of restoration 

opportunities. Some terrestrial and riparian thinning occurred primarily in the 

Ratz and Cobble Creek watersheds and instream habitat improvements occurred in 

Sal Creek and small tributaries of Big Lake, as a result of this effort. Most of this 

work occurred in the middle to late 2000s. 

 Luck Lake/Eagle Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (2011) – This document 

thoroughly describes and prioritizes riparian, instream, and road 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-9

restoration/improvement opportunities for the watershed. Approximately 98 

percent of the area covered by the Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) is within the 

Big Thorne project boundary. The WRP restoration goals and objectives are tiered 

to Desired Future Conditions and restoration objectives defined in the 2008 

Tongass Forest Plan. High priority projects include five stream restoration 

projects, six road closures, and four riparian thinning projects. Approximately 65 

acres of riparian thinning and a landslide restoration project will occur in the 

Luck/Eagle watershed in 2012. Most instream habitat improvements would occur

in 2013-2014. Upland habitat improvements, road storage/decommissioning, and 

red pipe removal/replacements would be ongoing. This project is the Fish, 

Watershed, and Wildlife program’s watershed restoration focus starting in 2012 

and will likely continue through 2015. 

 North Thorne River Watershed Restoration Plan (2011) – This plan was 

recently completed, but is still in draft form. It primarily outlines riparian 

restoration/improvement and road storage/decommissioning opportunities in the 

North Thorne watershed. The area covered by the WRP is entirely within the Big 

Thorne project boundary. Of the WRP identified actions, the highest priority 

actions include 84 acres of riparian thinning; 12.4 miles of road stormproofing, 

storing, and decommissioning; restoring access to 3.5 miles of stream; and 

instream structure placement and channel restoration at three sites. Project work 

would be ongoing.

 National Watershed Condition Framework (2011) – This nation-wide Forest 

Service program and its website (http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/) 

depicts and describes watershed condition on NFS lands at a national scale. It 

provides a means to identify and prioritize restoration opportunities. Luck Lake 

watershed is identified as a Tongass priority watershed. The database also depicts 

the “frontal” watersheds between Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove as “functioning 

at risk” (i.e., focus areas for watershed restoration opportunities). The Forest 

Service program has not yet fully assessed the project-specific restoration 

opportunities in this area at this time.

Outfitter Guide EA

In early 2011, the Forest Service initiated scoping for the Prince of Wales Island Outfitter 

Guide Management Plan EA. The management plan identifies the allocation of 

commercial recreational use on Prince of Wales Island and it would affect the amount of 

outfitter and guide use in a specific area. It does not set use levels for unguided visitors. 

Recreation Projects

The Forest Service has a number of recreation projects proposed for completion in the 

next 5 years, subject to funding. These projects include six projects at or near existing 

developed recreation sites and one new cabin proposed for the beach near Sal Creek (see 

below). They are considered in the analysis of cumulative effects for recreation and 

scenery.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-10 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Gravelly Creek Trail – This project would extend the Gravelly Creek Trail 0.5 

mile from the Gravelly Creek Picnic Area to the Falls Creek Pull-off on the 

Thorne Bay Highway. This project would improve the existing primitive access to 

the Thorne River. 

 Honker Divide Canoe Route – This project would improve the portages along the 

canoe route by constructing boardwalk, step-and-run stairways, and by hardening 

some surfaces with gravel. A new shelter on Thorne Lake is also proposed as part 

of this project.

 Balls Lake Trail – The plan is to complete the trail by hardening the natural tread 

sections with step and run stairways and gravel. Bridges also need to be replaced.

 Luck Lake Day Use Area – A shelter is proposed on Luck Lake near Eagle 

Creek.

 Boyscout Multiuse Trail (3017-3018 Roads) – This project would install two 

new bridges along this stored road system to expand off-highway vehicle (OHV)

use of the area by an additional 17 miles. The bridges would be placed on Lava 

Creek and Slide Creek.

 Control Lake Cabin – This project involves reconstruction of the small dock at 

the Control Lake Cabin.

 Sal Creek Cabin – The Forest Service proposes to construct a new cabin on the 

beach near Sal Creek. This project would include the re-opening of a small road, 

construction of less than 0.5 mile of trail, and construction of a young-growth 

cabin.

Mineral Exploration Activities in Southern Prince of Wales Island

For Sensitive plants, the cumulative effects analysis area includes Biogeographic Province 

18 (southern Prince of Wales Island) and includes the Niblack and Bokan Mountain areas, 

which have had mineral exploration and some extraction for 50-100 years. Current 

activities on NFS lands are limited to exploration drilling using helicopter access; small 

wooden platforms are constructed at the drill sites. A continuation of these exploration 

activities is reasonably foreseeable.

Sealaska Remaining Land Entitlement and Land Legislation

In 2011, land legislation (S.730/HR1408) was introduced into Congress; these bills would 

allow Sealaska Corporation to acquire 65,000-80,000 acres of roaded, managed NFS land 

parcels, which they have identified on Prince of Wales, Kosciusko, Kuiu, and Tuxekan 

Islands in place of their final Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA)

entitlements for which they filed for conveyance in June 2008 with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). Previous iterations of this controversial bill, introduced since 2007, 

have been opposed by the public, nearby communities, and various user groups. The Big 

Thorne project area is not among the NFS lands included in this bill. However, 

appropriation of NFS lands by the Corporation would have overall implications for the 

future of public land management on Prince of Wales Island and in Southeast Alaska and 

implementation of the Forest Plan. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-11

While the Sealaska land legislation bill could be considered reasonably foreseeable., 

However, because of the variable nature of this proposal and a lack of certainty about its 

passing Congress, as of the date of printing the Draft EIS, the effects of harvesting timber

on the identified lands was not considered reasonably foreseeable. Nonetheless, the 

effects on wildlife associated with the transfer of the parcels identified in S.730 within 

Biogeographic Province 14 was evaluated as a separate cumulative effects scenario for 

deer in the Wildlife and Subsistence resource report (Woeck 2012) and acknowledged that 

this may affect the old growth reserve system. Should this bill be enacted after the Draft 

EIS is printed and prior to the Final EIS and ROD, the effects analysis will be updated. 

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Much of the Tongass National Forest resource data resides in an electronic database 

formatted for a geographic information system (GIS). The Forest uses GIS software to 

assist in the analyses of these data. GIS data are available in tabular (numerical) and map 

formats. For this Draft EIS, all the maps, and most of the numerical analyses, are based 

on GIS resource data supported by field inventories. Some field investigations are still 

underway and the results of some studies are still being incorporated.

Further, it should be noted that there is incomplete knowledge about many of the 

relationships and conditions of wildlife, fish, forests, climate change, jobs, and 

communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of a large forest area is a complex 

and developing science. The biology of fish and wildlife species prompts questions about 

population dynamics and habitat relationships; and the interaction of resource supply, the 

economy, and communities is the subject matter of an inexact science. However, the 

basic data and central relationships are sufficiently well-established in the respective 

sciences for the deciding official to make a reasoned choice between the alternatives, and 

to adequately assess and disclose the possible adverse environmental consequences.

Other Resources _________________________________

Several resources and uses of the project area are likely to remain unaffected by the 

proposed action or alternatives, or will not be affected to a significant degree. Even 

though significant effects are not anticipated, these resources can be discussed in the 

sections of this chapter that follow the introduction, to the extent that measurable effects 

or differences between alternatives are present. Resources or uses for which no 

measurable effects were identified are discussed briefly here. 

Air Quality 

No significant effects on global carbon sequestration levels are expected under any of the 

alternatives considered for the 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

conclude that small changes (project-level) in carbon sequestration on the Tongass, 

whether beneficial or adverse, would have a minor effect on atmospheric carbon levels. 

All of the action alternatives proposed for this timber sale would have limited, short-term 

effects on ambient air quality. Such effects, in the form of vehicle emissions and dust, are 

likely to be indistinguishable from other local sources of airborne particulates, including 

other motor vehicle emissions, dust from road construction and motor vehicle traffic, 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-12 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

residential and commercial heating sources, marine traffic, and emissions from burning at 

sawmills. The action alternatives could result in short-term supplies of raw wood 

products to local mills. It is the responsibility of the mill owner or sort yard operator to 

ensure that mill emissions are within legal limits. Air quality is discussed in the Old 

Growth and Biodiversity resource report in the project record. 

Land Status 

With the exception of 11,343 acres of state land and 2,826 acres of private land the vast 

majority (94 percent) of the lands within the project area are owned by the United States 

and managed by the Forest Service as part of the Tongass National Forest. The nonNational Forest lands are near Thorne Bay, Control Lake, and Coffman Cove and were 

mostly conveyed to the state under the terms of the 1958 Alaska Statehood Act; some of 

these lands are now in private ownership. These lands, while within the project area, are 

excluded from the proposed project and alternatives. 

There are no project area lands encumbered by unconveyed state selections or by claims 

filed under the ANCSA or the 1906 Native Allotment Act. The Forest Service has issued 

recreation special use permits to outfitter-guides and others in the project area.

Sealaska Corporation’s final ANCSA entitlements could affect land status when the lands

are conveyed. As described above, land legislation was introduced into Congress in 2011 

to allow Sealaska Corporation to acquire specific NFS lands it has identified, in lieu of 

selecting lands from its entitlement areas. None of these proposed legislation lands are 

included in the project area.

Community Profiles _______________________________

The primary social and economic area of influence for the Big Thorne Project includes 

those communities located in close proximity to the project area and communities whose 

residents use the project area for subsistence, recreation, and other activities. It also 

includes local communities with economic activities that could be affected by the 

proposed timber sale, primarily wood products operations that could use the timber from 

the project area and recreation and tourism businesses. The communities that fall into one 

or more of these categories are Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, Klawock, Craig, Hollis, 

Kasaan, and Naukati Bay. Thorne Bay, located within the project area boundary, is the 

closest community to the project. 

Unless otherwise noted, most of the information presented in the following community 

profiles is from the Alaska Department of Commerce Community and Economic 

Development’s (ADCCED) Alaska Community Database (ADCCED 2011) and the 2008 

Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Thorne Bay

Thorne Bay is located at the head of Thorne Bay on eastern Prince of Wales Island, 

approximately 40 air miles northwest of Ketchikan. Petroglyphs and other archaeological 

remains indicate occupation and use of the area by Alaska Natives dating back at least 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-13

3,000 years. Post-contact development began in the early 1900s with construction of a 

saltery on the south shore of Thorne Bay. 

Thorne Bay developed as a result of the long-term timber sale contract between the Forest 

Service and the Ketchikan Pulp Company. In 1960, a floating logging camp was built in 

Thorne Bay, and, in 1962, a shop, barge terminal, log sort yard, and camp were built to 

replace facilities at Hollis. Thorne Bay was incorporated as a second-class city in 1982, 

making it one of Alaska’s newest cities. 

Thorne Bay had a total population of 471 in 2010, approximately 86 or 15 percent fewer 

residents than a decade earlier in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011). The population 

of Thorne Bay is predominantly White (91 percent), with Alaska Native’s accounting for 

2 percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

The Thorne Bay economy is primarily based on the timber industry and the Forest Service 

management of the National Forest. A number of small sawmills are located close to 

town along the Kasaan Road on the southwest side of Thorne Bay (Goose Creek Industrial 

Subdivision). In addition, the offices of the Forest Service’s Thorne Bay Ranger District 

are located in town. Other sources of employment in Thorne Bay include recreation and 

tourism-related activities, including fishing lodges, commercial fishing, and state and local 

government (Dugan et al. 2009). Thorne Bay is located in the Big Thorne project area 

and local residents use the area for subsistence and recreation.

Coffman Cove

Coffman Cove is located on northeast Prince of Wales Island. Settlement of Coffman 

Cove began in 1956 with development of a logging camp. A road connecting Coffman 

Cove to the larger community of Craig was built in the 1980s. The city was incorporated 

in 1989. 

Coffman Cove had a total population of 176 in 2010, approximately 23 or 12 percent 

fewer residents than a decade earlier in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011). The 

population of Coffman Cove is predominantly White (93 percent), with Alaska Native’s 

accounting for 4 percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Logging support services historically provided the majority of employment in Coffman 

Cove. One of the major log transfer sites on Prince of Wales Island is located at Coffman 

Cove. Logging support services still provide some employment, but most employment is 

now recreation and tourism-based. Tourism facilities include fishing lodges, bed and 

breakfast inns, apartment/bunkhouse facilities, and rental cabins, as well as fishing day 

charter operations (Dugan et al. 2009). Commercial fishermen also operate out of the 

cove and local school system, library, general store, and gas station also provide 

employment, as well as services to community residents and the north part of the island. 

Local residents use the area for subsistence and recreation.

Craig

Craig is situated on a small island connected to the west coast of Prince of Wales Island 

by a causeway and is the largest community on Prince of Wales Island. Tlingit fish camps 

and seasonal villages originally occupied the present location of Craig. The city is named 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-14 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

for its contemporary founder, Craig Miller, who in 1907, with the help of local Haidas, 

established a saltery at Fish Egg Island. The Forest Service established a permanent 

ranger station here around 1919. The city of Craig was incorporated in 1922 as a secondclass city under the laws of the territory of Alaska and became a first-class city in 1973. 

Shaan-Seet Inc. (the village corporation established under the ANCSA) received an 

interim conveyance of 20,852 acres in 1979 (ADF&G 1994). 

Craig had a total population of 1,201 in 2010, approximately 196 or 14 percent fewer 

residents than a decade earlier in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011). Alaska Natives 

comprise about 19 percent of the local population, with 64 percent of the population 

identifying as White in the 2010 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

The Craig economy is primarily based on the fishing and timber industries with 

commercial fishing, fish processing, logging, sawmill operations, and government and 

commercial services providing the majority of employment. Craig’s increased role as a 

service and transportation center for the Prince of Wales Island communities has largely 

been responsible for its growth. Columbia Wards Fisheries, a fish buying station, and a 

major cold storage plant are located in Craig and 151 residents hold commercial fishing 

permits. Shan-Seet Village Corporation timber operations is a major employer of local 

residents. Viking Lumber, the largest sawmill presently operating in Southeast Alaska, is 

located between Craig and Klawock. There are also a number of fishing lodges in and 

near town, as well independent operators offering package trips that include guided 

fishing, meals, and lodging (Cerveny 2005; Dugan et al. 2009).

Hollis

Hollis is located on the east side of Prince of Wales Island on Twelvemile Arm. Initially 

settled as a mining camp at the turn of the century, Hollis developed into a logging camp 

in the mid-1950s. In 1960, when Thorne Bay became center of the logging industry on 

central Prince of Wales Island, most Hollis residents moved to Thorne Bay. In recent 

years, Hollis has grown as a community, due in part to the state ferry terminal there. 

Roads now connect Hollis with most other communities on Prince of Wales Island. 

Hollis had a total population of 112 in 2010, approximately 27 or 19 percent fewer 

residents than a decade earlier in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011). The population 

of Hollis is predominantly White (88 percent), with Alaska Native’s accounting for 4

percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Support services for the timber industry, the Inter-Island Ferry, and the Forest Service 

provide the majority of employment to the residents of Hollis. 

Kasaan

Kasaan is a small village located on the eastern side of Prince of Wales Island. Originally 

Tlingit territory, Kasaan gets its name from the Tlingit word meaning “pretty town.” 

Haidas migrated north from the Queen Charlotte Islands in the early 1700s to the Island 

and established the village known as “Old Kasaan.” In 1898 the Copper Queen mine, 

camp, sawmill, post office, and store were built on Kasaan Bay, and the Haida people 

subsequently relocated to this new site in 1904. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects ▪ 3-15

A Federally recognized tribe—the Organized Village of Kasaan—is located in the 

community. Traditionally a Haida village, the population now includes Tlingits, Eskimos, 

and non-Natives, as well as Haidas. The community had a total population of 49 in 2010, 

approximately 10 or 26 percent more residents than a decade earlier in 2000 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000, 2011). Alaska Natives comprise about 35 percent of the local population, 

with 53 percent of the population identifying as White in the 2010 Census (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2011).

The majority of local residents are employed in the public sector. Two residents held 

commercial fishing permits and most villagers participate in subsistence for food sources, 

harvesting deer, salmon, halibut, shrimp, and crab. One tourism-related business operates 

in the village, providing meals and lodging for visitors (Dugan et al. 2009). Local 

residents use parts of the project area for subsistence and recreation activities.

Klawock

Klawock, located on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island, is the second largest 

community on the island. The mouth of the Klawock River, where the village of Klawock 

is now located, has been the site of Tlingit occupation for at least the past 600 years and 

now serves as the center of the Tlingit population on west Prince of Wales Island. A 

trading post and salmon saltery were established in the community in 1868, and the first 

cannery in Alaska was built here by a San Francisco firm in 1878. Klawock was 

incorporated as a first-class city in 1929. 

A Federally recognized tribe—the Klawock Cooperative Association—is located in the 

community. The community had a total population of 755 in 2010, approximately 99 or 

12 percent fewer residents than a decade earlier in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011). 

Alaska Natives comprise about 48 percent of the local population, with 37 percent of the 

population identifying as White in the 2010 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

The community has been historically dependent on fishing and cannery operations; 

however, the timber industry has increased in importance with a relatively large number 

of residents employed in logging and ship loading in the Klawock and Craig area 

(ADCCED 2011). As noted above, Viking Lumber is located between Klawock and 

Craig. A total of 44 residents hold commercial fishing permits.

Retail trade and services are also important to the economy of Klawock. Many residents 

of communities on northern Prince Wales, as well as recreationists and tourists shop at the 

shopping center located in Klawock. There are also three sport fishing lodges that provide 

charter and accommodation packages, as well as an independent operator offering day 

charters. Klawock also has two recreational vehicle (RV) parks that mostly serve longterm visitors (Dugan et al. 2009).

Naukati Bay

Naukati Bay is located on the northwest coast of Prince of Wales Island. The area was 

named “Naukatee Nay” in 1904 after the local Native name for the area. The community 

of Naukati Bay was initially developed as a logging camp, but was later settled as an 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources land disposal site.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-16 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Naukati Bay had a total population of 113 in 2010, approximately 22 or 16 percent fewer 

residents than a decade earlier in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011). The population 

of Naukati Bay is predominantly White (88 percent), with Alaska Native’s accounting for 

6 percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

The Naukati Bay economy is dependent on the timber industry and employment is largely

seasonal. The Naukati Logging camp provides log transfer services for several smaller 

camps on Prince of Wales Island. Three residents held commercial fishing permits in 

2010. Local businesses also include a cabin rental business and one sport fish charter 

operation (Dugan et al. 2009).

Environment and Effects of Significant Issues _________

The CEQ issues guidance to Federal agencies to determine the significant issues 

concerning any proposal, and to eliminate those issues that are not significant, or that are 

outside the scope of this document (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.27). 

With the help of the public and other agencies, the IDT identified four issues to be 

examined in detail for the proposed project. The following sections describe the 

environmental effects of each of the alternatives as they relate to these four issues. Other 

resources for which effects may occur are also discussed in this chapter. The 

environmental effects of timber harvest and road construction on water quality, 

hydrological function, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, visual quality, soils, wetlands and 

other resources within the project area are summarized in the sections below, and 

discussed and analyzed in the specialist reports located in the project record for the Big 

Thorne EIS. All resource reports prepared for this project are incorporated herein by 

reference.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-17

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: Timber supply and timber sale economics affect the stability of 

Southeast Alaska’s forest products industry and the ability of the industry to contribute to 

the local and regional economies.

The Big Thorne Project is intended to provide a stable supply of economic timber over an 

approximate 10-year period. In order to meet this objective, the Project is intended to 

include sufficient units and volume to allow the Forest Service to adjust future timber sale 

offerings from the project area to meet fluctuating market conditions, to the extent 

possible. This long-term stable and economic timber supply is intended to support local 

operators and encourage investment in the wood products industry as it begins to 

transition to young growth harvesting and restoration activities. Timber purchasers and 

others are concerned about the quantity and quality of timber volume offered by the Forest 

Service, the cost of road construction, as well as the logging costs associated with the 

proposed logging systems and silvicultural prescriptions. 

Units of Measure

 Timber volume (old-growth and young-growth) by species

 Acres of harvest by logging system and prescription

 Miles of road construction and reconstruction

 Logging and road costs

 Indicated bid value ($ per MBF)

 Number of annualized direct jobs

Analysis Methods

The Logging System and Transportation Analysis (LSTA) for the Big Thorne project area

is based on the Forest-wide LSTA completed in 2006. The Forest-wide LSTA was 

developed using existing information including topographic maps, aerial photographs, and 

data from past timber sales; it was not field verified. The LSTA for the project area was 

initially revised by the Forest Service IDT based on their local knowledge of the project 

area. Field surveys were conducted in 2010 and 2011 to verify and collect information in 

the project area and harvest units were reviewed for consistency with the 2008 Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a). The LSTA was subsequently updated to incorporate the 

findings of these surveys and project review. In addition, in early 2011 all units and roads 

that entered 2001 IRAs were dropped and revisions were made to incorporate this change, 

as well as potential changes to small old-growth reserve (OGR) boundaries. This process 

is discussed further in Chapter 2, under Alternative Development.

The Financial Analysis Spreadsheet Tool - RV (FASTR) version October 31, 2011 (run 

February 2012) was used to compare alternatives for the Big Thorne Project. On March 

28, 2011, FASTR was approved by the Regional Forester to replace the NEPA Economic 

Analysis Tool Residual Value (NEAT_R) version 2.16 as the Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, financial efficiency and economic analysis tool for use in timber planning. The
3 Environment and Effects 

3-18 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

FASTR model uses the same logging 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 harvest volumes, indicated value, costs, and net stumpage values used in this 

document are current estimates (run February 2012 and based on the latest Official RV 

Update Bulletin October 31, 2011). Values and costs derived from FASTR are based on 

data collected in recent years and represent a snapshot in time. Changes in regional and 

global timber markets and other factors such as fuel costs can dramatically affect 

stumpage values and logging costs at the time of implementation and harvest. These 

estimates are useful primarily for comparing the relative differences among alternatives. 

FASTR is a tool developed for financial analysis and alternative comparisons. It does not 

provide an actual sale appraisal. Project economics can vary greatly depending on the 

quality of timber that is being harvested. FASTR assumes regional averages in regards to 

stand quality and characteristics and, therefore, may not provide an accurate estimate of 

the actual stand conditions. 

At the time of project implementation, merchantable timber within units and any road 

right-of-way located on NFS lands will be cruised to determine the quantity, quality, and 

value of timber for the contract under which that volume of timber is offered. The final 

sale appraisal would be based on the current appraisal bulletin, current cost information,

and a normal profit and risk allowance to determine the minimum advertised stumpage 

value at the time of offering.

Detailed information about the methodology employed in the following analysis is 

presented in the Timber Economics Resource Report (Barnhart and Hitner 2012a) 

prepared for this project.

Affected Environment

The overall analysis area for timber supply and timber sale economics is Southeast Alaska 

because this is the area that could be potentially affected by changes in timber supply. 

Southeast Alaska had an estimated population of 71,664 in 2010, with slightly more than 

two-thirds (67 percent) of that total concentrated in three cities: Juneau, Ketchikan, and 

Sitka (Alaska DOL 2011a). The remaining population is distributed throughout the region 

in more than 30 small communities, most with populations of less than 1,000 residents. 

The communities of Southeast Alaska depend on the Tongass National Forest in various 

ways, including employment in the wood products, commercial fishing and fish 

processing, recreation, tourism, and mining and mineral development sectors. Many 

residents also depend heavily on subsistence hunting and fishing to meet their basic needs. 

Federal lands comprise about 95 percent of Southeast Alaska, with 80 percent of the 

region located on the Tongass National Forest. Appropriate management of the forest’s

natural resources is, therefore, important for local communities and the overall regional 

economy. 

The Big Thorne project area is located on Prince of Wales Island, which has historically 

played an important role in the region’s forest products industry. The population of Prince 

of Wales Island is distributed among many small communities, most of which are 

connected by an extensive road system. Communities located in the vicinity of the Big 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-19

Thorne project area include Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, Klawock, Craig, Hollis, Kasaan, 

and Naukati Bay. Thorne Bay, located within the project area boundary, is the closest 

community to the project. 

Forest Products Industry in Southeast Alaska

The forest products industry has historically been an important part of the economy of 

Southeast Alaska. Timber employment in Southeast Alaska peaked at the end of the 

1980s, with slightly more than 3,500 jobs in 1989 and 1990. Timber employment 

dropped sharply in the 1990s following closure of the large pulp mills in Sitka (1993) and 

Ketchikan (1997) and has continued to decline over the past decade, falling from a recent 

high of 561 jobs in 2003 to 247 jobs in 2010 (Table TSE-1). Tongass National Forest–

related employment in logging and sawmilling declined from 199 jobs in 2003 to 107 in 

2010, a drop of about 50 percent. Non-Tongass timber employment also declined over 

this period, falling from a recent high of 362 jobs in 2003 to 140 in 2010, a decrease of 61 

percent (Table TSE-1). Sawmill employment has historically been supported by Forest 

Service timber sales, with a small contribution from state timber harvest. Logging 

employment is generated from all ownerships, including Native Corporation lands. 

Table TSE-1. Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002–2010

Year1/

Tongass 

Logging2/

Tongass 

Sawmill2/

Total 

TongassRelated 

Employment2/

Other 

sawmill

Other 

Logging

Total Other 

Timber 

Employment

Total 

Industry 

Employment

2002 63 110 173 40 299 339 512

2003 108 91 199 64 298 362 561

2004 82 95 177 53 220 273 450

2005 88 96 184 52 263 315 499

2006 81 77 158 46 217 263 421

2007 44 70 114 63 225 288 402

2008 52 70 122 24 118 142 265

2009 48 39 87 19 110 129 216

2010 61 46 107 7 133 140 247

Notes:

1/ Data are presented by calendar year.

2/ Tongass-related employment estimates are based on the ratio of Tongass timber harvest to total timber harvest in Southeast 

Alaska.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2011a. 

Timber harvest in Southeast Alaska also peaked in the late 1980s, with harvest levels 

slightly below 1,000 million board feet (MMBF) in 1989 and 1990. Total harvest in 2010 

was 112.3 MMBF, about 11.2 percent of peak levels. Harvest on the Tongass accounted 

for 32 percent (35.4 MMBF) of this total, with 59 percent (66.4 MMBF) of the total 

provided by Native Corporation lands (Table TSE-2). 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-20 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table TSE-2. Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2002–2010 

Year Tongass1/ State of Alaska1/

Alaska Native 

Corporations1/ Total1/

2002 33.8 57.3 101.7 192.8

2003 50.8 34.8 105.7 191.3

2004 46.3 24.2 98.9 169.4

2005 49.5 42.9 103.9 196.3

2006 43.1 44.6 71.2 158.9

2007 18.7 44.6 50.0 113.3

2008 28.0 11.9 52.3 92.2

2009 28.4 13.5 51.8 93.7

2010 35.4 10.5 66.4 112.3

Note:

1/ Harvest volumes are in million board feet (MMBF)

Source: USDA Forest Service 2011a

The wood products industry in Southeast Alaska in its current form consists of individualand family-owned sawmills and independent logging businesses. The Tongass Sawmill 

Capacity and Production Report for calendar year 2010 identified 10 active and 3 inactive 

sawmills in Southeast Alaska, with a total installed production capacity of 155.9 MMBF 

(Alexander and Parrent 2012). The mills included in the survey were those assessed in 

previous survey years. The original list of mills to be surveyed, initially identified in 

2001, consisted of the 20 largest and/or most active sawmills at that time. Of these 20 

mills (increased to 22 in 2007), 10 were active in 2010, 3 were inactive, and the other 9 

had been dismantled (Alexander and Parrent 2012). 

Estimated total production for the mills included in the annual mill survey decreased over 

the past decade from 87.1 MMBF in 2000 to a low of 13.4 MMBF in 2009, a net 

reduction of 73.7 MMBF or 85 percent. Production increased somewhat between 2009 

and 2010, with total estimated production of 15.8 MMBF in 2010. This total (15.8

MMBF) represented 13.9 percent of total active processing capacity in 2010, and 10.1 

percent of total active and idle capacity. The Tongass National Forest supplied about 13.7 

MMBF or 87 percent of this total, with state lands responsible for the remaining 13 

percent (Alexander and Parrent 2012). The Tongass share of timber processed locally 

(13.7 MMBF) comprised just 39 percent of the total volume harvested (35.4 MMBF) on 

the Tongass in 2010.

Various purchasers had an estimated total of 92.6 MMBF of uncut timber under contract 

with the Forest Service in July 2012. Alcan Forest Products LLP accounted for 52 percent 

(48.3 MMBF) of this total, followed by Pacific Log & Lumber Ltd with 16 percent (15.0 

MMBF), Icy Straits Lumber & Mill with 11 percent (9.7 MMBF), and Viking Lumber 

with 8 percent (7.8 MMBF) (USDA Forest Service 2012). Viking Lumber was the only 

one of these four purchasers operating a mill in Southeast Alaska in 2011. The Pacific 

Log & Lumber mill in Ketchikan was idle and the Icy Straits Mill in Hoonah was 

damaged in a fire in July 2010 (Alexander and Parrent 2012). The Icy Straits Mill is now

operating again. Alcan Forest Products, based in Ketchikan, does not operate a processing 

facility on the Tongass, but must follow the regional export policy, and sell logs that 

cannot be exported to a processing facility in the state. Twenty-four other purchasers had 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-21

uncut volume under contract; in all cases but two, the amount under contract was less than 

1 MMBF (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Forest Products Industry – Prince of Wales Island

The timber industry has historically played an important role on Prince of Wales Island. 

As noted above, regional timber harvest and employment peaked around 1990. At that 

time, the timber industry accounted for about 470 jobs in the Prince of Wales-Outer 

Ketchikan Census Area (CA).1

 By 2000, timber employment in the Prince of WalesOuter Ketchikan CA had declined to 281 jobs, a drop of close to 60 percent (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). Timber employment declined by a further 174 jobs (62 percent of the 

2000 total) between 2000 and 2010 (Alaska DOL 2011b). In 2010, there were 59 jobs in 

the forestry and logging sector in the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA, with local sawmills 

accounting for about 48 jobs (Alaska DOL 2011b, Alexander and Parrent 2012). 

Together, these jobs represent about 6 percent of total employment in the Prince of WalesHyder CA, down from 15 percent of total jobs in 2000. 

There are a number of wood-processing facilities on Prince of Wales Island in or near the 

Big Thorne project area, including Viking Lumber. In 2010, Viking Lumber accounted 

for 52 percent of total sawmill employment in Southeast Alaska, and 88 percent (13.9 

MMBF) of the sawlog volume processed, which was equivalent to 17.4 percent of the 

mill’s estimated processing capacity (Alexander and Parrent 2012). 

The number of active mills and timber operators on Prince of Wales Island varies at any 

given time. Data compiled by the Forest Service and the State of Alaska identified 25 

mills and timber operators on the island, including six of the active sawmills and two 

inactive sawmills identified in the 2010 mill survey (Alexander and Parrent 2012),

Peterson 2012, USDA Forest Service 2012). In addition, a review of the forestry-related 

businesses in the Alaska Department of Commerce’s business license database identified 

an additional 19 forestry-related businesses on Prince of Wales Island (Alaska Department 

of Commerce, Community & Economic Development [ADCCED] 2012). The other, 

smaller mills on the island produce sawtimber, as well as other value-added products. The 

highest concentration of small mills is in the Goose Creek Industrial Subdivision of 

Thorne Bay, but there are also operators in Craig, Klawock, Coffman Cove, and Edna 

Bay. 

Six of the 10 active facilities included in the 2010 mill survey are located on Prince of

Wales Island, as are two of the three inactive facilities that were included. The active 

facilities are the Porter Lumber Company, Thuja Plicata Lumber Company, Thorne Bay 

Wood Products, and Western Gold Cedar Products located in Thorne Bay, St. Nick Forest 

Products (formerly W.R. Jones and Son Lumber Company) located in Craig, and Viking 

Lumber. Excluding Viking Lumber, these mills had a combined installed production 

capacity of 22.5 MMBF and together processed about 1.2 MMBF in 2010, employing 

about 16 people in the process (Alexander and Parrent 2012). The mill survey also 

 1 CAs are statistical units that are generally recognized as county equivalents from a data reporting standpoint. Data for 

1990 and 2000 are for the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan CA. Parts of this area were annexed in May 2008 by the 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the newly formed Wrangell City and Borough. The remaining area was renamed the 

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-22 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

identified two inactive mills in Thorne Bay: Northern Star Cedar Products and Thorne 

Bay Enterprises. 

Viking Lumber had an estimated 7.8 MMBF of uncut timber under contract with the 

Forest Service in July 2012. Other timber operators on Prince of Wales Island had a 

combined total of 3.9 MMBF of uncut timber under contract with the Forest Service 

(USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Timber Supply and Market Demand

Detailed explanations of the rationale for considering timber harvest in the Big Thorne 

project area and market demand for wood products are presented in Appendix A to this 

document. The 2008 Forest Plan EIS Volume 1 and Appendix G describe the latest 

timber demand analyses and projections prepared for the Tongass National Forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b).

Factors Affecting Timber Sale Economics

There are many factors that can increase the cost of timber sale offerings and increase the 

economic risk for potential purchasers. Factors affecting costs include logging systems, 

harvest methods, silvicultural prescriptions, haul/tow time and distances, and the miles 

and extent of road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance. The value of the timber 

for sale must be sufficient to cover this cost and offer a potential for profit to purchasers. 

Under current Congressional direction (Public Law 112-74, House Report 2055-257, 

Section 414) no timber sale in the Alaska Region shall be advertised if the indicated rate is 

deficit. Sales with volumes under 500 MBF currently do not require a residual value

appraisal and can be advertised using established standard rates. 

The existing road system in the Big Thorne project area allows a large portion of the 

available timber to be harvested using relatively inexpensive shovel or cable yarding 

systems without requiring large amounts of new road construction that would offset the 

economic benefits of using these systems. All of the units in the project area are within 65

road miles of most Prince of Wales Island mills including those in Klawock and the Goose 

Creek Industrial Subdivision near Thorne Bay. Although individual harvest units may not 

be economical to harvest by themselves, the management of less-productive land or land 

containing a higher percentage of defective timber helps to increase future timber yields

by removing the defective or diseased trees. This reduces the spread of disease 

throughout the forest and allows the regeneration of a new rotation of less defective trees 

that can contribute to a more economic future harvest entry. Harvesting units with higher 

value along with lower value units can provide more timber volume by allowing the units 

with lower logging costs to balance those with higher logging costs.

Environmental Consequences

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for timber supply and timber sale economics are 

estimated using quantifiable measures or indicators, as supported by the FASTR financial 

analysis tool, version October 31, 2011. Effects are also discussed in qualitative terms, as 

appropriate.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-23

Timber Volume by Species

Project volume levels affect the Forest Service’s ability to offer economically viable 

timber sales. The volume made available from the project is intended to allow the Forest 

Service to respond to fluctuating market conditions when packaging timber sales. Also, 

the larger the timber sale volume, the greater the ability an operator has to respond to 

market conditions with the volume they have under contract. Larger timber sales occur 

over a larger geographic area and usually include a range of species and timber products. 

This allows the operator to focus harvest on the areas that provide the timber products that 

have higher market demand at that particular time.

Timber volume estimates by species were developed for each harvest unit based on a 

combination of site-specific and project area stand exam information collected in and 

around the planned units (Table TSE-3). These volume estimates are based upon basal 

area plot data collected during the walk-through stand exams along with volume/basal 

area ratios (V-BAR) developed from existing stand exam data plots located within the 

project area. These volumes include a breakout of live and dead volume by species, but 

do not include estimates of the defect or potential product quality of logs. The breakout of 

live and dead volume by species is included in the silvicultural prescription cards prepared 

for the project.

Western hemlock accounts for about half of the total volume under all of the action 

alternatives, with Sitka spruce ranging from 25 percent (Alternative 2) to 30 percent of 

total volume (Alternative 4). Total estimated sawlog volumes range from 82.6 MMBF 

under Alternative 4 to 166.6 MMBF under Alternative 3. Young-growth ranges from 0 

percent (Alternative 2) to 17 percent (Alternative 4) of these total sawlog volumes (Table 

TSE-3). 

The timber volumes proposed for harvest under the action alternatives would help meet 

the purpose and need for the Big Thorne Project, which is to contribute to a long-term 

supply of economic timber for the timber industry on Prince of Wales Island and the 

Tongass National Forest in general (including both large and small operators), in a manner 

that is consistent with the multiple-use goals and objectives of the Tongass Forest Plan. 

The purpose and need for the Project is discussed in Chapter 1.

Table TSE-3. Timber Volume Estimates by Species and Alternative

Species

Volume (MMBF)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Sitka Spruce 0 26.7 44.5 24.5 32.7

Western Hemlock 0 53.3 82.0 42.9 59.7

Western Red Cedar 0 18.3 27.2 10.0 17.0

Alaska Yellow Cedar 0 8.3 12.9 5.3 8.0

Total Sawlog Volume 0 106.6 166.6 82.6 117.4

Total Old-growth Sawlog Volume 0 106.6 150.0 68.7 103.9

Total Young-growth Sawlog Volume 0 0 16.6 13.9 13.5

Utility Volume 0 16.3 22.3 10.8 15.7

Total Sawlog and Utility Volume 0 122.9 188.9 93.4 133.1
3 Environment and Effects 

3-24 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Trees to be maintained in uneven-aged management would represent all species formerly 

in the stand. Large diameter trees maintained may be of low timber value but of high 

wildlife value. Smaller diameter trees of good form and vigor, particularly spruce and 

cedar, would also be maintained. These trees would be left to grow into the next timber 

crop.

Acres of Harvest by Logging System

All action alternatives propose the use of shovel, cable, and helicopter logging systems for 

the harvest of the old-growth units. Alternatives 3 through 5 include commercial thinning 

units using ground-based and cable logging systems. The logging equipment used for oldgrowth timber is typically not operationally or economically efficient for young-growth 

commercial thinning operations. Old-growth harvest equipment is designed to handle 

large log sizes and operate in even-aged harvest units where all the trees are removed. 

Harvest systems used for thinning need to be suitable for yarding small logs while 

operating around the trees that will remain. Large cable-yarding systems designed for 

old-growth harvest are particularly unsuitable for young-growth thinning. Cable-logging 

systems designed for old-growth harvest generally cannot be moved easily enough to be 

economically feasible for thinning young-growth.

Although some old-growth logging equipment, such as shovel loaders, may be 

functionally capable of harvesting young growth, it may not be economically efficient and 

may result in higher amounts of damage to the remaining trees. Table TSE-4 identifies 

the number of acres by planned logging system and silvicultural system or intermediate 

treatment (for young growth).

Table TSE-4. Proposed Logging System and Silvicultural System by Alternative 

Harvest System

Alternative (acres)

1 2 3 4 5

Old-Growth Logging Systems

 Shovel, Even-aged harvest 0 1,918 2,441 690 1,064

 Shovel, 67% Retention Group Selection 0 15 15 330 0

 Cable, Even-aged harvest 0 1,383 1,871 699 730

 Cable, 67% Retention Group Selection 0 0 0 145 0

 Helicopter, Even-aged harvest 0 931 1,474 510 2,148

 Helicopter, 75% Retention Single-Tree Selection 0 393 674 792 596

 Helicopter, 50% Retention Single-Tree Selection 0 304 434 887 474

 Helicopter, 67% Retention Group Selection 0 0 0 170 0

 Total Old Growth 0 4,944 6,909 4,223 5,012

Young-Growth Logging Systems

 Cable, Uniform Thin 0 0 556 418 406

 Cable, Strip Thin 0 0 1,174 955 959

 Ground-based, Uniform Thin 0 0 842 787 716

 Total Young Growth 0 0 2,572 2,160 2,081

Total Treated Acres 0 4,944 9,481 6,383 7,093

Old-Growth Harvest Methods

Shovel and cable are referred to collectively as conventional systems and are generally 

less costly than helicopter yarding. Conventional systems require adjacent road access 

and are most efficient using even-aged harvesting methods. Costs increase due to the
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-25

extra time and care needed to protect residual trees when uneven-aged silviculture 

prescriptions are used. In areas that cannot be accessed cost effectively using 

conventional methods due to high road construction costs or inadequate log suspension, 

helicopter is the assigned yarding system. Helicopter is also used where resource 

concerns, such as road density, preclude the use of conventional logging systems. All of 

these harvest systems are commonly used on Prince of Wales Island.

All of the proposed action alternatives include a mix of even-aged and uneven-aged 

individual tree selection silvicultural prescriptions. Both helicopter and conventional 

systems are used for even-aged and uneven-aged management in the proposed units. 

Uneven-aged management with group selection is also used with conventional logging 

systems in some settings, particularly in Alternative 4. This was primarily done in units 

that have uneven-aged management silvicultural prescriptions, and do not require enough 

new road construction to offset additional cost of helicopter yarding. Table TSE-5 shows 

the increased conventional logging costs with uneven-aged prescriptions.

Table TSE-5. Old-growth Stump to Truck Average Logging Costs

Old-growth Logging System Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Shovel Even-Aged Harvest 0 $131 $131 $137 $132

Shovel Uneven Aged Harvest 0 $158 $157 $167 0

Cable Even-Aged Harvest 0 $256 $256 $273 $258

Cable Uneven Aged Harvest 0 0 0 $305 0

Helicopter 0 $397 $398 $387 $387

Silvicultural prescriptions are designed to address resource concerns related to Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, as well as other land management objectives including 

economics. Even-aged management in harvest units proposed for conventional logging 

allows for lower overall logging and road costs for the volume removed. Uneven-aged 

management prescriptions allow for certain classes of trees to be maintained to meet 

resource objectives while harvesting trees with high timber value that are not necessary to 

meet these objectives. Uneven-aged management using the helicopter logging system 

allows access to areas that are inaccessible or uneconomical for access by road. 

Single-tree selection and group selection were both developed as uneven-aged 

management prescriptions. Single-tree selection would result in a residual stand that is 

well dispersed across the landscape and generally has the least effect on other resources. 

A retention amount of either 50 percent of 75 percent is used depending on windthrow 

risk, wildlife objectives, or scenery requirements. This prescription is operationally and 

economically difficult to implement with conventional harvest systems due to insufficient 

operating room. Group selection creates small harvest openings up to 2 acres in size and 

allows enough room for operation of conventional logging systems. A retention amount 

of 67 percent is used with this prescription.

See the Timber and Vegetation section of this chapter and the corresponding resource 

report prepared for this project for more information on silvicultural prescriptions. 

Shovel yarding is usually the least costly yarding method, as shown in Table TSE-5, and 

is best suited for gentle terrain (generally slopes less than 25 percent) and yarding 

distances less than 800 feet. Shovel yarding involves moving logs from stump to landing 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-26 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

by repeated swinging of logs by a hydraulic, track-based log loader. Depending on slope 

and ground conditions, shovel yarding on steeper ground or over longer distances may be 

possible, but may increase the cost. The well drained and gentle terrain found in much of 

the project area is well suited for shovel yarding. When used with uneven-age 

management, swing corridors would be used to allow room for equipment operation. The 

size and distribution of corridors would be dependent on the terrain and road locations.

Cable yarding is best suited for steeper slopes and allows longer yarding distances. This 

process involves moving logs from stump to landing using a configuration of cables. The 

logs are transported across the landscape, with one or both ends suspended from cables 

while they are moved to the landing. This method is limited in that a clear path is required 

to the landing. Cable yarding costs increase substantially with increased amount of timber 

retention because the tower must be moved more often and cables need to be pulled in and 

out of each yarding corridor. Yarding over long distances increases the time it takes the 

logs to reach the landing and, therefore, also increases the costs. This method is generally 

more costly than shovel yarding. When used with group selection, cable yarding would 

be conducted using yarding corridors. The distribution and shape of corridors would be 

dependent on the topography and landing locations. Some lateral yarding may be required 

to remove trees between yarding corridors.

Helicopter yarding is the most costly yarding method, as shown in Table TSE-5, and is 

most often used in Southeast Alaska to access harvest units where it is a more costeffective approach than road construction and conventional yarding. This process 

involves moving logs, fully suspended, from stump to landing using a helicopter. This 

yarding method causes the least amount of ground disturbance and reduces the need for

new road construction. Although helicopter yarding requires roads to be near enough to 

allow economic feasibility, it does not require direct access to the units. Yarding distance, 

turn time (the time it takes the helicopter to make a round trip from the landing to the unit 

and return), residual canopy closure, and the value of timber yarded influence the 

economics of helicopter yarding. 

Helicopter yarding is the most flexible in the selection of trees to be harvested making it 

more suitable for uneven-aged harvest prescriptions. Although helicopter yarding costs 

increase with higher levels of stand retention and crown closure, the increase is not as 

pronounced as it is for conventional systems, and it can be offset by using harvest 

prescriptions that expand stand value for all resources by leaving the majority of trees 

uncut while focusing harvest on trees with the highest timber value and lowest wildlife 

and other resource values.

Young-Growth Harvest Methods

Two experimental thinning contracts that involved operating in young-growth stands were 

completed on Prince of Wales Island in 2009 and 2010. Most of the logging equipment 

and equipment operators used to complete these contracts were brought to Prince of Wales 

and surrounding islands from the Pacific Northwest and only remained in the area for the 

duration of the contract. To implement the Big Thorne alternatives that include younggrowth commercial thinning (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5), equipment designed for younggrowth thinning operations will likely need to be imported into the area. Although oldgrowth logging equipment may be operationally feasible in some circumstances, it will 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-27

likely be less economically efficient. A lack of consistent young-growth timber sales has 

made it difficult to build or maintain an equipment base specialized for operating in 

young-growth. Young-growth thinning volume provided under the Big Thorne project is 

expected to help establish an equipment base for operating in young-growth in Southeast 

Alaska.

The following sections describe the harvest methods that will need to be developed for 

young-growth thinning in the Big Thorne project area. Young-growth logging costs were 

calculated using the Region 10 Log Cost Calculator tool using stand exam data from the 

Prince of Wales Young-growth Feasibility Study (Table TSE-6).

Table TSE-6. Young-growth Stump to Truck Average Logging Costs 

Young-growth Logging System Cost per MBF

Ground-based, Uniform Thin $227

Cable, Uphill Uniform Thin $450

Cable, Downhill Uniform Thin $569

Cable, Downhill Strip Thin $325

Ground-based uniform thinning operations are planned for areas with slopes up to 35 

percent with a prescription of a uniform thin. Ground-based young-growth thinning can 

be conducted on steeper ground than old-growth shovel yarding because the equipment 

commonly used in young-growth thinning is more suited for steeper terrain. Timber 

felling will typically be completed using feller-buncher machines or cut-to-length 

harvesters, although hand felling may be used when necessary. These machines will 

allow the pre-bunching of logs or trees and the placement of these bunches in an 

orientation that allows them to be yarded to the road system efficiently in a manner that 

causes minimal residual stand damage. Yarding equipment options in these areas include 

small- to medium-size tracked bulldozers, forwarders, clam-bunk skidders, and trackbased log loaders. 

Due to the low bearing capacity of most soil types in the project area, ground-based 

thinning may be a less desirable yarding method and may prove to be less cost effective 

than cable yarding. Forwarders have not been widely used in Southeast Alaska and it is 

expected that the soil conditions, undulating terrain, and remaining old-growth stumps and 

logs may inhibit their use. There are a few units in the Big Thorne project area that have 

external yarding distances over 800 feet and would, as a result, likely require some form 

of forwarding equipment.

The uniform thin treatment is being used with a “crown thinning” treatment where most 

cut trees will consist of poor quality trees from the middle and upper crown. High quality 

dominant and co-dominant trees will be retained with the exception of trees that need to 

be removed for yarding corridors and skid trails.

Ground-based thinning is generally the method with the lowest logging cost (see Table 

TSE-6). The lower cost allows settings that can be harvested with ground-based 

equipment to improve the overall economics of the project. This equipment does not 

require straight corridors to operate within, which allows more flexibility to retain highquality trees that will be of greater future economic value.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-28 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Cable uniform thinning operations are planned for all uphill settings with slopes that 

exceed 25 percent and downhill settings where full suspension can be achieved. Straight 

yarding corridors that are typically 12 to 15 feet in width will need to be located and 

marked during implementation. Settings will consist of a combination of parallel 

corridors that are typically spaced between 150 and 200 feet apart, and corridors that 

radiate from a single landing with a spacing of approximately 150 to 200 feet at the back 

end of the units. The specific design would depend upon topography and road location 

and alignment. 

Hand felling methods will likely be required in these units; however, opportunities for 

mechanical felling will also likely exist, which will increase the efficiency of the yarding 

operation. Directional felling methods will be critical to the efficiency of these 

operations. Cable yarding production is significantly increased in units where harvesters 

are used to fell and pre-bunch logs making it a viable economic option. Multi-span cable 

systems can also extend the range of operation beyond what can be efficiently yarded with 

ground-based equipment. Cable yarders will typically be small machines with tower 

heights between 30 and 55 feet, capable of using intermediate support jacks, with skyline 

carriages capable of passing over intermediate support jacks and pulling line from the 

yarder to the choker setters. Appendix B to the Timber Economics Resource Report 

(Barnhart and Hitner 2012a) prepared for this project is a case study of a cable thinning 

operation in Oregon that involved thinning stands similar in tree size to what is planned 

for the Big Thorne project area.

The uniform thin treatment is being used with a “crown thinning” treatment where most 

cut trees will consist of poor quality trees from the middle and upper crown. High-quality 

dominant and co-dominant trees will be retained with the exception of trees that need to 

be removed for yarding corridors and skid trails.

Uniform cable thinning has the highest logging cost of the harvest methods utilized (Table 

TSE-6). This method is used only in areas where ground-based equipment is not 

operationally or economically feasible. Although it has a higher logging cost than strip 

thinning, it is preferred where operationally feasible because uniform cable thinning 

focuses on removal of poorer-quality trees, which increases the potential future value of 

the stand. Strip thinning, as noted below, removes all trees within the strips, and therefore 

does not have the flexibility to select trees for removal that will increase the future stand 

value.

Cable systematic “strip” thinning operations are planned for downhill units where full 

suspension cannot be achieved. Although uniform thinning is the preferred treatment,

systematic or strip thinning may be used in some settings to reduce residual tree damage, 

allow operational feasibility, or reduce treatment costs. The strip thins will harvest a 20-

to 60-foot-wide strip of timber and then leave a strip of timber approximately 60 to 120 

feet in width (matrix area). The corridor width would depend on operational feasibility, 

visual concerns, and/or windthrow risk. The matrix area will be thinned where 

operationally feasible. These strips will preferably be placed perpendicular to the slope 

and be parallel to each other. 

Hand felling will be used for most of these operations; however, opportunities for 

mechanical felling will also likely exist, which will increase the efficiency of the yarding 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-29

operation. Cable yarders in these operations will generally need to have at least three 

drums in order to operate a haulback line to pull the carriage up the corridor to the choker 

setters. Small- to medium-size towers and swing yarders that are easy to move would be 

ideal for these operations. Some settings may facilitate the use of high-lead yarding and 

would, therefore, only require yarders with two drums; however, these systems face 

operational difficulties with thinning, and are more prone to trees hanging up in other 

trees. They may be used in occasional situations that allow suspension requirements to be 

achieved, but they are not expected to be feasible in most settings.

Although cable strip thinning is more expensive than ground-based thinning, it is less 

expensive than uniform cable thinning. This is due to the fact that strip thinning removes 

all trees within the strip. Trees in uniform thinning are more dispersed among residual 

trees and therefore have greater yarding difficulties and costs.

Road Costs

Road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance involve substantial costs, as shown in 

Table TSE-7, and strongly affect timber sale economics. By using the most cost-effective 

transportation system while maintaining the appropriate design standards to meet resource 

requirements, these costs can be reduced. All of the new road construction currently 

proposed in the action alternatives is designed to provide access to the old-growth units. 

Access development to young-growth units is currently limited to reconstruction of 

currently decommissioned roads and the opening of roads currently in storage. These 

roads cost less to construct than new roads and subsequently improve the economics of 

young-growth treatments. Decommissioned roads often provide sufficient access to 

young-growth units because roads were constructed to harvest the previous stand. 

Although not currently planned, some new construction may be determined to be 

necessary in these areas during presale implementation.

Road costs for the economic analysis are taken from the Transportation Resource Report 

(Barnhart and Hitner 2012b) prepared for this project. Construction costs for NFS roads 

are higher than the costs of building temporary roads. New road construction was 

designated either as NFS or temporary based on future access needs. Road crossings over

fish streams can add substantial costs at approximately $20,000 per crossing. Average 

road costs in the project area may be summarized by road construction type as follows:

 New NFS road construction $175,000/mile

 NFS road constructed over decommissioned road grade $30,000/mile

 New temporary road construction $110,000/mile

 Temporary road construction over decommissioned road grade $20,000/mile

 Reconstruction of stored NFS roads $30,000/mile

 Storage and decommissioning of roads $4,000/mile

 Decommissioning of temporary roads $3,000/mile

 Additional cost for fish stream crossings (temp. bridges) $20,000/bridge
3 Environment and Effects 

3-30 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table TSE-7 provides a summary of road construction requirements for each alternative. 

Table TSE-8 shows the resulting road storage and decommissioning cost for each 

alternative.

Table TSE-7. Proposed Road Construction and Reconstruction by Alternative

Road Construction/

Reconstruction Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

NFS Road Construction Miles 0 12 17 3 2

Cost $0 $1,869,000 $2,788,000 $455,000 $301,000

Temporary Road 

Construction

Miles 0 23 39 16 14

Cost $0 $2,312,000 $3,268,000 $1,182,000 $992,000

NFS Stored Road 

Reconstruction

Miles 0 19 39 22 16

Cost $0 $1,319,000 $2,411,000 $1,265,000 $1,009,000

Total Miles 0 54 95 41 32

Cost $0 $5,500,000 $8,467,000 $2,902,000 $2,302,000

Table TSE-8. Road Storage and Decommissioning Costs by Alternative

Storage/Decommissioning Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Storage of NFS Roads After Use $0 $124,000 $225,000 $98,000 $69,000

Decommission Temporary Roads $0 $69,000 $115,000 $49,000 $42,000

Total Storage and 

Decommissioning

$0 $193,000 $330,000 $147,000 $111,000

Haul Costs

Haul costs used in the analysis presented in this document are based on round-trip truck 

haul to Viking Lumber near Klawock for all Phase 1 harvest units and truck haul to the 

Goose Creek Industrial Subdivision (near Thorne Bay) for all Phase 2 harvest units. 

Phase 2 harvest units would likely be offered as small sales that could be purchased by 

smaller operators located at the Goose Creek Industrial Subdivision. Transporting logs by 

raft or barge to a mill off the Prince of Wales Island road system would incur additional 

expense. Truck haul to the Coffman Marine Access Facility (MAF) and Thorne Bay 

MAF, with water tow costs to mills in other locations was considered. However, with the 

improved highways on Prince of Wales Island, preliminary analysis showed the total costs 

to be higher for all harvest units in all alternatives. Average costs for haul to the Coffman 

and Thorne Bay MAFs are lower than those for haul to Klawock for some settings; 

however, barging and rafting costs would be incurred from Coffman Cove and Thorne 

Bay and would more than offset the savings in trucking. Assumed average travel speeds 

for each road class are identified in Table TSE-9.

Table TSE-9. Average Truck Speeds Used for Analysis

Road Class Avg. Travel Speed (mph)

Highway 38

Arterial 22.5

Collector 15

Local 11

Temporary 9
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-31

Pond Log Values

Pond log values are the price a buyer would pay for a log at the mill site (selling value 

minus manufacturing costs). These values depend primarily on species and log quality 

and are strongly affected by regional and global fluctuations in markets. The FASTR 

financial analysis tool has very limited log quality inputs and relies primarily on regional 

averages. Actual log quality may deviate from the regional averages and cause variations 

in the log values. There are some measures that can be taken, such as single tree 

selection, to increase average pond log values at implementation and create more 

economically viable timber sale offerings. Trees that currently have less economic value 

but have potential for higher future values can be retained to allow economically feasible 

future entries. This could be most effectively applied to helicopter settings because the 

retention trees pose operational difficulties to equipment trying to operate within the 

stand. A contract provision for optional removal of utility wood can also increase overall 

values by allowing the operator to leave utility wood in the harvest unit even though the 

purchaser must pay for the wood. FASTR-generated estimates of average pond log values 

are presented for each alternative in Table TSE-10. 

Table TSE-10. Pond Log Values by Species and Alternative

Pond Log Value $/MBF

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Sitka Spruce $0 $862 $809 $781 $804

Western Hemlock $0 $409 $391 $368 $382

Western Redcedar $0 $303 $303 $303 $303 

Alaska Yellow-Cedar $0 $680 $680 $680 $680 

Weighted Average Pond Log Value $0 $525 $511 $502 $509

FASTR-generated log values vary between alternatives depending on the composition of 

young growth and the amount of volume going to domestic or export markets. FASTR 

assumes that all western redcedar is processed domestically and that all Alaska yellow 

cedar is sent to markets outside of Alaska. Therefore, the assumed pond log values for 

these species do not change among alternatives. All young-growth timber is appraised for 

export. The volume of export versus domestic processing is adjusted for the FASTR 

program until the volume appraised for export is equal to 50 percent as explained in the 

Limited Interstate Shipment Policy section below. The pond log values for these species 

vary by alternative, as shown in Table TSE-10, depending on these adjustments. More 

accurate log values would be used at the time of appraisal based on the cruise information 

for the project area, which units are in the sale, silvicultural prescriptions, and logging 

systems.

Limited Interstate Shipment Policy

In March 2007, the Regional Forester approved the limited interstate shipment policy, 

which allowed certain unprocessed spruce and hemlock logs to be appraised for shipment 

to the Lower 48 states. This policy was expanded to allow foreign export in 2008 for 

existing contracts if a premium was paid for certain species. The policy was expanded in 

November 2009 for all contracts. At that time, a foreign market appraisal was established 

for use on timber sales to reflect export values for spruce and hemlock (USDA Forest 

Service 2012). The 2009 policy allows export of 50 percent of total sawlog volume 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-32 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

applied to spruce and hemlock logs. Western redcedar and Alaska yellow cedar may also 

be exported.

The limited shipment policy enhances opportunities for local supply to manufacturers who 

depend on Tongass timber by increasing the probability that sales will appraise positive as 

required by Public Law 112-74, House Report 2055-257, Section 414.

The limited shipment policy is reviewed on an annual basis. A recent briefing paper 

(April 2012) stated that given current economic conditions, specifically, the housing 

market slump and low wood products prices, the limited shipment policy will likely be 

needed for at least 2 more years. 

Opportunities for Small Sales

The project area’s geographic location places it within easy reach of most of the existing

small mills on Prince of Wales Island. These mills typically rely on nearby, roadaccessible timber for their wood supply and, individually, tend to process less than 1 

MMBF a year. This was the case with estimated volumes processed by the small mills in 

Thorne Bay included in the 2010 mill survey, with annual volumes ranging from 30 MBF 

(Porter Lumber Co) to 600 MBF (Thorne Bay Wood Products) (Alexander and Parrent

2012). Small timber sales generally require lower variable logging costs to be 

economically viable because fixed costs are distributed over a smaller volume of timber. 

Costs associated with transporting timber are reduced in cases where timber is roadaccessible and involves shorter hauls to local mills.

Each action alternative includes harvest units of suitable size, design, and species

composition for timber sale offerings of less than 1 MMBF. The extent of these 

opportunities for each alternative is strongly correlated to the total harvest acres and, more 

specifically, to those acres proposed for harvest using conventional logging systems. The 

timber volume in any of the action alternatives could be administratively separated into 

several smaller sales. 

Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy

The Forest Plan ROD defined a Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy that 

restricts timber sales and associated road construction to a specified portion, or phase, of 

the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) land base until actual timber harvest indicates the need 

for a larger land base (USDA Forest Service 2008c). This strategy divided the ASQ land 

base into three phases (Phases 1 through 3). The Forest is currently offering timber sales 

on lands designated as Phase 1 under the Adaptive Management Strategy. Timber from 

lands designated as Phase 2 under the Adaptive Management Strategy cannot be offered 

for sale until the total harvest of timber on the Tongass exceeds 100 MMBF for two 

consecutive years. At this time, timber from these lands can be offered as microsales2

, 

salvage sales, or commercial timber sales less than 1 MMBF, which could potentially 

benefit the small mills on Prince of Wales Island.

 1 Micro sales of down or dead trees are limited to no more than 50 MBF and are intended to supply small niche-market 

timber processors.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-33

The Big Thorne project area includes three VCUs that are designated Phase 2; units in the 

Big Thorne alternatives are in two of these VCUs. These units are included to be offered 

for sale at this time as small sales less the 1 MMBF to benefit the small mills on Prince of 

Wales Island. The proposed acres and volumes in Phase 2 lands by alternative are 

displayed in Table TSE-11. Phase 2 harvest units include only old growth timber. The 

number of Phase 2 units ranges from 16 under Alternative 4 to 30 under Alternative 3 

(Table TSE-11).

Table TSE-11. Proposed Harvest Acres and Volumes in Phase 2 Lands

Acres/Volume

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Number of Phase 2 Harvest Units 0 21 30 16 18

Phase 2 Harvest Acres 0 571 776 433 487

Percent of Total Acres1/ 0 12% 8% 7% 7%

Sitka spruce (MMBF) 0 1.0 2.7 0.3 1.1

Western hemlock (MMBF) 0 6.6 8.2 1.9 6.2

Yellow cedar (MMBF) 0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

Western redcedar (MMBF) 0 5.3 5.9 1.3 3.7

Total Phase 2 Harvest (MMBF) 0 12.9 17.6 3.6 11.0

Percent of Total Harvest Volume2/ 0 12% 11% 4% 9%

Notes:

1/ Total acres are presented by alternative in Table TSE-4.

2/ Total estimated harvest volumes are presented by alternative in Table TSE-3.

Phase 2 lands range from 7 percent of total proposed harvest acres under Alternatives 4 

and 5 to 12 percent under Alternative 2. As a share of total estimated harvest, Phase 2 

lands range from 4 percent under Alternative 4 to about 12 percent under Alternative 2 

(Table TSE-11).

Timber Economics Alternative Comparison

The FASTR model was used to provide an indication of bid value for each of the action 

alternatives. As currently allowed under the limited shipping policy, a mix of foreign and 

Alaska markets were used to perform the financial analysis for each alternative (USDA 

Forest Service 2011b). All yellow cedar and young-growth thinning timber (western 

hemlock and Sitka spruce) were appraised to export markets. All western redcedar and 

old-growth Sitka spruce timber volume was appraised to Alaska markets. Different levels 

of old-growth western hemlock volume (ranging from 2 to 17 percent) were appraised to 

Alaska markets with the remainder being appraised to foreign markets, depending on the 

alternative. The level of old-growth western hemlock appraised to foreign markets was 

adjusted to achieve the maximum percent of foreign export volume for each alternative 

allowed under the current limited shipping policy.

Overall, young-growth thinning had an adverse effect on the economics of Alternatives 3, 

4, and 5. This was due to the higher logging costs, and lower overall pond log values 

achieved by young-growth. Although the young-growth thinning on its own would have 

resulted in negative indicated bid values, positive values were achieved in Alternatives 3 

and 5 due to the better economics of old-growth harvest.

When a timber sale is prepared for sale, the Alaska region appraises the sale using the 

Residual Value method to arrive at fair market value for timber sold. Revenues (final 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-34 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

product selling values) used in the Residual Value appraisal are determined from a sample 

of timber purchaser’s records. Revenues are brought back to Alaska mills (subtracting 

freight from point of sale) and are converted to log scale ($/MBF). Operational cost or the 

cost of logging and transportation ($/MBF) are subtracted to estimate value on the stump. 

An amount for normal profit and risk is subtracted to determine the stumpage value. The 

remainder is the indicated advertised rate or amount per MBF the Forest Service thinks 

that a purchaser with average costs and markets can pay for the project volume, while still 

maintaining profitability. 

The FASTR model uses current revenues and costs, estimates of volume and regional 

averages to derive an estimate of value for comparison of alternatives. Estimates are 

presented by alternative in Table TSE-12. These values are current estimates and useful 

for comparing relative differences between alternatives. Values at the time the timber sale 

is offered may be different, depending on markets, configuration of the sale, and cruised 

volume. Under current Congressional direction (Public Law 112-74, House Report 2055-

257, Section 414) no timber sale in the Alaska Region shall be advertised if the indicated 

rate is deficit. Stumpage rates must be at least the established minimum rates for any 

timber of merchantable size and quality (FSM 2431.31b). Under current estimates of 

volume and value, Alternative 4 currently appraised at a deficit and could not be offered. 

Parts of this alternative could be redesigned into a more positive offer. In addition, as 

noted, while these values are suitable for a comparison of alternatives, actual values will 

not be determined until the time of sale, and will be based on cruised volume and values 

based on current market conditions at that time.

Table TSE-12. Costs and Values by Alternative

Cost Types Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Average Pond Log Value Weighted by 

Species ($/MBF)1/

$0 $525 $511 $502 $509

Delivered Logging Cost ($/MBF)2/ $0 $243 $262 $298 $309

Haul Cost ($/MBF)3/ $0 $47 $51 $52 $49

Road Construction/Maintenance 

($/MBF)4/

$0 $59 $58 $44 $27

Profit & Risk Margin ($/MBF) $0 $115 $113 $111 $112

Indicated Bid Value ($/MBF)5/ $0 $55.59 $22.31 ($7.51) $6.56

Total Indicated Bid Value $0 $5,926,000 $3,717,000 ($621,000) $770,000 

1/ Pond Log Value: Final product (lumber) values minus production costs (milling) or what a mill of average efficiency 

can pay for delivered logs

2/ Delivered Logging Cost: The harvesting costs for an operator of average efficiency

3/ Haul Cost: Cost of round-trip truck transport to Klawock or Goose Creek, based on weighted average distance and 

speed 

4/ Road Cost: Estimated average cost of new road construction, existing road reconstruction and maintenance

5/ Indicated Advertised Value: Pond Log Value minus stump to mill costs and other associated costs (camp, lodging, 

P&R margin, etc.)

Projected Employment and Income

In accordance with the purpose and need for the proposed action, the action alternatives 

would contribute to a long-term supply of timber for the wood products industry in 

Southeast Alaska. The action alternatives would harvest old-growth timber from 

approximately 4,200 to 6,900 acres and Alternatives 3 through 5 would commercially thin 

young-growth forest on 2,100 to 2,600 acres using various sizes of timber sales
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-35

(Table TSE-4). There would be no commercial thinning under Alternative 2. The sawlog 

volumes available under the action alternatives (ranging from 82 to 167 MMBF) would be 

used to offer economically viable timber sales and would be adjusted to reflect changing 

market conditions as needed. Timber harvest would support direct jobs in the wood 

products industry, as well as indirect jobs in other local and regional economic sectors. 

Direct employment and income estimates are presented as a range in Table TSE-13. 

These estimates are for employment that would take place in Southeast Alaska. Although 

estimates of value for timber in the various alternatives are based on maximizing shipment 

out of state of timber sold in the plan area, purchasers have the choice to sell as much as 

they can to other markets as allowed under the limited shipment policy, or process part or 

all of the material in local sawmills. Actual employment and income in southeast Alaska 

would depend on choices made by purchasers; those choices may change as markets and 

prices shift. Under current market conditions, purchasers are likely to export as much as 

they can while processing enough material locally to keep manufacturing facilities open, 

and take advantage of opportunities to produce high value sawn material in Southeast 

Alaska. 

Table TSE-13. Estimated Timber Volume, Employment, and Income by Alternative 

Volume/Jobs/Income

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Total Sawlog Volume (MMBF) 0 106.6 166.6 82.6 117.4

Utility Volume (MMBF) 0 16.3 22.3 10.8 15.7

Jobs Related to Logging1/ 0 241 377 187 265

Jobs Related to Sawmilling1/2/ 0 156 - 275 242 - 429 117 - 214 169 - 304

Jobs Related to Transportation and 

Other Services1/2/3/ 0 70 - 110 109 - 173 54 - 87 76 - 122

Total Direct Jobs1/2/ 0 507 - 585 792 -915 391 - 455 557 - 646

Direct Income ($ million)4/ 0 25.9 - 27.4 40.5 - 42.8 20.0 - 21.3 28.5 - 30.2

Notes:

1/ Memo Employment Coefficients and Indirect Effects, for NEPA planning: 2012 Update Source: Susan Alexander, 

Alaska Region Economist

2/ Local sawmilling and transportation-related employment estimates are based on a range, from maximum possible 

shipment out of state (50% of hemlock and Sitka spruce, and export of all Alaska yellow cedar), to no shipment of 

hemlock and Sitka spruce and export of 50% Alaska yellow cedar. Although all Alaska yellow cedar sold from the 

Tongass National Forest can be exported out of state, regional sawmills often manufacture the species into high value 

lumber. 

3/ Transportation and other services include water transportation, independent trucking, stevedoring, scaling, and export 

marking and sort yard employment for export volume, and water transportation, scaling, and independent trucking for 

locally sawn volume. Export employs more workers in transportation and other services per MMBF harvested than 

domestic production. This is reflected in the range of values presented above. 

4/ Sawmill and transportation-related income estimates are based on the same assumptions as employment and are 

presented as a range. 

Jobs are presented in Table TSE-13 as “annualized” job-years. Annualized jobs are 

employment estimates adjusted to be based on a full year even though the employment 

may be seasonal. The resulting employment estimates would not all occur in one year and 

estimated job-years do not directly translate into numbers of affected workers. The job 

and income estimates presented in Table TSE-13 are approximate numbers based on 

average jobs per MMBF ratios that were estimated using harvest and employment data 

from 2007 to 2010. These numbers allow a comparison of the different alternatives based 

on total volume harvested. Actual numbers would vary under each alternative as timber 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-36 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

offerings are packaged to include some or all of the units, and individual sales targeted for 

different sized operators are developed. 

Indirect employment effects are not estimated in Table TSE-13 because, while indirect 

employment coefficients can be estimated and are applicable at large scales, such as 

regional or statewide assessments, they are less useful at small local scales and can in fact 

be misleading. Indirect effects include jobs and income associated with industries that 

supply inputs to the harvest and processing sectors, as well as those supported by spending 

elsewhere in the local economy. 

Forest Service Costs

Forest Service Financial Efficiency Analysis as required by FSH 2409.18 compares 

estimated Forest Service direct expenditures with estimated financial revenues. Estimates 

are presented for sale preparation, sale administration, and engineering support costs in 

Table TSE-14, using average costs per MBF calculated from multiple years. Sale 

preparation costs include unit layout, cruising, appraisal, and contract development. Sale 

administration consists of administering the timber sale contract from the time the sale is 

awarded until the sale is completed. Engineering support consists of planning and timber 

sale contract administration activities associated with new facility and road construction, 

use of existing facilities and road maintenance.

The cost estimates presented below are, as noted, based on average costs per MBF. There 

are a number of factors that could cause actual costs to be higher or lower than regional 

averages. Sale preparation costs increase when implementing uneven-aged harvest units, 

as compared to even-aged harvest units. Implementation and administration of several 

small sales could cost more than one or two large sales. Accessibility to the units is 

another major cost factor. The numbers presented in Table TSE-14 are useful to compare 

relative differences among alternatives

Table TSE-14. Estimated Forest Service Financial Costs and Revenues by Alternative

Forest Service Costs1/

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Sale Preparation $0 $2,452,000 $3,832,000 $1,901,000 $2,700,000

Sale Administration $0 $960,000 $1,500,000 $744,000 $1,057,000

Engineering Support $0 $2,985,000 $4,665,000 $2,314,000 $3,287,000

Total Financial Costs $0 $6,397,000 $9,997,000 $4,959,000 $7,044,000

Indicated Advertised Rate $0 $5,926,000 $3,717,000 ($621,000) $770,000 

Net Value2/ $0 ($471,000) ($6,280,000) ($5,580,000) ($6,274,000)

1/ Based on Alaska Region’s average budget allocation for cost centers. These costs are as follows: Sale Preparation 

$23/MBF; Sale Administration $9/MBF, and Engineering Support $28/MBF.

2/ Indicated bid value minus total project costs.

In addition to the costs identified in Table TSE-14, the Forest Service also incurs 

environmental analysis and documentation costs including field inventory, data analysis, 

public involvement, and preparation of documents that satisfy the requirements of NEPA. 

These costs are not included in Table TSE-14 because they are considered sunk costs that 

apply across all alternatives, including the no action alternative. An average cost of 

$41/MBF for environmental analysis and documentation was used to determine feasibility 

at the project proposal stage. The total cost for this project calculated for Alternative 2 

was estimated to be $2.5 million. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-37

The above financial efficiency analysis compares those costs and benefits for each 

alternative that can be quantified in terms of actual dollars spent or received in the project 

area. This type of analysis does not account for non-market benefits, opportunity costs, 

individual values, or other values, benefits, and costs that are not easily quantifiable. This 

is not to imply that such values are not significant or important, but to recognize that nonmarket values are difficult to represent by appropriate dollar figures. Financial efficiency 

should not be viewed as a complete answer but as one tool decision-makers can use to 

gain information about resources, alternatives, and trade-offs between costs and benefits. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, there would be no timber volume available for sale through the Big 

Thorne Project. The project would not meet the purpose and need, which is to contribute 

to a supply of economic timber industry on Prince of Wales Island and on the Tongass 

National Forest in general (including both large and small operators), in a manner that is 

consistent with the multiple-use goals and objectives of the Tongass Forest Plan. The Big 

Thorne Project is intended to provide a supply of economic timber. In order to meet this 

objective, the project is designed to include sufficient units and volume to allow the Forest 

Service to adjust future timber sale offerings from the project area to meet fluctuating 

market conditions, to the extent possible. A stable and economic timber supply is 

intended to support local operators and encourage investment in the wood products 

industry as it transitions to include more young growth harvesting and restoration 

activities. 

This alternative would not support any direct annualized jobs (Table TSE-13). There 

would be no estimated Forest Service financial costs or revenues under this alternative 

(Table TSE-14). However, as noted above, the Forest Service has incurred sunk costs 

related to satisfying the requirements of NEPA that apply to all the alternatives including 

No Action. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past timber sales have contributed to the development of the existing roaded infrastructure 

that would be used for each action alternative. Timber harvest has been conducted in the 

Big Thorne project area for more than 70 years. Industrial-scale logging activity began in 

the 1960s. More detailed information on past harvest in the project area is provided in the 

Catalog of Events in Appendix D of this EIS.

Under Alternative 1, timber operators on Prince of Wales Island and elsewhere in 

Southeast Alaska would not be able to bid on future timber offerings made available 

through the Big Thorne Project, and would need to obtain timber for processing from 

other sources, as available. Other potential sources of timber in Southeast Alaska include 

timber that will be made available through other timber sales on the Tongass National 

Forest and timber from other lands, primarily State of Alaska and Native Corporation 

lands, as well as existing timber sales already under contract. Sawmill employment in 

Southeast Alaska has historically been supported by Forest Service timber sales, with a 

small contribution from state timber harvest (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-38 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Recent and reasonably foreseeable timber management projects identified for the 

cumulative effects analysis are summarized in Appendix D, Part II of this EIS. These 

include projects located within and near the Big Thorne project area. Identified projects 

on NFS lands are included in the volume under contract discussed in the preceding 

paragraph or involve limited volume, such as the Roadside Micro Timber Sales (Appendix 

D). State timber harvest projects in the Big Thorne project area include an estimated 635 

acres of harvest and approximately 19 MMBF of volume. Other reasonably foreseeable 

projects on state lands on Prince of Wales and surrounding islands involve an estimated 

2,700 acres, including 840 acres on Kosciusko Island (440 acres old-growth; 400 acres 

young growth). Using an average of 1 MMBF/40 acres, this could result in a further 67 

MMBF being available to purchase on state lands in the future.

The Big Thorne Project is an important component of the Forest Service’s plan to meet 

the goals of the Forest Plan and provide an orderly flow of timber to local industry. The 

reasons why the Big Thorne project area was selected are discussed in Appendix A and 

include the well-developed road system within the project area and its proximity to a 

substantial infrastructure of existing saw mills, which included two-thirds of the existing 

processing capacity identified in the most recent mill capacity survey (Alexander and 

Parrent 2012). Other Forest Service projects on the Tongass that include more than 20 

MMBF for commercial harvest and are as far or further along in the planning process than 

the Big Thorne Project are limited to the proposed Tonka Timber Sale on Kupreanof 

Island on the Petersburg Ranger District, which includes 38.5 MMBF from 2,065 acres of 

forest land. The Record of Decision for the Tonka Timber Sale Project was signed in 

March 2012.

In the absence of a multiple-year stable supply of economic timber from the Big Thorne 

Project or elsewhere, the future viability of existing mill operators could be negatively 

affected. Closure of one or more mills could result in a further reduction in jobs in the 

logging and sawmilling industries and could also affect local businesses that provide 

goods and services to these industries.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 2 has the highest estimated pond log value of any alternative ($525/MBF) 

because it includes only old-growth units and also has the lowest estimated logging costs 

($243/MBF), which are achieved by utilizing more conventional logging systems than 

helicopter logging (Table TSE-12). In addition, with the exception of 15 acres of shovel, 

uneven-aged harvest, only even-aged management prescriptions are used with 

conventional systems under this alternative, which further reduces the logging cost. This 

alternative has the lowest estimated haul costs ($47/MBF) because a large portion of the 

units in this alternative are located near Klawock.3 

 3 The logging costs used in the analysis summarized in this document are based on truck haul to Klawock 

for all Phase I harvest units. Costs for all Phase 2 harvest units are based on truck haul to Goose Creek (near 

Thorne Bay).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-39

This alternative has the highest estimated road costs per MBF harvested of any alternative 

($59/MBF). Fewer roads would be built under this alternative than under Alternative 3, 

but the total volume harvested would be lower resulting in slightly higher costs per MBF 

($59/MBF versus $58/MBF) (Table TSE-12). 

Overall, Alternative 2 achieves the highest total indicated advertised value of any 

alternative at $55.59/MBF (Table TSE-12). It utilizes low cost logging systems and has 

the highest log values. It does not treat any young-growth stands and subsequently treats

the fewest total acres of any action alternative (Table TSE-4).

Under Alternative 2, a total of 106.6 MMBF of sawlog volume would be available for 

harvest (Table TSE-3). Assuming all units and volume were harvested, this alternative 

would support an estimated 241 logging jobs and 126 to 275 jobs in the sawmill sectors, 

generating an estimated $16.7 million to $22.3 million in direct income (Table TSE-13). 

This employment would not all occur in one year and estimated job-years do not directly 

translate into numbers of affected workers. 

Total Forest Service financial costs, excluding costs for environmental analysis, would 

exceed the indicated advertised rate estimated for the entire sale volume under this 

alternative by approximately $471,000 (Table TSE-14).

Cumulative Effects 

Timber harvest under this alternative and other reasonably foreseeable projects on the 5-

year plan would contribute to meeting projected market demand for timber in Southeast 

Alaska and support logging and sawmill or export jobs. Reasonably foreseeable projects 

are on the 5-year plan which is periodically updated to add projects. Timber projects 

listed in Appendix D, Part II and discussed under Alternative 1 would also contribute to 

the timber supply. Compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 2 would 

contribute the third highest volume (less than Alternatives 3 and 5, more than Alternative 

4) and has the highest indicated bid rate.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative has an estimated pond log value of $511/MBF, lower than Alternative 2 

and higher than Alternatives 4 and 5 (Table TSE-12). Alternative 3 has the highest 

percentage of western redcedar volume, which has the lowest pond log value. This causes 

a decrease in the average pond log value and negatively affects the economics of the 

alternative.

The estimated logging cost for this alternative is $262/MBF, which is slightly higher than 

the estimated cost for Alternative 2 at $242/MBF, but substantially lower than for 

Alternatives 4 and 5 at $298 and $309, respectively (Table TSE-12). Estimated logging 

costs are higher than those under Alternative 2 because this alternative includes younggrowth thinning units. Thinning has a higher associated cost than even-aged harvesting. 

This alternative also includes a small amount of conventional old-growth logging settings 

assigned an uneven-aged management prescription. Conventional logging costs increase 

when operating in an uneven-aged prescription, as shown in Table TSE-5.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-40 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 3 has the second highest estimated haul costs ($51/MBF). Hauling costs are 

higher than under Alternative 2 because more units are located farther to the north of 

Klawock resulting in longer average haul distances. This alternative has the highest total 

estimated road costs of any action alternative because substantially more roads would be 

built under this alternative, with roads being built to access smaller or low volume units. 

However, viewed per MBF, road costs under this alternative are slightly lower than under 

Alternative 2 ($58/MBF versus $59/MBF) (Table TSE-12).

Alternative 3 has the second highest estimated indicated advertised value at $22.31/MBF, 

less than half the highest value ($55.59/MBF), which is estimated under Alternative 2 

(Table TSE-12). Although it has a lower estimated pond log value and higher average

logging cost than Alternative 2, this alternative treats the largest amount of acres. It also 

includes young-growth thinning units, which could increase future timber values. 

Under Alternative 3, a total of 166.6 MMBF of sawlog volume would be available for 

harvest (Table TSE-3). Assuming all units and volume were harvested, this alternative 

would support an estimated 377 logging jobs and 197 to 429 jobs in the sawmill sector, 

generating an estimated $26.1 million to $34.8 million in direct income (Table TSE-13). 

This employment would not all occur in one year and estimated job-years do not directly 

translate into numbers of affected workers. 

Alternative 3 would treat more total acres (old growth and young growth) than the other 

action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5), ranging from 1.3 times (Alternative 5) to 1.9 

times as many (Alternative 2) and generate sawlog volumes that range from 1.4 times 

(Alternative 5) to twice as many (Alternative 4) as the other action alternatives. These 

higher volumes are reflected in the job and income estimates, which are based on average 

jobs/MMBF ratios (Table TSE-13).

Total Forest Service financial costs, excluding costs for environmental analysis, would 

exceed the indicated advertised rate estimated for the entire sale volume under this 

alternative by approximately $2.6 million (Table TSE-14).

Cumulative Effects 

Timber harvest under this alternative and other reasonably foreseeable projects on the 5-

year plan would contribute to meeting projected market demand for timber in Southeast 

Alaska and support logging and sawmill or export jobs. Reasonably foreseeable projects 

are on the 5-year plan which is periodically updated to add projects. Timber projects 

listed in Appendix C, Part II and discussed under Alternative 1 would also contribute to 

the timber supply. Compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 3 would 

contribute the highest volume and has the second highest indicated bid rate.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative has the lowest estimated pond log value ($502/MBF) among the action 

alternatives (Table TSE-12). This is primarily because young-growth thinning comprises 

a larger share of total harvest than under any of the other alternatives. Alternative 4 has

the second highest logging costs ($298/MBF). This alternative includes a high number of 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics ▪ 3-41

helicopter logging units, which have higher logging costs. Alternative 4 also includes a 

large amount of uneven-aged management prescribed in shovel and cable logging units. 

This prescription is more difficult to implement for conventional logging systems than 

even-aged management, and subsequently has a higher cost.

This alternative has the highest estimated haul costs of any action alternative ($52/MBF) 

because a higher percentage of units being harvested are in the northern part of the project 

area, resulting in a longer average haul distance to Klawock.

The road costs for Alternative 4 ($44/MBF) are lower than under Alternatives 2 and 3

because this alternative includes more helicopter logging. Helicopter logging systems 

typically require less road construction and timber can often be flown to the nearest 

existing roads. 

Alternative 4 has the lowest indicated advertised value of any action alternative. It is the 

only alternative to have a negative estimated value (-$7.51/MBF) (Table TSE-12). Based 

on this value, this alternative would not be saleable at this time. Parts of this alternative 

could be redesigned into a positive offer.

Under Alternative 4, a total of 82.6 MMBF of sawlog volume would be available for 

harvest (Table TSE-3). Assuming all units and volume were harvested, this alternative 

would support an estimated 187 logging jobs and 100 to 214 jobs in the sawmill sector, 

generating an estimated $13.2 million to $17.3 million in direct income (Table TSE-13). 

This employment would not all occur in one year and estimated job-years do not directly 

translate into numbers of affected workers. 

Total Forest Service financial costs, excluding costs for environmental analysis, would 

exceed the indicated advertised rate estimated for the entire sale volume under this 

alternative by approximately $5.6 million (Table TSE-14).

Cumulative Effects 

Timber harvest under this alternative and other reasonably foreseeable projects on the 5-

year plan would contribute to meeting projected market demand for timber in Southeast 

Alaska and support logging and sawmill or export jobs. Reasonably foreseeable projects 

are on the 5-year plan which is periodically updated to add projects. Timber projects 

listed in Appendix D, Part II and discussed under Alternative 1 would also contribute to 

the timber supply. Compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 4 would 

contribute the lowest amount of volume and as the only alternative with a negative 

estimated value has the lowest indicated bid rate.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 5 has the second lowest estimated pond log value of any action alternative 

(Table TSE-10). It includes a lower percentage of high-value spruce than Alternative 4, 

but a higher percentage than Alternative 3. This alternative also includes a small amount 

of conventional old-growth logging settings assigned an uneven-aged management 

prescription. Conventional logging costs increase when operating in an uneven-aged 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-42 ▪ Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

prescription, as shown in Table TSE-5. This alternative includes young-growth treatment 

units, which explains the lower pond log value compared to Alternative 2.

This alternative has the highest estimated logging cost of the action alternatives 

($309/MBF) (Table TSE-12). This alternative minimizes the amount of roads required for 

harvest activities, but, as a result, many units are required to be harvested with a helicopter 

logging system, which has higher average costs than conventional systems. The reduction 

in roads also creates longer yarding distances for helicopter operations. 

Estimated haul costs under this alternative ($49/MBF) are lower than for Alternatives 3 

and 4, and higher than for Alternative 2. Road costs under this alternative ($27/MBF) are 

substantially lower, less than half the values per MBF under Alternatives 2 and 3, because 

fewer miles of roads are proposed than under the other alternatives, resulting in lower road 

building and maintenance costs (Table TSE-12). 

This alternative has a lower positive indicated advertised value of $6.56/MBF than 

Alternatives 2 and 3. This value is primarily the result of higher logging costs. The 

higher cost of using helicopter yarding for more units is not offset by the costs of less road 

construction. This alternative could be still offered because the indicated advertised value 

is above the current established minimum rate (FSM 2431.31b). Parts of the alternative 

could also be redesigned into a more positive offer. 

Under Alternative 5, a total of 117.4 MMBF of sawlog volume would be available for 

harvest (Table TSE-3). Assuming all units and volume were harvested, this alternative 

would support an estimated 265 logging jobs and 141 to 304 jobs in the sawmill sector, 

generating an estimated $18.6 million to $24.6 million in direct income (Table TSE-13). 

This employment would not all occur in one year and estimated job-years do not directly 

translate into numbers of affected workers. 

Total Forest Service financial costs, excluding costs for environmental analysis, would 

exceed the indicated advertised rate estimated for the entire sale volume under this 

alternative by approximately $6.3 million (Table TSE-14).

Cumulative Effects 

Timber harvest under this alternative and other reasonably foreseeable projects on the 5-

year plan would contribute to meeting projected market demand for timber in Southeast 

Alaska and support logging and sawmill or export jobs. Reasonably foreseeable projects 

are on the 5-year plan which is periodically updated to add projects. Timber projects 

listed in Appendix D, Part II and discussed under Alternative 1 would also contribute to 

the timber supply. Compared to the other action alternatives, Alternative 5 would 

contribute the second highest volume (less than Alternative 3, more than Alternatives 2 

and 4) and has the third highest indicated bid rate.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-43

Issue 2: Old-Growth Habitat LUD Modifications

Issue statement: Old-Growth Habitat LUD modifications for the small old-growth 

reserves (OGRs) are proposed to expand the suitable timber base within the roaded land 

base and also to modify the reserves for the biologically preferred locations within the 

project area. This may affect the amount and quality of wildlife habitat protected by the 

small OGRs, the amount and quality of suitable timber available in the project area, and 

other resources including fisheries, sensitive plants, scenery, and recreation.

Alternative 3 includes modifications to relocate the small OGRs within the 2001 Roadless 

Rule inventoried roadless areas. The purpose is to allocate the portions of the OGRs that 

contain existing roads and harvest units to development LUDs where timber harvest is 

allowed. 

Alternative 4 includes modifications to the small OGRs to the biologically preferred 

locations identified by the interagency biologists’ team. This team included biologists 

from the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game). 

The portions of existing OGRs that were relocated under Alternatives 3 and 4, were 

reallocated to Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs, 

based on the adjacent LUDs and Visual Priority Travel Routes and Use Areas to address 

scenery concerns.

Units of Measure

The comparison of alternatives for this issue focuses on the following units of measure:

 LUD acreage changes;

 Comparison to Forest Plan small OGR criteria (Appendices D and K); 

 Acres and volumes suitable for timber production;

 Numbers of sensitive plant individuals and populations within OGRs;

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects related to Old-Growth Habitat LUD 

modifications consists of the VCUs coinciding with the project area. The VCU scale was 

used since the criteria for small OGRs are based on VCUs (Forest Plan Appendix K) and 

they were used during the analysis of the Forest Plan to design and evaluate small OGRs. 

The project area was the analysis area generally used to evaluate the cumulative effects of 

the small OGR modifications. The cumulative effects analysis area for timber resources

was the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts (which includes all of Prince of Wales 

Island and the adjacent islands within the district boundaries).

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

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

the levels of past and likely future harvest and associated development on NFS and nonNFS lands accounting for projects such as Big Thorne. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-44 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Affected Environment

Land Use Designations

As described in Chapter 1, the Forest Plan uses LUDs to guide the management of NFS 

lands within the Tongass. Each designation provides for a unique combination of 

activities, practices, and uses. The Big Thorne project area includes the seven LUDs, 

shown in Table 1-1 and Figure 1-2. The goals and other aspects of each LUD are 

summarized in Chapter 1. 

Tongass Conservation Strategy and Old-growth Reserves

Forest Plan Conservation Strategy

The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy was developed to maintain the integrity of the oldgrowth forest by retaining intact, largely undisturbed habitat. This strategy, initially 

incorporated into the 1997 Forest Plan, was reviewed and amended for incorporation into 

the 2008 Forest Plan. The conservation strategy includes two major components: (1) a 

forest-wide network of large, medium and small OGRs allocated to the Old-Growth LUD 

plus all small islands less than 1,000 acres, and (2) a series of standards and guidelines 

applicable to lands where timber harvest is permitted (the matrix; USDA Forest Service 

2008a, 2008b). 

The OGR system was designed to maintain habitats of the species that have the most

viability concerns (USDA Forest Service 2008b). The reserve network also includes other 

non-development LUDs such as Wilderness, LUD II, Remote and Semi-Remote 

Recreation that essentially maintain the old-growth ecosystem. The intent of the reserve 

system was to help ensure the maintenance of well-distributed viable populations of all 

old-growth associated wildlife species across the Tongass, with focus on those species that 

are most sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation. In general, the home range and 

dispersal capabilities of old-growth associated species of concern were considered in 

determining the size, number and spacing of reserves. For a complete review of the Forest 

Plan Conservation Strategy, including assumptions underlying the design of the OGR 

system, refer to Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 

2008b). 

Within the matrix (areas outside of reserves), components of the old-growth ecosystem are 

maintained through standards and guidelines designed to provide for important ecological 

functions such as dispersal of organisms, movement between forest stands, and 

maintenance of ecologically valuable structural components such as down logs, snags, and 

large trees (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Matrix lands include Experimental Forest, 

Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, and Timber Production LUDs. Matrix 

management complements the reserve system by providing habitat at smaller spatial 

scales, increasing the effectiveness of reserves, and improving landscape connectivity 

(USDA Forest Service 2008b). Standards and guidelines applicable to these lands include 

maintenance of the 1,000-foot beach buffer, variable-width stream buffers, and projectlevel legacy forest structure retention requirements (see Chapter 2). In addition, other 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines preclude or limit timber harvest in areas of highhazard soils, steep slopes, karst terrain, and visually sensitive travel routes and use areas. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-45

Finally, a number of species-specific standards and guidelines, such as raptor nest and 

wolf den buffers, set aside old growth, sometimes temporarily, to avoid impacts to the 

species in question. Additional detail on the rationale behind the standards and guidelines 

within the matrix is provided in Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b).

Old-growth Reserves

The Big Thorne project area includes small OGRs located in VCUs 5790, 5800, 5810, 

5820, 5830, 5840, 5850, 5860, 5950, 5960, and 5972 (Figure OGR-1; Figure 1-2 in 

Chapter 1 displays the locations of the Old-Growth Habitat LUDs in relation to other 

LUDs and roadless areas). The project area also incorporates other VCUs or portions of 

VCUs (Table WLD-1). A substantial portion of the Honker Divide large OGR complex,

which spans several VCUs and is made up of several different LUDs, is within the project 

area. Only VCUs with small OGRs and proposed project activities were considered for 

modifications. Medium OGRs have been designated in adjacent VCUs to the north and 

west. Under the Forest Plan conservation strategy, small OGRs were intended to facilitate 

functional connectivity (i.e., connectivity through disconnected patches of old-growth 

forest) between larger reserves and help ensure well-distributed wildlife populations. 

During the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment process, an interagency biologist review team 

(2008 IRT) conducted a forest-wide review of small OGRs because small OGR locations 

had not been finalized under the 1997 Forest Plan. For each VCU, the 2008 Interagency 

review team evaluated consistency with Forest Plan OGR acreage requirements (outlined 

in Appendix K of the Forest Plan). All existing small OGRs meet or exceed the Forest 

Plan acreage requirements (this includes exceptions for VCUs that are partially designated 

as very large, large, or medium OGRs where acreage from these reserves count toward the 

total). This evaluation formed the basis for the biologically preferred small OGR 

locations recommended by the 2008 IRT, which was one of several factors taken into 

account by the Forest Supervisor in finalizing the small OGR locations under the 2008 

Forest Plan. Appendix D of the Forest Plan FEIS includes design criteria that were used 

in the development of the reserve system (see the Wildlife and Subsistence resource report 

for additional detail).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-46 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure OGR-1. Existing Old-growth Reserves in the Big Thorne Project Area
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-47

Existing Small Old-growth Reserves by VCU

This section provides a summary-level description for each of the small OGRs in the 

project area. 

VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek) – This small OGR is linear, running southwest 

to northeast through VCU 5790, connecting to the small OGR in VCU 5800, and 

approaching to within 3,500 to 4,500 feet of the Honker large OGR. Without a 

connection through a non-development LUD to the Honker large OGR complex through 

VCU 5780, the existing biological functionality of the complex of small OGRs in VCUs 

5790, 5800, and 5840 is diminished due to the high level of previous harvest and natural 

fragmentation between these VCUs and the Honker large OGR which may preclude 

dispersal if additional harvest occurs in the future. Minimum Forest Plan acreage 

requirements are met.

VCU 5800 (North Thorne River) – This small OGR is located to the west of the North 

Thorne drainage. It provides connectivity from the Honker large OGR complex to salt 

water in the east (Clarence Strait) via the small OGR in VCU 5840, and includes the

largest remaining blocks of POG in the VCU. Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements

are met by the existing small OGR.

VCU 5810 (Luck Lake) – This VCU contains two disconnected small OGRs. The 

northern piece, located north of Luck Lake, is entirely roaded but connects to the shoreline

and includes deer winter range and large-tree POG (SD 67). The larger, southern piece, 

located southwest of Luck Creek, is sufficiently sized to meet Forest Plan total and POG 

acreage requirements. The existing small OGR (the northern and southern pieces 

combined) acres in this VCU includes low elevation POG, high value deer winter range, 

and maintenance of shoreline connectivity.

VCU 5820 (Baird Peak) –This small OGR is located along the coastline, east of Baird 

Peak. The existing small OGR meets Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements. It 

includes some of the remaining contiguous blocks of low elevation POG in the VCU.

VCU 5830 (Ratz Harbor) – This small OGR is split between VCUs 5820 and 5830 

(approximately 30 and 70 percent of its acreage located in each, respectively). The 

existing small OGR meets Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements. Some important 

wildlife habitats (salmon, black bear, wolf, deer, and bald eagle habitat) which exist 

around Ratz Harbor and Trumpeter Lake and low elevation, high-volume POG stands in 

the VCU are excluded from the OGR.

VCU 5840 (Sal Creek) – This small OGR is linear, running east-west between the 

shoreline and the small OGR in VCU 5800. It meets Forest Plan minimum acreage 

requirements for small OGR acres in this VCU, includes the largest remaining blocks of 

POG in the VCU, and provides elevational connectivity to saltwater between the Honker 

Large OGR via OGRs in VCUs 5790 and 5800. 

VCU 5850 (Sandy Beach) – This small OGR is located south of Sandy Beach and 

consists entirely of low elevation POG. Inclusion of POG in this OGR is important due to 

the high level of fragmentation from previous harvest, and the limited remaining blocks of 

POG in this VCU. The existing small OGR also includes coastline that provides 

important salmon, waterfowl, and black bear habitat and has documented high recreational 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-48 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

use; however, it excludes a large block of POG to the north outside the beach buffer (near 

the Sandy Beach Recreation Area). It meets Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements 

for small OGR acres in this VCU. 

VCU 5860 (Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage) – This small OGR is located adjacent to 

Snug Anchorage. It meets Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements for small OGRs,

includes the last remaining low elevation POG in the VCU, and provides connectivity to 

the small OGR in VCU 5850. 

VCU 5950 (Steelhead Creek) – This small OGR is located west of Control Lake, north 

of the Steelhead Drainage and south of the highway. Considered by itself, the existing 

small OGR does not meet minimum acreage requirements; however, the VCU also 

includes a small portion of the Honker large OGR (Figure OGR-1). Taken together, 

Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements are met. Under the Forest Plan, in VCUs 

partially designated as very large, large, or medium OGRs, there are no requirements for 

small OGRs (Forest Plan FEIS Appendix D; USDA Forest Service 2008b). The existing 

small OGR also includes habitat for wolves, deer, black bears, marten, flying squirrels, 

and goshawks while providing connectivity to OGRs in adjacent VCUs. 

VCU 5960 (Control Lake) – This small OGR is located south of the paved highway and 

east of Control Lake. It is contiguous with the Honker large OGR. Although by itself it 

does not meet Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements, it is contiguous with, and 

functions as part of, the Honker large OGR complex (Figure OGR-1). Therefore, it does 

not by itself need to meet small OGR acreage requirements (Forest Plan FEIS Appendix 

D; USDA Forest Service 2008b). The OGR in this VCU complements and adds value to 

the Honker large OGR complex, which provides a significant north/south connectivity 

corridor across the central Prince of Wales Island region connecting the Sarkar reserve to 

the Karta reserve. 

VCU 5972 (Angel Lake) – This small OGR is adjacent to the Karta wilderness, extending 

north toward Angel Lake. A small portion of this OGR (south of Rush Peak) overlaps 

VCU 5980. The current small OGR location includes a large block of POG; however, it is 

predominantly high-elevation, high-gradient topography that provides relatively low value 

wildlife habitat. It does not include low elevation connectivity to salt water or known 

wolf dens (although active wolf dens are protected by other Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines), but Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements are met in this VCU.

Timber Resources

Reallocating areas within the Old-growth Habitat LUD (a non-development LUD) to 

development LUDs, and vice versa, would result in acreage changes to lands considered 

suitable and available for timber management, since OGRs are classified as not available 

for timber management. The small OGRs of the project area contain approximately 6,977 

acres of forest land that would be considered suitable for timber production if it were in a 

development LUD.

Under existing conditions, the project area includes approximately 48,477 acres of

suitable forest land, including 22,387 acres of old growth timber and 26,090 acres of 

young growth timber. Overall, this land base represents about 16 percent of the mapped 

suitable land base on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-49

Fish Resources

The existing small OGRs of the project area contain an estimated 47 miles of Class I 

streams, 27 miles of Class II streams, and 101 miles of Class III streams. Part of the 

objectives of the Old-Growth Habitat LUD (USDA Forest Service 2008) is to provide oldgrowth forest habitats, in combination with other LUDs, to maintain viable fish 

populations, contribute to habitat capability of fish resources, and support sustainable 

human subsistence and recreational uses. Timber harvest and road construction would be 

allowed only under specific circumstances because, according to the Forest Plan, forest 

land is classified as unsuitable for timber production and new road construction is 

generally considered inconsistent with LUD objectives. However, even with development 

LUD designation, the riparian and other standards and guidelines and BMPs in place for 

timber harvest to protect riparian habitats and fish resources will be adequate to ensure 

that no additional adverse effects occur to fish resources in the project area.

Sensitive and Rare Plant Resources

Although there are no threatened or endangered plant species on the Tongass National 

Forest, a number of sensitive and rare species inhabit the Tongass (see Botany section

later in this chapter). Many of these plants find habitats within OGRs and grow in or 

adjacent to old-growth forest stands. Modifying OGR boundaries may change the number 

of known populations included within OGRs.

Three species of sensitive plants are known to exist in the project area: lesser roundleaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata), Alaska rein orchid (Piperia unalascensis), and a 

lichen (Lobaria amplissima). The first two species have populations in OGRs within the 

project area; Lobaria is not known in OGRs of the project area, but occurs in a small OGR 

on nearby Kosciusko Island. 

Two rare species are known to exist in the project area: western meadowrue (Thalictrum 

occidentale) and lance leaf grapefern (Botrychium lanceolatum). Two populations of 

western meadowrue occur within small OGRs in the project area, but no population of 

lance leaf grapefern occur within small OGRs. An estimated 3,923 lesser round-leaved 

orchid plants in 110 populations are known to occur in the project area. Combined, the 

OGRs of the project area (including all non-development LUDs that make up an OGR)

contain an estimated 42 percent of the individual plants and 30 percent of the known 

populations, in whole or in part.

An estimated 867 Alaska rein orchid plants in 24 populations are known to occur in the 

project area. Combined, the OGRs of the project area contain an estimated 35 percent of 

the individual plants and 38 percent of the known populations, in whole or in part.

Three populations of the lichen, Lobaria amplissima, are known in the project area, 

containing an estimated 20 individuals. However, none of these known populations occur 

fully or partially in OGRs.

Subsistence Resources

The existing small OGRs provide deer winter habitat within the reserve system and roads 

within the OGRs provide access for subsistence uses; thus modifications have the 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-50 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

potential to affect the abundance and distribution of, access to, and competition for deer 

depending on whether or not these areas are available for harvest. The existing small 

OGRs in the project area include 3,325 acres of deep snow deer winter habitat (highvolume POG below 800 feet elevation). See Issue 3 for a description of existing 

subsistence resources. 

Scenery Resources

Scenery resources are maintained to a high degree within OGRs; they are assigned a 

scenic integrity objective (SIO) of high. Development LUDs, such as Modified 

Landscape and Timber Production, maintain the value of scenery resources to a lesser 

degree. Among the development LUDs, Scenic Viewshed generally has the highest SIOs, 

followed by Modified Landscape, which is followed by Timber Production; however, they 

are assigned in consideration of the scenery resources present in the area. Therefore, 

modification of OGR boundaries may change the degree of to which scenic values are 

maintained in several areas. 

Recreation Resources

Recreation and tourism use in OGRs is managed to meet the Old-growth Habitat LUD 

objectives for fish and wildlife resources and habitat, with recreation-related structures 

designed to be compatible with the needs of old-growth associated species. The Oldgrowth Habitat LUD is intended to generally provide Semi-Primitive ROS settings, but 

the Forest Plan recognizes that more developed settings may be present due to authorized 

activities, existing use patterns, and activities in adjacent LUDs. Together, the 11 

potentially affected small OGRs in the Big Thorne project area include approximately 

25,500 acres. About 36 percent of this total is allocated to Semi-Primitive ROS settings, 

with the remaining 64 percent allocated to Roaded settings, primarily Roaded Modified 

(RM) (63 percent). ROS settings are discussed in more detail in the separate Recreation

section later in this chapter. 

Thirteen developed recreation sites are located in the Big Thorne project area (see the 

Recreation section). None of these sites are located within the potentially affected small 

OGRs.

Environmental Consequences

Land Use Designations

The modification of OGR boundaries in the project area would result in changes in the 

total acreage of each LUD. Table OGR-1 presents a summary of the LUD acreages in the 

project area for each alternative, and compares them with the acreage available under 

existing conditions.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-51

Table OGR-1. Forest Plan Land Use Designation Acreage in the Project Area by 

Alternative

Land Use Designation (LUD)

Alt 1, 2, and 

5 (acres)

Alt 3

(acres)

% change 

from Alt 1

Alt 4 

(acres)

% change 

from Alt 1

Non-Development LUDs 1/

Research Natural Area 1,621 1,621 - 1,621 -

Old-growth Habitat 74,949 75,539 +1% 79,237 +5%

Scenic River 14,180 14,180 - 14,180 -

Recreational River 2,932 2,932 - 2,932 -

Subtotal 93,683 94,273 +1% 97,970 +5%

Development LUDs 2/

Timber Production 60,686 59,581 -2% 59,613 -2%

Modified Landscape 58,884 59,772 +1% 56,587 -4%

Scenic Viewshed 4,426 4,054 -8% 3,510 -20%

Subtotal 123,997 123,407 -1% 119,709 -3%

Total NFS Lands 217,679 217,679 - 217,679 -

Non-NFS Lands 14,169 14,169 - 14,169 -

Total (NFS + Non-NFS) 

Lands 231,848 231,848 - 231,848 -

2001 IRA3/ included in NonDevelopment LUDs 56,574 62,942 +11% 58,723 +4%

2001 IRA3/ included in 

Development LUDs 35,659 29,292 -18% 3,510 -6%

1/ Non-development LUDs generally do not permit timber harvest or road construction.

2/ Development LUDs allow timber harvest and road construction under certain conditions.

3/ 2001 IRA = 2001 Roadless Rule inventoried roadless area

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 no modifications to small the Old-growth Habitat LUD are 

proposed. 

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3, changes to the Old-growth Habitat LUD would occur through 

modifications of most small OGR boundaries in the project area. Emphasis was to move 

more of these reserves into inventoried roadless areas to further protect these areas and to 

increase the amount of roaded areas allocated to development LUDs. The overall net 

effect would be that the total acreage in the Old-growth Habitat LUDs of the project area 

would increase by 1 percent, and the total acreage in development LUDs would decrease 

by 1 percent. 

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4, changes to the Old-growth Habitat LUD would occur through 

modifications of several small OGR boundaries in the project area. Emphasis was to 

locate these reserves in the most biologically preferred areas based on habitats and 

connectivity to the large and medium OGRs. The overall net effect would be that the total 

acreage in the Old-growth Habitat LUDs of the project area would increase by 5 percent, 

and the total acreage in development LUDs would decrease by 3 percent.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-52 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Old-Growth Reserves

Evaluation and modification of small OGRs during project-level environmental analysis 

are addressed under Old-growth LUD Standard and Guideline WILD1(B). Small OGRs

may be modified so that they meet the minimum criteria specified in Appendix K of the 

Forest Plan (pp. K-1 through K-3); reserve location, composition, and size may be also be 

adjusted provided that the modified OGR meets the minimum criteria and provides 

comparable achievement of Old-growth LUD goals and objectives (Forest Plan p. 3-62). 

Forest Plan goals and objectives for Old-Growth Habitat LUDs (Forest Plan p. 3-57) 

include: 

Goals

• Maintain areas of old-growth forests and their associated natural ecological 

processes to provide habitat for old-growth associated resources.

• Manage early seral conifer stands to achieve old-growth forest characteristic 

structure and composition based upon site capability. 

Objectives

• Provide old-growth forest habitats to maintain viable populations of fish and

wildlife species and subspecies that are closely associated with old-growth forests.

• Contribute to the habitat capability of fish and wildlife resources to support 

sustainable human subsistence and recreational uses.

• Maintain biodiversity and ecological processes associated with old-growth forests.

• Limit roads, facilities, and permitted uses to those compatible with old-growth 

forest habitat objectives. 

• Allow existing natural or previously harvested early seral conifer stands to evolve 

naturally to old-growth forest habitats, or apply silvicultural treatments to 

accelerate forest succession to achieve old-growth forest structural features. 

Determination of comparable achievement of Old-growth LUD goals and objectives is 

subjective, but is supported by a review of additional OGR design criteria provided in 

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

Forest Plan Appendix K, an IRT comprising USFWS, ADF&G, and Forest Service 

biologists met in Thorne Bay on June 2–3, 2011, to review the existing small OGRs in the 

project area. The 2011 IRT evaluated the potential for moving small OGRs into 2001 

roadless areas and the biological values of the current small OGR locations. A 

comparison of existing small OGRs (Alternatives 1, 2, and 5) and small OGR 

modifications proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4 based on Appendices K and D design 

criteria is summarized below and in Table OGR-2. Modifications to small OGRs that do 

not maintain comparable achievement of Old-growth LUD goals and objectives have the 

potential to reduce the functioning of the reserve system, either through reductions in the 

habitat elements maintained within the reserve system or connectivity provided by the 

reserve system.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-53

Alternative 1, 2, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 no modifications to small OGRs are proposed. Therefore, 

the LUD acreages would remain the same as under existing conditions. All existing small 

OGRs meet Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements (Forest Plan Appendices D and 

K), either alone or in conjunction with other OGRs or non-development LUDs (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b; Table OGR-2).

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 would not change the cumulative effects to the old-growth reserve 

system as analyzed by the Forest Plan Final EIS because no modifications to small OGRs 

are proposed. No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the analysis area 

would modify LUDs, and effects of individual development projects that might involve 

small OGR modifications are expected to be within the limits allowed by the Forest Plan, 

and would be analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are proposed.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 involves an exchange of 5,873 acres within roaded portions of small OGRs

that would become available for timber harvest, for 6,462 acres within Inventoried 

Roadless Areas that would be designated as Old-growth Habitat LUD (Figure OGR-2; 

Table OGR-2). Detailed maps showing the specific changes for each LUD and OGR are 

provided in Figures OGR-3, OGR-4, and OGR-5. No modifications are proposed in 

VCU 5960. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-55

Table OGR-2. Comparison of Old-growth Reserves Based On Forest Plan Design Criteria

5790-Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek 5800-North Thorne River 5810-Luck Lake 5820-Baird Peak

Alt 1, 2, 5 Alt 3 Alt 47/ Alt 1, 2, 4, 5 Alt 3 Alt 1, 2, 4, 5 Alt 3 Alt 1, 2, 5 Alt 3 Alt 4

Forest Plan Appendix K Criteria

Required OGR (acres)1/ 1,714 2,462 3,210 657

Required POG (acres)2/ 857 1,321 1,605 328

OGR acres 2,745 3,0588/ 2,9809/ 3,117 3,658 3,749 3,443 766 902 936

POG acres 872 1,0268/ 1,0279/ 1,594 2,093 2,273 1,720 587 687 672

Acreage requirements met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Appendix D General Design Criteria

Circular rather than linear to 

maximize interior habitat/minimize 

fragmentation effects 

No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minimizes roads (total road miles) 3.1 -0.8 +0.5 5.5 -5.2 6.3 -5.5 0.0 +0 +0

Minimizes early seral habitat (acres) 128 -4 +27 279 -255 166 -100 0 +0 +0

Riparian/beach/estuary habitats 

(Class I stream miles) 15.0 +1.1 +1.9 23.9 +5.1 23.0 -5.9 6.0 +0.6 -1.7

Includes largest remaining block of 

POG in VCU? Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Rare/Underrepresented features 

(large tree POG acres) 3/ 14 +4 +38 368 +132 630 -242 287 +4 -37

Deep snow deer & marten habitat 

(acres)4/ 57 -25 +41 225 -141 513 -390 213 +8 -16

Goshawk & murrelet nesting habitat 

(acres)5/ 179 -28 +23 841 +530 1321 -374 402 +28 +2

Other Considerations

Maintains Connectivity No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

Low elevation POG (acres)6/ 58 -23 +147 748 -659 945 -563 368 +64 +115

1/ 16% of VCU acres

2/ 50% of OGR acres

3/ SD67 type

4/ High-volume POG ≤ 800 ft elevation

5/ High-volume POG all elevations (indicative of optimal goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat due to presence of large trees and snags, though both species may use all POG types; see Issue 3)

6/ All POG ≤ 800 ft elevation (representative of low-elevation travel corridors important for many species)

7/ Most changes under alternative 4 made in VCU 5780; 

8/ Includes acreage addition in VCU 5850 (274 acres total; 112 acres POG)

9/ Includes acreage addition in VCU 5780 (235 acres total; 154 acres POG)
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-57

Table OGR-2. Comparison of Old-growth Reserves Based On Forest Plan Design Criteria (cont.)

5830-Ratz Harbor 5840-Sal Creek 5850-Sandy Beach 5860-Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage

Alt 1, 2, 5 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1, 2, 4, 5 Alt 3 Alt 1, 2, 5 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1, 2, 4, 5 Alt 3

Forest Plan Appendix K Criterion

Required OGR (acres)1/ 1,998 2,226 1,680 1,131

Required POG (acres)2/ 999 1,113 840 565

OGR acres 2,0397/ 2,386 1,921 2,650 2,864 1,906 1,703 2,185 1,645 1,204

POG acres 9457/ 989 806 1,487 1,277 1,049 870 1,262 1,311 921

Acreage requirements met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Appendix D General Design Criteria

Circular rather than linear to 

maximize interior 

habitat/minimize fragmentation 

effects 

Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minimizes roads (miles) 8.0 -1.5 +0.8 5.6 -5 4.2 -2.8 +1.8 5.1 -5.1

Minimizes early seral habitat 

(acres) 659 -74 +9 147 -83 23 -6 +44 66 +0

Riparian/beach/estuary habitats 

(Class I stream miles) 9.4 -0.8 +1.8 25.5 -2.3 10.6 -0.7 +1.3 11.2 -4.1

Includes largest remaining block 

of POG in VCU? No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No

Rare/Underrepresented 

features (large tree POG acres)

3/

158 -34 -69 292 -193 24 -23 +26 248 -146

Deep snow deer & marten 

habitat (acres)4/ 132 -78 -21 281 -260 248 -50 +60 742 -273

Goshawk & murrelet nesting 

habitat (acres)5/ 311 -6 -69 685 -193 248 -50 +60 743 -273

Other Considerations

Maintains Connectivity Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Low elevation POG (acres)6/ 636 -169 +80 562 -497 1,041 -179 +212 1,304 -388

1/ 16% of VCU acres 

2/ 50% of OGR acres

3/ SD67 type

4/ high-volume POG ≤ 800 ft elev.

5/ High-volume POG all elevations (indicative of optimal goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat due to presence of large trees and snags, though both species may use all POG types; see Issue 3)

6/ All POG ≤ 800 ft elevation (representative of low-elevation travel corridors important for many species)

7/ Approximately 30% of acreage mapped in VCU 5820 (386 acres total; 299 acres POG) and 70% mapped in VCU 5830 (1,654 acres total, 646 acres POG).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-59

Table OGR-2. Comparison of Old-growth Reserves Based On Forest Plan Design Criteria (cont.)

5950-Steelhead Creek 5960-Control Lake 5972-Angel Lake

Alt 1, 2, 5 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1, 2, 3, 5 Alt 4 Alt 1, 2, 5 Alt 3 Alt 4

Forest Plan Appendix K Criteria

Required OGR (acres)1/ 2,836 1,974 3,405

Required POG (acres)2/ 1,418 987 1,702

OGR acres 2,294 2,563 3,480 1,251 2,569 3,6637/ 3,380 4,736

POG acres 1,406 1,449 2,157 394 1,068 1,8927/ 1,584 1,935

Acreage requirements 

met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Appendix D General Design Criteria

Circular rather than linear 

to maximize interior 

habitat/minimize 

fragmentation effects 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minimizes roads (miles) 3.6 -1.1 +1.1 3.7 +1.0 6.3 -3.1 +11.5

Minimizes early seral 

habitat (acres) 267 -63 +2 6 +0 316 -24 -125

Riparian/beach/estuary 

habitats (Class I stream 

miles)

29.3 +0.4 +17.0 11.9 +12.6 24.6 -7.4 -9.4

Includes largest 

remaining block of POG 

in VCU?

No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Rare/Underrepresented 

features (large tree POG 

acres) 3/

472 -30 +422 77 +357 562 -86 -369

Deep snow deer & 

marten habitat (acres)4/ 474 -31 +420 91 +346 349 -162 +82

Goshawk & murrelet 

nesting habitat (acres)5/ 848 -67 +524 134 +425 986 -237 -511

Other Considerations

Connectivity Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes

Low elevation POG 

(acres)6/ 730 -67 +471 314 +501 696 -428 +1062

1/ 16% of VCU acres

2/ 50% of OGR acres

3/ SD67 type

4/ high-volume POG ≤ 800 ft elev.

5/ High-volume POG all elevations (indicative of optimal goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat due to presence of large trees and snags, though both species may use all POG types; see Issue 3)

6/ All POG ≤ 800 ft elevation (representative of low-elevation travel corridors important for many species)

7/ split between VCUs 5972 and 5980 (357 acres total, 144 acres POG )
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-61

Figure OGR-2. Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the Big Thorne Project 

Area 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-62 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure OGR-3. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the North Portion of 

the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-63

Figure OGR-4. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the Central Portion 

of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes
3 Environment and Effects 

3-64 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure OGR-5. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 3 in the South Portion of 

the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-65

All modified small OGRs proposed under Alternative 3 would meet minimum Forest Plan 

acreage requirements (Table OGR-2). Alternative 3 would increase the total acres of 

small OGRs within VCUs 5790, 5800, 5820, 5830, 5840, and 5950. POG would also 

increase in these VCUs with the exception of VCU 5840, in which POG would be 

reduced. Modifications in VCUs 5810, 5850, 5860, and 5972 would reduce total OGR 

and POG acreages. The remaining small OGRs in the project area would not change

(Table OGR-2).

Most of the proposed small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 reduce the miles of 

roads and early seral habitat included in the small OGR, and also increase the amount of 

suitable timber available for harvest. However, these modifications also reduce the 

amount of POG (including large-tree POG and low elevation POG), goshawk and marbled 

murrelet nesting habitat, and deer and marten winter habitat in some small OGRs. The 

following paragraphs describe the effects for each VCU individually. For a discussion of 

effects on suitable timber acres and timber volume see the Timber Resources subsection 

below.

VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would 

remove acreage from the western edge of the VCU and add acreage (all roadless) along

Slide Creek in VCU 5850 to enhance the connection between small OGRs in VCUs 5840 

and 5790. Acres would also be added along Gravelly Creek. This would result in an 

overall increase in small OGR acres (313 acres) and POG acres (154 acres) (Table OGR2). This would exceed Forest Plan Appendix K small OGR acreage requirements and 

would also provide connectivity through the VCU between the Honker large OGR and 

saltwater, although through a higher-elevation corridor. 

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of road miles (0.8 mile; 26 percent) and early seral 

habitat (4 acres; 3 percent), and increase the miles of Class 1 streams (1.1 miles; 7 

percent) and the amount of under-represented features (large-tree POG; 4 acres; 29 

percent) included in the small OGR. Alternative 3 would decrease the amount of deep 

snow marten habitat/deer winter range (25 acres; 44 percent), potential goshawk and 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat (28 acres; 16 percent), and would no longer include the 

largest block of POG in the VCU within the small OGR. However, only 12 percent of the 

deep snow marten habitat/deer winter range and 7 percent of the potential goshawks and 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat currently in VCU 5790, respectively, were encompassed 

by the existing small OGR. Additionally, the modified OGR would be more linear rather 

than circular, but this is consistent with the existing small OGR. 

VCU 5800 (North Thorne River) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would remove 

acreage from the low-elevation river drainage comprising the southwestern portion of the 

OGR and add higher-elevation acreage (all within roadless) to the north, adjacent to VCU 

5830. This would result in an overall increase in small OGR and POG acres, exceeding

Forest Plan Appendix K small OGR acreage requirements (Table OGR-2). 

Alternative 3 would reduce the number of road miles (5.2 miles; 95 percent) and early 

seral habitat (255 acres; 91 percent), and increase the amount of Class I streams (5.1

miles; 21 percent), under-represented features (large-tree POG; 132 acres; 36 percent), 

and potential goshawk and murrelet nesting habitat (530 acres; 3 percent; Table OGR-2) 

included within the small OGR. The exchange of lower-elevation acreage would reduce 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-66 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

the amount of low elevation POG (659 acres; 88 percent) and deep snow deer and marten 

habitat (141 acres; 63 percent; OGR-2) included in the OGR. Alternative 3 would also 

remove the current low elevation connection between the Honker large OGR complex and 

the shoreline; however, the 2011 IRT felt that the current connectivity to saltwater would 

be maintained through a different route via VCU 5840. 

VCU 5810 (Luck Lake) – This VCU contains two disconnected small OGRs, one in the 

northern portion of the VCU and one in the southern portion. Modifications proposed 

under Alternative 3 include removal of acreage along the western edges of the northern 

and southern piece of this OGR, and the addition of acreage along the eastern edge of the 

southern piece. This modification would reduce the overall number of small OGR and 

POG acres but the resulting acreage would continue to exceed Forest Plan Appendix K 

acreage requirements (Table OGR-2). Under Alternative 3 approximately 25 percent of 

the total POG in VCU 5810 would be encompassed by the small OGR, compared to 33 

percent within the existing small OGR.

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of roads (5.5 miles; 87 percent) and early seral 

forest (100 acres; 60 percent) included in the small OGR; however it would also reduce 

the amount of Class I stream miles (5.9 miles; 26 percent), under-represented features 

(large-tree POG; 242 acres; 38 percent), deep snow deer and marten habitat (390 acres; 76 

percent), and potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat (374 acres; 28 

percent) included. Although some low-elevation POG, including deep snow marten 

habitat/deer winter range would be maintained by a Class I stream buffer along Eagle 

Creek, Alternative 3 would reduce connectivity to the shoreline. 

VCU 5820 (Baird Peak) – Under Alternative 3, the roaded portion of this small OGR 

along the shoreline would be removed and acreage would be added in a separate, 

disconnected location to the north. This would increase the overall number of small OGR 

and POG acres, continuing to exceed Forest Plan Appendix K acreage requirements 

(Table OGR-2). Additional modifications to VCU 5820 would occur in association with 

the Ratz Harbor small OGR (split between VCUs 5820 and 5830). These modifications 

would result in a net increase in OGR and POG acres (136 total acres and POG acres; 

Table OGR-2). See discussion under VCU 5830 below for additional discussion.

Alternative 3 would result in no change in the number of road miles or acres of early seral 

forest included in the small OGR, and would result in minor increases in the amount of 

Class I stream miles (0.6 mile; 10 percent), under-represented features (large-tree POG; 4 

acres; 1 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten habitat (8 acres; 4 percent), 

potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat (28 acres; 7 percent), and lowelevation POG (64 acres; 17 percent; Table OGR-2) included. The modified OGR would 

continue to include one of two remaining patches of deer winter range and the largest 

contiguous block of POG in the VCU. 

VCU 5830 (Ratz Harbor) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would remove acres in 

VCUs 5820 and 5830 near Ratz Point, and add acres in VCU 5830 along the northern and 

southern VCU boundaries. This would in result in a net increase in OGR acres (347

acres) and in POG acres (44 acres) (Table OGR-2). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-67

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of roads (1.5 miles; 19 percent) and early seral 

forest (74 acres; 11 percent) and increase the amount of under-represented features (largetree POG; 34 acres; 23 percent) included in the small OGR. However, it would reduce the 

amount of Class I streams (0.8 mile; 9 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten 

habitat (78 acres; 60 percent), potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat (6 

acres; 2 percent), and low-elevation POG (169 acres; 27 percent; Table OGR-2). 

VCU 5840 (Sal Creek) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would remove acres along 

the shoreline, and add acres adjacent to the western portion of the existing OGR to 

broaden the connection to OGRs in VCUs 5790 and 5800. However, this would eliminate 

the connection provided by the current small OGR between the Honker large OGR 

complex and coastal habitats and would eliminate protection of the largest remaining 

blocks of POG in the VCU. This would result in an increase in OGR acres but a decrease 

in POG acres, though both would continue to exceed Forest Plan Appendix K acreage 

requirements (Table OGR-2).

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of roads (5 miles; 89 percent) and early seral forest 

(83 acres; 56 percent) included in the small OGR, but would also reduce the amount of 

Class I stream miles (2.3 miles; 9 percent), under-represented features (large-tree POG; 

193 acres; 66 percent), deep snow winter range and marten habitat (260 acres; 95 percent), 

potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat (193 acres; 28 percent), and lowelevation POG (497 acres; 88 percent; Table OGR-2) included. High-volume and largetree POG are already limited in this VCU, comprising 44 and 28 percent of the original 

(1954) POG (see Table WLD-1 under Issue 3). 

VCU 5850 (Sandy Beach) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would result in a decrease 

in total acreage and POG acreage from the western boundary of this small OGR. Because 

the existing small OGR exceeds minimum acreage requirements, and would continue to 

do so under Alternative 3, no replacement acres would be required (Table OGR-2). 

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of roads (2.8 miles; 66 percent) and early seral 

forest (6 acres; 26 percent) included in the small OGR, but would also reduce the amount 

of Class I streams (0.7 mile; 7 percent), under-represented features (large-tree POG; 23 

acres; 96 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten habitat (50 acres; 20 percent), 

potential goshawk and murrelet nesting habitat (50 acres; 20 percent), and low-elevation 

POG (179 acres; 17 percent; Table OGR-2) included. This would exacerbate the 

condition of limited amounts of POG in this VCU. Currently, 41, 18, and 10 percent of 

the total original (1954) total, high-volume, and large-tree POG remain in VCU 5850 (see 

Table WLD-1 under Issue 3). 

VCU 5860 (Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would 

remove acreage and POG acreage along this small OGRs western edge and south of Snug 

Anchorage. Because the existing small OGR exceeds the minimum acreage requirements, 

and would continue to do so under Alternative 3, no replacement acres would be required 

(Table OGR-2). 

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of road miles (5.1 miles; 100 percent) included in 

the small OGR, would result in no change to the amount of early seral habitat included, 

but would also decrease the amount of Class I streams (4.1 miles; 37 percent), under-
3 Environment and Effects 

3-68 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

represented features (146 acres; 59 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten 

habitat (273 acres; 37 percent), potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat 

(273 acres; 37 percent), and low-elevation POG (388 acres; 30 percent; Table OGR-2) 

included. Modifications would also eliminate inclusion of the largest remaining blocks of 

POG in the VCU. The majority of the POG contained in the resulting small OGR consists 

of beach fringe. Because POG is already limited in this VCU (currently 54, 48, and 

39 percent of original (1954) total, high-volume, and large-tree POG remain, respectively; 

see Table WLD-1 under Issue 3), additional reductions in the inclusion of POG in the 

reserve system under Alternative 3 would exacerbate these conditions. 

VCU 5950 (Steelhead) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would remove acreage from 

the northeastern fringes adjacent to state land and add acreage along the western and 

southeastern flanks of the existing small OGR. This would result in an increase in OGR 

and POG acreage. Although the small OGR alone would not meet Forest Plan Appendix 

K acreage requirements, in combination with acres from the portion of the Honker large 

OGR located in VCU 5950, as allowed under the Forest Plan (Appendix D; USDA Forest 

Service 2008b), minimum acreage requirements would be met. As noted above, due to 

the presence of the large OGR in this VCU, there are no requirements for a separate small 

OGR. The shape of the small OGR under Alternative 3 would also now be more circular 

than linear, increasing the amount of interior forest habitat (Table OGR-2).

The proposed modifications would maintain connectivity to OGRs in adjacent VCUs and 

would result in reduction in the amount of road miles (1.1 miles; 31 percent) and early 

seral forest (63 acres; 24 percent; Table OGR-2) included in the small OGR. Alternative 

3 would also result in a minor reduction in the amount of under-represented features 

(large-tree POG; 30 acres; 6 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten habitat 

(31 acres; 7 percent), potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat (67 acres; 8 

percent), and low-elevation POG (67 acres; 9 percent; Table OGR-2). 

VCU 5960 (Control Lake) – No modifications to the small OGR in VCU 5960 are 

proposed under Alternative 3. 

VCU 5972 (Angel Lake) – Modifications under Alternative 3 would remove acres from 

the northern and western edges of the existing small OGR, and add acres to its 

southeastern lobe (in VCUs 5972 and 5980). This would decrease the amount of OGR 

and POG acres, which would now be less than Forest Plan Appendix K acreage 

requirements for a separate small OGR in this VCU. However, a portion of the Honker 

large OGR is located in the northern end of the VCU; therefore, the small OGR does not 

by itself need to meet Forest Plan Appendix K acreage requirements (Forest Plan FEIS 

Appendix D; USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of roads (3.1 miles; 49 percent) and early seral 

forest (24 acres; 8 percent) included in the small OGR, but would also reduce the amount 

of Class I streams (7.4 miles; 29 percent), under-represented features (large-tree POG; 86 

acres; 15 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten habitat (162 acres; 46 

percent), potential goshawk and murrelet nesting habitat (237 acres; 24 percent), and lowelevation POG (428 acres; 61 percent; Table OGR-2) included. Alternative 3 would also 

eliminate inclusion of the largest remaining block of POG in the VCU. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-69

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 3 would result in a net gain of 590 acres in the Old-growth Habitat LUD; 

however, there would be a net reduction of 849 acres of POG included in small OGRs 

(Tables OGR-1 and OGR-2). There would be a corresponding net increase in suitable and 

available timber (see Timber Resources section for a VCU by VCU discussion of suitable 

and available timber acres and volumes). However, this does not take into account oldgrowth habitats maintained by other elements of the Forest Plan conservation strategy 

including other non-development LUDs. It should be noted that under the current 

roadless rule, there are roadless acres in development LUDS which may not be harvested

and which provide habitat and facilitate connectivity across the landscape.

Past and ongoing timber harvest is discussed below by VCU. No other present or 

reasonably foreseeable projects in the analysis area would modify LUDs, and effects of 

individual development projects that might involve small OGR modifications are expected 

to be within the limits allowed by the Forest Plan, and would be analyzed separately and 

cumulatively as they are proposed.

VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek) – VCU 5790 currently maintains 40 percent of 

the original total POG present in 1954, of which 32 percent would be included in the 

modified OGR (an decrease of less than 1 percent). This does not include the 274 acres 

which would be added to the reserve system in adjacent VCU 5850 through this 

modification (approximately 4 percent of the existing POG in that VCU). Therefore, the 

exchange in amounts of various habitats and features, identified as design criteria in 

Appendix D of the Forest Plan FEIS, between the existing small OGR and the modified 

small OGR has potential to result in additional loss of these habitats should these vacated 

areas be harvested in the future. Moreover, there are no large ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable projects in VCU 5790. 

VCU 5800 (North Thorne River) – VCU 5800 currently maintains 72 percent of the 

original total POG present in 1954, of which 30 percent would be included in the modified 

OGR (an increase of 7 percent). Moreover, there are no large ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable projects in VCU 5800. 

VCU 5810 (Luck Lake) – VCU 5810 currently maintains 50 percent of the original total 

POG present in 1954, of which 25 percent would be included in the modified OGR (a 

decrease of 8 percent). Therefore, the exchange in amounts of various habitats and 

features (Forest Plan Appendix D design criteria) between the existing small OGR and the 

modified small OGR under Alternative 3 has potential to result in additional loss of these 

habitats should these vacated areas be harvested in the future (see the Timber Resources 

section below). There are no large ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects in VCU 

5810. 

VCU 5820 (Baird Peak) – VCU 5820 currently maintains 100 percent of the original 

total POG present in 1954 of which 28 percent would be included in the modified OGR 

(an increase of 4 percent). It is considered an intact landscape as defined in the Forest 

Plan FEIS (i.e., maintaining more than 95 percent of its original POG; USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). Moreover, there are no large ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects 

in VCU 5820. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-70 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5830 (Ratz Harbor) – VCU 5830 currently maintains 56 percent of the original 

total POG present in 1954, of which 15 percent would be included in the modified OGR 

(an increase of 1 percent). This OGR is split between two VCUs, so this does not include 

modifications in adjacent VCU 5820 which would result in 10 percent of the original POG 

in VCU 5820 being included in this small OGR (a decrease of 2 percent). Moreover, 

there are no large ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects in VCU 5830. 

VCU 5840 (Sal Creek) – VCU 5840 currently maintains 59 percent of the original total 

POG present in 1954, of which 22 percent would be included in the modified OGR (a 

decrease of 3 percent). Therefore, the exchange in amounts of various habitats and 

features (Forest Plan Appendix D design criteria) between the existing small OGR and the 

modified small OGR under Alternative 3 has potential to result in additional loss of these 

habitats should these vacated areas be harvested in the future. There are no large ongoing 

or reasonably foreseeable projects in VCU 5840. 

VCU 5850 (Sandy Beach) – VCU 5850 currently maintains 41 percent of the original

total POG present in 1954, of which 28 percent would be included in the modified OGR (a 

decrease of 6 percent). In addition, a small amount of harvest (22 acres) would occur in 

this VCU under the North Thorne Bay state timber harvest project. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects of the exchange in amounts of various habitats and features (Forest 

Plan Appendix D design criteria) under Alternative 3 has potential to result in additional 

loss of these habitats should these vacated areas be harvested in the future. 

VCU 5860 (Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage) – VCU 5860 currently maintains 54 percent 

of the original total POG present in 1954, of which 14 percent would be included in the 

modified OGR (a decrease of 7 percent). In addition, approximately 455 acres within this 

VCU is planned for harvest on state lands (North Thorne Bay). Therefore, the exchange 

in amounts of various habitats and features (Forest Plan Appendix D design criteria) 

between the existing small OGR and the modified small OGR under Alternative 3 has 

potential to result in additional loss of these habitats should these vacated areas be 

harvested in the future. 

VCU 5950 (Steelhead) – VCU 5950 currently maintains 70 percent of the original total 

POG present in 1954, of which 20 percent would be included in the modified OGR (an 

increase of less than 1 percent). In addition, approximately 65 acres could be harvested in 

VCU 5950 under the Control Lake timber harvest project. 

VCU 5960 (Control Lake) – No small OGR modifications are proposed in VCU 5960 

under Alternative 3; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

VCU 5972 (Angel Lake) – VCU 5972 currently maintains 66 percent of the original total 

POG present in 1954, of which 17 percent would be included in the modified OGR (a 

decrease of 2 percent). This small OGR is split between two VCUs, so this does not take 

into account modifications in adjacent VCU 5980 which would result in less than 1 

percent of the original POG in VCU 5980 being included in this small OGR (a reduction 

of close to 3 percent). In addition, approximately 256 acres could be harvested in VCU 

5972 under the Control Lake timber harvest project. Therefore, the exchange in amounts 

of various habitats and features (Forest Plan Appendix D design criteria) between the 

existing small OGR and the modified small OGR under Alternative 3 has potential to 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-71

result in additional loss of these habitats should these vacated areas be harvested in the 

future.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 4, the small OGR locations and/or boundaries would be adjusted in 

accordance with the biologically preferred alternative developed by the 2011 IRT 

(Figure OGR-6). Detailed maps showing the specific changes for each LUD and OGR are 

provided in Figures OGR-7, OGR-8, and OGR-9. This review took into account Forest 

Plan Appendix K criteria and biologically preferred locations identified during previous 

small OGR reviews. Areas vacated by small OGR modifications would be designated as 

Timber Production or Modified Landscape and made available for timber harvest. All 

alternative OGRs, as proposed under Alternative 4, would meet Forest Plan minimum 

acreage requirements (Table OGR-2). The following paragraphs describe the effects for 

each VCU individually. For a discussion of suitable timber acres and timber volume see 

the Timber Resources subsection below.

VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek) – Alternative 4 would add acreage to the 

western end of the existing small OGR, providing a direct connection to the Honker large 

OGR complex through VCU 5780. Note that no actual changes are proposed to the

existing OGR in VCU 5790, but rather all changes are in adjacent VCU 5780. This would 

improve the biological functionality of the complex of small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, 

and 5840 while continuing to meet minimum acreage requirements (Table OGR-2). 

Although Alternative 4 would slightly increase the amount of roads (0.5 mile; 16 percent) 

and early seral forest (27 acres; 21 percent) in the small OGR, Alternative 4 would 

substantially increase the amount of under-represented features (large-tree POG; 38 acres; 

271 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten habitat (41 acres; 72 percent), and 

low-elevation POG (147 acres; 253 percent; Table OGR-2) included. Smaller increases 

would also occur in the amount of Class I streams (1.9 miles; 13 percent) and potential 

goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat (58 acres; 32 percent; Table OGR-2). 

VCU 5800 (North Thorne River) – There is no change proposed under Alternative 4 for 

VCU 5800. 

VCU 5810 (Luck Lake) – There is no change proposed under Alternative 4 for VCU 

5810. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-72 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure OGR-6. Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the Big Thorne Project 

Area
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-73

Figure OGR-7. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the North Portion of 

the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes
3 Environment and Effects 

3-74 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure OGR-8. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the Central Portion 

of the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-75

Figure OGR-9. Small Old-growth Reserves under Alternative 4 in the South Portion of 

the Big Thorne Project Area Showing LUD Changes
3 Environment and Effects 

3-76 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5820 (Baird Peak) –To better meet the Forest Plan Appendix K criterion that small 

OGR boundaries should follow recognizable features, Alternative 4 shifts the boundary 

shared by the adjacent small OGRs in VCUs 5820 and 5830 (which is currently in VCU 

5820) to follow the VCU boundary. Thus, under Alternative 4 some acreage currently 

counted towards the small OGR in adjacent VCU 5830, would now count toward the 

small OGR in VCU 5820. Also, Alternative 4 would remove acres along the eastern side 

of the OGR and add acres in a disconnected piece to the north. This would increase 

protection of low elevation POG (115 acres; 31 percent), while continuing to meet acreage 

requirements (Table OGR-2). Alternative 4 would make no measureable change in the 

amount of roads or early seral forest included in the small OGR, but would result in a 

decrease in the amount of Class I streams (1.7 miles; 28 percent), under-represented 

features (large-tree POG; 37 acres; 13 percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten 

habitat (16 acres; 8 percent) included. There would be an increase in the amount of 

potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat included (2 acres; less than 1 

percent; Table OGR-2). 

VCU 5830 (Ratz Harbor) –To better meet the Forest Plan Appendix K criterion that 

small OGR boundaries should follow recognizable features, Alternative 4 shifts the 

boundary shared by OGRs in VCUs 5820 and 5830 (which is currently in VCU 5820) to 

follow the VCU boundary. Thus, under Alternative 4 OGR acreage in VCU 5820 

formerly counted towards VCU 5830, would count toward VCU 5820. Alternative 4 also 

adds acres south of Trumpeter Lake. With these modifications the small OGR in VCU 

5830 would include the largest remaining block of POG in the VCU. It also includes an 

area that, based on ADF&G data, supports high bear use. Alternative 4 would also 

increase the amount of Class I streams (1.8 miles; 19 percent) and low elevation POG (80 

acres; 13 percent) in the small OGR. This was a tradeoff for a slight increase in the 

amount of road miles (0.8 mile; 10 percent), and decreases in the amount of underrepresented features (large-tree POG; 69 acres; 44 percent), deep snow deer winter range 

and marten habitat (21 acres; 16 percent) and potential goshawk and marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat (69 acres; 22 percent) included in the OGR (Table OGR-2). Because these 

modifications place OGR acres in the biologically preferred location this tradeoff was 

deemed acceptable by the 2011 IRT. 

VCU 5840 (Sal Creek) – There is no change proposed under Alternative 4 for VCU 

5840. 

VCU 5850 (Sandy Beach) –Alternative 4 would add acreage to the north to include a 

large block of POG outside the beach buffer. This would increase the OGR and POG 

acres, continuing to exceed Forest Plan Appendix K acreage requirements. Alternative 4 

would increase the amount of roads (1.8 miles; 43 percent) and early seral forest (44 

acres; 191 percent) included in the small OGR. This was a tradeoff for increased 

inclusion of POG habitats which are currently limited in this VCU which maintains 41, 

18, and 10 percent of the original total, high-volume, and large-tree POG remaining, 

respectively (see Table WLD-1 under Issue 2). Alternative 4 would increase the amount 

of under-represented features (large-tree POG; 26 acres; 108 percent), deep snow deer 

winter range and marten habitat (60 acres; 24 percent), potential goshawk and marbled 

murrelet nesting habitat (60 acres; 24 percent), and low-elevation POG (215 acres; 21

percent; Table OGR-2) included in the OGR. Because these modifications place OGR 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-77

acres in the biologically preferred location this tradeoff was deemed acceptable by the 

2011 IRT. 

VCU 5860 (Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage) – There is no change proposed under 

Alternative 4 for VCU 5860. 

VCU 5950 (Steelhead) – Alternative 4 would expand the small OGR in VCU 5950 to the 

east to include the entire contiguous block of POG habitat currently straddling the eastern 

boundary of the existing small OGR. The shape of the small OGR under Alternative 4 

would now be more circular than linear, increasing the amount of interior forest habitat 

(Table OGR-2). 

Alternative 4 would increase the amount of roads (1.1 miles; 31 percent) and early seral 

habitats (2 acres; less than 1 percent) included in the small OGR, but it would 

substantially increase the amount of Class I streams (17.7 miles; 60 percent), underrepresented features (large-tree POG; 422 acres; 89 percent), deep snow deer winter range

and marten habitat (420 acres; 89 percent), potential goshawk and marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat (524 acres; 62 percent), and low-elevation POG (471 acres; 65 percent; 

Table OGR-2). 

VCU 5960 (Control Lake) –Alternative 4 would add acres to the south of the existing 

small OGR (south of Control Lake) to improve connectivity and encompass areas of high 

quality wolf and goshawk habitat. Alternative 4 would result in no change the amount of 

early seral habitat and a minor increase in roads (1 mile; 27 percent) included in the small 

OGR; however, it would result in substantial increases in the amount of Class I streams 

(13 miles; 106 percent), under-represented features (large-tree POG; 357 acres; 464

percent), deep snow deer winter range and marten habitat (346 acres; 380 percent), 

potential goshawk and marbled murrelet nesting habitat (425 acres; 317 percent), and lowelevation POG (501 acres; 160 percent). With the addition of these acres, this OGR now 

directly connects to the Honker large OGR along both the north and south boundaries. 

All additions to the existing OGR are within roadless. Therefore modifications proposed 

under Alternative 4 would not affect the amount of suitable timber available for harvest. 

VCU 5972 (Angel Lake) –Alternative 4 would relocate the small OGR to the east, 

surrounding Angel Lake. In this location, the small OGR would protect known wolf dens 

(however wolf dens are already provided protection under the Forest Plan) and the only 

low elevation wildlife travel corridor leading from the Honker large OGR (through VCUs 

5972 and 5980) to saltwater at Salt Chuck. Alternative 4 would also increase the amount 

of roads (12 miles; 183 percent), early seral forest (125 acres; 40 percent), Class I streams 

(9 miles; 37 percent). Alternative 4 would decrease the amount of under-represented 

features (large-tree POG; 369 acres; 66 percent), potential goshawk and marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat (511 acres; 52 percent), but would increase the amount of deep snow deer 

winter range and marten habitat (82 acres; 23 percent) and low-elevation POG (1,062 

acres; 153 percent) included in the small OGR. The 2011 IRT felt that the exchange of 

some wildlife habitat values for the low elevation corridor connecting the large Honker 

OGR complex with saltwater was beneficial overall. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-78 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 4 would result in a net gain of 4,288 acres in the Old-growth Habitat LUD, 

including a net increase of 1,906 acres of protected POG, through the implementation of 

the biologically preferred adjustments to small OGRs (Tables OGR-1 and OGR-2). These 

modifications were intended to include the largest remaining blocks of POG within each 

VCU, and important wildlife habitats within the reserve system, and provide functional 

connectivity between OGRs and other non-development LUDs. 

No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the analysis area would modify 

LUDs, and effects of individual development projects that might involve small OGR 

modifications are expected to be within the limits allowed by the Forest Plan, and would 

be analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are proposed. 

VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek) – VCU 5790 currently maintains 40 percent of 

the original total POG present in 1954, of which 31 percent would be included in the 

modified OGR (a reduction of 1 percent). Additional POG would be included in the 

reserve system under this modification in adjacent VCU 5780 (4 percent of the original 

POG in VCU 5780). Additionally, the exchange in amounts of various habitats and 

features (design criteria in Appendix D of the Forest Plan FEIS) between the existing 

small OGR and the modified small OGR under Alternative 4 would substantially increase 

the inclusion of POG habitats in the reserve system, reducing the proportion available for 

harvest. Moreover, there are no large ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects in VCU 

5790. 

VCU 5800 (North Thorne River) – No small OGR modifications are proposed in VCU 

5800 under Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

VCU 5810 (Luck Lake) – No small OGR modifications are proposed in VCU 5810 under 

Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

VCU 5820 (Baird Peak) – VCU 5820 currently maintains 100 percent of the original 

total POG present in 1954, of which 32 percent would be included in the modified OGR

(an increase of 8 percent). It is considered an intact landscape as defined in the Forest 

Plan FEIS (i.e., maintaining more than 95 percent of its original POG; USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). There are no large ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects in VCU 

5820, and modifications would result in a minor exchange in the amounts of various 

habitats and features (design criteria in Appendix D of the Forest Plan FEIS).

VCU 5830 (Ratz Harbor) – VCU 5830 currently maintains 56 percent of the original 

total POG present in 1954, of which 21 percent would be included in the modified OGR 

(an increase of 7 percent). However, the existing small OGR was split between VCUs 

5820 and 5830, and it should be noted that this modification would reduce the amount of 

POG included in the reserve system in adjacent VCU 5820 (12 percent of the original 

POG in VCU 5820). Moreover, there are no large ongoing or reasonably foreseeable 

projects in VCU 5830. 

VCU 5840 (Sal Creek) – No small OGR modifications are proposed in VCU 5810 under 

Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-79

VCU 5850 (Sandy Beach) – VCU 5850 currently maintains 41 percent of the original 

total POG present in 1954, of which 41 percent would be included in the modified OGR 

(an increase of 7 percent). A small amount of harvest (22 acres) would occur in this VCU 

under the North Thorne Bay state timber harvest project. 

VCU 5860 (Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage) – No small OGR modifications are proposed 

in VCU 5860 under Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

VCU 5950 (Steelhead) – VCU 5950 currently maintains 70 percent of the original total 

POG present in 1954, of which 31 percent would be included in the modified OGR (an 

increase of 11 percent). Approximately 65 acres could be harvested in VCU 5950 under 

the Control Lake timber harvest project. 

VCU 5960 (Control Lake) – VCU 5960 currently maintains 98 percent of the original 

total POG present in 1954, of which 12 percent would be included in the modified OGR 

(an increase of 5 percent). It is considered an intact landscape as defined in the Forest 

Plan FEIS (i.e., maintaining more than 95 percent of its original POG; USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). Approximately 88 acres could be harvested in VCU 5960 under the 

Control Lake timber harvest project. 

VCU 5972 (Angel Lake) – VCU 5972 currently maintains 66 percent of the original total 

POG present in 1954, of which 21 percent would be included in the modified OGR (a 

decrease of less than 1 percent). This modification would also result in the inclusion of

approximately 3 percent of the original POG in adjacent VCU 5980 in the reserve system 

(an increase of less than 1 percent). Approximately 256 acres could be harvested in VCU 

5972 under the Control Lake timber harvest project. 

Timber Resources

Modifications of the small OGRs resulted in changes in LUD allocations (see Table OGR1). If an area was reallocated to a development LUD, that area was then considered for 

possible timber harvest. A LSTA (logging system and transportation analysis) was done 

to determine logical logging settings using aerial photos and GIS information as described 

in the Alternative Development section in Chapter 2. This resulted in the potential 

mapped suitable and available acres shown in Table OGR-3. These acres were then fieldverified to identify proposed timber harvest units. During field verification, some of these 

acres were found to be unsuitable for timber production for resource concerns usually 

related to soils. Other acres not mapped during the original LSTA development were 

found to be suitable. In addition, access may have improved to some areas that were 

originally allocated to development LUDs but were not included in the proposed action 

and units were identified in these areas. Proposed units were identified and added to the 

alternatives; this information is shown on Table OGR-4. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, there would be no change in OGR boundaries. Therefore, 

there would be no change in the acreage classified as suitable forest land (Table OGR-3). 

About 124,181 acres of the project area are currently in development LUDs and available 

for timber production (see Table 1-1). Within these development LUDs, 48,477 acres are 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-80 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

mapped as suitable for timber production. The small OGRs of the project area contain 

approximately 6,977 mapped acres that would be considered suitable for timber 

production if it were in a development LUD (Table OGR-3). 

Cumulative Effects

No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects on Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger 

Districts would modify LUDs; therefore, there would be no cumulative effect on the 

amount of suitable forest land in the project area or on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger 

Districts. The project area would continue to provide about 16 percent of the mapped 

suitable land base on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 3, OGR boundaries would be modified. As a result, the lands available 

for timber production in development LUDs of the project area would decrease by 590 

acres, but there would be a net increase of approximately 1,331 acres in mapped suitable 

forest lands (including both old growth and young growth). If all mapped suitable lands 

were verified to be suitable, an estimated 40.8 MMBF of additional timber volume 

(including an assumption of 10 MBF per acre for young growth) could be produced. 

Under Alternative 3, the small OGRs of the project area would contain approximately 

5,646 mapped acres that would be considered suitable for timber production if it were in a 

development LUD (Table OGR-3). 

Alternative 3 includes 50 harvest units in previous OGRs and several portions of units

covering 1,360 acres and producing about 39.2 MMBF of gross volume. The following 

paragraphs describe specific Big Thorne project effects for each VCU individually.

VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek) – Modifications to this small OGR would 

result in a net increase of 3 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber 

production. After field verification and LSTA refinement, one 20-acre cable-yarding unit 

was added to Alternative 3 in this VCU, producing about 0.9 MMBF of gross volume.

Additional road construction required for this unit is limited to about 1,000 ft.

VCU 5800 (North Thorne River) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a 

net decrease of 175 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber 

production. However, after field verification and LSTA refinement, nine harvest units 

covering about 208 acres and producing about 7.6 MMBF of gross volume were added to

Alternative 3 in this VCU. About half of this volume would be harvested using helicopter 

yarding and the remainder by cable and shovel, requiring about 1.1 miles of new road 

construction and 1.3 miles of reconstruction.

VCU 5810 (Luck Lake) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net increase 

of 551 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber production. After 

field verification and LSTA refinement, nine harvest units covering about 276 acres and 

producing about 10.3 MMBF of gross volume were added to Alternative 3 in this VCU. 

About half of this volume would be harvested by helicopter and the remainder by cable 

and shovel, requiring about 1.1 miles of new road construction and 0.7 mile of 

reconstruction.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-81

Table OGR-3. Acres and Volume of Potential Mapped Suitable Timber1/ Within Each 

Small OGR by Alternative, Change in Mapped Suitable and Available

Timber2/, and Summary Statistics

VCU

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Potential 

Mapped 

Suitable Forest 

Land in Small 

OGRs

Change in 

Mapped 

Suitable & 

Available

Forest Land

Potential 

Mapped 

Suitable Forest 

Land in Small 

OGRs

Change in 

Mapped 

Suitable & 

Available 

Forest Land

Potential 

Mapped 

Suitable Forest 

Land in Small 

OGRs

Change in 

Mapped 

Suitable & 

Available 

Forest Land

Mapped Suitable Forest Land Acres

5790 390 0 387 +3 530 -140

5800 649 0 824 -175 649 0

5810 984 0 433 +551 984 0

5820 201 0 272 -72 250 -50

5830 616 0 438 +178 668 -51

5840 593 0 405 +188 593 0

5850 368 0 208 +161 500 -132

5860 314 0 121 +192 314 0

5950 1,223 0 1,166 +57 1,695 -472

5960 212 0 212 0 649 -437

5972 1,427 0 1,178 +249 1,688 -260

Subtotal 6,977 0 5,646 +1,331 8,518 -1,541

Mapped Suitable Timber Volume (Gross in MMBF) 3/

5790 13.9 0 13.3 +0.6 37.8 -23.9

5800 22.2 0 35.3 -13.0 10.0 12.2

5810 37.8 0 17.8 +20.1 15.2 22.6

5820 8.6 0 11.2 -2.6 22.1 -13.5

5830 14.0 0 9.5 + 4.5 22.2 -8.2

5840 22.1 0 14.9 +7.2 18.3 3.8

5850 13.6 0 7.7 +5.9 63.3 -49.7

5860 12.0 0 4.5 +7.5 26.9 -14.9

5950 43.1 0 42.0 +1.1 18.6 24.5

5960 8.3 0 8.3 0 12.0 -3.7

5972 51.1 0 41.7 +9.4 52.6 -1.5

Subtotal 246.8 0 206.1 +40.8 299.0 -52.2

Net Changes to Big Thorne Alternatives4/

Alts 1, 2, & 5 Alt 3 Alt 4

Net Change in Number of Harvest Units due to OGR Modification 0 +50 -7

Net Change in Acres of Harvest Units due to OGR Modification 0 +1,360 -95

Net Change in Timber Volume (Gross MMBF) due to OGR 

Modification 0 +39.2 -4.1

1/ Potential mapped suitable forest land is based on the estimated area within an OGR that would be suitable forest land if the OGR 

was changed to a development LUD and uses GIS information to estimate suitability. It includes old and young growth.

2/ Mapped suitable and available timber is the area that qualifies as suitable and available for timber production based on GIS mapping.

3/ Based on average gross volumes per acre for high, medium, and low volstrata for old growth and 10 MBF/acre for young growth.

4/ Changes in number, area, and volume in harvest units as a result of OGR modifications for each alternative.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-82 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table OGR-4. Effects of OGR Modifications on the Number of Units, Acres and 

Volume by VCU and Summary by Alternative for the Big Thorne 

project.

VCU

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Number of 

units

Field verified 

Suitable & 

Available 

Timber (acres)

Field 

verified 

Number 

of units

Field verified 

Suitable & 

Available 

Timber (acres)

Field 

verified 

Number of 

Units

Field verified 

Suitable & 

Available 

Timber (acres)

Number of Units and Mapped Suitable Acres

5790 0 0 1 +20 -1 -13

5800 0 0 9 +208 0 0

5810 0 0 9 +276 0 0

5820 0 0 11 +84 +1 +25

5830 0 0 11 +61 -1 -46

5840 0 0 5 +213 0 0

5850 0 0 21 +91 -2 -75

5860 0 0 8 +205 0

5950 0 0 7 +77 -2 -21

5960 0 0 0 0 0 0

5972 0 0 7 +124 +8, -10 +260, -225

Total 0 0 50 +1,360 -7 -95

Mapped Suitable Timber Volume (Gross in MMBF) 

5790 0 0 1 +0.9 -1 -0.5 

5800 0 0 9 +7.6 0 0 

5810 0 0 9 +10.3 0 0

5820 0 0 11 +1.0 1 +0.2 

5830 0 0 11 +0.8 -1 -1.8 

5840 0 0 5 +3.5 0 0 

5850 0 0 21 +2.2 -2 -2.7 

5860 0 0 8 +6.5 0 0 

5950 0 0 7 +2.6 -2 -0.5 

5960 0 0 0 0 0 0

5972 0 0 7 +3.7 -2 -1.2 

Total 0 0 50 +39.2 -7 -4.1 1

/ Also includes a portion of a unit 2

/ Based on average gross volumes per acre for high, medium, and low volstrata. 

VCU 5820 (Baird Peak) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net 

decrease of 72 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber production. 

However, after field verification and LSTA refinement, one full unit and a portion of 

another, totaling 84 acres of partial-cut harvest and producing about 1.0 MMBF of gross 

volume were added to Alternative 3 in this VCU. These units would need to be harvested 

by helicopter and may require long yarding distances, unless a barge in Clarence Strait can 

be used.

VCU 5830 (Ratz Harbor) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net 

increase of 178 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber 

production. After field verification and LSTA refinement, one full unit and a portion of 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-83

another, totaling 61 acres of mostly partial-cut harvest and producing about 0.8 MMBF of 

gross volume were added to Alternative 3 in this VCU. Almost 90 percent of this volume 

would require helicopter yarding and no new road construction would be required.

VCU 5840 (Sal Creek) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net increase 

of 188 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber production. After 

field verification and LSTA refinement, five harvest units covering 213 acres (mostly 

partial cut) and producing about 3.5 MMBF of gross volume were added to Alternative 3 

in this VCU. Almost 90 percent of this volume would require helicopter yarding and 

about 0.4 mile of road construction would be required.

VCU 5850 (Sandy Beach) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net 

increase of 161 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber 

production. After field verification and LSTA refinement, two full harvest units and one 

harvest unit shared with VCU 5860 covering 91 acres and producing 2.2 MMBF of gross 

volume were added to Alternative 3 in this VCU. Yarding would be mostly by shovel, 

with some cable, and about 2.1 miles of road construction would be required.

VCU 5860 (Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage) – Modifications to this small OGR would 

result in a net increase of 192 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for 

timber production. After field verification and LSTA refinement, eight harvest units 

(including one harvest unit shared with VCU 5860) covering 205 acres and producing 

about 6.5 MMBF of gross volume were added to Alternative 3 in this VCU. This volume

would be harvested almost entirely by shovel and cable yarding, would require about 3 

miles of new road construction, and would require use of existing state roads for access.

VCU 5950 (Steelhead) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net increase 

of 57 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber production. After 

field verification and LSTA refinement, seven harvest units covering 77 acres and 

producing 2.6 MMBF of gross volume were added to Alternative 3 in this VCU. Yarding

would be about two-thirds by helicopter and, although no new roads would be required, 

about 1.8 miles of road reconstruction would be necessary.

VCU 5960 (Control Lake) – No modifications to the small OGR in VCU 5960 are 

proposed under Alternative 3.

VCU 5972 (Angel Lake) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net 

increase of 249 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber 

production. After field verification and LSTA refinement, seven harvest units covering 

124 acres and producing 3.7 MMBF of gross volume were added to Alternative 3 in this 

VCU. About one-third of the volume would be yarded by helicopter, with shovel and 

cable yarding for the rest. About 0.8 mile of road construction would be necessary.

Cumulative Effects

No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger 

Districts are expected to result in LUD modifications. Therefore, cumulative effects on 

the amount of suitable forest land in the project area or on the Thorne Bay and Craig 

Ranger Districts are expected to be the same as the direct and indirect effects. This 

change would result in a 0.4 percent increase in the mapped suitable forest land on the 

Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-84 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 4, OGR boundaries would be modified. As a result, the lands 

available for timber production in development LUDs of the project area would decrease 

by 4,288 acres and mapped suitable forest lands would decrease by approximately 1,541 

acres (including both old growth and young growth). If all mapped suitable lands were 

verified to be suitable, an estimated 52.2 MMBF less gross timber volume (including an 

assumption of 10 MBF per acre for young growth) could be produced from development 

LUDs (Table OGR-3). 

Relative to the Big Thorne project, an LSTA for the additional mapped suitable acres was 

developed and field investigations were conducted. As a result, many of the mapped 

suitable acres were determined not to be suitable due to soils concerns and other resource 

issues, and some acres were deferred (including the young growth). Alternative 4 

includes 9 new harvest units in previous OGRs on 285 acres, producing about 8.3 MMBF 

of gross volume. However, 16 units covering about 380 acres and producing 12.4 MMBF 

of gross volume would be eliminated by new OGRs. The following paragraphs describe

specific Big Thorne project effects for each VCU with OGR modifications.

VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek) – Modifications to this small OGR would 

result in a net decrease of 140 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for 

timber production and would result in the elimination of one 13-acre unit in the Big 

Thorne project, reducing the gross volume of Alternative 4 by about 0.5 MMBF. No 

additional harvest units would become available.

VCU 5800 (North Thorne River) – No modifications to the small OGR in VCU 5800 

are proposed under Alternative 4.

VCU 5810 (Luck Lake) – No modifications to the small OGR in VCU 5810 are proposed 

under Alternative 4.

VCU 5820 (Baird Peak) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net 

decrease of 50 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber production. 

However, after field verification and LSTA refinement, one 25-acre partial-cut harvest 

unit, producing about 0.2 MMBF of gross volume was added to Alternative 4 and none 

were eliminated in this VCU. This unit would need to be harvested by helicopter and no 

new roads would be needed.

VCU 5830 (Ratz Harbor) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net 

decrease of 51 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber production. 

One harvest unit would be excluded from Alternative 4; it covers 46 acres, would include 

cable, shovel, and helicopter yarding, and would produce about 1.8 MMBF of gross 

volume. It would require 0.6 mile of road construction and 0.6 mile of reconstruction. 

VCU 5840 (Sal Creek) – No modifications to the small OGR in VCU 5840 are proposed 

under Alternative 4.

VCU 5850 (Sandy Beach) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net 

decrease of 132 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber 

production. About 75 acres of two harvest units (all of one and most of the other) would 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-85

be eliminated from Alternative 4. This would result in a 2.7 MMBF reduction in the gross 

volume of Alternative 4. Elimination of these units would also eliminate about 1 mile of

road construction.

VCU 5860 (Thorne Bay/Snug Anchorage) – No modifications to the small OGR in 

VCU 5860 are proposed under Alternative 4.

VCU 5950 (Steelhead) – Modifications to this small OGR would result in a net decrease 

of 472 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for timber production. About

21 acres of two harvest units (all of one and most of the other) would be eliminated from 

Alternative 4. This would result in a 0.5 MMBF reduction in the gross volume of 

Alternative 4. Elimination of these units would also eliminate about 0.4 mile of road 

construction

VCU 5960 (Control Lake) – Expansions of the small OGR in VCU 5960 are proposed 

under Alternative 4. This would result in a 437-acre net decrease in mapped suitable 

forest land that is available for timber production. These reductions would not directly 

affect Big Thorne harvest units because the expansions are essentially entirely in roadless.

VCU 5972 (Angel Lake) – Modifications to this small OGR under Alternative 4 would

result in a net decrease of 260 acres in mapped suitable forest land that is available for 

timber production. They would have major effects on the Big Thorne project. First, they 

would result in the addition of 8 harvest units to Alternative 4 covering 260 acres,

producing about 8.1 MMBF of gross volume, and requiring about 0.8 mile of road 

construction. About three-quarters of these acres would be helicopter harvest. In 

addition, the modifications would eliminate 10 units covering about 225 acres, producing 

about 6.9 MMBF of gross volume, and requiring 3.7 miles of new road construction and 

0.5 mile of reconstruction. The eliminated units are over 90 percent cable and shovel. 

The net effect would be a 1.2 MMBF decrease in Alternative 4 volume, but the added

units would have a much higher proportion of helicopter yarding than the dropped units, 

decreasing the economics of the harvest. 

Cumulative Effects

No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects on Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger 

Districts are expected to result in LUD modifications. Therefore, cumulative effects on 

the amount of suitable forest land in the project area or on the Thorne Bay and Craig 

Ranger Districts are expected to be the same as direct and indirect effects. This change 

would result in a 0.5 percent decrease in the mapped suitable forest land on the Thorne 

Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. 

Fish Resources

A number of stream miles that are in existing OGR would now be converted to 

development LUDs, while some streams that were in development LUDs would now be in 

OGRs. The exchange of land classifications would primarily be transferring already 

roaded areas of OGRs to timber harvest areas, while existing roadless areas would be 

transferred to OGR categories.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-86 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, small OGR boundaries would not be modified so the 

watershed acres and stream miles within small OGRs would remain unchanged. 

Cumulative Effects

No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would modify LUDs, and 

effects on fish resources of individual development projects are expected to be within the 

limits allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are 

proposed.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would result in OGR boundary modifications, exchanging roaded portions 

of existing OGRs for roadless lands that are currently in Modified Landscape and Timber 

Production LUDs. The result would be that some existing OGR areas would be open to 

timber harvest under Alternative 3 while some roadless areas that were in Modified

Landscape and Timber Production LUDs, would become OGR and would be closed to 

timber harvest. 

These land allocation changes, however, are not expected to result in any adverse effects 

to fish resources independent of those addressed in other portions of this document. 

While more stream miles, including anadromous fish streams, would be placed in 

potential harvest areas under Alternative 3 the standards and guidelines and BMPs in 

place for timber harvest to protect riparian habitats and fish resources will be adequate to 

ensure that no additional adverse effects occur to fish resources in the project area. 

OGR acres converted to development LUD acres could disproportionally open up more 

acres to harvest and roads in watersheds that are already heavily harvested/roaded. Under 

Alternative 3, this occurs with small acreages in Pin, Salamander, and Big Salt Lake 

subwatersheds. Based on the metrics used to measure potential cumulative watershed 

effects (see later in this chapter), these subwatersheds have exceedances when reasonably 

foreseeable actions are included (North Big Salt Lake exceeds the 20 percent of basin area 

harvest threshold, Salamander exceeds the 2.5 percent of basin area in roads threshold, 

and Pin exceeds both of these thresholds). However, essentially the entire amount of 

additional allowable harvest in these subwatersheds due to OGR changes is analyzed and 

disclosed for Alternative 3 in the Issue 4 - Cumulative Watershed Effects section of this 

chapter. If any additional unforeseen projects are proposed in these subwatersheds or 

other subwatersheds in the future, effects would be analyzed and disclosed as they are 

proposed in future environmental analyses. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to fish resources associated with these land allocation changes are 

expected to be very minor. While more stream miles, including anadromous fish streams, 

would be placed in potential harvest areas under Alternative 3, Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and BMPs in place for timber harvest to protect riparian habitats and fish 

resources would be adequate to protect against adverse effects to fish resources in the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-87

project area. As noted above, the subwatersheds with potential effects related to 

cumulative harvest and cumulative road development are analyzed in the Issue 4 –

Cumulative Watershed Effects section of this chapter. No other present or reasonably 

foreseeable projects in the area would modify LUDs, and effects on fish of individual 

development projects are expected to be within the limits allowed by the Forest Plan and 

are analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are proposed.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would result in OGR boundary modifications, so that the small OGRs of the 

project area match the biologically preferred arrangement. Some existing OGR areas 

would be open to timber harvest, while a much larger acreage of development LUD areas 

would become OGR and generally be closed to timber harvest. As a result, a number of 

stream miles that are in existing OGRs would be converted to development LUDs, while 

many more streams that were in development LUDs would be in OGRs. 

After the exchanges, the number of Class I, II, and III stream miles in OGRs would each 

increase. As noted above, OGR acres converted to development LUD acres could 

disproportionally open up more acres to harvest and roads in watersheds that are already 

heavily harvested/roaded. Under Alternative 4, none of the areas being converted to 

development LUDs are in subwatersheds with metrics for cumulative harvest or 

cumulative roads that are exceeding the subwatershed thresholds used, even when 

reasonably foreseeable actions are included. Subwatersheds with potential effects related 

to cumulative harvest and cumulative road development are analyzed in the Issue 4 –

Cumulative Watershed Effects section. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to fish resources associated with these land allocation changes are 

expected to be very minor, but positive. While more stream miles, including anadromous 

fish streams, would be placed in OGRs under Alternative 4, Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and BMPs in place for timber harvest to protect riparian habitats and fish 

resources would be adequate to protect against adverse effects to fish resources in the 

project area in any event. Further, no other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in 

the area would modify LUDs, and effects on fish of individual development projects are 

expected to be within the limits allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately 

and cumulatively as they are proposed.

Sensitive and Rare Plant Resources

This section analyzes the effects of changes in land use designations on sensitive plants 

over the long-term. These LUD changes, in themselves, do not result in any immediate 

direct effects. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, there would be no change in OGR boundaries. Therefore, 

there would be no change in the long-term protection of sensitive plants provided by 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-88 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

OGRs. Project area OGRs would continue to include 42 percent of the known plants and 

at least a portion of 30 percent of the known populations for the lesser round-leaved 

orchid. In addition, they would continue to include 35 percent of the known plants and at 

least a portion of 38 percent of the known populations for the Alaska rein orchid. These 

large percentages are important, in that OGRs are more likely to result in protection of 

sensitive plant habitats than are areas in development LUDs. Four populations of the rare 

plant, western meadowrue, occur within small OGRs in the project area.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The number of lesser round-leaved orchid plants known within OGRs would be reduced 

by 49 percent (from 1,661 to 839 plants) and the number of populations partially or fully 

within OGRs would be reduced by 21 percent (from 33 to 26 populations). OGRs would 

include about 21 percent of the known plants and 24 percent of the known populations in 

the project area (compared with 42 percent and 30 percent under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5). 

The number of Alaska rein orchid plants known within OGRs would be reduced by 

31 percent (from 301 to 208 plants) and the number of populations partially or fully within 

OGRs would be reduced by 44 percent (from 9 to 5 populations). OGRs would include

about 24 percent of the known plants and 21 percent of the known populations in the 

project area (compared with 35 percent and 38 percent under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5). 

None of these populations are located within proposed timber harvest units or new road 

construction for this project.

No effects to other known sensitive plant populations would occur as a result of OGR 

boundary modifications. 

Two of the four populations of western meadowrue that occur within small OGRs would 

continue to occur within small OGRs after implementation of Alternative 3. However, 

two populations in VCU 580 are in areas that would be converted to Timber Production 

LUD.

Cumulative Effects

Areas with the allocations changed from OGRs to development LUDs would not all be 

subject to timber harvest. Even over the long term, only areas mapped as suitable POG 

would be targeted for harvest.

Less than half of the lesser round-leaved orchid plant locations known to occur in OGRs 

under existing conditions, are mapped as POG and some of these areas would be 

unsuitable for timber production (due to standards and guidelines, e.g., riparian buffers, 

legacy); therefore, less than half of the plants in areas that would change to development 

LUDs are expected to be subject to timber harvest over the long term.

Similarly, less than 20 percent of the Alaska rein orchid plant locations known to occur in 

OGRs under existing conditions are mapped as POG and some of these areas would be 

unsuitable for timber production (due to standards and guidelines, e.g., riparian buffers, 

legacy); therefore, less than 20 percent of the plants in areas that would change to 

development LUDs are expected to be subject to timber harvest over the long term.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-89

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The number of lesser round-leaved orchid plants known within OGRs would increase by 

59 percent (from 1,661 to 2,634 plants) and the number of populations partially or fully 

within OGRs would increase by 61 percent (from 33 to 53 populations). OGRs would 

include about 67 percent of the known plants and 48 percent of the known populations in 

the project area (compared with 42 percent and 30 percent under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5). 

The number of Alaska rein orchid plants known within OGRs would increase by 24 

percent (from 301 to 374 plants) and the number of populations partially or fully within 

OGRs would increase by 44 percent (from 9 to 13 populations). OGRs would include

about 43 percent of the known plants and 54 percent of the known populations in the 

project area (compared with 35 percent and 38 percent under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5). 

No effects to other known sensitive plant populations would occur as a result of OGR 

boundary modifications.

One of the four populations of western meadowrue that occurs within small OGRs would 

continue to occur within a small OGR after implementation of Alternative 4. However, 

three of these populations are in areas that would be converted to the Timber Production 

LUD under Alternative 4.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 4 results in a net increase in the number of sensitive plants included in OGRs. 

Areas being converted from development LUDs to OGRs were not all originally subject to 

timber harvest. Even over the long term, only areas mapped as POG and suitable for 

timber production can be targeted for harvest.

Less than half of the lesser round-leaved orchid plant locations known to occur in OGRs 

under existing conditions, are mapped as POG and some of these areas would be 

unsuitable for timber production (due to standards and guidelines); therefore, less than 

half of the plants being incorporated into OGRs are likely to receive an increased level of 

protection from timber harvest. Similarly, less than 20 percent of the Alaska rein orchid 

plant locations known to occur in OGRs under existing conditions, are mapped as POG 

and some of these areas would be unsuitable for timber production (due to standards and 

guidelines); therefore, only a minority of the plants being incorporated into OGRs are 

likely to receive an increased level of protection from timber harvest. 

Scenery Resources

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, there would be no change in OGR boundaries. As a result, 

there would be no change in SIOs in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects

No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would modify LUDs, and 

visual disturbances of individual development projects are expected to be within the limits 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-90 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are 

proposed.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would change OGR boundaries, resulting in changes in SIOs. 

Approximately 5,873 acres would change from high SIO to moderate, low, or very low. 

Similarly, 6,574 acres of moderate, low, and very low would change to high SIO.

None of the OGR modifications would result in conversion to Scenic Viewshed LUD; 

however, some acres of scenic viewshed would be converted to OGR in VCU 5950. 

Areas of potential concern where OGR conversion to Modified Landscape LUD would 

occur are located in VCU 5810 (north of Luck Lake), VCU 5840 (along the 3000 Road 

north of Sal Creek), and VCU 5850 (south of Sandy Beach). Some portions of these areas 

would be visible from visual priority routes and use areas. Although the SIO in these 

areas would generally decline as a result of conversion to Modified Landscape, the 2008 

Forest Plan designated all adjacent areas with similar visual concern levels (and even 

those adjacent areas that are more visually sensitive) as Modified Landscape as well. A 

combination of partial harvest, the use of visual screens, and the placement of required 

legacy, in harvest units in these areas would mitigate harvest sufficiently to meet required 

SIOs. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative visual effects associated with the OGR changes are expected to be low. No 

other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would modify LUDs, and 

visual disturbances of individual development projects are expected to be within the limits 

allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are 

proposed.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would change OGR boundaries, resulting in changes in SIOs. 

Approximately 3,253 acres would change from high SIO to low or very low. Similarly, 

7,541 acres of high, moderate, low, and very low would change to high SIO.

None of the OGR modifications would result in conversion to Scenic Viewshed LUD; 

however, some acres of Scenic Viewshed would be converted to OGR in VCU 5950. No 

significant areas of concern would result, where OGR conversion to Modified Landscape 

LUD would occur. In addition, several areas of Modified Landscape LUD would be 

added to OGRs in VCUs 5820, 5850, and 5972.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative visual effects associated with the OGR changes are expected to be low. No 

other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would modify LUDs, and 

visual disturbances of individual development projects are expected to be within the limits 

allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are 

proposed.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD ▪ 3-91

Recreation Resources

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, there would be no change in OGR boundaries and no related 

changes to ROS and patterns of recreation use in the Big Thorne project area.

Cumulative Effects

No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would modify LUDs, and 

effects on recreation resources of individual development projects are expected to be within 

the limits allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately and cumulatively as they are 

proposed.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 3, there would be changes to the small OGRs in the project area. Total 

acres in the small OGRs would have a net increase of about 590 acres under this 

alternative; however, many additional acres would change. Overall, there would be a net 

gain of 4,220 acres in Semi-Primitive ROS settings and an overall decrease in acres in 

Roaded ROS settings (-3,630 acres) in small OGRs. This change would be consistent 

with the general goal of the Old-growth Habitat LUD to provide Semi-Primitive ROS 

settings. The overall project-wide changes in ROS settings that would occur as a result of 

this alternative are shown in Table REC-5 in the Recreation section below. Viewed in 

terms of the project area, the resulting changes would represent a small share of the 

affected settings and would not be likely to affect recreation and tourism. 

Harvest under this alternative in former OGR areas would occur relatively close to two of 

the 13 developed recreation sites in the Big Thorne project area: Thorne Lake, which is 

part of the Honker Divide Canoe Route and the Luck Lake Day Use Area. These areas 

are described below in the Recreation section. Noise and other activity associated with 

harvest in the former OGR area northeast of Thorne Lake would be apparent to people 

traveling this part of the Canoe Route and would affect the quality of their remote 

recreation experience. Noise and other activity associated with harvest in the former OGR 

area north of Luck Lake would likely to be apparent to people using the day use area and 

recreating on the lake. In both cases, these impacts would be temporary. 

The Scenery Resources analysis (above) identified three areas of potential visual concern

associated with the conversion of OGR lands to the Modified Landscape LUD, but concluded 

that a combination of partial harvest prescriptions, the use of visual screens, and the placement 

of required legacy in harvest units in these areas would mitigate harvest sufficiently to meet 

required SIOs; impacts to scenery would, therefore, not be expected to affect the quality of the 

recreation experience in these areas.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to recreation resources associated with the OGR changes are expected to 

be low. No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would modify LUDs, 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-92 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

and effects on recreation resources of individual development projects are expected to be 

within the limits allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately and cumulatively as 

they are proposed.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 4, the boundaries of the small OGRs in the project area would be 

modified to correspond with the biologically preferred arrangement for the project area (as 

developed by an interagency team). Net acres in the small OGRs in the project area 

would increase by about 4,288 under this alternative, with a net gain of 400 acres in SemiPrimitive ROS settings and 3,900 acres in Roaded ROS settings within small OGRs. The 

overall project-wide changes in ROS settings that would occur as a result of this 

alternative are shown in Table REC-5 in the Recreation section below. Viewed in terms 

of the project area, the resulting changes would represent a small share of the affected 

settings and would not be likely to affect recreation and tourism. 

The Scenery Resources analysis (above) indicated that significant changes to scenery with the 

potential to affect the quality of the recreation experience in adjacent or nearby areas would be 

expected to occur.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to recreation resources associated with the OGR changes are expected to 

be low. No other present or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area would modify 

LUDs, and effects on recreation resources of individual development projects are 

expected to be within the limits allowed by the Forest Plan and are analyzed separately 

and cumulatively as they are proposed.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-93

Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use

Issue statement: The proposed action combined with past timber harvest would affect 

old-growth habitat and increase road density, which may affect a range of wildlife, 

including deer and wolves, and subsistence use of deer.

Public comments expressed concern about wildlife and subsistence in the Big Thorne 

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

other species. Because of its proximity to residents of Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, 

Klawock, Craig, and Naukati, the Big Thorne project area is considered an important deer 

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

associated with additional harvest taken together with past harvest, old-growth 

connectivity, and increasing road density were also noted concerns. Additional concerns

are project-related effects to deer as they relate to wolves and subsistence users.

Alternative 4 responds to these concerns by emphasizing landscape connectivity and the 

protection of key wildlife travel corridors; the minimization of impacts to sensitive plants

(see the Botany section for additional discussion) and wildlife species, including wolves, 

goshawks, black bears, deer, and marten; and the retention of old-growth forest structure. 

Design features were incorporated into Alternative 4 to minimize effects to wildlife and 

subsistence (see the Wildlife and Subsistence Resources Report for a unit-by-unit 

description).

Units of Measure

The comparison of alternatives for this issue focuses on the following units of measure:

 Total, high-volume, and large-tree productive old growth (POG) acres by value 

comparison unit (VCU), WAA, project area, and biogeographic province;

 Connectivity/fragmentation (qualitative analysis of corridors; reduction of POG 

acres; patch size analysis);

 Road density in miles per square mile (all roads [open and closed]) by WAA

below 1,200 feet and for all elevations;

 Deer habitat capability by WAA and biogeographic province in deer habitat in 

deer per square mile;

 Deer winter habitat acres harvested by WAA;

 Goshawk habitat (total POG and high-volume POG) acres harvested by VCU;

 Marten deep snow winter habitat acres harvested by WAA; and

 Abundance and distribution of, access to, and competition for known subsistence 

resources.

Regulatory Framework

Shown below is a partial list of Federal laws and executive orders pertaining to projectspecific planning and environmental analysis for wildlife and subsistence use on Federal 

lands. While most pertain to all Federal lands, some are specific to Alaska.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-94 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as Amended)

 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act

 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

 Marine Mammal Protection Act

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

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

 Executive Order 13443 (Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation)

 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

Wildlife 

Section 7 of the ESA directs Federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded or 

carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened 

or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical 

habitat. Impacts to Federally listed species are addressed in detail in the project 

Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) for wildlife and fish and 

summarized below. 

The National Forest Management Act (section 36 CFR 219.19) requires that the Forest 

Service manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native 

and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area and ensures that its actions 

do not contribute to trends toward Federal listing. To that end, management indicator 

species (MIS) were identified in the Forest Planning process. These species are used to 

evaluate project-related impacts to wildlife; their population changes are believed to 

indicate the effects of land management activities on other species with similar habitat 

needs. Likewise, the Forest Service manual directs the Regional Forester to identify 

sensitive species for each National Forest where species viability may be a concern and 

requires the Forest Service to manage the habitat of the species listed in the Regional 

Sensitive Species List (USDA 2009a) to prevent further declines in populations, which 

could lead to Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Impacts to Forest 

Service Sensitive species are also addressed in detail in the project BA/BE for wildlife and 

summarized in this section.

The Forest Plan conservation strategy, which consists of a forest-wide system of oldgrowth reserves (OGRs) and a series of standards and guidelines applicable to lands where 

timber harvest is permitted (matrix lands), was developed to ensure the maintenance of 

well-distributed, viable populations of old-growth-associated wildlife species across the 

Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2008b). The OGRs are designed to maintain the 

integrity of the old-growth ecosystem and provide adequate habitat for old-growth 

dependent or associated species. Standards and guidelines protect other key wildlife 

habitats (e.g., riparian areas, the beach fringe, and wetlands); raptor nests sites and wolf 

dens; and components of the old-growth forest ecosystem (e.g., snags). Collectively, the 

reserve system and the standards and guidelines are intended to provide old-growth 

habitat connectivity across the landscape. A detailed overview of the Conservation 

Strategy is provided under Issue 2.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-95

Subsistence

The U.S. Congress recognized the importance of subsistence resource gathering to the 

rural communities of Alaska with the passage of ANILCA (Public Law 96-487). 

ANILCA (Section 803) defines subsistence as: “The customary and traditional uses by 

rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family 

consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools or transportation; for the making and 

selling of handicraft articles out of non-edible by-products of fish and wildlife resources 

taken for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.”

ANILCA provides for the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural 

residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on Federal public lands. The 

act also mandates that customary and traditional subsistence uses of renewable resources 

shall be the priority consumptive uses of all such resources on the public lands of Alaska. 

Rural residents are provided a preference for the taking of subsistence resources on public 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provide rural residents with reasonable access for subsistence uses. The EA for the Prince 

of Wales ATM analyzes access for subsistence use on Prince of Wales Island. Access 

within the project area is also discussed below.

Methodology

Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis include field 

reconnaissance, aerial photo interpretation, existing Forest Service GIS data, peerreviewed literature (cited as appropriate below), previous NEPA analyses in the vicinity of 

the Big Thorne Project, and information from knowledgeable individuals. 

Field Surveys 

Forest Service personnel conducted goshawk surveys in the Big Thorne project area in 

2010, 2011 and 2012 according to the Tongass National Forest Project-level Goshawk 

Inventory Protocol, a modified Broadcast Acoustical Survey method adapted for 

implementation on the Tongass National Forest (Stangl 2009). Limited additional surveys 

are planned to be conducted in 2013. Additional information on goshawk surveys is 

provided in the project BA/BE for wildlife. In 2010, black-tailed deer winter habitat was 

assessed following the protocol described in Quick-Cruise Method for Assessing Deer 

Winter Range in Southeast Alaska (Kirchhoff and Hanley 1992). Incidental observations 

of wildlife and sign were made during the field surveys, though these observations do not 

provide an accurate representation of all wildlife species potentially occurring in the 

project area due to timing, coverage, and length of surveys. Additional detail on wildlife 

surveys is provided in the Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Report (Woeck 2012).

Supplemental information on the presence of endemic mammals in the Big Thorne project 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-96 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

area was obtained from small mammal trapping conducted in association with the Island 

Surveys to Locate Endemic Species (ISLES) program 

(http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/ISLES_ website_final_20091028/ isles_home.html).

Analysis Area

The analysis of direct and indirect effects to biodiversity consists of the following scales:

 VCUs coinciding with the project area to capture localized effects to biodiversity

associated with habitat loss and fragmentation,; and 

 The North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province (province 14), which 

covers the northern and central portions of Prince of Wales Island and some 

adjacent islands, to facilitate a more comprehensive, broad analysis of biodiversity 

effects.

For the analysis of cumulative effects on biodiversity, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

projects were drawn from the area encompassed by the North Central Prince of Wales 

biogeographic province. This area is an appropriate extent because it captures projects 

with potential effects related to biodiversity which may overlap in space or time with the 

Big Thorne Project. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008b).

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to wildlife and subsistence consists of 

several scales: 

 For species with limited mobility, specific habitat requirements for effective 

movement, or smaller home ranges (e.g., Prince of Wales spruce grouse and Prince 

of Wales flying squirrel), impacts were assessed within VCUs coinciding with the 

project area. 

 For mobile species (i.e., cavity nesting species, the marbled murrelet, and 

migratory birds), impacts were assessed at the project area scale. 

 For wider-ranging species such as the black-tailed deer, wolves, marten, and black 

bears and for subsistence impacts were assessed at the WAA or multiple WAA 

scale. 

For the analysis of cumulative effects, analysis areas for most wildlife and subsistence are 

the same as those described above for direct and indirect effects because these areas 

already extend beyond the project-related effects. Exceptions are the deer, wolves, and 

goshawks for which cumulative effects were analyzed at the biogeographic province 

scale. Additionally, the cumulative effects analysis accounts for past, ongoing, and 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-97

reasonably foreseeable actions on both NFS and non-NFS land ownerships and presents 

results in terms of the amount of original (1954) habitat remaining. Additional projects 

considered in this analysis are listed under the Cumulative Effects subheading below.

The Big Thorne EIS tiers to the viability assessments for goshawks, marten, wolves, other 

terrestrial mammals (well-distributed mammals and endemic mammals), and marbled 

murrelets; and the analysis of cumulative effects at the Forest scale in the 2008 Forest 

Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). These analyses fully considered the levels

of past and likely future harvest and associated development on NFS and non-NFS lands, 

accounting for projects such as Big Thorne. The 2008 Final EIS concluded that full 

implementation of the Forest Plan (in 100+ years) is expected to have a moderate to very 

high likelihood of maintaining habitat that supports viable and well-distributed 

populations of wildlife (USDA Forest Service 2008b).

Analysis Methodology

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Big Thorne Project on wildlife and 

subsistence were assessed assuming that the proposed project would be implemented in 

2014. This is conservative because in reality, timber sales and associated effects would be 

spread out over the 10-year period. 

Vegetation Classification and the Size-Density Model

The vegetation of Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest is dominated by 

temperate coastal rain forests at lower elevations (less than about 2,000 feet), with 

interspersed muskegs, wetlands, and non-forest vegetation. At higher elevations, alpine 

vegetation, rock, glaciers, and snowfields dominate. In general, old-growth forest is the 

ecosystem most affected by timber management activities on the Tongass (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). Therefore, the analysis of impacts to biodiversity focuses on the oldgrowth forest ecosystem.

Old-growth forests on the Tongass can be classified as unproductive and productive. 

POG is generally defined as old growth forest capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet 

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

Size-Density Model (SDM), which uses a combination of tree sizes and tree densities to 

classify forest structure (Caouette et al. 2006), is used by Forest Service managers and 

planners to map POG and assess impacts to wildlife and habitats. This classification 

system builds on the timber volume-based classification system (volume strata) for POG 

used prior to the 2008 Forest Plan (low-, medium-, and high-volume), which used only 

hydric soils and steep slopes as measures productivity and growth. By incorporating the 

characterization of forest structure, the SDM is more applicable in assessing biodiversity, 

estimating timber values, and describing wildlife habitat than using timber volume alone. 

The following seven POG types have been defined which illustrate the crosswalk between 

the volume strata approach and the SDM (USDA Forest Service 2008b):

 SD4H: Volume class 4 on hydric soils. Low productive older forests associated 

with wet, poorly drained land types. Canopy closure is variable. Trees are small, 

old, and defective. Stand volume is low.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-98 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 SD4N: Volume class 4 on non-hydric soils, north aspect, or flat. Low to 

moderately productive older upland forests. Canopy characteristics are variable 

and patchy, with moderate canopy closure and relatively coarse canopy texture. 

Stand volume is low to moderate. 

 SD4S: Volume Class 4 on non-hydric soils, not north aspect, or flat. Highly 

productive younger upland forests. Stand volume is moderate, but increasing 

rapidly. Crown competition is high. Canopy characteristics tend to be uniform, 

with high canopy closure and fine canopy texture.

 SD5H: Volume class 5 on hydric soils. Moderately productive older forests 

associated with wet, poorly drained land types. Canopy closure, texture, and 

structure tend to be variable and patchy. Stand volume and annual growth is also 

variable and patchy.

 SD5N: Volume class 5 on non-hydric soils, north aspect, or flat. Moderately 

productive older upland forests. Stand volume is moderate to high. Canopy 

characteristics tend to be variable, with moderate canopy closure and coarse 

canopy texture.

 SD5S: Volume class 5 on non-hydric soils, not north aspect, or flat. Highly 

productive upland forests. Stand volume is high. Canopy characteristics tend to be 

uniform, with moderate to high canopy closures.

 SD67: Volume classes 6 and 7. Highly productive forests associated with riparian 

areas, alluvial fans, colluvial toe slopes, karst geology, and wind-protected 

uplands. Stand volume is high. Stand age can vary. Canopy closure is low to 

moderate and canopy texture is coarse.

POG is defined further in terms of two categories. High-volume POG is defined as the 

grouping of the three SD Model types that represent the highest volume stratum—SD5S, 

SD5N, and SD67 types. Large-tree POG is defined as the SD67 type, representing the 

most productive of the POG types, and typically containing the highest density of large 

trees. The 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS provides more information on the development and 

use of the Size Density Model (Forest Service 2008b).

Deer, Wolf, and Subsistence Analyses

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

interagency deer habitat capability model to assess impacts to deer habitat 

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

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

forest successional stage to provide a habitat suitability index (HSI) of habitat capability.

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

These features include closed canopy (based on volume class rather than canopy cover), 

maritime influence, low elevation south facing slopes, and low average snow depth. 

Habitat capability values are used in this analysis to estimate changes that result from 

timber harvest, but do not reflect actual deer numbers. 

To compare alternatives, changes in habitat capability are presented as a percent. Results 

from this modeling exercise are also used to evaluate impacts to wolves and subsistence 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-99

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

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

Forest Service 2011). Model assumptions and shortcomings for deer, wolves, and 

subsistence resources are described below under the appropriate subheading.

Cumulative Effects

For the cumulative effects analysis, foreseeable timber harvest projects with known 

locations were incorporated into the GIS layer (see Chapter 3 introduction for additional 

detail). Other projects that are dependent on funding, and for which timing and location 

are unknown, are discussed qualitatively. Young-growth treatments and restoration 

projects that involve pre-commercial thinning are also discussed qualitatively because the 

stem exclusion stage is based on age which is unchanged by thinning treatments and 

because the deer model does not assign different values as a result of these stand 

treatments. 

In addition to the cumulative effects projects identified in the project area, the wildlife and 

subsistence analysis also takes into consideration additional activities within the project 

area WAAs, located outside the project area boundary. These include additional state 

harvest and road construction. For the biogeographic province level cumulative effects 

analysis for wolves, present and reasonably foreseeable projects include additional state 

harvest and NFS harvest within the province (see the beginning of this chapter and 

Appendix D).

Affected Environment

Biodiversity

Biodiversity may be defined as “the variety of life forms and processes, including the 

complexity of species, communities, gene pools, and ecological functions, within the area 

covered by a land management plan” (USDA Forest Service 2008a). Biological diversity 

encompasses the variety of genetic stocks, plant and animal species and subspecies, 

ecosystems, and the ecological processes through which individual organisms interact 

with one another and their environments. Under the National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA), the Tongass National Forest must provide for diversity of plant and animal 

communities based on the suitability and capability of specific land areas.

Old-Growth Habitat

Old-growth forests support high levels of biodiversity due to their structural and 

ecological complexity. In Southeast Alaska, old-growth forests are typically greater than 

150 years old, and are characterized by complex canopies; an interspersion of trees of 

multiple age classes; the presence of snags, decadent trees, and fallen trees; and variation 

in the amounts and distribution of live trees. These features create intricate habitat niches 

that support many plant and animal species (Spies 2004). In Southeast Alaska, old-growth 

forests have been the focus of past timber harvest. 

The North Central Prince of Wales Island biogeographic province historically contained 

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

has also experienced the highest amount of harvest relative to other biogeographic 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-100 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

provinces, with 73 percent of the total original (1954) POG on all ownerships remaining, 

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

569,000 acres of POG currently within the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic 

province (Table WLD-1). 

Table WLD-1. Existing Total, High-Volume, and Large-Tree POG by Biogeographic

Province, VCU, and Project Area

Biogeographic 

Province/VCU1/

All 

POG 

(acres)

% Original 

POG 

Remaining

High Volume 

POG (acres)

% High 

Volume POG 

Remaining

Large 

Tree POG 

(acres)

% Large 

Tree POG 

Remaining

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Island

569,098 73% 248,359 64% 127,306 60%

57202/ 3,869 53% 1,149 35% 824 39%

5740 14,953 80% 5,503 68% 3,155 65%

5750 11,143 96% 4,552 96% 2,237 99%

5760 6,990 93% 3,338 88% 1,630 85%

5780 3,688 75% 2,205 73% 1,640 75%

57902/ 2,818 40% 934 26% 334 17%

5800 7,036 72% 3,579 66% 1,385 56%

58102/ 6,830 50% 3,809 45% 1,741 36%

5820 2,461 100% 1,348 100% 963 100%

58302/ 4,866 56% 2,115 46% 884 35%

58402/ 5,827 59% 1,945 44% 557 28%

58502/ 3,088 41% 635 18% 190 10%

58602/ 6,336 54% 3,420 48% 1,410 39%

5950 7,053 70% 3,547 63% 2,567 64%

5960 5,596 97% 2,594 98% 1,501 97%

5971 1,516 83% 987 82% 751 87%

59722/ 8,620 66% 3,449 54% 1,257 44%

5980 5,459 64%3/ 2,640 58% 1,572 57%

Project Area 98,748 67% 43,902 43% 22,128 33%

1/ Includes NFS and non-NFS lands; accounts for entire VCU, including areas extending outside of the project area boundary

2/VCUs where the Legacy standard and guideline applies.

3/The Legacy standard and guideline does not currently apply to VCU 5980 because less than 33 percent of the original POG had been 

harvested in 2005 when the analyses for the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS were calculated, and less than 67 percent of the total POG is 

projected to be harvested by the end of the Forest Plan planning horizon.

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

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

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

Within the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province, approximately 64 

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

60 percent of the original large-tree POG (ranging from 10 to 100 percent by VCU) on all 

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

province currently includes over 10 and 20 percent of all the remaining high-volume and 

large-tree POG on the Tongass, respectively (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

An intact, undeveloped landscape is assumed to be fully functional, maintaining focal 

species, communities, and/or systems and their supporting ecological processes within 

their natural ranges of variability (Poiani et al. 2000). Thus, the intactness of a landscape 

is another measure of the degree to which biodiversity has been affected by human 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-101

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

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

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

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

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

pristine conditions and thus have the highest biological importance. 

The likelihood of a population persisting over time has been suggested to be related to 

some threshold level of habitat loss on the landscape (Fahrig 1997, 1999, 2003; Flather et 

al. 2002; Andren 1994). After reaching this threshold, the rate of population decline, and 

thus the likelihood of extinction, may increase (Haufler 2006). Reported threshold levels 

(percentage of habitat maintained on the landscape) range from 20 percent (Fahrig 1997) 

to 50 percent (Soule and Sanjayan 1998), depending in part on the dispersal capability of 

the species under consideration. Species with limited dispersal capabilities (i.e., flying 

squirrel) appear to be more sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation than species with 

greater dispersal capabilities (i.e., goshawks, wolves; With 1999). Natural fragmentation 

of habitats can also affect the level of additional fragmentation that can be supported. The 

Forest Plan Legacy Forest Structure standard and guideline is intended to ensure that 

sufficient residual trees remain in timber harvest units within VCUs that have 

“experienced concentrated past harvest and are at risk for not providing the full range of 

matrix functions” (USDA Forest Service 2008). The Legacy standard applies to VCUs 

where 33 percent or more of original (1954) total POG has been harvested (67 percent 

total POG remaining), or where more than 67 percent of the total POG is projected to be 

harvested by the end of the Forest Plan planning horizon. Currently 9 project area VCUs 

maintain at least 67 percent of their total original POG (VCUs 5740, 5750, 5760, 5780, 

5800, 5820, 5950, 5960, and 5971; Table WLD-1). The Legacy standard and guideline 

applies to the remaining VCUs where past harvest has reduced the amount of original total 

POG by more than 33 percent (Table WLD-1). The Legacy standard and guideline was 

applied, where required, under all alternatives. 

Old-growth forest in the project area has been modified over time by both natural 

processes and human actions. There are approximately 50,226 acres of young-growth 

within the project area, of which 49,546 acres are a result of timber harvest. The 

remaining acres of young-growth are a result of natural processes (e.g., wind). 

Approximately 19,198 acres (39 percent) of young-growth in previously harvested stands 

are 25 years old or younger, in the stand initiation stage; the remaining 31,028 acres are 

older and are in the stem exclusion stage. Management of young-growth stands through 

pre-commercial and commercial thinning has the potential to increase biodiversity by 

concentrating growth in fewer, larger trees which, if allowed to grow over time, promote 

conditions that mimic old-growth stand characteristics at a faster rate than would occur 

without treatment (USDA Forest Service 2000; Carey 2003). Thinning also opens the 

understory and increases the amount of understory forage available for a variety of 

wildlife species. Approximately 12,789 acres of young growth within the project area (25 

percent) have been pre-commercially thinned. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-102 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Landscape Connectivity

Landscape connectivity is defined as the degree to which the structure of a landscape 

helps or hinders the movement of wildlife species (Taylor et al. 1993). A landscape with 

a high degree of connectivity is one in which wildlife move readily between habitat 

patches over the long-term (USDA Forest Service 2008b). On the Tongass, connectivity 

between areas of similar habitats (i.e., old-growth forest) or between high and low 

elevation habitats is important to maintaining well-distributed, viable wildlife populations. 

Landscape connectivity can be both structurally and functionally based. Structural 

connectivity refers to the physical connections between areas of habitat that facilitate 

movement of wildlife. For example, intact stream buffers function as corridors providing 

structural connectivity between habitat patches. Within the project area the Recreational 

River LUD surrounding the Thorne River contributes to functioning of the Honker large 

OGR complex. Likewise, the beach fringe may provide low elevation structural 

connectivity between watersheds and function as a transition zone between interior forest 

and saltwater influences (Julin 1997). Functional connectivity refers to the degree of 

movement or flow of organisms through broader linkage “zones” which contain an 

appropriate juxtaposition of habitats and land uses that facilitate movement across the 

landscape. On the Tongass, matrix lands provide a limited degree of functional 

connectivity between OGRs and other non-development LUDs. 

Fragmentation resulting from actions, both natural and human-caused, reduces landscape 

connectivity due to the breaking apart of larger contiguous blocks of habitat into smaller 

patches. The value of residual habitat patches may decline if they become too small to 

support species with minimum area requirements or to support a subpopulation of a 

particular organism (i.e., the functional unit of a metapopulation, or population made up of 

spatially separated local populations that interact with each other). In the latter case, 

interaction occurs via dispersal as individuals move among patches. Populations may

become isolated, and therefore at greater risk of local extirpation, if fragmentation hinders 

movement of individuals between subpopulations (Wilcove et al. 1986). The degree to 

which this occurs depends on species-specific dispersal capabilities, the distance between 

habitat patches, and conditions within the matrix between habitat patches. 

When fragmentation occurs there is an increase in the amount of forest edge habitat and a 

decrease in the amount of interior forest habitat. Fragmentation is often accompanied by a 

decline in native biodiversity because ecological changes along the habitat edge (edge 

effects) favor some species over others. Edge effects may include changes in vegetation 

structure, species composition (both plants and animals), predation rates, and disturbance 

(Murcia 1995; Nilson et al. 1995; Aas 1999). Although the number of species may be 

higher along edges (favoring invasive species), the number of habitat specialists (i.e., 

those associated with interior forest conditions or structural components of old-growth 

forest), which tend to be more sensitive or at‐risk, decreases (Aas 1999; Nilson et al. 

1995; Kissling and Garton 2007).

The extent or “depth” of edge effects varies with the contrast in the structure and 

composition of adjacent vegetative communities, the width of the habitat fragment, and 

the stability of the remaining vegetation (i.e., as it relates to other environmental effects 

such as windthrow), and may be species-dependent (Harper et al. 2005; Euskirchen et al. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-103

2006). Edge effects related to vegetation structure and composition typically occur within 

165 feet (50 meters) of created forest edges (Harper et al. 2005), whereas edge effects 

related to habitat functionality for wildlife extend farther (i.e., up to 1,640 feet [500 

meters] for edge-related nest predation in migratory songbirds; Wilcove 1987). However, 

uncertainties remain regarding the spatial and temporal nature of edge effects. Edges are a 

dynamic component of the landscape. On harvested landscapes, edge contrast may 

decrease over time with the regeneration of disturbed areas, a process called “edge 

softening” (Matlack 1994; Euskirchen et al. 2006). Additionally, recent studies suggest 

that the presence of multiple edges (i.e., three or more adjacent patch types) may affect the 

magnitude and extent of edge effects (Euskirchen et al. 2006; Li et al. 2007). 

Table WLD-2 shows the existing number of POG patches by size class in the project area 

(i.e., including all POG patches which intersect the project area, resulting in an irregularly 

shaped area with some patches extending beyond the project area boundary). This 

includes the inherent level of landscape fragmentation on the Tongass due to the creation 

of patches through natural processes (e.g., windthrow) and naturally patchy distribution of 

POG forest interspersed muskeg, forested wetlands, and alpine areas. The patch size 

classes presented in Table WLD-2 represent fragmentation at multiple scales. Patches at 

the sub-stand and stand levels (i.e., the smallest size classes) represent scales of influence

important to organisms such as lichens, fungi, plants, invertebrates, and small bodied 

mammals which may be locally endemic; occur in very specific forest structure or soil 

conditions; or have limited dispersal capabilities. Larger patches represent scales of 

influence important to wider-ranging species such as deer, marten, and forest-dwelling 

birds of prey. 

Table WLD-2. Number of POG Patches and Acreages by Size Class Intersecting the 

Big Thorne Project Area under Existing Conditions

Patch Size (acres) Number of Patches1/ Acreage in Size Class

0-25 305 3,009

26-100 95 4,675

101-500 35 7,254

500-1000 7 4,851

1000+ 8 82,748

Total 450 102,537

1/ Includes NFS and non-NFS lands; includes all patches intersecting the project area, some of which extend beyond the 

project area boundary resulting in a greater total acreage than reported in Table WLD-1.

Corridors

Corridors may be structural (i.e., a physically connected patches of old-growth forest) or 

functional (i.e., non-contiguous patches of old-growth forest and other vegetation with 

structural characteristics that continue to facilitate the movement of organisms across the 

landscape). In the Big Thorne project area, corridors along streams and between oldgrowth habitats at different elevations have been reduced by past harvest. During public 

scoping and based on local knowledge of the project area, the following areas were 

identified as having experienced past harvest and where future alterations could reduce 

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

(Figure WLD-1):
3 Environment and Effects 

3-104 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Honker Divide. A key part of the old-growth conservation strategy for the 

northern portion of Prince of Wales Island, consisting of over 200,000 acres 

(USDA Forest Service 2008c); provides connectivity between old-growth habitat 

in the Sarkar Lakes area to the north (outside of the project area), the Thorne River 

drainage to saltwater (and roadless area) to the east, and the Karta Wilderness to 

the south. The Honker Divide area includes a number of individual corridors:

 The Cutthroat drainage (VCU 5760) provides north-south connectivity and is 

located within the Honker large OGR.

 The Control Creek drainage (VCU 5760) provides east-west connectivity 

between the Control Lake area and the Thorne River drainage.

 The North Thorne drainage (VCU 5800) extends from inside the Honker large 

OGR, branching east and west at its north end. The east branch is within the 

small OGR.

 A tributary to the Thorne River (VCU 5750; northeast of Thorne Lake) 

provides north-south connectivity from within the Honker large OGR to the 

west branch of the North Thorne Drainage. 

 Rio Beaver Drainage. One of the primary north-south linkages between the 

Honker large OGR and the Karta Wilderness (VCU 597.2). 

 Rio Roberts Drainage. One of the primary north-south linkages between the 

Honker large OGR and the Karta Wilderness; located within the Honker large 

OGR (VCU 5960). 

 Upper Steelhead Drainage. Provides north-south connectivity between a portion 

of the Karta Roadless Area that abuts the Karta Wilderness to the south and 

another portion of the Karta Roadless Area, which abuts the Honker large OGR to 

the north (VCU 5950). A branch of the Steelhead also connects the Honker large 

OGR with Big Salt Lake outside of the project area. 

 Rush Peak Area. Provides north-south connectivity between the Honker large 

OGR and saltwater at Salt Chuck (VCU 5972). Two important corridors in this 

area are the Rush Creek and Goose Creek drainages, located to the west and east 

of Rush Peak, respectively.

 Control Lake Area. Functions as a junction of corridors, providing connectivity 

between the Honker large OGR and the Upper Steelhead, Rio Roberts, and Control 

Creek drainages (VCUs 5940, 5950, and 5960). Corridor between Control Lake 

and Honker large OGR has been identified as being important to wolf movement.

 Ratz Harbor Area. Old growth in the vicinity of Ratz Harbor provides east-west 

connections north and south of Big Lake between the shoreline and interior oldgrowth forest (VCUs 5810, 5830, and 5840).

 Clarence Straight Shoreline. Old-growth forest along the shoreline, including 

areas beyond the beach buffer, provides connectivity (though not continuous) 

between Sandy Beach and Eagle Creek (VCUs 5820, 5830, 5840, and 5850).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-105

Figure WLD-1. Probable wildlife movement corridors within the Big Thorne Project 

Area.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-106 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Snug Anchorage Area. Old-growth in the vicinity of Snug Anchorage provides a 

north-south connection between Sandy Beach/Slide Creek and Thorne Bay (VCUs 

5850 and 5880). West of Foss Cove, the corridor is very narrow. 

 Sal Creek Area. Old growth in the vicinity of Sal Creek provides connectivity 

between the saltwater and the North Thorne drainage to the west.

 Luck Lake/Eagle Creek Area. Low-elevation old growth along the riparian 

corridor of Eagle Creek provides east-west connectivity to saltwater (VCU 5810). 

Extending from the south end of Luck Lake, corridors also run east-west along 

Luck Creek to the Honker large OGR (VCUs 5740 and 5810) and north-south 

along tributaries to Luck Creek to the small OGR in VCU 5810 and to Little Lake.

Management Indicator Species

MIS are species whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the 

likely response of other species with similar habitat requirements (Forest Service Manual 

[FSM] 2631.3). In accordance with the 1982 Planning Regulations, 13 wildlife species 

were identified as MIS in the Forest Plan (USDA FS 2008a). Of these, three wildlife 

species (brown bear, mountain goat, and red squirrel) do not occur in the project area and 

will not be discussed here. The bald eagle and river otter are not addressed in detail in the 

EIS because they inhabit beach, estuary, and riparian habitats that are maintained under 

the Forest Plan conservation strategy. Moreover, the project would have negligible effects 

to these species due to the implementation of best management practices or other 

avoidance and minimizations measures (see the Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Report 

for a discussion of these species). Rationale for the selection of the other MIS is provided 

below. All of the wildlife MIS are associated with productive old-growth (POG) forests 

of Southeast Alaska. 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer

The Sitka black-tailed deer was selected as an MIS species because it is an important 

game and subsistence species in Southeast Alaska. They are also an important prey 

species for Alexander Archipelago wolves and black bears on Prince of Wales Island. 

ADF&G managers believe based on field observations of deer browse levels that

populations going into the winter of 2011-2012 were at or beyond carrying capacity in 

much of the deer winter range in the project area (B. Logan, USDA Forest Service, 

personal communication, 2012); however, due to high deer mortality rates resulting from 

the moderately severe winter of 2011-2012, ADF&G expects to see a decline in the deer 

population within GMU 2 (Person and Gilbert, personal comm. with B. Logan, USDA 

Forest Service, 2012). In light of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, continued loss of deer 

winter habitat, and current observed over-browsing of deer winter range, ADF&G expects 

a reduction in deer carrying capacity over the next decade (Baichtal 2012). 

Research conducted in Southeast Alaska indicates that low-elevation, high-volume oldgrowth habitats are particularly important to deer, especially during severe winters 

(Schoen and Kirchhoff 1990; Hanley and Rose 1987; Yeo and Peek 1992). These oldgrowth stands intercept snow, provide thermal cover, and support the largest biomass of 

herb and shrub forage for deer (Alaback 1982; Schoen et al. 1984). The interagency deer 

winter habitat capability model was used to assess existing habitat capability in the WAAs 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-107

coinciding with the project area. Shortcomings of the model are described in detail in the 

2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Model assumptions, based on 

recent direction provided by the Forest Service, include the following:

 Historic conditions were defined as the conditions that existed prior to the onset of 

large-scale logging in 1954. Historic conditions were reconstructed by converting 

the 1986 vegetation mapping (TIM86) to the Size Density Model (SDM) types and 

then converting the areas mapped as harvested prior to that date into the different 

volstrata and SD67 POG, based on the proportion of these categories in areas 

harvested prior to 1992.

 All proposed harvest units are treated as even-aged harvest. This is conservative 

because uneven-aged harvest units would retain some of their value to deer.

 Commercial thinning was addressed in the model by leaving stands in the stem 

exclusion stage after thinning because the stem exclusion stage is based on age 

which is unchanged by thinning treatments and because the deer model does not 

assign different values as a result of these stand treatments.

 Stem exclusion was considered 25 years post-harvest (stands 26 to 150 years of 

age).

 Values output by the model were standardized to range from 0 to 1.0 by dividing 

all values by 1.3.

 100 deer per square mile was used as the multiplier.

 Only NFS lands were in the project-related effects (direct and indirect effects) 

analysis. All land ownerships (NFS and non-NFS lands) were included in the 

cumulative effects analysis; however, non-NFS lands were given a zero value 

(conservatively assuming harvest of all non-NFS lands). 

 All elevations are included in the analysis, but the model gives acres above 1,500 

feet a zero value.

 Model runs assumed 2012 as the current year, 2013 for project implementation, 

and 2039 for stem exclusion.

 Lakes and lake islands were excluded from the analysis.

 Entire land areas for WAAs where project activities are proposed (WAAs 1315, 

1318, 1319, and 1420) were included in the direct and indirect effects analysis (see 

the Wildlife and Subsistence resource report for the square mile values); WAAs 

1316, 1421, and 1422 coincide with the project area, but because no actions are 

proposed within them they not included in the direct and indirect effects analysis.

 At the biogeographic province scale (cumulative effects analysis for wolves), the 

entire land area of WAAs intersecting the biogeographic province was included 

even though some WAAs extended beyond the province boundary (an exception 

was WAA 1003 because all the acres within the province were saltwater).

 No predation was included.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-108 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Historic (1954) and current (2012) deer habitat capability is presented in Table WLD-3. 

Current habitat capability in the WAAs where timber harvest is proposed ranges from 59

to 93 percent of that existing in 1954 (Table WLD-3).

Table WLD-3. Existing Deer Winter Habitat Capability on NFS Lands by WAA

WAA 1954 Deer Habitat Capability 1/ 2012 Deer Habitat Capability 1/ % of original

1315 2,411 1,430 59%

1318 1,269 1,180 93%

1319 3,324 2,567 77%

1420 1,404 789 56%

Total 8,408 5,966 71%

1/ Deer habitat capability, in deer habitat units, calculated from the deer model for winter habitat. Habitat Suitability 

Indices were standardized to range from 0.0 to 1.0; 100 deer per square mile used as multiplier; all harvest was treated as 

even-aged; no predation was included.

Note: WAAs 1316, 1421, and 1422 are slightly within the project area boundary, but no actions are proposed within 

them.

Source: GIS Database, deer_model.aml, 2012

Random events such as snow and other weather conditions can influence the ecology and 

behavior of wintering deer by decreasing forage availability and increasing the amount of 

energy it takes to move through the forest (Hanley et al. 1986; Farmer et al. 2006; White 

et al. 2009). Thus, the habitats available to deer differ depending on winter severity, and 

can be defined as:

 Average snow winter habitat is defined as all POG below 1,500 feet elevation, and 

 Deep snow winter habitat is defined as high-volume POG below 800 feet

elevation, representing the shift toward use of lower elevations and more dense 

stands of POG during severe winters. 

Average snow winter habitat has been reduced by 25 to 47 percent and deep snow winter 

habitat has been reduced by 30 to 69 percent from original (1954) amounts, depending on 

the WAA. 

Spring, summer, and fall habitats (non-winter) are also important for deer reproduction 

and population recovery following severe winters, and for building up pre-winter body 

reserves. These habitats include all vegetation types, except young-growth in the stem 

exclusion phase. Since 1954, non-winter habitat has been reduced by 9 to 30 percent, 

depending on the WAA (Table WLD-4).

Although deer in Southeast Alaska are considered an old-growth species, they will forage 

in early seral stands in mild winters, spring, and summer. During the first 25 years (stand 

initiation), openings created by timber harvest provide abundant forage for deer as 

sunlight is allowed to penetrate to the forest floor enhancing growth of understory 

vegetation (Farmer and Kirchhoff 2007). However, as the forest regenerates, a dense 

canopy can form which shades out understory vegetation (stem exclusion) thereby 

reducing foraging habitat - a period which may last up to 150 years after harvest. Deer 

abundance has been shown to be lower in these forage-poor habitats (Brinkman 2009;

Person et al. 2010). Thus, the effects of timber harvest are not fully realized until decades

after. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-109

Table WLD-4. Existing Average Snow Winter Habitat, Deep Snow Winter Habitat, 

and Non-Winter Habitat on NFS Lands by WAA

WAA Habitat

Original (1954)

Acres

2012

Acres % Change

% of Total 

WAA Area 

with Available 

Habitat under 

Existing 

Conditions

1315 Deep Snow1 / 19,848 9,296 -53% 6%

Average Snow 2/ 46,237 26,513 -43% 17%

Non-Winter3/ 84,461 66,013 -22% 43%

1318 Deep Snow1 / 10,917 7,600 -30% 5%

Average Snow 2/ 34,080 25,339 -26% 17%

Non-Winter3/ 97,811 89,475 -9% 62%

1319 Deep Snow1 / 18,279 11,827 -35% 11%

Average Snow 2/ 54,994 41,099 -25% 39%

Non-Winter3/ 102,402 88,407 -14% 85%

1420 Deep Snow1 / 10,157 3,176 -69% 5%

Average Snow 2/ 28,969 15,233 -47% 24%

Non-Winter3/ 45,637 32,022 -30% 51%

1/ High-volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 67) at or below 800 feet elevation; no GIS snow layer applied

2/ All POG (SD 4H, 4N, 4S, 5H, 5S, 5N, 67) at or below 1,500 feet elevation

3/ Spring/summer/fall habitat; all POG, non-productive old-growth and non-forested muskeg, alpine habitats

Alexander Archipelago Wolf

The Alexander Archipelago wolf was selected as an MIS because it is a species of concern 

and an important furbearer. The Alexander Archipelago wolf is a subspecies of gray wolf 

endemic to Southeast Alaska that inhabits the mainland and islands south of Frederick 

Sound. Wolves inhabiting Prince of Wales Island are genetically isolated from other 

populations in Southeast Alaska (Person 2001; Weckworth et al. 2005, 2010, 2011). 

Monitoring populations of wolves in the temperate rainforests of Southeast Alaska is 

challenging because thick forest cover makes detecting and observing wolves very 

difficult. Current estimates of the wolf population in this area are lacking; however, 

approximately 250-350 wolves were estimated to inhabit Prince of Wales Island and the 

surrounding islands (Person et al. 1996). However, the population on Prince of Wales 

Island may be lower than in previous years based on the lack of scats observed during 

2009 and 2010 field effort (e.g., 30-35 scats collected versus 154 collected during a 1993-

1994 effort; Person 2010, Kohira 1995). That observation was consistent with testimony 

from local trappers during the 2010 Alaska Board of Game meeting in Ketchikan (Logan, 

USDA Forest Service, personal comm. 2012). The Tongass National Forest is currently 

partnering with ADF&G to establish protocols for estimating and monitoring wolf 

population status and trends in GMU2. 

In August 2011, the USFWS received a petition to list the subspecies as threatened or 

endangered, and to recognize Prince of Wales Island as a significant portion of its range 

(Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace 2011). The petition also requested that 

the USFWS consider Prince of Wales Island and adjacent islands (including Kosciusko, 

Tuxekan, Heceta, Suemez, Dall, and others proximate to Prince of Wales) a Distinct 

Population Segment based on unique genetic, physical, and ecological characteristics. At 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-110 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

the time of this writing, the USFWS is currently conducting a 90-day review of the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf which will conclude with the determination of whether or not 

the petition should be moved forward for additional review. 

Wolves in Southeast Alaska use a wide variety of habitats but spend most of their time in 

productive and unproductive old-growth forests at low elevations (below 270 feet [82 

meters]; young seral forests and clearcuts are typically avoided (Person 2001). Dens on 

Prince of Wales Island are located in root wads of large living or dead trees within oldgrowth forest stands less than 495 feet (150 meters) from freshwater (Person and Russell 

2009). In GMU 2, wolves feed primarily on deer, though they will feed on beaver and 

spawning salmon when available (Darimont et al. 2002; Szepanski et al. 1999). Critical 

deer winter habitat was considered by Person (2001) to be a good measure of habitat 

quality for wolves in southern Southeast Alaska. Conserving winter habitat is important 

for maintaining the resilience of deer to severe winter weather, predation by wolves and 

black bears, and hunter harvest (Person et al. 1996, Person 2001).Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines require, where possible, the provision of sufficient deer habitat capability 

to first maintain sustainable wolf populations, and then to consider meeting estimated 

human deer harvest demands. This is generally considered to equate to the habitat 

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

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

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

solely relying upon model outputs.

Prior to the start of large-scale commercial timber harvest in 1954, habitat capability in 

WAAs 1315 (29 deer per square mile), 1319 (21 deer per square mile), and 1420 (22 deer 

per square mile) exceeded this level where as WAA 1318 (15 deer per square mile) did 

not; currently, none of the project area WAAs supports 18 deer per square mile (Table 

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

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

areas. 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 the 

Honker Divide Large OGR complex (200,000+ acres) and the Karta Wilderness (about 

40,000 acres) both adjacent to the project area. For example, wolves occupying the 

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

project area (Person 2001).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-111

Table WLD-5. Existing Deer Winter Habitat Capability in terms of Deer Density on 

NFS Lands by WAA

WAA

Historic (1954) Deer Habitat Capability1/ 2012 Deer Habitat Capability2/

Deer/mi2 Deer/mi

2 % of Original

1315 29 17 59

1318 15 14 93

1319 21 16 76

1420 22 12 55

4 WAAs combined 21 15 71

1/ Deer habitat capability, in deer per square mile, calculated from the deer model for winter habitat. Habitat Suitability 

Indices were standardized to range from 0.0 to 1.0; 100 deer per square mile used as multiplier; all harvest was treated as 

even-aged; no predation was included.

2/ Values presented here are slightly lower than those presented in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS for the selected alternative 

because some stands have matured over time, and edits have been made to make the GIS layer more accurate. 

Note: WAAs 1316, 1421, and 1422 are slightly within the project area boundary, but no actions are proposed within 

them.

3/Numbers calculated using data in Table WLD-3 and WAA land area (square miles; listed in the Wildlife and 

Subsistence Resource Report).

Source: GIS Database, deer_model.aml, 2012

Harvesting of wolves is regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board and the State of 

Alaska Board of Game (see the Wildlife and Subsistence resource report for harvest

regulations). Legal harvest annually may annually remove up to 25–30 percent of the 

estimated wolf population and is considered to be the primary source of wolf mortality on 

Prince of Wales Island; however, this estimate does not include illegal take, which has 

been estimated to be as much as 46 percent of wolf mortality (Person and Russell 2008). 

From a biological perspective, in order to maintain the current population, the level of 

harvest-related mortality should not exceed 38 percent (Person and Russell 2008). A 30 

percent cap (of the fall population) on wolf harvest in GMU 2 was designed by ADF&G

to prevent serious declines in the wolf population. The ADF&G can put in effect the 

emergency closure on wolf harvest if the sealing data indicate that the 30 percent harvest 

cap has been reached or exceeded.

The mean total annual harvest in GMU 2 from1985 to 1999 was 76 wolves, ranging from 

18 to 136 wolves; from 2000 to 2009 mean total annual harvest was 49 wolves, ranging 

from 18 to 77 wolves (Person and Logan 2012). From 2008 to 2010, average total 

reported harvests in GMU 2 were 24, 22, and 20 wolves, respectively (Porter, B., 

ADF&G, pers. comm., 2012). At the November 2010 Board of Game meeting in 

Ketchikan, ADF&G reported that anecdotal observations by state and Federal biologists, 

trappers, and hunting outfitters/guides suggested the wolf population had declined to as 

few as 150 wolves in GMU 2, and that a harvest cap of 45 wolves (30 percent of the 

population estimated by ADF&G) might be appropriate. 

Person and Logan (2012) suggested that all project area WAAs may have periodically 

experienced unsustainable harvest (annual harvest rates ≥ 3 wolves per 300 square 

kilometers) with WAAs 1315, 1318, and 1420 having experiencing chronic unsustainable 

harvest (i.e. unsustainable harvest at least 5 times between 1985 and 2009). Moreover, 

WAAs 1315, 1318, and 1420 have experienced harvest at levels with the potential to 

result in pack turnover or pack depletion (annual harvest rates ≥7 wolves per 300 square 

kilometers); at times between 1985 and 2009 the risk of pack depletion in all three WAAs 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-112 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

may have been high (i.e., annual harvest of ≥7 wolves per 300 square kilometers for at 

least 2 years). However, reliable data only exist for 1992 to 1999, after which the season 

was temporarily closed by emergency order due to exceeding the 30 percent harvest cap. 

Person and Logan (2012) stated that the occurrence of unsustainable and pack depletion 

harvests peaked prior to 1999.

The project area WAAs may be at risk of such overharvest (both unsustainable and pack 

depletion) in the future even with scheduled road closures under the Prince of Wales 

Access and Travel Management Plan (Person and Logan 2012; see the Wildlife and 

Subsistence resource report for additional information). However, taking all years into 

account, the average annual wolf harvest between 1985-2009 for WAAs 1315, 1318, and 

1319 was <3wolves per 300 square kilometer per year; average annual harvest over this 

period in WAA 1420 was at least 3 wolves per square kilometer and thus at a level Person 

and Logan determined may be unsustainable (Person and Logan 2012). 

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 2012). 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 miles per square mile (0.9 kilometer per 

square kilometer) 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. Similarly, wolves are more easily 

observed in open habitats such as muskegs, meadows, and young clearcuts; therefore, use 

of these habitats, particularly in areas accessible to humans (i.e., the beach and roaded 

areas), increases the risk of harvest-related mortality (Person and Russell 2008). Harvest 

vulnerability may limit dispersal, and thus the ability of wolves to recolonize territories 

that have been vacated by trapping and hunting or maintain genetic interchange between 

separate populations.

The Forest Plan states that a road density of 0.7 to 1.0 mile per square mile or less may be 

necessary to reduce harvest-related mortality risk where locally unsustainable wolf 

mortality has been identified. Person et al. (1996) reported that wolf harvest increased 

twofold when total road density below 1,200 feet elevation exceeded 0.7 miles per square 

mile. Currently total road density below 1,200 feet elevation on POW is 0.99 mile per 

square mile, ranging from 0.7 to 2.5 miles per square mile for WAAs in the project area 

(Table WLD-6). These road densities exceed both the Forest Plan recommendation (0.7 

miles per square mile) as well as the threshold of 1.5 miles per square mile suggested by 

Person and Russell (2008) in all cases except WAA 1318 where road density is 0.7 miles 

per square mile. 

That wolves continue to be harvested from the project area WAAs at moderate to high 

rates suggests that the wolf population may be functioning despite being at risk of 

periodic, localized depletions (i.e., indicative of healthy source populations with some 

areas functioning as sinks) but could also be indicative of a decreased population overall

with fewer wolves available to harvest. Moreover, the presence of large, undisturbed 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-113

blocks of habitat on Prince of Wales Island, including the Honker Divide large OGR 

complex and the nearly 40,000-acre Karta Wilderness to the west and south of the project, 

respectively, help assure the persistence of wolf packs that may serve as source 

populations capable of replacing wolves that periodically disappear from adjacent 

disturbed lands (Person et al. 1996, Person and Logan 2012).

Table WLD-6. Existing Road Density below 1,200 Feet Elevation on NFS Lands

Island/WAA

Road Density by Road Status (mile/mile2)

1/, 2/

Open Closed Total

1315 1.07 1.06 2.14

1318 0.49 0.23 0.71

1319 0.82 0.78 1.60

1420 1.40 1.12 2.51

Prince of Wales Island 0.53 0.46 0.99

1/ Includes only NFS lands.

2/ Closed roads are defined as all NFS roads with Operating Maintenance Level = 1 plus all decommissioned NFS 

roads; open roads include all other NFS roads and all state and private roads.

The ADF&G works cooperatively with the Alaska Board of Game and with Federal land 

managers, including the Forest Service, to identify and address conservation concerns for 

all wildlife in Southeast Alaska, including wolves. Through this effort revisions are 

proposed to regulatory entities as needs are identified. The Board of Game has made 

modifications to wolf hunting and trapping seasons over the years in response to 

information provided by agencies and the public. These regulations are intended to help 

ensure sustainable wolf populations and are an important part of the wolf standard and 

guideline. 

The Forest Service is also currently participating in an interagency group referred to as the 

“Wolf Task Force.” This group was formed to try to determine if there is unsustainable 

wolf mortality occurring on Prince of Wales Island or not. The group’s decision would 

then determine if a wolf habitat management plan is needed. The group began meeting in 

October of 2011 although collaborative work is ongoing and no determination has been 

reached to date. The Forest Service and the State of Alaska are currently working to 

obtain more accurate wolf population estimates.

The Big Thorne project area lies within the vicinity of the Honker Divide, Steelhead,

Thorne River, and Ratz Harbor wolf packs. Wolf sign was documented during goshawk 

surveys conducted for the Project in the Steelhead drainage, the Rio Beaver drainage, west 

of Rush Peak, and near Angel Lake. Biologists from ADF&G provided GIS data 

delineating 1,200-foot buffers centered on nine known den sites in the Big Thorne project 

area (Moselle, ADF&G, personal comm. 2011). These buffers overlapped four proposed 

harvest units. In accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the boundaries of 

these units were subsequently modified (or the unit was dropped) under all alternatives to 

eliminate portions overlapping the den site buffers.

Marten

The American marten was selected as an MIS because of its close association with oldgrowth forests and its importance as a furbearer. Although only one species of marten is 

formally recognized in Southeast Alaska two distinct lineages exist. Within the Alexander 

Archipelago, the coastal form caurina is thought to occur only on Kuiu and Admiralty 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-114 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Islands, though a preliminarily identified specimen of this subspecies has been collected 

on Dall Island (USDA Forest Service unpublished data). The continental form occurs 

elsewhere in their range including Prince of Wales Island (Cook et al. 2006). Marten were 

transplanted to Prince of Wales Island between 1930 and 1950 (MacDonald and Cook 

1999).

In GMU 2, marten are managed as a furbearer. ADF&G currently permits unlimited 

trapping of marten in the GMU 2 from December 1 to February 15. Marten are also a 

subsistence species. Trapping efforts fluctuate year-to-year depending on fur prices, fuel 

prices, winter weather conditions, the current economy, and marten populations. Marten 

harvests in GMU 2 are typically high compared to elsewhere in Southeast Alaska (see the 

subsistence section for marten trapping statistics).

Coastal habitats (beach fringe) and riparian areas have the highest habitat value for 

marten, followed by upland forested habitats below 1,500 feet in elevation (USDA Forest 

Service 2008a). Marten favor large- and medium-sized old-growth forests because they 

intercept snow, provide cover and denning sites, and provide habitat for marten prey 

species (Flynn and Schumacher 2001). These forests are also used by deer during winter, 

and winter-kill carcasses of deer represented a significant portion of marten diet in winter 

(Ben David et al. 1997). These forests have also experienced past timber harvest. 

Consequently, the quantity and quality of winter habitat is a limiting factor for marten in 

Southeast Alaska. Therefore, the availability of deep-snow marten habitat, defined as 

high-volume POG (SD 5N, 5S, and 67) below 800 feet in elevation, provides a measure of 

habitat quality for marten. Within the project area WAAs, the original (1954) amount of 

deep snow marten habitat has been reduced by between 30 and 69 percent; deep snow 

marten habitat within the project area as a whole has been reduced by 61 percent (Table 

WLD-7). 

Table WLD-7. Original and Existing Deep Snow Marten Habitat

WAA

Deep Snow Marten Habitat1/

Original (1954) Acres 2012 Acres % Change

1315 19,848 9,296 -53%

1318 10,917 7,600 -30%

1319 18,279 11,827 -35%

1420 10,157 3,176 -69%

Project Area 64,856 25,112 -61%

1/ High volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 6/7) at or below 800 feet elevation

Due to their wide-ranging nature and close association with old-growth forest, marten

were specifically considered in the design of medium-sized old-growth reserves (10,000 

to 40,000 acres) under the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy (Suring et al. 1993; Flynn et 

al. 2004; USDA Forest Service 2008a). Large, contiguous patches of old-growth, 

particularly below 800 feet elevation during winter, provide the highest quality habitat for 

marten and marten densities are typically higher in these areas than in fragmented habitats 

(Hargis et al. 1999; Flynn et al. 2004). Marten also travel easily through non-commercial 

forests, POG, and clearcuts with established cover (Flynn et al. 2007). Thus, maintaining 

a matrix that facilitates movement (i.e., roadless refugia from harvest and the presence of 

old-growth for foraging and denning) between large, contiguous patches of old-growth is 

important to this species. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-115

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

(1991), and that corridors through POG are optimal, functional connectivity between 

OGRs in the project area for marten is as follows:

 Small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 are functionally connected to each 

other and to the Honker large OGR complex via VCU 5780 and 5790 (via roadless 

areas), and to the beach through the small OGR in VCU 5840;

 The small OGR in VCU 5950 is functionally connected (only through non-Federal 

land) to the Honker large OGR complex, and to the small OGR in VCU 5940; 

 Small OGRs in 5960 and 5972 are functionally connected to large reserves 

(Honker large OGR complex and/or Karta Wilderness) and to each other (through 

the Karta Wilderness and roadless areas);

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5820/5830 are functionally connected to each other 

and (via VCU 5820 through roadless area ) to the northern piece of the small OGR 

in VCU 5810, which is also connected to the small OGR in VCU 5720, but none 

are functionally connected to a larger reserve;

 The southern piece of the small OGR in VCU 5810 is functionally connected to 

the Honker large OGR in VCUs 5740 and 5750 (via roadless area ); and

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5850/5860 are functionally connected to each other 

and to the small OGR in VCU 5840 through the beach buffer and a marginal 

connection through the VCU (due to some older [> 30 years] young-growth).

In addition to the functional connectivity across the landscape provided by the reserve 

system and old-growth forest in the matrix, connectivity between reserves for marten is 

also provided by structural elements of the Forest Plan conservation strategy including the 

stream, estuary, lake, and beach buffers. A discussion of travel corridors within the project 

area is provided in the Biodiversity subsection.

Marten populations fluctuate greatly over time in response to habitat conditions, prey 

densities, and trapping pressure. Timber harvest reduces habitat quality for marten 

through the removal of forest cover, fragmentation of old-growth habitat, and reductions 

in habitat for some prey species. Increased human access associated with new roads may 

result in increased marten harvest-related mortality. Although closed roads still facilitate 

access (e.g., off-highway vehicle, pedestrian), open roads receive the highest and most 

consistent use and therefore are likely to have the greatest effect on marten. Existing road 

densities (all elevations included) in the project area WAAs are listed in Table WLD-8. 

Roadless areas and OGRs provide refugia from trapping pressure. The Forest Plan 

conservation strategy provides habitat and connectivity for marten on NFS lands (USDA 

Forest Service 2008a).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-116 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-8. Existing Road Density for All Elevations on NFS Lands

Island/WAA Road Density by Road Status (mile/mile2)

1/, 2/

Open Closed Total

1315 0.94 0.93 1.87

1318 0.34 0.14 0.48

1319 0.61 0.58 1.19

1420 1.00 0.74 1.74

1/ Includes only NFS lands.

2/ Closed roads are defined as all NFS roads with Operating Maintenance Level = 1 plus all decommissioned NFS 

roads; open roads include all other NFS roads and all state and private roads.

Black Bear

Black bears were chosen as an MIS because of their importance for hunting and for 

recreation and tourism. In Southeast Alaska, black bears are present throughout the 

mainland and on the islands south of Frederick Sound. Black bears in Southeast Alaska 

are part of a population (Alexander Archipelago black bears) endemic to coastal British 

Columbia and Southeast Alaska, except Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof islands (Stone 

and Cook 2000, Peacock et al. 2007). 

Prince of Wales Island is known for producing large black bears and is a popular hunting 

location for resident and non-resident hunters. Mean annual black bear harvest from 

2007-2009 was 312 bear (ADF&G 2011). Reported black bear harvest in GMU 2 peaked 

in 2005 and has dropped every year thereafter (ADF&G 2011). Between September 1 and 

June 30, resident hunters are allowed a bag limit of 2 bears and non-residents are allowed 

a bag limit of 1 bear; beginning in 2012 drawing permits will be required for non-resident 

hunters not using registered guides. This change in hunting opportunity is driven by 

ADF&G concerns about sustainable harvest and is intended to bring harvest in line with 

harvest objectives (ADF&G 2011).

Black bears will use habitats from sea level to the alpine but appear to prefer estuarine, 

riparian, and forested coastal habitats (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Black bears use 

small openings, and areas such as wetlands, clearcuts, and subalpine meadows for 

foraging. On Prince of Wales Island, black bears primarily forage on vegetation in the 

early spring, but will prey on deer fawns for a short period in late spring (Porter 2008). 

During summer and fall, the accumulation of fat reserves for winter hibernation is 

important. Berry crops are an important food source during this period, and bears that 

have access to salmon streams will eat large quantities of fish.

Prince of Wales Island has some of the highest quality black bear habitat in Southeast 

Alaska (Porter 2008). However, more timber harvest and associated road building have 

occurred there than in other Southeast Alaska black bear habitats (Porter 2008). Timber 

harvest (the removal of POG forest), decreases habitat suitability. Past timber harvest, 

especially in areas adjacent to salmon streams, has also decreased bear habitat suitability. 

While early successional habitats may provide abundant food (berries), over the long term 

dense young-growth stands provide poor habitat for black bears due to the lack of 

understory vegetation and large hollow trees for denning. Also over the long-term 

reduction of den sites may result from a lack of availability of large tree root structures 

(Davis et al. 2012). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-117

Timber harvest may also impact black bears through increased human access on roads. 

This can result in increased harvest-related mortality; however it should be noted that 

black bear harvest risk is not tied to a road density threshold.

Existing POG in the project area WAAs includes 27,676 acres in WAA 1315 (51 percent 

of the original POG existing in 1954); 32,286 acres in WAA 1318 (71 percent of the 

original POG existing in 1954); 47,444 acres in WAA 1319 (77 percent of the original 

POG existing in 1954); and 18,027 acres in WAA 1420 (56 percent of the original POG 

existing in 1954). The Forest Plan conservation strategy provides habitat for black bear 

that may provide suitable den sites

Small OGRs which provide connectivity to shoreline and riparian habitats preferred by 

black bears include those in VCUs 5800, 5810, 5820, 5840, and 5850. The existing small 

OGR in VCU 5950 does not include an area along its eastern boundary identified in 2007 

by the IRT (see Issue 2 for additional discussion of interagency review of small OGRs) as 

being an area of high bear use.

Black bears and sign were observed in the Big Thorne project area during field surveys.

Biologists from ADF&G provided GIS data delineating 300-foot buffers centered on 

known black bear den sites in the Big Thorne project area (Moselle, ADF&G, personal 

comm. 2011). The 2008 Forest Plan does not require den buffers, so the distance of 

300 feet was selected because it was deemed adequate by to avoid disturbing black bear 

dens during timber harvest activities based on recommendations by ADF&G black bear 

biologists (Moselle, ADF&G, personal comm. 2011). These buffers overlapped one 

proposed harvest unit, which was subsequently modified to eliminate the portions of the 

unit that overlapped the den site buffer. Other known dens sites were not within or 

immediately adjacent to proposed harvest units. Any additional bear dens discovered 

subsequent to the finalization of the Draft EIS unit pool will be incorporated for the Final 

EIS.

Red-breasted Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper

The hairy woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, and brown creeper were selected as MIS 

to represent old-growth-associated and snag-dependent species. Hairy woodpeckers and 

red-breasted sapsuckers are primary cavity excavators that require snags and dying trees 

for foraging and nesting. The hairy woodpecker is typically associated with high-volume 

POG (SDM 5S, 5N, 67) whereas the red-breasted sapsucker is typically associated with 

low-volume POG (SD4H category; USDA Forest Service 2008b). The brown creeper 

requires large diameter old-growth trees (large-tree POG; SD67 type). Existing acres of 

each POG category within the project area are provided in Table WLD-1. 

All three species are associated with interior forest conditions (Kissling and Garton 2008). 

In a study of the responses of forest-dwelling birds varying forested beach buffer widths 

in Southeast Alaska, hairy woodpeckers and brown creepers were absent from forest 

buffers less than 830 feet wide (250 meters wide), indicating that these species may avoid 

edge habitats; 83 percent of brown creepers were detected in undisturbed control plots 

(Kissling 2003; Kissling and Garton 2007). Densities of red-breasted sapsuckers were 

positively correlated with buffer width, with the greatest densities occurring in buffers at 

least 1,000 feet wide (300 meters wide; Kissling 2003). Thus these species area sensitive 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-118 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

to fragmentation and reductions in POG patch sizes. Maintenance of habitat for these 

species is provided by the Forest Plan conservation strategy (USDA Forest Service 

2008a).

Timber harvest activities that remove large, live trees and dead or dying trees reduce 

nesting and foraging habitat for these species (Hejl et al. 2002). Timber harvest may also 

reduce local habitat quality by creating fragmented forest patches, reducing the amount of 

interior forest habitat with which these species are associated. Brown creeper and hairy 

woodpecker would be most affected by harvest activities that reduce the number of large 

diameter trees and snags. Red-breasted sapsuckers were observed during 2010 wildlife 

surveys; no hairy woodpeckers or brown creepers were recorded but suitable habitat is 

present.

Vancouver Canada Goose

The Vancouver Canada goose was selected as an MIS because of its association with 

wetlands (both forested and non-forested) in the estuary, riparian, and upland areas of the 

Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008b). The Vancouver Canada goose is a primarily a nonmigratory waterfowl species that occurs year-round throughout Southeast Alaska (Hupp et 

al. 2010). However, geese do move locally between nesting, brood rearing, molting, and 

wintering grounds. This species nests in forested habitats associated with beach fringe, 

estuary fringe, and riparian habitats. Hupp et al. (2010) documented nests in forests 

adjacent to muskegs. During winter, marine grasses and salt marsh plants commonly 

found in intertidal areas are important forage resources, and Vancouver Canada geese 

exhibit strong fidelity, returning repeatedly to such winter sites (Fox 2008). 

Timber harvest activities may result in disturbance to geese, particularly if they occur in 

the vicinity of nest sites or brood rearing areas. However, timber harvest in these areas 

has generally been minimal because these sites are fairly unproductive. Protection from 

direct impact to habitat is provided by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for waterfowl 

habitat, stream, and lake buffers; overall goose habitat is provided by the Forest Plan 

conservation strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Potential habitats for Vancouver Canada geese in the Big Thorne project area include the 

shorelines of lakes, including Luck Lake, Little Lake, Big Lake, Trumpeter Lake, Power 

Lake, Angel Lake, Control Lake, and other small lakes in the area. Potential habitat is 

also located in the forested riparian and estuarine areas.

Species of Concern

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service have identified the following 

species as species of concern. These species are not currently listed as threatened or 

endangered (see Wetlands section of the DEIS for additional discussion; Table WET-1).

Marbled Murrelet

Marbled murrelets are widely distributed across marine waters in Southeast Alaska. They 

spend the majority of their lives at sea, but travel inland up to 50 miles to nest in oldgrowth forest stands (Piatt et al. 2007). Marbled murrelets typically nest on mossy-limbed 

branches of large, mature coniferous trees within stands of structurally complex, coastal 

high-volume old-growth forest (DeGange 1996; Kuletz et al. 1995; Ralph and Miller 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-119

1995). However, on some treeless islands in Southeast Alaska marbled murrelets lay eggs 

on bare talus slopes in mountainous areas (Piatt et al. 2007). Nests can be very difficult to 

find and only six nests have been found in Southeast Alaska (Forest Service 2003). 

Timber harvest, through the removal of POG forest, can directly remove nest trees, and 

also increases habitat fragmentation and associated edge effects, such as increased rates of 

nest predation (Andren 1994; Chalfoun et al. 2002). As forest patch size decreases 

through fragmentation, forest-edge habitat and predator access increase. Some avian 

predators of murrelets, especially corvids (i.e., ravens, crows, jays), are known to increase 

both with forest fragmentation and proximity to human activity (Burger 2002). In a study 

of the edge effects and nest predation risk on marbled murrelets, Malt and Lank (2007) 

found that disturbances by avian predators at nests were significantly more frequent at 

hard edges (clearcuts) relative to interiors, but less frequent at soft edges (regenerating 

forest); there were no edge effects at natural-edged (riparian) sites. Thus, edge-associated 

predation risk may subside with the progression of forest succession. Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines pertaining to marbled murrelets include maintaining a 600-foot 

radius no-cut buffer zone around identified murrelet nests (Forest Service 2008a).

Within the project area, approximately 67 percent of the original (1954) POG remains 

providing suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat (Table WLD-1). No nests were 

documented during 2010 and 2011 field surveys though nest surveys specific to murrelets 

were not conducted. A dead marbled murrelet was observed.

Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel

The Prince of Wales flying squirrel is endemic to the Prince of Wales Island complex

(Demboski et al. 1998; Smith 2005). The flying squirrel plays an essential role in the 

dynamics of coniferous forest ecosystems (Carey 2000a) because it disperses 

ectomycorrhizal fungi (Maser and Maser 1988), a food source that is lacking in younggrowth forest (Flaherty et al. 2008). It is a species of concern on Prince of Wales Island 

because of this close association with old-growth forest structure and processes and 

because of its specific habitat requirements for efficient movement (Carey 2000a; Scheibe 

et al. 2006). 

On September 30, 2011, the USFWS received a petition to list the Prince of Wales flying 

squirrel as threatened or endangered under the ESA. On August 29, 2012, the USFWS 

announced a 90-day finding that the petition did not present substantial information 

indicating that listing this subspecies may be warranted (FR 52301-52308). Therefore, at 

this time the petition will not move forward for additional review. 

Prince of Wales flying squirrels are associated with high-volume POG and dens sites are 

typically located in areas with lower levels of fragmentation than elsewhere on the 

landscape (Pyare et al. 2010). The Prince of Wales flying squirrel is capable of crossing 

open areas such as meadows or riparian zones; however, this subspecies has a limited 

gliding range (approximately 250 feet), a distance substantially less than the average 

clearcut width (Flaherty et al. 2008). Recent research also indicates that the Prince of 

Wales flying squirrel relies on its olfactory, auditory, and visual senses for movement 

which are limited in clear-cuts (perceptual range of 328-492 feet) and young-growth 

forests (perceptual range of 82-164 feet; Flaherty et al. 2008). Flaherty et al. (2008) 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-120 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

speculated that Prince of Wales flying squirrels are unlikely to venture beyond their 

perceptual ranges, and thus may become isolated by large clearings (i.e., those that exceed 

250 feet). Thus, successful dispersal of the species depends on the functional connectivity 

of the landscape (Smith et al. 2005). 

Under the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, the system of small OGRs was designed to 

provide for the distribution of flying squirrels in every major watershed and facilitate 

functional connectivity between larger reserves (USDA Forest Service 1997). Small 

OGRs were intended to support small, persistent populations of flying squirrels between 

larger source populations that collectively function as a metapopulation interacting 

through the matrix. However, based on flying squirrel movement capabilities, Pyare and 

Smith (2005) concluded that fewer than half of the small OGRs on northern Prince of 

Wales Island (including the project area) appear to be functionally connected to a source 

population. Moreover, Smith and Person (2007, as cited in Smith et al. 2011) 

hypothesized that flying squirrels populations might not persist over the long term in 

isolated small OGRs because the minimum patch size required to sustain a population is 

greater than minimum acreage requirements for small OGRs required under the Forest 

Plan. Small OGRs contribute to the connectivity between source populations in medium 

and large reserves, and therefore must either sustain sink populations long enough to 

ensure successful emigration to other reserves or must be close enough to larger reserves 

to support a back-and-forth exchange (Smith et al. 2011). 

Smith et al. (2011) suggest that spacing small OGRs at a maximum distance of 0.6 mile (1 

kilometer) through old-growth habitat would probably facilitate the recolonization of 

vacant reserves and supplementation of existing populations. Based on this suggested 

spacing, functional connectivity within the project area (existing small OGRs) is as 

follows:

 Small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 are functionally connected to each 

other and to the Honker large OGR and saltwater complex via VCU 5780;

 The small OGRs in VCU 5950 is functionally connected (only through its 

northeast corner through non-Federal land) to the Honker large OGR complex, and 

to the small OGR in VCU 5940; 

 Small OGRs in 5960 and 5972 are functionally connected to large reserves 

(Honker large OGR complex and/or Karta Wilderness);

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5820/5830 and 5850/5860 are functionally 

connected to each other, but not to any other reserve; and

 The northern and southern pieces of the small OGR in VCU 5810 are functionally 

connected to each other through the stream buffer along Luck Creek but not to any 

larger reserves, and the northern piece of small OGR is functionally connected to 

the small OGR in VCU 5720 but not to a large reserve, and the southern piece 

would remain functionally connected to the Honker via roadless.

In addition to the functional connectivity across the landscape provided by the reserve 

system, legacy standards and guidelines, and old-growth forest in the matrix, connectivity 

between reserves for flying squirrels is also provided by structural elements of the Forest 

Plan conservation strategy including the stream, estuary, lake, and beach buffers. A 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-121

discussion of travel corridors within the project area is provided in the Biodiversity 

subsection.

Within the project area VCUs, between 40 to 100 percent of the original (1954) POG 

remains providing suitable habitat for flying squirrels (Table WLD-1). Past timber 

harvest has likely affected flying squirrel populations where clearcut size is larger than 

their maximum gliding range, or where scattered tall conifers in large cuts have not been 

retained as cover and for travel across the open spaces. These conditions may hinder 

dispersal and result in the creation of isolated populations.

Prince of Wales Spruce Grouse

The Prince of Wales spruce grouse is a subspecies that is endemic to Prince of Wales and 

nearby islands in southern Southeast Alaska. The Prince of Wales Island spruce grouse is 

associated with muskegs, high-volume POG, and mixed conifer (scrub) habitats but will 

also use young-growth forest (15-30 years following timber harvest) with a welldeveloped middle story; they avoid clearcuts (Russell 1999). Though they are closely 

associated with conifer forests, the highest densities of spruce grouse are supported by 

areas with a mosaic of older coniferous habitats interspersed with regenerating patches of 

dense trees. Existing POG within the project area VCUs is presented in table WLD-1. 

Denser forest stands are selected during winter because they intercept snow. Grouse also 

select habitats with abundant shrubs and herbaceous plants where cover and forage are 

available during summer. Prince of Wales spruce grouse eat Sitka spruce needles and 

buds, western hemlock needles, and Vaccinium species (e.g., blueberries; Russell 1999).

Spruce grouse are poor long-distance flyers and are generally sedentary, with some 

limited migratory movement (typically less than a mile; Dickerman and Gustafson 1996) 

between summer and winter habitats (Boag and Schroeder 1992, Williamson et al. 2008).

Spruce grouse are an important prey species for goshawks and marten. Forest birds, 

including spruce grouse, comprised a larger proportion of goshawk diets during the 

breeding season on Prince of Wales Island than elsewhere in Southeast Alaska (Lewis et 

al. 2006). Thus, impacts to spruce grouse could also impact goshawk and marten 

populations. Spruce grouse are managed as a game species by ADF&G. In GMU 2, 

taking of spruce grouse is allowed between August 1 and May 15, with a bag limit of five 

per day. 

Changes in forest structure, (e.g., timber harvest or windthrow) associated with 

fragmentation may lead to population declines if open areas are too large or forested 

patches are spread too far apart to enable spruce grouse to move between them (greater 

than 1 mile). Clearcuts may also present a dispersal barrier to this species due to the thick 

logging debris often present which could inhibit walking, this species preferred method of 

movement (Russell 1999). The existing level of fragmentation (POG patch sizes) is 

presented in table WLD-2.

Spruce grouse are particularly vulnerable to hunting along road systems, and thus are 

susceptible to overexploitation near roads and human populations (Williamson et al. 2008; 

Rabe 2009). Nelson (2010) found no effect between unharvested and harvested habitats 

on the short-term survival of radio-marked Prince of Wales spruce grouse; however, this 

study did not differentiate between age of past harvest or between types of unharvested 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-122 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

habitat. Existing total road densities on NFS lands in the project area are presented in 

Table WLD-8. The Forest Plan conservation strategy maintains connectivity within 

matrix lands that will help facilitate dispersal and interchange between isolated spruce 

grouse populations.

Endemic Species

The Federal ESA defines endemic as “a species native and confined to a certain region; 

having comparatively restricted distribution.” Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

endemic mammals direct the Forest to “maintain habitat to support viable populations and 

improve knowledge of habitat relationships of rare or endemic terrestrial mammals that 

may represent unique populations with restricted ranges.” Likewise, the NFMA directs 

that management prescriptions “shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and 

animal communities, including endemic(s).”

Due to its archipelago geography and highly dynamic glacial history, Southeast Alaska 

has been found to be a region with an especially high degree of endemism (Demboski et 

al. 1998). Approximately 20 percent of the small mammal taxa (species and subspecies) 

known to occur in Southeast Alaska are endemic to an island or a group of islands

(Dawson et al. 2007). There remain many uncertainties about the extent of endemism in 

Southeast Alaska because research to date has primarily focused on mammals, thus the 

level of endemism in other organisms such as plants, birds, amphibians, and invertebrates 

is unknown. The Prince of Wales Island complex appears to be an endemic hotspot based 

on evidence that it was refugia during the last glacial event (Cook et al. 2001; Cook et al. 

2006). The following species are endemic and occur on Prince of Wales Island (ISLES 

2009:

 Alexander Archipelago wolf: endemic to Southeast Alaska (Weckworth et al. 

2005; discussed above);

 Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel: endemic to the Prince of Wales Island complex 

(Bidlack and Cook 2001, 2002; discussed above);

 Haida Gwaii ermine (Mustela erminea haidarum): endemic to Haida Gwaii, BC, 

and the Prince of Wales Island complex (Fleming and Cook 2002); closely 

associated with riparian and shoreline areas at low elevations (Reid et al. 2000); 

Note that these areas are already protected by Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines;

 Keen’s myotis (Myotis keenii): endemic to the Southeast Alaska and British 

Columbia, recorded from Juneau south (MacDonald and Cook 2007); selects roost 

sites in forest patches with greater availability of large-diameter trees with decay

for roosting and that were close to streams (Boland et al. 2009);

 Alexander Archipelago black bear: endemic to coastal British Columbia and 

Southeast Alaska, except Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof islands (Stone and 

Cook 2000; discussed above);

 Prince of Wales Spruce Grouse: endemic to Prince of Wales Island and nearby 

islands including Heceta, Suemez, Warren, and Zarembo; also reported on Mitkof 

Island (Dickerman and Gustafson 1996; discussed above).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-123

Timber harvest has the potential to remove habitat used by endemic species, such as snags 

and hollow trees used by the Keen’s myotis and the Prince of Wales flying squirrel; but 

may also create habitat for some species (e.g., regenerating forest stands for spruce 

grouse). Existing POG within the project area VCUs is presented in Table WLD-1. 

Fragmentation of habitat patches resulting could limit the ability of some species (e.g., 

flying squirrels) to disperse between areas of suitable habitat (the existing level of 

fragmentation in the project area is presented in Table WLD-2). In addition, for those 

species that are hunted, project roads have the potential to increase hunter access and thus 

may increase harvest rates along the road system and the areas that these roads access

(there are no known thresholds relative to road density for these species). Due to their 

restricted ranges, specific habitat requirements, and sensitivity to human activity, insular 

endemic species (i.e., those restricted to islands or groups of islands) are highly 

susceptible to extirpation and eventually extinction (Soule 1983; Reid and Miller 1989; 

Burkey 1995). Species tied to island archipelagos are more sensitive to the effects of 

introduced non-natives, including pathogens and disease, and natural events, such as 

climate change, than other managed landscapes due to their limited mobility and isolation 

from other subpopulations (Cook et al. 2006). 

Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186 provides for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats 

and requires the evaluation of the effects of Federal actions on migratory birds, with an 

emphasis on species of concern. Agencies are required to support the conservation and 

intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, 

measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent 

practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions.

Birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) include all common 

songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native doves and 

pigeons, swifts, martins, swallows, and others, including their body parts (e.g., feathers, 

plumes), nests, and eggs. Prince of Wales Island is part of the Southeastern 

Biogeographic Region of Alaska, one of five Biogeographic Regions in Alaska (based on 

the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s hierarchical framework of nested 

ecological units) in which priority species, habitats, and conservation actions are identified 

under the Boreal Partners in Flight (BPIF) Alaska Landbird Conservation Plan (BPIF

1999). Priority migratory bird species identified in the Landbird Conservation Plan (BPIF 

1999, 2011) with the potential to occur in the Big Thorne project area are listed in Table 

WLD-9. Of these species, 14 species use hemlock/spruce/cedar forest as primary habitat 

for known or probable breeding; the remaining 5 use this forest as secondary habitat.

Marbled murrelets (addressed under Species of Concern), and goshawks (addressed 

below) are also protected by the MBTA.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-124 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-9. Priority Landbird Species Potentially Occurring in the Big Thorne 

Project Area

Common Name1/ Scientific Name

Potential Occurrence in Vicinity of the 

Big Thorne Analysis Area

western screech owl Otus kennicottii Breeding, Winter

black swift Cypseloides niger 

(borealis)

Breeding

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi Migration Breeding

rufous hummingbird Selashorus rufus Migration, Breeding

red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber Breeding

olive-sided flycatcher Cantopus cooperi Breeding

western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Breeding

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Breeding

Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Breeding

Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri Breeding, Winter

northwestern crow Corvus caurinus Breeding, Winter

chestnut-backed chickadee Poecile rufescens Breeding, Winter

American dipper Cinclu mexicanus Breeding

varied thrush Ixoreus naevius Migration, Breeding, Winter

Townsend’s warbler Dendroic townsendi Breeding

blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata Migration

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Breeding

golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla Breeding, Winter

golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Breeding, Winter

1/ The blue grouse is also included on the priority list for Southeastern Alaska Region (BPIF 1999, BPIF 2011) but does 

not occur on Prince of Wales Island.

The main management issue for migratory birds in the Southeastern Alaska 

Biogeographic Region is the harvest of POG forests. Timber harvest directly removes 

perching, foraging, and nesting habitat and results in habitat fragmentation, which may 

reduce the suitability of remaining forest for species associated with interior forest 

conditions, such as the Townsend’s warbler (Kissling 2003; Sperry 2006). The existing 

amount of POG in the project area is presented in table WLD-1. Fragmentation may 

increase the exposure of birds to edge-related predators and parasites, though there remain 

many unknowns about the effects of fragmentation on landbird populations in Alaska 

(Robinson 1992; Hoover et al. 1995; BPIF 1999). As the landscape becomes more 

fragmented, forest buffers become increasingly important for migratory birds to mitigate 

the effects of habitat loss (Kissling 2003). The existing level of fragmentation in the 

project area (POG patch sizes) is presented in table WLD-2. Riparian forests are also 

important for many species, such as the western screech owl, western wood-pewee, and 

Hammond’s flycatcher. This habitat has been altered by road construction and other 

human activities; however the Forest Plan conservation strategy maintains these areas 

therefore mitigating some of the effects. Timber harvest and related activities may also 

directly impact migratory birds through disturbances of adults or young through the 

removal of active bird nests or by causing nest abandonment. Migratory birds are likely 

to be present in the project area in upland forest, riparian, and coastal habitats. Migratory 

bird habitat is maintained by Forest Plan conservation strategy.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-125

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Sensitive Species

Threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially occurring in the project area 

were identified through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Table WLD-10 provides a 

comprehensive list of these species and identifies those carried forward in the analysis 

based on known occurrences or the presence of suitable habitat in the project area. These 

species are addressed in detail in the draft wildlife Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation (BA/BE) for the project which is included in the project record. For the 

remaining species, the project area is outside of their known range or suitable habitat is 

not present in the project area. Therefore, Big Thorne Project will have no effect on these 

species and they are not addressed further.

Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species potentially occurring in the project area 

were obtained from the most recent Regional Forester’s list (Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List 2009; Table WLD-10). The Queen Charlotte goshawk and black 

oystercatcher have the potential to occur in the project area. A detailed discussion of the 

Queen Charlotte goshawk is provided below because this species is associated with the 

old-growth forest ecosystem. The black oystercatcher, associated with rocky shorelines 

along the coast (areas protected by the 1,000-ft. beach buffer), is discussed in the BA/BE.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk 

The Queen Charlotte goshawk is of special concern to the State of Alaska (Cotter 2007) and 

has been included by Stenhouse and Senner (2005) on Audubon’s Alaska WatchList. The 

Queen Charlotte goshawk is recognized as a distinct subspecies of the northern goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis) that occurs only in coastal areas of British Columbia and in Southeast 

Alaska. In 2007, in response to a court-ordered remand on a petition to list the species, the 

USFWS updated a 1997 status review for the Queen Charlotte goshawk, and concluded that 

Alaska supports a DPS of this species though listing of this DPS was not warranted (USFWS 

2007). On August 1, 2012, the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk 

was listed as threatened under the ESA (FR 45870-45893). 

The goshawk is a year-round resident in Southeast Alaska and may occupy different or 

overlapping breeding and winter territories. Goshawk breeding territories can be described 

hierarchically in terms of the nest site, the nest area, post-fledging area (PFA), and foraging 

area (see Reynolds et al. 1992 and the project BA/BE for detailed descriptions). Goshawks in 

Southeast Alaska typically nest in large, contiguous patches of tall, mature, and old trees with 

dense canopies. When mature and old-growth habitats are not available they will nest in 

maturing young-growth with sufficient structure (Reynolds et al. 2006, Boyce et al. 2006). 

Goshawk foraging areas typically consist of mature and old-growth forest stands, though they 

will also forage in young forest as well as along edges and in openings as long as suitable 

perches from which to observe and attack prey are present (Iverson et al. 1996, Bosakowski et 

al. 1999; McClaren 2004; Boyce et al. 2006; Reynolds et al. 2006). 

Goshawks consume a wide variety of prey species and are capable of alternating between 

prey species, depending on prey occurrence and availability. Primary prey species for 

goshawks on Prince of Wales Island include spruce grouse, Steller’s jays, and ptarmigan, all 

of which are forest dwelling birds (Lewis 2001). Prince of Wales Island is a relatively prey-
3 Environment and Effects 

3-126 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-10. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Alaska Region Sensitive 

Species in the Big Thorne Project Area

Common 

Name Scientific Name Habitat Association

Potential for 

Occurrence in 

the Project Area Status1/

Species Under USFWS Jurisdiction

Kittlitz’s 

murrelet

Brachyramphus 

brevirostris

Breeds in the vicinity of 

glaciers and cirques in high 

elevation alpine areas with little 

or no vegetative cover; northern 

Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea 

coast (Day et al. 1999).

No, due to lack of 

suitable habitat.

C; FSS2/

Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis Arctic tundra. No, outside of 

species’ range.

FE

Short-tailed 

albatross

Phoebastria albatrus Winters in waters of the Bering 

Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf 

of Alaska; breeds in Japan 

(USFWS 2011).

No, outside of 

species’ range.

FE

Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri Coastal waters in northern and 

western Alaska (USFWS 

1999).

No, outside of 

species’ range.

FT

Steller’s eider Polysticta stelleri Occurs in northern and western 

Alaska (USFWS 2007a).

No, outside of 

species’ range.

FT

Yellow-billed 

loon

Gavia adamsii Nests near freshwater lakes in 

the arctic tundra and winters 

along the Alaskan coast to the 

Puget Sound (USFWS 2009).

Yes, may occur 

during migration; 

no suitable habitat 

on the Tongass.

C

Polar bear Ursus maritimus Sea ice and coastlines of 

western Alaska and along the 

North Slope.

No, outside of the 

species’ range.

FT

Pacific walrus Odobenus rosmarus 

divergens

Continental shelf waters of 

Bering and Chukchi seas.

No, outside of the 

species’ range.

C

Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction

Blue whale Balaenoptera 

musculus

Off-shore (pelagic) marine 

waters of the Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, North Pacific 

Ocean and/or Gulf of Alaska 

(NMFS 2009a). Critical habitat 

designated for North Pacific 

right whales in the Bering Sea 

and the Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 

2009a).

No, very rarely 

observed in 

Southeast Alaska.

FE

Beluga whale Delphinaperus leucas

Bowhead whale Blaena mysticetus

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus

Northern Pacific 

right whale

Eubalaena japonica

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis

Sperm whale Physeter 

macrocephalus

Humpback 

Whale

Megaptera 

novaeangliae

Common in the inside waters of 

the Alexander Archipelago and 

are regularly sighted in the 

Inside Passage and coastal 

waters of the Southeast Alaska

panhandle (NMFS 1991).

Yes, likely to 

occupy marine 

waters around 

Prince of Wales 

Island. May occur 

in shallow coastal 

areas near the 

Project.

FE
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-127

Table WLD-10. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Alaska Region Sensitive 

Species in the Big Thorne Project Area (cont.)

Common 

Name Scientific Name Habitat Association

Potential for 

Occurrence in 

the Project Area Status1/

Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus Sea-ice habitats in Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, Beaufort seas 

(Federal Register 2008).

No, species do not 

occur in the project 

area.

C

Ringed Seal Phoca hispida

Spotted Seal Phoca largha

Northern sea 

otter, SW Alaska 

population

Enhydra lutris kenyoni Coastal marine habitats. No, population 

does not occur in 

the project area.

FT

Steller sea lion –

Western AK 

DPS3/

Eumetopias jubatus Marine and terrestrial areas 

from Prince William Sound 

westward (west of 144° west 

longitude).

No, DPS does not 

occur in project

area.

FE

Steller sea lion –

Eastern AK 

DPS3/

Eumetopias jubatus Marine and terrestrial areas in 

Southeast Alaska (east of 144° 

west longitude).

Yes, occurs in 

waters surrounding 

the Tongass.

FT

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Occur in the Gulf of Alaska and 

some species are found as far 

west as the Aleutian Islands. 

Adults are highly migratory, 

but the details and locations of 

migrations are largely unknown 

(NMFS 2009b).

No, only rarely 

observed in 

Southeast Alaska.

FT

Loggerhead sea 

turtle

Caretta caretta FT

Olive Ridley sea 

turtle

Lepidochelys olivacea FT

Leatherback sea 

turtle

Dermochelys coriacea FE

Chinook Salmon Onchorhynchus 

tshawytshca

Originate in freshwater habitats

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 

and California; migrate through 

the Gulf of Alaska (USFS 

2008b).

Possible, primarily 

occur outside 

waters of Southeast 

Alaska (USFS 

2008). Occurrence 

in inside Southeast 

Alaska waters has 

been documented, 

but infrequently.

FT or FE 

depending on 

Snake River run

Sockeye Salmon

O. nerka

Steelhead O. mykiss

Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species

Southeast Alaska 

Pacific Herring

Clupea pallasii Spawns and rear in nearshore 

waters.

Yes, likely to 

occupy marine 

waters around 

Prince of Wales 

Island. May occur 

in shallow coastal 

areas near the 

project.

C, FSS2/

Queen Charlotte 

goshawk

Accipiter Gentiles 

laingi

Mature/old growth forests. Yes, known to 

occur on Prince of 

Wales Island and 

suitable habitat 

present.

FSS
3 Environment and Effects 

3-128 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-10. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Alaska Region Sensitive 

Species in the Big Thorne Project Area (cont.)

Common 

Name Scientific Name Habitat Association

Potential for 

Occurrence in 

the Project Area Status1/

Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica Nests on islands, shrub-tundra, 

grass or sedge meadows and 

freshwater and coastal marshes.

No, outside of 

species’ range.

FSS

Black 

oystercatcher

Haematopus bachmani Rocky shorelines along the 

coast; forages in sheltered areas 

where low-sloping gravel or 

rock beaches with abundant 

prey occur.

Yes, suitable 

habitat present.

FSS

1/ FT = Federally threatened; FE = Federally endangered; C = candidate for Federal listing; FSS = Forest Service Alaska Region 

Sensitive Listed Species

2/ The “Species under USFS Jurisdiction” portion of this table lists the Forest Service Sensitive species that do not also have an 

ESA status; however, note that some of the ESA species are also Forest Service Sensitive species

3/DPS = Distinct Population Segment

poor area compared to the rest of Southeast Alaska because it does not support blue grouse or 

red squirrels, two important prey species for goshawks (Lewis et al. 2006). Goshawks on 

Prince of Wales Island have been documented moving great distances to forage, particularly 

during times of low prey abundance (McClaren 2004; Titus et al. 2005). 

Timber harvest may locally limit the availability of nest sites through the removal of 

suitable nest trees, or through the removal of forest surrounding these trees (POG). Nest 

trees must be surrounded by patches of mature or old-growth forest large enough to 

include several alternate nests and provide post-fledging habitat. Timber harvest may also 

decrease foraging habitat quality through reductions in prey abundance and availability. 

The availability of adequate prey resources has been linked to goshawk territory 

occupancy and breeding success (Doyle and Smith 2001; Salafsky et al. 2005; Keane et al. 

2006, Salafsky et al. 2007). Conservation measures for this species include nest habitat 

and legacy forest structure standards and guidelines under the Forest Plan (USFS 2008).

Within the North Central Prince of Wales Island biogeographic province, there are 

currently approximately 569,000 acres of POG, of which 248,360 acres are high-volume 

POG that provide potential goshawk habitat (Table WLD-1). High-volume POG 

represents optimal nesting habitat due to the presence of large trees and snags. This 

represents approximately 73 percent of the total POG and 64 percent of the original POG 

existing in 1954, the time commercial timber harvest on the Tongass National Forest 

commenced. The project area VCUs contain 40 to 100 percent of the original (1954) total 

POG, and 18 to 100 percent of the original high-volume POG (Table WLD-1). 

Between 1991 and 1999, five nest areas were documented on Prince of Wales Island 

(Flatten et al. 2001): near Logjam Creek, Rio Roberts/Cutthroat drainage, Sarheen Creek, 

Sarkar Lake, and Twelvemile arm. Nesting activity has not been documented at any of 

these nest sites since the 1990s, and although there have been goshawk sightings no new 

nests in these areas have been found (ADF&G 1999, Dillman 2009). One nest was 

located in the Big Thorne project area within the Steelhead drainage in 2010; the harvest 

units containing the nest and nest buffer were subsequently removed from the unit pool. A 

probable nest site was documented in the Sal Creek area in 2012. The site is surrounded 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-129

by approximately 40-year-old young-growth and is within 50 feet of the beach (therefore 

within the beach buffer).

Subsistence

Introduction

Subsistence refers to the natural resources used by rural Alaskans. Under Section 803 of 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), subsistence is defined 

as: “the customary and traditional uses by Alaska residents of wild renewable resources 

for direct, personal, or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or 

transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of non-edible 

byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for 

barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.”

ANILCA provides for “the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence users by rural 

residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands.” It also 

states that “customary and traditional” subsistence uses of renewable resources “shall be 

the priority consumptive use of all such resources on the public lands of Alaska.”

Subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering activities are a major focus of life for 

many residents on Prince of Wales Island. Reasons given for the participation in 

subsistence activities include the ability to provide food or supplemental income; the 

perpetuation of cultural customs and traditions; and the importance of values associated 

with self-reliance (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

The effects of landscape changes caused by timber harvest on the availability of wild 

game are important when the harvest of wild game is a cultural practice, food source, and 

recreational activity. Timber harvest may influence the abundance and distribution of 

subsistence resources (through changes in suitable habitat), access to subsistence 

resources (through changes in habitat and through road development or management), and 

competition for subsistence resources (through changes in abundance or access). 

ANILCA requires that the analysis of potential effects on subsistence uses focus on these 

factors. These factors are discussed below in the context of the Big Thorne Project. For a 

full discussion see the Wildlife and Subsistence resource report.

Small OGR modifications, proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4, would affect the amount 

of deer winter habitat and roads used for access within the reserve system, and thus have 

the potential to affect the abundance and distribution of, access to, and competition for 

deer depending on whether or not these areas are available for harvest. The existing small 

OGRs in the project area include 3,325 acres of deep snow deer winter habitat (highvolume POG below 800 feet elevation) and 51 miles of road (Table OGR-2).

Abundance and Distribution of Resources

Subsistence resources in the vicinity of the Big Thorne Project include terrestrial 

mammals (deer, wolves, black bears, furbearers, and small game), upland birds and 

waterfowl, marine mammals, salmon and other fin fish, marine invertebrates, plants, 

firewood, berries, bark, and firewood. The terrestrial mammals (see discussions above 

under the appropriate species subheadings) occur throughout the project area year round. 

Spruce grouse (see discussion above) and ptarmigan occur throughout the project area 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-130 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

year round; waterfowl occur in the project area during spring and fall migration and 

primarily on lakes and in bays and estuaries. Marine mammals, such as seals, occur in the 

marine waters adjacent to the project area. Streams and lakes within the Big Thorne 

project area provide habitat and contribute to the production of fish that support the local 

subsistence, sport, guided (both freshwater and saltwater), and commercial fisheries of the 

area. Eagle Creek, Luck Creek, Ratz Creek, Sal Creek, Slide Creek, and the Thorne River 

are known subsistence systems (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Subsistence plants, which 

include kelp, seaweed, goose tongue, mushrooms, and berries, occur along roads, previous 

harvested areas (berries), and near beach and estuarine areas. 

Access to Resources

Road networks connecting local communities provide access to subsistence resources in 

the Big Thorne project area. Road building associated with timber harvest can provide 

access to previously inaccessible areas, providing greater opportunities for subsistence 

harvest; disperse hunting and fishing pressure; and create the potential for increased 

competition. On Prince of Wales Island, road construction has the potential to result in 

increased competition from outside communities by providing greater access to nonresident hunters (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Changes in access can affect the level of 

effort required, time involved, and the effectiveness of the hunt, as well as potentially 

increase competition for subsistence resources (if associated with increased hunter 

success; USDA Forest Service 2009). The existing road network is described in the 

Transportation section of the EIS. Road closures in the project area are scheduled under 

the Prince of Wales Access and Travel Management Plan (see the Transportation section 

for details); the proposed road closures in the POW ATM would reduce access to some 

areas.

Competition for Resources

Competition for subsistence resources may occur when resources are abundant and access 

is available to local and non-local users. Competition can also occur between different 

subsistence user groups and between subsistence hunters and sport hunters. The existing 

road system in the project area has created relatively large areas that are easily accessed 

from local communities. The existing road system is described in Table TRAN-3. The 

ferry systems allow relatively easy access from off-island communities. Non-subsistence 

hunters make up about 15 percent of the total hunters utilizing WAA 1318, 20 percent in 

WAA 1319, 35 percent in WAA 1420, and 37 percent in WAA 1315 (Forest Service

2008b). Under ANILCA, in times of resource scarcity or when demand exceeds 

biologically sound harvest levels, subsistence harvests have priority over other 

consumptive use of resources. 

Subsistence Communities

There are multiple communities that either currently or have historically used the project 

area for subsistence use. These include Coffman Cove, Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, 

Klawock, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Naukati Bay, Petersburg, Point Baker, Port 

Protection, Thorne Bay, Whale Pass, and Wrangell (USDA Forest Service 2008b). There 

are records of subsistence use of the Project area by other communities (i.e., Ketchikan, 

Haines, Kake, and Sitka), but levels of use are generally low; in addition, Ketchikan does 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-131

not qualify as a Federal subsistence community. Therefore, these communities have not

been included in this assessment. A detailed description of each community is provided in 

the Wildlife and Subsistence Resources Report (Woeck 2012). 

Table WLD-11. Total Deer Harvested and Annual Average Reported for Communities 

using the Project Area WAAs between 1996 and 2003

Community

Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA)1/, 2/

1315 1318 1319 1420

Coffman Cove 26 (4) - 5 (1) 607 (87)

Craig 240 (34) 806 (115) 261 (37) 175 (25)

Hollis UNK UNK UNK UNK

Hydaburg UNK UNK UNK UNK

Kasaan 26 (4) - - -

Klawock 76 (11) 510 (73) 71 (10) 99 (14)

Metlakatla3/ - - - -

Meyers Chuck 8 (1) 7 (1) 12 (2) -

Naukati Bay - - 9 (1) 6 (1)

Petersburg 8 (1) 4 (1) 4 (1) 25 (4)

Point Baker UNK UNK UNK UNK

Port Protection 2 (<1) - - -

Thorn Bay 802 (115) 57 (8) 863 (123) 128 (18)

Whale Pass UNK UNK UNK UNK

Wrangell 6 (1) - - 11 (2)

1/ Values in brackets indicated annual average between 1996 and 2003; data by WAA differentiating resident and nonresident harvest after 2003 are not available.

2/ “UNK” indicates communities that are known to subsistence hunt in the project area, but where hunting data are

unknown. A dashed line indicates that a community is not known to subsistence hunt in a particular WAA.

3/ Uses adjacent WAA 1421

Data source: ADF&G (2006)

These communities harvest a variety of resources from the project area, including salmon, 

other finfish, marine invertebrates, bear and deer; plants, firewood, berries, and bark are 

also harvested. However, deer are the primary subsistence resource that would be affected 

by timber harvesting activities and therefore the focus of this discussion (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). The Wildlife and Subsistence resource report and Fisheries resource 

report provide additional information on other subsistence uses by community. Table 

WLD-11 lists the number of deer harvested in the project area WAAs by community. 

Note that some communities are known to hunt in the project area, but data regarding 

which WAA utilized or the exact numbers of deer taken are not available (e.g., Hollis, 

Hydaburg, Point Baker, and Whale Pass). 

Deer harvest and hunting efforts (i.e., number of deer taken) in GMU 2 generally 

increased from 1997 to 2000, and then declined from 2000 to 2004 (ADF&G 2005). 

Efforts increased again from 2004 to 2006, but remained steady between 2006 and 2007 

(ADF&G 2007). Published data are not currently available for hunting efforts after 2007 

for GMU 2 as a whole; however, based on unpublished data, there was a small increase in 

the total number of deer taken in the project area WAAs during 2008 and 2009 compared 

to the 2007 numbers (Bethune, ADF&G, personal comm. 2011).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-132 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Environmental Consequences

Biodiversity

Direct and Indirect Effects –All Alternatives

A functional and interconnected old-growth ecosystem is essential to maintaining various 

components of biodiversity, including structural complexity (within-stand and landscape 

level), connectivity (unfragmented, contiguous blocks of old growth), stand age and 

species composition, and various ecological processes (e.g., tree establishment, 

disturbance, and nitrogen fixation [USDA Forest Service 2008b]). Through the removal 

of POG, timber harvest would reduce biodiversity by shifting the age-structure of the 

forest (i.e., removed trees are replaced by younger generation cohorts; Franklin et al. 

1997); changing the composition of understory vegetation (Deal and Tappeiner 2002); and 

removing key habitat features such as large decadent trees, snags, and downed logs. 

These changes may reduce the range of habitats that support diverse plants and animal 

communities and alter the ecological processes supported by the old-growth ecosystem. 

The amount of POG and its distribution across the landscape provide a measure of the 

effects of the project on biodiversity.

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

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

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

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

Environment discussion for additional detail). Fragmentation may remove linkages 

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

A continuously distributed population could become a series of small, subpopulations that 

rely on the ability of dispersing individuals of genetic interchange and recolonization in 

the event of local extirpation. Remaining habitat patches would become smaller and less 

suitable for species associated with interior forest conditions. It can be assumed that the 

alternatives that harvest the most POG and result in the greatest increases in the number of 

POG patches on the landscape would result in the greatest edge effects and have the 

greatest adverse effects to biodiversity. All action alternatives would maintain 99 percent 

of the total, high-volume, and large-tree POG currently available in the North Central 

Prince of Wales biogeographic province (Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). 

However, the historic connectivity of the landscape has been compromised by prior timber 

harvest activities, resulting in a reduction to 73, 64, and 60 percent of the original total, 

high-volume, and large-tree POG in the biogeographic province.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-133

Table WLD-12. Harvest of Total POG by Biogeographic Province, VCU, and Project 

Area for Each Alternative

Biogeographic 

Province/VCU1/

1954 

POG 2011 POG Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Original Acres Existing Acres % Original Remaining Acres Harvested % Existing Remaining Acres Harvested % Existing Remaining Acres Harvested % Existing Remaining Acres Harvested % Existing Remaining Acres Harvested % Existing Remaining

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Island (14)

775,821 569,098 73 0 100 4,792 99 6,696 99 4,109 99 4,848 99

5720 7,348 3,869 53 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5740 18,608 14,953 80 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5750 11,549 11,143 96 0 100 0 100 205 98 0 100 0 100

5760 7,542 6,990 93 0 100 12 100 12 100 0 100 12 100

5780 4,949 3,688 75 0 100 542 85 542 85 421 89 459 88

5790 7,087 2,818 40 0 100 374 87 432 85 442 84 442 84

5800 9,760 7,036 72 0 100 337 95 662 91 346 95 456 94

5810 13,590 6,830 50 0 100 471 93 745 89 455 93 445 93

5820 2,470 2,461 100 0 100 12 99 197 92 25 99 101 96

5830 8,632 4,866 56 0 100 400 92 440 91 324 93 407 92

5840 9,940 5,827 59 0 100 613 89 834 86 438 92 626 89

5850 7,544 3,088 41 0 100 256 92 347 89 137 96 130 96

5860 11,653 6,336 54 0 100 291 95 518 92 208 97 316 95

5950 10,086 7,053 70 0 100 699 90 807 89 483 93 623 91

5960 5,794 5,596 97 0 100 62 99 62 99 31 99 62 99

5971 1,820 1,516 83 0 100 26 98 26 98 17 99 26 98

5972 13,109 8,620 66 0 100 697 92 867 90 784 91 742 91

5980 8,522 5,459 64 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

Project Area 147,583 98,748 67 0 100 4,792 95 6,696 93 4,109 96 4,848 95

1/ Includes NFS and non-NFS land
3 Environment and Effects 

3-134 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-13. Harvest of High-volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 67) by Biogeographic 

Province, VCU, and Project Area for Each Alternative

Biogeographic 

Province/VCU1/

1954 

POG

2011 

POG

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

AcresExisting Acres% Original RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing Remaining

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Island

385,581 248,359 64 0 100 2,503 99 3,720 99 2,419 99 2,612 99

5720 3,248 1,149 35 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5740 8,060 5,503 68 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5750 4,748 4,552 96 0 100 0 100 158 97 0 100 0 100

5760 3,773 3,338 88 0 100 5 100 5 100 0 100 5 100

5780 3,023 2,205 73 0 100 324 85 324 85 263 88 262 88

5790 3,657 934 26 0 100 222 76 261 72 258 72 257 73

5800 5,459 3,579 66 0 100 275 92 422 88 281 92 354 90

5810 8,477 3,809 45 0 100 371 90 555 85 354 91 348 91

5820 1,354 1,348 100 0 100 8 99 157 88 16 99 77 94

5830 4,625 2,115 46 0 100 200 91 208 90 194 91 196 91

5840 4,381 1,945 44 0 100 184 91 342 82 134 93 192 90

5850 3,540 635 18 0 100 59 91 82 87 20 97 42 93

5860 7,134 3,420 48 0 100 103 97 264 92 112 97 122 96

5950 5,595 3,547 63 0 100 442 88 547 85 303 91 409 88

5960 2,655 2,594 98 0 100 45 98 45 98 18 99 45 98

5971 1,200 987 82 0 100 7 99 7 99 6 99 7 99

5972 6,373 3,449 54 0 100 258 93 346 90 460 87 296 91

5980 4,591 2,640 58 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

Project Area 101,832 43,902 43 0 100 2,503 94 3,720 92 2,419 94 2,612 94

1/ Includes NFS and non-NFS lands.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-135

Table WLD-14. Harvest of Large Tree POG (SD 67) by Biogeographic Province, VCU, 

and Project Area for Each Alternative

Biogeographic 

Province/ 

VCU1/

1954 

POG

2011 

POG

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

AcresExisting Acres%Original RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested% Existing RemainingAcres Harvested%Existing Remaining

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Island 213,083 127,306 60 0 100 1,318 99 1,944 98 1,210 99 1,306 99

5720 2,122 824 39 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5740 4,864 3,155 65 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5750 2,271 2,237 99 0 100 0 100 55 98 0 100 0 100

5760 1,915 1,630 85 0 100 5 100 5 100 0 100 5 100

5780 2,183 1,640 75 0 100 260 84 260 84 211 87 202 88

5790 1,970 334 17 0 100 133 60 138 59 144 57 142 58

5800 2,458 1,385 56 0 100 156 89 179 87 129 91 156 89

5810 4,814 1,741 36 0 100 192 89 301 83 189 89 198 89

5820 967 963 100 0 100 0 100 130 86 0 100 75 92

5830 2,503 884 35 0 100 69 92 72 92 63 93 63 93

5840 1,999 557 28 0 100 21 96 133 76 21 96 21 96

5850 1,962 190 10 0 100 14 93 22 89 0 100 14 93

5860 3,573 1,410 39 0 100 0 100 80 94 6 100 6 100

5950 3,991 2,567 64 0 100 385 85 452 82 241 91 344 87

5960 1,550 1,501 97 0 100 27 98 27 98 0 100 27 98

5971 868 751 87 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5972 2,868 1,257 44 0 100 56 96 92 93 205 84 55 96

5980 2,742 1,572 57 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

Project Area 66,412 22,128 33 0 100 1,318 94 1,944 91 1,210 95 1,306 94

The extent of these effects would depend in part on the amount of forest structure retained 

in harvested stands. Thus, effects to biodiversity would be expected to be lessened under 

uneven-aged harvest prescriptions, which leave some portion of the trees standing in a 

unit. By contrast, even-aged harvest would result in marked periods in which habitat 

suitability and connectivity would change. For example, in the first 25 years following 

even-aged harvest (i.e., clear-cutting), harvested stands provide increased forage biomass, 

which provide a good source of forage during the summer for many wildlife species, but 

do not provide suitable winter habitat for species such as deer and marten. They also do 

not provide connectivity due to the reduction in overstory cover, required by many oldgrowth associated species. The even-aged young-growth stands that subsequently develop 

have little value to many wildlife species once the canopy closes and understory herbs and 

shrubs are shaded out. Unmanaged young-growth stands can remain in this condition up 

to 150 years before developing the characteristics of old-growth (USDA Forest Service 

2008b). Alternatives that include the more uneven-aged harvest would be expected to 

maintain more biodiversity across the landscape than those that involve predominantly 

even-aged harvest.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-136 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Young-growth management could increase biodiversity in previously harvested stands. 

Thinning could extend the period that understory forage is available for species such as 

deer by delaying canopy closure, increase habitat for certain prey species, and promote 

conditions that mimic old-growth stand characteristics at a faster rate than would occur 

without treatment (USDA Forest Service 2000a; Carey 2003). This would increase 

habitat suitability for old-growth associated species and improve landscape connectivity 

over the long-term. Enhanced structural diversity of commercially thinned stands may 

also promote wildlife species diversity, particularly for birds (Habar et al. 1996). 

However, research on the effectiveness of young-growth management is ongoing and 

peer-reviewed results are not yet available for all of these benefits (USDA Forest Service 

2011). Thus, the discussion of commercial thinning should be interpreted in the context 

of the remaining uncertainty associated with its benefits to biodiversity.

The system of OGRs and other non-development LUDs is intended to maintain the 

integrity of the old-growth ecosystem. Within the matrix, connectivity between reserves 

is maintained through Forest-wide standards and guidelines for stream buffers, the beach 

fringe, project-level legacy forest structure retention, and others that preclude or limit 

timber harvest in certain areas which would be implemented under all alternatives. 

Collectively, these measures would facilitate organism dispersal and maintain the 

functionality and interconnectedness of the old-growth ecosystem (USDA Forest Service 

2008b). Effects of the small OGR modifications proposed under Alternatives 3 and 4 are 

described below and in detail in Issue 2. 

Cumulative Effects-All Alternatives

The North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province is the province on the Forest 

with the most extensive past and projected future harvest and development. The 2008 

Forest Plan Final EIS projected the percent of original POG that would remain on all land 

ownerships (NFS and non-NFS) in 100+ years by biogeographic province assuming 

maximum future harvest (i.e., harvest of all acres in LUDs available for harvest; USDA 

Forest Service 2008b). Future developments on both NFS and non-NFS lands in the 

province were also taken into account (in the North Central Prince of Wales 

biogeographic province this includes the communities of Klawock, Craig, Thorne Bay, 

and many other small communities; USDA Forest Service 2008b). Assumptions for this 

analysis are included in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). In doing 

so, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable timber harvest projects, including the Big 

Thorne and others identified at the beginning of this chapter, were taken into account. 

Therefore, this analysis provides an appropriate measure of cumulative harvest, and 

associated biodiversity effects, with the exception of any modifications to OGRs or land 

exchanges (see discussion under each alternative below). 

Approximately 209,472 acres have been harvested within the North Central Prince of 

Wales biogeographic province, including both NFS lands and non-NFS lands. Based on 

the 2008 Forest Plan analysis, approximately 51 percent original (1954) POG would 

remain in this biogeographic province after full implementation of the Forest Plan and 

future non-NFS harvest in 100+ years (USDA Forest Service 2008b). This does not 

include maturing young-growth that develops older forest characteristics during that time 

period (estimated to be approximately 3-6 percent of the original POG that would be 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-137

represented by mature second growth, in non-development LUDs, which would be 

beginning to take on older forest characteristics; USDA Forest Service 2008b). Future 

representation of high-volume POG and large-tree POG is expected to be approximately 

41 and 43 percent of the original amount, respectively, after 100+ years (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). 

Currently, the amount of original total POG within the project area VCUs ranges from 

40 percent to 100 percent. All action alternatives would contribute to the cumulative 

reduction in POG in the project area VCUs as well as in the size and/or number of 

corridors (structural or functional) in the Big Thorne project area (Table WLD-15). 

Timber harvest on NFS, including micro-sales and Free Use, as well as on state lands 

would result in similar effects. Collectively, the Big Thorne project in combination with 

ongoing and foreseeable projects would increase in the number of smaller patches on the 

landscape, reducing the amount of interior forest and increasing the occurrence of forest 

edge habitat. Edge effects such as shifts in species composition may reduce native 

biodiversity over time by favoring some species over others. Over time, commercial 

thinning proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, in combination with past and foreseeable 

young-growth thinning would increase biodiversity within the project area by promoting 

stand development.

All action alternatives, in combination with ongoing and foreseeable projects, would 

increase the number of project area VCUs in which the cumulative reduction in the 

amount of original (1954) total POG would be greater than 33 percent, the threshold at 

which matrix functions may be compromised (VCUs 5780 and 5950 under all action 

alternatives, and VCU 5800 under Alterative 3; Table WLD-1), and which triggers the 

implementation of the Legacy standard and guideline. In project area VCUs where total 

original POG has already been reduced by more than 33 percent, continued 

implementation of the Legacy standard and guideline would maintain the range of matrix 

functions. In these VCUs, increased habitat removal and fragmentation could locally 

hinder the movements of species with limited dispersal capabilities (e.g., Prince of Wales 

flying squirrel). Alternative 4 was specifically designed to minimize this effect by 

dropping units in areas identified as being important to connectivity and by proposing 

prescriptions and harvest methods that would have a lighter touch on the landscape, 

maintaining some value as habitat after harvest. For the remaining VCUs where 

cumulative POG reduction is less than 33 percent, all of the alternatives would be 

expected to maintain the full range of matrix functions and would not reduce the 

likelihood of populations persisting over time (Haufler 2006). 

Although some wildlife species make more use of the larger forest types (i.e., highvolume and large-tree POG) none of the wildlife species of concern discussed in this 

document are restricted to these habitats, with most species making some use of both POG 

and non-POG habitats (e.g., unproductive old-growth and older young-growth forests). 

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

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

of the Legacy Forest Structure and Riparian standards and guidelines under all 

alternatives, as well as the beach and estuary fringe, would maintain the functionality and 

interconnectedness of the old-growth ecosystem.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-138 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects and negligible indirect effects to biodiversity 

because no action would be undertaken. The existing amount of total POG, high-volume 

POG, and large-tree POG would be maintained in the project area VCUs under 

Alternative 1 (Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). Previously harvested stands 

would not be commercially thinned. They would continue to maintain stem exclusion 

characteristics over the majority of the planned harvest rotation unless treated under 

another project. The window for thinning these stands will be limited by stand growth 

responses to over-stocked conditions. This results in the development of low crown ratios 

and high height to diameter ratios which lead to reduced stand vigor as well as increased 

windthrow potential. These conditions reduce the ability to commercially thin effectively, 

which may limit the regeneration system to even-aged management when these stands are 

ready for final harvest. 

Under Alternative 1, the level of fragmentation would remain unchanged, except for 

naturally occurring events (e.g., windthrow). If in the future treatment of young-growth 

stands is limited to even-aged management this could increase the long-term level of 

fragmentation compared to the use of uneven-aged system which would maintain some 

habitat value within treated stands. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1 the Big Thorne Project, in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable harvest, would maintain at least 40, 18, and 10 percent of the original (1954) 

total POG, high-volume POG, and large-tree POG, respectively, within project area VCUs 

(Table WLD-15). Nine VCUs, including seven with project activities, would maintain less

than 67 percent of the original total POG (cumulative reduction of more than 33 percent;

Table WLD-15). The movement capabilities of organisms with low mobility may be 

limited, potentially resulting in local gaps in distribution and a reduced likelihood of local 

population persistence, in the VCUs that have experienced habitat loss of more than 33

percent. The remaining VCUs would continue to have a high likelihood of maintaining 

habitat components important to a variety of species across the landscape. Cumulative 

reductions in POG, due to past harvest, under Alternative 1 were accounted for in the 

2008 Forest Plan FEIS analysis, which concluded that with the conservation strategy in 

place full implementation of the Forest Plan would be expected to maintain viable, welldistributed populations across the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would harvest 4,792 acres of POG including 2,503 acres of high-volume 

POG and 1,318 acres of large tree POG (Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). 

Harvest under Alternative 2 would maintain at least 85 percent of the total POG, 76 

percent of the high-volume POG, and 60 percent of the large-tree POG currently available 

in the project area VCUs (Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). Approximately 86 

percent of harvest would be even-aged harvest and 14 percent would be uneven-aged 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-139

harvest, maintaining less biodiversity across the landscape than alternatives that include 

more uneven-aged harvest (e.g., alternatives 4 and 5; Table TSE-4). 

Generally, uneven-aged harvest is proposed in individual units that are widely distributed 

across the landscape (i.e., one unit near Luck Lake, one near Control Lake, etc.) and not 

located within travel corridors between areas of past harvest; thus, they would have more 

limited value in terms of maintaining the functional connectivity of the old-growth 

ecosystem. One exception is uneven-aged harvest proposed for a series of units (units 

550, 551, and 558) south of Ratz Harbor which would maintain connectivity to the beach. 

Effects of Alternative 2 to biodiversity associated with the removal of POG forest would 

be greatest in VCUs 5950, 5972, and 5840 where the most harvest is proposed; however, 

90, 92, and 89 percent of the existing POG would be maintained in these VCUs, 

respectively. Thus, substantial reductions in biodiversity (i.e., species richness or 

abundance) would not be expected. All three VCUs coinciding with the project area that 

are currently considered intact landscapes (VCU 5750, 5820, and 5960; Table WLD-12) 

would remain so under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 would also increase the number of POG patches on the landscape by 120 

percent, thereby increasing fragmentation and associated edge effects and reducing 

connectivity. Alternative 2 would result in the second largest increase in number of 

patches in the smallest (0-25 acres) size class among the alternatives; fragmentation also 

alters the number of patches in other size categories including the number of large patches 

(Table WLD-16). Alternative 2 does not include commercial thinning of young growth, 

and therefore would not have the potential beneficial effects to biodiversity associated 

with promoting stand development in previously harvested stands (related effects would 

be the same as described under Alternative 1).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-140 ▪ Issue 2: Old-growth Habitat LUD Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-15. Cumulative POG Harvest by Alternative

Biogeographic Province/VCU2/

1954 POG (Acres)

Percent of Original (1954) POG Remaining1/

Alt. 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 

3 Alternative 4

Alternative 

5

All POGHigh Volume POGLarge Tree POGAll POGHigh Volume POGLarge Tree POGAll POGHigh Volume POGLarge Tree POGAll POGHigh Volume POGLarge Tree POGAll POGHigh Volume POGLarge Tree POGAll POGHigh Volume POGLarge Tree POG

North Central Prince of Wales Island3/ 775,821 385,581 213,083 51 41 43 51 41 43 51 41 43 51 41 43 51 41 43

5720 7,348 3,248 2,122 53 35 39 51 35 38 51 35 38 51 35 38 51 35 38

5740 18,608 8,060 4,864 80 68 65 80 68 65 80 68 65 80 68 65 80 68 65

5750 11,549 4,748 2,271 96 96 99 96 96 99 95 93 96 96 96 99 96 96 99

5760 7,542 3,773 1,915 93 88 85 93 88 85 93 88 85 93 88 85 93 88 85

5780 4,949 3,023 2,183 75 73 75 64 62 63 64 62 63 66 64 65 65 64 66

5790 7,087 3,657 1,970 40 26 17 34 19 10 34 18 10 34 18 10 34 19 10

5800 9,760 5,459 2,458 72 66 56 69 61 50 65 58 49 69 60 51 67 59 50

5810 13,590 8,477 4,814 50 45 36 47 41 32 45 38 30 47 41 32 47 41 32

5820 2,470 1,354 967 100 100 100 99 99 100 92 88 86 99 98 100 96 94 92

5830 8,632 4,625 2,503 56 46 35 52 41 33 51 41 32 53 42 33 52 41 33

5840 9,940 4,381 1,999 59 44 28 52 40 27 50 37 21 54 41 27 52 40 27

5850 7,544 3,540 1,962 41 18 10 37 16 8 36 15 8 39 17 9 39 16 8

5860 11,653 7,134 3,573 54 48 39 45 40 34 43 38 32 45 40 34 45 40 34

5950 10,086 5,595 3,991 70 63 64 62 55 55 61 53 53 65 58 58 63 56 56

5960 5,794 2,655 1,550 97 98 97 94 93 91 94 93 91 95 94 93 94 93 91

5971 1,820 1,200 868 83 82 87 82 82 87 82 82 87 82 82 87 82 82 87

5972 13,109 6,373 2,868 66 54 44 59 49 42 58 47 41 58 45 37 59 48 42

5980 8,522 4,591 2,742 64 58 57 64 58 57 64 58 57 64 58 57 64 58 57

Project Area 147,583 101,832 66,412 67 43 33 63 40 31 62 39 30 63 40 31 63 40 31

1/ Includes NFS and non-NFS lands. 

2/ Includes all VCUs that coincide with the project area boundary; no project activities proposed in VCUs 5720, 5740, 5971, or 5980 under any of the alternatives.

3/Numbers based on 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS analysis for the entire biogeographic province which projected impacts of Forest Plan implementation over 100+ years (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b); assumes all suitable lands are harvested, incorporating the Big Thorne Project.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-141

Table WLD-16. Number of POG Patches and POG acres within Patches by Size 

Class by Alternative

Patch 

Size 

(acres)1/

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

No. 

Patches Acres

No. 

Patches 

(% 

change) Acres 

No. 

Patches 

(% 

change) Acres

No. 

Patches 

(% 

change) Acres

No. 

Patches 

(% 

change) Acres

0-25 305 3,009 834 

(+173%)

3,625 923 

(+203%)

3,783 700 

(+130%)

3,443 818 

(+168%)

3,633

26-100 95 4,675 102

(+7%)

5,161 103 

(+8%)

5,226 96 (+1%) 4,704 102 

(+8%)

5,152

101-500 35 7,254 38

(+9%)

8,545 40 

(+14%)

9,080 42 

(+20%)

9,656 40 

(+14%)

9,122

500-1000 7 4,851 6

(-14%)

4,481 6 (-14%) 4,465 5 (-29%) 3,896 6 (-14%) 4,577

1000+2/ 8 82,748 10 

(+25%)

76,318 10 

(+25%)

73,925 9 (+13%) 77,501 9 

(+13%)

75,792

Total 450 102,537 990

(+120%)

98,129 1,082

(+140%)

96,479 852

(+89%)

99,200 975 

(+117%)

98,275

1/ Includes NFS and non-NFS lands; includes all patches intersecting the project area, some of which extend beyond the project area 

boundary.

2/ An increase in the number of 1000+ acre patches results from the fragmentation of a large patch where the resulting patches are still 

greater than 1,000 acres in size.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2, in combination with past timber harvest and ongoing and foreseeable 

projects, would maintain at least 34, 16, and 8 percent of the original total POG, 

high-volume POG, and large-tree POG, respectively, within project area VCUs 

(Table WLD-15). Like alternatives 4 and 5, 11 VCUs including 9 with project 

activities, would maintain less than 67 percent of the original total POG (cumulative 

reduction of more than 33 percent) under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-15). Thus 

Alternative 2 would result in two VCUs (in addition to those identified under 

Alternative 1) in which the movement capabilities of organisms with low mobility 

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

of local population persistence, due to habitat loss of more than 33 percent. The 

remaining VCUs would continue to have a high likelihood of maintaining habitat 

components important to a variety of species across the landscape. Cumulative 

reductions in POG under Alternative 2 were accounted for in the 2008 Forest Plan 

FEIS analysis, which concluded that with the conservation strategy in place, full 

implementation of the Forest Plan would be expected to maintain viable, welldistributed populations.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would harvest 6,696 acres of POG, the most under any alternative, 

including 3,720 acres of high-volume POG and 1,944 acres of large tree POG 

(Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). Harvest under Alternative 3 would 

maintain at least 85 percent of the total POG, 72 percent of the high-volume POG, and 

59 percent of the large-tree POG currently available in the project area VCUs (Tables 

WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). Approximately 84 percent of harvest would be 

even-aged harvest and 16 percent would be uneven-aged harvest, maintaining less 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-142 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

biodiversity across the landscape than the other alternatives more uneven-aged harvest 

and/or less overall harvest (Table TSE-4). The same units where uneven-aged harvest is 

proposed under Alternative 2 are also proposed for uneven-aged harvest under 

Alternative 3, and therefore would have the same effects from a connectivity 

standpoint as described above. However, Alternative 3 also includes uneven-aged 

harvest units north of Ratz Harbor and north of Sal Creek (coinciding with small 

OGR modifications) which would maintain functional connectivity to the beach. 

Effects of Alternative 3 to biodiversity would be greatest in VCUs 5972, 5840, and 

5950 where the most harvest is proposed; however, 90, 86, and 89 percent of the 

existing POG would be maintained in these VCUs, respectively. Thus, substantial 

reductions in biodiversity (i.e., species richness or abundance) would not be 

expected. Of the three VCUs considered to be intact landscapes that coincide with 

the Big Thorne Project, one (VCU 5960) would remain intact under Alternative 3. 

The other two VCUs (5750 and 5820) may have a lower likelihood of maintaining a 

high degree of biodiversity but would likely remain functional because the amount 

of existing POG maintained is still over 90 percent.

Alternative 3 would increase the number of POG patches on the landscape by 140 

percent, the most among the action alternatives, thereby increasing fragmentation 

and associated edge effects and reducing connectivity (Table WLD-16). Alternative 

3 would result in the greatest increase in the smallest (0-25 acres) size class among 

the alternatives, and therefore would be expected to result in the greatest amount of 

edge effects among the alternatives. Alternative 3 would result in the fewest acres in 

the largest patch size class among the alternatives (Table WLD-16). Alternative 3 

also involves the commercial thinning of 2,572 acres of young growth, and therefore 

would have the beneficial effects to biodiversity associated with opening the tree 

canopy and promoting understory development (Table TSE-4) in previously 

harvested stands.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 3, in combination with past timber harvest and ongoing and foreseeable 

projects, would maintain at least 34, 15, and 8 percent of the original total POG, 

high-volume POG, and large-tree POG, respectively, within project area VCUs 

(Table WLD-15). Under Alternative 3, 12 VCUs including 10 with project activities,

would maintain less than 67 percent of the original total POG (cumulative reduction 

of more than 33 percent), the most among the action alternatives (Table WLD-15). 

The movement capabilities of organisms with low mobility may be limited, 

potentially resulting in gaps in distribution and a reduced likelihood of local 

population persistence, in the VCUs with habitat loss of more than 33 percent. The 

remaining VCUs would continue to have a high likelihood of maintaining habitat 

components important to a variety of species across the landscape. 

Cumulative reductions in POG under Alternative 3 were accounted for in the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS analysis, which concluded that, with the conservation strategy in 

place, full implementation of the Forest Plan was expected to maintain viable, welldistributed populations across the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic 

province. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-143

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would harvest 4,109 acres of POG, the least under any alternative, 

including 2,419 acres of high-volume POG and 1,210 acres of large tree POG 

(Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). Approximately 45 percent of harvest 

would be even-aged harvest and 55 percent would be uneven-aged harvest, 

maintaining more biodiversity across the landscape than any of the action 

alternatives Table TSE-4). Uneven-aged harvest under Alternative 4 includes more 

acres of group selection and harvest with 25 percent retention than any other 

alternative (Table TSE-4). These prescriptions would have a lighter touch on the 

landscape by maintaining more habitat value following harvest and focusing harvest 

on smaller areas (some as small as 0.5 acre) to maintain biodiversity and minimize 

wildlife impacts. Most uneven-aged harvest units under Alternative 4 are located in 

travel corridors between areas of past harvest (unit 194 north of Luck Lake; unit 183 

northwest of Ratz Harbor; unit 177 north of Big Lake; units 158, 159, 162, 167 and 

168 south of Ratz Creek/Big Lake; unit 145 south of Sal Creek; unit 121 along 

Gravelly Creek; unit 68 in the Gravelly Creek area; numerous units in the Phase 2

area [VCU 5780] where there is an area of concentrated past harvest near the Honker 

large OGR complex; and units 41, 42, 44, and 46 between the Honker Large OGR

complex and the Karta Wilderness). Uneven-aged harvest of these units would 

maintain connectivity through these corridors.

Harvest under Alternative 4 would maintain at least 84 percent of the total POG, 72 

percent of the high-volume POG, and 57 percent of the large-tree POG currently 

available in the project area VCUs (Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and WLD-14). 

Effects of Alternative 4 to biodiversity would be greatest in VCUs 5972, 5950, and 

5810 where the most harvest is proposed; however, 91, 93, and 93 percent of the 

existing POG would be maintained in these VCUs, respectively. Thus, substantial 

reductions in biodiversity (i.e., species richness or abundance) would not be 

expected. Of the three VCUs considered to be intact landscapes that coincide with 

the Big Thorne Project, all would remain intact under Alternative 4. 

Alternative 4 would increase the number of POG patches on the landscape by 89 

percent, thereby increasing fragmentation and associated edge effects and reducing 

connectivity; however, this increase is the least among the action alternatives (Table 

WLD-16). Alternative 4 would result in the smallest increase in the number of 

patches in the smallest size class and would maintain the most acreage in the largest 

patch size class among the action alternatives, and therefore would be expected to 

result in the fewest edge effects among the alternatives (Table WLD-16). 

Alternative 4 also involves the commercial thinning of 2,161acres of young-growth, 

and therefore would have the beneficial effects to biodiversity associated with 

opening the tree canopy and promoting understory development (Table TSE-4).

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 4, in combination with past timber harvest and ongoing and foreseeable 

projects, would maintain at least 34, 17, and 9 percent of the original total POG, 

high-volume POG, and large-tree POG, respectively, within project area VCUs 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-144 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

(Table WLD-15). Like alternatives 2 and 5, 11 VCUs, including 9 with project 

activities, would maintain less than 67 percent of the original total POG (cumulative 

reduction of more than 33 percent) under Alternative 4 (Table WLD-15). The 

movement capabilities of organisms with low mobility may be limited, potentially 

resulting in gaps in distribution and a reduced likelihood of local population 

persistence, in the VCUs with habitat loss of more than 33 percent. The remaining 

VCUs would continue to have a high likelihood of maintaining habitat components 

important to a variety of species the landscape.

Cumulative reductions in POG under Alternative 4 were accounted for in the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS analysis, which concluded that with the conservation strategy in 

place full implementation of the Forest Plan would be expected to maintain viable, 

well-distributed populations across the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic 

province. 

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would harvest 4,848 acres of POG, including 2,612 acres of highvolume POG and 1,306 acres of large-tree POG (Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and 

WLD-14). Harvest under Alternative 5 would maintain at least 84 percent of the 

total POG, 73 percent of the high-volume POG, and 58 percent of the large-tree 

POG currently available in the project area VCUs (Tables WLD-12, WLD-13, and 

WLD-14). Approximately 79 percent of harvest would be even-aged harvest and 21 

percent would be uneven-aged harvest (Table TSE-4). Uneven-aged harvest units 

under Alternative 5 are also widely across the landscape and in most cases do not 

target travel corridors between areas of past harvest. Exceptions are units 158-161 

and 167-169 south of Ratz Creek/Big Lake; unit 177 north of Big Lake; and unit 194 

north of Luck Lake which would maintain connectivity through travel corridors. 

Effects of Alternative 5 to biodiversity would be greatest in VCUs 5972, 5840, and 

5950 where the most harvest is proposed; however, 91, 89, and 91 percent of the 

existing POG would be maintained in these VCUs, respectively. Thus, substantial 

reductions in biodiversity (i.e., species richness or abundance) would not be 

expected. Of the three VCUs considered to be intact landscapes that coincide with 

the Big Thorne Project, all would remain intact under Alternative 5.

Alternative 5 would increase the number of POG patches on the landscape by 117 

percent, thereby increasing fragmentation and associated edge effects and reducing 

connectivity. The largest increases would occur in the smallest (0-25 acre) and 

medium (101–500 acre) size classes (Table WLD-16). Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest amount of acreage in the largest patch size class among the action 

alternatives and therefore would be expected to result in the second least amount of

edge effects among the alternatives (Table WLD-16). Alternative 5 also involves 

the commercial thinning of 2,081 acres of young growth, and therefore would have 

the benefits to biodiversity associated with opening the tree canopy and promoting 

understory development (Table TSE-4).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-145

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5, in combination with past timber harvest and ongoing and foreseeable 

projects, would maintain at least 34, 16, and 8 percent of the original total POG, 

high-volume POG, and large-tree POG, respectively, within project area VCUs 

(Table WLD-15). Like the alternatives 2 and 4, 11 VCUs, including 9 with project 

activities, would maintain less than 67 percent of the original total POG (cumulative 

reduction of more than 33 percent) under Alternative 5 (Table WLD-15). The 

movement capabilities of organisms with low mobility may be limited, potentially 

resulting in gaps in distribution and a reduced likelihood of local population 

persistence, in the VCUs with habitat loss of more than 33 percent. The remaining 

VCUs would continue to have a high likelihood of maintaining habitat components 

important to a variety of species across the landscape. Cumulative reductions in 

POG under Alternative 5 were accounted for in the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS analysis, 

which concluded that with the conservation strategy in place full implementation of 

the Forest Plan would be expected to maintain viable, well-distributed populations 

across the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province.

Conclusion

All of the alternatives would reduce the amount of POG on the landscape and 

increase fragmentation. Based on the amount of POG harvest, amount of even-aged 

harvest, and increase in number of POG patches, effects to biodiversity would be 

greatest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 1. All action 

alternatives increase the number of VCUs where cumulative harvest is greater than 

33 percent of the original total POG (Table WLD-15). In these VCUs, additional 

habitat loss and fragmentation could locally hinder the mobility of species with low 

dispersal capabilities (e.g., Prince of Wales flying squirrel). Of the three intact 

VCUs, all would remain intact under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. 

Corridors

All of the action alternatives would result in timber harvest in the vicinity of the 

areas identified as being important as travel corridors or other areas important to 

connectivity. Alternative 4 was specifically designed to reduce this effect by 

dropping harvest units in these areas, or proposing uneven-aged harvest 

prescriptions and logging methods that would retain biodiversity and habitat value. 

None of the alternatives would affect the corridors in the Cutthroat drainage, Control 

Creek drainage, and the Tributary to the North Thorne River near Thorne Lake, all 

of which are corridors associated with the Honker Divide, or in the Rio Roberts 

drainage. 

The following provides a description of potential project impacts to travel corridors. 

The comparison of alternatives below is based on approximate acres of harvest 

within a corridor and proportion of harvest that is uneven-age. Uneven-aged 

prescriptions would maintain more forest structure within harvested stands and 

therefore assumed to maintain the functioning of the corridor more than even-aged 

harvest. The corridors described here do not have a defined width or length, as they 

represent a general area that animals might move through; therefore, the 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-146 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

identification of units within a corridor per se was subjective. For this assessment, 

contiguous bands of old-growth forest within each corridor area were identified 

within which units were selected based on their proximity to the feature that 

appeared the most likely to function as a corridor (i.e., a drainage or other low 

elevation area) or in the case of the Honker Divide, along the edge of the large OGR. 

There are potentially additional units that may impact a corridor area as a whole, but 

the numbers presented here provide a relative means of comparing alternatives. 

Under all alternatives Forest Plan standards and guidelines for stream, beach, and 

estuary buffers as well as the for legacy forest structure would apply which would 

help to maintain connectivity outside of the reserve system. 

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

 Honker Divide: No harvest or road building would occur adjacent to the 

Honker Divide large-OGR complex under Alternative 1; therefore, the 

functional value of habitat along its eastern edges would be maintained. No 

commercial thinning in these areas would occur under Alternative 1; 

therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in these corridors

over the long term.

 No activities are proposed in the Cutthroat drainage which is located 

within the Honker large OGR; therefore north-south connectivity in this 

corridor would be maintained.

 No activities are proposed in the Control Creek drainage; therefore, eastwest connectivity between the Control Lake area and the Thorne River 

drainage would be maintained.

 No activities are proposed in the North Thorne drainage (east and west 

branch); therefore, north-south connectivity in this corridor would be 

maintained.

 No activities are proposed along the tributary to the Thorne River; 

therefore, north-south connectivity from within the Honker large OGR to 

the west branch of the North Thorne Drainage would be maintained. 

 Rio Beaver Drainage: There has been much past harvest along the Rio 

Beaver drainage (Figure WLD-1). There are three NEPA-cleared Control 

Lake timber sale units (mostly in roadless), totaling 150 acres, along the 

western edge of the corridor. The existing level of connectivity across the 

drainage would be maintained under Alternative 1 because no additional 

harvest or road building would occur in this drainage. No commercial 

thinning would occur under Alternative 1 in this drainage (included under 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5); therefore, there would be no improvement in 

connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Rio Roberts Drainage: No activities are proposed in this drainage under 

Alternative 1 because it is located within the Honker large OGR. Therefore 

the existing level of connectivity along this drainage would be maintained.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-147

 Upper Steelhead Drainage: No additional timber harvest or road building 

would occur in the Upper Steelhead drainage under Alternative 1. There are 

two NEPA- cleared Control Lake timber sale units (in roadless), totaling 25 

acres, within the upper part of the corridor. Therefore, the existing level of 

east-west connectivity across the drainage would be maintained. No 

commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 1; therefore, there would 

be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Rush Peak Area: No additional timber harvest or road building would 

occur in the Rush Peak area under Alternative 1. There are five NEPAcleared Control Lake timber sale units (about half in roadless), totaling 61 

acres, that occur along the edges of or in the two corridors. The existing 

level of north-south connectivity in this area would be maintained. The 

current small OGR in this VCU, which would be maintained under 

Alternative 1, is predominately high-elevation, high-gradient topography that 

provides a poor travel corridor. No commercial thinning would occur under 

Alternative 1; therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in 

this corridor over the long term.

 Control Lake Area: No additional harvest or road building would occur in 

the Control Lake area under Alternative 1. Three NEPA-cleared Control 

Lake timber sale units (in roadless), totaling 84 acres, occur along the 

northern edge corridor. Therefore, the existing level of connectivity between 

Control Lake and the Honker large OGR would be maintained under 

Alternative 1. No commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 1; 

therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor 

over the long term.

 Ratz Harbor Area: No additional timber harvest or road building would 

occur in the vicinity of Ratz Harbor under Alternative 1; therefore the 

existing level of east-west connectivity between the shoreline and interior 

forest would be maintained. However, because no commercial thinning 

would occur under Alternative 1, which is included under Alternatives 3, 4, 

and 5, there would be no improvement in functionality of this area as a travel 

corridor over the long-term. 

 Sal Creek Area: There has been much past harvest along Sal Creek (VCU 

5840; Figure WLD-1). The existing level of east-west connectivity would be 

maintained under Alternative 1 because no additional harvest or road 

building would occur in this drainage. However, because no commercial 

thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 1 (included under 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5), there would be no improvement in connectivity in 

this corridor over the long term.

 Clarence Strait Shoreline: No additional harvest or road building would 

occur in areas adjacent to the Clarence Strait Shoreline under Alternative 1; 

therefore, the existing level of north-south connectivity would be maintained. 

No commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 1; therefore, there 

would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-148 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Snug Anchorage: No additional harvest or road building would occur in the 

Snug Anchorage area under Alternative 1; therefore, the existing level of 

north-south connectivity between Sandy Beach and Thorne Bay would be 

maintained. No commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 1; 

therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor 

over the long term.

 Luck Lake/Eagle Creek: No additional harvest would occur in the Luck 

Lake/Eagle Creek area under Alternative 1; therefore, the existing level of 

connectivity between Luck Lake and the shoreline would be maintained. 

However, because no commercial thinning would occur in this corridor 

under Alternative 1 (included under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5), there would be 

no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

Alternative 2

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

 Honker Divide: Alternative 2 would harvest units adjacent to the Honker 

Divide large-OGR complex, but not within the Honker large OGR, and 

therefore has the potential to reduce the functional value of habitat along its 

eastern edge (Table WLD-17). However, because no commercial thinning 

would occur under Alternative 2 there would be no improvement in 

connectivity in these corridors over the long term.

 No activities are proposed in the Cutthroat drainage which is located 

within the Honker large OGR; therefore north-south connectivity in this 

corridor would be maintained.

 No activities are proposed in the Control Creek drainage; therefore, eastwest connectivity between the Control Lake area and the Thorne River 

drainage would be maintained.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-149

Table WLD-17. Comparison of Effects to Corridors with Project Effects by Alternative

Corridor

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Ranking of 

Alternatives

(Greatest to 

Acres Least Effects)

Unevenaged 

Harvest Acres

Unevenaged 

Harvest Acres

Unevenaged 

Harvest Acres

Unevenaged 

Harvest Acres

Unevenaged 

Harvest

Honker Divide Area 0 -- 1,057 1% 1,606 1% 825 87% 994 11% 3, 2, 5, 4, 1

Rio Beaver Drainage 0 -- 110 0% 150 0% 163 88% 163 57% 3*, 2, 5*, 4*, 1

Upper Steelhead 

Drainage 0 -- 606 0% 715 0% 373 9% 528 0% 3, 2, 5, 4, 1

Rush Peak Area 0 -- 356 0% 485 0% 418 55% 361 0% 3, 5, 2, 4, 1

Control Lake Area 0 -- 156 43% 156 44% 112 61% 156 44% 2/3/5/, 4, 1

Ratz Harbor Area 0 -- 460 64% 460 64% 264 100% 473 80% 2/3*, 5*, 4*, 1

Sal Creek Area 0 - 169 66% 343 83% 169 66% 169 66% 3*, 2/4*/5*, 1

Clarence Strait 

Shoreline 0 -- 355 25% 692 53% 352 56% 410 47% 3, 2, 5, 4, 1

Snug Anchorage 

Area 0 -- 92 0% 335 0% 17 0% 92 0% 3, 2/5, 4, 1

Luck Lake/Eagle 

Creek Area 0 -- 248 17% 443 9% 267 51% 248 17% 3*, 2/5*, 4*, 1

‘*’ indicates commercial harvest would enhance connectivity over the long-term.

1/ Acres are approximate; the identification of harvest units within corridors is subjective as corridors do not have width or length dimensions.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-150 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Harvest includes approximately 169 acres along the west branch of the North 

Thorne River, along the upper limits of the drainage, which would reduce this 

corridor. Effects to this corridor under Alternative 2 would be the second greatest 

among the action alternatives due to the level of proposed harvest, nearly all of 

which (99 percent) would be even-aged (Table WLD-17).

No activities are proposed along the tributary to the Thorne River; therefore, northsouth connectivity from within the Honker large OGR to the west branch of the 

North Thorne Drainage would be maintained.

 Rio Beaver Drainage: Alternative 2 would harvest several units at the far 

northern and southern ends of the drainage. Effects under Alternative 2 would be 

second greatest among the action alternatives because all harvest would be evenaged (Table WLD-17). There are also three NEPA-cleared Control Lake timber 

sale units (mostly in roadless), totaling 150 acres, along the western edge of the 

corridor. Though the drainage has been heavily harvested, additional harvest 

would reduce some of the remaining connectivity across the drainage. There 

would be no improvement in connectivity along the drainage over the long-term 

under Alternative 2 because it does not involve the commercial thinning included 

under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.

 Rio Roberts Drainage: No activities are proposed in this drainage under 

Alternative 2 because it is located within the Honker large OGR. Therefore the 

existing level of connectivity along this drainage would be maintained.

 Upper Steelhead Drainage: Alternative 2 would harvest the second greatest 

amount of acres in the Steelhead drainage, all of which would be even-aged, and 

therefore would have the second greatest effects among the action alternatives 

(Table WLD-17). There are also two NEPA-cleared Control Lake timber sale

units (in roadless), totaling 25 acres, within the upper part of the corridor.

Although some connectivity and wildlife habitat would be maintained by stream 

buffers, timber harvest would affect many of the remaining east-west connections 

across the drainage. No timber harvest or road building would occur on the branch 

of the drainage extending to Big Salt Lake; therefore connectivity to the Honker 

large OGR via this corridor would be maintained. No commercial thinning would 

occur under Alternative 2; therefore, there would be no improvement in 

connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Rush Peak Area: Alternative 2 would harvest units in the Rush Peak area along 

both the Rush Creek (approximately 158 acres) and Goose Creek (approximately 

198 acres) drainages, the least among the action alternatives (Table WLD-17). 

Alternative 2 has the potential to reduce north-south connectivity in this area 

because all harvest is uneven-aged. There are also five NEPA-cleared Control 

Lake timber sale units (about half in roadless), totaling 61 acres, that occur along 

the edges of or in the two corridors. No commercial thinning would occur under 

Alternative 2; therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in this 

corridor over the long term. The current small OGR in this VCU, described under 

Alternative 1, would also be maintained under Alternative 2.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-151

 Control Lake Area: Alternative 2 would harvest one unit east of Control Lake 

which is an area identified as being important for wolf movement between Control 

Lake and the Honker large OGR; and three units south of Control Lake. Effects

under Alternative 2 would be comparable to Alternatives 3 and 5, which would 

harvest similar acreage with approximately the same proportion of uneven-aged 

prescriptions, and greater than Alternative 4 (Table WLD-17). There are also three

Control Lake units (mostly in roadless), totaling 150 acres, along the western edge 

of the corridor. No commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 2; 

therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the 

long term.

 Ratz Harbor Area: Alternative 2 would harvest units in the Ratz Harbor area, 

both north and south of Big Lake, and therefore has the potential to reduce eastwest connectivity to saltwater. Effects would be comparable to Alternative 3 

which would harvest similar acreage with the same proportion of uneven-aged 

harvest, and greater than alternatives 5 and 4 (Table WLD-17). However, some 

connectivity would be maintained by the existing small OGR which connects to 

the shoreline. Under Alternative 2 there would be no improvement in functionality 

of this area as a travel corridor over the long-term because no commercial thinning 

is proposed which is included under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.

 Sal Creek Area: Alternative 2 would harvest two units south of Sal Creek which 

would reduce east-west connectivity to saltwater. Effects would be comparable to 

alternatives 4 and 5, which would harvest the same acreage with the same 

proportion of uneven-aged harvest, and less than Alternative 3 (Table WLD-17). 

Under Alternative 2 there would be no improvement in functionality of this area as 

a travel corridor over the long-term because no commercial thinning is proposed 

along Sal Creek which is included under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.

 Clarence Strait Shoreline. Alternative 2 would harvest units adjacent to the 

shoreline, outside of the beach buffer, which would reduce north-south 

connectivity. However, a narrower corridor would be maintained. Effects would be 

less than Alternative 3, but greater than alternatives 2 and 5 due to the amount of 

acres harvested and proportion of uneven-aged harvest (Table WLD-17). No 

commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 2; therefore, there would be 

no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Snug Anchorage. Alternative 2 would reduce the northern end of this corridor 

though two harvest units near Sandy Beach; the rest of the corridor would be 

maintained. There are also approximately 120 acres of the North Thorne Bay and 

Beach Road State timber sales that occur along the western boundary of the northsouth corridor. Effects under Alternative 2 in this area would be comparable to 

Alternative 5, less than Alternative 3, and greater than Alternative 4 (Table WLD17). The existing small OGR would continue to encompass a portion of this 

corridor. No commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 2; therefore, 

there would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Luck Lake/Eagle Creek: Under Alternative 2 the entire length of Eagle Creek, 

providing connectivity from Luck Lake to the shoreline, would be maintained in 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-152 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

the existing small OGR. Harvest along Luck Creek (approximately 248 acres), a 

majority (83 percent) of which would be even-aged, would reduce this corridor 

extending south of Luck Lake. However, two other corridors along tributaries to 

Luck Creek to the small OGR in VCU 5810 and to Little Lake would be 

maintained. Effects under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 5, less 

than Alternative 3 and greater than Alternative 4, which involves more unevenaged harvest (Table WLD-17). There would be no improvement in connectivity in 

this area over the long-term under Alternative 2 because it does not involve the 

commercial thinning included under alternatives 3, 4, and 5.

Alternative 3

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

 Honker Divide: Alternative 3 would harvest the same units adjacent to the Honker 

Divide large-OGR complex as Alternative 2, plus additional adjacent units, some 

of which would become available through the proposed small OGR modification. 

Alternative 3 has the greatest potential among the alternatives to reduce the 

functional value of habitat along its eastern fringe, due to the level of harvest, 

nearly all of which (99 percent) would be even-aged (Table WLD-17). However, 

because no commercial thinning would occur in these areas under Alternative 3

there would be no improvement in connectivity in these corridors over the long 

term.

 No activities are proposed in the Cutthroat drainage which is located within the 

Honker large OGR; therefore north-south connectivity in this corridor would 

be maintained.

 No activities are proposed in the Control Creek drainage; therefore, east-west 

connectivity between the Control Lake area and the Thorne River drainage 

would be maintained.

 Harvest includes acres along the western (approximately 256 acres) and 

eastern (approximately 198 acres) branches of the North Thorne drainage, the 

latter becoming available for harvest due to the small OGR modification. 

Alternative 3 would result in the greatest reductions to these corridors among 

the action alternatives.

 No activities are proposed along the tributary to the Thorne River; therefore, 

north-south connectivity from within the Honker large OGR to the west branch 

of the North Thorne Drainage would be maintained.

 Rio Beaver Drainage: Alternative 3 would harvest units at the far northern and 

southern ends of the drainage. Effects would be greatest among the action 

alternatives because all harvest would be even-aged (Table WLD-17). This 

drainage has been heavily harvested in the past and additional harvest would 

reduce some of the remaining connectivity across the drainage; however 

commercial thinning of previously harvested stands proposed under Alternatives 3 

would improve the functionality of the drainage as a travel corridor between the 

Karta Wilderness and Honker large OGR complex over the long-term.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-153

 Rio Roberts Drainage: No activities are proposed in this drainage under 

Alternative 3 because it is located within the Honker large OGR. Therefore the 

existing level of connectivity along this drainage would be maintained.

 Upper Steelhead Drainage: Alternative 3 would have the greatest effect to 

connectivity in the Steelhead drainage among the alternatives due to the level of 

harvest (Table WLD-17). There are also two NEPA-cleared Control Lake timber 

sale units (in roadless), totaling 25 acres, within the upper part of the corridor 

Reductions in the corridor along the east branch of the drainage would be the same 

as Alternative 2 (and greater than alternatives 4 and 5); however, Alternative 3 

also includes harvest along the west branch of the drainage which connects the 

Honker large OGR with Big Salt and which has experienced little past harvest; 

although existing connectivity to Big Salt is low due to state land selection south 

of the highway and other non-NFS land along the northern edge of Big Salt. No 

commercial thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 3; therefore, there 

would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

Small OGR modifications in this area would not improve connectivity because 

they would not include this drainage.

 Rush Peak Area: Alternative 3 would harvest the most acreage in the Rush Peak 

area among the action alternatives, including approximately 287 acres along the 

Rush Creek drainage and approximately 198 acres along the Goose Creek drainage 

(Table WLD-17). This has the greatest potential to reduce north-south 

connectivity. There are five NEPA-cleared Control Lake timber sale units (about 

half in roadless), totaling 61 acres, that occur along the edges of or in the two 

corridors. No commercial thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 3; 

therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the 

long term. Small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would decrease the 

amount of low-elevation POG in the vicinity of Rush Peak.

 Control Lake Area: Under Alternative 3, effects in the Control Lake area would 

be the same as under alternatives 2 and 5, and greater than Alternative 4 (see 

Alternative 2 for discussion).

 Ratz Harbor Area: Alternative 3 would harvest units in the Ratz Harbor area, 

both north and south of Big Lake, and therefore has the potential to reduce eastwest connectivity to saltwater. Effects would be comparable to Alternative 2, and 

greater than alternatives 4 and 5 (Table WLD-17). However, Alternative 3 also 

involves commercial thinning between Ratz Harbor and Trumpeter Lake and south 

of Big Lake, which would improve the functionality of this area as a travel 

corridor over the long-term. 

 Sal Creek Area: Alternative 3 would harvest the greatest amount around Sal 

Creek among the alternatives. Harvest to the south of Sal Creek would be the 

same as under alternatives 2, 4, and 5; Alternative 3 would also harvest units near 

the shoreline north of Sal Creek which would become available due to the 

proposed small OGR modification in VCU 5840 (Table WLD-17). This would 

reduce the connection between the North Thorne drainage and coastal habitats; 

however, a majority of this harvest (83 percent) would be uneven-aged. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-154 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Commercial thinning along Sal Creek proposed under Alternative 3 would 

improve connectivity in this corridor over the long-term.

 Clarence Strait Shoreline. Timber harvest, and thus reductions in connectivity, 

in this corridor would be greatest under Alternative 3 compared to the other 

alternatives (Table WLD-17). This would reduce north-south connectivity, though 

a narrower corridor would be maintained with the beach buffer. No commercial 

thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 3; therefore, there would be no 

improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term. Small OGR 

modifications in VCUs 5820 and 5830 would occur in this corridor but would 

have minor effects to connectivity because both the existing and proposed small 

OGRs include old-growth forest adjacent to the shoreline; small OGR 

modifications in VCU 5840 would reduce the inclusion of old-growth forest 

adjacent to the shoreline.

 Snug Anchorage Area. Alternative 3 would harvest the most acreage in the Snug 

Anchorage area, mainly resulting from the small OGR modification in VCU 5850 

(Table WLD-17). There are also approximately 120 acres of the North Thorne 

Bay and Beach Road State timber sales that occur along the western boundary of 

the north-south corridor. Connectivity between Sandy Beach and Thorne Bay 

would be reduced by Alternative 3 because the narrowest part of the corridor and 

the portion around Sandy Beach would be harvested. No commercial thinning 

would occur in this area under Alternative 3; therefore, there would be no 

improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Luck Lake/Eagle Creek: Alternative 3 is the only alternative that would result in 

harvest along the Eagle Creek drainage (approximately 196 acres) which would 

reduce the connectivity between Luck Lake and saltwater. However, a more 

narrow travel route would still exist in the Class I stream buffer on Eagle Creek 

which drains from Luck Lake to saltwater. This area would become available for 

harvest due to the small OGR modification in VCU 5810. Alternative 3 would 

also reduce the corridor along Luck Creek, but timber harvest (approximately 248 

acres) would be comparable to the Alternatives 2 and 5 (Table WLD-17). 

Corridors along the tributaries to Luck Creek would be maintained. Commercial 

thinning around Luck Lake proposed under Alternative 3 would improve 

connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

Alternative 4

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

 Honker Divide: Alternative 4 would harvest the least acreage adjacent to the 

Honker Divide large-OGR complex among the action alternatives, nearly all of 

which (87 percent) would be uneven-aged (Table WLD-17). Therefore, 

Alternative 4 would have the least potential to reduce the functional value of 

habitat along its eastern fringe. No commercial thinning would occur in this area 

under Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in 

these corridors over the long term. Small OGR modifications proposed under 

Alternative 4 include the addition of acres to the western end of the existing small 

OGR in VCU 5790 (Gravelly Creek/Falls Creek; approximately 240 acres), 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-155

providing a direct connection to the Honker Divide large OGR complex through 

VCU 5780. This would improve the biological functionality of the complex of 

small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840.

 No activities are proposed in the Cutthroat drainage which is located within the 

Honker large OGR; therefore north-south connectivity in this corridor would 

be maintained.

 No activities are proposed in the Control Creek drainage; therefore, east-west 

connectivity between the Control Lake area and the Thorne River drainage 

would be maintained.

 Harvest includes approximately 158 acres along the west branch of the North 

Thorne drainage. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have the least potential to 

reduce connectivity along the drainage corridor. Effects to connectivity would 

be reduced under Alternative 4 by implementing uneven-aged harvest 

prescriptions with low (e.g., 25 percent) basal area removal as well as group 

selection harvest (as small as 0.5 acre). 

 No activities are proposed along the tributary to the Thorne River; therefore, 

north-south connectivity from within the Honker large OGR to the west branch 

of the North Thorne Drainage would be maintained. 

 Rio Beaver Drainage: Effects connectivity in the Rio Beaver drainage under 

Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 5, though more of the harvest 

(approximately 31 percent more) would be uneven-aged (Table WLD-1). This is a 

greater amount of acreage under alternatives 2 and 3, though these acres only 

include even-aged harvest. Commercial thinning proposed under Alternative 4 

would improve the functionality of the drainage as a travel corridor between the 

Karta Wilderness and Honker large OGR complex over the long term.

 Rio Roberts Drainage: No activities are proposed in this drainage under 

Alternative 4 because it is located within the Honker large OGR. Therefore the 

existing level of connectivity along this drainage would be maintained.

 Steelhead Drainage: Effects to connectivity in the Steelhead drainage (east 

branch) would be least under Alternative 4 because units between previously 

harvested areas were dropped or unit shapes were modified to maintain east-west 

connectivity and other habitat value. Alternative 4 would harvest the least amount 

of acreage among the action alternatives, though most of which (91 percent) would 

be even-aged. There are also two NEPA-cleared Control Lake units (in roadless), 

totaling 25 acres, within the upper part of the corridor. The small OGR 

modification under Alternative 4 in VCU 5950 would add OGR acreage 

encompassing a portion of the corridor along the west branch of the Steelhead 

drainage connecting to Big Salt Lake. No commercial thinning would occur in 

this area under Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no improvement in 

connectivity in this corridor over the long term. 

 Rush Peak Area: Alternative 4 would harvest the least acreage in the Rush Peak 

area among the action alternatives (Table WLD-17). This includes approximately 

309 acres along the Rush Creek drainage, most of which would become available 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-156 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

due to the small OGR modification in VCU 5972, and approximately 109 acres 

along the Goose Creek drainage; approximately half of the harvest would be 

uneven-aged. There are also five NEPA-cleared Control Lake timber sale units 

(about half in roadless), totaling 61 acres, that occur along the edges of or in the 

two corridors. No commercial thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 

4; therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over 

the long term due to forest management. However, Alternative 4 would relocate 

the existing small OGR to the east, surrounding Angel Lake, protecting the only 

low-elevation wildlife travel corridor leading along Goose Creek from the Honker 

Divide large OGR (through VCUs 5972 and 5980) to saltwater at Salt Chuck. 

Thus, under Alternative 4 connectivity in the vicinity of Rush Peak would 

improve.

 Control Lake Area: Under Alternative 4 no harvest or road building is proposed 

between Control Lake and the Honker large OGR complex. Unit 27 was dropped 

from Alternative 4; although this unit located northwest of Control Lake would not 

be expected to affect wolf use of this corridor due to the presence of OGR and 

roadless acres that provide connectivity. There are also three NEPA-cleared 

Control Lake units (mostly in roadless), totaling 150 acres, along the western edge 

of the corridor. However, timber harvest south of Control Lake, which would be 

the same as the other action alternatives, would reduce connectivity slightly 

between the Honker large OGR and the Steelhead drainage. No commercial 

thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no 

improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term. This would be 

compensated for by the small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 4, 

which include the addition of acres to the south of the existing small OGR (south 

of Control Lake), which would improve connectivity with the Honker large OGR 

complex, and encompass wolf habitat.

 Ratz Harbor Area: No timber harvest or road building would occur adjacent to 

Ratz Harbor under Alternative 4; however, timber harvest would affect the 

corridor north of Big Lake though all would be uneven-aged (Table WLD-17). 

Effects would be the least among the action alternatives. The small OGR 

modification in VCU 5830 would enhance this corridor through the addition of 

OGR acreage adjacent to Ratz Harbor (between Ratz Creek and the shoreline). 

Additionally, commercial thinning between Trumpeter Lake and the shoreline and 

around Big Lake proposed under Alternative 4 would improve the functionality of 

this area as a travel corridor over the long-term. 

 Sal Creek Area: Effects to the corridor in the Sal Creek area under Alternative 4 

would be the same as under Alternatives 2 and 5, and less than Alternative 3. 

Though this would reduce connectivity to the shoreline, the existing small OGR 

which includes old-growth forest north of Sal Creek maintains some connectivity 

between the North Thorne drainage and saltwater. Commercial thinning along Sal 

Creek proposed under Alternative 4 would improve connectivity in this corridor 

over the long term.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-157

 Clarence Strait Shoreline. Alternative 4 would harvest the least amount of 

acreage near the Clarence Strait shoreline of the action alternatives, most of which 

(56 percent) would be uneven-aged. Though this would reduce north-south 

connectivity, a narrower corridor would be maintained. No commercial thinning 

would occur in this area under Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no 

improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term. The small OGR 

modification in VCU 5820 occur in this corridor but would have minor effects to 

connectivity because both the existing and proposed small OGRs include oldgrowth forest adjacent to the shoreline.

 Snug Anchorage Area. No timber harvest or road building would occur in the 

vicinity of Snug Anchorage under Alternative 4. No commercial thinning would 

occur in this area under Alternative 4; therefore, there would be no improvement 

in connectivity in this corridor over the long term due to forest management. 

Small OGR modifications in VCU 5850 would enhance this corridor through the 

addition of OGR acreage near Sandy Beach.

 Luck Lake/Eagle Creek: Under Alternative 4 the entire length of Eagle Creek, 

providing connectivity from Luck Lake to the shoreline, would be maintained in 

the existing small OGR. Alternative 4 would harvest slightly more acreage than 

the other action alternatives along Luck Creek (approximately 267 acres); though a 

majority (51 percent) would be uneven-aged (Table WLD-17). Although this 

would reduce this corridor extending south of Luck Lake; two other corridors 

along tributaries to Luck Creek to the small OGR in VCU 5810 and to Little Lake 

would be maintained. Commercial thinning around Luck Lake proposed under 

Alternative 4 would improve connectivity in this corridor over the long term. 

Alternative 5

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

 Honker Divide: Timber harvest adjacent to the Honker Divide large-OGR 

complex under Alternative 5 would be comparable to Alternative 2. No 

commercial thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 5; therefore, there 

would be no improvement in connectivity in these corridors over the long term.

 No activities are proposed in the Cutthroat drainage which is located within the 

Honker large OGR; therefore north-south connectivity in this corridor would 

be maintained.

 No activities are proposed in the Control Creek drainage; therefore, east-west 

connectivity between the Control Lake area and the Thorne River drainage 

would be maintained.

 Harvest includes approximately 169 acres of harvest along the west branch of 

the North Thorne River, along the upper limits of the drainage, which would 

reduce this corridor. Effects to connectivity in this corridor under Alternative 

5 would be the third greatest among the action alternatives due to the level of 

proposed harvest, nearly all of which (89 percent) would be even-aged (Table 

WLD-17). 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-158 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 No activities are proposed along the tributary to the Thorne River; therefore, 

north-south connectivity from within the Honker large OGR to the west branch 

of the North Thorne Drainage would be maintained. 

 Rio Beaver Drainage: Timber harvest and associated reductions in connectivity in 

the Rio Beaver drainage under Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 4, but 

would include less uneven-aged harvest (31 percent less; Table WLD-17). 

Commercial thinning proposed under Alternative 5 would improve the 

functionality of the drainage as a travel corridor between the Karta Wilderness and 

Honker large OGR complex over the long term.

 Rio Roberts Drainage: No activities are proposed in this drainage under 

Alternative 5 because it is located within the Honker large OGR. Therefore the 

existing level of connectivity along this drainage would be maintained.

 Upper Steelhead Drainage: Alternative 5 would result in the third greatest 

amount of timber harvest among the action alternatives in the Upper Steelhead 

drainage, all of which would be even-aged. This includes approximately 31 acres 

along the west branch of the Steelhead drainage, which connects the Honker large 

OGR with Big Salt Lake and which has experienced little past harvest, although 

existing connectivity to Big Salt is low due to state land selection south of the 

highway and other non-NFS land along the northern edge of Big Salt. There are 

also two NEPA-cleared Control Lake timber sale units (in roadless), totaling 25 

acres, within the upper part of the corridor. Thus east-west and north-south 

connectivity through the drainage would be reduced. No commercial thinning 

would occur in this area under Alternative 5; therefore, there would be no 

improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Rush Peak Area: Effects of Alternative 5 in the Rush Peak area would be 

comparable to Alternative 2. No commercial thinning would occur in this area 

under Alternative 5; therefore, there would be no improvement in connectivity in 

this corridor over the long term. The current small OGR in this VCU, described 

under Alternative 1, would also be maintained under Alternative 5.

 Control Lake Area: Effects of Alternative 5 in the Control Lake area would be 

the same as under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-17; see Alternative 2 for discussion). 

No commercial thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 5; therefore, 

there would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term.

 Ratz Harbor Area: Alternative 5 would result in a similar level of harvest in the 

Ratz Harbor area, and therefore also has the potential to reduce east-west 

connectivity to saltwater (Table WLD-17). Some connectivity would be 

maintained by the existing small OGR in VCU 5830 which connects to the 

shoreline. Commercial thinning between Trumpeter Lake and the shoreline and 

around Big Lake under Alternative 5 would improve the functionality of this area 

as a travel corridor over the long-term. 

 Sal Creek Area: Timber harvest in the Sal Creek area under Alternative 5 would 

be the same under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-17). However, commercial thinning 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-159

along Sal Creek proposed under Alternative 5 would improve connectivity in this 

corridor over the long term.

 Clarence Strait Shoreline. Timber harvest near the Clarence Strait shoreline 

under Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 2; however, Alternative 5 

involves more uneven-aged harvest (22 percent more; Table WLD-17). No 

commercial thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 5; therefore, there 

would be no improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term. 

Therefore, effect to connectivity along the shoreline would be slightly less than 

under Alternative 2.

 Snug Anchorage Area. Timber harvest in the Snug Anchorage area under 

Alternative 5 would be the same as under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-17). Thus, 

although the northern end of this corridor would be reduced by two harvest units 

near Sandy Beach, the rest of the corridor would be maintained. No commercial 

thinning would occur in this area under Alternative 5; therefore, there would be no 

improvement in connectivity in this corridor over the long term. The existing small 

OGR would continue to encompass a portion of this corridor.

 Luck Lake/Eagle Creek: Timber harvest in the vicinity of Luck Lake/Eagle 

Creek under Alternative 5 would be the same as under Alternative 2. However, 

commercial thinning around Luck Lake proposed under Alternative 5 would 

improve connectivity in this corridor over the long term. Connectivity from Luck 

Lake to the shoreline would continue to be protected by the existing small OGR.

Conclusion

Alternative 3 has the greatest potential to adversely affect travel corridors or other areas 

that provide old-growth habitat connectivity, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 1. 

Among the alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in the greatest amount of timber 

harvest within the corridors described above, and the small OGR modifications proposed 

under Alternative 3 would reduce connectivity (e.g., Rush Peak, Ratz Harbor, Sal Creek, 

and Luck Lake/Eagle Creek). Generally, less timber harvest would occur under 

Alternatives 2 and 5, and connectivity would be maintained by the existing small OGRs. 

The least amount of timber harvest within the corridors would occur under Alternative 4, 

and small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 4 would improve connectivity 

(e.g., Honker Divide, Rush Peak, Control Lake, and Ratz Harbor).

Management Indicator Species

Sitka Black-tailed Deer

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

All of the alternatives would reduce deer habitat capability (Table WLD-18). Effects 

would be realized immediately after project completion (2013), but more so in 25 years 

(2039), as forest succession progresses and harvested stands reach the stem exclusion 

stage. Under all alternatives this would occur to some extent due to natural succession of 

previously harvested stands. Over the long-term, reductions in habitat capability could 

reduce carrying capacity, or the numbers of deer an area is capable of supporting given the 

available resources. This could lead to a decline in the deer population, particularly 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-160 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

following severe winters, if the demand for resources (e.g., food or habitat) exceeds that 

which is available. Uneven-aged harvest prescriptions would lessen reductions in habitat 

capabilities as both some cover and forage would be maintained in harvested stands. 

Declines in the deer population resulting from reduced habitat capability may decrease the 

availability of deer to wolves and hunters (Person 2001, Farmer et al. 2006, Brinkman et 

al. 2009). Likewise, reductions in deer habitat capability over the long-term may reduce 

the access to and availability of deer to subsistence hunters. Effects to wolves and 

subsistence resources are discussed below in the respective sections.

Timber harvest under all of the alternatives would decrease the amount of available 

average snow and deep snow winter habitat (Table WLD-19). This could alter the 

distribution of these habitats on the landscape (Schoen et al. 1984), although they are 

already patchily distributed in the project area. Timber harvest would increase foraging 

habitat over the short-term, but could also reduce overall the amount of non-winter habitat 

(through POG reduction). Loss of non-winter habitat could reduce the ability of deer to 

withstand harsh winter conditions if not enough forage is available for deer to build fat 

reserves. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-161

Table WLD-18. Relative Changes in Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by WAA by Alternative for NFS Lands Only

WAA1/

1954 

DHC

2012

DHC 

(%)

Deer Habitat Capability Reduction as Percent of 2012 Values2/, 3/

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

at Project 

Completion

at Stem 

Exclusion

at Project 

Completion

at Stem 

Exclusion

at Project 

Completion

at Stem 

Exclusion

at Project 

Completion

at Stem 

Exclusion

at Project 

Completion

at Stem 

Exclusion

1315 2,411 59% 0% -7% -4% -10% -7% -13% -3% -10% -4% -10%

1318 1,269 93% 0% -4% -4% -8% -5% -8% -3% -7% -4% -7%

1319 3,324 77% 0% -4% -1% -8% -6% -10% -4% -8% -4% -8%

1420 1,404 56% 0% -11% -5% -15% -9% -19% -5% -15% -5% -16%

1/ WAAs 1316, 1421, and 1422 are slightly within the project area boundary, but no actions are proposed.

2/ DHC calculated from the deer model for winter habitat. Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) were standardized to range from 0.0 to 1.0; 100 deer per square mile used as multiplier; all

harvest was calculated as even-aged; no predation was included. Source: GIS Database, deer_model.aml, 2012.

3/ Assumes harvest of all proposed units (project completion) occurs in 2013; assumes stem exclusion reached in 2039.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-162 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-19. Changes to Average Snow Winter Range, Deep Snow Winter Range, 

and Non-Winter Habitat for Deer by WAA by Alternative (NFS and 

Non-NFS Lands)

WAA Habitat

1954 

acres

2012

acres

Acres Impacted

(% reduction from existing)

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315 Deep Snow 1/ 19,848 9,296 0 277 (3%) 580 (6%) 216 (2%) 288 (3%)

Average Snow 2/ 46,237 26,513 0 1,159 (4%) 1,683 (6%) 783 (3%) 1,073 (4%)

Non-Winter 3/ 84,461 66,013 0 1,196 (2%) 1,761 (3%) 821 (1%) 1,124 (2%)

1318 Deep Snow 1/ 10,917 7,600 0 343 (5%) 402 (5%) 212 (3%) 302 (4%)

Average Snow 2/ 34,080 25,339 0 699 (3%) 807 (3%) 483 (2%) 623 (3%)

Non-Winter 3/ 97,811 89,475 0 711 (1%) 820 (1%) 489 (1%) 634 (1%)

1319 Deep Snow 1/ 18,279 11,827 0 749 (6%) 900 (8%) 699 (6%) 745 (6%)

Average Snow 2/ 54,994 41,099 0 1,990 (5%) 2,718 (7%) 1,964 (5%) 2,101 (5%)

Non-Winter 3/ 102,402 88,407 0 2,124 (2%) 2,906 (3%) 2,093 (2%) 2,284 (3%)

1420 Deep Snow 1/ 10,157 3,176 0 116 (4%) 424 (13%) 81 (3%) 184 (6%)

Average Snow 2/ 28,969 15,233 0 793 (5%) 1,292 (9%) 712 (5%) 871 (6%)

Non-Winter 3/ 45,637 32,022 0 909 (3%) 1,436 (5%) 833 (3%) 983 (3%)

Total Deep Snow 1/ --- --- 0 1,485 2,306 1,208 1,519

Average Snow 2/ --- --- 0 4,641 6,500 3,942 4,668

Non-Winter 3/ --- --- 0 4,941 6,923 4,237 5,025

1/ High volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 6/7) at or below 800-foot elevation; GIS snow layer not applied.

2/ All POG (SD 4H, 4N, 4S, 5H, 5S, 5N, 6/7) at or below 1,500-foot elevation

3/ Spring/summer/fall habitat; all POG, non-productive old-growth, non-forested, muskeg, alpine habitats

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Cumulative past harvest activities have reduced deer habitat capability to between 56 and 

93 percent of the estimated capability in these WAAs in 1954 (Table WLD-20). Habitat 

capability would continue to be reduced as natural and harvest-associated windthrow 

occur and previously harvested reach the stem-exclusion stage. Additional harvest on 

NFS lands would further reduce deer habitat capability; microsales and free use have a 

negligible effect on deer habitat capability because they do not result in substantial stand 

modification. 

Average snow, deep snow, and non-winter habitat have also been reduced by past harvest 

and would be further reduced from historic condition by all action alternatives. 

Cumulative reductions in deep snow and average snow winter habitat would be greatest in 

WAA 1315 and 1319 under all action alternatives (Table WLD-21). No other projects 

proposed small OGR modifications; therefore, there would be no additional change in the 

amount of deer winter habitat or low-elevation POG, representative of travel corridors for 

deer, included in the reserve system.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-163

Table WLD-20. Relative Changes Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by WAA by Alternative for All Lands (NFS and Non-NFS 

Lands) Including Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

WAA1/

1954 

DHC

2012

DHC (% 

1954)

Deer Habitat Capability as Percent of 1954 Values (Additional Reduction)2/, 3/, 4

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

At Project 

Completion

At Stem 

Exclusion

At Project 

Completion

At Stem 

Exclusion

At Project 

Completion

At Stem 

Exclusion

At Project 

Completion

At Stem 

Exclusion

At Project 

Completion

At Stem 

Exclusion

13154/ 2,411 59% 59%

(0%)

55%

(-4%)

57%

(-2%)

53%

(-6%)

55%

(-4%)

52%

(-7%)

58%

(-1%)

54%

(-5%)

57%

(-2%)

53%

(-6%)

1318 1,269 93% 93%

(-<1%)

89%

(-4%)

89%

(-4%)

86%

(-7%)

89%

(-4%)

85%

(-8%)

90%

(-3%)

87%

(-6%)

88%

(-5%)

86%

(-7%)

1319 3,324 77% 77%

(-<1%)

74%

(-3%)

74%

(-3%)

71%

(-6%)

73%

(-4%)

70%

(-7%)

74%

(-3%)

71%

(-6%)

74%

(-3%)

71%

(-6%)

1420 1,404 56% 56%

(-<1%)

50%

(-6%)

54%

(-2%)

48%

(-8%)

51%

(-5%)

45%

(-11%)

54%

(-2%)

48%

(-8%)

53%

(-3%)

47%

(-9%)

1/ WAAs 1316, 1421, and 1422 are within the project area boundary, but no actions are proposed.

2/ DHC calculated from the deer model for winter habitat at all elevations. Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) were standardized to range from 0.0 to 1.0; 100 deer per square mile used as 

multiplier; all harvest was calculated as even-aged; no predation was included. Source: GIS Database, deer_model.aml, 2012.

3/ Assumes harvest of all proposed units (project completion) occurs in 2013; assumes stem exclusion reached in 2039.

4/ Assumes all non-NFS lands are harvested.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-164 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-21. Cumulative Effects to Average Snow Winter Habitat, Deep Snow 

Winter Habitat, and Non-Winter Habitat for Deer by WAA and by 

Alternative on all Lands (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) Including 

Reasonably Foreseeable Projects

WAA Habitat

Original 

(1954) 

acres

2012

(Percent Original 

Remaining)

Percent Original Habitat Remaining 

(Additional Reduction)4/, 5/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315 Deep 

Snow 1/

19,848 47 44

(-3%)

43

(-4%)

41

(-6%)

43

(-4%)

43

(-4%)

Average 

Snow 2/

46,237 57 55

(-2%)

53

(-5%)

52

(-6%)

53

(-4%)

53

(-5%)

NonWinter 3/84,461 78 77

(-1%)

75

(-3%)

75

(-3%)

76

(-2%)

76

(-3%)

1318 Deep 

Snow 1/

10,917 70 70

(<1%)

66

(-3%)

66

(-4%)

68

(-2%)

67

(-3%)

Average 

Snow 2/

34,080 74 74

(<1%)

72

(-2%)

72

(-3%)

73

(-2%)

72

(-2%)

NonWinter 3/97,811 91 91

(<1%)

91

(-1%)

91

(-1%)

91

(-1%)

91

(-1%)

1319 Deep 

Snow 1/

18,279 65 65

(<1%)

61

(-4%)

60

(-5%)

61

(-4%)

61

(-4%)

Average 

Snow 2/

54,994 75 74

(<1%)

71

(-4%)

69

(-5%)

71

(-4%)

71

(-4%)

NonWinter 3/102,402 86 86

(<1%)

84

(-2%)

83

(-3%)

84

(-2%)

84

(-3%)

1420 Deep 

Snow 1/

10,157 31 31

(<1%)

30

(-1%)

27

(-4%)

30

(-1%)

29

(-2%)

Average 

Snow 2/

28,969 53 52

(<1%)

49

(-3%)

48

(-5%)

50

(-3%)

49

(-3%)

NonWinter 3/45,637 70 70

(<1%)

68

(-2%)

67

(-3%)

68

(-2%)

68

(-2%)

1/ High volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 6/7) at or below 800 ft elevation; GIS snow layer not applied.

2/ All POG (SD 4H, 4N, 4S, 5H, 5S, 5N, 6/7) at or below 1,500 ft elevation

3/ Spring/summer/fall habitat; all POG, non-productive old-growth, non-forested, muskeg, alpine habitats

4/ WAA 1315 incorporates reasonably foreseeable harvest on state lands and misc. National Forest harvest; WAA 1318 

incorporates reasonably foreseeable National Forest harvest (Control Lake project and misc. projects); WAA 1319 

incorporates reasonably foreseeable National Forest harvest (Control Lake project and misc. projects); and WAA 1420 

incorporates reasonably foreseeable harvest on state lands and miscellaneous National Forest harvest.

5/ Percent change and percent reduction may not match exactly due to rounding

There is an inherent level of climate variability in the Pacific Northwest associated with 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), or the shift between two different circulation patterns 

that occurs every 20 to 30 years in the North Pacific Ocean. Shifts in the location of cold 

and warm water in the Pacific alter the path of the jet stream, and thus result in long-term 

changes in weather patterns typified by “warm” and “cold” phases. It has been suggested 

that Southeast Alaska is in the early to middle cycle of a cold phase, marked by greater 

precipitation and cooler temperatures (D’Aleo and Easterbrook 2011). Thus, much past 

harvest (1980s and 1990s) occurred during a warm phase and therefore effects to the deer 

population may not be fully realized. Additionally, based on the past PDO cycles, it could 

mean another fifteen years or more with generally colder winters (D’Aleo and 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-165

Easterbrook 2011). Having more extreme cold winters over a prolonged period of several 

years could lead to higher winter mortality rates for deer (Baichtal 2012). Therefore, 

long-term climate patterns may also contribute to cumulative effects to deer. However, 

there are many uncertainties related to how PDO works and how it might best be 

monitored, modeled, and predicted. Ultimately, the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy is 

intended to maintain the persistence the old-growth ecosystem (and the predator-prey 

dynamic of wolves and deer which it supports) under the unpredictable effects of climate 

(USDA Forest Service 2008b).

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects to deer habitat capability or to average snow, 

deep snow, or non-winter habitat because no action would be undertaken. Alternative 1 

would result in an immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA, as some stands 

move into the stem exclusion stage between now and project implementation, less than 1 

percent from current conditions under each alternative (Table WLD-18). At stem 

exclusion, deer habitat capability would be reduced by a total of 4 to 11 percent from 

current conditions, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-18). 

No commercial thinning of young-growth stands would occur under Alternative 1; 

therefore, development of young-growth into a stand with old-growth forest 

characteristics would occur slowly over time. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to deer. The current small OGRs collectively contain 3,325 acres of 

deep snow deer winter range and 7,405 acres of low elevation POG, which is indicative of 

higher value habitat (See Table OGR-2 under Issue 2).

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would maintain 

56 to 93 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat capability at project completion, and 

50 to 89 percent of the original deer habitat capability at stem exclusion, depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-20). Alternative 1 in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable 

projects would also result in a cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 31 to 

70 percent of original amounts; average snow winter habitat to 52 to 74 percent of original 

amounts; and non-winter habitat to 70 to 91 percent of original amounts depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-21). 

Alternative 1 would not contribute to the beneficial effects of commercial thinning; 

however, pre-commercial thinning would occur in the project area under the Tongass Precommercial thinning program which would improve deer habitat. However, reductions in 

deer habitat capability due to natural succession under Alternative 1 may result in local 

declines in the deer population over time. 

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would result in an immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA 

ranging from 1 to 5 percent from current conditions, the second highest among the 

alternatives (comparable to Alternative 5; Table WLD-18). At stem exclusion, deer 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-166 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

habitat capability would be reduced by a 8 to 15 percent from current conditions, 

depending on the WAA (Table WLD-18). 

Alternative 2 would result in the harvest of approximately 1,484 total acres of deep snow 

winter habitat (3 to 6 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 4,641 total 

acres of average snow winter habitat (3 to 5 percent reduction from current conditions by 

WAA), and 4,941 total acres of non-winter habitat (1 to 3 percent reduction from current 

conditions by WAA; Table WLD-19). A majority of the timber harvest in all WAAs 

would be even-aged under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-22). Reductions in habitat 

capability and the amount of habitat available under Alternative 2 would result in local 

reductions in the numbers of deer an area is capable of supporting given the available 

resources. No commercial thinning of young-growth stands would occur under Alternative 

2; therefore, development of young-growth stands into a stand with old-growth 

characteristics would occur slowly over time. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 2. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to deer. The current small OGRs contain 3,325 acres of deep snow 

deer winter range and 7,405 acres of low-elevation POG, which is indicative of higher 

value habitat (See Table OGR-2 under Issue 2).

Table WLD-22. Harvest by Prescription by WAA

WAA

Acres of Total Harvest

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Even-aged HarvestUneven-aged HarvestCommercial ThinningEven-aged HarvestUneven-aged HarvestCommercial ThinningEven-aged HarvestUneven-aged HarvestCommercial ThinningEven-aged HarvestUneven-aged HarvestCommercial ThinningEven-aged HarvestUneven-aged HarvestCommercial Thinning

1315 -- -- -- 808 

(67%)

389 

(33%) 0

1198 

(68%)

563 

(32%) 843

487 

(59%)

334 

(41%) 674

775 

(69%)

349 

(31%) 639

1318 -- -- -- 644 

(91%)

68 

(9%) 0

753 

(92%)

68 

(8%) 0

388 

(79%)

101 

(21%) 0

566 

(89%)

68 

(11%) 0

1319 -- -- -- 2110 

(99%)

15 

(1%) 0

2881 

(99%)

15 

(1%) 626

730 

(35%)

1354 

(65%) 494

2074 

(91%)

201 

(9%) 479

1420 -- -- -- 670 

(74%)

240 

(26%) 0

955 

(67%)

477 

(33%) 1103

293 

(35%)

535 

(65%) 992

526 

(54%)

453 

(46%) 963

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain 54 to 89 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion, and 48 to 86 percent of the original deer habitat 

capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-21). Alternative 2 in 

combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would also result in a 

cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 30 to 66 percent of original amounts; 

average snow winter habitat to 49 to 72 percent of original amounts; and non-winter 

habitat to 68 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-22). 

Alternative 2 would not contribute to the beneficial effects of commercial thinning. 

However, deer habitat would be improved in the future through pre-commercial thinning
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-167

projects implemented under the Tongass Pre-commercial Thinning program. Ultimately, 

reductions in deer habitat capability due to timber harvest and natural succession under 

Alternative 2 may result in local declines in the deer population. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would result in an immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA 

ranging from 6 to 9 percent from current conditions, the most among the alternatives

(Table WLD-18). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be reduced by a total 

of 8 to 19 percent from current conditions, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-18). 

Alternative 3 would result in the harvest of approximately 2,306 total acres of deep snow 

winter habitat (5 to 13 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 6,500 total 

acres of average snow winter habitat (3 to 9 percent reduction from current conditions by 

WAA), and 6,923 total acres of non-winter habitat (1 to 5 percent reduction from current 

conditions by WAA; Table WLD-19). A majority of harvest in all WAAs (67 to 99 

percent) would be even-aged under Alternative 3 (Table WLD-22). Reductions in habitat 

capability and the amount of habitat available under Alternative 3 would result in local 

reductions in the numbers of deer an area is capable of supporting given the available 

resources. However, Alternative 3 would also result in the commercial thinning of 2,572 

acres of young-growth which would enhance deer habitat. 

With the exception of VCU 5820 (Baird Peak), small OGR modifications under 

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of deep snow deer winter range (reduction of 

1,401 acres) and low-elevation POG (reduction of 2,909 acres) contained in the reserve 

system (see Table OGR-2 under Issue 2). This would potentially make these areas 

available to timber harvest which would reduce habitat capability for deer. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain 51 to 89 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion, and 45 to 85 percent of the original deer habitat 

capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-20). The level of deer 

habitat capability maintained under Alternative 3 would be the least among the 

alternatives. Alternative 3 in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects 

would also result in a cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 27 to 66 

percent of original amounts; average snow winter habitat to 48 to 72 percent of original 

amounts; and non-winter habitat to 67 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-21). 

Cumulative effects would be greatest under Alternative 3 relative to the other alternatives, 

though these effects would be mitigated to some extent by commercial thinning. 

Commercial thinning would contribute to similar benefits provided by pre-commercial 

thinning (up to 12,300 acres pre-commercial thinning are anticipated to occur in the 

project area WAAs over the next 10 years) in enhancing deer habitat (forage availability).

However, ultimately reductions in winter habitat capability, due to the removal of deer 

winter habitat, as a result of past, ongoing, and foreseeable harvest activities, would 

locally reduce deer carrying capacity. Over the long-term, these cumulative effects would 

likely result in a population decline, especially following severe winters. This could 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-168 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

reduce the number of deer available to wolves and hunters (see discussion under Wolf and 

Subsistence subsections below). 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 was designed in part to minimize impacts to deer such as by harvesting less 

winter habitat, and maintaining more travel corridors. Some units originally proposed 

were removed from the unit pool, or were modified by dropping portions or adjusting the 

unit boundary, to avoid deer winter habitat and travel routes between areas of past harvest. 

The inclusion of small patch and strip cuts (e.g., 0.5 to 1.0 acre) in the Phase 2 area 

(VCUs 5780 and 5971) and in some units on the edge of the Honker large OGR complex 

would create edge habitats that deer prefer in proximity to areas of cover through which 

deer can move. 

Alternative 4 would result in an immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA 

ranging from 3 to 5 percent from current conditions, the least among the action 

alternatives (Table WLD-18). At stem exclusion state, deer habitat capability would be 

reduced by a total of 7 to 15 percent from current conditions, depending on the WAA 

(Table WLD-18). 

Alternative 4 would result in the harvest of approximately 1,208 total acres of deep snow 

winter habitat (2 to 6 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 3,942 total 

acres of average snow winter habitat (2 to 5 percent reduction from current conditions by 

WAA), and 4,237 total acres of non-winter habitat (1 to 3 percent reduction from current 

condition by WAA; Table WLD-19). A majority of harvest would be even-aged in 

WAAs 1315 (59 percent) and 1318 (79 percent), but a majority would be uneven-aged in 

WAAs 1319 and 1420 (both 65 percent) where the most harvest of winter habitat would 

occur (Table WLD-22). Reductions in habitat capability and the amount of habitat 

available under Alternative 4 would result in local reductions in the numbers of deer an 

area is capable of supporting given the available resources. However, Alternative 4 would 

also result in the commercial thinning of approximately 2,161 acres of previously 

harvested young-growth stands which would enhance deer habitat.

Small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 4 would increase inclusion of deep 

snow winter habitat (912 acres) and/or low-elevation POG (2,591 acres) in all VCUs 

where modifications are proposed with the exception of VCUs 5820 and 5830 (See Table 

OGR-2 under Issue 2). Collectively these modifications would reduce the amount of deer 

habitat available for harvest. Many of the modification would also include low-elevation 

travel corridors which could be used by deer. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 4, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain 54 to 90 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion, and 48 to 87 percent of the original deer habitat 

capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-20). Alternative 4 in 

combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would also result in a 

cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 30 to 68 percent of original amounts; 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-169

average snow winter habitat to 50 to 73 percent of original amounts; and non-winter 

habitat to 68 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-21). 

Cumulative effects would be least under Alternative 4 relative to the other alternatives, 

and would be mitigated to some extent by commercial thinning which would contribute to 

similar benefits provided by pre-commercial thinning conducted on NFS lands in 

enhancing deer habitat (i.e., increased forage availability; Hanley 2005). However, 

ultimately reductions in deer habitat capability due to timber harvest and natural 

succession under Alternative 4 may result in local declines in the deer population.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would result in an immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA 

ranging from 4 to 5 percent from current conditions (Table WLD-18). At stem exclusion 

state, deer habitat capability would be reduced by a total of 7.6 to 13.9 percent from 

current conditions, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-18). Effects would be less than 

under Alternative 3 but comparable to alternatives 2 and 4.

Alternative 5 would result in the harvest of approximately 1,519 total acres of deep snow 

winter habitat (3 to 6 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 4,668 total 

acres of average snow winter habitat (3 to 6 percent reduction from current conditions by 

WAA), and 5,025 total acres of non-winter habitat (1 to 3 percent reduction from current 

conditions by WAA; Table WLD-19). A majority of harvest in all WAAs (54 to 91 

percent) would be even-aged under Alternative 5 (Table WLD-22). Reductions in habitat 

capability and the amount of habitat available under Alternative 5 would result in local 

reductions in the numbers of deer an area is capable of supporting given the available 

resources. However, Alternative 5 would also result in the commercial thinning of 2,081 

acres of previously harvested stands which would enhance deer habitat. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 5. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to deer. The current small OGRs contain 3,325 acres of deep snow 

deer winter range and 7,405 acres of low-elevation POG, which is indicative of higher 

value habitat (see Table OGR-2 under Issue 2).

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 5, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain 53 to 88 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion, and 47 to 86 percent of the original deer habitat 

capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-20). Alternative 5 in 

combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would also result in a 

cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 29 to 67 percent of original amounts; 

average snow winter habitat to 49 to 72 percent of original amounts; and non-winter 

habitat to 68 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-21). 

Cumulative effects under Alternative 5 would be comparable to Alternatives 2, less than 

Alternative 3, and greater than Alternative 4. However, they would be mitigated to some 

extent through commercial thinning which would contribute to the similar benefits 

provided by pre-commercial thinning in enhancing deer habitat (i.e., increased forage 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-170 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

availability). Ultimately, reductions in deer habitat capability due to timber harvest and 

natural succession under Alternative 5 may result in local declines in the deer population. 

Conclusion

Deer winter habitat capability would be reduced under all alternatives. The greatest 

impacts would occur under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 1. Deep 

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

action alternatives, with effects being greatest under Alternative 3, followed by 5, 2, and 

4. Alternative 4 would have the fewest effects to deer because it harvests the fewest acres 

of deer winter habitat, and because greater habitat functionality would be maintained in 

harvested stands due to the predominance of uneven-aged harvest. A majority of harvest 

in WAAs 1319 and 1420 would be uneven-aged under Alternative 4 where the most 

harvest is proposed, which would maintain some of the functionality of this habitat. 

Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 all propose acres of commercial thinning which would mitigate to 

some extent the effects of timber harvest by enhancing deer habitat.

Small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce inclusion of deer 

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

system, whereas, all proposed small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 would benefit 

deer by increasing the amount of winter habitat and low-elevation POG and travel 

corridors in the reserve system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service 2008b). However, this analysis does not account for roadless acres in 

development LUDS, which, under the current roadless rule, are not likely be harvested. 

Regardless of the alternative chosen for the Big Thorne Project, management activities

would retain habitat capability (taking only NFS lands into account) above these predicted 

levels in all WAAs at project completion and at stem exclusion (Table WLD-18). 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

The Big Thorne Project has the potential to directly adversely affect wolves through 

activities that create noise or disturbance, which could result in the displacement of 

wolves. Although there are several known wolf dens within the project area there are no 

known wolf dens within any of the proposed harvest units. For known den sites close to 

harvest units, the 1,200-foot Forest Plan den site buffer was applied and unit boundaries 

adjusted as necessary; therefore none of the alternatives would directly or indirectly 

impact active wolf dens. A new den site was discovered in the summer of 2012; however 

its location (and associated buffer) does not affect any proposed Big Thorne units.

Indirect effects of the Big Thorne Project include the reduction of the wolf prey base 

(deer) and increased human access along project roads. It is assumed that a decline in the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-171

deer population would likely result in a decline in the wolf population (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). Resonating effects could include reductions in opportunities to hunt or 

trap wolves. Therefore, impacts to wolves are assessed in terms of the reduction in deer 

habitat capability (based on habitat capability model outputs in terms of deer density). 

Note that this density does not represent actual population numbers but represents the 

functioning of the predator-prey system dynamic. Model assumptions, based on recent 

direction provided by the Forest Service include:

 For the project-related direct and indirect effects analysis, deer habitat capability 

by WAA (including only NFS lands) was divided by the total square miles of NFS 

lands (all elevations included, but with acres above 1,500 feet elevation receiving a 

zero value) in the WAA.

 For the cumulative effects analysis, deer habitat capability from all land 

ownerships (NFS and non-NFS lands) was divided by the total square miles of all 

lands (all elevations included, but habitats on non-NFS land and land above 1,500 

feet elevation receiving a zero value) in the WAA.

Timber harvest would decrease carrying capacity for deer over the long-term due to 

reductions in the amount of available winter range (Table WLD-23; see also discussion of 

effects to deer). Current deer habitat capabilities in the project area WAAs are below the 

Forest Plan guideline of 18 deer per square mile, and suggest the project would result in 

higher risk that there will be insufficient number of deer to sustain wolves and hunting 

(see existing modeled deer densities in Table WLD-23). That concern exists despite the 

limited availability of alternative prey due in part to the fact that alternative prey may 

delay a decline in wolf numbers relative to deer potentially causing wolf predation to have 

greater impact on declining deer numbers. Deer model calculations show that there would 

be an estimated decline of approximately 1 deer per square mile in the project area WAAs 

from current levels due to natural forest succession (i.e., between current levels and the 

stem exclusions stage).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-172 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-23. Effects of Timber Harvest on Deer Density by WAA (NFS Lands 

Only)

WAA Year

Density 

or % 

Existing 

Conditions

Deer Habitat Capability and % of 2012 DHC by 

Alternative 1/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1954 deer/mi2 29 -- -- -- -- --

2012 deer/mi2 17 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 59% -- -- -- -- --

1315 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 17 16 16 16 16

% of 2012 -- 100% 94% 94% 94% 94%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 16 15 15 15 15

% of 2012 -- 94% 88% 88% 88% 88%

1954 deer/mi2 15 -- -- -- -- --

2012 deer/mi2 14 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 93% -- -- -- -- --

1318 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 14 13 13 13 13

% of 2012 -- 100% 93% 93% 93% 93%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 13 13 13 13 13

% of 2012 -- 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%

1954 deer/mi2 21 -- -- -- -- --

2012 deer/mi2 16 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 76% -- -- -- -- --

1319 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 16 15 15 15 15

% of 2012 -- 100% 94% 94% 94% 94%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 15 15 15 15 15

% of 2012 -- 94% 94% 94% 94% 94%

1954 deer/mi2 22 -- -- -- -- --

2012 deer/mi2 12 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 55% -- -- -- -- --

1420 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 12 12 11 12 11

% of 2012 -- 100% 100% 92% 100% 2%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 11 10 10 10 10

% of 2012 -- 92% 83% 83% 83% 83%

1/ Deer habitat capability calculated from the deer model for winter habitat (all elevations). Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) 

were standardized to range from 0.0 to 1.0; 100 deer per square mile used as multiplier; all harvest was calculated as evenaged; no predation was included. 

Source: Forest Service GIS Database, deer_model.aml, 2012

All action alternatives involve the construction of roads. The roads associated with timber 

harvest may also increase the risk of hunting and trapping related wolf mortality by 

increasing human access; however this should be examined in the context of the existing 

road system. New roads constructed in drainages with an extensive system of existing 

roads would be expected to have less of an effect on harvest-related mortality risk than 

new roads entering undisturbed areas which may provide new points of access for hunters 

and trappers. All proposed roads under the Big Thorne Project consist mainly of short 

segments with no new road connections. Such effects would also be counteracted to some 

extent through additional road closures (Prince of Wales Island ATM); open roads would 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-173

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

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

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

on mortality risk. Under all action alternatives, system roads constructed for the project 

would be closed and stored in 1 to 5 years following timber sale activities; prior to that,

the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood removal 

from May 1 to November 30 (see Chapter 2 and the Transportation section for additional 

discussion of road classes). 

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

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

they found road density to have little additional effect on harvest rates. Harvest rates 

would potentially increase in WAA 1318 because current total road densities are below 

this threshold; however, increases under all alternatives would be 0.2 mile per square mile 

or less (Table WLD-24). The effects of roads on wolf mortality risk may be exacerbated 

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

(Note that for direct and indirect effects, road densities are calculated for NFS lands only 

below 1,200 feet, while for cumulative effects, road densities are calculated for NFS and 

non-NFS lands below 1,200 feet.)

Table WLD-24. Road Density below 1,200 feet Elevation on NFS Lands Only after 

Implementation of the Alternatives

Island/WAA

Road 

Status2/, 3/

Road Density by Alternative (mile/mile2)

1/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315

Open 1.07 1.10 1.16 1.08 1.07

Closed 1.06 1.15 1.19 1.11 1.08

Total 2.14 2.25 2.34 2.19 2.15

1318

Open 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.49 0.49

Closed 0.23 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.25

Total 0.71 0.78 0.79 0.75 0.74

1319

Open 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.83

Closed 0.78 0.85 0.73 0.80 0.82

Total 1.60 1.72 1.60 1.63 1.65

1420

Open 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.40 1.40

Closed 1.12 1.14 1.15 1.19 1.13

Total 2.51 2.55 2.58 2.59 2.52

Prince of Wales 

Island4/

Open 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53

Closed 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46

Total 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00

1/ Includes only NFS lands.

2/ Closed roads are defined as all NFS roads with Operating Maintenance Level = 1 plus all decommissioned NFS roads; open 

roads include all other NFS roads and all state and private roads. 

3/ Note - all proposed System roads are treated as open roads; however, they will be closed within 1-5 years after harvest (for 1 

to 5 years following timber harvest activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood

removal from May 1 to November 30)

4/ Includes 18 Prince of Wales Island WAAs; does not include the adjacent island WAAs (e.g., Kosciusko, Heceta, Tuxekan, 

Dall, etc.). This is the spatial area within which Person and Logan (2012) documented a correlation between wolf harvestmortality risk and road density.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-174 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Timber harvest that has occurred since 1954 has reduced habitat capability for deer in 

GMU 2 through the removal of POG. All action alternatives result in an additional

reduction of deer habitat capability, contributing to similar effects associated with ongoing 

and future timber harvest on NFS and lands in other ownership. Collectively this has the 

potential to result in localized declines in the deer population, and thus the prey base for 

wolves. At project completion (all alternatives), none of the project area WAAs (all land 

ownerships included) would support 18 deer per square mile, though none of them do 

currently (Table WLD-25). However, wolves are highly mobile within their territories and 

adjacent WAAs with higher deer densities would continue to support wolves in the 

vicinity of the project. Some WAAs adjacent to the project area (e.g., 1323 and 1332), 

taking into account ongoing and foreseeable projects, would meet or exceed this level of 

habitat capability (see the Wildlife and Subsistence resource report for additional detail). . 

Moreover, the intent of this guideline was to apply to a larger spatial scale (i.e., multiple 

WAAs or biogeographic province).

At the biogeographic province scale, deer habitat capability is currently 15 deer per square 

mile, remaining at this level under all action alternatives at project completion (less than 1 

percent reduction in deer per square mile) and 14 deer per square mile at stem exclusion 

(1 percent reduction; Table WLD-25). Under all alternatives 33 percent of WAAs (7 of 

21 WAAs) in the biogeographic province would support at least 18 deer per square mile at 

project completion; 29 percent of WAAs in the biogeographic province (6 of 21 WAAs) 

would support this level of habitat capability at stem exclusion. In considering only the

core WAAs in the northwest and central portion of the biogeographic province to more 

accurately represent conditions immediately surrounding the project area, weighted 

average deer habitat capability is currently 19 deer per square mile. It would remain at 19

deer per square mile under all alternatives at project completion (less than 1 percent 

reduction); at stem exclusion, all action alternatives would support a weighted average 

deer habitat capability of 18 deer per square mile within this area. Thus, regardless of the 

alternative chosen, all would result in sufficient deer habitat within the biogeographic 

province and in the WAAs surrounding the project area to maintain a sustainable wolf 

population.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-175

Table WLD-25. Cumulative Impacts to Deer Habitat Capability by WAA (NFS and 

Non-NFS Lands)

WAA Year

Density 

or % of 

1954 Existing

Deer Habitat Capability and % of 1954 DHC by 

Alternative 1/, 2/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1954 deer/mi2 16 -- -- -- -- --

2012

deer/mi2 9 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 56% -- -- -- -- --

1315 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 9 9 9 9 9

% of 1954 -- 56% 56% 56% 56% 56%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 9 8 8 9 9

% of 1954 -- 56% 50% 50% 56% 56%

1954 deer/mi2 7 -- -- -- -- --

2012 deer/mi2 6 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 86% -- -- -- -- --

1318 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 6 6 6 6 6

% of 1954 -- 86% 86% 86% 86% 86%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 6 6 6 6 6

% of 1954 -- 86% 86% 86% 86% 86%

1954 deer/mi2 21 -- -- -- -- --

2012

deer/mi2 16 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 76% -- -- -- -- --

1319 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 16 15 15 15 15

% of 1954 -- 76% 71% 71% 71% 71%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 15 15 14 15 15

% of 1954 -- 71% 71% 66% 71% 71%

1954 deer/mi2 19 -- -- -- -- --

2012 deer/mi2 11 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 58% -- -- -- -- --

1420 2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 11 10 10 10 10

% of 1954 -- 58% 53% 53% 53% 53%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 10 9 9 9 9

% of 1954 -- 53% 47% 47% 47% 47%

North Central 

Prince of 

Wales 

Biogeographic 

Province (all 

WAAs)

1954 deer/mi2 20 -- -- -- -- --

2012

deer/mi2 15 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 75% -- -- -- -- --

2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 15 15 15 15 15

% of 1954 -- 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 14 14 14 14 14

% of 1954 -- 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
3 Environment and Effects 

3-176 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-25. Cumulative Impacts to Deer Habitat Capability by WAA (NFS and 

Non-NFS Lands) (cont.)

WAA Year

Density 

or % of 

1954 Existing

Deer Habitat Capability and % of 1954 DHC by 

Alternative 1/, 2/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Biogeographic 

Province (10 Core 

WAAs in NW and 

Central Portion of 

Province)3/

1954 deer/mi2 27 -- -- -- -- --

2012

deer/mi2 19 -- -- -- -- --

% of 1954 70% -- -- -- -- --

2013 after 

Implementation

deer/mi2 -- 19 19 19 19 19

% of 1954 -- 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

2039 at Stem 

Exclusion

deer/mi2 -- 18 18 18 18 18

% of 1954 -- 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

1/ Deer habitat capability calculated from the deer model for winter habitat (all elevations). Habitat Suitability Indices 

(HSIs) were standardized to range from 0.0 to 1.0; 100 deer per square mile used as multiplier; all harvest units were 

treated as even-aged; no predation was included. 

2/ All non-NFS lands were assumed to be harvested. 

Source: GIS Database, deer_model.aml, 2012

3/ Includes WAAs 1316, 1319, 1323, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, and 1531

GMU 2, particularly in the north central and central portions of Prince of Wales Island, 

has an extensive road system, which provides access to hunters and trappers. All action 

alternatives would result in the construction of new roads, though most stem from existing 

road systems and all would eventually be closed and stored within 1 to 5 years of timber 

harvest activities (for 1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the roads would remain open 

to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood removal from May 1 to November 30; 

see the Transportation section). Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest projects may also 

increase open road density. These projects include the completion of NEPA-approved 

projects like Control Lake in WAAs 1318 and 1319, micro timber sales in all WAAs; and 

state timber projects in WAAs 1315 and 1420. Implementation of the Prince of Wales 

ATM, which involves road closures, would reduce access on NFS lands.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effect to wolves because no timber would be harvested 

and no roads would be constructed. Modeled deer densities would remain at currently 

estimated levels immediately after project initiation (in 2013; Table WLD-23). However, 

indirectly, over time there would be a reduction in modeled deer densities as previously 

harvested stands move into the stem exclusion stage (Table WLD-23). Reductions from 

existing (2012) amounts at stem exclusion would be greatest in WAA 1420 (8 percent), 

followed by WAAs 1318 (7 percent), and 1318/1319 (6 percent), respectively (Table 

WLD-23). In all WAAs this equates to a reduction in modeled deer densities of one deer 

per square mile from the existing level (Table WLD-23). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-177

No commercial thinning of previously harvested stands would occur under Alternative 1. 

Thus, habitat improvements in young-growth potentially benefiting deer, and thus wolves, 

over the long-term would occur more slowly (i.e. at the rate of natural succession) than 

under the other alternatives. 

Existing total road densities below 1,200 feet elevation would remain, ranging from 0.7 to 

2.5 miles per square mile (Table WLD-24). Total road density at elevations below 1,200 

feet for Prince of Wales Island would be 1.0 mile per square mile under Alternative 1

(Table WLD-24).

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to wolves.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would not directly contribute to cumulative effect to wolves because no 

action would be undertaken under the Big Thorne Project; taking into account all 

landownerships and reasonably foreseeable timber projects, deer densities would be not 

change from current conditions, ranging from 6 to 16 deer per square mile depending on 

WAA (56 to 86 percent of original [1954] amounts; Table WLD-25). Over time,

unthinned, previously harvested stands would reach the stem exclusion stage and deer 

habitat capability would be reduced from original (1954) amounts by 9 deer per square 

mile in WAA 1420 and 6 deer per square mile in WAA 1319; there would be no 

additional reduction in WAAs 1315 and 1318 (deer habitat capability in both would 

remain below original (1954) levels by 7 deer per square mile (Table WLD-25). Taking 

all land ownerships into account, modeled deer densities at stem exclusion would range 

from 6 to 15 deer per square mile depending on the WAA (53, 56, 71, and 86 of original 

amounts in WAAs 1420, 1315, 1319, and 1318, respectively; Table WLD-25). 

Reductions in deer habitat capability have the potential to reduce deer densities; however, 

foreseeable pre-commercial thinning projects would improve conditions for deer and 

would be expected to improve habitat capability. These improvements are not taken into 

account within the deer model. Thus, Alternative 1 has a low likelihood of resulting in 

local declines in deer habitat capability which could affect wolves, and thus hunters and 

trappers.

Wolves are highly mobile within their territories and some adjacent WAAs with higher 

deer densities would continue to support wolves in the vicinity of the project. Taking into 

account ongoing and foreseeable projects, deer habitat capability of the 10 core WAAs in 

the northwest and central portion of the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic 

province (WAAs 1316, 1319, 1323, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, and 1531; see 

Wildlife Resource report for additional details) would collectively continue to support at 

least 18 deer per square (weighted average habitat capability of 19 deer per square mile at

project completion [same as current amount] and 18 deer per square mile at stem 

exclusion; Table WLD-25). Individually, WAAs 1323, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, and 1531 

would support at least 18 deer per square mile at stem exclusion. Deer habitat capability

in the biogeographic province as a whole would remain at 15 deer per square mile at 

project completion, and would be reduced to 14 deer per square mile at stem exclusion. 

The presence of large, undisturbed blocks of habitat on Prince of Wales Island adjacent to 

the project area, including the Honker Divide large OGR complex (200,000+ acres) and 

the nearly 40,000-acre Karta Wilderness to the west and south, respectively, help assure 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-178 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

the persistence of wolf packs because these area support source populations capable of 

replacing wolves that periodically disappear from adjacent disturbed lands (Person et al. 

1996, Person and Logan 2012). 

Cumulative total road densities below 1,200 feet on Prince of Wales Island under 

Alternative 1 would be approximately 1.3 miles per square mile. Total road density below 

1,200 feet would range from 1.6 to 2.7 miles per square mile within individual WAAs 

(Table WLD-26). Cumulative total road densities on Prince of Wales Island, taking all 

elevations into account, would be 1.1 miles per square mile under Alternative 1, ranging 

from 1.2 to 2.5 miles per square mile within the four project area WAAs. Cumulative road 

densities in all WAAs, except 1318, remain at a level beyond which increases in road 

density would not be expected to result in an increased risk of harvest (1.5 miles per 

square mile; Person and Russell 2008).

Table WLD-26. Cumulative Road Density on All Ownerships Below 1,200 Feet 

Elevation by Alternative

Island/WAA

Road 

Status3/, 4/

Road Density by Alternative (mile/mile2)

1/, 2/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315

Open 2.10 2.12 2.15 2.11 2.10

Closed 0.62 0.67 0.69 0.64 0.63 

Total 2.72 2.79 2.84 2.75 2.73

1318

Open 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30

Closed 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15

Total 2.44 2.46 2.46 2.45 2.45

1319

Open 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 

Closed 0.76 0.83 0.86 0.79 0.81 

Total 1.63 1.74 1.77 1.66 1.68

1420

Open 1.48 1.50 1.51 1.49 1.48 

Closed 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.96 

Total 2.44 2.47 2.50 2.45 2.45

Prince of 

Wales Island5/

Open 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92

Closed 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.39

Total 1.30 1.32 1.32 1.31 1.31

1/ Includes all land ownerships (NFS lands and non-NFS).

2/ WAA 1315 incorporates reasonably foreseeable roads on state lands; WAA 1318 incorporates reasonably foreseeable 

National Forest roads related to the Control Lake project; WAA 1319 incorporates reasonably foreseeable National 

Forest roads related to the Control Lake project; and WAA 1420 incorporates reasonably foreseeable roads on state 

lands.

3/ Closed roads are defined as all NFS roads with Operating Maintenance Level = 1 plus all decommissioned NFS 

roads; open roads include all other NFS roads and all state and private roads.

4/ Note: all proposed System roads are treated as open roads; however, they will be closed within 1-5 years after harvest 

activities (1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for 

firewood removal from May 1 to November 30).

5/ Includes 18 Prince of Wales Island WAAs; does not include the adjacent island WAAs (e.g., Kosciusko, Heceta, 

Tuxekan, Dall, etc.).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-179

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber harvest under Alternative 2 would result in an immediate reduction in modeled 

deer densities to 12 to 16 deer per square mile, depending on the WAA, ranging from 0 to 

6 percent from existing amounts (Table WLD-23). This equates to a reduction of one deer 

per square mile from existing (2012) levels in WAAs 1315, 1318, and 1319; there would 

be a less than 1 deer per square mile reduction in WAA 1420. At stem exclusion, deer 

densities would further be reduced to 10 to 15 deer per square mile, depending on the 

WAA, though in part this would be due to the succession of previously harvested stands 

into the stem exclusion stage (Table WLD-23). Long-term reductions in deer habitat 

capability from existing (2012) amounts at the stem exclusion stage under Alternative 2 

would be the greatest in WAA 1420 (17 percent), followed by WAAs 1315 (12 percent); 

no additional reduction in habitat capability would occur in WAAs 1318 and 1319 which 

would remain at 7 percent and 6 percent below current levels (Table WLD-23). This 

equates to a total reduction of two deer per square mile from existing (2012) levels in 

WAAs 1315 and 1420 and a less than 1 deer per square mile reduction in WAAs 1318 and 

1319 under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-23). Thus, Alternative 2 has the potential to result 

in a local reduction in the wolf prey base and thus in the wolf density.

No commercial thinning of previously harvested stands is proposed under Alternative 2. 

Thus, habitat improvements in young growth potentially benefiting deer, and thus wolves, 

over the long-term would occur more slowly than under the other action alternatives. 

Total road densities on NFS lands below 1,200 feet would range from 0.8 to 2.6 miles per 

square mile, depending on the WAA, under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-24). Increases 

would be greatest in WAA 1319, followed by WAAs 1315, 1318, and 1420. Total road 

density under 1,200 feet elevation for Prince of Wales Island would be 1.0 miles per 

square mile under Alternative 2, the same as current road density. Therefore, Alternative 

2 would only locally increase human access in the project area.

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 2. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to wolves.

Cumulative Effects

With implementation over the next decade, Alternative 2 in combination with past, 

ongoing and foreseeable projects would reduce modeled deer densities to 6 to 15 deer per 

square mile at project completion, depending on the WAA (53, 56, 71, and 86 percent of 

the original [1954] habitat capability in WAAs 1420, 1315, 1319, and 1318, respectively; 

Table WLD-25). Approximately 25 years after harvest, when harvested stands reach the 

stem exclusion stage, cumulative deer densities would range from 6 to 15 deer per square 

mile, depending on the WAA (47, 50, 71, and 86 percent of the original [1954] habitat 

capability in WAAs 1420, 1315, 1319, and 1318, respectively; Table WLD-25). Note that 

there would be no additional reduction in habitat capability following project completion 

in WAAs 1318 and 1319. This equates to a total cumulative reduction of 10 deer per 

square mile in WAA 1420, 8 deer per square mile in WAAs 1315, 6 deer per square mile 

in WAA 1319, and 1 deer per square mile in WAA 1318 (Table WLD-25). Thus, 

Alternative 2 may result in local declines in the deer population due to reduced habitat 

capability which could affect wolves, and thus hunters and trappers.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-180 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

As described under Alternative 1, wolves are highly mobile within their territories and 

adjacent WAAs (see list of core WAAs in the northwest and central portion of the North 

Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province under Alternative 1) would collectively 

continue to support wolves in the vicinity of the project area under Alternative 2 by 

supporting a deer habitat capability of at least 18 deer per square mile. The weighted 

average habitat capability of these 10 WAAs would be 19 deer per square mile at project 

completion [same as current amount] and 18 deer per square mile at stem exclusion under 

Alternative 2 (Table WLD-25). Individually, WAAs 1323, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, and 

1531 would support at least 18 deer per square mile at stem exclusion. Deer habitat 

capability in the biogeographic province as a whole would remain at 15 deer per square 

mile at project completion, and would be reduced to 14 deer per square mile at stem 

exclusion. The presence of large, undisturbed blocks of habitat on Prince of Wales Island 

adjacent to the project area (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR and Karta Wilderness), 

help assure the persistence of wolf packs that may serve as source populations (see 

Alternative 1 discussion; Person et al. 1996, Person and Logan 2012). 

Cumulative total road densities below 1,200 feet under Alternative 2 on Prince of Wales 

Island would be approximately 1.3 miles per square mile, ranging from 1.7 to 2.8 miles 

per square mile within individual project area WAAs (Table WLD-26). Cumulative total 

road densities on Prince of Wales Island, taking all elevations into account, would be 

approximately 1.1 miles per square mile under Alternative 2, ranging from 1.3 to 2.5 

miles per square mile within individual project area WAAs (see Table WLD-22 in the 

Marten section). Alternative 2 would not be expected to affect wolf harvest rates (i.e., 

through increased access) in any project area WAAs because existing total cumulative 

road densities in WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1420 are already at a level beyond which 

additional increases would increase harvest risk (i.e., above 1.5 miles per square mile; 

Person and Russell 2008) and because the increase in WAA 1318 is minor (less than 0.1 

mile per square mile; Table WLD-22).

 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber harvest under Alternative 3 would result in an immediate reduction in modeled 

deer densities to 11 to 16 deer per square mile, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-23).

This equates to a reduction of one deer per square mile from existing (2012) levels in all 

project area WAAs. At stem exclusion, deer densities would range from 10 to 15 deer 

per square mile, depending on the WAA, (Table WLD-23). Long-term reductions in deer 

habitat capability (at the stem exclusion stage) from existing (2012) amounts under 

Alternative 3 would be the greatest in WAA 1420 (17 percent), followed by WAA 1315 

(12 percent) though in part this would be due to the succession of previously harvested 

stands into the stem exclusion stage; there would be no additional reduction in habitat 

capability in WAAs 1318 and 1319 which would remain 7 percent and 6 percent below

existing levels, respectively. This equates to a total reduction of two deer per square mile 

from existing (2012) levels in WAAs 1315 and 1420 and one 1 deer per square mile 

reduction in WAAs 1318 and 1319 under Alternative 3 (Table WLD-23). Reductions in 

all WAAs under Alternative 3 would be the same as under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5; the 

same as Alternative 1 in WAAs 1318 and 1319; and slightly greater than Alternative 1 in 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-181

WAAs 1420 and 1315. Thus, Alternative 3 has the potential to result in a local reduction 

in the wolf prey base and thus potentially in the wolf density. These effects would be 

reduced to some extent because Alternative 3 would also result in the commercial thinning 

of 2,983 acres of young growth which would improve deer habitat quality by increasing 

forage availability (Hanley 2005). 

Total road densities on NFS lands under 1,200 feet elevation would range from 0.8 to 2.6

miles per square mile, depending on the WAA, under Alternative 3 (Table WLD-24). 

Increases would be greatest in WAA 1315, followed by WAAs 1420, 1318, and 1319. 

Total road density under 1,200 feet elevation for Prince of Wales Island would remain at 

1.0 miles per square mile under Alternative 3. Therefore, Alternative 3 would only locally 

increase human access in the project area, but more so than the other alternatives.

OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 3 would maintain or reduce inclusion of 

habitat suitable for wolf dens sites and other areas identified by the interagency review 

team (IRT) as being important to wolves (see Table OGR-2 and discussion in the 

Biodiversity discussion). With the exception of the small OGR in VCUS 5820 (Baird 

Peak) small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would reduce inclusion of deep snow 

deer winter range (reduction of 1,401 acres) and low-elevation POG, which is indicative 

of higher value habitat (reduction of 2,909 acres). Harvest of these areas would reduce 

habitat capability for deer and thus the prey base for wolves. Additionally, with the 

exception of small OGRs in VCUs 5960 (Steelhead) and 5850 (Sandy Beach), inclusion

of areas identified as being important for landscape connectivity would be reduced (see 

Table OGR-2 and discussion in the Biodiversity subsection). Future timber harvest and 

road building in these areas would have the potential to reduce the ability of wolves to 

move and disperse or increase the risk of harvest. However, areas relocated from existing 

small OGRs typically included areas of previous harvested and roads, traded for areas 

with fewer impacts (road miles and young growth acres). Thus in some cases this resulted 

in a tradeoff between inclusion of low-elevation POG/deer winter habitat and higher 

elevation areas with fewer acres of POG/deer winter habitat and young-growth and fewer 

roads.

Cumulative Effects

With implementation over the next decade, Alternative 3 in combination with past, 

ongoing, and foreseeable projects reduce modeled deer densities to 6 to 15 deer per square 

mile at project completion, depending on the WAA (53, 56, 71, and 86 percent of the 

original [1954] habitat capability in WAAs 1420, 1315,1319, and 1318, respectively; 

Table WLD-25). Approximately 25 years after harvest, when stands reach the stem 

exclusion stage, cumulative deer densities would range from 6 to 14 deer per square mile, 

depending on the WAA (47, 50, 66, and 86 percent of original [1954] habitat capability in 

WAAs 1420, 1315, 1319, and 1318, respectively; Table WLD-25). Note that there would 

be no additional reduction in habitat capability following project completion in WAA

1318. This equates to a cumulative reduction of 10 deer per square mile in WAA 1420, 8 

deer per square mile in WAA 1315, 7 deer per square mile in WAA 1319, and 1 deer per 

square mile in WAA 1318 from original (1954) habitat capability (Table WLD-25). 

Thinning proposed under Alternative 3, in combination with ongoing and foreseeable 

thinning conducted various watershed restoration plan in the project area WAAs would 

mitigate these effects to some extent. However, Alternative 3 may result in local declines 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-182 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

in the deer population due to reduced habitat capability which could affect wolves, and 

thus hunters and trappers.

As described under Alternative 1, wolves are highly mobile within their territories and 

adjacent WAAs (see list of core WAAs in the northwest and central portion of the North 

Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province under Alternative 1) with higher deer 

densities would continue to collectively support wolves in the vicinity of the project under 

Alternative 3 by supporting a deer habitat capability of at least 18 deer per square mile 

(Table WLD-25). The weighted average habitat capability of these 10 WAAs would be 

19 deer per square mile at project completion [same as current amount] and 18 deer per 

square mile at stem exclusion under Alternative 3 (Table WLD-25). Individually, WAAs 

1323, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, and 1531 would support at least 18 deer per square mile at 

stem exclusion. Deer habitat capability in the biogeographic province as a whole would 

remain at 15 deer per square mile at project completion, and would be reduced to 14 deer 

per square mile at stem exclusion. The presence of large, undisturbed blocks of habitat on 

Prince of Wales Island adjacent to the project area (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR 

and Karta Wilderness), help assure the persistence of wolf packs that may serve as source 

populations (see Alternative 1 discussion; Person et al. 1996, Person and Logan 2012). 

Cumulative total road densities below 1,200 feet on Prince of Wales Island under 

Alternative 3 would be approximately 1.3 miles per square mile, ranging from 1.8 to 2.8 

miles per square mile within individual project area WAAs (Table WLD-26). Cumulative 

total road densities on Prince of Wales Island, taking all elevations into account, would be 

1.1 miles per square mile under Alternative 3, ranging from 1.3 to 2.6 miles per square 

mile within individual project area WAAs (see Table WLD-22 in the Marten discussion). 

Alternative 3 would not be expected to affect wolf harvest rates (i.e., through increased 

access) in any project area WAAs because existing total cumulative road densities in 

WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1420 are already at a level beyond which additional increases 

would increase harvest risk (i.e., above 1.5 miles per square mile; Person and Russell 

2008) and because the increase in WAA 1318 is minor (approximately 0.1 mile per square 

mile; Table WLD-22).

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects to modeled deer densities, and thus the wolf prey base, under Alternative 4 would 

be the same as under Alternative 2 (Table WLD-23; see Alternative 2 discussion). Thus,

Alternative 4 has the potential to result in a local reduction in the wolf prey base and thus 

potentially in wolf density; however, these effects would be reduced to some extent 

because Alternative 4 would also result in the commercial thinning of 2,585 acres of 

young-growth which would improve deer habitat quality.

Total road densities on NFS lands below 1,200 feet elevation would range from 0.8 to 2.6

miles per square mile, depending on the WAA, under Alternative 4 (Table WLD-24). 

Increases would be greatest in WAA 1315, followed by WAAs 1318/1420, and 1319. 

Total road density under 1,200 feet elevation for Prince of Wales Island would be 1.0 mile 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-183

per square mile under Alternative 4, the same as existing. Therefore, Alternative 4 would 

only locally increase human access in the project area.

Effects to wolves would be mitigated through the implementation of harvest prescriptions 

and modifications to OGRs proposed under Alternative 4 that increase inclusion of deer 

winter habitat or connectivity as compared to the other alternatives. The utilization of 

uneven-aged management (group selections) in the Phase 2 area (VCUs 5780 and 5971) 

and in some units on the fringes of the Honker large OGR complex would benefit wolves 

by creating edge habitats that deer prefer in proximity to areas of cover. Wolves would 

also directly benefit from small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 4 in 

VCUs 5830 (Ratz Harbor), 5950 (Steelhead Drainage), 5960 (Control Lake), and 5972 

(Angel Lake) which protect known wolf dens (although known wolf dens are already 

afforded protection by the 1,200-foot buffer under the Forest Plan Wolf standards and 

guidelines) or other wolf habitat as identified by the 2008/2011 IRT (see Biodiversity 

discussion above and Table OGR-2); OGR modifications proposed in other VCUs would 

increase inclusion of deer winter range (net increase of 912 acres) and areas identified as 

being important for landscape connectivity in the reserve system (net increase in 2,591 

acres of low-elevation POG), and thus indirectly benefit wolves (see discussion under 

Deer and under Issue 2 above).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative reductions in deer habitat capability under Alternative 4 would be the same as 

under Alternative 2 (see discussion under Alternative 2). Thus, Alternative 4 may result 

in local declines in the deer population due to reduced habitat capability which could 

affect wolves, and thus hunters and trappers. However, thinning proposed under 

Alternative 4, in combination with ongoing and foreseeable thinning conducted various 

watershed restoration plans would mitigate these effects to some extent. Adjacent WAAs 

(see Alternative 1 for a list of the core WAAs in the northwest and central portion of the 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province) would continue to collectively 

support wolves in the vicinity of the project by supporting a deer habitat capability of at 

least 18 deer per square mile (Table WLD-25). The weighted average habitat capability 

of these 10 WAAs would be 19 deer per square mile at project completion [same as 

current amount] and 18 deer per square mile at stem exclusion under Alternative 4 (Table 

WLD-25). Individually, WAAs 1323, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, and 1531 would support at 

least 18 deer per square mile at stem exclusion. Deer habitat capability in the 

biogeographic province as a whole would remain at 15 deer per square mile at project 

completion, and would be reduced to 14 deer per square mile at stem exclusion. 

Additionally, the persistence of source wolf packs in the vicinity of the project area would 

continue to be maintained by large reserve areas (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR and 

Karta Wilderness). 

Cumulative total road densities below 1,200 feet on Prince of Wales Island under 

Alternative 4 would be approximately 1.3 miles per square mile, ranging from 1.7 to 2.7

miles per square mile within individual project area WAAs (Table WLD-26). Cumulative 

total road densities on Prince of Wales Island, taking all elevations into account, would be 

approximately 1.1 miles per square mile under Alternative 4, ranging from 1.2 to 2.5

miles per square mile within individual project area WAAs (see Table WLD-22 in the 

Marten discussion). Alternative 4 would not be expected to affect wolf harvest rates (i.e., 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-184 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

through increased access) in any project area WAAs because existing total cumulative 

road densities in WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1420 are already at a level beyond which 

additional increases would increase harvest risk (i.e., above 1.5 miles per square mile; 

Person and Russell 2008) and because the increase in WAA 1318 is minor (less than 0.1 

mile per square mile; Table WLD-22).

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects to modeled deer densities, and thus the wolf prey base, under Alternative 5 would 

be the same as under Alternative 3 (Table WLD-23; see Alternative 3 discussion). Thus,

Alternative 5 has the potential to result in a local reduction in the wolf prey base and thus 

potentially in wolf density. However, these effects would be reduced to some extent 

because Alternative 5 would also result in the commercial thinning of 2,525 acres of 

young-growth which would improve deer habitat quality. 

Total road densities on NFS lands under 1,200 feet elevation would range from 0.7 to 2.5 

miles per square mile, depending on the WAA, under Alternative 5 (Table WLD-24). 

Increases would be greatest in WAA 1319, followed by WAAs 1318, and 1315/1420. 

Total road density under 1,200 feet elevation for Prince of Wales Island would be 1.0 

miles per square mile under Alternative 5, the same as existing. Therefore, Alternative 5

would only locally increase human access in the project area.

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 5. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to wolves.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative reductions in deer habitat capability under Alternative 5 would be the same as 

under Alternative 4 (see discussion under Alternative 4). Thus, Alternative 5 may result 

in local declines in the deer population due to reduced habitat capability which could 

affect wolves, and thus hunters and trappers. However, thinning proposed under 

Alternative 5, in combination with ongoing and foreseeable thinning conducted various 

watershed restoration plans would mitigate these effects to some extent. Adjacent WAAs 

(see Alternative 1 for a list of core WAAs in the northwest and central portion of the 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province) would continue to collectively 

support wolves in the vicinity of the project by supporting a deer habitat capability of at 

least 18 deer per square mile (Table WLD-25). The weighted average habitat capability 

of these 10 WAAs would be 19 deer per square mile at project completion [same as 

current amount] and 18 deer per square mile at stem exclusion under Alternative 5 (Table 

WLD-25). Individually, WAAs 1323, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, and 1531 would support at 

least 18 deer per square mile at stem exclusion. Deer habitat capability in the 

biogeographic province as a whole would remain at 15 deer per square mile at project 

completion, and would be reduced to 14 deer per square mile at stem exclusion.

Additionally, the persistence of source wolf packs in the vicinity of the project area would 

continue to be maintained by large reserve areas (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR and 

Karta Wilderness). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-185

Cumulative total road densities below 1,200 feet on Prince of Wales Island under 

Alternative 5 would be approximately 1.3 miles per square mile, ranging from 1.7 to 2.7 

miles per square mile within individual project area WAAs (Table WLD-26). Cumulative 

total road densities on Prince of Wales Island, taking all elevations into account, would be 

approximately 1.1 miles per square mile under Alternative 5, ranging from 1.3 to 2.5

miles per square mile within individual project area WAAs (see Table WLD-22 in the 

Marten discussion). Alternative 5 would not be expected to affect wolf harvest rates (i.e., 

through increased access) in any project area WAAs because existing total cumulative 

road densities in WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1420 are already at a level beyond which 

additional increases would increase harvest risk (i.e., above 1.5 miles per square mile; 

Person and Russell 2008) and because the increase in WAA 1318 is minor (less than 0.1 

mile per square mile; Table WLD-22).

Conclusion

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

alternatives; however, none of the action alternatives would reduce deer habitat capability 

by more than 1 deer per square mile in any WAA. Taking only NFS lands into account, 

long-term (stem exclusion) deer habitat capability would be the same under all action 

alternatives. When taking both NFS and non-NFS lands into account deer habitat 

capability would be comparable under any of the alternatives, with differences between 

alternatives being no more than 1 deer per square mile (or a 5 percent difference in deer 

habitat capability) and in most cases less. None of the project area WAAs alone provide a 

habitat capability of 18 deer per square mile, generally considered under the Forest Plan to 

be sufficient to maintain sustainable wolf populations, taking into account hunting. 

Additional, project-related effects to deer habitat capability under the action alternatives, 

and reductions due to forest succession in previously harvested stands, have the potential 

to reduce the prey base for wolves. Accordingly, there would be some reduction in the 

ability of project area WAAs to maintain a sustainable wolf population, based on deer 

habitat capability alone. However, the Forest Plan standard and guideline was intended to 

apply at a broader scale. At the scale of the biogeographic province, the cumulative effect 

of all alternatives would be the maintenance of approximately 14 deer per square mile 25 

years after harvest (at stem exclusion); within the 10 core WAAs in the north central 

portion of the biogeographic province habitat capability would be approximately 18 deer 

per square mile over this same time period. This indicates that regardless of the 

alternative selected, the ability of the larger area surrounding the project to maintain a 

sustainable wolf population would not change. 

Benefits to wolves in the project area would be provided indirectly (by improving habitat 

for deer) through young-growth management. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would also result in 

the commercial thinning of young-growth acres which would improve deer habitat 

quality. 

Cumulative road densities would increase under all action alternatives. Impacts to wolves 

related to increased human access along the road system would generally be greatest under 

Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 1. Road densities in all project area 

WAAs (lands below 1,200 feet elevation) currently exceed the Forest Plan recommended 

level of 0.7 to 1.0 mile per square mile for managing harvest-related morality risk both 

when considering only NFS lands and all landownerships, except WAA 1318 for NFS 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-186 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

lands only. Further increases in road density have the potential to increase wolf harvest 

mortality risk; however, Person and Russell (2008) concluded that road densities above 1.5 

miles per square mile (0.9 km/km2) had little additional effect on harvest rates. Therefore, 

minor increases in road density under any of the alternatives would not be expected to 

substantially increase harvest risk because existing road densities in project area WAAs are 

either above this number, or increases in road density are minor. If wolf harvest levels 

appear unsustainable, ADF&G has the ability to implement a harvest cap in GMU 2.

American Marten

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Timber harvest has the potential to directly affect marten through disturbance which may 

displace individuals or adversely affect young. Through the removal of forest cover and 

old-growth ecosystem features such as decadent live trees and snags (POG), timber 

harvest would reduce the vertical and horizontal structural complexity important to marten 

in relation to prey access, denning and resting sites, escape from predation, and 

thermoregulation (Buskirk and Zielinski 1997; Hargis et al. 1999; Flynn and Schumacher 

2001). Forest fragmentation resulting from timber harvest may also alter patterns of 

occupancy by marten (Thompson and Harestad 1994, Bissonette et al. 1997, Chapin et al 

1998; see Table WLD-2 for a patch size analysis by alternative). Uneven-aged harvest 

would maintain a higher habitat value in harvested stands, compared to even-aged harvest, 

by maintaining some structural complexity (see Table WLD-22 for a comparison of 

alternatives by harvest prescription). Alternatives that result in the greatest reduction in 

deep snow marten habitat would be expected to have the greatest effects to marten. The 

greatest effects to marten under all alternatives would occur in WAA 1319 (Table WLD27).

Table WLD-27. Impacts to Deep Snow Marten Habitat by WAA and by Alternative

WAA

Original 

(1954) 

acres

2012 acres Acres Impacted and Percent Reduction from Existing1/

Acres

% 

Original Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315 19,848 9,296 47% 0 NA 277 -3% 580 -6% 216 -2% 288 -3%

1318 10,917 7,600 70% 0 NA 343 -5% 402 -5% 212 -3% 302 -4%

1319 18,279 11,827 65% 0 NA 749 -6% 900 -8% 699 -6% 745 -6%

1420 10,157 3,176 31% 0 NA 116 -4% 424 -13% 81 -2% 184 -6%

Total 1,485 2,306 1,208 1,519

1/ High volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 6/7) at or below 800 ft elevation.

Increased human access associated with new roads may result in increased marten 

vulnerability to harvest, particularly along open roads (Flynn et al. 2004). All alternatives

would increase road densities (Table WLD-28). However, it should be noted that roads 

proposed for this project are typically temporary, short spurs that lead to the harvest units; 

therefore they are not likely to be areas where trappers would target marten.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-187

Table WLD-28. Road Density at All Elevations on NFS Lands Only after 

Implementation of the Alternatives

Island/WAA

Road 

Status2/, 3/

Road Density by Alternative (mile/mile2)

1/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315 All 

Elevations

Open 0.94 0.96 1.01 0.95 0.94

Closed 0.93 1.00 1.03 0.96 0.94

Total 1.87 1.96 2.04 1.91 1.87

1318 All 

Elevations

Open 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.34

Closed 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15

Total 0.48 0.51 0.52 0.50 0.49

1319 All 

Elevations

Open 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.61 0.62

Closed 0.58 0.63 0.65 0.60 0.61

Total 1.19 1.28 1.30 1.21 1.23

1420 All 

Elevations

Open 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.00

Closed 0.74 0.77 0.78 0.76 0.77

Total 1.74 1.79 1.81 1.77 1.78

1/ Includes only NFS lands.

2/ Closed roads are defined as all NFS roads with Operating Maintenance Level = 1 plus all decommissioned NFS roads; open 

roads include all other NFS roads and all state and private roads. All proposed System roads are treated as open roads; however, 

they will be closed within 1-5 years after harvest (for 1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the roads will remain open to High 

Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood removal from May 1 to November 30).

Marten were chosen as one of the design species in 1997 Forest Plan because they exhibit 

a consistent close association with mature forests throughout their distributional range 

(Sturtevant et al. 1996). Under the current Forest Plan, the marten population are 

supported by the conservation strategy which works to maintain mature forest cover and 

coarse woody debris to provide structure important to marten for resting, denning, escape 

from predators, trapping refugia, and facilitate marten dispersal (see the discussion of 

OGR modifications under Alternatives 3 and 4 below). 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Between 31 and 70 percent of the original (1954) deep snow marten habitat remains 

within the project area WAAs (Table WLD-29). The Big Thorne Project would result in 

additional reductions in deep snow marten habitat, contributing to similar effects resulting 

from on-going and foreseeable timber harvest projects on NFS, state, and private lands. 

The greatest cumulative reductions under all alternatives would occur in WAA 1420, 

followed by WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1318 (Table WLD-29). Given the sensitivity of 

marten to changes in habitat, there has likely already been some change in marten 

distribution in these WAAs due to the lack of connectivity. Young-growth stands also 

lack large hollow trees and root masses important for denning, though these features 

would be protected in harvested stands to some extent on NFS lands through 

implementation of the Legacy standard and guideline, which is intended to provide for the 

habitat needs of marten (developed for the 2008 Forest Plan to replace the original marten 

habitat standard and guideline) across the Tongass. Further reductions in habitat could 

locally reduce the capacity of the area to support marten over the long-term (Flynn and 

Schumacher 1997). The Forest Plan conservation strategy as a whole will continue to be 

critical in maintaining a sustainable marten population in the project area WAAs.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-188 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-29. Cumulative Effects to Deep Snow Marten Habitat by WAA and by 

Alternative

WAA

1954 

acres

2012 

acres % Original

Percent Original (1954) Deep Snow Habitat Remaining1/, 2/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315 19,848 9,296 47 44 43 41 43 43

1318 10,917 7,600 70 70 66 66 68 67

1319 18,279 11,827 65 65 61 60 61 61

1420 10,157 3,176 31 31 30 27 30 29

1/ High volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, 6/7) at or below 800 ft elevation.

2/ WAA 1315 incorporates reasonably foreseeable harvest on state lands and misc. National Forest harvest; WAA 1318 incorporates 

reasonably foreseeable National Forest harvest (Control Lake project and misc. projects); WAA 1319 incorporates reasonably 

foreseeable National Forest harvest (Control Lake project and misc. projects); and WAA 1420 incorporates reasonably foreseeable 

harvest on state lands and misc. National Forest harvest.

The project area has an extensive road system and new roads associated with the Big 

Thorne Project as well as other forest management projects (see Chapter 2) would 

contribute to potential issues associated with human access and overexploitation of marten 

along the road system (Table WLD-30). However, implementation of the Prince of Wales 

Island ATM as well as the temporary nature of some project roads and closure and storage

of all project system roads within 1 to 5 years after completion of timber harvest activities 

will mitigate these effects to some extent (note that for 1 to 5 years after timber sale 

activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood 

removal from May 1 to November 30). Projected total road densities under the Prince of

Wales ATM are 1.9 miles per square mile in WAA 1315, 1.8 miles per square mile in 

WAAs 1318 and 1420, and 1.0 mile per square mile in WAA 1319 Though it should be 

noted that there are some differences in how road densities listed in the POW ATM were 

calculated compared to this analysis. There is no road density threshold for marten under 

the Forest Plan. Moreover, it is not road density per se that is important to marten but 

rather the availability of roadless refugia (Flynn et al. 2007). The existing roadless refugia 

(i.e., roadless areas, unroaded portions of OGRs, wilderness) in the project area WAAs 

would be maintained or enhanced under all alternatives (see discussion of small OGR 

modifications under Alternatives 3 and 4 below).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-189

Table WLD-30. Cumulative Road Density on All Ownerships at All Elevations by 

Alternative

Island/WAA

Road 

Status3/, 4/

Road Density by Alternative (mile/mile2)

1/, 2/

Elevation Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315

All 

elevations 

Open 1.86 1.92 1.94 1.91 1.90

Closed 0.59 0.59 0.61 0.57 0.56

Total 2.46 2.51 2.55 2.48 2.46

1318

All 

elevations 

Open 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79

Closed 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11

Total 1.89 1.91 1.91 1.90 1.90

1319

All 

elevations 

Open 0.64 0.68 0.68 0.64 0.65

Closed 0.57 0.63 0.65 0.59 0.61

Total 1.21 1.30 1.32 1.24 1.25

1420

All 

elevations 

Open 1.10 1.12 1.12 1.10 1.10 

Closed 0.67 0.70 0.71 0.69 0.67 

Total 1.77 1.81 1.83 1.80 1.78 

1/ Includes all land ownerships (NFS lands and non-NFS).

2/ WAA 1315 incorporates reasonably foreseeable roads on state lands; WAA 1318 incorporates reasonably foreseeable 

National Forest roads related to the Control Lake project; WAA 1319 incorporates reasonably foreseeable National Forest 

roads related to the Control Lake project; and WAA 1420 incorporates reasonably foreseeable roads on state lands.

3/ Closed roads are defined as all NFS roads with Operating Maintenance Level = 1 plus all decommissioned NFS 

roads; open roads include all other NFS roads and all state and private roads.

4/ Note: all proposed System roads are treated as open roads; however, they will be closed within 1-5 years after harvest

(1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood 

removal from May 1 to November 30).

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects to marten because no timber harvest or road 

building would occur. However, indirectly because no commercial thinning would occur 

under Alternative 1, managed stands would continue to grow slowly and would provide 

little forage or structural diversity for marten during the stem exclusion stage, which may 

last for decades.

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore, there would be 

no associated connectivity or other effects to marten.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 does not propose timber harvest or road building and therefore would not 

contribute to cumulative effects to marten. Taking into account past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects, deep snow marten habitat would be maintained at between 31 and 70 

percent of the original (1954) levels under Alternative 1, depending on the WAA (Table 

WLD-29). The POW ATM would be implemented under Alternative 1 which would 

decrease the number of open roads on the landscape, thereby reducing hunter access and 

associated trapping pressure. However, presence of large, undisturbed blocks of habitat 

on Prince of Wales Island adjacent to the project area (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR 

and Karta Wilderness) would contribute to the maintenance of a sustainable marten 

population.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-190 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would harvest 1,485 total acres of deep snow marten habitat, resulting in a 

decrease ranging from 3 to 6 percent from the existing amount depending on the WAA 

(Table WLD-27). Effects would be greatest in WAA 1420, followed by WAAs 1315, 

1319, and 1318. However, because no commercial thinning would occur under 

Alternative 2, there would be no long-term benefits associated with the promotion of stand 

development toward a stage providing suitable marten habitat. Reductions in deep snow 

marten habitat under Alternative 2 may result in localized reductions the capability of the 

remaining habitat to support marten. 

Alternative 2 would increase total road density on NFS lands to between 0.5 mile per 

square mile (WAA 1318) and 2.0 miles per square mile (WAA 1315) and thus would 

indirectly increase hunter access and associated trapping pressure (Table WLD-28). 

However, the actual increases due to the project would be small (approximately 0.1 mile 

per square mile or less) and 60 percent of the roads constructed under Alternative 2 would 

be temporary, which would limit this effect because they will be decommissioned after 

harvest activities. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 2. Therefore, there would be 

no connectivity or other associated effects to marten.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2 the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would reduce deep snow marten habitat to between 30 and 66 percent 

of the original (1954) levels, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-29). Cumulative 

reductions in habitat would be greatest in WAA 1420, followed by WAAs 1315, 1319, 

and 1318, respectively. Cumulative reduction in marten deer snow winter habitat may 

result in localized declines in marten densities or gaps in distributions. However, presence 

of large, undisturbed blocks of habitat on Prince of Wales Island adjacent to the project 

area (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR and Karta Wilderness), help assure the 

persistence of a sustainable marten population in the project area WAAs.

Cumulative total road densities (all land ownerships) under Alternative 2 would range 

from 1.3 (WAA 1319) to 2.5 (WAAs 1315) miles per square mile (Table WLD-30). The 

POW ATM would be implemented under Alternative 2 which would decrease the number 

of open roads on the landscape, thereby reducing hunter access and associated trapping 

pressure.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would harvest 2,306 total acres of deep snow marten habitat, the most of any 

alternative, resulting in a decrease ranging from 5 to 13 percent from the existing amount 

depending on the WAA (Table WLD-27). Effects would be greatest in WAA 1420, 

followed by WAAs 1319, 1315, and 1318, respectively. Reductions in deep snow marten 

habitat under Alternative 3 may result in localized reductions the capability of the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-191

remaining habitat to support marten. This would be mitigated to some extent through the 

commercial thinning of approximately 2,572 acres under Alternative 3, which would have 

long-term benefits associated with the promotion of stand development toward a stage 

providing suitable marten habitat. 

Alternative 3 would increase total road density on NFS lands to between 0.5 mile per 

square mile (WAA 1318) and 2.0 miles per square mile (WAA 1315; Table WLD-28), the 

most among the alternatives, and thus would indirectly increase hunter access and 

associated trapping pressure. Increases under Alternative 3 would range from less than 

0.1 to 0.2 miles per square mile. However, 69 percent of roads constructed under 

Alternative 3 would be temporary, which would limit this effect because they will be 

decommissioned after harvest activities (Table 2-1). 

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would directly affect marten by reducing 

inclusion of deep snow marten habitat in all VCUs except VCU 5820 (a total reduction of 

1,401 acres; Table OGR-2). Modifications would also reduce inclusion of Class I streams 

in the reserve system (representative of riparian habitat for marten prey) in all VCUs 

except VCU 5820 and 5950; though in some cases this was a tradeoff for including OGR 

acres that contained less young-growth forest or fewer roads (Table OGR-2). Indirectly, 

small OGR modifications would affect functional connectivity between reserves. 

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

Flynn (1991 as cited in Flynn and Schumacher 2001; note that the mean maximum travel 

distance reported in this study was 12 miles [20 km] and that travel distances of up to 39 

miles [65 km] have been documented), and that corridors through POG are optimal, 

functional connectivity between OGRs in the project area for marten under Alternative 3 

would be as follows:

 Small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 would remain functionally connected 

to each other and to the Honker large OGR complex via VCU 5790 though now 

only through a narrow connection; the connection through VCU 5780 and the 

connection between VCU 5840 and the beach now would be available for timber 

which would reduce the suitability of these areas for marten travel corridors;

 The small OGR in VCU 5950 would remain functionally connected (only through 

non-Federal land) to the Honker large OGR complex (though proposed harvest 

units in the area made available due to the OGR modifications would reduce this 

connection), and to the small OGR in VCU 5940 (through roadless); 

 Small OGRs in 5960 and 5972 would remain functionally connected to large 

reserves (Honker large OGR complex and/or Karta Wilderness) and to each other 

(through the Karta Wilderness). Small OGR modifications in VCU 5972 would 

make some acres available for timber harvest;

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5820/5830 would remain functionally connected to 

each other and (via VCU 5820) to the northern piece of the small OGR in VCU 

5810 and then to the small OGR in VCU 5720; connectivity would be improved 

with the addition of small OGR acreage between reserves in VCUs 5810 and 5820.

The OGR modifications in these VCUs have made acres available for timber 

harvest;
3 Environment and Effects 

3-192 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 The southern piece of the small OGR in VCU 5810 would remain functionally 

connected (through roadless) to the Honker large OGR in VCUs 5740 and 5750;

Small OGR modifications in VCU 5810 would make some acres available for 

timber harvest; and

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5850/5860 would remain functionally connected to 

each other but would no longer be connected to the small OGR in VCU 5840 due 

to the presence of harvest units south of Sal Creek and near Sandy Beach. The 

OGR modifications in these VCUs would make acres available for timber harvest.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would reduce deep snow marten habitat to between 27 and 66 percent 

of the original (1954) levels depending on the WAA, the least among the alternatives 

(Table WLD-29). Cumulative effects would be greatest in WAA 1420, followed by 

WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1318, respectively. Cumulative reduction in marten deer snow 

winter habitat may result in localized declines in marten densities, and thus local gaps in 

marten distribution, particularly in WAA 1420 where less than a third of the original 

habitat remains. However, the presence of large, undisturbed blocks of habitat on Prince 

of Wales Island adjacent to the project area (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR and Karta 

Wilderness), help assure the persistence of a sustainable marten population in the project 

area WAAs.

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships) under Alternative 3 would range from 1.3 

(WAA 1319) to 2.6 (WAAs 1315) miles per square mile (Table WLD-30). The POW 

ATM would be implemented under Alternative 3 which would decrease the number of 

open roads on the landscape, thereby reducing hunter access and associated trapping 

pressure.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would harvest 1,208 total acres of deep snow marten habitat, the least of any 

action alternative, resulting in a decrease ranging from 2 to 6 percent from the existing 

amount depending on the WAA (Table WLD-27). Effects would be greatest in WAA 

1319, followed by WAAs 1318, 1420/1315. Reductions in deep snow marten habitat 

under Alternative 4 may result in localized reductions the capability of the remaining 

habitat to support marten. This would be mitigated to some extent through the 

commercial thinning of approximately 2,161 acres under Alternative 4, which would have 

long-term benefits associated with the promotion of stand development toward a stage 

providing suitable marten habitat. 

Alternative 4 would increase total road density on NFS lands to between 0.5 mile per 

square mile (WAA 1318) and 1.9 miles per square mile (WAA 1315; Table WLD-28), the 

second least among the action alternatives, and thus would indirectly increase hunter 

access and associated trapping pressure. However, 87 percent of roads constructed under 

Alternative 4 would be temporary, which would limit this effect because they will be 

decommissioned after harvest activities. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-193

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 would directly affect marten by increasing 

inclusion of deep snow marten habitat (total increase of 912 acres) and Class I streams 

(representative of riparian habitats) in all VCUs except 5820 and 5830 (Table OGR-2). 

They would also increase the inclusion of the largest contiguous blocks of habitat and oldgrowth travel corridors, which are important to marten. Collectively these modifications 

would reduce the amount of marten habitat available for harvest. Indirectly, small OGR 

modifications would affect functional connectivity between reserves. Assuming the 

minimum travel distance for marten of 8 miles (13 km) reported by Flynn (1991 as cited 

in Flynn and Schumacher 2001; note that the mean maximum travel distance reported in 

this study was 12 miles [20 km] and that travel distances of up to 39 miles [65 km] have 

been documented), and that corridors through POG are optimal, functional connectivity 

between OGRs in the project area for marten under Alternative 4 would be as follows:

• Small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 would remain functionally connected 

to each other and to the Honker large OGR complex via VCUs 5780 and 5790 and 

connectivity to the large OGR would be enhanced through a direct connection 

provided by the addition of OGR acreage in VCU 5780; 

• The small OGR in VCU 5950 would remain functionally connected (only through 

non-Federal land) to the Honker large OGR and to the small OGR in VCU 5940; 

OGR modifications in VCU 5950 would enhance connectivity through greater 

inclusion of the POG travel corridor; 

• Small OGRs in 5960 and 5972 would remain functionally connected to large 

reserves (Honker large OGR complex and/or Karta Wilderness) and to each other 

(through the Karta Wilderness) though through a different route;

• Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5820/5830 would remain functionally connected to 

each other and (via VCU 5820) to the northern piece of the small OGR in VCU 

5810 and then the small OGR in VCU 5720; connectivity would be enhanced 

through the addition of small OGR acreage between reserves in VCUs 5810 and 

5820;

• The southern piece of the small OGR in VCU 5810 would remain functionally 

connected (through the roadless) to the Honker large OGR in VCUs 5740 and 

5750; and

• Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5850/5860 would remain functionally connected 

but connectivity to the small OGR in VCU 5840 would be reduced due to the 

presence of harvest units south of Sal Creek.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 4, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would reduce deep snow marten habitat to between 31 and 67 percent 

of the original levels (Table WLD-29). Cumulative reductions in marten habitat would be 

greatest in WAA 1420, followed by WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1318, respectively. 

Cumulative reduction in marten deer snow winter habitat may result in localized declines 

in marten densities, and thus local gaps in marten distribution, particularly in WAA 1420 

where only a third of the original habitat would. However, presence of large, undisturbed 

blocks of habitat on Prince of Wales Island adjacent to the project area (e.g., the Honker 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-194 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Divide large OGR and Karta Wilderness), help assure the persistence of a sustainable 

marten population in the project area WAAs.

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships and at all elevations) under Alternative 4 

would range from 1.24 (WAA 1319) to 2.48 (WAAs 1315) miles per square mile (Table 

WLD-30). The POW ATM would be implemented under Alternative 4 which would 

decrease the number of open roads on the landscape, thereby reducing hunter access and 

associated trapping pressure.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would harvest 1,519 total acres of deep snow marten habitat, resulting in a 

decrease ranging from 2 percent to 6 percent from the existing amount depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-27). The magnitude of effects under Alternative 5 would fall between 

Alternatives 2 and 4. Effects under Alternative 5 would be greatest in WAA 1420/1319, 

followed by WAAs 1318 and 1315, respectively. Reductions in deep snow marten habitat 

under Alternative 5 may result in localized reductions the capability of the remaining 

habitat to support marten. This would be mitigated to some extent through the commercial 

thinning of approximately 2,081 acres under Alternative 5, which would have long-term 

benefits associated with the promotion of stand development toward a stage providing 

suitable marten habitat. 

Alternative 5 would increase total road density on NFS lands to between 0.5 mile per 

square mile (WAA 1315) and 1.9 miles per square mile (WAA 1315; Table WLD-28), the 

least among the action alternatives, and thus would indirectly increase hunter access and 

associated trapping pressure. However, 91 percent of roads constructed under Alternative 

5 would be temporary, which would limit this effect because they will be decommissioned 

after harvest activities. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 5. Therefore there would be 

no connectivity or other associated effects to marten.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 5, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would reduce deep snow marten habitat to between 29 and 67 percent 

of the original levels (Table WLD-29). Cumulative effects would be greatest in WAA 

1420, followed by WAAs 1315, 1319, and 1318, respectively. Cumulative reduction in 

marten deer snow winter habitat may result in localized declines in marten densities, and 

thus local gaps in marten distribution, particularly in WAA 1420 where only a third of the 

original habitat would. However, presence of large, undisturbed blocks of habitat on 

Prince of Wales Island adjacent to the project area (e.g., the Honker Divide large OGR 

and Karta Wilderness), help assure the persistence of a sustainable marten population in 

the project area WAAs.

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships) under Alternative 5 would range from 1.3

(WAA 1319) to 2.5 (WAA 1315) miles per square mile (Table WLD-30). The POW 

ATM would be implemented under Alternative 5 which would decrease the number of 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-195

open roads on the landscape, thereby reducing hunter access and associated trapping 

pressure.

Conclusion

Loss of marten deep snow winter habitat could locally reduce the capacity of the area to 

support marten over the long-term (Flynn and Schumacher 1997). This is most likely in 

VCU 1420, where currently only 31 percent of the original deep snow marten habitat 

remains, with minor reductions (1 to 4 percent) occurring under each of the action

alternatives. All of the alternatives would increase road densities which would indirectly 

affect marten by providing greater access for trapping and thus result in more demand on 

the marten population. However, all new and reconstructed roads under all alternatives 

would be closed within 1 to 5 years of timber harvest activities completion (i.e., 1 to 5 

years after timber sale activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to 

allow for firewood removal from May 1 to November 30). Functional connectivity for 

marten between OGRs would be maintained under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. Small OGR 

modifications under Alternative 3 would reduce functional connectivity between the 

Honker large OGR and small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 and between small 

OGRs in VCUs 5850 and 5840; modifications in other VCUs would maintain the existing 

level of connectivity. Small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would also reduce the 

amount of deep snow marten habitat included in the reserve system. Small OGR 

modifications under Alternative 4 would maintain or enhance functional connectivity in 

all VCUs, except in VCU 5850; they would also increase the amount of deep snow marten 

habitat included in the reserve system. Effects to marten would be greatest under 

Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 1.

Black Bear 

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Preferred habitats for black bears, which include coastal, estuarine, and riparian areas, are 

protected by the Forest Plan conservation strategy. Therefore, none of the alternatives are 

expected to substantially affect black bear habitat (see discussions under Alternatives 3 

and 4 pertaining to small OGR modifications). However, timber harvest has the potential 

to adversely affect black bears through activities that create noise or disturbance. There 

are no known black bear dens within any of the proposed harvest units. For known den 

sites within the project area close to harvest units, a 300-foot buffer was applied to 

minimize disturbance and to maintain known denning sites. 

Timber harvest would increase forage availability for black bears over the short-term in 

the resulting early-successional plant communities. However, this food source typically 

lasts about 25 years post-logging in association with canopy closure. Over the long-term, 

timber harvest would decrease habitat suitability for black bears, due to the reduced 

understory forage in young-growth stands and loss of denning habitat in upland areas 

(e.g., large woody structures such as hollow logs and hollow living trees; Davies et al. 

2012). Under all alternatives, direct impacts would be greatest in WAA 1319 where the 

most timber harvest is proposed (Table WLD-31). 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-196 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Timber harvest projects may also indirectly increase the susceptibility of black bears to 

over-harvest if road access is increased or improved. Although there is no road density 

threshold for black bears, it can be assumed that an increase in open roads, particularly in 

open habitats such as clearcuts, muskegs, and alpine areas, where bears forage and are 

easier to see, increases the potential for human-bear interactions. The amount of road 

access, quantified in terms of the amount of road construction and reconstruction proposed 

under each alternative, is representative of the potential for over-hunting (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). Under all alternatives, the potential for increased hunter access would be 

greatest in WAA 1319 where the most roads are proposed.

Table WLD-31. Productive Old-growth Harvest by WAA under each Alternative

WAA

Original (1954) 

Acres

2011

Acres Impacted and Percent Reduction from 

Existing

Acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

% 

Original

1315 53,586 27,676 52 0 1,159

(-4%)

1,699

(-6%)

783

(-3%)

1,073

(-4%)

1318 45,408 32,286 71 0 699

(-2%)

807

(-2%)

483

(-1%)

623

(-2%)

1319 61,677 47,444 77 0 2,050

(-4%)

2,808

(-6%)

2,039

(-4%)

2,199

(-5%)

1420 32,071 18,027 56 0 883

(-5%)

1,382

(-8%)

804

(-4%)

953

(-5%)

Total 0 4,792 6,696 4,109 4,848

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Cumulative POG harvest under the action alternatives would reduce the percent of 

original (1954) POG remaining within the project area WAAs (Table WLD-32). Under 

all alternatives, cumulative reductions in habitat would be greatest in WAA 1315, 

followed by WAAs 1420, 1318, and 1319, respectively. This would contribute to similar 

effects resulting from ongoing and foreseeable harvest on NFS, state, and private lands. 

After timber harvest there would be a short-term (about 25 years) increase in the forage 

availability for bears, which may result in short-term population growth (Porter 2008). 

However, over the long-term (25-150 years), as the forest canopy fills, forage species 

would be reduced. This reduction in forage production may reduce carrying capacity for 

bears (Porter 2008). A main area of concern on Prince of Wales Island continues to be 

whether long-term bear carrying capacity can be maintained in the face of additional 

timber harvest and the transition of harvested stands to the stem exclusion stage which can 

last up to 150 years or more (Porter 2008). Young-growth stands generally lack large 

hollow trees and root masses important for denning, though these features would be 

protected in harvested stands to some extent on NFS lands under the Forest Plan. 

Commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, in combination with thinning of 

young-growth stands on NFS lands (under the Luck Lake/Eagle Creek and North Thorne 

River watershed restoration plans) would improve habitat conditions for black bears over 

the short-term by increasing the period during which forage is available and over the longterm promote the development of larger trees which could provide suitable den sites.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-197

Table WLD-32. Cumulative POG Harvest by WAA

WAA

1954 

Acres

2012 

Acres

% 

Original

Cumulative Percent Original (1954) POG Remaining1/

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

1315 53,586 27,676 52 50 48 47 48 48

1318 45,408 32,286 71 71 69 69 70 70

1319 61,677 47,444 77 76 73 72 73 73

1420 32,071 18,027 56 56 53 52 53 53

1/ WAA 1315 incorporates reasonably foreseeable harvest on state lands and misc. National Forest harvest; WAA 1318 

incorporates reasonably foreseeable National Forest harvest (Control Lake project and misc. projects); WAA 1319 

incorporates reasonably foreseeable National Forest harvest (Control Lake project and misc. projects); and WAA 1420 

incorporates reasonably foreseeable harvest on state lands and misc. 

Road building associated with past timber harvest in the project area WAAs has resulted 

in some of the highest road densities in Southeast Alaska. Cumulative total road densities 

on all land ownerships would increase under all alternatives, and would be greatest in 

WAA 1315, followed by WAAs 1420, 1319, and 1318, respectively (Table WLD-30). 

Increased harvest of bears due to human access along roads would be mitigated to some 

extent through the closure of system roads within 1 to 5 years of completion of timber sale 

activities (1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the roads will remain open to High 

Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood removal from May 1 to November 30 (see 

Transportation section for additional detail). Other timber harvest projects on NFS and 

state lands that involve road construction also have the potential to result in road-related 

effects to black bears. However, in the foreseeable future, additional road storage and 

decommissioning would occur with implementation of the Prince of Wales ATM, as 

funding allows. Projected total road densities (all lands) under the Prince of Wales ATM 

are 1.9 miles per square mile in WAA 1315, 1.8 miles per square mile in WAAs 1318 and 

1420, and 1.0 mile per square mile in WAA 1319.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, no timber would be harvested and new roads would be constructed or 

reconstructed; therefore, this alternative would have no direct effects to black bears. 

However, overtime the existing early-successional stands would mature, reducing forage 

availability for black bears. Alternative 1 would also not have the beneficial effect of 

commercial thinning which would improve forage availability in young-growth stands for 

black bears. 

Hunter access would not change as a result of the project, with total NFS road miles (open 

and closed) ranging from 43 miles in VCU 1315 to 192 miles in VCU 1420. Road 

densities in the project area WAAs would remain at 0.5 to 1.9 miles per square mile 

(Table WLD-28). Therefore no increase in human access would occur.

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 1. Values provided to black 

bears provided by the current OGRs are described in the affected environment section. 

Therefore there would be no associated effects to black bears.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would not harvest POG or result in additional roads, and therefore would not 

contribute to cumulative effects to black bears. Taking into account past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects Alternative 1 would maintain 50 to 76 percent of the original (1954) 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-198 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

POG within the project area WAAs (Table WLD-32). Although Alternative 1 would not 

contribute to the benefits of commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning associated 

with the Tongass PCT program and other forest restoration projects would benefit black 

bears through increased forage availability in young-growth stands.

Cumulative total road densities (all landownerships) in the project area WAAs would 

range from 1.2 to 2.5 miles per square mile (Table WLD-30). Alternative 1 would not 

contribute to an increase in harvest of bears.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 2, approximately 4,792 total acres of POG would be harvested, 

resulting in a reduction of 2 to 5 percent from existing conditions depending on the WAA 

(Table WLD-31). This would decrease forage availability for bears over the long-term. 

Effects would be greatest in WAA 1420 followed by WAAs 1315/1319 and 1318, 

respectively. Although Alternative 2 would not contribute to the benefits of commercial 

thinning, pre-commercial thinning associated under the Tongass PCT program and other 

forest restoration projects would benefit black bears through increased forage availability. 

Under Alternative 2, 43 miles of roads would be constructed and 20 miles would be 

reconstructed (Table 2-1). Road densities in the project area WAAs would range from 0.5 

to 2.0 miles per square mile (Table WLD-28). Thus, Alternative 3 would only locally 

increase human access in the project area WAAs.

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 2. Therefore, there would be 

no associated effects to black bears.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 48 and 73 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within the project area WAAs (Table WLD-32). Thus, Alternative 2 may 

result in local declines in black bear carrying capacity, and thus in the black bear 

population, due to reduced forage availability. Although Alternative 2 would not 

contribute to the benefits of commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning associated 

with the Tongass PCT program and other forest restoration projects would benefit black 

bears through increased forage availability.

Cumulative total road density (all land ownerships) in the project area WAAs would range 

from 1.3 to 2.5 miles per square mile (Table WLD-30). Because all project area roads 

would be closed within 1 to 5 years of timber harvest (1 to 5 years after timber sale 

activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood 

removal from May 1 to November 30), Alternative 2 would not be expected to 

substantially affect the harvest of black bears. Thus, Alternative 2 may result in local 

declines in the black bear population over the long-term.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-199

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 3, approximately 6,696 total acres of POG would be harvested, the 

most among the action alternatives, resulting in a reduction of 2 to 8 percent from existing 

conditions by WAA (Table WLD-31). This would decrease forage availability for bears 

over the long-term. However, thinning of approximately 2,572 acres under Alternative 3 

would extend the time during which forage is available in young-growth stands for black 

bears. 

Under Alternative 3, 66 miles of roads would be constructed and 48 miles would be 

reconstructed, the most among the action alternatives (Table 2-1). Road densities in the 

project area WAAs would range from 0.5 to 2.0 miles per square mile (Table WLD-28).

Thus, Alternative 3 would only locally increase human access in the project area WAAs.

Small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 3 would not affect black bears. 

Values provided to black bears by the current OGRs are described in the affected 

environment section. Connectivity to beach, estuary, and shoreline habitats would 

continue to be provided by the Forest Plan conservation strategy. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 47 and 72 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within the project area WAAs (Table WLD-32). Thus, Alternative 3 may 

result in local declines in black bear carrying capacity, and thus in the black bear 

population, due to reduced forage availability. Commercial thinning under Alternative 3 

would contribute to the beneficial effects to black bear habitat associated with ongoing 

and foreseeable young-growth management (PCT) and riparian thinning on NFS lands.

Cumulative total road density (all land ownerships) in the project area WAAs would range 

from 1.3 to 2.6 miles per square mile (WLD-30). Because all project area roads would be 

closed within 1 to 5 years of timber harvest (1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the 

roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood removal from 

May 1 to November 30), Alternative 3 would not be expected to substantially affect the 

harvest of black bears.

Small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 3 would generally reduce 

connectivity to shoreline and riparian habitats preferred by black bears; though these 

habitats are protected by the Forest Plan conservation strategy. However, riparian 

thinning conducted under the Cobble Watershed (Ratz and Cobble creeks), Luck 

Creek/Eagle Creek, and North Thorne watershed restoration plans would improve black 

bear habitat in the VCUs where the small OGR modifications are proposed. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 4, approximately 4,109 total acres of POG would be harvested, the least 

among the alternatives, resulting in a reduction of 1 to 4 percent from existing conditions 

by WAA (Table WLD-31). This would decrease forage availability for bears over the 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-200 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

long-term. However, thinning of approximately 2,161 acres under Alternative 4 would 

extend the time during which forage is available in young-growth stands for black bears. 

Under Alternative 4, 26 miles of roads would be constructed and 25 miles would be

reconstructed, the least among the action alternatives (Table 2-1). Road densities in the 

project area WAAs would range from 0.5 to 1.9 miles per square mile (Table WLD-28).

With this minor increase, Alternative 4 would only locally increase human access in the 

project area WAAs.

Small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 4 would not affect black bears. 

Values provided to black bears by the current OGRs are described in the affected 

environment section. Connectivity to beach, estuary, and shoreline habitats would 

continue to be provided by the Forest Plan conservation strategy.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 4, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 48 and 73 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within the project area WAAs (Table WLD-32). Thus, Alternative 4 may 

result in local declines in black bear carrying capacity, and thus in the black bear 

population, due to reduced forage availability. Commercial thinning under Alternative 4 

would contribute to the beneficial effects to black bear habitat associated with ongoing 

and foreseeable young-growth management (PCT and riparian thinning) on NFS lands.

Cumulative total road density in the project area WAAs would range from 1.2 to 2.5 miles 

per square mile (WLD-30). Because all project area roads would be closed within 1 to 5 

years of timber harvest (1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the roads will remain open 

to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood removal from May 1 to November 30), 

Alternative 4 would not be expected to substantially increase harvest of black bears.

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 would enhance connectivity to shoreline 

and riparian habitats preferred by black bears. This would contribute to the beneficial 

effects to black bears (increased forage availability) associated with riparian thinning 

conducted under the Cobble Watershed (Ratz and Cobble creeks), Luck Creek/Eagle 

Creek, and North Thorne watershed restoration plans in the VCUs where OGR 

modifications are proposed.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 5, approximately 4,848 total acres of POG would be harvested, 

resulting in a reduction of 2 to 5 percent from existing conditions by WAA (Table WLD21). Effects would range between Alternatives 2 and 4. This would decrease forage 

availability for bears over the long-term. However, thinning of approximately 2,081 acres 

under Alternative 5 would extend the time during which forage is available in younggrowth stands for black bears. 

Under Alternative 5, 20 miles of roads would be constructed and 18 miles would be 

reconstructed (Table 2-1). Road densities in the project area WAAs would range from 0.5

to 1.9 miles per square mile (Table WLD-28). With this minor increase, Alternative 5

would only locally increase human access in the project area WAAs.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-201

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 5. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to black bears.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 5, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 48 and 73 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within the project area WAAs (Table WLD-32). Thus, Alternative 5 may 

result in local declines in black bear carrying capacity, and thus in the black bear 

population, due to reduced forage availability. Commercial thinning under Alternative 5 

would contribute to the beneficial effects to black bear habitat associated with ongoing 

and foreseeable young-growth management (PCT and riparian thinning) on NFS lands.

Cumulative total road density in the project area WAAs would range from 1.3 to 2.5 miles 

per square mile (WLD-30). Because all project area roads would be closed within 1 to 5 

years of timber harvest (1 to 5 years after timber sale activities the roads will remain open 

to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood removal from May 1 to November 30),

Alternative 5 would not be expected to substantially increase harvest of black bears.

Conclusion

All of the action alternatives would reduce the amount remaining POG and increase road 

densities, with the greatest being under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 

1 (Tables WLD-31 and WLD-32). The black bear habitat in GMU 2 is thought to be 

some of the highest quality in Southeast Alaska, particularly in the northern portion of 

Prince of Wales Island, including the project area WAAs (Wood 1990). However, over 

the long term there is the potential for a decline in bear numbers as previously harvested 

stands (approximately 19,198 acres in the project area) move into the stem exclusion stage 

and forage availability is reduced (Porter 2008). Preferred habitats for black bears would 

continue to be protected on NFS lands by beach, estuary, and stream buffers; old-growth 

reserves; and other non-development LUDs. 

Red-breasted Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper 

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Timber harvest and associated activities under all action alternatives have the potential to 

disturb nesting adults and young, destroy nests, reduce habitat availability or cause nest 

abandonment. Because these species are year-round residents, timber harvest activities 

could also disturb and displace birds during the non-breeding season. 

Direct effects to the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper would 

also result from the removal of nesting and foraging habitat (POG forest; Tables WLD-12 

and WLD-14). These species rely on structural components (e.g., large diameter trees, 

snags) of the old-growth forest ecosystem for nesting and foraging. Red-breasted 

sapsuckers are most closely associated with low-volume old-growth; whereas hairy 

woodpeckers and brown creepers are associated with high-volume and large-tree, 

respectively. All harvest prescriptions and methods would reduce the number of large 

trees; however, uneven-aged harvest would retain some structural components suitable for 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-202 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

these species. It is assumed that alternatives that harvest more POG would have greater 

effects to these species. 

Indirect effects to these species would be associated with fragmentation and the reduction 

in POG patch sizes (Table WLD-16). Fragmentation resulting from timber harvest 

increases edge habitat and reduces the amount of interior forest habitat, reducing habitat 

suitability for these species (Kissling and Garton 2008). Alternatives that result in the 

greatest increase in the number of patches in the smallest size classes would be expected 

to have greater effects to the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown 

creeper. Indirectly, timber harvest and road building increase fragmentation, reducing the 

effectiveness of interior forest habitat and creating habitat edges along which there may be 

increased rates of nest predation by avian predators. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Past timber harvest has reduced the amount of foraging and nesting habitat available in the 

project area for the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper. 

Fragmentation resulting from past timber harvest has also reduced patch sizes, decreasing 

the suitability of remaining habitat through the loss of interior forest conditions. All of the 

action alternatives would contribute to these effects (Table WLD-15). Ongoing and 

foreseeable timber harvest on NFS lands, including microsales and free use (albeit minor), 

and state lands would result in additional habitat loss and associated fragmentation. 

Young-growth treatments on NFS lands may provide additional foraging opportunities for 

cavity nesters through the increase in downed wood and decaying slash. Restoration 

activities that involve thinning would have similar effects. Under all alternatives, the 

Forest Plan conservation strategy would maintain habitats for these species.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects to red-breasted sapsucker, hairy 

woodpecker, and brown creeper because there would be no harvest of POG (Tables WLD12 and WLD-14). The project area would continue to be influenced by natural 

disturbance processes (i.e., wind events, and landslides) which could create snag habitat 

for these species. Under Alternative 1 no commercial thinning would occur, and therefore 

there would be no potential benefits associated additional foraging opportunities 

(decaying slash), and the development of larger trees. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore there would be 

no associated effects to cavity nesters. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would make no contribution to cumulative impacts to these species because 

no action would be undertaken. Under Alternative 1 past, ongoing, and foreseeable 

projects would collectively maintain 67 and 33 percent of the original (1954) total and 

large-tree POG present in the project area, respectively (Table WLD-15). Thus, 

populations of these species have likely declined to some extent in the project area, with 

resulting gaps in species distributions. Pre-commercial thinning on NFS lands would 

benefit these species by accelerating the development of large conifers that over time 

could provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-203

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would harvest 4,972 acres of POG, including 1,318 acres of large-tree POG, 

retaining 95 and 94 percent of the amounts of these habitats currently available in the 

project area, respectively (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-14). Alternative 2 would result in a 

120 percent increase in the number of POG patches (all size categories) in the project area 

(Table WLD-25). Therefore, Alternative 2 would locally reduce the amount of suitable 

nesting and foraging habitat available for these species. Under Alternative 2, no 

commercial thinning would occur, and therefore there would be no potential benefits 

associated with additional foraging opportunities (decaying slash).

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 2. Therefore, there would be 

no associated effects to cavity nesters.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain 63 and 31 percent of the original (1954) 

total and large-tree POG present in the project area, respectively (Table WLD-15). 

Cumulative reductions in nesting and foraging habitat under Alternative 2 could result in 

local declines in cavity nester populations due to reduced habitat availability, and thus in 

gaps in the distribution of these species. Pre-commercial thinning on NFS lands would 

benefit these species by accelerating the development of large conifers that over time 

could provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would have the greatest effects to the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy 

woodpecker, and brown creeper among the alternatives. Alternative 3 would harvest 

6,696 acres of POG, including 1,944 acres of large-tree POG, retaining 93 and 91 percent 

of the amounts of these habitats currently available in the project area, respectively 

(Tables WLD-12 and WLD-14). Alternative 3 would result in a 140 percent increase in 

the number of POG patches (all size categories) in the project area (Table WLD-16). 

Therefore, Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of suitable nesting and foraging habitat 

available for these species. Under Alternative 3, commercial thinning in young-growth 

stands may reduce conditions that promote snag development in younger stands. 

Small OGR modification proposed under Alternative 3 would increase the amount of 

suitable cavity nester habitat (POG) included within small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, 

5820, 5830, and 5950; modifications in VCUs 5810, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972 would 

decrease the amount of POG within the reserve system (Table OGR-2). 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain 62 and 30 percent of the original (1954) 

total and large-tree POG present in the project area, respectively, the least among the 

alternatives (Table WLD-15). The cumulative reduction in nesting and foraging habitat 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-204 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

could result in local declines in cavity nester populations due to reduced habitat 

availability, and thus in gaps in the distribution of these species. Commercial thinning 

under Alternative 3 may contribute to the beneficial effects resulting from other younggrowth treatments and restoration activities on NFS lands that involved thinning would 

accelerate the development of large conifers that provide suitable foraging and nesting 

habitat for cavity nesters. Small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would result in a 

net reduction of 1,142 acres of POG inclusion in small OGRs. These areas would become 

available for timber harvest and thus could result in additional habitat loss for cavity 

nesters, contributing to the effects of ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest projects.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would have the least effects to the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, 

and brown creeper among the alternatives. Alternative 4 would harvest 4,109 acres of 

POG, including 1,210 acres of large-tree POG, retaining 96 and 95 percent of these habitats 

currently available in the project area, respectively (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-14). 

Alternative 4 would result in an 89 percent increase in the number of POG patches (all size 

categories) in the project area (Table WLD-16). Therefore, Alternative 4 would reduce the 

amount of suitable habitat available for these species. Under Alternative 4, commercial 

thinning in young-growth stands may reduce conditions that promote snag development in 

younger stands. 

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 in all VCUs except VCU 5972 would 

increase the amount of POG included; however, the OGR location in VCU 5972 is in the 

biologically preferred location in Alternative 4 (Table OGR-2). This would increase the 

amount of suitable cavity nester habitat maintained within the reserve system. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 4, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain 63 and 31 percent of the original (1954) 

total and large-tree POG present in the project area, respectively, the most among the 

action alternatives (Table WLD-15). This reduction could result in local declines in cavity 

nester populations due to reduced habitat availability, and thus in additional gaps in the 

distribution of these species. Commercial thinning under Alternative 4 may contribute to 

the beneficial effects resulting from other young-growth treatments and restoration

activities on NFS lands that involve pre-commercial or riparian thinning, which would 

accelerate the development of large conifers that provide suitable foraging and nesting 

habitat for cavity nesters. Small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 would result in a 

net increase of 1,925 acres of POG maintained in small OGRs, which collectively would 

increase the amount of cavity nester habitat in the project area maintained in the reserve 

system. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-205

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would harvest 4,848 acres POG, including 1,306 acres of large-tree POG, 

retaining 95 and 94 percent of these habitats currently available in the project area (Tables 

WLD-12 and WLD-14). Effects of Alternative 5 rank between Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Alternative 5 would result in a 117 percent increase in the number of POG patches (all 

size categories) in the project area (Table WLD-16). Therefore, Alternative 2 would 

reduce the amount of suitable habitat available for these species. Under Alternative 5, 

commercial thinning in young-growth stands may reduce conditions that promote snag 

development in younger stands. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 5. Therefore, there would be 

no associated effects to cavity nesters.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 5, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain 63 and 31 percent of the original (1954) 

total and large-tree POG present in the project area, respectively (Table WLD-15). This 

reduction could result in local declines in cavity nester populations due to reduced habitat 

availability, and thus in additional gaps in the distribution of these species. Commercial 

thinning under Alternative 5 may contribute to the beneficial effects resulting from other 

young-growth treatments and restoration activities on NFS lands that involve precommercial or riparian thinning, which would accelerate the development of large 

conifers that provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for cavity nesters. 

Conclusion

All action alternatives would reduce suitable cavity nesting habitat through the removal of 

POG forest and fragmentation. Impacts would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed 

by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 1. Habitat for the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, 

and brown creeper would be maintained in the project area under the Forest Plan 

conservation strategy; however, small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would 

reduce the amount of cavity-nester habitat (POG forest including snags and large trees) 

maintained within the reserve system that would become available for harvest. 

Vancouver Canada Goose

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

The Vancouver Canada goose nests and rears its broods in coastal forested habitats near 

water sources and winters along marine waters. This species uses both forested and unforested wetlands. Forest Plan standards and guidelines that maintain habitats are beach 

and estuary buffers and riparian and lake buffers. Protection of wetlands and areas of 

concentrated waterfowl use is also provided for under the Waterfowl and Shorebird 

Habitat standards and guidelines; though there are no such areas identified in the project 

area. 

Timber harvest and associated activities would have the potential to affect Vancouver 

Canada geese through noise and disturbance if activities occur in the vicinity of nest sites. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-206 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Timber harvest would also affect this species through the removal of forested wetlands. 

Conversion of these stands to young growth would be expected to lower the ability of this 

habitat to support Vancouver Canada geese. It is assumed that alternatives that harvest the 

most forested wetlands would have the greatest effects to Vancouver Canada geese (Table 

WET-2).

Conversion of stands to young-growth as well as the conversion of the young growth to 

stem exclusion would be expected to lower the ability of this habitat to support Vancouver 

Canada geese. Commercial thinning proposed to occur in Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would 

help to mitigate the effects of timber harvest by reducing the time that the stands would be 

in stem exclusion stage. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Timber harvest in Vancouver Canada goose habitat has generally been minimal because 

these sites are fairly unproductive for timber harvest. Approximately 19 percent of the 

forested wetlands in the project area have been previously harvested or filled for road 

building (see Wetlands section of the DEIS for additional discussion; Table WET-2). The 

action alternatives would make minor contribution to these effects.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects to the Vancouver Canada goose 

because no action would be undertaken (Table WET-2). 

Cumulative Effects 

The conversion of previously harvested stands to stem exclusion would be expected to 

lower the ability of this habitat to support Vancouver Canada geese. Alternative 1 would 

make minimal contribution to cumulative effects to the Vancouver Canada goose because 

no action would be undertaken. No commercial thinning would occur under Alternative 

1. Under Alternative 1, the Forest Plan conservation strategy would continue to maintain 

habitat for the Vancouver Canada.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would affect the greatest amount of forested wetlands and thus the greatest 

effects to the Vancouver Canada goose among the alternatives (2,850 acres), followed by 

Alternative 5 (2,092 acres), Alternative 2 (1,793 acres), and Alternative 4 (1,673 acres). 

This represents 5.0, 3.6, 3.1, and 2.9 percent of the existing forested wetlands in the 

project area, respectively (Table WET-2; see the Wetlands section of the DEIS for 

additional discussion of wetland impacts). Thus, all alternatives would reduce the amount 

of habitat available for Vancouver Canada geese.

Commercial thinning in forested wetlands, proposed under Alternatives 3 (475 acres), 4 

(442 acres), and 5 (435 acres) would have the potential to result in an additional, localized 

sources of noise and disturbance during implementation. However, commercial thinning 

would help to mitigate the effects of timber harvest by reducing the time that the stands 

would be in stem exclusion stage. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-207

Cumulative Effects

Taking into account past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects, Alternative 3 would have the 

greatest cumulative effects to forested wetlands (24 percent of original forested wetlands 

impacted, including impacts due to harvest and roads), followed by Alternatives 2 and 5 

(22 percent of original forested wetlands, including impacts due to harvest and roads), and 

Alternative 4 (23 percent of original forested wetlands; see the Wetlands section of the 

DEIS for additional discussion). Timber harvest, as well as commercial thinning 

conducted under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, would contribute to noise and disturbance 

resulting from other ongoing and foreseeable projects within and near forested wetlands 

which could affect nesting geese. However commercial thinning would contribute to the 

beneficial effects of other thinning projects in the project area would reduce the time that 

the stands would be in stem exclusion stage. All activities on NFS lands would implement 

Forest Plan standard and guidelines which maintain habitat for this species. 

Conclusion

All action alternatives would result in an additional reduction (3 to 5 percent) in 

Vancouver Canada goose habitat. Effects would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed 

by Alternatives 5, 2, 4, and 1. However, habitat for this species would be maintained by 

the Forest Plan conservation strategy.

Other Species of Concern

Marbled Murrelet

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Marbled murrelets nest in structurally complex old-growth forest stands (Piatt et al. 2006). 

As a result, timber harvesting and road construction within POG forest stands (especially 

high-volume POG) can remove nest trees or disturb nesting birds. Indirectly, timber 

harvest and road building increase fragmentation, reducing the effectiveness of interior 

forest habitat and creating habitat edges along which there may be increased rates of nest 

predation by avian predators. Alternatives that harvest the most POG and result in the 

greatest increase in the number of small POG patches on the landscape would be expected 

to have the greatest direct and indirect effects to marbled murrelets (Tables WLD-12 and 

WLD-14). Under all alternatives, marbled murrelet nesting habitat would be protected by 

the Forest Plan conservation strategy. If marbled murrelet nests are discovered during 

project implementation, appropriate Forest Plan standards and guidelines would apply, 

including establishment of a nest buffer. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Past timber harvest and associated activities have reduced the amount of suitable marbled 

murrelet nesting habitat (POG) to 67 percent of the original (1954) amount within the 

project area (Table WLD-15). The action alternatives would contribute to these effects. 

Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest on NFS and state lands would also remove 

nesting habitat and increase the level of fragmentation on the landscape. Commercial 

thinning under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, in combination with young-growth treatments and 

thinning projects (e.g., those conducted under the Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and 

North Thorne watershed restoration plans) on NFS lands would improve marbled murrelet 

habitat over the long term by promoting stand development including large trees. Effects 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-208 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

to nesting murrelets associated with activities on NFS lands would be minimized through 

the implementation of Forest Plan Marbled Murrelet standards and guidelines.

Alternative 1

Direct,Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the marbled murrelet 

because no action would be undertaken. Effects to POG and patch size would be the same 

as described in the Red-breasted sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper 

subsection above.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

All of the action alternatives would reduce the amount of suitable marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat in the project area and increase fragmentation. An analysis of POG 

harvest, POG patch creation (fragmentation), and other effects to POG forests resulting 

from the alternative are described above in the Red-breasted Sapsucker, Hairy 

Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper subsection. Effects would be greatest under Alternative 

3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4 (Table WLD-12 and WLD-16). Small OGR 

modifications under Alternative 3 would generally reduce inclusion of marbled murrelet 

habitat in the reserve system (reduction of 669 acres); whereas inclusion would increase 

with modifications proposed under Alternative 4 (425 acres; Table OGR-2). The existing

system of small OGRs would be maintained under Alternatives 2 and 5.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects to POG and patch size in the project area by alternative are described 

above in the Red-breasted Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper subsection. 

The Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects 

would result in an additional reduction of 5 percent or less of the original (1954) POG in 

the project area under any of the action alternatives, resulting in a cumulative reduction to 

62 to 63 percent of 1954 levels (Table WLD-15). Thus, Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 may 

result in local declines in the marbled murrelet population due to the reduced availability 

of nesting habitat. However, under Alternatives 2, 4 (see Issue 2 discussion), and 5 the 

Forest Plan conservation strategy would continue to provide habitat for this species in the 

project area. 

Conclusion

All the action alternatives have the potential to disturb nesting birds and would remove 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat. Effects would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed 

by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 1. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for nest buffers would 

be implemented under all alternatives which would minimize impacts to this species if a 

nest is discovered during project implementation.

Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Prince of Wales flying squirrels are limited by their habitat requirements and dispersal 

capabilities. Densities of flying squirrels are linked to structural features common in POG 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-209

forests such as large-diameter downed woody debris, snags, and tall trees (Smith et al. 

2004) and abundance has been shown to be reduced by forestry practices that influenced 

the structure or age of residual stands (Smith et al. 2011). Additionally, due to their 

gliding locomotion, forest openings resulting from timber harvest can act as dispersal 

barriers if flying squirrels are not able to traverse openings (Flaherty et al. 2008, 2010; 

Smith et al. 2011). Fragmentation resulting from timber harvest has the potential to 

reduce the value of residual patches of old growth in the matrix if they become isolated 

from adjacent patches either by distance or habitat type (young growth). The duration of 

reduced habitat suitability following timber harvest depends in part on the time required 

for harvested stands to regenerate. Habitat suitability for flying squirrels would be 

expected to return more quickly under uneven-aged management (in 10-20 years), where 

some forest cover and structure are retained in the stand, than under even-aged 

management (in 60+ years; Smith and Holloway 2011). 

Functional connectivity between OGRs, and its relationship to dispersal probability, is 

critical to the sustainability of Prince of Wales flying squirrel populations. At the 

landscape level, populations are sustained by the network of medium and large OGRs 

which support local source populations, interconnected by small OGRs which function as 

stepping stones between them (Smith et al. 2011).

All action alternatives would reduce the quality and quantity of flying squirrel nesting, 

foraging, and denning habitat in the project area but effects would be expected to be 

greatest under alternatives that propose the most POG harvest (Table WLD-12). 

Fragmentation would also increase under all action alternatives. Alternatives resulting in 

the greatest increase in the number of small POG patches would be expected to have the 

greatest effects to flying squirrels (Table WLD-16). 

Commercial thinning proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would benefit flying 

squirrels over the short-term by increasing canopy height and creating more open space in 

the midstory - conditions which facilitate efficient gliding (Scheib et al. 2006). Over the 

long-term, commercial thinning would promote stand development toward conditions 

capable of supporting breeding flying squirrels and improve the functional connectivity 

between old-growth reserves (Smith et al. 2011). 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Past timber harvest has reduced the amount of flying squirrel denning, nesting, and 

foraging habitat available in the project area VCUs. Fragmentation resulting from past 

timber harvest has also reduced patch sizes, decreasing the suitability of remaining habitat 

through the loss of interior forest conditions. All of the action alternatives would 

contribute to these effects. Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest on NFS lands and 

state lands would result in additional habitat loss and associated fragmentation. The 

cumulative reduction in POG and connectivity within the matrix has the potential to 

isolate subpopulations of flying squirrels (Table WLD-15). Impacts would be greatest in 

VCUs where there has already been substantial past harvest, and large young-growth 

stands or large clearcuts (>0.6 mi or 1 km across) are already present which may act as 

barriers to flying squirrel movements. Young-growth treatments on NFS lands and 

restoration projects (i.e., those conducted under the Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and 

North Thorne watershed restoration plans) that involve thinning, in combination with the 

commercial thinning proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, would improve habitat 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-210 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

quality for flying squirrels creating structural conditions in young-growth stands that are 

conducive to flying squirrel dispersal (i.e., through which flying squirrels can glide). 

Activities on NFS lands would implement the Forest Plan conservation strategy which 

would maintain habitat for flying squirrels. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects to the Prince of Wales flying squirrel because 

no POG would be harvested. However, because no commercial thinning would occur 

under Alternative 1, managed stands would continue to grow slowly and would provide 

little suitable habitat for flying squirrels during the stem exclusion stage, which may last 

for 25-150 years. Under Alternative 1, the project area would continue to be subject to

natural disturbances (i.e., windthrow), which would create gaps of various sizes over time. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 1. Based on the minimum 

reserve spacing suggested by Smith et al. (2011) of 0.6 mile (1 km) the existing functional 

connectivity within the project area would remain under Alternative 1 as follows:

 Small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 would be functionally connected to 

each other and to the Honker large OGR complex via VCU 5780;

 Small OGRs in VCUs 5950 would be functionally connected (only through its 

northeast corner through non-Federal land) to the Honker large OGR complex, and 

to the small OGR in VCU 5940; 

 Small OGRs in 5960 and 5972 would remain functionally connected to large 

reserves (Honker large OGR complex or Karta Wilderness);

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5820/5830 and 5850/5860 would remain 

functionally connected to each other, but not to any larger reserve; and

 The two pieces of the small OGR in VCU 5810 would remain functionally 

connected to each other through the stream buffer along Luck Creek and to a 

larger reserve through roadless acres, and the northern piece of the small OGR 

would remain functionally connected to the small OGR in VCU 5720.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1 past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would collectively maintain 

between 40 and 100 percent of the original (1954) POG within individual VCUs (Table 

WLD-15). A summary of cumulative effects by VCU is provided in Table WLD-15. 

Although Alternative 1 would not involve commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning 

conducted in the project area under the Tongass PCT program and thinning implemented 

under various watershed restoration plans (e.g., Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and 

North Thorne) would promote the development of suitable denning, nesting, and foraging 

habitat and facilitate flying squirrel movement through young-growth stands. 

Alternatives 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would maintain at least 85 percent of the POG currently available in the 

project area VCUs (Table WLD-12). Impacts by VCU are summarized in Table WLD-12. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-211

Effects would be greatest in VCUs 5950, 5972, and 5840 where the most harvest is 

proposed, which would maintain 90, 92, and 89 percent of the existing POG in these 

VCUs, respectively. Alternative 2 would result in a 120 percent increase in the number of 

POG patches (all size categories) in the project area which would increase fragmentation 

and reduce connectivity (Table WLD-16). This would reduce the amount of habitat

available for flying squires and may locally limit dispersal. Corridors between areas of 

past harvest would be affected by proposed harvest units in some cases (see the Wildlife 

and Subsistence Resource Report for a unit-by-unit discussion). No small OGR

modifications are proposed under Alternative 2; therefore, the existing level of functional 

connectivity between reserves as described under Alternative 1 would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2 the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 34 and 96 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within individual VCUs (Table WLD-15). A summary of cumulative effects 

by VCU is provided in Table WLD-15. Cumulative reductions in POG and connectivity 

within the matrix would further reduce the amount of suitable flying squirrel habitat, 

which may result in local declines in the flying squirrel population. Although Alternative 

2 would not involve commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning under the Tongass 

PCT program and thinning implemented under various watershed restoration plans (e.g., 

Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and North Thorne) would promote the development of 

suitable denning, nesting, and foraging habitat and facilitate flying squirrel movement 

through young-growth stands.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would maintain at least 85 percent of the POG currently available in the 

project area VCUs, having the greatest effects among the alternatives (Table WLD-12). 

Impacts by VCU are summarized in Table WLD-12. Effects would be greatest in VCUs 

5972, 5840, and 5950 where the most harvest is proposed, which would maintain 90, 86, 

and 89 percent of the existing POG in these VCUs, respectively. Alternative 3 would 

result in a 140 percent increase in the number of POG patches in the project area (all size 

categories), the most among the alternatives, which would increase fragmentation and 

reduce connectivity (Table WLD-16). Corridors between areas of past harvest would be 

affected by proposed harvest units in some cases, more so than the other alternatives due 

to the greater number of harvest units and more clearcut prescriptions (see the Wildlife 

and Subsistence Resource Report for a unit-by-unit discussion).This would reduce the 

amount of habitat available for flying squires and may locally limit dispersal. However, 

commercial thinning under Alternative 3 would promote forest conditions that facilitate 

flying squirrel movement through young-growth stands. 

Small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce functional 

connectivity for flying squirrels in the project area by increase the spacing between small 

OGRs in some VCUs. Based on the maximum reserve spacing suggested by Smith et al. 

(2011) of 0.6 miles (1 km), functional connectivity for flying squirrels would be as 

follows under Alternative 3:
3 Environment and Effects 

3-212 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Small OGRs in 5960 and 5972 would remain functionally connected to large 

reserves (Honker large OGR complex and/or Karta Wilderness)

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5820/5830 and 5850/5860 would remain 

functionally connected to each other, but not to any larger reserve;

 Proposed modifications in the small OGR in VCU 5800, would disconnect the 

small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 from the Honker large OGR complex, 

though they would remain connected to each other;

 The northern small OGR in VCU 5810 would be disconnected from the small 

OGR in VCU 5720, but would now be functionally connected to the proposed 

northern, isolated portion of the small OGR in VCU 5820 (along the shoreline);

The two pieces of the small OGR in VCU 5810 would remain functionally 

connected to each other through the stream buffer along Luck Creek and to a 

larger reserve through roadless acres;

 The small OGR in VCU 5950 would be disconnected from the Honker large OGR 

complex due to the removal of OGR acreage (and addition of harvest units) along 

its northeast edge; however this OGR is already disconnected from the Honker due 

to State land. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 34 and 95 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within individual WAAs (Table WLD-15). Alternative 3 would have the 

greatest cumulative effects among the alternatives. Cumulative reductions in POG and 

connectivity within the matrix would further reduce the amount of suitable flying squirrel 

habitat which may result in local declines in the flying squirrel population. However, 

commercial thinning under Alternative 3 would contribute to the beneficial effects 

associated with pre-commercial thinning under the Tongass PCT program and thinning 

implemented under various watershed restoration plans (e.g., Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle 

Creek, and North Thorne), which would promote the development of suitable denning and 

nesting habitat and facilitate flying squirrel movement through young-growth stands.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would maintain at least 84 percent of the POG currently available in the project 

area VCUs, having the least effects among the action alternatives (Table WLD-12). Impacts by 

VCU are summarized in Table WLD-12. Effects would be greatest in VCUs 5972, 5950, 

and 5810 where the most harvest is proposed, which would maintain 91, 93, and 93 

percent of the existing POG in these VCUs, respectively. Alternative 4 would result in an 

89 percent increase the number of POG patches (all size categories) in the project area which 

would increase fragmentation and reduce connectivity (Table WLD-16). Corridors between 

areas of past harvest would be affected by proposed harvest units in some cases, less so 

than the other action alternatives due to the fewer harvest units and more uneven-aged 

prescriptions, and because some units were dropped or modified under Alternative 4 to 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-213

avoid effects to travel corridors (see the Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Report for a 

unit-by-unit discussion). This would reduce the amount of habitat available for flying 

squires and may locally limit dispersal. However, commercial thinning under Alternative 4 

would promote forest conditions that facilitate flying squirrel movement through younggrowth stands. 

Small OGR modifications proposed under Alternative 4 would improve functional connectivity 

for flying squirrels in the project area by widening areas of functional connectivity and reducing 

the distances between small OGRs in some VCUs. Based on the maximum reserve spacing 

suggested by Smith et al. (2011), functional connectivity for flying squirrels would be as follows 

under Alternative 4:

 Small OGRs in adjacent VCUs 5820/5830 and 5850/5860 would remain 

functionally connected to each other, but not to any larger reserve;

 A connection to the Honker large OGR complex in VCU 5780 would be added to 

the network of small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, and 5840 ;

 The northern small OGR in VCU 5810 would remain functionally connected to 

VCU 5720, but would also be functionally connected to the small OGR in VCU 

5820 (along the shoreline to the proposed isolated northern piece of the small OGR 

in this VCU); The two pieces of the small OGR in VCU 5810 would remain 

functionally connected to each other through the stream buffer along Luck Creek 

and to a larger reserve through roadless acres;

 Small OGRs in VCUs 5950 and 5960 would remain functionally connected to the 

Honker large OGR complex and the Karta Wilderness, respectively, but the areas 

of connectivity would be widened;

 The small OGR in VCU 5972 now be functionally connected to the small OGR in 

VCU 5960 (and through this VCU and roadless acres to the Karla Wilderness) and 

the Honker large OGR. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 4, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 34 and 99 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within individual VCUs (Table WLD-15). A summary of cumulative effects 

by VCU is provided in Table WLD-15. Alternative 4 would result in the least cumulative 

effects among the action alternatives. Cumulative reductions in POG and connectivity 

within the matrix would further reduce the amount of suitable flying squirrel habitat which 

may result in local declines in the flying squirrel population. However, commercial 

thinning under Alternative 4 would contribute to the beneficial effects associated with precommercial thinning under the Tongass PCT program and thinning implemented under 

various watershed restoration plans (e.g., Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and North 

Thorne), which would promote the development of suitable denning and nesting habitat 

and facilitate flying squirrel movement through young-growth stands.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-214 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would maintain at least 84 percent of the POG currently available in the 

project area VCUs (Table WLD-12). Impacts by VCU are summarized in Table WLD-12. 

Effects would be greatest in VCUs 5972, 5840, and 5950 where the most harvest is 

proposed, which would maintain 91, 89, and 91 percent of the existing POG in these 

VCUs, respectively. Alternative 5 would result in a 117 percent increase in the number of 

POG patches (all size categories) in the project area which would increase fragmentation 

and reduce connectivity (Table WLD-16). Corridors between areas of past harvest would 

be affected by proposed harvest units in some cases, similar to Alternative 2 (see the 

Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Report for a unit-by-unit discussion). This would 

reduce the amount of habitat available for flying squires and may locally limit dispersal. 

However, commercial thinning under Alternative 5 would promote forest conditions that 

facilitate flying squirrel movement through young-growth stands. 

No small OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 5; therefore, the existing 

level of functional connectivity between reserves as described under Alternative 1 would 

be maintained.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 5, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would collectively maintain between 34 and 96 percent of the original 

(1954) POG within individual VCUs (Table WLD-15). A summary of cumulative effects 

by VCU is provided in Table WLD-15. Cumulative reductions in POG and connectivity 

within the matrix would further reduce the amount of suitable flying squirrel habitat which 

may result in local declines in the flying squirrel population. However, commercial 

thinning under Alternative 5 would contribute to the beneficial effects associated with precommercial thinning under the Tongass PCT program and thinning implemented under 

various watershed restoration plans (e.g., Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and North 

Thorne), which would promote the development of suitable denning and nesting habitat 

and facilitate flying squirrel movement through young-growth stands.

Conclusion

All action alternatives would reduce suitable flying squirrel denning, nesting, and foraging 

habitat through the removal of POG forest and fragmentation. Effects to flying squirrels 

would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 1. To some 

extent these effects would be mitigated through commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 

4 and 5 which would improve habitat suitability for flying squirrels in dense younggrowth stands. The existing level of functional connectivity between reserves would be 

maintained under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. However, small OGR modifications proposed 

under Alternative 3 may reduce functional connectivity among reserves in some VCUs; 

modifications proposed under Alternative 4 would maintain or improve functional 

connectivity for flying squirrels. Thus Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 are more likely to 

continue facilitating back-and-forth exchange between source populations in larger 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-215

reserves and small OGRs, whereas Alternative 3 has the potential to result in the isolation 

of local populations where functional connectivity is reduced.

Prince of Wales Spruce Grouse

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Prince of Wales spruce grouse are associated with microhabitats within POG forests and 

therefore timber harvest would alter habitat availability for this species, though effects 

would change over time. Prince of Wales spruce grouse avoid young (less than 5 years) 

clearcuts presumably due to the presence of large amounts of debris that inhibit 

movement, increased exposure to predators, and lack of food; however, as the understory 

vegetation peaks after 15 to 25 years, grouse likely benefit from increased berry 

production and cover for chicks (Russell 1999). After this, forest conditions become 

unfavorable to spruce grouse, characterized by canopy closure, high stem densities, and 

little understory vegetation due to reduced light which reduces the overall structural and 

horizontal diversity of the stand. These conditions can persist up to 150 years after evenaged timber harvest. Thus, timber harvest under all action alternatives would have a 

short-term benefit to grouse due to increased forage availability, followed by an extended 

period in which habitat conditions in harvested units would not be suitable. Timber 

harvest could result in local reductions in spruce grouse density, though this effect would 

likely change over time with forest succession (Turcotte et al. 2000; USFWS 2010). It is 

assumed that alternatives that harvest the most POG would result in the greatest effects to 

spruce grouse (Table WLD-12). Commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 

would encourage structural and horizontal diversity beneficial to grouse in previously 

harvested stands. Under all alternatives, spruce grouse habitat would be maintained by the 

Forest Plan conservation strategy.

Due to their generally sedentary nature and preference for walking rather than flying, 

fragmentation due to timber harvest can result in the isolation of local spruce grouse 

populations. If patches of suitable habitat are spread too far apart (i.e., more than 1 mile; 

Russell 1999, Nelson 2010) for spruce grouse to move between, or if conditions in matrix 

lands between OGRs and other habitat reserves are not connected by suitable habitat they 

may become barriers to spruce grouse. This may reduce exchange between neighboring 

populations, making it difficult for isolated populations to recruit new breeders. It is 

assumed that alternatives that result in the greatest increase in number of patches on the 

landscape would have the greatest effects to spruce grouse (Table WLD-16).

Increased road densities associated with timber harvest could also adversely affect this 

species by increasing hunter access (USFWS 2010). Rabe (2009) concluded that Prince 

of Wales spruce grouse found in roaded areas are the most vulnerable to harvest, whereas 

birds in unroaded areas have little chance of being harvested. Road strike accounted for 

17 to 22 percent of the mortalities of radio-marked birds in a study of grouse mortality on 

Prince of Wales Island, comparable to the level of hunter harvest (Nelson 2010). This is 

influenced in part by the fact that spruce grouse appear to use roads for dispersal (USFWS 

2010). However, there is no known road density threshold for spruce grouse. 

Alternatives resulting in the greatest increase in road density would be expected to have 

the greatest potential to increase spruce grouse vulnerability to harvest (Table WLD-28). 

However, many of the remaining intact old-growth forests within the project area that 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-216 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

provide suitable habitat for spruce grouse are maintained within OGRs as well as other 

reserves. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Timber harvest within Southeast Alaska has occurred disproportionately in the range of 

the Prince of Wales spruce grouse (USFWS 2010), reducing the availability of large, 

unfragmented patches of POG and resulting in an extensive road system. All of the action 

alternatives would cause additional habitat loss and fragmentation, contributing to these 

effects. Habitat loss and fragmentation would also occur in association with ongoing and 

foreseeable timber harvest on both NFS lands and lands in other ownerships. Cumulative 

effects to POG are presented in Table WLD-15. 

Commercial thinning proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would improve habitat 

suitability for spruce grouse within the matrix, as would foreseeable young-growth 

treatments on NFS lands and other watershed restoration plans that involve thinning (e.g., 

those implemented under the Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and North Thorne 

watershed restoration plans). 

All action alternatives would expand the road system in the project area; however, roads 

would be closed within 1 to 5 years of timber harvest (1 to 5 years after timber sale 

activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood 

removal from May 1 to November 30), thus limiting the period in which spruce grouse 

harvest vulnerability would be expected to increase. Scheduled road closures under the 

Prince of Wales Island ATM would further reduce harvest and road kill vulnerability over 

the long term. Cumulative road densities at all elevations are presented in Table WLD-30.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effect to spruce grouse because no action would be 

undertaken. However, because commercial thinning would not occur under Alternative 1, 

there would be no associated benefits to grouse and structural diversity within previously 

harvested stands would develop slowly over time. The project area would also continue to 

be influenced by natural disturbance processes (i.e. periodic wind events, landslides) 

which have the potential to create gaps in the spruce grouse distribution.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would not contribute to cumulative effects to spruce grouse because no 

action would be undertaken. Under Alternative 1, commercial thinning would not occur 

and therefore there would be no associated benefits to grouse. Pre-commercial thinning 

under the Tongass PCT program and riparian thinning under the Cobble, Luck 

Creek/Eagle Creek, and North Thorne watershed restoration plans would enhance the 

suitability of young-growth stands for spruce grouse. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Harvest of POG within VCUs and POG patch numbers by alternative are described in the 

Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel subsection above (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-16). Based 

on acres of POG harvested and the resulting number of POG patches, Alternative 3 would 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-217

have the greatest effect to spruce grouse related to habitat loss and fragmentation, 

followed by Alternatives 2, 5, and 4. 

Commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would encourage structural and 

horizontal diversity beneficial to grouse in previously harvested stands. Total road 

densities (NFS lands only at all elevations) by alternative are discussed in the Marten 

subsection above (Table WLD-28). Based on the increase in total road densities, 

Alternative 3 would have the greatest effect related to increased vulnerability to harvest 

along roads, followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5.

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 in VCUs 5790, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972 

would reduce inclusion of the largest blocks of POG, thereby increasing the likelihood 

that they will become fragmented by timber harvest (Table OGR-2). Small OGR

modifications under Alternative 4 would maintain or increase inclusion of the largest POG 

patches in all VCUs, except VCU 5972, which would maintain spruce grouse habitat 

(Table OGR-2).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to POG in the project area VCUs by alternative, taking into account 

past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects, are described above in the Prince of Wales Flying 

Squirrel subsection. Cumulative road densities are described in the Marten subsection. 

Thus, all alternatives would reduce the amount of habitat available to spruce grouse and 

may increase harvest risk along roads, which could lead to a local decline in the spruce 

grouse population. Based on cumulative reductions in POG and increases in road 

densities, cumulative effects to spruce grouse would be greatest under Alternative 3, 

followed by Alternatives 2, 5, and 4 (Table WLD-15 and WLD-28). 

Conclusion

All action alternatives would reduce suitable Prince of Wales spruce grouse habitat 

through the removal of POG forest and increased fragmentation. Based on acres of POG 

harvested, POG patches created, and road construction, effects to spruce grouse would be 

greatest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4 and 1. To some extent, these 

effects would be mitigation through commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, 

which would encourage structural diversity in young-growth stands, increasing their 

suitability as spruce grouse habitat (Russell 1999). 

Conservation measures including the system of OGRs and other non-development LUDs 

in addition to the standards and guidelines that maintain connectivity within matrix lands 

(e.g., various buffer requirements) that would be implemented under all alternatives would 

facilitating dispersal and interchange between spruce grouse populations. Small OGR 

modifications under Alternative 3 would decrease inclusion of the largest blocks of POG; 

inclusion of large blocks of POG would increase under Alternative 4.

All action alternatives would expand the road system in the project area; however, roads 

would be closed within 1 to 5 years of timber harvest (1 to 5 years after timber sale 

activities the roads will remain open to High Clearance Vehicles to allow for firewood 

removal from May 1 to November 30), thus limiting the period in which spruce grouse 

harvest vulnerability would be expected to increase. Scheduled road closures under the 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-218 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Prince of Wales Island ATM would further reduce harvest and road kill vulnerability over 

the long term.

Endemic Species

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Prince of Wales Island has been identified as a hotspot for endemism, and is also an area 

where there has been intensive past timber harvest (Cook et al. 2006). By definition, 

endemic species occur in isolated populations and many have limited mobility or specific 

habitat requirements. Thus they are vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss and 

fragmentation; introduced non-natives; pathogens and disease; natural events (i.e., climate 

change); and overharvesting (Dawson et al. 2007). Therefore, the ability to disperse and 

recolonize is an important factor in how endemic species are able to respond to 

environmental changes.

Timber harvest would directly affect endemic species by through habitat loss (POG) and 

fragmentation (reduced patch size), and by altering the distribution of habitats across the 

landscape. This may inhibit the ability of individuals to move between patches of suitable 

habitat, and therefore may further limit the distribution of a population or reduce genetic 

interchange between subpopulations. Effects to POG and fragmentation (POG patch size) 

are presented in Tables WLD-12 and WLD-16.

Road construction associated with timber harvest can fragment populations and increase 

human access to remote areas, thereby increasing the probability of overexploitation for 

some species (e.g., wolves and spruce grouse; Pearson et al. 1996, Russell 1999). With 

the exception of wolves, there are no known road density thresholds for any endemic 

species.

Effects to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, Alexander Archipelago black bear, Prince of 

Wales flying squirrel, and Prince of Wales spruce grouse are discussed in detail above. 

No direct or indirect effects to the Haida Gwaii ermine are anticipated under any of the 

alternatives because this species is associated with low elevation riparian and shoreline 

areas which would be protected by the Forest Plan conservation strategy. The alternatives 

analysis here focuses on the Keen’s myotis, which is associated with large trees and snags 

present in POG (Boland et al. 2009). 

Alternatives that harvest the most POG and result in the greatest increase in the number of 

smaller POG patches on the landscape would be expected to have the greatest effect to the 

Keen’s myotis (Table WLD-12 and WLD-16). This may reduce the number of suitable 

roost trees for bats; however, it should be noted that roost trees for Keen’s myotis do not 

appear to be limited on Prince of Wales Island, and bats may choose a large-diameter tree 

for roosting regardless of whether or not it is located in an area with past timber harvest 

(Boland et al. 2009). Commercial thinning proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would 

benefit this species by promoting more rapid development of larger trees in young-growth 

stands. Habitat and landscape connectivity would be provided for this species by the 

Forest Plan conservation strategy.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Past timber harvest has reduced the amount of POG habitat available for the Keen’s 

myotis. Timber harvest proposed under the action alternatives would further reduce and 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-219

fragment POG habitat, and could reduce the number of forested flyways used for bats 

commuting between foraging and roosting areas. Additional habitat loss and 

fragmentation would occur in association with ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest on 

NSF lands and lands in other ownerships (Table WLD-15). Commercial thinning 

proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, in combination with young-growth treatments on 

NSF lands and restoration projects that involve thinning (e.g., those implemented under 

the Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and North Thorne watershed restoration plans) 

would promote stand development and increase habitat availability for this species over 

the long term. 

The Forest Plan conservation strategy was designed to address effects to endemic species 

through the network of OGRs and other non-development LUDs and Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines which were intended to maintain habitat components important 

to a variety of species and maintain connectivity across the landscape.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects to the Keen’s myotis because no action would 

be undertaken. Indirectly, without commercial thinning, managed stands would continue 

to grow slowly and would provide little structural diversity suitable for roosting during the 

stem exclusion stage, which may last for decades. Over time, natural events (i.e., 

windthrow) would continue to alter the forest and create roosting habitat.

No small OGR modifications would occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, there would be 

no related effects to the Keen’s myotis.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would not contribute to cumulative effects to the Keen’s myotis because no 

action would be undertaken. Under Alternative 1 past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects 

would collectively maintain between 40 and 100 percent of the original (1954) POG in the 

project area VCUs (Table WLD-15). Young-growth management activities on NFS lands 

would promote stand development.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Productive old-growth harvest by VCU and changes in POG patch numbers by alternative 

are described in the Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel subsection above (Tables WLD-12 

and WLD-16). Timber harvest would remove POG, thereby reducing the number of 

potential day-roosts available to bats, a critical resource for this forest-dwelling species 

(Boland et al. 2009). Indirectly, timber harvest may also reduce the suitability remaining 

roosting habitat through increased fragmentation (and decreased patch sizes) as day-roosts 

are more likely to be selected if they are located in stands with a higher number of trees in 

early to late decay stages (Boland et al. 2009). However, Boland et al. (2000) concluded 

that roost sites do not appear to be limited on Prince of Wales Island.

Alternative 3 would have the greatest effect to the Keen’s myotis related to habitat loss 

and fragmentation, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, and 4. However, under all alternatives 

effects would be minor given that roost sites are not a limiting factor on Prince of Wales 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-220 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Island. Commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would accelerate the 

development of trees capable of providing roosting habitat and improve landscape 

connectivity. 

Small OGR modification proposed under Alternative 3 would increase the amount of 

suitable Keen’s myotis roosting habitat (POG) included in small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 

5800, 5820, 5830, and 5950; modifications in VCUs 5810, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972 

would decrease the amount of POG included (Table OGR-2). Small OGR modifications 

under Alternative 4 in all VCUs except VCU 5972 would increase the amount suitable 

Keen’s myotis roosting habitat maintained within the reserve system (Table OGR-2). No 

small OGR modifications would occur under Alternative 2 and 5. Therefore, there would 

be no related effects to the Keen’s myotis. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative POG harvest by VCU is discussed in the Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel 

subsection above (Table WLD-15). Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in 

combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would maintain the least amount 

of original (1954) POG and therefore the least habitat for the Keen’s myotis, followed by 

Alternatives 2, 5, and 4. Moreover, small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would 

result in a net reduction of 1,142 acres of POG maintained in small OGRs. These areas 

would become available for timber harvest and thus could result in additional loss of 

roosting habitat, as well as forested travel corridors, for the Keen’s myotis, contributing to 

the effects of ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest projects. Alternatively, small OGR 

modifications under Alternative 4 would result in a net increase of 1,925 acres of POG 

maintained in small OGRs, which would provide greater protection of roosting habitat.

Conclusion

Based on POG harvest and increase in number of patches on the landscape, effects to the 

Keen’s myotis would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, and 

1. All action alternatives would increase the risk of reducing forested corridors (see 

discussion in POW flying squirrel) that would facilitate movement of bats across the 

landscape. 

Migratory Birds

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

Direct effects to migratory birds would result from disturbances that disrupt breeding 

birds, remove active bird nests, or cause nest abandonment. For species that are yearround residents, timber harvest (POG removal) and associated activities (road building) 

have the potential to disturb and displace birds during the non-breeding season. Indirect 

effects would result from the reduction of perching, foraging, and potential nesting habitat 

and the increase in fragmentation. After timber harvest there would be a short-term 

increase in the habitat for species associated with early successional habitats and forest 

edges, which may result in short-term population growth for these species. However, 

extended local reductions in available habitat would be expected as forest succession 

progresses. 

Habitat fragmentation can strongly influence bird community composition and bird 

distribution and has been identified as a major cause of population declines of breeding 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-221

migratory songbirds (DellaSala et al. 1996; Manuwal and Manuwal 2002). Habitat 

removal would reduce the effectiveness of interior forest habitat, and increase the 

potential for nest predation and nest parasitism for some species, which can ultimately 

reduce reproductive success (Robinson et al. 1995). Migratory birds would be most 

susceptible to impacts from harvest activities occurring in suitable nesting habitat during 

the nesting/fledging period, which generally begins in mid-April and ends about mid-July, 

when young birds have fledged. 

The migratory bird species most likely to be adversely affected by the project are those 

that primarily nest in POG forests, including the Western screech-owl, rufous 

hummingbird, red-breasted sapsucker, Pacific-slope flycatcher, Steller’s jay, northwestern 

crow, chestnut-backed chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, Townsend's 

warbler, blackpoll warbler, northern goshawk and marbled murrelet. Therefore, the 

discussion here focuses on old-growth associated species. Alternatives that harvest more 

POG and result in greater increases in the number of POG patches on the landscape would 

be expected to have greater effects to these migratory bird species (Tables WLD-12 and 

WLD-16). However, species associated with early successional or scrub habitats such as 

the MacGillivray’s warbler, golden-crowned sparrow, and golden-crowned kinglet would 

benefit through increases in suitable habitat over the short- to mid-term from timber 

harvest.

Effects to migratory birds can be minimized by altering the season of activity, retaining 

snags, maintaining the integrity of breeding sites, considering key winter and migration 

areas, and minimizing pollution or detrimental alteration of habitats (USDA Forest 

Service 2008c). Under all alternatives, migratory bird habitat would be maintained by the 

Forest Plan conservation strategy.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Past timber harvest in the project area has removed migratory bird habitat or reduced its 

suitability through fragmentation (and associated edge effects such as predation). The 

action alternatives would contribute to the loss and fragmentation of migratory bird 

habitat. However, the action alternatives would contribute to the fragmentation and 

reduction in POG habitats (Table WLD-15); however, migratory bird habitat would be 

maintained by the Forest Plan conservation strategy. Commercial thinning under 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, in combination with other young-growth treatment on NFS lands 

and watershed restoration activities that involve thinning, would collectively improve 

habitat conditions for old-growth associated migratory birds; though over the long-term, 

these stands would become available for harvest again.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no adverse direct and indirect effects to migratory birds because 

no timber or associated activities would occur. Therefore there would be no reduction in 

habitat or fragmentation. Alternative 1 would not have the beneficial effects of younggrowth management which would increase the suitability of these stands for old-growth 

associated migratory birds. Overtime, previously harvested stands would continue to 

grow slowly and would provide little forage or structural diversity for migratory birds 

during the stem exclusion stage, which may last for decades. No small OGR 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-222 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

modifications would occur under Alternative 1; therefore, there would be no associated 

effects to migratory birds.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would not contribute to cumulative effects to migratory birds because no 

timber would be harvested. Under Alternative 1, past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects 

would maintain between 40 and 100 percent of the original (1954) POG within the project 

area VCUs (Table WLD-15). Although Alternative 1 would not contribute to the 

potential benefits of commercial thinning associated with improving habitat suitability for 

migratory birds, these effects would occur in association with PCT under the Tongass 

PCT program, as well as thinning conducted under the Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, 

and North Thorne watershed restoration plans.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Productive old-growth harvest in the project area and associated changes in the number of 

POG patches (fragmentation) by alternative are discussed in the Red-breasted Sapsucker, 

Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper subsection above (Tables WLD-12 and WLD 16). 

Effects to most migratory birds related to habitat loss and fragmentation would be greatest 

under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, and 4. However, these effects would 

be mitigated to some extent by commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 which 

has the potential to improve long-term habitat suitability for migratory birds by 

accelerates stand development, and associated potential foraging, roosting, and potentially 

nesting habitat. These beneficial effects would not occur under Alternative 2 which does 

not involve thinning.

Direct and indirect effects of small OGR modifications proposed under Alternatives 3 and 

4 to migratory birds (inclusion of POG) would be comparable to those described under 

Endemics. No modifications are proposed under Alternatives 2 and 5.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative POG harvest within the project area is discussed in the Red-breasted 

Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper subsection above (Table WLD-15). 

Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain the least amount of original (1954) POG followed by 

Alternatives, 2, 5, and 4. This would locally reduce habitat for migratory bird species 

associated with POG habitats. Migratory bird species associated with early seral and 

scrub habitats would benefit over the short-term from ongoing and foreseeable timber 

harvest projects. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would contribute to the potential beneficial 

effects to old-growth associated migratory birds of commercial thinning associated with 

stand development resulting from PCT under the Tongass PCT program, as well as 

thinning conducted under the Cobble, Luck Creek/Eagle Creek, and North Thorne 

watershed restoration plans. Cumulative effects of small OGR modifications under 

Alternatives 3 and 4 to migratory birds (inclusion of POG) would be comparable to those 

described under Endemics. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-223

Conclusion

All action alternatives would reduce foraging and nesting habitat for old-growth 

associated migratory birds and increase fragmentation; however, effects would be 

localized and would not preclude migratory birds from using the project area. Species 

associated with early successional and scrub habitats would experience short-term benefits 

from timber harvest. Birds may be displaced if project activities occur during the nesting 

season. Impacts would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, 4, 

and 1. 

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Sensitive Species

A preliminary determination was made to assess the effects of the project on threatened, 

endangered, candidate, and sensitive species. A detailed analysis of effects to each 

species is provided in the project BA/BE and summarized in Table WLD-33. None of the 

alternatives would adversely affect listed species or their habitats, nor would they be 

likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability for any sensitive 

species. A detailed analysis of effects to the Queen Charlotte goshawk is provided below.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

The Big Thorne Project has the potential to directly adversely affect goshawks through 

activities that create noise or disturb adults or young, resulting in the temporary displacement 

of individual birds, removal of active nests, or nest abandonment. There are no known 

goshawk nests within any of the proposed harvest units; therefore none of the alternatives 

would directly impact actively nesting birds. Goshawks are year-round residents in the 

project area; therefore, timber harvest and associated activities could disturb or temporarily 

displace birds during the non-breeding season. Indirect effects of the Big Thorne Project

include the reduction of perching, foraging, and potential nesting habitat (POG).

Impacts to goshawks are assessed in terms of the reduction in total and high-volume POG, 

which provides potential high quality nesting and foraging habitat. High-volume POG 

represents optimal nesting habitat due to the presence of large-trees and snags. Reductions in 

forest cover, and the subsequent progression of forest succession in second-growth stands, 

also have the potential to affect the abundance and availability of prey. This may cause 

goshawks foraging in the North Central Prince of Wales Island biogeographic province to 

increase their breeding home range size in order to gather sufficient prey to raise young 

(McClaren 2004; Bloxton 2002). Alternatives that harvest the most POG would be expected 

to have the greatest effect on goshawks. All action alternatives would maintain 99 percent of 

the existing total POG and high-volume POG in the North Central Prince of Wales 

biogeographic province (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-13). It should be noted that there is a low 

abundance of goshawks on POW due to the lack of prey.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-224 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-33. Summary of Effects Determinations for Threatened, Endangered, 

Candidate, and Sensitive Species

Common Name /

Scientific Name Status

Effects 

Determination2/

Effects Summary/Rationale for 

Determination

Species Under USFWS Jurisdiction

Yellow-billed loon

Gavia adamsii

ESA 

Candidate

No determination 

made

• Potential for exposure to oil / fuel 

spills associated with use of MAFs 

and the transport of logs.

• Species occurs at very low densities 

near the project area; very few 

individuals would be at risk.

• Vessels would operate at infrequent 

intervals.

Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction

Humpback Whale

Megaptera novaeangliae

Endangered Not likely to 

adversely affect

• Potential for exposure to vessel traffic 

and oil/fuel spills associated with the 

use of marine access facilities 

(MAFs) and the transport of logs; 

• Potential for vessel collisions.

• Species are transient, and vessels 

would operate at low, constant speeds 

and infrequent intervals.

• Measures would be taken to reduce 

impacts from disturbances and risk of 

collisions (i.e., preventing vessels 

from approaching marine mammals, 

and adhering to Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines, MMPA, and ESA).

• All project activities would be 

conducted in accordance with Alaska 

Water Quality Standards for log 

transfer facilities (LTFs), limiting 

effects to water quality.

Steller sea lion – Eastern DPS 

/ Western DPS

Eumetopias jubatus

Threatened / 

Endangered

Not likely to 

adversely affect

Chinook salmon 

Onchorhynchus tshawytscha

Threatened 

or

Endangered 

depending 

on run

Not likely to 

adversely affect

• Potential for exposure to oil / fuel 

spills associated with use of MAFs 

and the transport of logs.

• Potential for reductions in water 

quality and indirect impacts to benthic 

prey due to bark accumulations near 

LTFs.

• Species may be present but are 

transient; not likely to occur near any 

project related activity.

• All project activities will be 

conducted in accordance with Alaska 

Water Quality Standards for LTFs, 

limiting effects to water quality.

Sockeye salmon 

Onchorhynchus nerka

Not likely to 

adversely affect

Steelhead

Onchorhynchus mykiss

Not likely to 

adversely affect

Alaska Sensitive Species

Pacific herring

Clupea pallasii

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive; 

ESA 

Candidate

May adversely 

impact individuals, 

but not likely to 

result in a loss of 

viability in the 

Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing

NA
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-225

Table WLD-33. Summary of Effects Determinations for Threatened, Endangered, 

Candidate, and Sensitive Species (continued)

Common Name /

Scientific Name Status

Effects 

Determination2/

Effects Summary/Rationale for 

Determination

Queen Charlotte goshawk

Accipiter gentilis laingi

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

May adversely 

impact individuals, 

but not likely to 

result in a loss of 

viability in the 

Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing

• Potential for noise and disturbances.

• Removal of POG would decrease 

available nesting and foraging habitat; 

local expansion of individual 

goshawk home ranges possible, 

potentially leading to a local 

reduction in breeding density.

• Species is highly mobile and breeding 

density is already low due to existing 

levels of timber harvest. 

• Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

for protection of known active nests 

applied.

Black oystercatcher

Haematopus bachmani

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

May adversely 

impact individuals, 

but not likely to 

result in a loss of 

viability in the 

Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend toward 

federal listing

• Potential for exposure to oil / fuel 

spills associated with use of MAFs 

and the transport of logs.

• Species occurs at very low densities 

near the project area; very few 

individuals would be at risk.

• Vessels would operate at infrequent 

intervals.

1/ “Yes” if the species is known or is likely to occur, or its habitat occurs, in the project area or in marine waters 

adjacent to the project 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 (NE),” “not likely to adversely affect (NLAA),” or “likely to adversely affect (LAA);” no 

determinations are made for candidate species (Bosch 2004). Determinations for sensitive species include “no impacts”, 

“beneficial impacts”, “may impact individuals but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing,” or "likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward 

federal listing” (Bosch 2004).

Uneven-age prescriptions and legacy retention, which leave a proportion of the trees 

standing in the harvest unit, would maintain some habitat value for goshawks following 

harvest, provided that the trees with branches adequate to support goshawk perching are 

retained (Detrich and Woodbridge 1994; Table WLD-22). 

Commercial thinning, proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would enhance goshawk 

habitat and habitat for goshawk prey by promoting stand development. Stands selected 

for treatment are at least 50 years old, and currently provide marginal goshawk habitat 

because they consist of high densities of small diameter trees, factors which limit 

availability of goshawk prey species and goshawk maneuverability (Salafsy et al. 2007). 

Under all alternatives, goshawk habitat is maintained by the Forest Plan conservation 

strategy. If a new nest were located during the course of the project, Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines for goshawk nest protection would apply.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Timber harvest since 1954 has increased fragmentation of productive forest habitat and 

reduced the amount of high-quality habitat within the North Central Prince of Wales 

biogeographic province, which has experienced more harvest than other portions of the 

Tongass National Forest. Taking all land ownerships into account, the approximately 51 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-226 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

percent of the original total POG and 41 percent of the original high-volume POG present 

in 1954 remains in the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province (Table 

WLD-15). Within individual VCUs, the amount of original total POG ranges from 40 to 

100 percent; the amount of original high-volume POG ranges from 18 to 100 percent

(Table WLD-15). Refer to the biodiversity analysis above for a detailed discussion of 

effects to POG. Ongoing and future timber harvest on NFS and state and private lands 

(e.g., Logjam, Roadside EA, and Alaska State DNR timber sales) would result in 

additional loss of old-growth forest. However, commercial thinning under Alternatives 3, 

4, and 5 in combination with future young-growth treatment and other thinning projects 

on NFS lands will, over the long-term, enhance goshawk habitat. 

Foraging goshawks could be temporarily disturbed or displaced by timber harvest 

activities associated with the Big Thorne Project; similar disturbance also has the potential 

to occur in association with the other timber harvest, restoration, and ongoing road 

maintenance activities listed in Chapter 2. Minor short-term cumulative effects to 

goshawks may occur if the noise or disturbance associated with these activities and the 

Big Thorne Project coincide. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have negligible effects to goshawks because no action would be 

undertaken. No small OGR modifications would occur under Alternative 1; therefore, 

there would be no related effects to the goshawk.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would not contribute to cumulative effects to goshawks as no action would 

be undertaken. Refer to the Biodiversity section for an analysis of cumulative effects to 

POG within the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province and by VCU under 

Alternative 1 (Table WLD-15).

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would harvest 4,792 acres of POG and 2,503 acres of high-volume POG, the 

third highest amount among the alternatives, which would reduce potential goshawk 

habitat (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-13). Approximately 14 percent of harvest would be 

uneven-aged under Alternative 2, thus most units would retain little value to goshawks 

following harvest (Table WLD-22). Refer to the biodiversity analysis for a discussion of 

effects to POG within the biogeographic province and by VCU. 

No small OGR modifications would occur under Alternative 2; therefore, there would be 

no related effects to the goshawk.

Cumulative Effects

Within the project area VCUs, Alternative 2 would maintain 34 to 99 percent of the 

original total POG and 16 to 99 percent of the original high-volume POG (Table WLD15). Refer to the Biodiversity discussion for an analysis of cumulative effects to POG 

within the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province and by VCU under 

Alternative 2. Thus, Alternative 2 has the potential to result in a local reduction goshawk 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-227

nesting and foraging habitat, and in the goshawk prey base. This could result in a 

reduction in the density of goshawks in the project area VCUs. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would harvest the most total POG (6,699 acres) and high-volume POG 

(3,720 acres) among the alternatives, and thus would result in the greatest reduction in 

potential goshawk habitat (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-13). Approximately 16 percent of 

harvest would be uneven-aged, thus most units would retain little value to goshawks 

following harvest (Table WLD-22). Refer to the Biodiversity analysis for a discussion of 

effects to POG within the biogeographic province and by VCU.

Small OGR modification proposed under Alternative 3 would increase the amount of 

goshawk habitat (POG) included in small OGRs in VCUs 5790, 5800, 5820, 5830, and 

5950; modifications in VCUs 5810, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972 would decrease the 

amount of POG included (Table OGR-2). 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 3 would maintain 34 to 95 percent of the original total POG and 15 to 93 

percent of the original high-volume POG within the project area VCUs (Table WLD-15). 

Refer to the Biodiversity section for an analysis of cumulative effects to POG within the 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province and by VCU under Alternative 3.

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 3 would result in a net loss of 669 acres of 

high-volume POG included in the Old-growth LUD (Table OGR-2). This would reduce

inclusion of goshawk nesting and foraging habitat in the reserve system, making it 

available for timber harvest which would contribute to the effects of ongoing and 

foreseeable timber harvest projects on goshawk habitat.

Thus, Alternative 3 has the potential to result in a local reduction goshawk nesting and 

foraging habitat, and in the goshawk prey base. This could result in a reduction in the 

density of goshawks in the project area VCUs.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would harvest 4,109 acres of total POG and 2,419 acres of high-volume 

POG, the least among the action alternatives (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-13). Thus it 

would result in the least reduction in goshawk habitat. Refer to the Biodiversity analysis 

above for a discussion of effects to POG within the biogeographic province and by VCU. 

Approximately 55 percent of the harvest under Alternative 4 would be uneven-aged 

management, the most among the alternatives (Table WLD-22). This would retain some 

structural components in harvested stands suitable for goshawks.

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 in all VCUs except VCU 5972 would 

increase the amount goshawk habitat (POG) maintained within the reserve system (Table 

OGR-2). 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 4 would maintain 34 to 99 percent of the original total POG, and 17 to 98 

percent of the original high-volume POG within the project area VCUs (Table WLD-15). 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-228 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Refer to the Biodiversity section for an analysis of cumulative effects to POG within the 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province and by VCU under Alternative 4.

Small OGR modifications under Alternative 4 would result in a net gain of 454 acres of 

high-volume POG in the Old-growth Habitat LUD (Table OGR-2). This element of 

Alternative 4 would benefit goshawks because the biologically preferred alternatives are 

intended to include the largest remaining blocks of POG within each VCU and areas 

identified as potential goshawk nesting habitat.

Thus, Alternative 4 has the potential to result in a local reduction goshawk nesting and 

foraging habitat, and in the goshawk prey base. This could result in a reduction in the 

density of goshawks in the project area VCUs.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would harvest 4,848 acres of total POG and 2,612 acres of high-volume 

POG, the second highest amount among the alternatives, which would reduce potential 

goshawk habitat (Tables WLD-12 and WLD-13). Approximately 21 percent of harvest 

would be uneven-aged under Alternative 5, thus most units would retain little value to 

goshawks following harvest (Table WLD-22). Refer to the Biodiversity analysis for a 

discussion of effects to POG within the biogeographic province and by VCU. 

No small OGR modifications would occur under Alternative 5; therefore, there would be 

no related effects to the goshawk.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 5 would maintain 34 to 96 percent of the original total POG, and 16 to 96 

percent of the original high-volume POG within the project area VCUs (Table WLD-15). 

Refer to the Biodiversity section for an analysis of cumulative effects to POG within the 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province and by VCU under Alternative 5.

Thus, Alternative 5 has the potential to result in a local reduction goshawk nesting and 

foraging habitat, and in the goshawk prey base. This could result in a reduction in the 

density of goshawks in the project area VCUs. 

Conclusion

At the scale of the biogeographic province the action alternatives would result in a minor 

reduction in suitable nesting and foraging habitat for goshawks through the removal for 

forest cover. Under all alternatives there would be no direct impacts to any known nest 

area. Effects to goshawks would be greatest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternatives 

2, 5, 4, and 1. Reductions in nesting and foraging habitat in the North Central Prince of 

Wales Island biogeographic province could result in the local expansion of individual 

goshawk home ranges, potentially leading to a reduction in breeding density. However, 

given that goshawks are highly mobile and that breeding density is currently low within 

the North Central Prince of Wales Island biogeographic province, and habitat is protected 

under the Forest Plan conservation strategy the effects of the Big Thorne Project in 

combination with past, present, and foreseeable activities may adversely impact 

individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward Federal listing. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-229

Subsistence

Direct and Indirect Effects – All Alternatives

ANILCA requires that any analysis of project-related effects on Federal lands within 

Alaska take into account, 1) subsistence resource distribution and abundance, 2) access to 

these resources by subsistence users, and 3) competition for the use of these subsistence 

resources. This is because changes in access to subsistence resources due to projectrelated activities can affect the level of effort required, time involved, and the 

effectiveness of harvesting these resources. Altered distributions and abundance of 

subsistence resources can effect competition between subsistence and non-subsistence 

user, as well as competition between individual subsistence users. 

Road building associated with timber harvesting is an important agent of change in 

Southeast Alaska. These road networks provide greater access to areas previously not 

accessible and can affect subsistence both positively and negatively by providing access, 

dispersing hunting and fishing pressure, and creating the potential for increased 

competition for favored hunting areas among communities connected by the existing road 

system (Forest Plan 2008b).

None of the Big Thorne Project alternatives would present “a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction” of subsistence uses for most subsistence resources (fish and marine 

invertebrates, food plants, personal use timber, upland game birds and waterfowl, 

furbearers, and marine mammals). These resources are briefly discussed below. 

The direct and indirect effects of the Big Thorne Project alternatives may have a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction for subsistence uses of deer in the project 

area WAAs (USDA Forest Service 2008c). As noted above, deer are considered the 

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

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

that they are the largest terrestrial component of subsistence food resources (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b); therefore, they are the only species addressed in detail in this analysis.

Sitka Black-tailed Deer

Abundance and Distribution 

The abundance and distribution of deer is generally based on assessing the number and 

location of deer available for hunter harvest. After timber harvest, deer may shift their 

patterns of activity in response to forest succession, and the density of deer may decline as 

even-aged young-growth stands progress beyond shrub and sapling stages to stemexclusion forests (Wallmo and Schoen 1980). As described in the Deer Effects section, 

implementation of the action alternatives would locally reduce deer winter habitat 

capability; which, over the long-term, could result in a reduction in deer numbers. 

Alternatives that result in the greatest reduction in deer habitat capability would be 

expected to have the greatest effect to deer abundance and distribution. 

Access 

Road building associated with timber harvesting is an important agent of change in 

Southeast Alaska. These road networks provide greater access to areas previously not 

accessible and can affect subsistence both positively and negatively by providing access, 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-230 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

dispersing hunting pressure, and creating the potential for increased competition for 

favored hunting areas among communities connected by the existing road system (Forest 

Plan 2008b). New proposed roads would be closed and stored 1 to 5 years after timber 

harvest activities are completed, under all alternatives; during the 1 to 5 year period, they

would be open seasonally (from May 1 to November 30) to High Clearance Vehicles to 

allow for firewood removal and would improve access, especially on foot (see the 

Transportation section for more information on road management objectives). 

Alternatives that would result in the greatest increase in the road system would be 

expected to result in the greatest increase in access to both subsistence and nonsubsistence hunters. The greatest increase in road access would occur during project 

implementation when temporary and new roads are in use. Road access would decrease 

as road closures are applied, making them no longer available for use by motorized 

vehicles. Historical access would remain available under all the alternatives. Under all 

action alternatives there would be temporary restrictions in road access to subsistence 

during active logging operations as a safety precaution. As this project would occur over 

10-years, all proposed timber operations, and temporary road closures would not occur 

simultaneously. 

Timber harvest would also increase access to deer over the short term, due to the clearing 

of dense vegetation which makes them more visible to hunters. In a study of the influence 

of industrial logging on deer harvest on Prince of Wales Island, Brinkman et al. (2009) 

determined that hunters preferred habitats with open terrain, low vegetative cover, and 

high visibility (i.e., clearcuts). However, shrub and trees establishment in harvested areas 

associated with the transition of the forest to the stem exclusion stage creates undesirable 

hunting conditions (i.e., low visibility). Young-growth stands were least popular for 

hunting because they impeded the hunters’ ability to see deer and were thought to contain 

fewer deer (Brinkman et al. 2009). Young-growth management, proposed under 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, may locally improve hunter access to deer over the long term. 

Competition 

Competition for subsistence resources is a result the distribution and fluctuation in 

population levels of game species, harvest regulations, mobility, and access provided to 

rural communities in the form of roads, ferries, and commercial air carriers. The Big 

Thorne project area is commonly used by subsistence hunters from a number of local 

communities for harvesting deer and other subsistence resources. The road network on 

Prince of Wales Island connects most of the communities on the island to the project area, 

and has allowed communities access to the area for hunting and other subsistence 

activities. Non-subsistence users (e.g., those from Ketchikan and Juneau, as well as outof-state hunters) also hunt in the project area. 

Timber harvest can influence competition for resources through new road construction, 

particularly near communities potentially generating competition from outside 

communities with lower abundance of the same resources. Habitat alternations that 

reduce carrying capacity, which could in turn reduce deer densities, will also increase 

competition for deer if allowable levels of harvest remain the same but available 

subsistence resources are diminished. Indirectly, displacement of subsistence hunters 

from areas with active timber harvest operations could temporarily increase competition in 

other subsistence use areas. Alternatives resulting in the greatest reduction in deer 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-231

carrying capacity and increase in the road system would be expected to result in the 

greatest likelihood of increasing competition for resources.

Other Subsistence Resources

Fish and Marine Invertebrates 

The Big Thorne Project would not affect the abundance and distribution of, access to, or 

competition for anadromous or marine fish and marine invertebrates. The risk of projectrelated impacts to fish populations due to timber harvest would be minimal because of 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) stream buffers, and Forest Plan beach and estuary, 

riparian, and fish standards and guidelines which maintain water quality and fish habitat 

(See Issue 4 for detailed assessment). Although the project may adversely affect 

Freshwater Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Marine EFH, effects would be temporary 

and localized. Fishing and marine invertebrate harvesting occurs primarily from boats, on 

beaches, and along estuaries. No activity associated with the Big Thorne Project is 

expected to occur in the marine environment that would preclude access to, or increase 

competition, for these resources. Freshwater fisheries are accessed by the road system, 

with motorized vehicles and OHVs. New roads under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, some of 

which would remain open for a period of years, may temporarily increase access to 

streams used for subsistence fishing. Some existing roads would be closed to public use 

for safety reasons during active timber harvesting, but any reduction in access would be

temporary and localized.

Food Plants and Personal Use Timber

None of the alternatives are expected to negatively affect the abundance or distribution of 

subsistence plants gathered for food, because these resources are abundant along roads 

and in previously harvested areas. They are also are expected to increase in harvested 

stands during the early successional stage, declining thereafter. The Big Thorne Project

would also not preclude Alaska residents from obtaining timber and firewood for personal 

use. New roads under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, some of which would remain open for a 

period of years, may temporarily increase access to areas where food plants and firewood 

can be gathered. Some existing roads would be closed to public use for safety reasons 

during active timber harvesting, but any reduction in access would be temporary and 

localized. Given that any beneficial changes in the abundance and distribution of food 

plants, and temporary effects to access, would be distributed throughout the project area 

over time (i.e., over the 10-year project period and beyond), no changes in competition for 

food plants or personal use timber would be expected.

Upland Game Birds and Waterfowl

All action alternatives would reduce upland game bird habitat (e.g., POG) and have the 

potential to increase vulnerability to harvest associated with increased access (see 

discussion of spruce grouse above). The presence of old growth reserves in the Big Thorne 

project area and implementation of standards and guidelines that maintain connectivity within 

matrix lands (e.g., various buffer requirements) would help sustain local populations. No

measurable effects to waterfowl would occur, given that most species occur in the project 

area only during migration on lakes and in bays and estuaries (an exception is the 

Vancouver Canada goose which uses forested wetlands), and thus would be minimally 

exposed to project-related activities in the vicinity of these areas. Thus no changes in the 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-232 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

abundance or distribution of upland game birds and waterfowl are anticipated under any 

of the alternatives. The number of hunters may temporarily increase in the project area 

due to increased access along project roads, but competition would likely remain the same 

because upland birds and waterfowl do not contribute a large percentage of the foods for 

the subsistence communities in the project area.

Furbearers

Estuary, riparian, and forested coastal habitats that receive the greatest use by furbearers 

such as river otters and ermine are protected under Forest Plan conservation strategy. 

Therefore, the Big Thorne Project would not affect the abundance or distribution of this 

species. 

Timber harvest (through the removal of POG and associated fragmentation)and road 

building (increased access) could affect the local distribution of marten. Marten may 

become more vulnerable to harvest with due to increased hunter access along project 

roads. This could increase competition among local communities, particularly if increased 

access in currently accessible areas were to lead to overharvest. However, these effects 

would be somewhat mitigated through project road closure and closures scheduled under 

the Prince of Wales Island ATM.

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals have the potential to be exposed to disturbance and noise associated 

with marine access facilities (MAFs) activity, potential collisions with vessels, and fuel or 

oil spills associated with vessel traffic. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 have the potential to 

result in a minor increase in vessel activity at the existing MAFs and in association with 

the export of logs. However, vessel activity would be infrequent, and would be spread 

over 10 years. Vessels used to transport logs are not likely to affect the abundance or 

distribution of marine mammals in Clarence Strait, given the transient nature of these 

species and the fact that such vessels typically operate at low, constants speeds, giving the 

marine mammal species time for avoidance, and would operate at infrequent intervals. 

Additionally, it is assumed that all vessels operating on behalf of the Big Thorne Project

would adhere to Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines for approaching marine mammals, 

as required under the Forest Plan. Therefore, no change in access to, or competition for, 

marine mammals would occur as a result of the project.

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

The Big Thorne project would have no effect to the abundance or distribution of, access 

to, or competition for marine fish and invertebrates, waterfowl, furbearers using estuary, 

riparian, or coastal habitats, or marine mammals. Therefore, the project would make no 

contribution to cumulative effects to these species. Exceptions are the Vancouver Canada 

goose (waterfowl), and marten (furbearer) which would be affected by reductions in POG 

habitat and/or increased road densities and related effects associated with increased human 

access under all the action alternatives (see the species-specific discussions above). 

Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest projects would contribute to these effects. The 

Big Thorne project would result in temporary increases in the abundance and distribution 

of food plants, and temporary increases in access to food plants/personal use timber and 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-233

freshwater fish. Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest (through increases in early seral 

forest and roads) would contribute to these effects.

Past timber harvest has altered the distribution of deer used by the communities in the 

vicinity of the Big Thorne Project, through changes in the distribution of habitat types and 

road development. Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvests and associated road 

construction, as well as other development, would contribute to these effects. The Big 

Thorne Project, in conjunction with past and foreseeable actions, may further alter the 

abundance or distribution of deer through reductions in carrying capacity.

It is assumed that a deer population at carrying capacity should be able to support a 

sustainable hunter harvest (demand) equal to approximately 10 percent of the habitat 

capability while also providing a reasonably high level of hunter success in the WAA 

(USDA Forest Service 2008b). Hunter success can be expected to decline (through 

reduced hunter efficiency and moderate difficulty in obtaining deer) in areas where 

demand equates to between 10 and 20 percent of habitat capability. If demand exceeds 20 

percent of habitat capability, harvest of deer by hunters may be directly (through 

restriction in seasons and bag limits) or indirectly (through reduced hunter efficiency and 

increased difficulty in obtaining deer relative to historical rates) affected (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). A comparison of projected numbers of deer available, based on modeled 

deer habitat capability (taking all landownerships into account), and hunter demand by 

WAA is provided in Table WLD-34. Because actual hunter demand is unknown, hunter 

harvest data (number of deer taken) from 2005 to 2010 were used to represent hunter 

demand. It should be noted that this likely underestimates actual hunter demand, as it 

does not include hunters who were not successful in taking any deer or took fewer deer 

than they desired.

Habitat capability in WAAs 1318 and 1319 currently appears adequate to sustain current 

levels of deer harvest (i.e., hunter demand is less than 10 percent of habitat capability; 

Table WLD-34). Current levels of deer harvest would be expected to decline in WAA 

1315 (i.e., hunter demand is just over 10 percent of habitat capability; Table WLD-34). 

Due to past timber harvest, existing deer habitat capability in WAA 1420 may not be 

adequate to sustain the current levels of deer harvest (i.e., hunter demand is close to 20 

percent of habitat capability; Table WLD-34). Over time, hunter success in WAA 1420 

would be expected to decline due to reduced hunter efficiency and moderate difficulty in 

obtaining deer (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Commercial thinning proposed under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would improve deer habitat 

by extending the period during which forage is available. Over time, these actions would 

increase deer habitat capability, and therefore potentially the abundance and distribution 

of deer available to hunters. Improvements in deer habitat capability may also reduce 

necessity for hunting restrictions.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-234 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WLD-34. Hunter Demand by WAA of Current (2012) and Projected Deer Habitat 

Capability by Alternative (NFS and non-NFS1/ lands) Incorporating 

Past and Foreseeable Projects

Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA)

1315 1318 1319 1420

WAA Area (square miles) 152.6 199.2 163.3 73.5

Hunter Demand (no. deer)2/ 280 138 203 182

Existing Deer Habitat Capability (deer/sq mi)3/ 17 14 16 12

Total Deer Habitat Capability (per WAA)

Current Conditions 2,594 2,789 2,613 882

Alternative 1 Project Completion 2,594 2,789 2,613 882

Stem Exclusion 2,442 2,590 2,450 809

Alternative 2 Project Completion 2,442 2,590 2,450 882

Stem Exclusion 2,289 2,590 2,450 735

Alternative 3 Project Completion 2,442 2,590 2,450 809

Stem Exclusion 2,289 2,590 2,450 735

Alternative 4 Project Completion 2,442 2,590 2,450 882

Stem Exclusion 2,289 2,590 2,450 735

Alternative 5 Project Completion 2,442 2,590 2,450 809

Stem Exclusion 2,289 2,590 2,450 735

Hunter Demand as % of Habitat Capability 4/

Current Conditions 10.8% 4.9% 7.8% 20.6%

Alternative 1 Project Completion 10.8% 4.9% 7.8% 20.6%

Stem Exclusion 11.5% 5.3% 8.3% 22.5%

Alternative 2 Project Completion 11.5% 5.3% 8.3% 20.6%

Stem Exclusion 12.2% 5.3% 8.3% 24.8%

Alternative 3 Project Completion 11.5% 5.3% 8.3% 22.5%

Stem Exclusion 12.2% 5.3% 8.3% 24.8%

Alternative 4 Project Completion 11.5% 5.3% 8.3% 20.6%

Stem Exclusion 12.2% 5.3% 8.3% 24.8%

Alternative 5 Project Completion 11.5% 5.3% 8.3% 22.5%

Stem Exclusion 12.2% 5.3% 8.3% 24.8%

1/ Assumes deer habitat capability is zero on all non-NFS acres.

2/ Hunter harvest data (including resident and nonresident hunters) from 2005 to 2010 was used to estimate the average 

hunter harvest, representing hunter demand.

3/ Deer habitat capability calculated from the deer model for winter habitat at all elevations. Habitat Suitability Indices 

(HSIs) were standardized to range from 0.0 to 1.0; 100 deer per square mile used as multiplier; all harvest units were 

assumed to be even-aged; no predation was included. 

4/ Assumes average annual deer harvest between 2005 and 2009 (resident and non-resident) represents demand; ≤10 = 

reasonably high hunter success expected, 10-20 = Hunter success can be expected to decline, >20 = harvest may be 

directly (through restriction in seasons and bag limits) or indirectly (through reduced hunter efficiency and increased 

difficulty in obtaining deer relative to historical rates) affected (USDA Forest Service 2008b).

Source: GIS Database, deer_model.aml, 2012

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

those resulting from other projects would temporarily improve access and reduce 

competition. All alternatives would implement the Prince of Wales Island ATM, under 

which additional road closures would occur as funding allows, reducing access to 

subsistence resources over the long-term (USDA Forest Service 2009).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-235

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on subsistence resources as no project-related 

activities would occur. Abundance of, access to, and competition for subsistence 

resources under Alternative 1 would be similar to existing conditions. However, there 

would be indirect effects to deer habitat over time in the absence of young-growth 

management as existing previously harvested stands move into the stem exclusion stage 

thereby reducing the abundance of the resource (deer; Table WLD-18). Conditions in 

unmanaged young-growth stands reduce access to deer and increased undesirable habitat 

for deer hunting (Brinkman et al. 2009). Thus, over time, reductions in habitat capability 

for deer may reduce the deer abundance. Under Alternative 1, deer habitat capability 

would be reduced by less than 1 percent at project completion, and by 6 to 8 percent at 

stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-18).

Under Alternative 1, no new roads would be constructed. Therefore, road access would 

remain the same. 

Reductions in deer habitat capability at stem exclusion primarily result from the 

progression of recently harvested stands on non-NFS lands to the stem exclusion phase. 

As hunter efficiency and success decrease in these areas, there is the potential for 

increased competition for deer on NFS lands where habitat capability, and potentially deer 

abundance, is higher. 

Under Alternative 1 there would be no change in OGR boundaries. As a result, access for 

subsistence resources would be unchanged. Further, the current amount of deer winter 

habitat incorporated in project area small OGRs would be maintained under these 

alternatives. Thus, there would be no change in the availability of deer to subsistence 

hunters.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would have negligible impacts to subsistence because it would not result in a 

measureable reduction in deer habitat capability or result in road building (Tables WLD34 and WLD-35). However, Alternative 1 would benefit from the improvement in deer 

habitat quality resulting from young-growth treatments and watershed restoration projects

that involve thinning on NSF lands. Therefore under Alternative 1, the distribution of, 

competition for subsistence resources would remain as they are; however the abundance 

of deer may change as stands move into the stem exclusion stage 

Alternative 1 in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would maintain 

56 to 86 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat capability at project completion, and 

53 to 86 percent of the original deer habitat capability at stem exclusion, depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-20). Alternative 1 in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable 

projects would also result in a cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 31 to 

70 percent of original amounts; average snow winter habitat to 52 to 74 percent of original 

amounts; and non-winter habitat to 70 to 91 percent) of original amounts depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-21).

Under Alternative 1, scheduled road closures under the Prince of Wales Island ATM 

would be implemented. This would reduce access to subsistence resources. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-236 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would result in an increase in approximately 54 miles of open roads, of 

which approximately 31 would be new or reconstructed NFS roads that would be open 

seasonally from 1 to 5 years following harvest to allow for firewood removal and 23 miles 

would be temporary roads (see Table TRAN-3 in Transportation section) . Most would be 

in WAA 1319 (26 miles), followed by WAAs 1315 (16 miles), 1420 (8 miles), and 1318

(5 miles each). Approximately 4 miles of road would be converted to motorized trails 

when the roads are stored; with ATM implementation there would be a total of 48 miles of 

motorized trails under Alternative 2 (see Table TRAN-6 in Transportation section). Of 

the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the second highest amount of new 

road construction, and would have the second greatest temporary improvement in access.

Effects to deer habitat capability by WAA under Alternative 2 are described under the 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer subsection (Table WLD-18). Alternative 2 would result in an 

immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA ranging from 0 to 7 percent from 

current conditions, the second highest among the alternatives (Table WLD-18). At stem 

exclusion, deer habitat capability would be reduced by a total of 6 to 17 percent from 

current conditions, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-18). Alternative 2 would result 

in the harvest of approximately 1,484 acres of deep snow winter habitat (3 to 6 percent 

reduction from current conditions by WAA), 4,641 acres of average snow winter habitat 

(3 to 5 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), and 4,941 acres of non-winter 

habitat (1 to 3 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA; Table WLD-19).

No OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 2; therefore the OGRs would 

provide deer as a subsistence resource with abundance (deer habitat capability in the 

OGRs), access (miles of road in the OGRs), distribution (winter habitat in the OGRs), and 

competition the same as under Alternative 1. 

Under Alternative 2, hunter success would be expected to remain high in WAAs 1318 and 

1319, decline in WAA 1315, and be directly or indirectly reduced through harvest 

restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 at project completion (Table WLD34). At stem exclusion, hunter success would be expected to remain high in WAAs 1318 

and 1319, decline in WAA 1315, and continue to be directly or indirectly affected through 

harvest restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 (Tables WLD-34 and WLD35). 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

reasonably foreseeable projects would maintain 53 to 86 percent of the original (1954) 

deer habitat capability at project completion, and 47 to 86 percent of the original deer 

habitat capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-19). 

Alternative 2 in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would also 

result in a cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 30 to 66 percent of original 

amounts; average snow winter habitat to 49 to 72 percent of original amounts; and nonwinter habitat to 68 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the WAA (Table 

WLD-20).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-237

Commercial thinning would not occur under Alternative 2, and therefore it would not 

contribute to the improvement of deer habitat resulting from young-growth treatments and 

other projects that involve thinning on NFS lands. 

Cumulative open road miles by WAA under Alternative 2, accounting for all 

landownerships and all elevations, would be highest in WAA 1318 (360 miles), followed 

by WAAs 1315 (294 miles), 1319 (118 miles), and 1420 (84 miles), the second highest 

among the alternatives. This includes road construction from other timber harvest 

projects, which would also increase access. Scheduled road closures under the Prince of 

Wales Island ATM implemented under Alternative 2 would ultimately reduce access to, 

and may increase competition for, deer in the project area due to the reduction in 

motorized road access (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would result in an increase in approximately 95 miles of open roads, of 

which approximately 56 would be new or reconstructed NFS roads that would be open 

seasonally from 1 to 5 years following harvest to allow for firewood removal and 39 miles 

would be temporary roads (see Table TRAN-3 in Transportation Section). Most would be 

in WAA 1319 (43 miles), followed by WAAs 1315 (29 miles), 1420 (16 miles), and 1318 

(7 miles). Approximately 5 miles of road would be converted to motorized trails when the 

roads are stored; with ATM implementation there would be a total of 49 miles of 

motorized trails under Alternative 3 (see Table TRAN-6 in Transportation section). Of

the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the highest amount of new road 

construction, and thus would result in the greatest temporary improvement in access.

Effects to deer habitat capability by WAA under Alternative 3 are described under the 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer subsection (Table WLD-18). Alternative 3 would result in an 

immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA ranging from 6 to 8 percent from 

current conditions, the most among the alternatives (Table WLD-18). At stem exclusion, 

deer habitat capability would be reduced by a total of 6 to 17 percent from current 

conditions, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-20). 

Alternative 3 would result in the harvest of approximately 2,306 acres of deep snow 

winter habitat (5 to 13 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 6,500 acres of 

average snow winter habitat (3 to 9 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 

and 6,923 acres of non-winter habitat (1 to 5 percent reduction from current conditions by 

WAA (Table WLD-19).

With the exception of VCU 5820 (Baird Peak), small OGR modifications under 

Alternative 3 would reduce inclusion of deep snow deer winter range in the reserve 

system. Harvest of these areas would reduce the amount of suitable habitat for deer 

(Table OGR-2), which could reduce the abundance and distribution of deer in the project 

area.

Under Alternative 3, hunter success would be expected to remain high in WAAs 1318 and 

1319, decline in WAA 1315, and be directly or indirectly reduced through harvest 

restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 at project completion (Tables WLD34 and WLD-35). At stem exclusion hunter success would be expected to remain high in 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-238 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

WAAs 1318 and 1319, decline in WAA 1315, and continue to be directly or indirectly 

affected through harvest restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 (Tables

WLD-34 and WLD-35). Reductions in hunter success would be greater under Alternative 

3 than under the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 3, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain 53 to 86 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion, and 47 to 86 percent of the original deer habitat 

capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-20). The level of deer 

habitat capability maintained under Alternative 3 would be the least among the 

alternatives. Alternative 3 in combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects 

would also result in a cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 27 to 66 

percent of original amounts; average snow winter habitat to 48 to 72 percent of original 

amounts; and non-winter habitat to 67 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-21).

Commercial thinning under Alternative 3, would contribute to the improvement of deer 

habitat resulting from young-growth treatments and other projects that involve thinning on 

NFS lands. Over time, these actions would increase deer habitat capability, and therefore 

potentially the abundance and distribution of deer available to hunters. Improvements in 

deer habitat capability would also reduce necessity for hunting restrictions.

Cumulative open miles by WAA under Alternative 3, accounting for all landownerships 

and all elevations, would be highest in WAA 1318 (360 miles), followed by WAAs 1315 

(300 miles), 1319 (118 miles), and 1420 (85 miles), the highest among the alternatives. 

This includes road construction from other timber harvest projects, which would also 

increase access. Scheduled road closures under the Prince of Wales Island ATM 

implemented under Alternative 3 would ultimately reduce access to, and may increase 

competition for, deer in the project area due to the reduction in motorized road access 

(USDA Forest Service 2009).

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would result in an increase in approximately 41 miles of open roads, of 

which approximately 25 would be new or reconstructed NFS roads that would be open

seasonally from 1 to 5 years following harvest to allow for firewood removal and 16 miles 

would be temporary roads (see Table TRAN-3 in Transportation Section). Most would be 

in WAAs 1315/1319 (15 miles each), followed by WAAs 1420 (10 miles), and 1318 (2 

miles). Approximately 2 miles of road would be converted to motorized trails when the 

roads are stored; with ATM implementation there would be a total of 46 miles of 

motorized trails under Alternative 4 (see Table TRAN-6 inTransportation section).Of the

four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the second least amount of new road 

construction, and thus would have the least effects related to temporarily improving 

access. 

Effects to deer habitat capability by WAA under Alternative 4 are described under the 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer subsection (Table WLD-18). Alternative 4 would result in an 

immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA ranging from 0 to 7 percent from 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-239

current conditions, the least among the action alternatives (Table WLD-18). At stem 

exclusion state, deer habitat capability would be reduced by a total of 6 to 17 percent from 

current conditions, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-18). 

Alternative 4 would result in the harvest of approximately 1,208 acres of deep snow 

winter habitat (2 to 6 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 3,942 acres of 

average snow winter habitat (2 to 5 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 

and 4,237 acres of non-winter habitat (1 to 3 percent reduction from current condition by 

WAA (Table WLD-19).

In most VCUs (all except VCU 5972) small OGR modifications proposed under 

Alternative 4 would increase inclusion of deep snow winter habitat and/or low-elevation 

POG (Table OGR-2). This could increase the abundance and distribution of deer in the 

project area.

Under Alternative 4, hunter success would be expected to remain high in WAAs 1318 and 

1319, decline in WAA 1315, and be directly or indirectly reduced through harvest 

restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 at project completion (Tables WLD34 and WLD-35). At stem exclusion hunter success would be expected to remain high in 

WAAs 1318 and 1319, decline in WAA 1315, and continue to be directly or indirectly 

affected through harvest restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 (Tables

WLD-34 and WLD-35). Changes in hunter success under Alternative 4 would be 

comparable to those under Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 4, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain 53 to 86 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion, and 47 to 86 percent of the original deer habitat 

capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-20). Alternative 4 in 

combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would also result in a 

cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 30 to 68 percent of original amounts; 

average snow winter habitat to 50 to 73 percent of original amounts; and non-winter 

habitat to 68 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-21).

Commercial thinning under Alternative 4 would contribute to the improvement of deer 

habitat resulting from young-growth treatments and other projects that involve thinning on 

NFS lands. 

Cumulative open miles by WAA under Alternative 4, accounting for all landownerships 

and all elevations, would be highest in WAA 1318 (358 miles), followed by WAAs 1315 

(289 miles), 1319 (107 miles), and 1420 (83 miles), the second least among the 

alternatives. This includes road construction from other timber harvest projects, which 

would also increase access. Scheduled road closures under the Prince of Wales Island 

ATM implemented under Alternative 4 would ultimately reduce access to, and may 

increase competition for, deer in the project area due to the reduction in motorized road 

access (USDA Forest Service 2009).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-240 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would result in an increase in approximately 31 miles of open roads, of 

which approximately 17 would be new or reconstructed NFS roads that would be open 

seasonally from 1 to 5 years following harvest to allow for firewood removal and 14 miles 

would be temporary roads (see Table TRAN-3 in Transportation Section). Most would be 

in WAAs 1319 (17 miles each), followed by WAAs 1420 (8 miles), 1315 (4 miles), and 

1318 (2 miles). Approximately 1 mile of road would be converted to motorized trails 

when the roads are stored; with ATM implementation there would be a total of 45 miles of 

motorized trails under Alternative 5 (see Table TRAN-6 in Transportation section). Of 

the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the least amount of new road

construction, and thus would have the fewest effects related to temporarily improving 

access.

Effects to deer habitat capability by WAA under Alternative 5 are described under the 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer subsection (Table WLD-18). Alternative 5 would result in an 

immediate reduction in deer habitat capability by WAA ranging from 6 to 8 percent from 

current conditions (Table WLD-18). At stem exclusion state, deer habitat capability 

would be reduced by a total of 7 to 17 percent from current conditions, depending on the 

WAA (Table WLD-18). Effects would be less than under Alternative 2 and 3 but greater 

than under Alternative 4.

Alternative 5 would result in the harvest of approximately 1,518 acres of deep snow 

winter habitat (3 to 6 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 4,668 acres of 

average snow winter habitat (3 to 6 percent reduction from current conditions by WAA), 

and 5,025 acres of non-winter habitat (1 to 3 percent reduction from current conditions by 

WAA (Table WLD-19).

No OGR modifications are proposed under Alternative 5; therefore the OGRs would 

provide deer as a subsistence resource with abundance (deer habitat capability in the 

OGRs), access (miles of road in the OGRs), distribution (winter habitat in the OGRs), and 

competition the same as under Alternative 1.

Under Alternative 5, hunter success would be expected to remain high in WAAs 1318 and 

1319, decline in WAA 1315, and be directly or indirectly reduced through harvest 

restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 at project completion (Tables WLD34 and WLD-35). At stem exclusion, hunter success would be expected to remain high in 

WAAs 1318 and 1319, decline in WAA 1315, and continue to be directly or indirectly 

affected through harvest restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer in WAA 1420 (Tables 

WLD-34 and WLD-35). Changes in hunter success under Alternative 5 would be 

comparable to those under Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 5, the Big Thorne Project in combination with past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable projects would maintain 53 to 86 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion, and 47 to 86 percent of the original deer habitat 

capability at stem exclusion, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-20). Alternative 5 in 

combination with past, ongoing, and foreseeable projects would also result in a 

cumulative reduction in deep snow winter habitat to 29 to 67 percent of original amounts; 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-241

average snow winter habitat to 49 to 72 percent of original amounts; and non-winter 

habitat to 68 to 91 percent of original amounts, depending on the WAA (Table WLD-21). 

Commercial thinning under Alternative 5 would contribute to the improvement of deer 

habitat resulting from young-growth treatments and other projects that involve thinning on 

NFS lands.

Cumulative open road miles by WAA under Alternative 5, accounting for all 

landownerships and all elevations, would be highest in WAA 1318 (358 miles), followed 

by WAAs 1315 (286 miles), 1319 (110 miles), and 1420 (81 miles), the least among the 

alternatives. This includes road construction from other timber harvest projects, which 

would also increase access. Scheduled road closures under the Prince of Wales Island 

ATM implemented under Alternative 5 would ultimately reduce access to, and may 

increase competition for, deer in the project area due to the reduction in motorized road 

access (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(USDA Forest Service 2008b). A discussion of the Section 810 determination for the 

Forest Plan is provided in the 2008 ROD.

The ROD for the Big Thorne Project will include a final finding about any significant 

restrictions on subsistence uses that may result from implementation of the Selected 

Alternative. The following summarizes the anticipated finding:

 The direct and indirect effects from all alternatives associated with the Big Thorne 

Project do not present a significant possibility of a significant restriction of 

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

upland game birds and waterfowl, furbearers, marine mammals or deer.

 The potential cumulative effects associated with implementing the Forest Plan 

through the entire rotation period, which include the Big Thorne Project no action 

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

restriction to subsistence uses fish and marine invertebrates, food plants, personal 

use timber, upland game birds and waterfowl; however, a possibility of a 

restriction may exist for deer.

Subsistence Findings

The 1997 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 1997) included a cumulative 

effects analysis of resource development on subsistence resources. Based on that analysis, 

the Forest Plan ROD (USDA Forest Service 2008) concluded that full implementation of 

the Forest Plan “may result in a significant restriction to subsistence use of deer due to the 

potential effects of projects on the abundance and distribution of these resources, and on 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-242 ▪ Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

competition for these resources”. It is not possible to substantially reduce timber harvest 

in one area and concentrate it in other areas without affecting subsistence resources and 

uses important to one or more rural communities (USDA Forest Service 1997).

For this reason, timber sale activities cannot completely avoid cumulative landscape 

effects to subsistence uses. Based on this evaluation and ANILCA definitions of 

significance, it was determined that, in combination with other past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, all of the alternatives (if implemented through 

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

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

This determination is based on an anticipated increase in human population, an associated 

increase in subsistence activities, and the capability of the habitat to produce deer. As a 

result of this finding, the Forest Service will notify the appropriate state agencies, local 

communities, the Southeast Alaska Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, and 

State Fish and Game Advisory Committees.

Section 810 (a)(3) of ANILCA requires that when a use, occupancy, or disposition of 

public lands may result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction, a 

determination must be made whether (1) such a restriction is necessary, consistent with 

sound management principles for the utilization of public lands, (2) the proposed activity 

involves the minimum amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 

use, and (3) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts on subsistence 

uses and resources resulting from the actions.

Using the information described earlier in this section, the alternatives were evaluated for 

potential effects on subsistence uses and needs, as described above.

Necessary and Consistent with Sound Management of Public Lands: The alternatives 

proposed in this EIS have been examined to determine whether they are necessary and 

consistent with sound management of public lands. In this regard, the National Forest 

Management Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass 

Timber Reform Act, the Wilderness Act, the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS, the 

Alaska State Forest Resources and Practices Act, and the Alaska Coastal Zone 

Management Program have been considered.

National Forest land management plans are required by the National Forest Management 

Act and must provide for the multiple-use and sustained yield of renewable forest 

resources in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Multiple-use 

is defined as “the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the 

National Forest System so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meets the 

needs of the American people” (36 CFR 219.3). The alternatives presented herein 

represent different ways of managing Tongass National Forest resources in combinations 

that are intended to meet the needs of the American people. The potential restrictions 

associated with each alternative are necessary and consistent with the sound management 

of public lands.

Amount of Public Land Necessary to Accomplish the Proposed Action: The amount 

of land necessary to implement each alternative is, considering sound multiple-use 

management of public lands, the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose of that 

alternative. The entire forested portion of the Tongass is used by at least one rural 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 3: Wildlife and Subsistence Use ▪ 3-243

community for subsistence purposes for, at a minimum, deer hunting. It is not possible to 

avoid all of these areas in implementing resource use activities, such as timber harvesting 

and road construction, under any alternative, and attempting to reduce effects in some 

areas can mean increasing the use of others. The current Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines and LUD prescriptions provide for management or limit activities in many of 

the area’s most important for subsistence uses, such as beaches and estuaries, and areas 

with high fish and wildlife habitat values.

Reasonable Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses and Resources: 

Subsistence use is addressed specifically in a 2008 Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, 

and subsistence resources are covered by the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for 

wildlife, fish, riparian areas, and biological diversity, among others. Fish and wildlife 

habitat productivity would be maintained at the highest level possible under all 

alternatives, consistent with the overall multiple-use goals of the current Forest Plan, with 

improved protection under the Forest Plan.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-244 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects

Issue statement: The proposed action combined with past timber harvest would increase 

the percentage of each watershed area covered by timber harvest and would increase 

road densities in each watershed, potentially resulting in higher rates of sedimentation 

and/or other effects on aquatic habitats.

Introduction 

The identified issues and concerns relevant to watershed resources within the Big Thorne 

project area were developed based on external scoping comments from the public and 

internal review. The primary issues/concerns surrounding these resources are related to

the intensity of past harvest and road construction in the project area and the potential 

cumulative effects on watersheds and fish associated with additional harvest. The project 

area includes a number of streams with high fisheries value that are located in watersheds 

with histories of intensive harvest and road construction. The interdisciplinary team 

identified Issue 4 and developed Alternative 5 in response to cumulative watershed effects 

concerns. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all affected watersheds are estimated using 

quantifiable measures for actual effects (e.g., stream crossings are a measure for increased 

sediment) as supported by the literature cited. Table WTR-1 lists the units of measure 

used to evaluate the effects of the proposal and compare alternatives.

Table WTR-1. Watershed Issues/Concerns Addressed and Environmental Components 

Analyzed for the Big Thorne Project Area

Issue/Concern Environmental Component Measure or Indicator

Cumulative 

Effects of Harvest 

and Road 

Construction on 

Watersheds

•Changes in streamflow •Watersheds with more than 20 percent basin area 

harvested from 1981 through project 

implementation (young growth 30 years of age or 

younger)

•Increased sediment •Existing and new miles and acres of road 

construction by watershed

•Existing and new numbers of Class I, II, and III 

stream crossings by watershed

•Changes in stream habitat •Existing and new numbers of Class I and II 

stream crossings by watershed

Methodology

The project area boundary does not coincide with watershed boundaries; therefore, the 

analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects includes all watersheds with any 

proposed ground disturbance in any alternative. This allows for watershed-level analysis 

of effects resulting from project actions. 

To effectively analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of harvest and road 

construction on watersheds in the project area, and to utilize available assessments at finer 

subwatershed scales, project effects and alternative comparisons were conducted at both 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-245

watershed and subwatershed scales. Watershed and subwatershed polygons at both scales 

were clipped to the land area, eliminating marine area from the analysis. 

Although analyses were conducted at both the watershed and subwatershed scales, to 

succinctly describe the effects resulting from project actions at a finer scale, project 

effects and alternative comparisons are reported at the subwatershed scale. When effects 

resulting from project actions were found at the watershed scale, those results are 

provided. The complete detailed analyses of project effects and alternative comparisons at 

both the watershed and subwatershed scale are provided in the Watershed Resource 

Report (James 2012).

Information sources used in the analyses include field reconnaissance surveys conducted 

in the project area between 2009 and 2011, available literature, and geographic 

information system (GIS) data. USDA Forest Service watershed and fisheries staff 

conducted field reconnaissance of the proposed roads and units between 2009 and 2011, 

resulting in updates to the streams layer and detailed records of erosion features, 

windthrow, and other relevant observations. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 

assessments (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1998) and roads surveys were conducted 

by USDA Forest Service watershed and fisheries staff in the Eagle Creek (Fryxell 2009), 

North Thorne River (USDA Forest Service 2006a; Beard 2011), and North Big Salt Lake 

(also known as “Steelhead”) (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2010a) 

watersheds, and the Gravelly Creek (USDA Forest Service 2006a; Beard 2011), Falls 

Creek (USDA Forest Service 2006a and Beard 2011), and Sal Creek (Prussian 2008) 

subwatersheds. Tier II stream surveys were conducted by USDA Forest Service 

watershed and fisheries staff in the Eagle Creek, Sal Creek, Big Ratz and North Thorne 

River watersheds. Tier II surveys are intended to provide consistent, quantitative 

estimates of habitat parameters that are required in order to evaluate the condition of a 

stream relative to the forest habitat management objectives (RHMO). The tier II surveys 

include measurements of channel morphology, pools, ponded areas, large wood, 

disturbance, stream buffers, floodplain characteristics, fish presence and migration 

barriers (USDA Forest Service 2001).

GIS queries were used to evaluate effects and compare alternatives, and provide surrogate 

measures of effects, supported by literature cited. Harvest and road indicator thresholds

are used for analysis purposes only and are not prescribed by the Forest Plan. More 

information on methodology is contained in the Watershed Resource Report (James 

2012).

Road miles and harvest unit acres were estimated from continued Forest Service microsales and the State’s 5-Year Schedule of Timber Sales (ADNR 2011) and included in 

calculations of cumulative harvest and roads in affected watersheds.

Affected Environment 

The Big Thorne project area encompasses roughly 232,000 acres of north Prince of Wales 

Island in Southeast Alaska near Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove. Elevation ranges from 

sea level to over 3,800 feet in the southwest portion of the North Big Salt Lake (also 

known as “Steelhead”) watershed. Annual precipitation may exceed 100 inches, with the 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-246 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

highest rainfall occurring during October and lowest in June. Individual storms vary 

dramatically over short distances and can produce intense rainfall and high winds. 

The Big Thorne project area contains two distinct ecological subsections: Central Prince 

of Wales Till Lowlands and Central Prince of Wales Volcanics. The majority of the 

project area is characterized as Central Prince of Wales Volcanics, especially along the 

coast and headwaters of Thorne River. This terrain originated as rugged volcanic 

mountains. Subsequent glaciation carved steeply sloped U-shaped valleys (Nowacki et al. 

2001). The lowlands around Thorne River are characterized as Central Prince of Wales 

Till Lowlands. This subsection developed gently undulating terrain under continental ice 

lobes. Slow moving palustrine and floodplain channel types are common on this 

landscape (Nowacki et al. 2001). Shallow lakes and ponds pockmark an intermixture of 

forested and non-forested bogs and fens.

There are 21 watersheds with at least part of their drainage within the project boundary 

(Figure WTR-1). Of these, eight watersheds have no proposed ground disturbance in any 

alternative. Because there would be no proposed ground disturbance in any alternative 

within these eight watersheds, and they would not be affected by project activities outside 

of their watershed boundaries, analysis of effects is limited to the 13 remaining 

watersheds with proposed ground disturbance.

There are 48 subwatersheds with at least part of their drainage within the project boundary 

(Figure WTR-2). Of these, 11 subwatersheds have no proposed ground disturbance in any 

alternative and would not be affected by the project. Because there would be no proposed 

ground disturbance in any alternative within these 11 subwatersheds, and they would not 

be affected by project activities outside of their subwatershed boundaries, analysis of 

effects is limited to the 37 subwatersheds with proposed ground disturbance. Table WTR2 lists by name each of the subwatersheds with proposed ground disturbance in any 

alternative. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-247

Figure WTR-1. Watersheds within the Big Thorne Project Area
3 Environment and Effects 

3-248 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure WTR-2. Subwatersheds within the Big Thorne Project Area
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-249

Table WTR-2. Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne Project Alternatives

Subwatershed Name

Total 

Subwatershed 

Acres1/

Percent NonNFS Lands in 

Subwatershed

Total 

Acres in 

Project 

Boundary

Percent 

Non-NFS 

Lands in 

Project 

Area

Percent of 

Entire 

Subwatershed 

in Project 

Boundary2/

Baird Peak 4,230 0 4,230 0 100

Barren 2,000 0 1,997 0 100

Big Ratz 10,299 0 10,299 0 100

Central Thorne River 6,986 1 6,986 1 100

Cobble Creek 2,137 0 2,137 0 100

Control Lake 18,624 4 18,611 4 100

Deer Creek 2,902 34 2,902 34 100

Doughnut 1,863 0 1,857 0 100

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 4,556 0 4,556 0 100

East Fork North Thorne 7,548 0 7,548 0 100

Falls Creek 2,408 0 2,408 0 100

Goose Creek 13,502 4 12,422 2 92

Gravelly Creek 6,864 0 6,864 0 100

Lake Ellen 5,331 0 332 0 6

Little Ratz Creek 3,530 0 3,530 0 100

Luck Lake 7,499 0 7,183 0 96

Luck Point 1,410 36 674 12 48

No Name 1,556 0 1,556 0 100

North 2,031 0 2,024 0 100

North Big Salt Lake 20,299 16 19,928 16 98

North Kasaan Bay 

Frontage 14,707 71 212 1 1

North Sal 688 0 688 0 100

Pin 857 84 857 84 100

Ratz Harbor 828 0 827 0 100

Rio Beaver Creek 9,050 0 9,013 0 100

Sal Creek 4,644 0 4,643 0 100

Salamander 1,289 1 1,289 1 100

Slide Creek 6,485 0 6,485 0 100

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 6,645 0 6,645 0 100

Thorne 2,509 61 2,508 61 100

Thorne Bay 6,358 88 5,480 75 86

Thorne Lake 16,110 0 16,110 0 100

Thorne River Intertidal 1,810 41 1,628 36 90

Tiny 529 0 527 0 100

Torrent 1,807 21 1,806 21 100

West Fork Luck Creek 7,317 0 7,278 0 99

West Fork North Thorne 8,382 0 8,382 0 100

1/ Subwatershed areas were clipped to land area and do not contain marine acres.

2/ The “Percent of Entire Subwatershed in Project Boundary” is less than 100 percent but greater than 99.5 percent for 

those subwatersheds where the “Total subwatershed Acres” and “Total Acres in Project Boundary” are different, but the 

“Percent of Entire Subwatershed in Project Boundary” rounds to 100.

The majority of the 37 subwatersheds primarily flow directly into Clarence Strait between 

Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay, or into the Thorne River, which drains into Thorne Bay. 

A few of the subwatersheds draining directly into Clarence Strait are not true 

subwatersheds with single outlet streams; Baird Peak, Barren, North, North Sal, Ratz 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-250 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Harbor, and Tiny are frontal subwatersheds containing discrete first order streams that 

empty directly into saltwater. In addition, the Big Ratz, Little Ratz, No Name, Sal Creek, 

Cobble Creek, Salamander, Doughnut, Luck Point, Pin, and Slide Creek subwatersheds all 

directly flow into Clarence Strait. In the north end of the project area are the Eagle Creek 

subwatersheds, including Eagle Creek/Slide Creek, Luck Lake, and West Fork Luck 

Creek subwatersheds. Eagle Creek is the outflow of Luck Lake, which flows into 

Clarence Strait. In the southern end of the project area the Thorne Bay, Thorne, and Deer 

Creek subwatersheds drain directly into Thorne Bay. The Control Lake, East Fork North 

Thorne River, West Fork North Thorne River, Snakey Lakes Lowlands, Central Thorne 

River, Falls Creek, Gravelly Creek, Torrent, Goose Creek, Thorne Lake, and Rio Beaver 

Creek subwatersheds all drain into the Thorne River, which flows into the Thorne River 

Intertidal subwatershed as the outlet to Thorne Bay. The Lake Ellen and North Kasaan 

Bay Frontage subwatersheds drain directly into North Kasaan Bay. The North Big Salt 

Lake subwatershed drains into Big Salt Lake, which opens into San Alberto Bay.

Fourteen of the 37 subwatersheds with ground disturbance in any alternative are part of 

the larger Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed (Baird Peak, Barren, Cobble 

Creek, western portion of Doughnut, Little Ratz Creek, Luck Point, No Name, eastern 

portion of North, North Sal, Ratz Harbor, Sal Creek, Salamander Creek, Slide Creek, and

Tiny). This watershed is a USDA Forest Service priority watershed and was rated as 

“functioning-at risk” using the Watershed Condition Framework (USDA Forest Service

2011b). The “functioning-at risk” ranking is a national ranking based on assessments of 

watersheds within the National Forest Service system that were completed as part of an 

effort to prioritize watersheds for restoration actions. Major contributors to this ranking 

include previous harvest of riparian vegetation, density and proximity of roads to streams, 

as well as presence of contaminated soils. The Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) 

contains more detailed watershed and subwatershed descriptions. The following section 

will describe the existing conditions for streamflow, water quality, sediment and turbidity, 

temperature, stream habitat, and lake habitat.

Streamflow

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stations provide the only available long term streamflow 

records near the project (USGS 2011). The hydrographs (Figure WTR-3) display mean 

monthly streamflow in cubic feet per second (CFS) normalized for drainage area in square 

miles for the station near the mouth of Staney Creek (USGS Staney Creek near Klawock 

15081497, 50.6 square miles) and in the headwaters of the North Fork of Staney Creek 

(USGS North Fork Staney Creek near Klawock 15081495, 3.07 square miles). The 

hydrographs represent the typical annual streamflow regimes observed in all the affected 

watersheds and subwatersheds. A small snowmelt peak in spring is followed by low 

flows during drier summer weather when groundwater storage is depleted. Large 

rainstorms in fall produce the highest peak flows. Peak flows also occur in winter during 

rain-on-snow events.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-251

Figure WTR-3. Typical Streamflow Regime in Watersheds and Subwatersheds 

Affected by Big Thorne Project Alternatives

Timber harvest changes streamflow by altering processes that control the amount and 

timing of water delivered to streams. The direct removal of forest canopy affects rain 

interception (Prussian 2010), evapotranspiration, snow storage, snow melt, and soil 

moisture (Jones and Grant 1996; Hubbart et. al. 2007). After harvest is completed, soil 

moisture and transpiration changes continue in response to uptake and use of water by 

remaining and regenerating vegetation. 

Commercial and PCT methods are used within the Tongass National Forest in an effort to 

accelerate old growth characteristics in otherwise overly dense timber stands. 

Commercial thinning would remove trees of commercial harvest size while also releasing 

remaining trees from overcrowded conditions in an effort to accelerate growth and 

improve conditions for future commercial harvest and resource values. Pre-commercial 

thinning involves cutting young trees within an area and leaving them in place. No 

removal occurs with PCT. Impacts of commercial thinning on streamflow are dependent 

upon local conditions, as well as the methodology and intensity of the thinning operations. 

The results of studies on timber harvest and flow relationships are highly variable (Scherer 

and Pike 2003). Some research has shown significant differences in peak flow responses 

between partial-cut and clear-cut watersheds. Keppeler et al. (2003) found that a 65 

percent partial-cut watershed had minimal peak flow increases, while a 50 percent clearcut watershed had increases up to 300 percent. Grant et al. (2008) found that detections of 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-252 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

increases in peak flow did not occur until 29 percent of a basin is harvested for raindominated systems. Using their model results, they further propose that 40 percent 

thinning harvest evenly distributed over 100 percent of the basin area would likely result 

in a non-detectable peak flow increase in rain-dominated systems.

Changes in streamflow following timber harvest and road building are commensurate with 

the proportion of watershed harvested (Harr 1986; Jones and Grant 1996; Jones 2000;

Moore and Wondzell 2005). Bosch and Hewlett (1982) suggested a threshold effect at 20 

percent of basin area harvested. Because no baseline (pre-harvest) streamflow data are

available for the affected watersheds, this conservative threshold of cumulative harvest 

suggested by Bosch and Hewlett (1982) was used to assess the potential changes in 

streamflow resulting from past management. Specifically, watersheds with at least 20 

percent area in young growth less than 30 years of age (as shown in the right hand column 

of Table WTR-3) may have experienced streamflow changes. Another more recent “state 

of the science report” on peak flow response to timber harvest (Grant et al. 2008) 

establishes a minimum, cumulative harvest/stream flow response threshold of 20 to 40 

percent over a 5-year time span. Climate cycles also influence streamflow and probably 

confound most of these studies, which have not occurred over long enough timeframes to 

account for climate shifts (USGS 2000; Neal et al. 2002). The Watershed Resource 

Report (James 2012) discusses other studies considered.

Peak flow increases in the affected watersheds are probably more likely than low flow 

increases, based on most of the studies in the Pacific Northwest. Although studies have 

suggested forest canopy recovery occurs in 10-30 years (Jones and Grant 1996; Jones 

2000, Prussian 2010), for this analysis it is assumed that forest canopy recovery occurs in 

30 years (since 1981) (Hicks et al. 1991; Jones 2000) and would be instrumental in 

recovery of pre-harvest rainfall interception (Prussian 2010). The Watershed Resource 

Report (James 2012) contains more information on these studies.

The North Big Salt Lake (also referred to as “Steelhead”) and Thorne Bay subwatersheds

(shaded in Table WTR-3) meet or exceed the 20 percent area harvested since 1981 

threshold. Streams in these drainages may currently have increases in peak flows, 

especially when considering the combined effects of stream network extension by roads 

(see sediment and turbidity section below) in these subwatersheds. If no further harvest 

occurs in these subwatersheds, all subwatersheds except the Thorne Bay subwatershed 

would reach a state of hydrologic recovery, based on forest canopy, by 2019.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-253

Table WTR-3. Past Harvest in Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives

Subwatershed Name

Total 

Harvested 

(Acres)

Total 

Harvested 

(Percent 

Basin Area)

Total 

Harvested 

since 1981 

(Acres)

Total Harvested 

since 1981 

(Percent Basin 

Area)

Baird Peak 276 7 19 0

Barren 272 14 124 6

Big Ratz 3,050 30 1,017 10

Central Thorne River 1,207 17 721 10

Cobble Creek 777 36 199 9

Control Lake 645 3 645 3

Deer Creek 1,949 67 190 7

Doughnut 54 3 0 0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 1,810 40 335 7

East Fork North Thorne River 1,197 16 456 6

Falls Creek 771 32 218 9

Goose Creek 2,014 15 1,885 14

Gravelly Creek 2,962 43 649 9

Lake Ellen 1,805 34 953 18

Little Ratz Creek 1,173 33 238 7

Luck Lake 2,653 35 1,037 14

Luck Point 174 12 103 7

No Name 204 13 204 13

North 515 25 118 6

North Big Salt Lake 4,503 22 4,185 21

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 3,376 23 2,631 18

North Sal 103 15 53 8

Pin 103 12 63 7

Ratz Harbor 171 21 34 4

Rio Beaver Creek 2,509 28 594 7

Sal Creek 1,546 33 392 8

Salamander 548 42 70 5

Slide Creek 3,713 57 628 10

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 1,097 17 885 13

Thorne 205 8 96 4

Thorne Bay 2,744 43 1,250 20

Thorne Lake 387 2 387 2

Thorne River Intertidal 964 53 107 6

Tiny 161 30 27 5

Torrent 998 55 149 8

West Fork Luck Creek 2,021 28 4,635 9

West Fork North Thorne 1,551 19 4,644 6

At the watershed scale, the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed does not 

exceed the 20 percent area harvested since 1981 threshold (8 percent basin area harvested 

since 1981). However, the North Big Salt Lake and Tolstoi Bay – Frontal Clarence Strait 

watersheds exceed the 20 percent area harvested since 1981 threshold (21 and 25 percent 

basin area harvested since 1981, respectively). Streams in the North Big Salt Lake and 

Tolstoi Bay – Frontal Clarence Strait watersheds may currently have increases in peak 

flows, especially when considering the combined effects of stream network extension by 

roads (see sediment and turbidity section below) in these watersheds. If no further harvest 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-254 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

occurs in these watersheds, they would reach a state of hydrologic recovery, based on 

forest canopy, by the mid-2020s. The Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) discusses 

all watersheds in more detail.

In summary, past harvest (including harvest prior to 1981) may have caused increased 

streamflow at the subwatershed scale in 22 of the affected subwatersheds. Two of these, 

the North Big Salt Lake and Thorne Bay subwatersheds, may currently experience 

increased flows. A 10 percent increase in peakflow at the subwatershed scale (Grant et al. 

2008) is plausible; however, the body of supporting science on this issue has contributed 

to variable conclusions and it is unlikely that an increase could be measured due to the 

lack of baseline data in the affected subwatersheds.

Water Quality

Beneficial Uses of Waters on the Project Area

Water bodies in Alaska are protected for all uses; the most stringent numeric criteria apply 

in accordance with Alaska Water Quality Standards (ADEC 2011a). For stream 

temperature, the most stringent criterion is aquatic life and for turbidity it is drinking 

water. Existing uses of water from the subwatersheds in the project area include potable 

water supplies, aquatic life, and limited contact recreation.

There are two potable water supplies (PWS) in the affected subwatersheds: Water Lake 

and Linkum Creek. Water Lake is located within the Thorne subwatershed, 

approximately 0.1 mile north of the municipality of Thorne Bay, and supplies potable 

water to the area residents. Water Lake is a state-classified PWS source area and is 

entirely on non-Federal lands (State of Alaska and City of Thorne Bay lands). Linkum 

Creek is located within the North Kasaan Bay Frontage subwatershed near the organized 

village of Kasaan and supplies water to area residents. Linkum Creek is a state-classified 

PWS source area and is entirely on tribal land.

Two MAFs are likely to be used for log transport as part of project activities; Thorne Bay 

and Coffman Cove. The Thorne Bay MAF is a former LTF and is considered an impaired 

waterbody due to bark deposits. Coffman Cove is not considered an impaired waterbody.

Impaired Waterbodies

The Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) contains definitions for categories of 

Impaired Waterbodies. There are two marine areas adjacent to the project area that meet 

ADEC Division of Water criteria (2010) for impaired waterbodies: Thorne Bay and Salt 

Chuck Bay. 

Within Thorne Bay, there are 7.5 acres listed as Category 4a due to bark and wood debris 

residues from historic log rafting at log transfer facilities in this marine area. Although 

there have been improvements in water quality and the amount of debris residue in this 

area, due to its impaired status, the area is a barge only site. There are three 

subwatersheds with proposed harvest activities that are adjacent to Thorne Bay (the 

Torrent, Thorne River Intertidal, and Thorne Bay subwatersheds). In addition, there is 

potential for this site to be utilized during the Big Thorne Project, as this is a permitted 

MAF. All permits are currently up-to-date for log transfer and barging operations that 

would be associated with its use for the project. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-255

Within Salt Chuck Bay, 19.2 acres are listed as Category 5 due to toxic and other 

deleterious organic and inorganic substances and pollutant parameters for copper from 

historic mining activity and tailings that were left on site. This marine area is adjacent to 

the Lake Ellen subwatershed. Provided in the Contaminated Sites section below is 

additional information on contaminants and remediation efforts at Salt Chuck Mine.

Contaminated Sites

Contaminated sites are defined as locations polluted with hazardous materials that have 

been disposed of or stored improperly (ADEC 2011b) and have the potential to threaten 

human health. The ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites 

Program provide a database of contaminated sites. For the watersheds and subwatersheds 

within the project area, the database includes 11 contaminated sites: five completed site 

cleanups, two completed site cleanups with institutional controls, and four sites remain 

open. The USDA Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay 

DuRette Shop, USDA Forest Service Salt Chuck Mine, and USDA Forest Service Thorne 

Bay Landfill are the four sites that remain open. 

The USDA Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills and Thorne Bay 

DuRette Shop sites are located within the town of Thorne Bay. The USDA Forest Service 

Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills site contains petroleum and metal contaminated 

materials. The Thorne Bay DuRette Shop site is a historical waste oil sump with 

petroleum contaminated soils. 

The Salt Chuck Mine is a historic gold, silver, copper, and palladium mine located in the 

Lake Ellen subwatershed and is 4.5 miles south of the town of Thorne Bay. Contaminants 

include the remnants of 25 structures, two diesel tanks and four banks of diesel engines on 

site, and a tailings deposit covering approximately 23 acres from the intertidal zone to the 

uplands. An additional 45 acres of uplands have been contaminated by mining related 

activities. The main contaminants of concern are copper, arsenic, and vanadium. In 2010 

the Salt Chuck Mine was added by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to its 

National Priorities List, resulting in the site being under CERCLA (Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, otherwise known as 

Superfund) authority (ADEC 2011c). During 2011, the USDA Forest Service began 

cleanup and remediation activities on Federal lands within the upland area. Remediation 

activities included the construction of a temporary road to the site, the removal of 

approximately 5,400 cubic yards of petroleum and metal contaminated soils and tailings to 

an out of state landfill, and the removal of building debris and tanks. These remediation 

activities will likely contribute to improved water quality in Salt Chuck Bay over time, by 

lowering the levels of copper, arsenic, and vanadium. Additional removal activities on 

Federal lands are anticipated to be addressed under the EPA Superfund action. Testing 

was done in the winter of 2011 followed by continued remediation in the summer of 2012. 

The USDA Forest Service Thorne Bay landfill is located in the Torrent subwatershed and 

is 1.5 miles west of the City of Thorne Bay. The landfill is comprised predominately of 

solid waste, but hazardous wastes such as paint, waste oil, old gas, diesel fuel, batteries, 

paint thinner, waste solvent, PCB transformers, and arsenic-based pesticides have also 

been dumped in the area. Metals are reported to be leaching from the site into nearby 

waterways. Three streams drain the landfill site, two of which - Ditch Creek and South 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-256 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Creek - are fish bearing. Ditch Creek runs through the northern edge of the landfill, and 

South Creek through the middle. In 2002, iron and manganese were found in Ditch Creek 

and South Creek. Due to the presence of the hazardous waste, under CERCLA authority, 

the USDA Forest Service conducted an engineering Removal Action and NFRAP (“No 

Further Remedial Action Planned”) with long-term monitoring required. Annual 

monitoring of surface water for iron and manganese, as well as fish surveys for 10 years 

was required with a 5-year review. 

In 2009 the 5-year review was conducted and results demonstrated that the sampling 

locations in Ditch Creek, closest to the Thorne Bay Estuary, met water quality standards 

for iron and manganese for 5 years, and no additional sampling was needed at those 

locations (ADEC 2011d). Within South Creek, Alaska Water Quality Standards 

exceedences for iron and manganese were observed and monitoring remained necessary. 

Due to the lack of established trends, fish monitoring was eliminated at all sampling 

locations. 

Acid Rock Drainage

Acid rock drainage (ARD) is created when iron pyrite, oxygen, and water combine and 

produce acidified water that dissolves metal compounds resulting in elevated metal 

concentrations in the water. The ARD acronym is used for rock containing sulfides such 

as iron pyrite that break down and produce acidified water. 

The Coffman Cove Road project, a Federal Highways project north of the Big Thorne 

Project boundary, utilized a rock source from the Descon Formation for a portion of the 

construction. The Descon Formation is an Ordovician to Silurian aged black, thin-bedded 

shale and/or chert. The use of this pyritic material in the road's subgrade resulted in the 

generation of ARD which negatively impacted water quality and aquatic environments 

downstream of the construction. Subsequent testing of the waters above the Coffman 

Cove Road cleanup effort showed some metal values exceeding Alaska State Water 

Quality Standards. This suggests that mineralization exists in other zones within the 

watersheds (Baichtal personal comm. 2011, as cited in Barnhart 2012).

Approximately 15.2 percent (35,074 acres) of the Big Thorne project area is underlain by 

the Descon Formation. Most of the Descon Formation (Sod) area contains disseminated 

pyrite. Some shear and fault zones within this formation are more heavily mineralized 

than others. The use of this pyritic material in the road's subgrade can result in the 

generation of "acid rock drainage" (ARD) which can negatively impact water quality and 

aquatic environments downstream of the construction. Existing forest roads and quarries 

in this area are constructed from the Descon Formation. It is estimated that 253.8 miles of 

existing road likely constructed from the Descon Shale exist within the Big Thorne project 

area. It is not known if the material sources used in this construction contained

mineralization. However, no past problems have been observed (Baichtal personal comm. 

2011, as cited in Barnhart and Hitner 2012).

Sediment and Turbidity

Limited sediment and turbidity information has been collected in some of the affected 

subwatersheds and is summarized in this section.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-257

Sediment is introduced into streams by channel erosion, roads, landslides and debris 

flows, and rain splash on bare soils. The amount of sediment delivered to streams is 

influenced by road construction, road drainage, road-use frequency, number of roadstream crossings, subwatershed road density, and management actions in forested

drainages (Reid and Dunne 1984; Swanson et al. 1987; Chamberlin et al. 1991; Furniss et 

al. 1991; Croke et al. 2005; Gomi et al. 2005). Although riparian buffer zones in 

watersheds are considered to be sediment sinks, under some circumstances, buffer zones 

may be sediment sources (Dillaha and Inamdar 1997). Gomi et al. (2005) reviewed 

studies related to the effects of timber harvest on sediment production and discusses that 

increased peak flow response due to vegetation loss may increase sediment recruitment 

from within-channel sources and transport capacity of streams. Because increased peak 

flows may increase sediment recruitment from stream channel erosion and bed scour 

(Tonina et al. 2008), stream channel erosion could be increased within subwatersheds 

containing 20 percent or greater area harvested since 1981 (30 years) (Table WTR-3). 

The effects of commercial thinning on sediment production are dependent upon multiple 

factors, including area of basin harvested, hydrologic regime, topography, soil conditions, 

and harvest methods. Landslides resulting from disturbance can contribute significant 

amounts of sediment and may occur due to disturbances related to harvest operations that 

are unrelated to basin area harvested (Kreutzweiser and Capell 2001). Karwan et al. 

(2007) found that sedimentation effects from a partial-cut of 50 percent of a watershed 

were insignificant when compared to the control, while effects from 50 percent clear-cut 

harvest were significant. 

On the Tongass National Forest, monitoring data indicate that harvested areas are 

consistently within the established standard of less than 15 percent detrimental soil 

disturbance (USDA Forest Service 2005). Additionally, BMP implementation and 

effectiveness monitoring occurred at recent timber harvest sites on Prince of Wales Island

and in most cases, BMPs were found to be implemented appropriately (USDA Forest 

Service 2010a). Examination of five harvest units and related roads by an 

interdisciplinary team found effective implementation of the BMPs with no visual sign of 

erosion or sedimentation into site area streams (USDA Forest Service 2011). This further 

suggests that increased stream sediment from present harvest practices would be minimal. 

Roads have been found to contribute more sediment to streams than any other land 

management activity (Reid and Dunn 1984; Gucinski et al. 2001; Gomi et al. 2005) and 

pose the greatest potential risk to watershed resources and fish habitat (Furniss et al. 1991;

Luce and Wemple 2001). Timber harvest and road construction on unstable slopes may 

trigger landslides and debris flows. The delivery of sediment to streams from these events 

depends on their connection to streams (Gomi et al. 2005). 

Landslide inventories were completed in the project area. Natural and managementinduced landslides and other sediment sources are described in the Soils (Cox et al. 2012), 

Karst (Kovarik 2012), and Fisheries (Knutzen 2012) Resource Reports. Naturally caused 

landslides affect approximately 1.8 percent of the project area and a total of 2.7 percent of

the project area has naturally disturbed soils (Cox et al. 2012). Approximately 0.1 percent 

of the project area is affected by landslides resulting from previous harvest activities. Past 

harvest on steep slopes greater than 72 percent may also contribute to mass wasting 

events; however, most past harvest did not occur on slopes greater than 72 percent. Total 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-258 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

soil disturbance due to management affects 2.2 percent of the project area. Roads are 

associated with 61 (56 acres) management related landslides (Cox et al. 2012). Further 

details on landslides are discussed in the Watershed Resource Report (James 2012).

Road construction in Southeast Alaska requires substantial ground disturbance, producing 

short term increases in sediment transport (Paustian 1987). Road reconstruction, 

maintenance, and storage activities also mobilize sediment. These periodic short term 

increases would have occurred in each of the affected watersheds and subwatersheds 

starting around the 1950s and continuing through current road construction and 

maintenance activities. 

Studies in Southeast Alaska have correlated higher rates of road erosion with heavy traffic 

and poor quality rock surfacing (Kahklen and Hartsog 1999). In Washington’s Olympic 

Peninsula, Cederholm et al. (1980) found that accumulation of fine sediment in 

streambeds was highest in basins where the road area exceeded 2.5 percent of the basin 

area. A statistical relationship between fine streambed sediment and watershed 

disturbance has not been reported in Southeast Alaska studies (Bryant et al. 2004;

Woodsmith et al. 2005). Nonetheless, the suggested threshold by Cederholm et al. (1980) 

provides a measure to evaluate the potential impacts of roaded areas in the affected 

watersheds and subwatersheds in comparison to findings elsewhere in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

The Deer Creek, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide Creek, Thorne River Intertidal, and 

Torrent subwatersheds exceed the 2.5 percent threshold within the Big Thorne project area

(as shown in the right hand column of Table WTR-4). In an assessment of 17 

subwatersheds located within the Big Thorne project area, the Big Ratz, Sal Creek, and 

Slide Creek subwatersheds were determined to have the highest sediment movement 

potential and detrimental effects from past management activities based on stream density 

and miles of transport streams (USDA Forest Service 2004a). In an additional assessment 

of these 17 subwatersheds, Prussian and Bair (2006) ranked the Big Ratz, No Name, Deer 

Creek, Slide Creek, Ratz Harbor, and Torrent subwatersheds highest for potential 

sediment impacts to aquatic resources. Through an assessment and field reconnaissance, 

Fryxell (2010) ranked the Luck Lake, West Fork Luck Creek, and Eagle Creek-Slide 

Creek subwatersheds as high for sediment risk and landslide influences on fish habitat. In 

addition, the Sal Creek and Slide Creek subwatersheds have sediment sources due to 

landslides and drainage issues related to roads (Thompson and Brigham personal comm. 

2012). Furthermore, increased peak flows associated with past harvest (Table WTR-3) 

could be resulting in stream channel erosion contributing to accumulations of fine 

sediment in streambeds. These inherent and management-induced sediment contributions 

could be degrading subwatershed conditions; however, the available data suggests 

sediment and turbidity ranges in the affected subwatersheds are within ranges observed in 

unmanaged subwatersheds and within the criteria established by the state.

Based on minimum clearing widths and road surface specifications, a width of 40 feet was 

used to estimate area of road surface and cut slope contribution to erosion and sediment 

within each watershed and subwatershed. Table WTR-4 summarizes existing roads in 

subwatersheds affected by the Big Thorne Project alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-259

At the watershed scale, the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed does not 

exceed the 2.5 percent threshold (1.6 percent of basin as roads). However, the Thorne 

Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay is the only watershed exceeding the 2.5 percent threshold (3.1

percent of basin as roads). Although this is the only watershed exceeding the 2.5 percent 

threshold, the Eagle Creek, Ratz Creek, and North Thorne River watersheds have 

sediment sources due to landslides and drainage issues related to roads (Thompson and 

Brigham personal comm. 2012). These inherent and management-induced sediment 

contributions could be degrading watershed conditions; however, the available data 

suggests sediment and turbidity ranges in the affected watersheds are within ranges 

observed in unmanaged watersheds and within the criteria established by the state. The 

Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) discusses all watersheds in more detail.

Road condition surveys in the project area were primarily completed from 1998 to 2002. 

In 2002 the Forest Service implemented Watershed Improvement Tracking to address 

restoration needs in the Central Thorne and Gravelly Creek subwatersheds. Forest Roads 

3015105, 3015635, 3015639, 3016000, 3016300, 3016350, and 3017000 were found to 

have road disturbance, plugged culverts and gully erosion issues with a low priority for 

treatment. Forest Roads 30152600, 3015630, 3015635, and 3016100 were found to have 

road disturbance and gully erosion issues with a medium priority for treatment. Forest 

Roads 3015105_0.95L had road disturbance issues with a high priority for treatment. 

Recommended treatments in these subwatersheds include road decommissioning, 

scarifying and seeding, unplugging and removing culverts, and improving drainage 

(USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2002a).

In the Deer Creek, Tiny, Sal Creek, and North subwatersheds, surveys identified sediment 

sources along roads. These include Forest Roads 2030000, 2030700, 3000000, 3015600, 

and 3025000. Repairs began in 2010 and will continue until recommended maintenance 

is complete (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2010a and 2011).

From 2005 to 2007 various restoration efforts were implemented in the Sal Creek 

subwatershed. Roads were stormproofed and improved for drainage and six culverts were 

removed to improve fish passage (Prussian 2008). In 2011, repairs began in Sal Creek on 

Forest Road 3020000. Maintenance includes replacing culverts and clearing the ditch and 

road surface (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2010b and 2011).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-260 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WTR-4. Existing Roads in Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives

Subwatershed Name

Total Basin 

Size (Acres)

Total Existing 

Roads1/ (Miles)

Total Existing 

Roads1/ (Acres)

Percent of Basin 

as Roads2/

Baird Peak 4,230 2.0 9.8 0.2

Barren 2,000 6.3 30.8 1.5

Big Ratz 10,299 29.0 140.4 1.4

Central Thorne River 6,986 19.9 96.7 1.4

Cobble Creek 2,137 7.7 37.1 1.7

Control Lake 18,624 22.7 110.2 0.6

Deer Creek 2,902 19.0 92.1 3.2

Doughnut 1,863 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 4,556 12.5 60.8 1.3

East Fork North Thorne River 7,548 14.3 69.2 0.9

Falls Creek 2,408 9.0 43.5 1.8

Goose Creek 13,502 35.0 169.7 1.3

Gravelly Creek 6,864 28.5 138.1 2.0

Lake Ellen 5,331 23.6 114.4 2.1

Little Ratz Creek 3,530 9.7 47.2 1.3

Luck Lake 7,499 25.7 124.5 1.7

Luck Point 1,410 3.4 16.4 1.2

No Name 1,556 5.7 27.4 1.8

North 2,031 6.5 31.7 1.6

North Big Salt Lake 20,299 59.0 286.2 1.4

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 14,707 56.3 272.8 1.9

North Sal 688 2.0 9.7 1.4

Pin 857 3.8 18.2 2.1

Ratz Harbor 828 4.5 21.8 2.6

Rio Beaver Creek 9,050 30.9 150.0 1.7

Sal Creek 4,644 14.0 67.8 1.5

Salamander 1,289 7.6 37.0 2.9

Slide Creek 6,485 37.1 179.9 2.8

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 6,645 14.3 69.5 1.0

Thorne 2,509 1.8 8.7 0.3

Thorne Bay 6,358 31 150.2 2.4

Thorne Lake 16,110 7.7 37.1 0.2

Thorne River Intertidal 1,810 9.4 45.8 2.5

Tiny 529 2.2 10.7 2.0

Torrent 1,807 16.8 81.5 4.5

West Fork Luck Creek 7,317 18.2 88.1 1.2

West Fork North Thorne 8,382 11.7 56.5 0.7

1/ Includes all roads (open/stored/decommissioned) in and out of harvest units. Paved highway and non-Forest Service 

roads are also included in this analysis.

2/ Rows for subwatersheds with 2.5 percent or more covered by roads are shaded in table.

In monitoring installations of new stream structures within the Tongass National Forest, 

downstream turbidity following installation did not exceed state water quality standards 

(USDA Forest Service 2009a). Results from BMP implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring of a sample of 10 to 15 percent of roads constructed, stored, and 

decommissioned over the 4 years prior to 2010, as well as units harvested in 2010, found 

the Tongass National Forest is successfully implementing the Standards and Guidelines 

for protection of Soil and Water Resources in most cases (USDA Forest Service 2010). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-261

Although successful implementation of BMPs occurred, there were a few departures 

related to erosion control associated with seeding along road construction and 

decommissioned segments, stabilization of excavated banks, and removal of temporary 

culverts to provide fish passage at varied stream flows. The team conducting the 

monitoring noted that action plans include clarifications on implementation of the BMPs 

in road storage and road decommissioning road contracts (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Tucker and Thompson (2010) conducted a comparison study related to management 

practices that included Shaheen Creek on Prince of Wales Island and concluded that the 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are effective in maintaining water quality in 

Shaheen Creek. Furthermore, Tucker and Thompson (2010) results suggest that increases 

in turbidity (and sediment) within Shaheen Creek may not be measurable when compared 

to natural conditions, and if downstream increases were detected in the study, recovery to 

baseline level occurred without degrading water quality.

Alaska Water Quality Standards state that “Turbidity may not exceed 5 nephelometric 

turbidity units (NTU) above natural conditions when the natural turbidity is 50 NTU or 

less, and may not have more than a 10 percent increase in turbidity when the natural 

turbidity is more than 50 NTU, not to exceed a maximum increase of 25 NTU” (ADEC 

2011a). Continuous turbidity monitoring at locations on Prince of Wales Island suggests 

that background turbidity, even in a heavily harvested watershed, is consistently near 0 

NTUs, but can peak near 200 NTUs in both unharvested and harvested watersheds during 

storm events (Thompson and Tucker 2007). The available data suggest that turbidity 

ranges in the affected subwatersheds are within ranges observed in unmanaged watersheds 

and subwatersheds and within the criteria established by the state. 

In summary, the combined effect of percent basin in roads, sediment sources from 

landslides, drainage issues related to roads, and increased peak flows associated with past 

harvest could be increasing fine sediment deposition and contributing towards degraded 

subwatershed conditions in the Big Ratz, No Name, Deer Creek, Ratz Harbor, 

Salamander, Slide Creek, Sal Creek, Thorne River Intertidal, Torrent, Luck Lake, West 

Fork Luck Creek, and Eagle Creek/Slide Creek subwatersheds. Although these combined 

effects could be increasing sediment sources in the affected subwatersheds, the best 

available information suggests that sediment transport and turbidity within these 

subwatersheds are not degrading subwatershed condition. 

Temperature

Removal of riparian vegetation can increase stream temperature. Riparian vegetation 

intercepts and reduces the intensity of solar radiation to streams and reduces backradiation during cold months (Platts 1991). In coastal British Columbia, daily maximum 

temperature in summer increased in streams with no buffer, while water temperature in 

streams with 10 and 30 meter buffers did not (Gomi et al. 2006). Riparian harvest 

occurred in all of the affected subwatersheds (Table WTR-5) prior to 1991 (the year the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 was implemented), even along fish streams. Past 

riparian harvest could have resulted in stream temperature increases during warm weather, 

but recovery of at least deciduous (alder) shade has likely occurred in these harvested 

riparian areas. The Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) discusses water temperature 

in watersheds and subwatersheds in more detail.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-262 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Evaluation of stream temperature data from both harvested and un-harvested watersheds 

on Prince of Wales Island showed no predictive relationship between harvest and high 

stream temperatures (USDA Forest Service 2004b; Walters and Prefontaine 2005). 

Additionally, Walters and Prefontaine (2005) found that the streams on Prince of Wales 

Island naturally exceed water quality temperatures. Tucker and Thompson (2010) 

conducted a comparison study that included Scary Creek (within the Rio Beaver Creek 

watershed) and a reference watershed (Chanterelle Creek, within the Rio Roberts 

watershed) with no timber harvest or roads. Based on this study, all drainages exceeded 

the most stringent numeric criteria of the Alaska Water Quality Standards for maximum 

stream temperature. Tucker and Thompson (2010) note that while Scary Creek contains 

upland and riparian harvest and roads, it usually experienced shorter duration exceedences 

and fewer days exceeding maximum temperature criteria than the reference stream. 

Hetrick et al. (1998) found that the main determinant of high stream temperatures was low 

flow. Due to Southeast Alaska’s weather, when there is an increase in solar radiation, 

there is little precipitation, and therefore, lower discharge rates for streams. Likewise, 

when precipitation returns, stream discharge increases, resulting in lower radiation and 

stream temperatures. 

The lack of a predictive relationship between harvest and elevated stream temperatures on 

Prince of Wales Island (USDA Forest Service 2004b; Walters and Prefontaine 2005), and 

implementation of riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and III streams for any 

future harvests, suggests that stream temperature is not likely to be measurably affected by 

harvest activities. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-263

Table WTR-5. Past Riparian Harvest in Subwatersheds Affected by Big Thorne 

Project Alternatives

Subwatershed Name

Total Riparian 

(acres)1/

Total Riparian 

Harvested 

(acres)1/

Percent Riparian 

Harvested

Baird Peak 335 16 5

Barren 190 45 24

Big Ratz 1,431 435 30

Central Thorne River 1,756 87 5

Cobble Cree 207 86 41

Control Lake 3,003 44 1

Deer Creek 429 281 66

Doughnut 226 0 0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 683 425 62

East Fork North Fork Thorne River 1,341 424 32

Falls Creek 353 121 34

Goose Creek 1,856 129 7

Gravelly Creek 976 439 45

Lake Ellen 15 3 17

Little Ratz Creek 422 210 50

Luck Lake 1,380 371 27

Luck Point 47 0 0

No Name 163 18 11

North 223 85 38

North Big Salt Lake 3,338 787 24

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 5 2 36

North Sal 32 0 0

Pin 216 21 10

Ratz Harbor 66 15 23

Rio Beaver Creek 1,311 378 29

Sal Creek 556 289 52

Salamander 251 103 41

Slide Creek 954 516 54

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 1673 83 5

Thorne 284 26 9

Thorne Bay 1,015 298 29

Thorne Lake 2,837 24 1

Thorne River Intertidal 307 194 63

Tiny 33 15 46

Torrent 176 103 59

West Fork Luck Creek 1,074 484 45

West Fork North Thorne 1,202 264 22

1/ Total riparian and riparian harvest acres were calculated using USDA Forest Service GIS information and includes all 

streams in watersheds on both Federal and non-Federal lands.

Stream Habitat

The Fisheries Resource Report describes the distribution and characteristics of streams 

throughout the affected subwatersheds (Knutzen 2012). The process groups used to 

classify and map streams in the project area reflect state of the art knowledge about 

inherent stream channel functions and processes affecting fish habitat (Paustian et al.

1992). The process groups also aid our understanding of the effects of past practices. In 

2010, revisions were made to the channel types to facilitate in the logical determinations 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-264 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

of channels types within the established process groups (Paustian 2010). The revised 

channel types were used during field surveys for the Big Thorne Project.

In the project area, all watersheds (Control Lake, Rio Roberts Creek, Rio Beaver Creek, 

Goose Creek, Thorne Lake, North Thorne River, and Outlet Thorne River) draining into 

the Thorne River, as well as the Eagle Creek and Ratz Creek watersheds, and the Sal 

Creek and Slide Creek subwatersheds contain the most sensitive anadromous fish streams 

(Knutzen 2012). In these channels, stream habitat complexity is dependent on a 

continuous supply of large wood from old growth conifer riparian forests. Wood provides 

essential cover and primary productivity. It is a key agent in scouring and maintaining 

stable pools in low gradient gravel bed streams (Maser and Sedell 1994). 

Wood is also influential in fishless high gradient headwater streams, storing sediment and 

releasing it to downstream reaches over time (May and Greswell 2003; Gomi et al. 2001). 

These headwater streams are also important sources of organic material which supplies 

food to downstream fish populations (Wipfli and Gregovich 2002). 

Widespread historic riparian harvest in the affected subwatersheds removed large old 

growth conifer trees, resulting in red alder dominated forest along stream channels. 

Although alder provides shade and leaf litter important to primary productivity, it does not 

provide long lasting large wood (Johnson and Edwards 2002). Current riparian conditions 

along stream channels are dominated by red alder with young conifers beginning to 

establish. Recovery of riparian vegetation to pre-harvest conditions of large coniferous 

trees could take decades. 

PFC surveys are qualitative assessments of the hydrology, vegetation, and 

erosion/deposition characteristics of streams, and riparian areas. Information collected 

includes channel stability, large woody debris and other pool-forming features, riparian 

conditions, and geomorphological functions. PFC assessments were conducted for the 

North Big Salt Lake (commonly referred to as “Steelhead”) (USDA Forest Service 

unpublished document 2010a), Sal Creek (Prussian 2008), Gravelly Creek (USDA Forest 

Service unpublished document 2001, 2002b), and Falls Creek (USDA Forest Service 

unpublished document 2001) subwatersheds. In addition, PFC surveys were conducted 

for the Eagle Creek (Fryxell 2010) and North Thorne River watersheds (USDA Forest 

Service unpublished document 2002b). The Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) 

contains information on PFC assessments at the watershed scale.

In the North Big Salt Lake (also referred to as “Steelhead”) subwatershed, PFC 

assessments were done on three reaches of Steelhead Creek (USDA Forest Service 

unpublished document 2010a). One stream reach was determined to be “functioning-at 

risk,” due to past riparian harvest and a lack of large woody debris (LWD). A second 

section of the stream was also determined to be “functioning-at risk” due to bank erosion, 

past riparian harvest, and a lack of LWD. The third reach was determined in to be in 

“properly functioning condition.”

The Sal Creek subwatershed was determined to be in “properly functioning condition” 

based on PFC surveys conducted in 2002. Restoration and monitoring efforts have been 

ongoing in the Sal Creek subwatershed since the 1980s. The most recent restoration 

project occurred between 2006 and 2007 and entailed placing approximately 400 trees 

along 1.2 miles of mainstem channel, stormproofing and improving drainage on over 1.5 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-265

miles of logging road within the floodplain, removing six culverts that were impeding fish 

passage to over 1 mile of tributary streams, and thinning alder and conifers from over 75 

acres of floodplain (Prussian, 2008). Between 2004 and 2008, Tier II and III level surveys 

were used to monitor the LWD restoration actions in Sal Creek (Prussian 2008). The Tier 

III survey provides additional detail over the Tier II survey. Habitat parameters are 

subdivided into more detailed levels for collection of additional data on riparian habitat. 

Channel morphology measurements are replicated and fish populations assessed. The 

additional outputs may be used to develop or refine RHMOs. These surveys may be 

appropriate for evaluation of fish enhancement proposals, determination of restoration 

needs, or studies of habitat utilization by fish (USDA Forest Service 2001). Although no 

significant findings were determined from monitoring, general trends indicated an 

increase in pool frequency and area. 

PFC and Tier II surveys were conducted in four reaches of the Gravelly Creek 

subwatershed in 2001 and 2002 (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2001 and 

2002b). One reach was determined to be “functioning-at risk” with a downward trend due 

to extensive past riparian harvest, unstable banks, aggradation, and road encroachment. 

This reach received past restoration efforts including LWD addition in 1989 (USDA 

Forest Service unpublished document 2001). A second reach was determined to be in 

“properly functioning condition” with an intact riparian buffer to the slope break (USDA 

Forest Service unpublished document 2001). A third reach was also in “properly 

functioning condition” and contained LWD, pool-riffle sequences, and adequate riparian 

vegetation (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2002b). A fourth reach was 

determined to be “functioning-at risk” due to a lack of LWD, pool formations, and 

spawning gravel (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2002b). Tier II surveys, 

conducted in 2002, found low LWD and pool density, large substrate size (small to large 

boulder), and a previously harvested riparian area (USDA Forest Service unpublished 

document 2002b). 

PFC and Tier II surveys were conducted on one reach in the Falls Creek subwatershed in 

2001 (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2001). The surveyed reach was 

determined to be “not functioning” due to past riparian harvest, constriction created by an 

existing bridge, lack of riparian vegetation, lack of LWD and pools, and bank instability 

and erosion.

Lake Habitat

Lakes play an important role in the affected subwatersheds. They moderate streamflow 

by storing water during dry periods, they provide important fish habitat, and they act as 

sinks for sediment. The Eagle Creek watershed includes Luck Lake, which is comprised 

of 531 acres. The Luck Lake vicinity has been impacted from sediment deposition 

associated with headwater landslides and roads to access timber for harvest. The Big Ratz 

watershed contains the 208 acre Big Lake, plus the smaller Trumpeter and Little Lakes. 

The North Kasaan Bay Frontage subwatershed includes the 29 acre Power Lake, which 

drains into Salt Chuck Bay. The North Thorne River watershed contains numerous lakes 

that have been impacted by road conditions (USDA Forest Service 2006a). The Tolstoi 

Bay-Frontal Clarence Strait watershed contains Water Lake, which supplies potable water 

to the City of Thorne Bay. The Control Lake and Thorne Lake watersheds contain the 

highest surface area of lakes and ponds (roughly 409 and 518 acres total lakes and ponds 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-266 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

surface area, respectively). See Fisheries section in this chapter for more details on lakes 

in the project area. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all affected watersheds are estimated using 

quantifiable surrogates for actual effects, as supported by the literature cited (for example, 

stream crossings are a surrogate for increased sediment). The level (magnitude and 

intensity) of effects is also 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 the following: 

 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 or subwatershed scale, 

and last more than a week. 

 Major: Effects would be readily measurable at the watershed scale and would last 

for years. 

Exceptions to these descriptors are noted as applicable, since they are not a perfect fit for 

all effects. Our ability to actually detect significant changes in streamflow, sediment, 

habitat features, or other aquatic parameters in response to the Big Thorne 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, we have sufficient 

information for these watersheds and subwatersheds to proceed with a credible 

comparison of the magnitude and extent of likely effects across alternatives. 

Streamflow

As described in the Affected Environment section, changes in streamflow following 

timber harvest and road building are commensurate with the proportion of watershed 

harvested (Harr 1986; Jones and Grant 1996; Jones 2000; Moore and Wondzell 2005). 

Studies from coastal British Columbia suggest that even selective harvesting may result in 

statistically significant increases in peak flows (Hudson 2001). Bosch and Hewlett (1982) 

suggested a threshold effect at 20 percent of basin area harvested. As the forest canopy 

begins to close, forest canopy recovery is assumed to occur in 30 years (Hicks et al. 1991; 

Jones 2000) and likely recovery of pre-harvest streamflow conditions. Increases in low 

flow are also described in a few studies, but are less probable in the affected 

subwatersheds. 

To determine the amount of timber harvested proposed under each alternative, the area 

harvested was calculated by taking into account actual harvest from the various harvest 

prescriptions. Even-aged management stands were calculated as 100 percent of the 

harvest area, and uneven stand management (also referred to as partial harvest) was 

calculated as 50, 33, and 25 percent of the harvest area depending on the specific 

prescription for the harvest unit. In addition, the actual harvest acreages for thinning 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-267

treatments were taken into account with harvest amount calculations depending on the 

individual unit prescription. This approach provides an estimate of actual ground clearing 

and harvest removal acreages necessary for comparing against the streamflow effects 

threshold of 20 percent of basin area harvested. For analysis purposes, commercial 

thinning treatments were treated the same as partial harvest. 

No shoreline or riparian harvest is proposed under this project. Riparian buffers are 

designed to mitigate sediment and flow impacts due to harvest. While commercial 

thinning is proposed for stand improvement in some alternatives, this would take place 

outside the designated riparian management areas. Non-project PCT would continue 

where determined needed by Forest Service staff and would be covered under subsequent 

assessments.

Table WTR-6 displays subwatersheds that will have 20 percent or more area harvested 

(includes harvest and road area) in the past 30 years, by alternative. These subwatersheds 

may experience increased peak flow. Road effects on streamflow are accounted for by 

including road area cleared for each alternative. Further discussion on road effects is 

included in the sediment and turbidity section below. 

Effects on streamflow in the Luck Lake (Alternative 3), North Big Salt Lake (all 

alternatives), and Thorne Bay (all alternatives) subwatersheds could be moderate; but it is 

unlikely that streamflow increases would be measurable. The Big Thorne Project

alternatives are unlikely to increase peak flows in any of the other subwatersheds. 

As described in the Analyzing Effects section above, additional harvest of NEPA-cleared 

units and state lands is planned in watersheds and subwatersheds that would be affected 

by the Big Thorne Project. These harvest activities could result in additional cumulative 

streamflow increases (based on percent basin area harvested) in the affected watersheds 

and subwatersheds. The cumulative effects analysis of the additional harvest combined 

with harvest proposed under each alternative for each subwatershed is provided in Table 

WTR-9 and Appendix A of the Watershed Resource Report.

Additional harvest of NEPA-cleared units and state lands in the affected subwatersheds, 

excluding any project related harvest, would likely result in additional cumulative 

streamflow increases (based on percent basin area harvested) in the North Big Salt Lake, 

Pin, and Thorne Bay subwatersheds. Cumulatively, the percent basin area harvested in 

the past 30 years, plus future harvest of NEPA-cleared units and proposed harvest on state 

lands in the affected subwatersheds, added to the percent basin area harvested due to the 

Big Thorne Project alternatives, may result in moderate streamflow increases in the Goose 

Creek (Alternative 3), Luck Lake (Alternative 3), North Big Salt Lake (all alternatives), 

Pin (Alternative 3), and Thorne Bay (all alternatives) subwatersheds. The cumulative 

harvest in the past 30 years in these basins could increase to as much as 20.0, 20.5, 25.4, 

36.5, and 23.1 percent of the basin area, respectively, under Alternative 3 (Table WTR-9 

and Appendix A of the Watershed Resource Report, James 2012).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-268 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WTR-6. Proposed Harvest (including road clearing) by Big Thorne Project 

Alternatives in Affected Subwatersheds

Subwatershed Name

Total 

Basin 

Size 

(Acres)

Harvest and Roads Since 1981 (Percent Basin Area)1/

Existing

Condition

(Alternative 1)

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Baird Peak 4,230 0.5 0.8 2.7 0.5 1.9

Barren 2,000 7.1 19.1 19.1 16.3 14.5

Big Ratz 10,299 10.2 12.9 15.0 13.7 13.8

Central Thorne River 6,986 10.8 17.0 17.0 13.8 16.4

Cobble Creek 2,137 9.4 12.0 12.7 11.1 12.7

Control Lake 18,624 3.8 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2

Deer Creek 2,902 7.1 14.3 16.8 13.8 16.4

Doughnut 1,863 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 4,556 7.4 8.2 8.6 8.1 7.8

East Fork North Thorne River 7,548 6.3 7.2 11.1 8.3 8.8

Falls Creek 2,408 9.4 13.3 13.5 13.4 13.5

Goose Creek 13,502 14.5 18.5 19.4 17.2 18.3

Gravelly Creek 6,864 9.7 10.9 13.2 12.6 12.9

Lake Ellen 5,331 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2

Little Ratz Creek 3,530 7.0 9.1 11.2 8.5 9.8

Luck Lake 7,499 14.3 16.8 20.5 17.2 18.0

Luck Point 1,410 7.9 7.9 9.7 7.9 7.9

No Name 1,556 14.3 17.3 19.1 14.3 17.3

North 2,031 6.3 6.7 8.6 7.6 7.2

North Big Salt Lake 20,299 21.2 24.5 25.1 23.3 24.1

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 14,707 18.9 19 19.0 19 19.0

North Sal 688 8.4 8.4 18.5 8.4 8.4

Pin 857 9.3 9.3 13.3 9.3 9.3

Ratz Harbor 828 5.6 10.1 10.9 6.8 10.9

Rio Beaver Creek 9,050 7.1 9.5 11.4 9.6 10.6

Sal Creek 4,644 8.7 10.7 12.6 12.1 12.5

Salamander 1,289 6.2 6.2 11.0. 6.2 6.2

Slide Creek 6,485 10.1 11.4 11.6 10.3 11.2

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 6,645 13.6 18.7 19.0 15.0 18

Thorne 2,509 4.1 4.1 11.6 4.1 4.1

Thorne Bay 6,358 20.3 20.3 20.6 20.6 20.6

Thorne Lake 16,110 2.5 2.5 3.8 2.5 2.5

Thorne River Intertidal 1,810 6.1 6.1 8.6 8.5 8.5

Tiny 529 5.8 14.3 16.1 11.8 15.9

Torrent 1,807 9.9 14.4 14.4 12.5 14.4

West Fork Luck Creek 7,317 8.9 11.6 12.7 11.3 11.6

West Fork North Thorne River 8,382 5.6 9.0 9.4 6.9 9.0

1/ Harvest and roads since 1981 includes the existing conditions and conditions after completion of alternative actions. 

Refer to Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) for calculations
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-269

Although cumulative harvest may result in moderate streamflow increases, this assumes 

harvest of NEPA-cleared units, proposed state lands, and Big Thorne Project alternatives 

would occur in the same year. This assumption is not correct because this harvest is likely 

to occur over many years (the Big Thorne Project may occur over 10 years). Because of 

this timeframe, subwatershed canopy cover in mid-aged harvest areas (those near 30 years 

since last harvest) would approach normal canopy cover, reducing effects on streamflow. 

Total cumulative harvest (without Big Thorne harvest) would be less than 20 percent of 

the basin area by 2014 in all subwatersheds, except the North Big Salt Lake, Pin, and 

Thorne Bay subwatersheds, which would not be less than 20 percent of the basin area 

until 2015, 2043, and 2019, respectively. Therefore, it is unlikely that streamflow 

increases associated with cumulative harvest would be measurable in any subwatersheds 

except possibly the North Big Salt Lake, Pin, and Thorne Bay subwatersheds. 

Delaying harvest in subwatersheds expected to have 20 percent or more area harvested 

over the most recent 30 year-period, may limit increased peak flows. Because the Goose 

Creek, Luck Lake, North Big Salt Lake, Pin, and Thorne Bay subwatersheds would all 

have 20 percent or more area harvested in one or more alternatives if the project and 

additional planned sales (non-project Forest Service and State sales) occurred, delaying 

harvest in each subwatershed was evaluated to determine when total harvest would be 

exceed or drop below the 20 percent level. 

The Goose Creek subwatershed would increase to as much as 20.0 percent harvested 

during the past 30 years, if all project and additional planned sales occurred in 2013. 

While this is at the 20 percent harvest level, the percent harvested would never exceed 

20.0 percent, so no harvest would need to be delayed in the Goose Creek subwatershed. 

The Luck Lake subwatershed may exceed the 20.0 percent harvested level under 

Alternative 3 by 0.5 percent, depending on when harvest occurs. Because, at most, only 

37 acres of harvest would need to be delayed to maintain the percent harvested at less than 

20 percent, delaying harvest in the Luck Lake subwatershed would not result in a 

measurable difference in peak flows. 

The North Big Salt Lake subwatershed would increase to 21.5 percent of forest less than 

30 years old under Alternative 1 (no action) if all additional planned sales occurred in 

2013. With the action alternatives, this percentage would range from 23.7 under 

Alternative 4 to 25.4 under Alternative 5. Delaying harvest in the North Big Salt Lake 

subwatershed would reduce the percent harvested to less than 20 percent and minimize the 

potential for increased peak flows. Specifically, if only 151 acres were harvested in 2015 

or later, 226 acres in 2016 or later, 114 acres in 2017 or later, 171 acres in 2018 or later, 

and all remaining acres in 2019 or later, the North Big Salt Lake subwatershed would 

remain below the 20 percent level. Delaying and staggering harvest between 2015 and 

2019 would provide enough forest regeneration to minimize any potential for increased 

peak flows within the subwatershed. 

The Pin subwatershed would increase to 32.5 percent of forest less than 30 years old 

under Alternative 1 (no action), because of planned future state sales. Because of these 

additional planned sales, delaying harvest could not reduce the percent area harvested to 

anywhere close to the 20 percent level during the expected timeline for the Big Thorne 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-270 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Project. Only Alternative 3 includes harvest under the Big Thorne Project in the Pin 

subwatershed.

The Thorne Bay subwatershed would increase to as much as 22.7 percent of forest less 

than 30 years old because of planned future state timber sales under Alternative 1. Big 

Thorne harvest would result in no more than a 0.4 percent increase in this percentage 

under any alternative, and, delaying harvest would not substantially reduce the percent 

area harvested less than 30 years old nor reduce it below the 20 percent level during the 

expected timeline for the project. 

At the watershed scale, the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed does not 

exceed the 20 percent area harvested since 1981 threshold, even when combined with 

additional harvest of NEPA-cleared units and state lands. However, effects on streamflow 

in the North Big Salt Lake (all alternatives), Thorne Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay

(Alternatives 2, 3, and 5), and Tolsoi Bay – Frontal Clarence Strait (Alternative 3) 

watersheds could be moderate; but it is unlikely that streamflow increases would be 

measurable. The Big Thorne Project alternatives are unlikely to increase peak flows in 

any of the other watersheds. The Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) discusses all 

watersheds in more detail.

Water Quality

Beneficial Uses of Waters in the Project Area

As described in the Affected Environment section, there are two potable water supplies 

(PWS) in the affected watersheds and subwatersheds: Water Lake and Linkum Creek. 

The Affected Environment section described the current conditions (Alternative 1) related 

to the PWS. 

Water Lake is located within the Thorne subwatershed, approximately 0.1 mile north of 

the municipality of Thorne Bay, and supplies potable water to the area residents. Only 

Alternative 3 proposes harvesting in the Thorne subwatershed. The proposed units and 

access roads are located outside of the drainage area of Water Lake. Due to the distance 

of the PWS from project activity, there would be no impact to Water Lake.

Linkum Creek is located within the North Kasaan Bay Frontage subwatershed near the 

organized village of Kasaan and supplies water to area residents. Alternatives 2 through 5 

propose harvesting in one unit within the North Kasaan Bay Frontage subwatershed. The 

proposed unit is well outside of the drainage area of Linkum Creek, approximately 8.5 

miles away. Due to the distance of the PWS from the proposed unit there will be no 

impact to Linkum Creek.

Impaired Waterbodies

The Affected Environment section described the current impaired waterbodies in the Big 

Thorne project area. The impaired waterbodies, Thorne Bay and Salt Chuck Bay, are 

adjacent to and receive flow from watersheds and subwatersheds within the project area 

(see Figures WRT-1 and WRT-2). 

For the Big Thorne Project, the Thorne Bay MAF is likely to be used for log transport.

Within Thorne Bay, approximately 7 acres are designated as impaired due to excessive 

bark accumulation from log storage and hauling. Water quality has improved and bark 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-271

accumulation has now decreased in Thorne Bay. If the Thorne Bay MAF is used for the

project, it will be a barge-only site. Using this facility as a barge-only site and following 

site-specific BMPs should result in minimal bark addition to this waterbody, resulting in 

limited impacts to the impaired waterbody. All permits for this MAF are currently up-todate for log transfer and barging operations that would be associated with its use for the 

project. 

As part of Alternative 3, harvest activities would include a single unit located

approximately 1 mile away from the Salt Chuck mine remediation site and in an adjacent 

drainage that could potentially be hydrologically connected through roads with surface 

flow draining into Power Lake, which outflows into Salt Chuck Bay. However, due to the 

combination of the distance of the harvest unit from the remediation site, the presence of 

Power Lake intercepting flows and sediment before they reach the site, and the 

implementation of site-specific BMPs, the likelihood of any increased flows or sediment 

affecting areas adjacent to the impaired waterbody would result in minimal, if any, 

impacts. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the project would result in further 

degradation of the listed waterbody or hamper further remediation efforts. 

Contaminated Sites

The Affected Environment section described the four contaminated sites in subwatersheds 

within the project area that are open: the Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic 

Spills, Thorne Bay DuRette Shop, Forest Service Salt Chuck Mine, and Forest Service 

Thorne Bay Landfill. The Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills and 

Thorne Bay DuRette Shop sites are located within the town of Thorne Bay. As no ground 

disturbance activities for any alternative occurs within the town of Thorne Bay, these 

locations would not be affected by project activities.

As stated above, there is potential for hydrologic connection between proposed harvest 

(under Alternative 3) in an adjacent watershed and the Forest Service Salt Chuck Mine 

site. Within the upland areas of the Salt Chuck Mine site, remediation activities for the 

Forest Service land are complete. The remaining remediation activities are the 

responsibility of the State and EPA and could include marine remediation and additional 

stream work. Any increases in sediment and/or flows from project activities are unlikely 

to reach the Salt Chuck Mine site due to the same factors stated above (in Impaired 

Waterbodies). Therefore, it is unlikely that the project would result in further impacts to 

the contaminated site or hamper further remediation efforts. 

The Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill is within the Torrent subwatershed. As part of 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, project activities would include harvest in two units 

(approximately 6 acres each) that would be hydrologically connected to the Forest Service 

Thorne Bay Landfill. The two harvest units are located outside of the Forest Service 

Landfill, approximately 0.1 and 0.5 mile, in the headwaters of South Creek and Ditch 

Creek, respectively. Neither stream is fish-bearing within the harvest units; however both 

are fish-bearing streams through the landfill. The harvest unit located approximately 

0.1 mile from the landfill proposes harvest on both sides of South Creek. This headwater 

portion of South Creek is Class III and has the potential to transport sediment to the fishbearing portion of the creek running through the middle of the landfill. Harvest actions 

could contribute to increased streamflow and sedimentation within South Creek; however, 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-272 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

implementation of the riparian no-harvest Class III stream buffer and BMPs (as described 

on the unit cards) would minimize increased streamflow and sedimentation in the creek 

and not likely have an effect on iron or manganese concentrations in the landfill. The 

harvest unit located approximately 0.5 mile from the landfill proposes harvest adjacent to

Ditch Creek. This headwater portion of Ditch Creek is Class IV. Because this portion of 

Ditch Creek is Class IV, and due to implementation of BMPs, project actions are not 

likely to have an effect on iron or manganese concentrations in the landfill. 

Acid Rock Drainage

As discussed in the Affected Environment section, ARD has occurred north of the Big 

Thorne project area along the Forest Road 3030 (Coffman Cove Road). During road 

construction, the use of pyritic material from the Descon Formation resulted in the 

generation of ARD. This formation has been identified within the Big Thorne project 

area. Existing forest roads and quarries in the Big Thorne project area are constructed 

from the Descon Formation. It is estimated that 253.8 miles of existing road, likely 

constructed from the Descon Shale, exists within the Big Thorne project area. It is not 

known if the material sources used in this construction contained mineralization. 

However, no past problems have been observed (Baichtal personal comm. 2011, as cited 

in Barnhart 2012). Present or reasonably foreseeable actions or new construction on these 

road or use of quarries from this rock formation should be tested for sources with high 

potential and be avoided. If ARD potential rock is disturbed, mitigation should include 

lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential 

mineralized zones exposed during full bench construction.

Road construction and quarry development for the Big Thorne Project activities would 

utilize and excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. Any existing material source or 

newly developed source within the Descon Formation used to construct access to the 

proposed harvest areas shall be assessed for its ARD potential (Baichtal personal comm. 

2011, as cited in Barnhart 2012). In areas where full-bench construction is anticipated and 

the underlying bedrock (containing pyrite) may be mineralized, the USDA Forest Service

geologist will provide on-site inspection during excavation and construction to identify 

potential mineralized zones. Quarry materials will be tested and sources with high 

potential will be avoided. If ARD potential rock is disturbed, mitigation will include 

lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential 

mineralized zones exposed during full bench construction.

Sediment and Turbidity

Road ditches integrate with and extend the stream network, thereby increasing sediment

transport efficiency to streams (Montgomery 1994; Wemple et al. 1996). Road effects on 

streamflow, sediment, and turbidity may not recover until flow paths are reclaimed during 

road decommissioning. Roads can modify drainage density by extending the stream 

channel network by linking roads to stream channels through hydrologic flow paths. This 

frequently happens when roadside ditches collect hill-slope non-stream surface and 

subsurface flows and drain them directly into a stream, or reroute headwater streams into a 

roadside ditch for a distance before draining them into a different stream system. 

In the Big Thorne project area, the existing extent of roads in some affected watersheds, 

combined with the knowledge that some roads, such as those found in the Eagle and North 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-273

Thorne River watersheds, have failed drainage structures and ditch or road surface 

erosion, suggests that additional road construction activities would compound the effects 

of extended stream networks until progress is made on road storage and decommissioning. 

Where poor maintenance is responsible for added drainage network effects, proper 

maintenance may help reduce sedimentation from the road network. The Watershed 

Resource Report (James 2012) describes specific areas and roads of concern for some 

watersheds and specific issues with roads used for the project are presented in the Road 

Cards.

Road reconstruction of Management Level (ML) 1 stored roads should have less of an 

effect on streamflow and sediment production than new construction, as disturbance to the 

existing landscape should be less. Reconstruction activities would include brushing, 

clearing of alders and replacing drainage structures. Reconstruction would keep the roads 

in a safe and useful condition for which they are managed, while meeting Forest plan 

standards and guidelines and following the applicable BMPs (see RMO road cards for 

road site specific items). No changes are being proposed to the Objective Maintenance 

Level (OBML) and Road Management Objectives (RMO) designated in the Prince of 

Wales ATM (Barnhart 2012). 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would include standard maintenance of existing roads and would 

repair road drainage problems as needed (Barnhart 2012). Impacts should be moderated 

by the requirement that all new, reconstructed ML1 stored, and new road construction 

over decommissioned road grades would either be stored or decommissioned after timber 

harvest. Specifically, all temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber harvest. 

All new system roads (new roads and new road construction over decommissioned road 

grades) and reconstructed ML1 stored roads would remain seasonally open for firewood 

gathering for 1 to 5 years after timber harvest, with seasonal closures between November 

30 and May 1. Seasonal closure reduces use, thereby reducing sediment impacts 

associated with use. In addition, closing roads during the wetter months reduces the 

potential for rutting and road degradation occurring due to travel on saturated road 

surfaces. At the end of 1 to 5 years, all new system roads and reconstructed ML1 stored 

roads would be designated as not for public motor vehicle use and would be placed in a 

self-maintaining hydrologic status. These roads would be reviewed annually and would 

be intermittent service roads (ML1) after the completion of timber sale and additional 

activities and physically blocked or natural vegetation allowed to grow and eliminate 

motorized access. Drainage structures would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and 

may be removed or left in place with additional cross drains. A review will be conducted 

at the time of closure for any additional resource concerns needing addressed (Barnhart 

2012).

Lack of road maintenance presents a chronic sediment problem in the Big Thorne project 

area (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2002a, Fryxell 2010, Beard 2011). 

The Affected Environment section discusses some known areas of road sediment issues 

within the project area. The effects of road-related sediment sources at the watershed 

scale probably cannot be measured; however historic road building and maintenance 

practices represent a chronic source of sediment and do not meet road management 

objectives (USDA Forest Service unpublished document 2002a, Fryxell 2010, Beard 

2011). 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-274 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

All road construction for the Big Thorne Project would follow the applicable BMPs and 

all temporary roads would be decommissioned within 1 to 5 years after harvest. New and 

reconstructed system roads would be closed and placed in storage as described in the road 

cards (Appendix C; also see Barnhart and Hitner 2012 and James 2012 for different levels 

of storage and impacts). Decommissioning of temporary roads and storage of any new 

and reconstructed system roads would reduce sedimentation effects of road construction. 

While all new road construction would follow BMPs and Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines, there may be increased risk of sedimentation due to the presence of the road 

prism within subwatersheds.

Under existing conditions (Alternative 1) the Deer Creek, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide 

Creek, Thorne River Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds exceed the analytical threshold 

(Cederholm et al. 1980) of 2.5 percent basin area in roads (Table WTR-7). As a result of 

proposed new road miles, the Deer Creek (Alternatives 2 through 5), Pin (Alternative 3), 

Ratz Harbor (Alternatives 2 through 4), Salamander (Alternative 3), Slide Creek 

(Alternatives 2 through 4), Thorne River Intertidal (Alternatives 3 through 5), and Torrent 

(Alternatives 2 through 5) subwatersheds would further exceed the analytical threshold for 

the indicated alternatives. Although none of these subwatersheds are above the 20 percent 

harvest and roads since 1981 (Table WTR-6) under any of the alternatives, because the 

analytical threshold of 2.5 percent basin in roads is exceeded, fine sediment accumulation 

would be probable in streams and have moderate effects on water quality due to road 

construction and reconstruction in these subwatersheds. These effects are not expected to 

degrade water quality or fish habitat. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-275

Table WTR-7. Proposed Road Construction by Big Thorne Project Alternatives

Existing 

Roads 

(Alternative 1)

Alternative 2 

Roads

Alternative 3 

Roads

Alternative 4 

Roads

Alternative 5 

Roads

Subwatershed Name

Total 

Basin 

Size 

(Acres)

Total Existing Roads (miles)1/Percent of Basin as Roads1/,2/Total Project Road miles3/Percent of Basin as RoadsTotal Project Road miles3/Percent of Basin as RoadsTotal Project Road miles3/Percent of Basin as RoadsTotal Project Road miles3/Percent of Basin as Roads

Baird Peak 4,230 1.5 0.2 1.7 0.3 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.2

Barren 2,000 4.7 1.5 3.2 2.2 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.9 0.0 1.5

Big Ratz 10,299 22.1 1.4 2.4 1.4 5.4 1.4 4.5 1.4 1.6 1.4

Central Thorne River 6,986 14.3 1.4 5.1 1.6 5.1 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.5 1.5

Cobble Creek 2,137 5.9 1.7 0.6 1.8 1.0 1.9 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.7

Control Lake 18,624 18.9 0.6 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.6

Deer Creek 2,902 15.1 3.2 5.2 3.5 8.0 3.5 5.1 3.3 2.0 3.2

Doughnut 1,863 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 4,556 10.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3

East Fork North Thorne 7,548 12.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 2.8 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9

Falls Creek 2,408 7.1 1.8 0.6 1.9 1.0 1.9 0.9 1.9 0.6 1.9

Goose Creek 13,502 28.4 1.3 5.6 1.4 6.4 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3

Gravelly Creek 6,864 23.1 2.0 0.6 2.0 7.3 2.1 3.3 2.0 2.6 2.0

Lake Ellen 5,331 18.4 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.1 2.2 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.1

Little Ratz Creek 3,530 7.8 1.3 0.0 1.3 2.6 1.3 2.4 1.3 0.0 1.3

Luck Lake 7,499 20.1 1.7 2.3 1.7 4.9 1.8 3.3 1.7 3.1 1.7

Luck Point 1,410 3.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.6 1.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2

No Name 1,556 4.9 1.8 0.3 1.9 0.6 1.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8

North 2,031 4.9 1.6 0.3 1.6 0.6 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.4 1.6

North Big Salt Lake 20,299 51.5 1.4 4.8 1.5 7.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.2 1.4

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 14,707 54.9 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9

North Sal 688 1.9 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4

Pin 857 3.8 2.1 0.0 2.1 1.2 2.8 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.1

Ratz Harbor 828 3.9 2.6 0.9 3.0 1.1 3.0 0.2 2.6 0.0 2.6

Rio Beaver Creek 9,050 25.8 1.7 3.9 1.7 8.2 1.7 4.3 1.7 4.7 1.7

Sal Creek 4,644 8.9 1.5 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.8 1.5

Salamander 1,289 5.2 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.8 3.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9

Slide Creek 6,485 29 2.8 3.6 2.9 4.1 2.9 2.3 2.8 0.0 2.8

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 6,645 8.9 1.0 5.6 1.3 5.8 1.3 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.1

Thorne 2,509 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3

Thorne Bay 6,358 29 2.4 0.1 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.4

Thorne Lake 16,110 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2

Thorne River Intertidal 1,810 7.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 1.0 2.7 0.4 2.5 0.4 2.5

Tiny 529 2.1 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2 0.0 2.0 0.0 2

Torrent 1,807 13.1 4.5 1.3 4.8 1.3 4.8 1.0 4.7 0.1 4.5

West Fork Luck Creek 7,317 14.4 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.2

West Fork North Thorne 8,382 10.3 0.7 3.0 0.7 3.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 2.3 0.7

Total 497.9 54.3 95 41 31.1

1/ Percent basin in road was calculated by converting miles of road to acres of road using an estimated 40 feet road 

width and then calculating the percent of basin acres in road acreage.

2/ Table includes all roads in available GIS coverage’s [system (including roads in storage), temporary (including any 

decommissioned roads still available in the GIS layers), unauthorized, and non-National Forest roads]. 

3/ Total Project Road Miles (system and temporary roads) include proposed new roads, new construction over 

decommissioned road grades, and reconstructed ML1 roads. Only proposed new roads affect the percent basin in roads 

as the other two categories are accounted for in the existing conditions. Differences in amount of total miles per 

alternative compared to the Transportation report are due to rounding.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-276 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Due to cumulative road miles associated with existing conditions, NEPA-approved 

unharvested units, and harvest on state lands (Appendix B of the Watershed Resource 

Report [James 2012])), the Deer Creek, Pin, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide Creek, 

Thorne Bay, Thorne River Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds exceed the analytical 

threshold of 2.5 percent basin area in roads. When proposed new road miles are combined 

with road miles associated with existing conditions, NEPA-approved unharvested units, 

and harvest on state lands, the Deer Creek (Alternatives 2 through 5), Pin (Alternative 3), 

Ratz Harbor (Alternatives 2 through 4), Salamander (Alternative 3), Slide Creek 

(Alternatives 2 through 4), Thorne River Intertidal (Alternatives 3 through 5), and Torrent 

(Alternatives 2 through 5) subwatersheds would further exceed the analytical threshold for 

the indicated alternatives. Furthermore, the Sal Creek and Slide Creek subwatersheds 

have areas of known sediment sources related to roads (Thompson and Brigham personal 

comm. 2012), and the Deer Creek, Big Ratz, No Name, and Slide Creek subwatersheds 

have the highest risk for sediment impacts out of 17 subwatersheds evaluated (Prussian 

and Bair 2006). In addition, within the Big Ratz, Deer Creek, and Slide Creek 

subwatersheds, factors such as unstable soils and landslides contribute sediment, and 

further land-disturbing activities may increase sediment delivery potential. The effects of 

fine sediment accumulation in streams within these subwatersheds could be moderate; but 

it is unlikely that sediment accumulation would be measurable. Decommissioning all Big 

Thorne Project temporary roads and applying BMPs, described in the unit cards, would 

minimize impacts to water quality. Storage of new and reconstructed system roads would 

also occur. However, there would be potential for sedimentation inherent to road presence 

in the subwatersheds. Alternatives with higher road construction would have higher 

sedimentation potential due to the presence of the road prism within subwatersheds.

Restoration efforts to remediate some of the existing chronic sediment issues include 

actions related to the Luck Lake Area Watershed Restoration Plan (Fryxell 2010). These 

include planned road maintenance, riparian management and large woody debris (LWD) 

placement. Floodplain streams in this watershed are dependent upon wood for sediment 

retention and bank stabilization (Fryxell 2009). Past management actions have resulted in 

low functional wood within these streams. Wood placement can aid in maintaining 

channel morphology, sediment deposition, and preventing rapid loss of alluvial sediments 

and eroding banks (Fryxell 2009, 2010). Planned restoration efforts include LWD 

placement and road decommissioning and improvement to 2.5 miles of stream in the 

lower East Fork and Middle Forks of Luck Creek, and in the West Fork and main stem of 

Luck Creek. The LWD material will be obtained from old logging roads in the project 

area that are slated for closure. Upon completion of the restoration actions, natural 

drainage patterns and fish access will be restored along the road segments in accordance 

with the Prince of Wales ATM (SOPA, USFS 2011). At the watershed scale, the Slide 

Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed does not exceed the 2.5 percent threshold, even 

when combined with cumulative road miles associated with existing conditions, harvest 

on state lands, and Big Thorne Project activities. However, the Thorne Bay – Frontal 

Tolstoi Bay watershed exceeds the 2.5 percent basin area in roads threshold under all 

alternatives, including existing conditions. The effects of fine sediment accumulation in 

streams within this watershed could be moderate; but it is unlikely that sediment 

accumulation would be measurable. Decommissioning all Big Thorne project area

temporary roads and following BMPs, described in unit cards, would maintain state water 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-277

quality standards. Storing new and reconstructed system roads may provide additional 

watershed benefits. However, while all new road construction will follow BMPs and 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, there may be increased risk of sedimentation due to 

the presence of the road prism within subwatersheds. The Watershed Resource Report

(James 2012) discusses all watersheds in more detail.

Road construction, including bridge and culvert installation, is expected to temporarily 

increase sediment delivery to streams (Paustian 1987); however, results of grab sample 

turbidity monitoring during drainage structure installation suggests that under typical 

construction conditions, BMPs are effective in achieving water quality criteria within a 

couple of days following completion of instream work (Thompson 2002). In monitoring 

installation of four new stream structures and one bridge installation within the Tongass 

National Forest, downstream turbidity following installation did not exceed state water 

quality standards (USDA Forest Service 2009). Tucker and Thompson (2010) conducted 

a comparison study related to management practices that included Shaheen Creek on 

Prince of Wales Island and concluded that the Forest Plan standards and guidelines are 

effective in maintaining water quality in Shaheen Creek. Furthermore, Tucker and 

Thompson (2010) results suggest that increases in turbidity (and sediment) within 

Shaheen Creek may not be measurable when compared to natural conditions, and if 

downstream increases were detected in the study, recovery to baseline level occurred 

without degrading water quality. 

Riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and III streams, as described in the unit 

cards, and BMPs, as described in the road cards, would minimize erosion and sediment 

transport to streams (Rashin et al. 2006) and maintain cool stream temperatures (Gomi et 

al. 2006). Where Class IV streams are within harvest units, disturbance would be 

minimized through BMPs described in the unit cards. Tongass National Forest 

monitoring data indicate that harvested areas are consistently within the established 

standard of less than 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Recent BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring of five harvest units and 

related roads by an interdisciplinary team on Prince of Wales Island found effective 

implementation of the BMPs and no sign of erosion or sedimentation into site area 

streams (USDA Forest Service 2010). These findings suggest that ground disturbance 

during timber harvest alone is probably not a direct source of sediment. Timber harvest 

would have negligible direct effects on water quality at both the watershed and 

subwatershed scale.

In addition to evaluating sediment effects within each subwatershed based on the 

analytical threshold from Cederholm et al. (1980), the number of proposed road-stream 

crossings (by stream Classes I, II, and III) was determined for each of the alternatives 

(Table WTR-8). Because existing road crossings on decommissioned and stored roads are 

already counted in the existing conditions under Alternative 1 (Table WTR-8), only 

proposed new crossings would increase the total road-stream crossing count. Table WTR8 also shows the number of total crossings that could potentially be impacted by project 

alternatives. These numbers are displayed in parentheses next to the total number (they 

include crossings along roads to be reconstructed and roads built over decommissioned 

road grades). For example, in the Deer Creek subwatershed, under Alternative 2, there 

would be a total of 41 stream crossings, which is only 1 more crossing than under existing 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-278 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

conditions. However, when reconstructed road crossings and road crossings on roads 

built over decommissioned grades are included, in the count of crossings potentially 

impacted by the project, there are a total of 10 crossings that could have project activities 

in the Deer Creek subwatershed under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 proposes the most new road-stream crossings (34 Class I, II, and III streams)

as well as the most road-stream crossings for new construction over decommissioned road 

grades (13 Class I, II, and III streams). High stream crossing numbers indicate typically 

higher potential for short term (last less than a week) sedimentation due to construction in 

the stream and long-term (potentially last for years) effects due to drainage disruption by 

the road prisms. Properly placed and maintained crossings affect only the local channel 

segment, and are individually minor effects.

The subwatershed with the most road-stream crossings, under all alternatives, is North Big 

Salt Lake. The subwatersheds with most stream crossings for reconstructed roads would 

be the Rio Beaver (under all action alternatives) and West Fork North Thorne River 

(Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) (see Watershed Resource Report [James 2012] for detailed 

crossing analysis).

At the watershed scale, the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed has the most 

existing road-stream crossings. The watersheds with the most proposed stream crossings 

include North Big Salt Lake under Alternatives 2 and 3, Goose Creek under Alternative 3, 

and Thorne Lake under Alternative 3. The North Thorne River watershed would have the 

most reconstructed stream crossings under all alternatives (see Watershed Resource 

Report [James 2012] for calculations).

Reconstructed road crossings are likely to have less of an impact than new road crossings; 

however, sediment impacts are still likely and proper road storage and decommissioning 

are necessary to minimize sediment impacts. Sedimentation effects resulting from 

replacement of the stream crossing structures on reconstructed roads should be shorter 

term and more localized than installation of stream crossings for new road construction, 

because the road prism, and in some cases bridge abutments, already exist for 

reconstructed roads. Proper Decommissioning and maintenance procedures, and 

adherence to BMPs as proposed under the Big Thorne Project should minimize effects 

from road construction and stream crossings. Road closure and storage actions for system 

roads may result in limited road prism and crossing removal. Because of limited road 

prism and crossing removal, there may be continue to be increased risk of sedimentation 

due to the presence of the road prism within subwatersheds. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-279

Table WTR-8. Proposed Road-Stream Crossings by Big Thorne Project Alternatives in Affected Watersheds

Subwatershed Name

Existing Road Crossings (Alternative 1)

Crossings by Subwatershed for Action Alternatives1/

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

I II III Total I II III Total2/ I II III Total2/ I II III Total2/ I II III Total2/

Baird Peak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Barren 6 3 0 9 6 3 0 9 6 3 0 9 6 3 0 9 6 3 0 9

Big Ratz 13 13 35 61 13 13 36 62 (2) 13 13 36 62 (8) 13 13 36 62 (5) 13 13 35 61 (1)

Central Thorne River 13 9 4 26 14 9 4 27 (3) 14 9 4 27 (3) 13 9 4 26 13 9 4 26

Cobble Creek 2 3 11 16 3 4 11 18 (2) 3 4 11 18 (2) 2 3 11 16 2 3 11 16

Control Lake 24 14 11 49 24 14 11 49 24 14 11 49 24 14 11 49 24 14 11 49

Deer Creek 1 21 18 40 1 21 19 41 (10) 1 21 19 41 (17) 1 21 19 41 (11) 1 21 18 40 (4)

Doughnut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 14 1 14 29 14 1 14 29 14 1 14 29 14 1 14 29 14 1 14 29

East Fork North Thorne 20 8 34 62 20 8 34 62 (6) 21 8 34 63 (14) 20 8 34 62 (6) 20 8 34 62 (6)

Falls Creek 4 0 9 13 4 0 9 13 4 0 9 13 (2) 4 0 9 13 (2) 4 0 9 13

Goose Creek 26 6 42 74 27 6 44 77 (3) 28 7 45 80 (6) 27 6 42 75 (1) 26 6 42 74

Gravelly Creek 11 12 43 66 11 12 44 67 (1) 11 12 46 69 (19) 11 12 44 67 (6) 11 12 43 66 (5)

Lake Ellen 13 5 23 41 13 5 23 41 13 5 23 41 13 5 23 41 13 5 23 41

Little Ratz Creek 9 12 17 38 9 12 17 38 9 12 17 38 (8) 9 12 17 38 (7) 9 12 17 38

Luck Lake 9 14 33 56 9 14 34 57 (3) 9 14 34 57 (4) 9 14 34 57 (5) 9 14 33 56 (2)

Luck Point 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 (3) 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 (4)

No Name 0 12 15 27 0 12 15 27 0 12 15 27 0 12 15 27 0 12 15 27

North 5 4 4 13 5 4 4 13 5 4 4 13 5 4 4 13 5 4 4 13

North Big Salt Lake 21 40 83 144 21 41 91 153 (11) 21 41 91 153 (27) 21 41 85 147 (3) 21 40 85 146 (2)

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 7 10 15 32 7 10 15 32 7 10 15 32 7 10 15 32 7 10 15 32

North Sal 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4

Pin 2 4 2 8 2 4 2 8 3 6 2 11 (3) 2 4 2 8 2 4 2 8

Ratz Harbor 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8

Rio Beaver Creek 22 11 47 80 22 11 47 80 (11) 22 11 47 80 (24) 22 11 47 80 (14) 22 11 47 80 (13)

Sal Creek 13 5 15 33 13 5 15 33 (3) 13 5 15 33 (3) 13 5 15 33 (3) 13 5 15 33 (3)

Salamander 3 7 3 13 3 7 3 13 3 7 3 13 3 7 3 13 3 7 3 13

Slide Creek 9 23 18 50 9 23 18 50 (3) 9 23 18 50 (5) 9 23 18 50 (3) 9 23 18 50

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 14 3 1 18 14 3 1 18 (3) 14 3 1 18 (3) 14 3 1 18 (2) 14 3 1 18

Thorne 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 (1) 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2

Thorne Bay 20 13 22 55 20 13 22 55 20 13 22 55 20 13 22 55 20 13 22 55

Thorne Lake 3 0 12 15 3 0 14 17 3 0 19 22 (5) 3 0 14 17 3 0 14 17

Thorne River Intertidal 6 2 11 19 6 2 11 19 6 2 11 19 6 2 11 19 6 2 11 19

Tiny 0 1 9 10 0 1 9 10 0 1 9 10 0 1 9 10 0 1 9 10

Torrent 4 10 6 20 4 11 6 21 4 11 6 21 4 11 6 21 4 11 6 21

West Fork Luck Creek 17 9 19 45 17 9 19 45 17 9 19 45 17 9 19 45 17 9 19 45

West Fork North Thorne 2 26 25 53 2 26 25 53 (22) 2 26 25 53 (22) 2 26 25 53 (3) 2 26 25 53 (18)

Total – All 319 306 610 1235 322 308 624 1254 (83) 326 311 632 1269 (179) 320 307 616 1243 (71) 319 306 612 1237 (58)

Total Proposed New 3 2 14 19 7 5 22 34 1 1 6 8 0 0 2 2

Total Reconstructed ML1 Road 21 21 18 60 31 46 55 132 23 10 24 57 16 15 20 51

Total Construction Over Decommissioned Road Grade 2 2 0 4 2 5 6 13 0 2 4 6 0 1 4 5

1/ Road-stream crossings are by stream class and are the total number of stream crossings (existing and proposed) that would exist under that alternative.

2/ The total includes existing and proposed new crossings. Reconstructed ML1 road crossings and crossings for new construction over decommissioned road grades are already accounted for in the existing crossing numbers. Parentheses values are total number of 

crossings with possible project activity (crossings for proposed new roads, reconstructed ML1 roads, and new construction over decommissioned road grades). See Watershed Resource Report (James 2012) for additional information regarding crossing types by 

subwatershed and watershed.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-281

Temperature

Riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and III streams would maintain cool stream 

temperatures (Gomi et al 2006). No effects to stream temperature are anticipated as a 

result of implementation of any of the action alternatives.

Stream Habitat

Riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and III streams, as described in the unit 

cards, will avoid direct impacts to stream habitat in watersheds and subwatersheds. 

Effects will be negligible and limited to road-stream crossing corridors. Table WTR-8

provides alternative comparison for numbers of stream crossings at the subwatershed 

level, including fish streams, for new roads and reconstructed ML1 stored roads. 

Alternative 3 proposes 12 new road crossings on fish-bearing streams, far more than any 

other alternative. Additionally, this alternative proposes on ML1 stored roads to 

reconstruct up to 77 crossings on fish-bearing streams, and 7 crossings on fish-bearing 

streams for roads proposed over decommissioned roadbeds.

Units with high wind risk have been identified and will receive consideration for 

reasonable assurance of windfirm buffer design during unit layout (Barnhart and Iozzi 

2012). Recent forest plan monitoring results have shown that “post-harvest windthrow is 

present in 140 (52 percent) of the 266 buffers monitored adjacent to units harvested from 

2000 through 2007. The average amount of windthrow in the buffers is 6.5 percent. The 

amount of windthrow is expressed as the cumulative number of trees windthrown divided 

by the original number of standing trees in a buffer. The cumulative windthrow mortality 

in the buffers is highly variable and ranges from 0 to 85 percent. To date, 74 percent of 

the buffers have less than 5 percent windthrow mortality, 83 percent have less than 10 

percent windthrow, and 96 percent of the buffers have less than 50 percent windthrow 

(USDA Forest Service 2010b).

Lake Habitat

Lake riparian buffers and other BMPs would avoid effects on lake habitat. Effects on lake 

habitat would be negligible.

Effects by Alternative

Analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for the Big Thorne Project is provided 

in the previous sections (see Environmental Consequences section above on Streamflow, 

Water Quality, Stream Habitat, and Lake Habitat). The following sections provide

summaries of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for each alternative and comparisons 

among alternatives.

Tables WTR-9 and WTR-10 present summaries of cumulative harvest and cumulative 

road construction and acres by subwatershed for each alternative. These tables

incorporate reasonably foreseeable future projects. Table WTR-11 summarizes the results 

from analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects by subwatershed. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-282 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-283

Table WTR-9. Cumulative Harvest by Big Thorne Project Alternative

Subwatershed Names

Total Basin Size 

(Acres)

Existing and Foreseeable

(Alternative 1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Total 

Harvested 

and Roads 

since 1981 

(Acres)1/

Reasonably 

Foreseeable 

Harvest 

(Acres)2/

Harvest and 

Roads Since 

1981 (%

Basin Area)3/

Proposed 

Harvest 

and Roads 

(Acres)4/

Cumulative 

harvest and 

Roads Since 

1981 (%

Basin Area)5/

Proposed 

Harvest and 

Roads (Acres)4/

Cumulative 

harvest and 

Roads Since 

1981 (% Basin 

Area)5/

Proposed 

Harvest and 

Roads (Acres)4/

Cumulative 

harvest and 

Roads Since 

1981 (% Basin 

Area)5/

Proposed 

Harvest and 

Roads 

(Acres)4/

Cumulative 

harvest and 

Roads Since 

1981 (% Basin 

Area)5/

Baird Peak 4,230 19 1 0.5 13 0.8 97 2.8 0 0.5 61 1.9

Barren 2,000 141 <1 7.1 241 19.1 241 19.1 185 16.3 150 14.6

Big Ratz 10,299 1051 3 10.2 280 13.0 490 15.0 362 13.7 373 13.9

Central Thorne River 6,986 757 2 10.9 438 17.1 438 17.1 213 13.9 388 16.4

Cobble Creek 2,137 202 1 9.5 54 12.0 70 12.8 35 11.1 70 12.8

Control Lake 18,624 717 93 4.3 74 4.7 74 4.7 30 4.5 74 4.7

Deer Creek 2,902 202 42 8.4 211 15.7 283 18.2 194 15.1 270 17.7

Doughnut 1,863 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 17 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 4,556 339 1 7.5 34 8.2 52 8.6 30 8.1 16 7.8

East Fork North Thorne River 7,548 474 2 6.3 71 7.3 365 11.2 151 8.3 190 8.8

Falls Creek 2,408 226 1 9.4 95 13.4 99 13.5 98 13.5 99 13.5

Goose Creek 13,502 1961 68 15.0 537 19.0 667 20.0 365 17.7 508 18.8

Gravelly Creek 6,864 669 2 9.8 80 10.9 238 13.2 195 12.6 214 12.9

Lake Ellen 5,331 972 <1 18.2 0 18.2 0 18.2 0 18.2 0 18.2

Little Ratz Creek 3,530 247 1 7.0 73 9.1 147 11.2 53 8.5 99 9.8

Luck Lake 7,499 1070 2 14.3 186 16.8 465 20.5 220 17.2 283 18.1

Luck Point 1,410 112 <1 7.9 0 7.9 27 9.8 0 7.9 0 7.9

No Name 1,556 221 <1 14.2 48 17.3 76 19.1 0 14.2 48 17.3

North 2,031 128 1 6.3 9 6.7 49 8.7 27 7.6 20 7.3

North Big Salt Lake 20,299 4300 69 21.5 685 24.9 793 25.4 434 23.7 604 24.5

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 14,707 2778 <1 18.9 10 19.0 10 19.0 10 19.0 10 19.0

North Sal 688 58 <1 8.5 0 8.5 70 18.6 0 8.5 0 8.5

Pin 857 80 198 32.5 0 32.5 35 36.5 0 32.5 0 32.5

Ratz Harbor 828 46 <1 5.6 38 10.2 45 11.0 10 6.8 44 10.9

Rio Beaver Creek 9,050 644 155 8.8 212 11.2 384 13.1 227 11.3 317 12.3

Sal Creek 4,644 404 1 8.7 92 10.7 182 12.7 158 12.1 175 12.5

Salamander 1,289 80 30 8.6 0 8.6 62 13.4 0 8.6 0 8.6

Slide Creek 6,485 655 2 10.1 88 11.5 95 11.6 12 10.3 74 11.3

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 6,645 907 2 13.7 340 18.8 361 19.1 90 15.0 292 18.1

Thorne 2,509 117 168 11.3 0 11.4 185 18.7 0 11.4 0 11.4

Thorne Bay 6,358 1255 186 22.7 3 22.7 29 23.1 23 23.0 23 23.0

Thorne Lake 16,110 406 5 2.6 0 2.6 206 3.8 0 2.6 0 2.6

Thorne River Intertidal 1,810 110 3 6.2 0 6.2 46 8.7 43 8.6 43 8.6

Tiny 529 30 <1 5.8 45 14.3 55 16.2 32 11.8 54 16.0

Torrent 1,807 149 3 8.4 83 13.0 83 13.0 47 11.0 81 12.9

West Fork Luck Creek 7,317 648 2 8.9 205 11.7 285 12.8 181 11.4 205 11.7

West Fork North Thorne River 8,382 471 3 5.6 284 9.0 319 9.5 104 6.9 284 9.0

1/ Existing harvest and roads area since 1981, including: harvested area and area in roads outside of harvest.

2/ Reasonably foreseeable harvest and roads area, including: foreseeable non-Project harvest related to the Roadside EA micro-sales and individual use free timber, the Control Lake EA, and future harvest on State lands. Area is rounded to the nearest acre. See Watershed Resource Report (James 

2012) for detailed calculations.

3/ Includes existing harvest and roads and reasonably foreseeable harvest as percent basin area.

4/ Alternative-specific proposed harvest and roads area including: acres of proposed harvest and acres of proposed roads outside of harvest areas. 

5/ Cumulative harvest and roads since 1981 includes including: harvest and roads since 1981, reasonably foreseeably harvest, and area of proposed harvest and roads.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-285

Table WTR-10. Cumulative Percent Road Area by Big Thorne Project Alternatives 

Subwatershed Names

Total Basin Size 

(Acres)

Existing and Foreseeable

(Alternative 1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Total Road 

(Acres)1/

Percent of Basin as 

Roads2/,3/

Percent of Basin as 

Roads2/,3/

Percent of Basin as 

Roads2/,3/

Percent of Basin as 

Roads2/,3/

Percent of Basin as 

Roads2/,3/

Baird Peak 4,230 9.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

Barren 2,000 30.8 1.5 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.5

Big Ratz 10,299 140.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Central Thorne River 6,986 96.7 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5

Cobble Creek 2,137 37.1 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7

Control Lake 18,624 110.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Deer Creek 2,902 91.8 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.2

Doughnut 1,863 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 4,556 60.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

East Fork North Thorne 7,548 69.2 0.9 0.9 1 0.9 0.9

Falls Creek 2,408 43.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Goose Creek 13,502 171.6 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3

Gravelly Creek 6,864 138.1 2 2 2.1 2 2

Lake Ellen 5,331 114.4 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1

Little Ratz Creek 3,530 47.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Luck Lake 7,499 124.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7

Luck Point 1,410 16.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2

No Name 1,556 27.4 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8

North 2,031 31.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

North Big Salt Lake 20,299 286.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4

North Kasaan Bay Frontage 14,707 272.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

North Sal 688 9.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Pin 857 26.5 3.1 3.1 3.8 3.1 3.1

Ratz Harbor 828 21.8 2.6 3 3 2.6 2.6

Rio Beaver Creek 9,050 153.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7

Sal Creek 4,644 67.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Salamander 1,289 37 2.9 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.9

Slide Creek 6,485 179.2 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 6,645 69.5 1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1

Thorne 2,509 17.4 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.7

Thorne Bay 6,358 164.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

Thorne Lake 16,110 37.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2

Thorne River Intertidal 1,810 45.8 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5

Tiny 529 10.7 2 2 2 2 2

Torrent 1,807 80.8 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.5

West Fork Luck Creek 7,317 88.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

West Fork North Thorne 8,382 56.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

1/ Includes existing roads and foreseeable future roads associated with the Control Lake EIS (NEPA-approved unharvested units) and timber harvest on State lands.

2/ Percent of basin in roads was calculated by converting miles of road to acres of road using an estimated 40 feet wide road width and then calculating the percent of basin area in road acreage.

3/ Table includes all roads in available GIS coverage’s [system (including roads in storage), temporary (including any decommissioned roads still available in the GIS layers), unauthorized, and non-National Forest roads]. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-287

Table WTR-11. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects by Big Thorne Project Alternatives in Affected Subwatersheds

Subwatershed Name

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Streamflow Sedimentation

Increases in 

Number of 

Crossings1/

Streamflow Sedimentation

Increase in 

Number of 

Crossings1/

Streamflow Sedimentation

Increase in 

Number of 

Crossings1/

Streamflow Sedimentation

Increase in 

Number of 

Crossings1/

Direct and 

Indirect Cumulative

Direct 

and 

Indirect

Cumulative

Direct 

and 

Indirect

Cumulative

Direct 

and 

Indirect

Cumulative Direct and 

Indirect Cumulative

Direct 

and 

Indirect

Cumulativ

e

Direct 

and 

Indirect

Cumulative Direct and 

Indirect Cumulative

Baird Peak minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no none none none none no minor minor minor minor no

Barren minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor none none no

Big Ratz minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor no

Central Thorne River minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Cobble Creek minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Control Lake minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Deer Creek minor minor moderate moderate yes minor minor moderate moderate yes minor minor moderate moderate yes minor minor moderate moderate no

Doughnut none none none none no minor minor none none no none none none none no none none none none no

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek minor minor none none no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

East Fork North Thorne minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Falls Creek minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Goose Creek minor minor minor minor yes minor moderate minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor no

Gravelly Creek minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor no

Lake Ellen none none none none no minor minor minor minor no none none none none no none none none none no

Little Ratz Creek minor minor none none no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor none none no

Luck Lake minor minor minor minor yes moderate moderate minor minor yes minor minor minor minor yes minor minor minor minor no

Luck Point none none none none no minor minor minor minor no none none none none no none none none none no

No Name minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no none none none none no minor minor none none no

North minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

North Big Salt Lake moderate moderate minor minor yes moderate moderate minor minor yes moderate moderate minor minor yes moderate moderate minor minor yes

North Kasaan Bay Frontage minor minor none none no minor minor none none no minor minor none none no minor minor none none no

North Sal none none none none no minor minor minor minor no none none none none no none none none none no

Pin none none none none no minor moderate moderate moderate yes none none none none no none none none none no

Ratz Harbor minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor none none no

Rio Beaver Creek minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Sal Creek minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Salamander none none none none no minor minor moderate moderate no none none none none no none none none none no

Slide Creek minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor none none no

Snakey Lakes Lowlands minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

Thorne none minor none none no minor minor minor minor yes none minor none none no none minor none none no

Thorne Bay moderate moderate minor moderate no moderate moderate minor moderate no moderate moderate minor moderate no moderate moderate minor moderate no

Thorne Lake none none none none no minor minor minor minor yes none none none none no none none none none no

Thorne River Intertidal none none none none no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no

Tiny minor minor none none no minor minor none none no minor minor none none no minor minor none none no

Torrent minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no minor minor moderate moderate no

West Fork Luck Creek minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

West Fork North Thorne minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no minor minor minor minor no

1/ Indicates increase in number of Class I, II, III stream-crossings compared to the total number of Class I, II, III stream-crossings for existing roads.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-289

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Since no activities are proposed in this alternative, no direct or indirect effects would 

occur. Vegetation recovery would occur by 2014 in all watersheds, except the Tolstoi 

Bay – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed, and by 2019 in all subwatersheds, as forested 

areas increase in maturity. No associated road maintenance would occur, therefore 

sediment sources and other road maintenance issues would not be improved. Natural soil 

disturbances would continue to occur; however, vegetation in previously harvested areas 

would grow, adding stability to the soil, and reduce the likelihood of landslides in 

watersheds and subwatersheds. Although the watersheds and subwatersheds within the 

Big Thorne project area are not undisturbed, streamflow and water quality would be 

maintained.

The Forest Service nationally rated Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed will 

likely remain “functioning-at risk” due to high percentages of riparian areas in young 

growth and the current density of roads and proximity to waterbodies. The presence of 

fish barrier stream-crossings and contaminated soils will also continue to result in a 

degraded watershed condition. Sediment sources and other road maintenance would be 

limited to those actions occurring due to standard road maintenance and restoration 

activities that are not associated with the Big Thorne Project. Riparian conditions would 

continue to improve with time as stands age, and riparian thinning would continue to 

occur in an effort to accelerate maturation of stand condition to more old-growth 

characteristics. 

Cumulative Effects 

Because there are no direct or indirect effects associated with the Big Thorne Project, 

there are no cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1. Effects of past activities are 

described in the Affected Environment. Effects of present and reasonably foreseeable 

activities would be as described in the previous sections. 

Per Appendix A of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-9, past 

harvest plus reasonably foreseeable harvest may result in streamflow increases (based on

percent basin area harvested) in the North Big Salt Lake and Tolstoi Bay – Frontal 

Clarence Strait watersheds and North Big Salt Lake, Pin, and Thorne Bay subwatersheds. 

Increased streamflow within these watersheds and subwatersheds may be moderate, but 

the changes are not expected to result in measurable effects on sedimentation or aquatic 

habitat.

The State of Alaska and EPA reclamation and cleanup efforts to address the Category 5 

Salt Chuck Bay impaired waterbody and Salt Chuck Mine site would continue. These 

efforts will likely cause a reduction in potential hazardous material runoff to streams, 

lakes, and the Salt Chuck Bay near the mine site. The Forest Service monitoring of the 

Category 4a Thorne Bay Landfill would continue within South Creek. Continued 

monitoring will likely help determine if hazardous material from the landfill persists in 

South Creek.

It is estimated that 253.8 miles of existing road, likely constructed from the Descon Shale, 

exists within the Big Thorne project area. It is not known if the material sources used in 
3 Environment and Effects

3-290 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

this construction contained mineralization. However, no past problems have been 

observed (Baichtal personal comm. 2011, as cited in Barnhart 2012). Present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions or new construction on these roads or use of quarries from 

this rock formation should be tested for sources with high potential and be avoided. If 

ARD potential rock is disturbed, mitigation should include lining the upslope ditch with 

limestone aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during 

full bench construction.

Per Appendix B of the Watershed Resource Report (James 2012), when past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable road construction is combined, the Thorne Bay – Frontal Tolstoi 

Bay watershed and Deer Creek, Pin, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide Creek, Thorne Bay, 

Thorne River Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in 

roads threshold and may result in moderate (though difficult to measure) impacts.

Conclusion

Alternative 1 (No Action) has no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on watersheds or 

subwatersheds as a result of the Big Thorne Project. Harvest and road construction in the 

Big Thorne project area would be less than in the action alternatives.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 2 would result in minor effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat, with 

moderate effects in some watersheds and subwatersheds. Alternative 2 would increase the 

percent basin area harvested since 1981 in the North Big Salt Lake watershed and North 

Big Salt Lake and Thorne Bay subwatersheds above the 20 percent threshold (Table 

WTR-6). Streamflow may increase in these watersheds and subwatersheds, but the 

changes are not expected to result in measurable effects on sedimentation or aquatic 

habitat. Alternative 2 would not increase any other watershed or subwatershed percent 

basin harvested over the 20 percent in 30 years threshold. 

Alternative 2 is not expected to result in any direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, 

Category 4a Thorne Bay impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired 

waterbody, or the USDA Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne 

Bay DuRette Shop, USDA Forest Service Salt Chuck Mine, and USDA Forest Service 

Thorne Bay Landfill contaminated sites. Riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and 

III streams, as described in the unit cards, and BMPs, as described in the road cards, 

would limit impacts from the planned activities on these water supplies, waterbodies, and 

contaminated sites.

Road construction and quarry development for the Big Thorne Project activities would 

utilize and excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. Any existing material source or 

newly developed source within the Descon Formation used to construct access to the 

proposed harvest areas under Alternative 2 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In 

areas where full-bench construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing 

pyrite) may be mineralized, the USDA Forest Service geologist will provide on-site 

inspection during excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. 

Quarry materials will be tested and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-291

potential rock is disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone 

aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench 

construction.

Alternative 2 would construct 35 miles of road (proposed new roads and new construction 

over decommissioned road grades) that have 9 Class I and II (14 Class III) road-stream 

crossings and reconstruct 19.3 miles of road that have 42 Class I and II (18 Class III) 

road-stream crossings. This would result in minor to moderate effects on sedimentation 

and aquatic habitat in all watersheds and subwatersheds. Moderate (though difficult to 

measure) effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat may occur in the Thorne Bay –

Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and Deer Creek, Ratz Harbor, Slide Creek, and Torrent 

subwatersheds, as they exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in roads threshold (Table WTR7). Compared to other action alternatives, Alternative 2 would have the second-highest 

level of effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat. 

Alternative 2 would have minor effects on the USDA Forest Service nationally rated 

“functioning-at risk” Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. The watershed will 

likely remain “functioning-at risk” due to high percentages of riparian areas being in 

young growth and the current density of roads and proximity to waterbodies. Harvest and 

road construction under Alternative 2 would not result in greater than 20 percent of the 

basin area harvested since 1981 or increase road density above the 2.5 percent basin area 

in roads threshold for this watershed. Implementation of riparian no-harvest buffers along 

Class I, II, and III streams, as described in the unit cards, BMPs, as described in the road 

cards, and decommissioning all temporary project roads would minimize direct and 

indirect effects on the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. However, while 

all new road construction will follow BMPs and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 

there may be increased risk of sedimentation due to the presence of the road prism within 

the watershed. 

Cumulative Effects 

Watershed and subwatershed effects from past practices are described in the Affected 

Environment. Because present and reasonably foreseeable activities are consistently 

evaluated across all alternatives, Alternative 2 ranks second in cumulative effects on 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat in all watersheds and subwatersheds. 

Per Appendix A of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-9, 

additional harvest of NEPA-cleared units and state lands may result in streamflow 

increases (based on percent basin area harvested) in the North Big Salt watershed and 

North Big Salt Lake and Thorne Bay subwatersheds. Increased streamflow within these 

watersheds and subwatersheds may be moderate, but the changes are not expected to 

result in measurable impacts on sedimentation or aquatic habitat.

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, Category 4a Thorne Bay 

impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired waterbody, or the USDA Forest 

Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay DuRette Shop, USDA Forest 

Service Salt Chuck Mine, and USDA Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill contaminated 

sites, there are no cumulative effects. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-292 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

During road construction, any existing material source or newly developed source within 

the Descon Formation used to construct access to the proposed harvest areas under 

Alternative 2 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In areas where full-bench 

construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing pyrite) may be 

mineralized, the USDA Forest Service geologist will provide on-site inspection during 

excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. Quarry materials will 

be tested and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD potential rock is 

disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to 

neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench 

construction.

Per Appendix B of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-10, 

when past and reasonably foreseeable road construction is combined with road 

construction under Alternative 2, the Thorne Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and 

Deer Creek, Pin, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide Creek, Thorne Bay, Thorne River 

Intertidal and Torrent subwatersheds exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in roads threshold 

and may result in moderate (though difficult to measure) impacts.

Conclusion

Alternative 2 would result in no effect, minor effects, or moderate effects relative to 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat, depending on the subwatershed. In general, effects 

would be localized, at the site or stream-reach level. Compared to the other action 

alternatives, Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 4, with less effect on sedimentation and 

aquatic habitat than Alternative 3, but more effect than Alternative 5. Compared to 

Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would have more road-stream crossings (Class I, II, and III), 

resulting in greater effects relative to sedimentation and aquatic habitat than Alternative 

4.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 3 would result in minor effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat, with 

moderate effects in some watersheds and subwatersheds. Alternative 3 would increase the 

percent basin area harvested since 1981 in the North Big Salt Lake and Tolstoi Bay –

Frontal Clarence Strait watersheds and Luck Lake, North Big Salt Lake, and Thorne Bay 

subwatersheds above the 20 percent threshold (Table WTR-6). Streamflow may increase 

in these watersheds and subwatersheds, but the changes are not expected to result in 

measurable effects on sedimentation or aquatic habitat. Alternative 3 would not increase 

any other watershed or subwatershed percent basin harvested over the 20 percent in 30 

years threshold. 

Alternative 3 is not expected to result in any direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, 

Category 4a Thorne Bay impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired 

waterbody, or the Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay 

DuRette Shop, Forest Service Salt Chuck Mine, and Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill

contaminated sites. Riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and III streams, as 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-293

described in the unit cards, and BMPs, as described in the road cards, would limit impacts 

from the planned activities on these water supplies, waterbodies, and contaminated sites.

Road construction and quarry development for the Big Thorne Project activities would 

utilize and excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. Any existing material source or 

newly developed source within the Descon Formation used to construct access to the 

proposed harvest areas under Alternative 3 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In 

areas where full-bench construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing 

pyrite) may be mineralized, the USDA Forest Service geologist will provide on-site 

inspection during excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. 

Quarry materials will be tested and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD 

potential rock is disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone 

aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench 

construction.

Alternative 3 would construct 56 miles of road (proposed new roads and new construction 

over decommissioned road grades) that have 12 Class I and II (91 Class III) road-stream

crossings and reconstruct 39 miles of road that have 77 Class I and II (55 Class III) roadstream crossings. This would result in minor to moderate effects on sedimentation and 

aquatic habitat in all watersheds and subwatersheds. Moderate (though difficult to 

measure) effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat may occur in the Thorne Bay –

Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and Deer Creek, Pin, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide 

Creek, Thorne River Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds, as they exceed the 2.5 percent 

basin area in roads threshold (Table WTR-7). Compared to other action alternatives, 

Alternative 3 would have the most effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat. 

Alternative 3 would have minor effects on the Forest Service nationally rated 

“functioning-at risk” Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. The watershed will 

likely remain “functioning-at risk” due to high percentages of riparian areas being in 

young growth and the current density of roads and proximity to waterbodies. Harvest and 

road construction under Alternative 3 would not result in greater than 20 percent of the 

basin area harvested since 1981 or increase road density above the 2.5 percent basin area 

in roads threshold for this watershed. Implementation of riparian no-harvest buffers along 

Class I, II, and III streams, as described in the unit cards, BMPs, as described in the road 

cards, and decommissioning all temporary project roads would minimize direct and 

indirect effects on the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. However, while 

all new road construction will follow BMPs and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 

there may be increased risk of sedimentation due to the presence of the road prism within 

the watershed. 

Cumulative Effects 

Watershed and subwatershed effects from past practices are described in the Affected 

Environment. Because present and reasonably foreseeable activities are consistently 

evaluated across all alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in the highest level of 

cumulative effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat in all watersheds and 

subwatersheds.
3 Environment and Effects

3-294 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Per Appendix A of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-9, 

additional harvest of NEPA-cleared units and state lands will likely result in streamflow 

increases (based on percent basin area harvested) in the Goose Creek, North Big Salt 

Lake, Thorne Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay, and Tolstoi Bay – Frontal Clarence Strait

watersheds and Goose Creek, Luck Lake, North Big Salt Lake, Pin, and Thorne Bay 

subwatersheds. Increased streamflow within these watersheds and subwatersheds may be 

moderate, but the changes are not expected to result in measurable impacts on 

sedimentation or aquatic habitat.

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, Category 4a Thorne Bay 

impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired waterbody, or the Forest 

Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay DuRette Shop, Forest Service

Salt Chuck Mine, and Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill contaminated sites, there are no 

cumulative effects. 

During road construction, any existing material source or newly developed source within 

the Descon Formation used to construct access to the proposed harvest areas under 

Alternative 3 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In areas where full-bench 

construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing pyrite) may be 

mineralized, the USDA Forest Service geologist will provide on-site inspection during 

excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. Quarry materials will 

be tested and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD potential rock is 

disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to 

neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench 

construction.

Per Appendix B of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-10, 

when past and reasonably foreseeable road construction is combined with road 

construction under Alternative 3, the Thorne Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and 

Deer Creek, Pin, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide Creek, Thorne Bay, Thorne River 

Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in roads threshold

and may result in moderate (though difficult to measure) impacts.

Conclusion

Alternative 3 would result in no effect, minor effects, or moderate effects relative to 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat, depending on the subwatershed. In general, effects 

would be localized, at the site or stream-reach level. Compared to other alternatives, 

Alternative 3 has the largest effects relative to sedimentation and aquatic habitat.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 4 would result in minor effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat, with 

moderate effects in some watersheds and subwatersheds. Alternative 4 would increase the 

percent basin area harvested since 1981 in the North Big Salt Lake watershed and North 

Big Salt Lake and Thorne Bay subwatersheds above the 20 percent threshold (Table

WTR-6). Streamflow may increase in these watershed and subwatersheds, but the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-295

changes are not expected to result in measurable effects on sedimentation or aquatic 

habitat. Alternative 4 would not increase any other watershed or subwatershed percent 

basin harvested over the 20 percent in 30 years threshold. 

Alternative 4 is not expected to result in any direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, 

Category 4a Thorne Bay impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired 

waterbody, or the Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay 

DuRette Shop, Forest Service Salt Chuck Mine, and Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill

contaminated sites. Riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and III streams, as 

described in the unit cards, and BMPs, as described in the road cards, would limit impacts 

from the planned activities on these water supplies, waterbodies, and contaminated sites.

Road construction and quarry development for the Big Thorne Project activities would 

utilize and excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. Any existing material source or 

newly developed source within the Descon Formation used to construct access to the 

proposed harvest areas under Alternative 4 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In 

areas where full-bench construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing 

pyrite) may be mineralized, the USDA Forest Service geologist will provide on-site 

inspection during excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. 

Quarry materials will be tested and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD 

potential rock is disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone 

aggregate to neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench 

construction.

Alternative 4 would construct 19.5 miles of road (proposed new roads and new 

construction over decommissioned road grades) that have 4 Class I and II (10 Class III)

road-stream crossings and reconstruct 21.5 miles of road that have 33 Class I and II (24 

Class III) road-stream crossings. This would result in minor to moderate effects on 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat in all watersheds and subwatersheds. Moderate (though 

difficult to measure) effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat may occur in the Thorne 

Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and Deer Creek, Ratz Harbor, Slide Creek, Thorne 

River Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds, as they exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in 

roads threshold (Table WTR-7). Compared to other action alternatives, Alternative 4

would have effects similar to Alternative 2 on sedimentation and aquatic habitat. 

Alternative 4 would have minor effects on the USDA Forest Service nationally rated 

“functioning-at risk” Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. The watershed will 

likely remain “functioning-at risk” due to high percentages of riparian areas being in 

young growth and the current density of roads and proximity to waterbodies. Harvest and 

road construction under Alternative 4 would not result in greater than 20 percent of the 

basin area harvested since 1981 or increase road density above the 2.5 percent basin area 

in roads threshold for this watershed. Implementation of riparian no-harvest buffers along 

Class I, II, and III streams, as described in the unit cards, BMPs, as described in the road 

cards, and decommissioning all temporary project roads would minimize direct and 

indirect effects on the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. However, while 

all new road construction will follow BMPs and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 
3 Environment and Effects

3-296 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

there may be increased risk of sedimentation due to the presence of the road prism within 

the watershed. 

Cumulative Effects 

Watershed and subwatershed effects from past practices are described in the Affected 

Environment. Because present and reasonably foreseeable activities are consistently 

evaluated across all alternatives, Alternative 4 ranks third in cumulative effects on 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat in all watersheds and subwatersheds. 

Per Appendix A of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-9, 

additional harvest of NEPA-cleared units and state lands will likely result in streamflow 

increases (based on percent basin area harvested) in the North Big Salt Lake and Tolstoi 

Bay – Frontal Clarence Strait watersheds and the North Big Salt Lake, Pin, and Thorne 

Bay subwatersheds. Increased streamflow within these watersheds and subwatersheds 

may be moderate, but the changes are not expected to result in measurable impacts on 

sedimentation or aquatic habitat.

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, Category 4a Thorne Bay 

impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired waterbody, or the Forest 

Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay DuRette Shop, Forest Service

Salt Chuck Mine, and Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill contaminated sites, there are no 

cumulative effects. 

During road construction, any existing material source or newly developed source within 

the Descon Formation used to construct access to the proposed harvest areas under 

Alternative 4 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In areas where full-bench 

construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing pyrite) may be 

mineralized, the USDA Forest Service geologist will provide on-site inspection during 

excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. Quarry materials will 

be tested and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD potential rock is 

disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to 

neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench 

construction.

Per Appendix B of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-10, 

when past and reasonably foreseeable road construction is combined with road 

construction under Alternative 4, the Thorne Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and 

Deer Creek, Pin, Ratz Harbor, Salamander, Slide Creek, Thorne Bay, Thorne River 

Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in roads threshold

and may result in moderate (though difficult to measure) impacts.

Conclusion

Alternative 4 would result in no effect, minor effects, or moderate effects on 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat, depending on the subwatershed. In general, effects 

would be localized, at the site or stream-reach level. Compared to other action 

alternatives, Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 2, with less effect relative to 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-297

sedimentation and aquatic habitat than Alternative 3, but more effect than Alternative 5. 

Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 4 would have fewer road-stream crossings (Class 

I, II, and III), resulting in less effects relative to sedimentation and aquatic habitat than 

Alternative 2.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 was developed to specifically respond to Issue 4, by reducing the effects on 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat beyond what is required under the Forest Plan while 

maintaining an economically viable timber sale that would meet the purpose and need of 

the project. This alternative would construct the least amount of roads, substantially less 

road miles than Alternatives 2 or 3, and have the fewest road-stream crossings (Class I, II, 

and III) of all the alternatives. In addition, specific units were removed, while other units 

were changed to helicopter in areas where there were concerns from past harvest and/or 

high percentage of the basin in roads.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 5 would result in minor effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat, with 

moderate effects in some watersheds and subwatersheds. Alternative 5 would increase the 

percent basin area harvested since 1981 in the North Big Salt Lake watershed and North 

Big Salt Lake and Thorne Bay subwatersheds above the 20 percent threshold (Table

WTR-6). Streamflow may increase in these watershed and subwatersheds, but the 

changes are not expected to result in measurable effects on sedimentation or aquatic 

habitat. Alternative 5 would not increase any other watershed or subwatershed percent 

basin harvested over the 20 percent in 30 years threshold. 

Alternative 5 is not expected to result in any direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, 

Category 4a Thorne Bay impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired 

waterbody, or the Forest Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay 

DuRette Shop, Forest Service Salt Chuck Mine, and Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill

contaminated sites. Riparian no-harvest buffers along Class I, II, and III streams, as 

described in the unit cards, and BMPs, as described in the road cards, would limit impacts 

from the planned activities on these water supplies, waterbodies, and contaminated sites.

Road construction and quarry development for the Big Thorne Project activities would 

utilize and excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. Any existing material source or 

newly developed source within the Descon Formation used to construct access to the 

proposed harvest areas under Alternative 5 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In 

areas where full-bench construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing 

pyrite) may be mineralized, the Forest Service geologist will provide on-site inspection 

during excavation and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. Quarry 

materials will be tested and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD potential 

rock is disturbed, mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate 

to neutralize run-off from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench 

construction.

Alternative 5 would construct 15.5 miles of road (proposed new roads and new 

construction over decommissioned road grades) that have only 1 Class II (6 Class III)

road-stream crossings and reconstruct 15.6 miles of road that have 31 Class I and II (20 
3 Environment and Effects

3-298 ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Class III) road-stream crossings. This would result in minor to moderate effects on 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat in all watersheds and subwatersheds. Moderate (though 

difficult to measure) effects on sedimentation and aquatic habitat may occur in the Thorne 

Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and Deer Creek, Thorne River Intertidal, and Torrent 

subwatersheds, as they exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in roads threshold (Table WTR7). Compared to other action alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least effects on 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat. 

Alternative 5 would have minor effects on the Forest Service nationally rated 

“functioning-at risk” Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. The watershed will 

likely remain “functioning-at risk” due to high percentages of riparian areas being in 

young growth and the current density of roads and proximity to waterbodies. Harvest and 

road construction under Alternative 5 would not result in greater than 20 percent of the

basin area harvested since 1981 or increase road density above the 2.5 percent basin area 

in roads threshold for this watershed. Implementation of riparian no-harvest buffers along 

Class I, II, and III streams, as described in the unit cards, BMPs, as described in the road 

cards, and decommissioning all temporary project roads would minimize direct and 

indirect effects on the Slide Creek – Frontal Clarence Strait watershed. However, while 

all new road construction will follow BMPs and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 

there may be increased risk of sedimentation due to the presence of the road prism within 

the watershed. 

Cumulative Effects 

Watershed and subwatershed effects from past practices are described in the Affected 

Environment. Because present and reasonably foreseeable activities are consistently 

evaluated across all alternatives, Alternative 5 would result in the least cumulative effects 

on sedimentation and aquatic habitat in all watersheds and subwatersheds. 

Per Appendix A of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-9, 

additional harvest of NEPA-cleared units and state lands will likely result in streamflow 

increases (based on percent basin area harvested) in the North Big Salt Lake and Tolstoi 

Bay – Frontal Clarence Strait watersheds and the North Big Salt Lake, Pin, and Thorne 

Bay subwatersheds. Increased streamflow within these watersheds and subwatersheds 

may be moderate, but the changes are not expected to result in measurable impacts on 

sedimentation or aquatic habitat.

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to the two PWS, Category 4a Thorne Bay 

impaired waterbody, Category 5 Salt Chuck Bay impaired waterbody, or the Forest 

Service Thorne Bay Warehouse Historic Spills, Thorne Bay DuRette Shop, Forest Service

Salt Chuck Mine, and Forest Service Thorne Bay Landfill contaminated sites, there are no 

cumulative effects. 

During road construction, any existing material source or newly developed source within 

the Descon Formation used to construct access to the proposed harvest areas under 

Alternative 5 would be assessed for its ARD potential. In areas where full-bench 

construction is anticipated and the underlying bedrock (containing pyrite) may be 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects ▪ 3-299

mineralized, the Forest Service geologist will provide on-site inspection during excavation 

and construction to identify potential mineralized zones. Quarry materials will be tested 

and sources with high potential will be avoided. If ARD potential rock is disturbed, 

mitigation will include lining the upslope ditch with limestone aggregate to neutralize runoff from potential mineralized zones exposed during full bench construction.

Per Appendix B of the Watershed Resources Report (James 2012) and Table WTR-10, 

when past and reasonably foreseeable road construction is combined with road 

construction under Alternative 5, the Thorne Bay – Frontal Tolstoi Bay watershed and the 

Deer Creek, Pin, Ratz harbor, Salamander, Slide Creek, Thorne Bay, Thorne River 

Intertidal, and Torrent subwatersheds would exceed the 2.5 percent basin area in roads 

threshold and may result in moderate (though difficult to measure) impacts.

Conclusion

Alternative 5 would result in no effect, minor effects, or moderate effects relative to 

sedimentation and aquatic habitat, depending on the subwatershed. In general, effects 

would be localized, at the site or stream-reach level. Compared to all other action 

alternatives, Alternative 5 has the least road construction and road-stream crossings (Class 

I, II, and III), resulting in the least effects relative to sedimentation and aquatic habitat of 

all alternatives. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3- ▪ Issue 4: Cumulative Watershed Effects Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

This page is intentionally left blank. 
Environment and Effects3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Karst ▪ 3-301

Other Resource Considerations_____________________

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Karst

Introduction 

Karst is a comprehensive term that applies to the unique topography, surface and 

subsurface drainage systems, and landforms that develop by the action of water on soluble 

rock (primarily limestone and marble (carbonates)) in Southeast Alaska. The dissolution 

of the rock results in the development of internal drainage, producing sinking streams 

(streams that sink into the stream bed or karst features), closed depressions, sinkholes, 

collapsed channels, micro-relief karst features, and caves.

The geology and climate of Southeast Alaska are particularly favorable for karst 

development. Extensive areas of very pure carbonate (>95 percent CaCO3) (Maas et al. 

1992), approximately 537,588 acres (840 square miles), are found within the boundaries 

of the Tongass National Forest. This includes carbonate bedrock on private, State, and 

Federal lands. Because of fractures in the carbonates, high annual precipitation, and 

peatlands adjacent to the carbonate bedrock, karst has developed, to varying extent, within 

all carbonate blocks. The Tongass National Forest contains the largest known 

concentration of limestone dissolution caves in Alaska.

Affected Environment

In Southeast Alaska the karst landscape can be characterized as an ecological unit found 

on top of carbonate bedrock in which karst features and drainage systems have developed 

as a result of differential solution by surface and groundwater. These acidic waters are a 

direct product of abundant precipitation and passage of these waters through the organicrich forest soil and the adjacent peat lands. Recharge areas may be on carbonate or 

adjacent non-carbonate substrate. A few characteristics of this ecological unit include: 

mature, well-developed spruce and hemlock forests along valley floors and lower slopes, 

increased productivity for plant and animal communities, extremely productive aquatic 

communities, well-developed subsurface drainage, and the underlying unique cave 

resources (Baichtal and Swanston 1996; Wissmar et al. 1997; Bryant et al. 1998). 

Approximately 1 percent of the Big Thorne project area is underlain by limestone or 

marble containing karst development. These outcrops comprise the limestone associated 

with the Luck Creek Breccia, the Heceta Limestone, or the Wadleigh Limestone. Some of 

these limestones are re-crystallized to marble. Karst landforms and drainage systems have 

developed within the recrystallized limestone outcrops to varying extent. Karst areas exist 

mainly in the vicinity of Baird Peak and Control Lake.
3 Environment and Effects

3-302 ▪ Karst Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

The overall amount of karst development located within the project area is very small. 

The Big Thorne project area is predominantly underlain by Ordovician to Silurian aged 

andesitic breccias, andesitic and basaltic lavas and graywacke turbidites, conglomerate, 

sandstone, chert, and shale that have been intruded in the east by Permian diorite (Figure 

KST-1). These rocks generally outcrop as dark-gray, greenish-gray, to black blocky, 

weather-resistant topographic highs and cliffs. Minor recrystallized limestone reefs are 

scattered throughout the volcanic breccias and flows. Younger, Tertiary sandstones and 

volcanic rocks are found as small exposures along Lava Creek and the Thorne River in the 

southeastern portion of the project area. Permian diorite has intruded these rocks to the 

eastern portion of the project area. 

The andesitic breccias, andesitic and basaltic lavas and graywacke turbidites, 

conglomerate, sandstone, chert, and shale outcrops resisted the scouring efforts of the past 

glaciation and form the highlands in the eastern two-thirds of the project area. Of these,

the conglomerates, sandstones, and shale locally weather to form soil. The carbonaceous 

shale and thin-bedded cherts weather to form fine, silty soil and are prone to erosion and 

mass wasting. The volcanic rocks are weather resistant and contribute little soil 

development. The breccias and conglomerates are well indurated and weather much like 

the volcanic flow rock. Beneath cliffs of these materials are colluvial deposits. Here 

these rock types weather to form course-grained complexes with fine-grained interstitial 

soils. Locally metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks adjacent to the intrusion 

weather rapidly and are prone to erosion and mass wasting. In places, the diorite weathers 

to a granular soil and clays prone to erosion and mass wasting.

Karst Vulnerability

Karst lands present land management challenges not encountered in non-karst areas 

because this three-dimensional landform functions differently than other landforms. Karst 

resources must be evaluated according to their vulnerability to land uses affecting karst 

systems. Vulnerability mapping recognizes that some parts of the karst landscape are 

more sensitive than others to surface activities and groundwater contamination. These 

differences in vulnerability may be a function of the extent of karst development, the 

openness of the karst systems, and the sensitivity of other resources that benefit from karst 

groundwater systems (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Low Vulnerability Karst Lands

Low vulnerability karst lands are those areas where resource damage threats associated 

with land management activities in the areas are not likely to be appreciably greater than 

those posed by similar activities on non-carbonate substrate.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Karst ▪ 3-303

Figure KST-1. Geologic Map of the Big Thorne Project Area

Cartography: J. Baichtal Source: Forest Service
3 Environment and Effects

3-304 ▪ Karst Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

A generalized characterization of these lands would be that they are underlain by 

carbonate bedrock that is moderately well to well drained, most commonly internally 

drained, but surface streams may be present. Generally, these areas have been greatly

modified by glaciation, and a deep (greater than 40 inches deep) covering of glacial till or 

mineral soil, and little or no epikarst (the upper/outer layer of karst rock in the unsaturated 

zone, immediately below the soil layer) showing at the surface. The epikarst may be 

buried and/or ground off, depending on the intensity of glaciation. These lands pose little

or no threat to organic, sediment, debris, or pollutant introduction into the karst hydrologic 

systems beneath through diffuse recharge. Often these are areas of little or no slope (less 

than 20 percent).

Moderate Vulnerability Karst Lands

The moderate vulnerability karst lands are those areas where resource damage threats 

associated with land management activities in the areas are appreciably greater than those 

posed by similar activities on low vulnerability karst lands.

A generalized characterization of these areas would be areas underlain by carbonate 

bedrock that are well drained internally. Surface streams are rare. The soils of moderate 

vulnerability areas are a mosaic of shallow organic (20 to 40 percent, McGilvery soils) 

and mineral (80 to 60 percent, Sarkar [less than 20-inch depth] and Ulloa [greater than 20-

inch depth] soils) with minor amounts of glacial till. The epikarst is moderate- to welldeveloped and is visible at the surface. These areas tend to be at higher elevations (i.e., 

greater than 500 feet, and on knobs, ridges, and on the dip-slope of carbonate bedding 

planes when near the surface). The surface of these areas tends to be irregular and 

undulating, following the epikarst development, which is the result of solution of the 

bedrock surface rather than solution and/or collapse features such as sinkholes.

High Vulnerability Karst Lands

The high vulnerability karst lands are those areas where resource damage threats 

associated with land management activities are appreciably greater than those posed by 

similar activities on low or moderate vulnerability karst lands. These are the areas 

contributing to or overlying significant caves and areas containing a high density of karst 

features.

These are areas underlain by carbonate bedrock that are well drained internally. Surface 

streams are rare. Karst systems and epikarst are extremely well-developed and collapse 

karst features may be numerous. These include all collapse karst features, caves, sinking 

or losing streams, insurgences, open resurgences, and open grikelands (i.e., those without 

soil or moss infilling and with open connections to the subsurface). The highest 

vulnerability features are those that could produce and transport the greatest amount of 

sediment, debris, and/or organics if disturbed. These include till-lined sinkholes and cave 

entrances accepting a sinking stream, whether intermittent or not. Also considered high 

vulnerability are karst lands in which the epikarst is well- or extremely well-developed 

and the soils are predominantly (greater than 50 percent) very shallow organic (less than 

10 inches deep, McGilvery) and (less than 50 percent) mineral (less than 20 inches deep, 

Sarkar). The subsurface drainage network is highly vulnerable to sediment, organic 

matter, logging debris, and other pollutants generated as the result of surface activities.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Karst ▪ 3-305

On areas labeled as high or moderate vulnerability there are features that require buffering 

under Forest Plan standards and guidelines. These buffers are drawn as the 100-foot

radius buffer. However, these buffers may need to be designed and laid out with a karst 

specialist during unit layout to account for factors such as aspect, slope, windthrow 

potential, soils, etc., so that buffers may be modified to respond to these conditions. 

Existing Condition 

Approximately 8 percent or 245 acres of carbonate bedrock in the Big Thorne project area

has been harvested historically. Where karst systems have developed adjacent and 

beneath harvested areas, it is possible that sedimentation and slash from prior harvest 

washed into karst features, altering the ecology of the karst system through affecting the 

water chemistry and flow paths (Aley et al. 1993). It is also possible that in areas that 

have already been harvested, thickly regenerated forests are causing increased interception 

rates resulting in less water moving through the karst systems. Without the natural flow 

rates through the system, slash and debris will remain instead of being washed out. In 

addition, decreased water flow downstream from these karst areas results in a reduction of 

fish habitat where karst streams contribute to fish streams (Bryant et al. 1998). High and 

moderate vulnerability karst are most susceptible to these effects, as outlined in the prior 

section. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The No-action Alternative is just as stated. If this alternative is chosen, no harvest would 

occur within the project area under the Big Thorne project. No other projects are 

currently planned to occur on karstlands. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct or indirect effects on the karst resource by not harvesting in the 

Big Thorne project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Effects from past harvest and natural processes in the Big Thorne project area such as 

sedimentation and erosion would experience no beneficial or adverse change, but would 

continue at the present rate.
3 Environment and Effects

3-306 ▪ Karst Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table KST-1. Changes to Total Harvest on Karst for the Big Thorne Project Area

Alt. 

1

Alt. 

2

Alt. 

3

Alt. 

4

Alt. 

5

Acres of Previous Harvest on Karst 245 245 245 245 245

Percent Karst Acres Harvested Historicallya 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%

Acres of Proposed Harvest on Low Vulnerability Karst 0 0 11.2 11.2 11.2

Acres of Proposed Harvest on Moderate and High 

Vulnerability Karst

0 0 0 0 0

Acres Thinning in Previous Harvest on Karst 0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7

Total Acres Proposed Harvest and Thinning on Karst 0 8.7 19.9 19.9 19.9

Total Acres Harvest on Karst 245 245 256 256 256

Percent Change 0% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Table based on data from the Tongass geology layer and the Big Thorne unit layer - data current September 20, 2011.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Harvest on Karst

Total harvest on karst acreages per alternative are shown in Table KST-1. Under no 

alternative is there greater than a 0.5 percent change in the percent harvest on karst 

relative to the existing condition of the karst resource of the project area. High 

vulnerability karst areas have been removed from proposed harvest units, as described in 

the unit cards (Appendix B). Specific harvest requirements for units containing moderate 

and low vulnerability karst are outlined in the unit cards. Harvest prescriptions are 

discussed alternative by alternative under the specific unit addressed in the mitigation and 

monitoring section. 

Roads on Karst

There are no proposed roads on karst areas in the Big Thorne project. Road building on 

high vulnerability karst would be avoided under all alternatives. Specific requirements 

concerning road building on moderate vulnerability and high vulnerability karst are 

located in the Forest Plan (Appendix H, section III.A.4.b.ii).

Direct and Indirect Effects for all Action Alternatives

The lowest acreage of karst proposed for harvest is Alternative 2 with no harvest or 

thinning on karst. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would conduct 11.2 acres of new harvest on 

low vulnerability karst (Table KST-1) and 8.7 acres of thinning on karstlands that were 

previously harvested. The effects are expected to be minor with all alternatives because of

removing high vulnerability karst areas from proposed harvest units and protecting soil 

and water quality in low vulnerability areas by specifying suspension requirements in the 

unit cards. Effects could include initial increase in flow through karst systems after initial 

harvest in low and moderate vulnerability karst areas and subsequent (approximately 5 

years post-harvest) decrease to flow through these karst systems due to dense forest 

regeneration (Aley et al. 1993). Increase to turbidity and changes in water chemistry 

through the karst system could also occur due to these changes in flow (Aley et al. 1993). 

Also see Baichtal and Swanston (1996) and Baichtal (1997) for more detailed descriptions 

of effects.

The standards and guidelines of the amended Forest Plan are based on these studied and 

documented direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The Karst Standards and Guidelines 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Karst ▪ 3-307

are applied in this project to mitigate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the 

karst resource of the Big Thorne project area. Detailed site by site mitigation is 

prescribed, where necessary, in the unit and road cards (Appendices B and C).

Cumulative Effects

Alaska Forest Highway 33 (the Coffman Cove Road) was paved during the summer of 

2011 in the project area. This road construction did not significantly affect karst in the 

project area, or in affected watersheds in the project area. 

Cumulative effects from harvesting additional karst areas in the project area would not be 

significant since the karst standards and guidelines will be applied as described in the unit 

cards (Appendix B), roads cards (Appendix C), and in the “Mitigation” section.

Mitigation for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Portions of a number of the original units were identified as high vulnerability karst. As a 

result, these areas were deleted from the units or the units were dropped. No special 

prescription is required for areas on low vulnerability karst.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-308 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Soils

Introduction

This section provides a summary of the soil resources in the Big Thorne project area. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines for this resource are on pages 4-64 through 4-67 of 

the Forest Plan. The analysis and results presented in the environmental consequences 

section are based upon proposed harvest unit boundaries and the overall project area 

boundary. The analysis for the soils resource uses both temporary and NFS road 

information. Detailed discussion of the soil and wetlands of the Big Thorne project area 

can be found in the Soil and Wetland Resources Report (Cox et al. 2012) in the Big 

Thorne project record. 

Timber harvest can adversely affect the soils resource by: 

 Disturbing, displacing, or burying the nutrient-rich forest floor and exposing 

mineral soils to erosion, and 

 Increasing the frequency of landslides which also displace nutrient rich soils and 

increase erosion potential. 

Resource Analysis Area

The boundary selected for the following analysis of soils is the same as the Big Thorne 

project area. The project area is about 231,848 acres, including 217,679 acres of NFS 

lands and 14,169 acres of state and private lands. Soil types and physical properties are 

described for the project area.

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects to soils includes the “activity 

area” (FSM 2554). For this project, the “activity area” includes individual proposed 

timber harvest units and associated land impacted by temporary road construction. The 

Forest Service Manual limits the amount of detrimental (long-term) soil disturbance to 

“activity areas. FSM 2554 requires that a minimum of 85 percent of an area remain in a 

condition of acceptable productivity potential for trees and other managed vegetation. 

The direct and indirect effects of the Big Thorne Project to the soil resource include 

landslides and other long-term (detrimental) soil disturbance that are a result of temporary 

road construction and harvest activities. The unit of measure for the soil analysis is acres 

of detrimental soil disturbance due to temporary road construction, yarding activities, and 

management related landslides. The temporal extent of effects to soil is decades or longer 

due to the length of time it takes for soils to recover and regenerate vegetative cover after 

clearing.

Detailed discussion of the soil resource and analysis methods can be found in the Soil and 

Wetland Resources Report (Cox et al. 2012) in the Big Thorne project record.

Affected Environment

The project area is located within the Central Prince of Wales Volcanics and the Till 

Lowlands ecological subsections (USDA Forest Service 2001a). Within the volcanic 

mountain ecological subsection, most rock outcrops are volcanic rocks; glacial tills soils 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-309

are common at low elevations (USDA Forest Service 2001a). Within the Central Prince of 

Wales Till Lowlands, organic soils overlay glacial till (USDA Forest Service 2001a).

Project area soils range from very poorly drained to well drained soils. Very poorly 

drained soils (36 percent) are mostly organic and typically have low productivity and 

support muskeg vegetation. Other soils in the project area include poorly drained (10 

percent), moderately well drained (20 percent), and well drained (32 percent); the 

remaining 2 percent of the project area is mapped as fresh or salt water or small islands. 

Moderately well and well drained soils typically support productive forests. Most soils in 

the project area have a thick organic or duff layer that prevents erosion of the underlying 

mineral soil from raindrop impact and supplies many nutrients for plant growth. Keeping 

the organic mat in place during management activities is a key to maintaining soil 

productivity. Windthrow is the dominant disturbance factor on slopes exposed to southern 

aspects. Landslides are the dominant disturbance factor on steep wind-protected slopes. 

Gently sloping lowlands are present along the valley bottoms and support wetland 

vegetation. 

The soils on the Big Thorne project area are mostly in natural condition. Past management 

activities on NFS and non-NFS lands include about 49,546 acres of timber harvest, 

resulting in about 1,486 acres of detrimental soil disturbance. In addition, 618 miles of 

road construction (includes past temporary, NFS, state, decommissioned, and private and 

local) and associated rock quarry development have occurred within the project area. 

Existing soil disturbances (natural and management related) on the Big Thorne project 

area are summarized in Table SOIL-1.

Management activities have caused past soil disturbances. Existing management-related 

detrimental soil disturbance is estimated to be about 3,081 acres or 1.3 percent of the 

project area. These past disturbances are considered to be minor and currently have 

minimal erosion concerns. In the Big Thorne project area, natural and management-related 

soil disturbances are within parameters found in Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the 

project area scale. The following sections describe the natural and management-induced 

soil disturbances in detail.

Natural Disturbances

Natural soil disturbances on the project area include areas such as erosion from overland 

flow, stream bank erosion, windthrow, and colluvial activity. These natural soil 

disturbances, excluding natural landslides which are discussed below, are estimated to 

occur over about 2,402 acres in the project area. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-310 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table SOIL-1. Existing Soil Disturbance in Big Thorne Project Area

Soil Disturbance Acres Affected Project Area (%)

Management Related Soil Disturbances

Past log yarding activities1/ 1,486 0.6%

Existing acres of temporary road (1 mile) 5 0.002%

Existing acres of NFS and state road (454 miles) 2,201 0.9%

Existing acres of FS decommissioned (system and temp) 

(119 miles)

577 0.2%

Existing acres of other roads2/(44 miles) 213 0.1%

Existing rock quarries3/ 564 0.2%

Landslides from past harvest4/(241) 393 0.2%

Landslides from road construction (61) 56 0.02%

Total Soil Disturbances from Management 5,495 2.4%

Total Detrimental Soil Disturbances from Management5/ 3,081 1.3%

Natural Soil Disturbances

Naturally Occurring Disturbances

Naturally occurring landslides (676) 3,150 1.4%

Natural soil disturbances 6/ 2,402 1.0%

Total Natural Soil Disturbances 5,552 2.4%

Total Existing Soil Disturbance 11,047 4.8%

Notes:

1/ 3% of harvest areas (Landwehr and Nowacki 1999)

2/ Other roads include “Private”, “Unknown”, and “Local”.

3/ Assumes 1 acre of disturbance from quarry development for every mile of road

4/ These were defined as any landslide where the initiation point of the landslide (or the highest elevation point) fell 

within a harvest unit (Landwehr 1998 and 2011, Saari 2009)

5/ Does not include NFS, state, or other roads

6/ Defined as 2% of moderately and well drained soils within the project area (Saari 2011, Landwehr and Nowaki 

1999). Calculation included primary and secondary drainage classes for each SMU.

The project area is exposed to high wind events that lead to windthrow. Numerous areas 

have experienced windthrow and are at risk for future events. Windthrow may also lead to 

landslide activity on shallow soils present on steep forested slopes (Swanston 1967). 

However, windthrow may play an important role in the soil disturbance and nutrient 

cycling regime of some soils on the project area. Nutrients tend to accumulate and become 

immobilized in organic and upper layers of the soil which can lead to nutrient deficiency 

in areas where minimal windthrow disturbance or other soil disturbance mechanisms are 

present (Bormann et al. 1995). Windthrow can provide mixing and aeration of the organic 

and mineral soil horizons, freeing nutrients to be used by plants, thus increasing soil 

productivity. Conversely, Stephens et al. (1968) found that stands regenerated from 

windthrow had a site index that was about 20 feet less than in stands originating following 

clearcutting or fires.

Natural and Management-related Landslides

Landslides (mass wasting) are the dominant erosion process in steep forested terrain with 

high soil water levels in Southeast Alaska (Swanston 1969). Topographic, geologic, and 

soil conditions in combination with high amounts of rainfall are the major contributing 

factors. The soil mass movement index is a tool used to assess slope stability at the project 

scale. Mass movement index (MMI) hazard classes are used to group soil map units that 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-311

have similar properties relative to the stability of natural slopes. Four categories of MMI 

soil hazard classes exist: MMI 1 (most stable) through MMI 4 (least stable). Soils with a 

very high mass movement index (MMI 4) have the greatest probability for slope failure.

A landslide inventory was completed for the project area using aerial photography and 

field observations. Each landslide was associated with the MMI class where it was 

initiated as shown in Table SOIL-2. Table SOIL-2 indicates that 978 landslides have 

disturbed about 3,597 acres across the project area. Most of these slides initiated in MMI 3 

and 4 (50 percent and 31 percent, respectively).

Table SOIL-2. Total Mapped Landslides within the Big Thorne Project Area

Mass Movement Index Class

Acres of MMI 

Class

Number of 

Landslides

Approx. Acres of 

Landslides

Initiated in MMI 1 101,245 147 1,260

Initiated in MMI 2 20,022 32 37

Initiated in MMI 3 85,913 491 745

Initiated in MMI 4 20,223 308 1,555

Other1 4,446 -- --

Total 231,8482 978 3,597

1/ Project area also includes 4,446 acres of water and other minor areas with no MMI mapping.

2/ Sum of MMI class acres results in 231,849 due to rounding, but project area is 231,848 acres.

Landslides occurring within the Big Thorne project area over the last 401 years were 

assessed to compare landslides occurring in unharvested areas and landslides due to 

management practices as shown in Table SOIL-3. During this 40-year period, 209 natural 

landslides occurred in productive old growth (POG), disturbing about 194 acres of soil, 

and averaging less than 1 acre in size. In this same 40-year time period, 200 landslides 

occurred within previously harvested areas disturbing about 276 acres of soils, and

averaging about 1.4 acres in size. The majority of all landslides initiated in MMI 3 and 

MMI 4 soils and these classes had a much higher rate of landslide initiation per unit area. 

Also, note that most landslides indicated by GIS as having initiated in MMI 1, actually 

initiated just outside of MMI 1 polygons in higher risk areas, or represent minor GIS 

mapping errors in the mass movement index layer.

Table SOIL-3. Landslides in Harvested Areas and Non-Harvested POG during the Past 

40 Years (1971-2010)

Category

Total 

Acres

Number of 

Landslides

Approx. Acres 

of Landslides

Natural Landslides

Landslides in Unharvested POG 98,787 209 194

Management-related Landslides

Harvest Areas 45,346 200 276

Roads (564 miles of NFS, temp., and private) 55 48

Forty-Year Totals 464 518

Note: Does not include landslides outside of productive old growth.

 1

Based on dates in GIS landslide inventory, not including pre-1971. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-312 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

When the Big Thorne project area landslide inventory data are compared on a landslide 

per acre basis, the data indicate that landslides in harvested areas (200 landslides in 45,346 

acres of harvest areas) are approximately 2.1 times more likely to occur than landslides in 

POG areas (209 landslides per 98,787 acres of POG). The increased occurrence of 

landslides in harvested areas may be attributed to management practices. Decreased 

rainfall interception may result in increased soil water content and pore pressure; removal 

of the protective organic mat exposes soil to erosion; and soil stability decreases as roots 

decay in the years following harvest. In comparison, other studies have shown that 

clearcut timber harvests resulted in 3 to 10 times more landslides than uncut areas 

(Swanston and Marion 1991; Bishop and Stevens 1964; Landwehr 1994,1998).

A total of 55 road-related landslides have been recorded during this same 40-year period 

and have affected about 48 acres, averaging about 0.9 acre per landslide (Table SOIL-3). 

Road-related landslides are generally the result of ditches concentrating water and 

delivering it to a naturally unstable area of the slope or by excessive road fill weight on a 

naturally unstable slope (Landwehr 1999).

Management-related Disturbances

Past Harvest Activities

Soil disturbances associated with past harvest activities have typically been the result of 

road construction and log yarding. Total past harvest in the project area is approximately 

48,903 acres. Harvest entries prior to 1980 accounted for about 28,408 acres. Harvest 

entries in the 1960s accounted for about 18,538 acres, or 38 percent of all harvest. Since 

the late 1970s yarding methods used suspension techniques that provided partial 

suspension of logs and full suspension in some cases. These yarding techniques greatly 

minimized potential for soil disturbances when compared to non-suspension techniques. 

Soil disturbances from past yarding activities in the project area are estimated to total 

about 1,467 acres. The estimated acres of disturbed soil associated with past harvest 

assumes a 3 percent disturbance of all harvest areas based on soil disturbance monitoring 

data summarized by Landwehr and Nowacki (1999).

Road Construction

Soil disturbances associated with road construction (includes NFS and state, temporary, 

and private roads) cover about 2,734 acres from about 564 miles of road in the project 

area (based on a 40-foot-wide disturbed soil corridor); however, disturbance associated 

with NFS, State, and other (i.e., private and local roads) do not count towards detrimental 

soil disturbance. Soil disturbances from road construction involve removing the nutrientrich organic layer to shape cutslopes and burying some areas of productive soil under shot 

rock. Overlay road construction has been commonly used on nearly level or gently sloping 

poorly drained soils in wetland areas. Overlay road construction does not impact as large 

an area of soil as cut-and-fill road construction. 

Additionally, numerous rock quarries were developed to build these roads. In rock 

quarries, soils are removed to expose the bedrock and are stacked adjacent to the quarry 

burying other productive soils. Assuming 1 acre of disturbance from quarry development 

for every mile of road, past development of rock quarries has resulted in about 564 acres 

of detrimental soil disturbance.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-313

As noted above, 55 road-related landslides have been recorded during a 40-year period 

and have affected about 48 acres, averaging about 0.9 acre per landslide.

Harvests on Slopes Greater Than 72 Percent

Past harvest activities have avoided most slopes greater than 72 percent gradient. The 

digital elevation model for the project area when overlain with the managed stands layer 

indicates approximately 965 acres (2 percent of harvested areas in the project area) of 

slopes greater than 72 percent gradient have been harvested. The percent acres harvested 

on slopes greater than 72 percent was greater than 3 percent in 3 out of 21 subwatersheds: 

Karta River, Ratz Creek, and Rio Beaver Creek. Of these, management-related landslides 

have occurred in the Ratz Creek and Rio Beaver Creek subwatersheds. There were 

approximately 643 acres of landslides (management and natural) in the Ratz Creek 

subwatershed, of which 212 acres were on slopes greater than 72 percent. There were 199 

acres of landslides in the Rio Beaver Creek subwatershed, of which 56 acres were on 

slopes greater than 72 percent. Most landslide activity resulting from harvesting and 

roads occurred before current Forest Plan standards and guidelines were implemented. 

Therefore, past effects are likely to be greater than those that have occurred following 

more recent timber harvests using modern BMPs and those that would occur under future 

harvests.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Data used for soil analysis come from existing resources such as the Soil Resource

Inventory, the landslide inventory, the digital elevation model, and field data collected 

through on-site surveys conducted in support of this project. Road acres are based on an 

average road width of 40 feet (from top of cutslope to toe of fillslope). Effects are 

compared between the alternatives based on the following measurements and estimates:

 Acres of detrimental soil conditions in harvest units due to temporary road 

construction and yarding activities,

 Acres of proposed timber harvest on slopes 72 percent or greater,

 Acres of road (existing and proposed NFS and temporary) on slopes 67 percent or 

greater,

 Acres of future landslides acres as a result of management activities based on the 

project area landslide inventory, and

 Cumulative acres of soil removed from productivity by roads, detrimental soil 

conditions within harvest units, and landslides.

Soil Productivity

Region 10 Soil Quality Standards state that a minimum of 85 percent of an area should be 

left in a condition of acceptable productivity potential for trees and other managed 

vegetation following land-management activities. Detrimental soil conditions are defined 

in FSM 2554. Detrimental soil areas are areas of soil that have been altered to the point 

where soil productivity has been affected. Detrimental soil conditions are typically 
3 Environment and Effects

3-314 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

associated with road construction, log felling, and log yarding. Soil disturbances 

associated with NFS road construction are not counted toward detrimental soil condition 

because system roads are removed from the productive land base. Temporary roads are 

considered part of the land base and are included in the calculation of detrimental soil 

conditions.

Detrimental soil conditions are calculated for two areas – the activity area, which includes 

the harvest units and associated temporary roads, and the overall project area. Detrimental 

soil conditions incurred by proposed harvest activities such as tree felling and yarding 

include soil displacements, a loss of ground cover, compaction, and soil puddling. This 

analysis of detrimental soil conditions in harvest units is based on soil quality monitoring 

data collected on the Tongass as reported by Landwehr and Nowacki (1999). This analysis 

assumes 3 percent detrimental soil condition for areas where partial suspension or shovel 

yarding is proposed and 2 percent detrimental soil condition where full suspension is 

proposed. Table SOIL-4 displays the estimated acres of detrimental soil conditions 

resulting from the implementation of the alternatives.

Table SOIL-4. Estimated Acres of Detrimental Soil Conditions from Implementation 

of the Alternatives

Category

Alt. 1 No 

Action

Alt. 2 

Proposed 

Action Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

New proposed temporary road construction 

(acres)1/ 0 93 126 44 37

Rock quarry development for new road 

construction (acres)2/ 0 35 56 19 16

Yarding disturbances in Harvest Units 

(acres)3/ 0 129 254 166 180

New management-related landslides (next 

30 years)4/ 0 26 51 34 38

Total acres of new detrimental soil 

condition5/ 0 283 487 255 271

Notes:

1/ New road construction is based upon 40-foot road base.

2/ A 2-acre rock quarry has been estimated for every 2 miles of road construction

3/ Yarding disturbances based on an estimate of 3% of the harvest area where partial suspension or shovel yarding is 

proposed and 2% where full suspension is proposed; excludes temporary roads

4/ Landslide acre estimate based on past landslide inventory projected for 30 years into the future

5/ Detrimental soils conditions based on proposed timber harvest acres and do not include deferral acres

Table SOIL-4 data indicate that Alternative 3 would result in the greatest impact to soil 

productivity. Of the action alternatives, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in 

the least amount of detrimental soil conditions; however, the results are similar for 

Alternatives 2 and 5. A detailed analysis of estimated soil disturbance for each proposed 

harvest unit has been conducted and is included in the Big Thorne project record. The 

evaluation of detrimental soils disturbance from proposed roads, rock quarries, and 

harvest indicate that every alternative will meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards for soil 

productivity on a project area scale. When the evaluation includes existing detrimental 

soil disturbance, including previous management-related landslides, harvest, and 

decommissioned roads, available data indicate that all but three units meet the Region 10 

Soil Quality Standards. In Alternative 3, Units 508, 555, and 575 include enough acres of 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-315

detrimental soil disturbance due to existing temporary or decommissioned roads or 

management related landslides in previously harvested areas to exceed the 85 percent

standard. Alternatives 4 and 5 also include Units 508 and 575 as exceeding the standard 

due to management-related landslides in previously harvested areas. Alternative 2 meets 

the standard in all units, as this alternative does not include young-growth thinning units. 

Further analysis of units that may not meet the Region 10 Soil Quality Standard is being 

conducted to better define the existing conditions. Following further evaluation, these 

units would be modified or removed from the sale if necessary, to ensure the Region 10 

Soil Quality Standard would be met. 

Harvest on Slopes Greater than 72 Percent

All proposed old-growth harvest units with slopes exceeding 50 percent were field 

reviewed for slope stability. Field verification of young-growth stands will occur prior to 

project implementation. Some areas will likely be dropped from young-growth units 

following field verification. Boundaries are modified on areas with concerns about slope 

stability and impacts to soil productivity following harvest. Landslide-prone slopes are 

removed from harvest consideration to protect soil resources and prevent potential 

degradation of downslope resources. Slopes greater than 72 percent are identified within 

units in the project area, and excluded from harvest if unstable. In total, across the project 

area, approximately 1,996 acres were deemed unstable and excluded from the harvest 

units. Likely, a majority of these areas were on slopes greater than 72 percent. In 

addition, harvest prescriptions and suspension requirements are determined for other steep 

slope areas. Complete details are included in the soil unit resource reports and in the 

individual unit cards (in the Big Thorne project record). 

Approximately 206 acres of slopes greater than 72 percent gradient remain in the unit pool 

because they rate well below MMI 4 landslide potential. Most areas are less than 5 acres 

in size and consist of short steep slopes associated with rock outcrops. Units 37, 158, 201, 

546, 550, and 551 include greater than 5 acres total of harvests on slopes greater than 72 

percent. Harvest areas on slopes greater than 72 percent are included in the proposed 

harvest units because they appear stable and will facilitate yarding of surrounding lesser 

slopes. Appropriate mitigation measures are prescribed in the unit cards. Complete details 

are included in the soil stability investigation reports (in the Big Thorne project record) 

and/or Unit Cards.

Table SOIL-5 displays the proposed acres of slopes greater than 72 percent gradient that 

remain in the unit pool, and the proposed harvest systems on those slopes, for each 

alternative. The areas in Table SOIL-5 meet the criteria for timber harvest on slopes 

greater than 72 percent gradient as defined by the Forest Plan. The majority of these units 

are proposed for helicopter yarding with 25, 33, or 50 percent retention. Partial cutting in 

these helicopter units would help ensure an adequate amount of live root mass remains 

intact to preserve slope stability. Less soil disturbance in a harvest unit results in less 

disruption of the root mat and subsequently more root strength than if the soil is disturbed 

(Swanston 1974).

Alternative 2 has the least acreage of harvest on slopes greater than 72 percent and 

Alternative 3 has the most acreage for both old-growth harvest and young-growth 
3 Environment and Effects

3-316 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

thinning. Most areas with slopes greater than 72 percent that are included in proposed 

harvests are associated with rock outcrops that average less than 1 acre in size and can be 

operated around.

The Mitkof Highway assessment (Swanston 2006) was considered during this analysis. 

The slope stability factors considered in the Mitkof slope stability assessment are the same 

factors considered in the slope stability assessment for the Big Thorne harvest units. 

Those factors are also described in the 2008 Forest Plan. The downslope resources at risk 

in the Mitkof assessment are very different than the downslope resources at risk on the 

Big Thorne project area. The soils and site factors are somewhat different between the two 

project areas. The mitigation described for the Big Thorne harvest units is appropriate 

when considering the soil and site factors and the downslope resources at risk.

The digital elevation model for the project area, when overlain with proposed roads, 

indicates that Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 each have less than 0.1 mile of proposed temporary 

road on slopes greater than 67 percent. It is likely that the location of roads will be 

adjusted prior to implementation. The Forest Plan directs to avoid locating roads on a 

slope greater than 67 percent, on an unstable slope, or in a slide-prone area, where 

feasible.

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, no timber harvest or road building would take place and no soil 

disturbances would be caused by new management activities associated with the Big 

Thorne Project. No rehabilitation efforts involving road construction, storage, and 

decommission would be completed on existing roads under this project. Roads on the 

project area will continue to receive incidental use from hunters and other visitors. 

Landslides would continue to occur in unharvested areas and existing harvested areas. 

Vegetation in harvested areas would continue to grow and add stability to soils on those 

sites. Detrimental soil conditions would remain within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards.

Table SOIL-5. Proposed Harvest Unit Acreage with Slopes Greater than 72% that 

Meet the Slope Stability Analysis Criteria for Timber Harvest (oldgrowth harvest and young growth thinning1,2,3/

)

Proposed 

Harvest 

System

Alt. 2 Slopes Alt. 3 Slopes Alt 4. Slopes Alt. 5 Slopes 

OG 

Harvest

YG 

Thinning

OG 

Harvest

YG 

Thinning

OG 

Harvest

YG 

Thinning

OG 

Harvest

YG 

Thinning

Ground 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Cable 11 0 19 118 10 106 2 101

Helicopter 39 0 55 0 55 0 59 0

Total 51 0 75 118 65 106 62 101

Notes: 

1/ Field verification of young-growth stands was not completed as of this writing. Acres of harvest on slopes over 72% 

based on field collected data for old-growth and 20 meter DEMS for young-growth. After it is completed prior to 

implementation, it is likely that additional area will be dropped from young-growth units.

2/ Total numbers may not match sum exactly due to rounding

3/ Areas with steep slopes that will utilize ground based equipment are short rock outcrops that average less than 1 acre 

in size and can be operated around.

OG = old growth; YG = young growth
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-317

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 proposes approximately 4,944 acres of old-growth timber harvest. 

Approximately 1,628 acres would be helicopter yarded, 1,383 acres cable yarded, and 

1,934 acres shovel yarded under minimum partial suspension requirements. This 

alternative includes about 23 miles of temporary road construction or reconstruction, and 

11.9 miles of proposed NFS roads. Construction of 19.2 miles of new temporary road 

(excluding reconstruction) would result in approximately 93 acres of soil disturbance. 

Additionally, rock quarry development would result in about 30 acres of disturbance 

based on 30 miles of new temporary and NFS roads (excluding reconstruction). About 

129 acres of soil disturbance would result from harvest and approximately 26 acres of 

management-related landslides are projected to occur over the following 30 years as a 

result of this alternative. Total area of soil with reduced productivity would be 

approximately 278 acres (see Table SOIL-4). All harvest units in Alternative 2 would 

meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards.

Approximately 51 acres of slopes greater than 72 percent gradient would be harvested in 

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 includes the lowest amount of timber harvest proposed on 

slopes greater than 72 percent of any action alternative. All proposed old-growth harvest 

units with slopes exceeding 50 percent were field reviewed for slope stability and will 

meet the requirements set forth in the Forest Plan.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes approximately 9,481 acres of timber harvest, of which 6,909 acres 

is old growth and 2,572 acres is young-growth thinning. Of the old-growth harvest, 

approximately 2,583 acres would be helicopter yarded, 1,871 acres cable yarded, and 

2,456 acres shovel yarded under minimum partial suspension requirements. This 

alternative includes about 39 miles of temporary road construction or reconstruction and 

about 18 miles of proposed NFS roads. Construction of 26 miles of new temporary road

(excluding reconstruction) would result in approximately 126 acres of soil disturbance. 

Additionally, rock quarry development would result in about 41 acres of disturbance 

based on about 41 miles of new temporary and NFS roads (excluding reconstruction). 

About 254 acres of soil disturbance would result from harvest and approximately 51 acres 

of management-related landslides are projected to occur over the following 30 years. Total 

area of soil with reduced soil productivity would be approximately 472 acres (see Table 

SOIL-4). 

All but three harvest units would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the unit scale. 

Further analysis, of these units is being conducted to better define the existing conditions. 

These units would be modified or removed from the sale, to ensure the Region 10 Soil 

Quality Standard would be met. 

Approximately 193 acres of slopes greater than 72 percent gradient would be harvested in 

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 includes the greatest amount of timber harvest proposed on 

slopes greater than 72 percent of any alternative. All proposed old-growth harvest units 

with slopes exceeding 50 percent were field reviewed for slope stability. Field verification 

of young growth stands will occur prior to project implementation. Harvest proposed on 
3 Environment and Effects

3-318 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

slopes greater than 72 percent gradient will meet the requirements set forth in the Forest 

Plan.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 proposes approximately 6,383 acres of timber harvest, of which 4,223 is old 

growth and 2,160 is young-growth thinning. Of the old-growth harvest, approximately 

2,359 acres would be helicopter yarded, 845 acres cable yarded, and 1,020 acres shovel 

yarded under minimum partial suspension requirements. This alternative includes about 

16 miles of temporary road construction or reconstruction and 3 miles of proposed NFS 

roads. Construction of about 9.1 miles of new temporary road (excluding reconstruction) 

would result in approximately 44 acres of soil disturbance. Additionally, rock quarry 

development would result in about 12 acres of disturbance based on about 12 miles of new 

temporary and NFS roads (excluding reconstruction). About 166 acres of soil disturbance 

would result from harvest and approximately 34 acres of management-related landslides 

are projected to occur over the next 30 years. Total area of soil with reduced productivity 

would be approximately 248 acres (see Table SOIL-4). 

All but two harvest units would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the unit scale. 

Further analysis of these units is being conducted to better define the existing conditions. 

These units would be modified or removed from the sale, if necessary to ensure the 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standard would be met. 

Approximately 171 acres of slopes greater than 72 percent gradient would be harvested in 

Alternative 4. All proposed old-growth harvest units with slopes exceeding 50 percent 

were field reviewed for slope stability. Field verification of young-growth stands will 

occur prior to project implementation. Harvest proposed on slopes greater than 72 percent 

gradient will meet the requirements set forth in the Forest Plan.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 proposes approximately 7,093 acres of timber harvest, of which 5,012 acres 

are old growth and 2,081 acres are young growth. Of the old-growth harvest, 

approximately 3,218 acres would be helicopter yarded, 730 acres cable yarded, and 1,064 

acres shovel yarded under minimum partial suspension requirements. This alternative 

includes about 14 miles of temporary road construction or reconstruction and about 2 

miles of proposed NFS roads. Construction of about 7.7 miles of new temporary road 

(excluding reconstruction) would result in approximately 37 acres of soil disturbance. 

Additionally, rock quarry development could result in about 9 acres of disturbance based 

on about 9 miles of new temporary and NFS roads (excluding reconstruction). About 180 

acres of soil disturbance would result from harvest and approximately 38 acres of 

management-related landslides are projected to occur over the following 30 years. Total 

area of soil with reduced productivity would be approximately 264 acres (Table SOIL-4). 

All but two harvest units would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the unit scale. 

Further analysis, of these units is being conducted to better define the existing conditions. 

These units would be modified or removed from the sale, if necessary to ensure the 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standard would be met. 

Approximately 163 acres of slopes greater than 72 percent gradient would be harvested in 

Alternative 5. All proposed old-growth harvest units with slopes exceeding 50 percent 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-319

were field reviewed for slope stability. Field verification of young growth stands will 

occur prior to project implementation. Harvest proposed on slopes greater than 72 percent 

gradient will meet the requirements set forth in the Forest Plan.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for soils is the project area. Cumulative effects of the 

proposed harvest and road construction/reconstruction on long-term soil productivity are 

directly related to the amount of soil disturbance that occurs through time because of 

natural events, temporary road construction, and resource management.

Reasonably foreseeable projects considered include the Roadside micro-sales, remaining 

Control Lake sales, additional harvests on state lands within the project area identified in 

the State’s 5-year timber plan, road activities on NFS lands, young-growth treatments on 

NFS lands, restoration activities in the project area, and Recreation projects. The Statemanaged harvests include the Beach Road, North Thorne #3, and North Thorne #4 sales 

northeast of Thorne Bay and the South Thorne Bay #4 and South Thorne Bay #4 sales on 

the Kasaan Peninsula.

Because the effects of the present and reasonably foreseeable actions are consistent across 

all alternatives, the cumulative effects are comparable by alternative. Region 10 Soil 

Quality Standards require a minimum of 85 percent of the area left for productivity (FSM 

2500, R-10 Supplement 2500-2006-1). Table SOIL-6 includes the estimated cumulative 

detrimental soil disturbance from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within 

the project area.

Detrimental soil disturbance from the Big Thorne Project and foreseeable actions 

combined with existing conditions would total to approximately 1.3 to 1.5 percent

detrimental soil conditions within the project area under each alternative, meeting the 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the project area level.

Alternative 1 would not contribute to the cumulative effects of other present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions on soils. Alternatives 2 through 5 would add the effects as 

described in the direct and indirect effects section and summarized in Table SOIL-6 

above. Alternative 3 would have the largest cumulative effect on soil resources, the Big 

Thorne Project adding 472 acres of detrimental soil conditions and other reasonably 

foreseeable actions adding 60 acres of detrimental soil conditions. Alternative 2 would 

have similar cumulative effects to Alternatives 4 and 5 in terms of acres of cumulative 

detrimental soil conditions.
3 Environment and Effects

3-320 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table SOIL-6. Estimated Acres of Cumulative Detrimental Soil Disturbance by 

Alternative

Detrimental Soil Disturbance Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Total Existing Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

from Management (acres) 3,061 3,061 3,061 3,061 3,061

Detrimental Soil Disturbance from Big 

Thorne Project (acres)1/ 0 283 487 255 271

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Roadside EA (micro-sales)2/ 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Remaining Control Lake Sales (includes 

roads) 16 16 16 16 16

Harvests on state lands (includes roads)3/ 38 38 38 38 38

Estimated Predicted Landslides from 

Harvest on State Lands (over next 30 

years)1/

3 3 3 3 3

Free Use Timber Sales 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Total Detrimental soil disturbance from 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (acres) 60 60 60 60 60

Cumulative Soil Disturbance (acres) 4/ 3,121 3,404 3,608 3,376 3,392

Cumulative Soil Disturbance (percent of 

project area) 1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5%

1/ Includes 30 years’ worth of management-related landslides at the predicted rate (SOIL-4).

2/ Assumes 3 percent detrimental soil disturbance of 182.5 acres calculated in Watershed Resource report.

3/ Assumes 4 miles of roads and 3 percent soil disturbance as a result of 635 acres of harvest and on state lands.

4/ Sums may not add correctly due to rounding

Effects Common to All Alternatives

See Table SOIL-1 for a summary of existing soil disturbances on the project area. Past 

timber harvest and road construction is associated with 241 landslides totaling about 393 

acres. Natural soil disturbances and naturally occurring landslides would continue to occur 

under each alternative. Reasonably foreseeable projects with quantifiable effects are 

included in Table SOIL-6 above. The Roadside EA would contribute approximately 1.5 

acres of detrimental soil disturbance. The remaining Control Lake sales would contribute 

approximately 16 acres of detrimental soil disturbance. Harvests on state lands would 

contribute approximately 38 acres of detrimental soil disturbance, which includes roads. 

As a result of harvest on State lands, landslides predicted from harvest on State lands 

would contribute approximately 3 acres over the next 30 years. Free Use Timber Sales 

would contribute approximately 0.3 acres of detrimental soil disturbance.

In addition, several reasonably foreseeable projects have effects common to all 

alternatives, but are not quantifiable at this stage, and are therefore not included in Table 

SOIL-6 above. Road activities on NFS lands include ongoing road maintenance on NFS 

roads will result in some soil disturbance; however, these do not count toward detrimental 

soil disturbance. 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). Restoration activities could result in temporary, localized soil effects, 

but it is expected that the overall effect from activities, such as landslide and stream 

stabilization, would be beneficial to the soil resource. Recreation and facility projects in 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-321

the project area would result in some additional soil disturbances; however, these effects 

would be limited by BMP implementation and do not count towards detrimental soil 

disturbance.

The following describes the cumulative effects by alternative.

Alternative 1 

In addition to the effects described for all alternatives above, the Big Thorne Project 

would not contribute to the cumulative detrimental soil disturbance. The reasonably 

foreseeable projects identified in Table SOIL-6 would result in about 60 acres of 

detrimental soil conditions. Total detrimental soil disturbance within the project area 

would be about 3,121 acres, or about 1.3 percent of the project area. Natural soil 

disturbances including landslides will continue to occur. Natural surface erosion due to 

ice, wind, water, or gravity that usually occurs in small patches will continue across the 

project area. Vegetation in harvested areas will continue to grow and add root mass and 

add stability to soil, thus landslide frequency will likely decline over time in the 

previously harvested areas (Landwehr 1994).

Alternative 2

In addition to the effects described for all alternatives above, the implementation of 

Alternative 2 would contribute about 283 acres of detrimental soil disturbance. When 

combined with the reasonably foreseeable projects, detrimental soil disturbance on the 

project area would increase to approximately 3,404 acres, or about 1.5 percent of the 

project area (Table SOIL-6). This level of disturbance is well within Region 10 Soil 

Quality Standards at the project scale. Natural soil disturbances including landslides will 

continue to occur. Natural surface erosion due to ice, wind, water, or gravity that usually 

occurs in small patches will continue across the project area. Vegetation in previously 

harvested areas will continue to grow and add root mass and stability to the soil, thus 

landslide frequency will likely decline over time in the harvested areas (Landwehr 1994). 

Over the next 30 years, about 29 acres of landslides are estimated to be associated with 

management activities cumulatively. 

Alternative 2 meets the Region 10 soil productivity standard in all units, as this alternative 

does not include young growth thinning units.

Alternative 3

In addition to the effects described for all alternatives above, the implementation of 

Alternative 3 would result in about 487 acres of detrimental soil conditions. When 

combined with the existing condition and reasonably foreseeable activities, detrimental 

soil disturbance on the project area would increase to approximately 3,608 acres, or about 

1.6 percent of the project area (Table SOIL-6). This level of disturbance is well within 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the project scale. Natural soil disturbances including 

landslides will continue to occur. Natural surface erosion due to ice, wind, water, or 

gravity that usually occurs in small patches will continue across the project area. 

Vegetation in previously harvested areas will continue to grow and add root mass and 

stability to the soil, thus landslide frequency will likely decline over time in the harvested 

areas (Landwehr 1994). Over the next 30 years, about 54 acres of landslides are estimated 

to be associated with management activities cumulatively. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-322 ▪ Soils Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

All but three harvest units would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the unit scale. 

Without modification, Units 508, 555, and 575 may not meet standards due to existing 

temporary or decommissioned roads or management related landslides on previously 

harvested areas. Further analysis, such as aerial photo review and/or ground truthing, of 

these units is necessary to better define the existing conditions. Following further review, 

these units could be modified, or potentially removed from the sale, to ensure the Region 

10 Soil Quality Standard would be met. Proposed harvest for these units will be resolved 

in the FEIS ROD and in the unit cards, as further analysis is ongoing.

Alternative 4

In addition to the effects described for all alternatives above, the implementation of 

Alternative 4 would include about 255 acres of detrimental soil conditions. When 

combined with the existing condition and reasonably foreseeable activities, detrimental 

soil disturbance on the project area would increase to approximately 3,376 acres, or about 

1.5 percent of the project area (Table SOIL-6). This level of disturbance is well within 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the project scale. Natural soil disturbances including 

landslides will continue to occur. Natural surface erosion due to ice, wind, water, or 

gravity that usually occurs in small patches will continue across the project area. 

Vegetation in previously harvested areas will continue to grow and add root mass and 

stability to the soil, thus landslide frequency will likely decline over time in the harvested 

areas (Landwehr 1994). Over the next 30 years, about 37 acres of landslides are estimated 

to be associated with management activities cumulatively. 

All but two harvest units would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the unit scale. 

Without modification, Units 508 and 575 may not meet standards due to existing 

temporary or decommissioned roads or management related landslides on previously 

harvested areas. Further analysis, such as aerial photo review and/or ground truthing, of 

these units is necessary to better define the existing conditions. Following further review, 

these units could be modified, or potentially removed from the sale, to ensure the Region 

10 Soil Quality Standard would be met. Proposed harvest for these units will be resolved 

in the FEIS ROD and in the unit cards, as further analysis is ongoing.

Alternative 5

In addition to the effects described for all alternatives above, the implementation of 

Alternative 5 would include about 271 acres of detrimental soil conditions. When 

combined with the existing condition and reasonably foreseeable activities, detrimental 

soil disturbance on the project area would increase to approximately 3,392 acres, or about 

1.5 percent of the project area (Table SOIL-6). This level of disturbance is well within 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the project scale. Natural soil disturbances including 

landslides would continue to occur. Natural surface erosion due to ice, wind, water, or 

gravity that usually occurs in small patches will continue across the project area. 

Vegetation in previously harvested areas would continue to grow and add root mass and 

stability to the soil, thus landslide frequency would likely decline over time in the 

harvested areas (Landwehr 1994). Over the next 30 years, about 41 acres of landslides are 

estimated to be associated with management activities cumulatively.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Soils ▪ 3-323

All but two harvest units would meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards at the unit scale. 

Without modification, Units 508 and 575 may not meet standards due to existing 

temporary or decommissioned roads or management related landslides on previously 

harvested areas. Further analysis, such as aerial photo review and/or ground truthing, of 

these units is necessary to better define the existing conditions. Following further review, 

these units could be modified, or potentially removed from the sale, to ensure the Region 

10 Soil Quality Standard would be met. Proposed harvest for these units will be resolved 

in the FEIS ROD and in the unit cards, as further analysis is ongoing.
3 Environment and Effects 

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Climate Change ▪ 3-324

Climate Change

Introduction 

Forest Plan Analysis

The EIS prepared for the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment discusses several issues 

related to climate change. These include the considerable uncertainty concerning specific 

predictions of how the climate may change, and the uncertainty regarding the effects of 

climate change on the resources of the Tongass. To deal with this uncertainty, the 

Tongass National Forest will continue to monitor potential effects of climate change 

through the existing Forest Plan monitoring programs, and other studies that are 

happening regionally and nationally. 

The 2008 Forest Plan EIS contains an extensive discussion of climate change related to 

management activities (pgs. 3-11 to 3-20, 3-50 to 3-51, 3-77, 3-92 to 3-93, 3-116 to 3-117, 

3-125 to 3-126, 3-203, 3-250, 3-296, 3-340, 3-351, 3-401). Models available for 

estimating climate change are designed to predict changes on a regional scale and are not 

detailed enough to predict changes to the Tongass National Forest specifically. Existing 

models do not entirely agree on how global warming will affect Southeast Alaska. The 

variation and possibilities are discussed extensively in the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment 

EIS. 

The 2008 ROD for the Tongass Plan Amendment concludes that because of the 

uncertainty related to the specific effects of climate change on the resources of the 

Tongass, the uncertainty about how activities on the Forest affect climate change and the 

predicted small magnitude of these effects, the best course of action is continued 

management of the Tongass for resiliency in ecosystem functions. This will be 

accomplished primarily by management of the Tongass as a mostly intact ecosystem with 

a robust monitoring plan that will allow for adaptive management intervention if and 

when effects of climate change are more certain. Important components of the 2008 

Tongass Forest Plan include: 

 A conservation strategy that includes an extensive reserve system in nondevelopment land use designations and standards and guidelines where active 

management is minimized that protect over 90 percent of the existing productive 

old-growth habitat. 

 Standards and guidelines that include specific protection measures for soils on 

slopes that are >67 percent and >72 percent. These measures help retain carbon 

stored as organic material in soils where timber harvest and road building occur. 

In addition to the Forest Plan’s monitoring and evaluation provisions that address the 

effects of climate change, there are Regional forest health program monitoring changes 

related to insects, disease, pathogens, windthrow, and the long-term forest inventory 

system. If these efforts detect changes due to climate they will be addressed through 

existing planning procedures to determine whether changes in management are warranted. 

Even at the Forest Plan level, differences between alternatives in terms of the effects of 

climate change on the Tongass - and in the effects of land management activities on 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Climate Change ▪ 3-325

climate change - are uncertain, unquantifiable, and likely to be small (especially when 

compared to other routine human activities). For these reasons, information on climate 

change was deemed not essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives considered 

in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS, and therefore for these same reasons, would not be essential 

to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the Big Thorne EIS (Kimbell 2009). 

The Tongass National Forest is currently adjusting management in relation to climate 

change. Based on ongoing research and scientific recommendations (Hennon et al. 2007), 

and in response to the public’s concern about cedar decline, the regeneration of yellow 

cedar is being more closely monitored and efforts made to influence species composition 

to include more Alaska yellow cedar in regenerating stands. This will allow managers the 

ability to maintain or increase yellow cedar on sites judged to be suitable for the species 

long-term survival (i.e., not prone to future yellow cedar decline due to climate change) 

using future intermediate treatments such as PCT. 

The Tongass is also in the process of organizing a scenario planning effort with key

stakeholders, to include relevant scientists and other agency personnel, business and 

community leaders, and internal personnel to identify key resources at risk and assessment 

needs. This effort will provide information on the risks and range of change for key 

resources and prioritize climate-change related issues and needs across Southeast Alaska.

Further discussion on climate change issues and vegetation can be found in the Climate 

Change, Timber, and Botany Resource Reports (Crookston 2012; Barnhart and Iozzi 

2012; Opolka 2012).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-326 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Fisheries

Introduction

Streams and lakes of the Big Thorne project area provide important habitat for the 

production of resident and anadromous fish resources. These resources support the Prince 

of Wales subsistence, sport, guided (both freshwater and saltwater), and commercial

fisheries of the area as well as traditional and cultural values. Fish are a major component 

of the biodiversity of Southeast Alaska. The annual migrations of anadromous fish for 

spawning are necessary for the functioning of many plant and animal communities. 

Willson and Halupka (1995), in their discussion of anadromous fish as keystone species, 

list 36 birds and mammals that consume salmon or salmon eggs in Southeast Alaska.

Animals such as the black bear and bald eagle depend on salmon as a primary food source.

Abundant rainfall and watersheds with high stream densities provide an unusual number 

and diversity of freshwater habitats. These abundant freshwater systems on the Tongass 

National Forest provide spawning and rearing habitat for most of the fish produced in 

Southeast Alaska. 

Watershed and subwatershed boundaries and names for the Big Thorne project area are 

based on USDA Forest Service 5th, 6th, 7th level watershed dataset. Often all three levels 

have been characterized as “watersheds” for analysis of varied project effects on Prince of 

Wales Island. However, for the Big Thorne project, watersheds and subwatersheds have 

been analyzed separately for Issue 4 – Cumulative Watershed Effects (earlier in this 

chapter) and in the Watershed Resource Report (James 2012). The subsections below use 

the same definitions described for watersheds and subwatersheds in Issue 4. However, 

most of the discussions on effects to fisheries resources are limited to the breakdown at 

the subwatershed level, which provides a finer scale division for descriptions of baseline 

conditions and potential project effects. 

Stream Type Definitions 

Stream classification and channel type characteristics are the primary factors used in 

determining potential production of fish within the Tongass as well as types of protection 

needed relative to forest management actions. The Tongass National Forest uses two 

specific categorization systems to describe streams. The first is broadly defined as a 

stream value classification and defines relative fish use or presence in streams; it is called 

Stream Class, or Aquatic Habitat Management Unit (AHMU) class. The second is a 

classification of streams into Process Groups and Channel Types. These are based on 

stream geomorphic characteristics and location within the watershed, which is important 

for assessing fish habitat capability and sensitivity to management actions. 

The Alaska Region stream value classification (stream class) is based on subsistence, 

recreational, and economic fish harvest considerations. The value classes do not imply 

either ecological importance or prioritization of fish harvest over maintenance of 

watershed function. Stream classes are as follows:
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-327

1. Class I. Streams and lakes with anadromous (migrating from the ocean) or 

adfluvial (migrating from lakes) fish or fish habitat; or, high quality resident fish 

waters, or habitat above fish migration barriers known to provide reasonable 

enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish.

2. Class II. Streams and lakes with resident fish or fish habitat and generally steep 

(6 to 25 percent or higher) gradients where no anadromous fish occur, and 

otherwise not meeting class I criteria.

3. Class III. Streams are perennial and intermittent streams that have no fish 

populations or fish habitat, but have sufficient flow or sediment and debris 

transport to directly influence downstream water quality or fish habitat 

capability.

4. Class IV. Other intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels with 

insufficient flow or sediment transport capabilities to directly influence 

downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. These streams have 

bankfull width of at least 1 foot over the majority of the stream segment. Class 

IV streams are too small to be mapped on aerial photographs, thus only the ones 

field verified are listed.

Process groups describe the geomorphic properties of stream channels and their general 

location in the landscape, while channel types further differentiate channels within process 

groups. AHMU class, channel types and process groups are used to assign appropriate 

buffers. Methods of determining channel type and process group are in FSH 2090.21 

(USDA 2001). The process group code is explained below in Table FISH-1.

Methodology 

Methodology used for fish habitat assessment included both GIS analysis and field 

surveys. GIS analysis included initial determination of stream characteristics (class, type, 

length location), existing and proposed road locations and distance, and road-stream 

crossing information within the proposed project area. Many of these parameters were 

field verified. The interdisciplinary team, used channel type and stream class data, 

anadromous and resident fish stream road condition surveys (RCS) data, ADF&G stream

catalog, and field survey results in the vicinity of proposed activities, as a basis for effects 

analysis. 

The effects of the alternatives were compared using quantitative variables such as number 

of existing stream crossings and proposed stream crossings, miles and area of existing 

and proposed road constructed, acres of past riparian management area harvested, miles of 

existing roads in riparian management areas (RMA), acres of past and proposed harvest 

and percent canopy removed. These same parameters were considered in a cumulative 

manner for other reasonably foreseeable project area actions.

See the Fisheries Resource Report (Knutzen 2012) for more information on methods used. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-328 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table FISH-1. Brief Description of Process Groups

Process

Group

Process Group

Name

Channel 

Morphometry

Channel Sediment 

Function Fish Habitat

HC High Gradient

Contained

Steep mountain slope 

tributaries

Source and transport 

channel system

Small resident fish 

populations and limited 

anadromous fish-rearing 

habitat

AF Alluvial Fan Multi-branched channels 

on depositional 

footslopes

Episodic deposition 

processes

Low productivity due to 

dynamic channels and 

interrupted surface flow

MM Moderate Gradient 

Mixed Control

Valley bottom streams 

with variable 

confinement

Transitional 

transport/deposition 

channels influence by 

bedrock control and 

riparian vegetation.

Moderate to Highly 

Productive anadromous

and resident spawning and 

fish-rearing habitat

MC Moderate Gradient 

Contained

Completely contained by 

adjacent landforms 

frequently by bedrock

Efficient sediment 

transport and delivery 

channels

Low to moderate 

productive anadromous 

and resident fish-rearing 

and spawning habitat

LC Low Gradient 

Contained

Moderately incised and 

well contained low 

gradient streams in 

lowlands and large 

valleys

Mixed sediment storage 

and transport channels

Moderately productive 

resident and anadromous 

fish-rearing and spawning 

habitats

FP Flood Plain Unconfined valley flood 

plain streams

Complex depositional 

channel networks

Diverse and Highly 

productive anadromous 

fish-spawning and -rearing 

habitat

PA Palustrine Low gradient streams 

associated with low relief 

landforms and wetland 

drainage networks

Peatland-bog runoff 

dominates

Highly productive juvenile 

anadromous and resident 

fish-rearing potential

ES Estuarine Intertidal streams 

influenced by tidal 

inundation

Primarily depositional 

environments including 

saltwater marches, 

mudflats and gravel 

deltas

Low to high productivity 

anadromous and resident 

fish-rearing and -spawning 

habitat, varying by specific 

channel type 

Source: Paustian et al. 1992; Paustian and Kelliher 2010

Affected Environment 

This section describes the affected environment and existing condition in the 

subwatersheds where activities are proposed. Table WTR-2 under Issue 4 lists 

subwatershed acres.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) developed a rating system to rank VCUs 

on the Tongass National Forest which classified VCUs as Primary Fish Producers if they 

were in the top 10 percent of all VCUs in Southeast Alaska for pink salmon escapement, 

potential coho salmon smolt production, or angler effort or if it had a close connection 

(e.g. same river system) to another VCU that was ranked as a Primary Fish Producer

(Flanders et al. 1998). Within the project area, eight VCUs (5750, 5760, 5780, 5860, 

5950, 5960, 5971, and 5972), which included parts of several subwatersheds in the project 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-329

area including Thorne Lake, Control Lake (two VCUs), Snakey Lakes Lowlands, around 

Thorne Bay (parts of seven subwatersheds), North Big Salt, Central Thorne River, and 

Goose Creek/Rio Beaver subwatersheds were rated as Primary Fish Produces (Figure 

FISH-1). ADF&G recommends that those VCUs that have the highest resource value 

should be managed to reduce risks to fish and wildlife and their habitats.

Stream and Lake Habitat

The Big Thorne project area has about 1,500 miles of streams and over 3,100 acres of 

lakes and ponds. Streams are differentiated by process group, channel type and by 

AHMU class (Tables FISH-2 through FISH-4). 

Each process group varies in the amount and quality of fish habitat. Some process groups 

provide more rearing habitat for juveniles and some have more spawning habitat for adult 

fish. The amount of habitat that is available is directly based on the miles of each process 

group in a given subwatershed. Table FISH-2 shows the miles of stream for each process 

group for each subwatershed. About 63 percent of the stream miles are in the HC process 

group and about 24 percent of the stream miles are in the more productive and sensitive 

process groups (ES, FP, PA, and MM).

Stream classes provide a means to categorize stream channels based on their fish 

production values. Stream Classes I and II receive more protection because they have fish 

populations. Table FISH-3 shows the total length of stream (in miles) for each stream 

class in each subwatershed. The length of Class I and II streams (fish-bearing stream 

classes) for each subwatershed will give an indication of which subwatersheds have more 

fish habitat and greater risk of impacts from management activities. Over the project area 

subwatersheds, nearly half (44 percent) of the known stream miles are fish-bearing 

streams (Class I and II), although it is acknowledged that Class IV streams are greatly 

underrepresented in the overall GIS data base. Lakes play an important role in water 

storage, as sediment and organic matter sinks, and as moderator of highs and lows in 

downstream water quality conditions especially for larger lakes. They are also important 

sources of fish habitat, especially for juvenile sockeye salmon and resident Dolly Varden 

and cutthroat trout. Lakes provide needed over-wintering habitat for coho and sockeye 

salmon, steelhead trout, resident Dolly Varden, and cutthroat trout, with over 92 percent 

of all project area lakes Class I or II (Table FISH-4). Five subwatersheds account for over 

65 percent of the lake area in the project area; these include Big Ratz, Control Lake, Eagle 

Creek, Goose Creek, and Thorne Lake (Table FISH-4). The largest lake in the project 

area is Luck Lake in the Eagle Creek watershed. These subwatersheds all exceed 300 

acres of lake habitat, while the remaining have less than 300 acres each. No data on lake 

depths, volumes, or water quality are available.
3 Environment and Effects

3-330 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table FISH-2. Stream Miles by Process Group by Subwatershed

bwatershed

Miles of Stream by Process Group1/

HC MM FP PA MC AF LC ES UC 2/ UI 3/ Total 2/

Baird Peak 17.9 0.8 0 0.5 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 1.6 0.4 21.9

Barren 4.6 5.4 0 0.4 0.1 0 0 0.0 1.1 0.2 11.9

Big Ratz 46.1 5.8 1.7 1.6 3.5 1.2 0.1 0 3.6 0 63.6

Central Thorne 

River

5.1 5.8 9.2 13.8 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 0 39.8

Cobble Creek 9.8 2.4 0.5 0.1 1.1 0 0 0 1.2 0.2 15.2

Control Lake 76.1 14.9 6.0 8.9 13.7 2.1 5.1 0 1.0 127.9

Deer Creek 12.4 4.8 0 3.1 0.3 0 0 0 1.4 0.2 22.1

Doughnut 6.9 1.5 0 0.2 1.4 0 0 0 0.1 0.7 10.9

Eagle Creek/Slide 

Creek

19.5 4.4 2.2 0 0 3.0 0.1 0 0.6 0 29.8

East Fork North 

Thorne

46.5 4.0 4.5 3.1 0.2 4.6 0 0 2.5 0 65.5

Falls Creek 15.4 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0 0.3 0 17.7

Goose Creek 55.5 12.6 5.3 7.2 7.4 1.4 3.2 0 1.4 0 94.0

Gravelly Creek 38.9 2.7 5.1 0.6 2.5 0.9 0.4 0 1.2 0 52.4

Lake Ellen 15.5 6.4 0.6 2.9 3.4 2.0 0 0.5 0 1.1 32.5

Little Ratz Creek 17.7 4.4 1.5 0 0.4 0.9 0 0.3 1.8 0 27.0

Luck Lake 31.9 5.1 0.7 1.6 0.8 3.3 0 0.2 4.1 0 47.8

Luck Point 5.3 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 7.2

No Name 12.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0 1.5 0.0 15.4

North 7.9 0 0.8 0 0.9 0 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.7 11.9

North Big Salt 

Lake

144.8 12.2 13.1 4.2 17.2 1.5 0.8 0.2 2.3 0 196.2

North Kasaan Bay 

Frontage

21.1 4.8 0.4 1.2 1.7 1.1 0 0.3 0 3.5 34.1

North Sal 4.6 0.5 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0.9 0.4 6.4

Pin 5.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.8 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 7.3

Ratz Harbor 1.3 0.9 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.1 0.3 0.3 3.7

Rio Beaver Creek 55.2 4.5 9.1 2.3 2.2 0 1.9 0 0.2 0 75.3

Sal Creek 28.8 2.8 2.1 0 1.6 1.4 0 0.3 1.1 0 38.1

Salamander 4.5 1.9 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0 0.1 0.1 7.0

Slide Creek 20.5 8.2 2.7 1.9 2.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 36.9

Snakey Lakes 

Lowlands

5.3 5.7 4.1 14.9 2.2 0 3.2 0 1.0 0 36.4

Thorne 10.7 1.6 0.4 0.7 0.3 0 0 0.1 0.6 0.6 15.0

Thorne Bay 25.1 8.0 0.2 2.9 2.0 0.2 0 0.4 0 2.1 40.9

Thorne Lake 51.6 8.3 9.0 12.9 7.7 1.7 2.8 0 0 0 94.1

Thorne River 

Intertidal

5.5 0.8 0 0.7 1.0 0 0 3.0 0 1.8 12.9

Tiny 3.4 0.2 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.4 4.4

Torrent 5.4 1.5 0.2 0.2 1.1 0 0 0.9 0.3 0.5 10.1

West Fork Luck 

Creek

32.8 2.9 5.3 1.7 0 1.5 0.4 0 2.5 0 47.2

West Fork North 

Thorne

53.8 5.3 7.3 3.0 0 4.2 0 0 7.8 0 81.3

Total 925.6 154.0 92.3 92.3 80.5 33.0 18.8 6.6 43.7 15.2 1,462.1

1/ Process group code definitions can be found in Table Fish-1 and the unit cards (Appendix B).

2/ UC= Unclassified streams

3/ UI= Unidentified intertidal channels
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-331

Table FISH-3. Known Stream Miles by AHMU Class and Basin Area by 

Subwatershed

Watershed Basin Area (Sq. Mi.)

Miles of Stream by Class1/

I II III IV Total

Baird Peak 6.6 0.9 4.0 12.3 4.8 21.9

Barren 3.1 4.7 2.6 2.1 2.6 11.9

Big Ratz 16.1 8.0 15.1 31.9 8.6 63.6

Central Thorne River 10.9 30.9 3.6 1.8 3.5 39.8

Cobble Creek 3.3 3.8 1.4 7.7 2.3 15.2

Control Lake 29.1 45.2 18.0 63.0 1.7 127.9

Deer Creek 4.5 0.8 11.3 6.4 3.7 22.1

Doughnut 2.9 3.4 5.1 2.4 0.1 10.9

Eagle Creek/Slide Creek 7.1 10.0 1.6 13.8 4.4 29.8

East Fork North Thorne 11.8 14.7 2.0 41.5 7.3 65.5

Falls Creek 3.8 2.6 5.7 8.0 1.4 17.7

Goose Creek 21.1 35.3 7.9 31.6 19.1 94.0

Gravelly Creek 10.7 13.8 5.0 30.2 3.3 52.4

Lake Ellen 8.3 17.0 3.4 12.2 0.0 32.5

Little Ratz Creek 5.5 3.6 5.0 15.4 3.0 27.0

Luck Lake 11.7 8.5 6.3 21.4 11.6 47.8

Luck Point 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.0 2.2 7.2

No Name 2.4 0.0 3.4 9.5 2.4 15.4

North 3.2 3.8 3.5 4.2 0.3 11.9

North Big Salt Lake 31.7 24.4 45.2 105.3 21.3 196.2

North Kasaan Bay 

Frontage

23.0 10.9 6.2 17.0 0.0 34.1

North Sal 1.1 0.6 0.2 2.6 3.1 6.4

Pin 1.3 2.4 3.4 1.3 0.3 7.3

Ratz Harbor 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.7 3.7

Rio Beaver Creek 14.1 19.6 9.0 33.3 13.5 75.3

Sal Creek 7.3 5.8 4.0 26.1 2.2 38.1

Salamander 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.0 0.2 7.0

Slide Creek 10.1 8.5 12.9 14.5 0.8 36.9

Snakey Lakes Lowlands 10.4 29.2 1.9 3.8 1.6 36.4

Thorne 3.9 4.4 3.6 5.1 1.8 15.0

Thorne Bay 9.9 17.0 9.0 14.9 0.0 40.9

Thorne Lake 25.2 37.8 8.8 47.5 0.0 94.1

Thorne River Intertidal 2.8 8.0 0.9 4.0 0.0 12.9

Tiny 0.8 0.3 0.4 2.9 0.8 4.4

Torrent 2.8 2.5 2.6 3.8 1.2 10.1

West Fork Luck Creek 11.4 12.1 1.9 28.4 4.9 47.2

West Fork North Thorne 13.1 16.1 9.7 33.1 22.4 81.3

Total 336.9 411.9 230.8 662.2 157.2 1462.1

1/ Class IV streams greatly under represented as streams can only be determined by site surveys.
3 Environment and Effects

3-332 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table FISH-4. Lake Area by AHMU Class in the Project Area Subwatersheds

Subwatershed

Total 

Subwaters

hed Lake 

Acres

Percent of 

Lake 

Acres in 

Project 

Area1/

Project Area Lake Acre by Lake Class

Total 

Lake 

Acres in 

Project 

Landlocked Area 2/ Class I Class II Class III

Baird Peek 70.3 100 2.2 0.0 0.0 68.1 70.3

Barren 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Ratz 324.0 100 1.7 259.2 63.1 0.0 324.0

Central Thorne 

River

52.6 100 0.9 51.6 0.0 0.0 52.6

Cobble Creek 1.5 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5

Control Lake 407.5 100 11.4 385.3 0.9 9.9 407.5

Deer Creek 34.2 100 0.3 0.0 26.3 7.6 34.2

Doughnut 12.1 100 0.2 2.0 9.9 0.0 12.1

Eagle Creek/Slide 

Creek

1.2 100 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2

East Fork North 

Thorne

9.1 100 1.9 7.2 0.0 0.0 9.1

Falls Creek 18.0 100 2.4 15.7 0.0 0.0 18.0

Goose Creek 359.6 87 10.2 284.6 17.2 2.4 314.3

Gravelly Creek 11.6 100 1.6 0.0 0.0 10.0 11.6

Lake Ellen 115.4 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8

Little Ratz Creek 5.8 100 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.5 5.8

Luck Lake 529.4 100 3.2 516.5 0.0 9.1 528.9

Luck Point 4.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

No Name 2.4 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4

North 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Big Salt 

Lake

21.7 100 12.1 1.1 8.5 0.0 21.7

North Kasaan Bay 

Frontage

72.8 6 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 4.4

North Sal 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pin 38.5 100 2.4 36.2 0.0 0.0 38.5

Ratz Harbor 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rio Beaver Creek 8.3 100 3.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 8.3

Sal Creek 2.6 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6

Salamander 66.2 100 0.0 66.2 0.0 0.0 66.2

Slide Creek 74.8 100 2.6 46.6 23.3 2.3 74.8

Snakey Lakes 

Lowlands

263.4 100 4.2 259.2 0.0 0.0 263.4

Thorne 42.2 100 0.6 41.6 0.0 0.0 42.2

Thorne Bay 261.3 100 5.6 252.1 0.0 3.0 260.7

Thorne Lake 517.8 97 11.0 485.4 0.5 6.6 503.5

Thorne River 

Intertidal

22.8 98 0.8 21.5 0.0 0.0 22.3

Tiny 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Torrent 4.2 100 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2

West Fork Luck 

Creek

7.6 88 3.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 6.7

West Fork North 

Thorne

3.5 100 2.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.5

Total 3,351.9 93 90.0 2,740.7 149.7 141.0 3,121.4

1/ Percent values rounded

2/ Landlocked are lakes with no associated downslope exit drainage streams
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-333

Fish Species in the Project Area 

A total of seven anadromous and/or resident salmonid fish species are present in project 

area streams. The species include four of the five Pacific Coast salmon, one char, a trout 

species, and steelhead: 

 Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)

 Chum salmon (O. keta)

 Coho salmon (O. kisutch)

 Sockeye salmon (O. nerka)

 Steelhead (O. mykiss)

 Cutthroat trout (O. clarki)

 Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma)

The known presence of salmonid fish in project area subwatersheds is included in Table 

FISH-5. Detailed descriptions of habitat requirements at various life stages and important 

fish-bearing streams are described in the Fisheries Resource Report (Knutzen 2012).

Management Indicator Species

NFMA regulations direct the use of MIS in forest planning to help display the effects of 

forest management. MIS are species whose population changes are believed to indicate 

the effects of land management activities. The Tongass Forest Plan selected pink and 

coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat trout as MIS as representative of varied 

fish life history habitat uses of the Tongass stream systems. Details of species-specific 

habitat use are presented in the Fisheries Resource Report (Knutzen 2012).

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Listed Fish or Sensitive Fish 

Species 

Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to ensure that actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. The effects analysis for 

threatened and endangered (T&E) species is required to address the direct and indirect 

effects of the action(s) on T&E species and their critical habitat (50 CFR 402.02). The 

effects analysis is to comply with Section 7 of the ESA which requires all federal 

agencies, in consultation with the USFWS and NMFS, to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of T&E species or adversely modify their 

habitat. 

There are no fish species in the streams and lakes of the Tongass National Forest that are 

federally ESA listed or under the State of Alaska ESA. In addition, as of 2009 (USDA 

Forest Service 2009c), there are no Region 10 Sensitive fish species in the Tongass 

National Forest. However, the listing of Pacific herring in Southeast Alaska as a candidate 

species for federal listing results in this species being included as a sensitive species in 

Tongass National Forest. The Southeast Alaska Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of 

Pacific herring was listed as a federal candidate species in 2008 (73 Federal Register 

19824). 
3 Environment and Effects

3-334 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table FISH-5. Known Anadromous and Resident Fish Species Presence by 

Subwatershed in the Project Affected Area

Subwatershed

Anadromous Salmon, Char, and Trout 1/

Pink Chum Coho Sockeye Dolly Varden Cutthroat Steelhead

Baird Peak Y Y(r)

Barren Y Y Y

Big Ratz Y Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(r) Y

Central Thorne River Y Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Cobble Creek Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r)

Control Lake Y Y Y Y(r) Y(r) Y

Deer Creek Y Y(r) Y(a,r) Y(r)

Doughnut Y Y Y

Eagle Creek/Slide 

Creek

Y Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

East Fork North 

Thorne

Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Falls Creek Y Y Y Y Y

Goose Creek Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Gravelly Creek Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(r) Y(a)

Lake Ellen Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Little Ratz Creek Y Y Y Y(r) Y(r) Y

Luck Lake Y Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Luck Point Y Y

No Name2/

North Y Y Y Y(r) Y(r) Y(r)

North Big Salt Lake Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

North Kasaan Bay 

Frontage

Y(r) Y(r)

North Sal Y(r)

Pin Y Y Y

Ratz Harbor Y Y Y Y(r) Y(r)

Rio Beaver Creek Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Sal Creek Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Salamander Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r)

Slide Creek Y Y Y Y Y(r) Y(a,r)

Snakey Lakes 

Lowlands

Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Thorne Bay Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r)

Thorne Y Y Y

Thorne Lake Y Y Y Y Y(r) Y Y

Thorne River 

Intertidal

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Tiny2/

Torrent Y Y(r)

West Fork Luck Creek Y Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

West Fork North 

Thorne

Y Y Y Y(a,r) Y(a,r) Y

Source: ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog (http://www.ADF&G.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC); Forest Service Field 

Sampling data, RCS data

1/ All fish are assumed to be anadromous unless indicated by "a" for anadromous or "r" for resident as determined by 

Forest Service field data collection and RCS database

2/ ADF&G Anadromous Fish Catalog have no data for these subwatersheds and no Forest Service field or RCS data are

available for the subwatershed.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-335

This species is ubiquitous in Southeast Alaska (Carls et al. 2008). Juvenile herring 

typically spend their first 3 years of life in nearshore regions commonly utilizing bay 

areas. As they grow they reside in deeper offshore waters. They are primarily a pelagic 

species. Sampling has been limited in the shoreline areas near the project area so exact 

distribution in this region is also limited. Spawning has been documented near 

Craig/Klawock and Thorne Bay (Pritchett 2006 as cited in Carls et al 2008). Thus this 

species may occur in shoreline areas in the vicinity of the project.

During February and March, herring concentrate near the bottom (at 200 to 300 feet) off 

traditional spawning beaches. They remain there until late April, when sea-surface 

temperatures increase and then move into tidal shallows to commence spawning, which 

typically takes place over a 2- to 3-week period between late April and early May. After 

spawning, the adult herring return to deep-water areas. Herring spawning typically takes 

place in nearshore habitat. Additionally juvenile herring spend early years rearing in 

nearshore waters feeding on pelagic plankton commonly in bays of Southeast Alaska.

Subsistence Fish 

ANILCA requires that federal agencies with jurisdiction over public lands in Alaska 

analyze subsistence resources and their uses and evaluate potential effects of management 

activities on these resources and uses (ANILCA Sec. 810). This analysis typically 

focuses on food-related resources that are most likely to be affected by habitat loss or 

alteration associated with land management activities. Fish subsistence uses are described 

in Issue 3 of this chapter and in the Fisheries Resource Report (Knutzen 2012).

Acid Rock Drainage (ARD)

ARD has been an issue for fish resources from past road construction actions in one 

known region of the Prince of Wales Island. ARD is created when iron pyrite, oxygen,

and water combine to produce acidified water that dissolves metal compounds resulting in 

elevated dissolved metal concentrations in water. About 15 percent of the project area 

contains rock type (Descon Formation) that has some potential to contribute to ARD. 

Based on recent past road construction ARD could occur under certain conditions. The 

details of potential for ARD in the project area are presented under Issue 4. During the 

construction of a road to Coffman Cove (FS Highway 3030) some issues with ARD were 

found and ultimately remedied. Surveys that were conducted on the ten streams crossed 

by the ARD affected 3.5-mile road segment, recorded the presence of an orange 

precipitate in the channelsdownstream of the road. These stream reaches had elevated 

metals levels and fish avoided those areas, while fish were present in streams outside of 

those crossed by 3.5-mile road segment (AMEC 2008). Remediation occurred along the 

3.5-mileroad segment and subsequent sampling of the streams crossed by this segment 

found that pH and other constituents in the streams returned to normal levels. The orange 

precipitate was dissipated and invertebrate populations were similar to unaffected areas as 

well as fish returned to the stream regions crossed by the affected road segment (AMEC 

2008).

Existing Forest roads and quarries in the project area are constructed from the Descon 

Formation. It is estimated that 253.8 miles of existing road likely constructed from the 

Descon Shale exist within the project area. It is not known if the material sources used in 
3 Environment and Effects

3-336 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

this construction contained mineralization. However, no past problems other than those 

noted above have been observed (Baichtal personal comm. 2011, as cited in Barnhart and 

Hitner 2012).

Stream Crossings 

In the Big Thorne project area, surface road erosion and road prism failures are probably 

the dominant process by which management disturbance results in occasional 

sedimentation events. These processes are discussed and effects estimated in the Issue 4

section above.

The Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2001) specifies 

guidelines for fish passage through culverts. These guidelines will be followed in all 

proposed road reconstruction and new road construction in the Big Thorne project area. 

The guiding criteria for culvert design is to allow for natural migration by adult and 

juvenile fish through the culvert during various flows. The Tongass National Forest 

developed a juvenile fish passage evaluation criteria matrix with an interagency group of 

professionals. The evaluation matrix stratifies culverts by type, and establishes thresholds 

for culvert gradient, stream channel constriction, debris blockages, and vertical barrier (or 

perch) at culvert outlet. Culvert categories are: 

 Green: conditions that have a high certainty of meeting adult and juvenile fish 

passage requirements at all desired stream flows; 

 Gray: conditions are such that additional analysis is required to determine juvenile 

fish passage ability; and 

 Red: conditions that have a high certainty of not providing juvenile fish passage at 

all desired stream flows. 

Most fish stream crossing structures on roads in the Big Thorne project have been 

surveyed and categorized as green, gray, or red. Some culverts designated as red may not 

impede larger fish and may pass fish of all sizes during certain stream flow levels. There 

are 155 red crossings in the project areas and all have known fish populations upstream 

(Table FISH-6). There are approximately 12 miles of Class I and 22 miles of Class II fish

habitat upstream of these red crossings, which represents about 5 percent of the known 

fish habitat in the project’s subwatersheds. Four of these culverts are still in place on 

temporary roads that have already been decommissioned while the rest are on open roads. 

See the Fish Passage section below for details on future plans for red culvert treatment.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-337

Table FISH-6. Fish Passage in the Project Area by Subwatershed

Subwatershed Number of Fish Crossing by 

Category

Fish Habitat Upstream of 

Red Culverts (miles)1/

Total Green Gray Red Class I Class II Total

Baird Peak 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barren 7 5 0 2 0.00 0.63 0.63

Big Ratz 28 18 1 9 0.17 1.04 1.21

Central Thorne River 20 7 0 13 2.65 3.13 5.79

Cobble Creek 9 5 2 2 0.00 0.43 0.43

Control Lake 13 4 2 7 0.00 1.49 1.49

Deer Creek 19 9 2 8 0.00 3.55 3.55

Doughnut 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eagle Creek/Slide 

Creek

15 10 0 5 0.19 0.55 0.74

East Fork North 

Thorne

23 11 0 12 1.14 0.37 1.51

Falls Creek 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Goose Creek 14 6 0 8 2.78 0.78 3.56

Gravelly Creek 21 9 0 12 0.00 0.96 0.96

Lake Ellen 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Little Ratz Creek 14 8 1 5 0.04 0.67 0.72

Luck Lake 14 6 0 8 0.00 1.20 1.20

Luck Point 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

No Name 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

North 5 0 0 5 0.11 0.85 0.96

North Big Salt Lake 14 6 0 8 1.61 1.04 2.65

North Kasaan Bay 

Frontage

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

North Sal 1 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pin 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ratz Harbor 8 2 1 5 1.19 0.51 1.70

Rio Beaver Creek 17 11 0 6 0.32 0.35 0.67

Sal Creek 12 8 2 2 0.00 0.16 0.16

Salamander 7 0 0 7 0.00 2.14 2.14

Slide Creek 26 21 0 5 0.00 0.78 0.78

Snakey Lakes 

Lowlands

22 11 0 11 0.44 0.75 1.19

Thorne 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Thorne Bay 3 1 0 2 0.00 0.55 0.55

Thorne Lake 3 2 0 1 0.00 0.02 0.02

Thorne River Intertidal 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tiny 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Torrent 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

West Fork Luck Creek 23 11 1 11 0.65 0.30 0.94

West Fork North 

Thorne

8 7 0 1 0.40 0.00 0.40

TOTAL 348 180 13 155 11.69 22.27 33.96

1/ Upstream habitat distance for some crossings estimated by GIS analysis for this project assessment
3 Environment and Effects

3-338 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Environmental Consequences 

See the Issue 4 section for the effects analysis of stream habitat, water quality, and water 

yield.

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 

Young-Growth Harvest 

Some of the proposed harvest in Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would include commercial 

thinning of young growth. Commercial thinning would remove trees of commercial 

harvest size while providing the remaining trees enhanced conditions to accelerate growth. 

RMAs would be treated the same as standard practices for timber harvest including 

buffering. Commercial thinning would be equivalent to harvest practices that remove 

about 35 percent of the forest canopy and general effects to fisheries resources would be

similar to those when using comparable harvest methods. Overall effects would be 

similar to those that occur to comparable partial harvest of old growth with proper 

implementation of standards and guidelines and BMPs. 

Large Woody Debris 

In all alternatives, the standards and guidelines for the RMAs will be followed. The 

design of RMA buffers is described in the unit cards in this Draft EIS. These site-specific 

designs are expected to effectively protect water quality and fish habitat. LWD

recruitment and spacing would remain therefore having no direct or indirect effects and 

thus no cumulative effects on fish habitat. 

Windthrow 

The IDT considered windthrow risk and precautionary measures to protect RMAs; this is 

discussed in detail in the Silviculture section of this chapter. The specific application of 

the RMA is described for each unit in the unit cards descriptions.

Fish Passage

The Forest Service is required to provide passage for aquatic species under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) in the following manner: CWA Section 404 permitting requirements exempt the Forest 

Service from 404 permitting only if Forest roads are used for silvicultural purposes and are 

constructed and maintained in accordance with BMPs specified in 33 CFR 323.4(a) providing 

aquatic passage is one of those BMPs. If the Agency does not provide passage, then a 404 

permit must be obtained. All fish stream crossings installed on new roads in all action 

alternatives will be designed to meet fish passage standards. In addition, all structures will be 

removed from new temporary roads and these roads will be decommissioned when their use 

period is over. The action alternatives are expected to result in no measureable direct or indirect 

effects to fish passage in the project area, as all new fish streams crossings will be crossed with 

log culverts or bridges. The number of fish streams crossed by alternative is provided in Table 

WTR-8 under Issue 4.

Additionally, all red crossings that are on roads designated to remain open independent of 

the project are prioritized on a Forest level to determine the appropriate management plan. 

Limited funds are allocated by Congress for this purpose, and will be appropriated 

according to priorities across the Forest. Those red crossings not replaced or removed 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-339

will continue to impede fish migration at certain flows and life stages until they are 

replaced or removed.

As noted in the Affected Environment section, a total of 155 red culverts in the project 

area inhibit access to fish habitat (Table FISH-6). These culverts inhibit access to about 

34 miles of fish habitat, about 12 and 22 miles of Class I and II habitat, respectively 

(Table FISH-7). Currently, the Central Thorne River and Goose Creek subwatersheds 

have the most habitat of all subwatersheds with impeded or blocked passage at 5.8 and 3.6 

miles, respectively. The Fisheries Resource Report (Knutzen 2012) supplies information 

on subwatershed and road locations for each of these red culverts. The status of some red 

culverts will change from those currently scheduled under the No-action Alternative by 

each action alternative. Any red culvert on a road that had been designated for storage but 

that is used by the project will be considered for removal at the end of the project (Table 

FISH-7).

In the No-action Alternative, roads would be stored or decommissioned or culverts 

replaced under the Prince of Wales ATM, and culvert status considered on a case-by-case 

basis, when funding becomes available. There are 42 red crossings on roads that are 

proposed for storage under the Prince of Wales ATM in the Big Thorne project area 

(Table FISH-7). The storing of these roads would reconnect some of the drainage patterns 

in the subwatersheds and improve access up to approximately 7 miles of upstream habitat 

ifif all red culverts are removed, based on the completed upstream habitat assessments and 

GIS queries as shown in Table FISH-7. There are 108 red culverts blocking nearly threefourths of all passage-impeded fish habitat (24.6 miles) in the project area that will be 

prioritized for replacement independent of project actions (Table FISH-7). There are five

red culverts scheduled for replacement in 2012 on existing system roads that will remain 

open, independent of alternative actions, adding 2.32 miles of habitat (Table FISH-7) (see 

Fisheries Resource Report for details [Knutzen 2012]). 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-340 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table FISH-7. Changes in Red Culvert Status by Alternative in the Big Thorne Project Area

Planned Culvert Status1/

Upstream 

Class

Number of Red Culverts and Miles of Upstream Fish Habitat 2/

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Number Miles Number Miles Number Miles Number Miles Number Miles

Potential Project Removal I 0 0.00 1 0.05 2 0.13 2 0.13 1 0.05

II 0 0.00 15 3.08 25 4.60 17 3.19 17 3.43

I&II 0 0.00 16 3.13 27 4.73 19 3.32 18 3.48

Planned Removal I 4 0.47 3 0.42 2 0.34 2 0.34 3 0.42

II 38 6.60 23 3.52 13 2.00 21 3.41 21 3.17

I&II 42 7.07 26 3.94 15 2.35 23 3.75 24 3.59

Replacement 2012 I 2 1.06 2 1.06 2 1.06 2 1.06 2 1.06

II 3 1.26 3 1.26 3 1.26 3 1.26 3 1.26

I&II 5 2.32 5 2.32 5 2.32 5 2.32 5 2.32

Prioritized Replacement I 26 10.16 26 10.16 26 10.16 26 10.16 26 10.16

II 82 14.41 82 14.41 82 14.41 82 14.41 82 14.41

I&II 108 24.57 108 24.57 108 24.57 108 24.57 108 24.57

Total I 32 11.69 32 11.69 32 11.69 32 11.69 32 11.69

II 123 22.27 123 22.27 123 22.27 123 22.27 123 22.27

I&II 155 33.96 155 33.96 155 33.96 155 33.96 155 33.96

1/ Status Definitions:

Potential Project Removal = those on existing system roads that had been planned for storage but will be used by the project will be considered for removal at 

project end. Recommendations for priority removal of some of those that are on reconstructed roads are included in road cards.

Planned Removal = those on roads planned for storage, but dependent on future funding.

Replacement 2012 = those under contract for replacement in 2012 with fish passable structure on roads that will remain open.

Prioritized Replacement = those on roads that will remain open. They will be prioritized forest wide for replacement and dependent on future funds.

2/ Upstream habitat distance estimated by GIS analysis for some culverts for this project assessment (see Fisheries Resource Report [Knutzen 2012])

Source: Forest Service developed RCS data file: CMP_2012_Replacement.shp
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-341

No alternatives would affect scheduling of the five red culverts designated for 

replacement in 2012 or the 108 culverts on existing roads that will be prioritized in the 

future for replacement. However, among the action alternatives, a portion of the 

remaining 42 culverts which have been designated for planned removal would have 

removal considered at project completion. Initial prioritization of removal of red culverts 

on roads to be reconstructed as part of the respective alternatives has been developed and 

included in road cards. Within 1 to 5 years after harvest, project roads would be stored, 

temporary roads decommissioned after their use period is over, resulting in removal of 

some of the red culverts, reconnecting drainage patterns in the subwatersheds and 

improving access to a portion of these streams. Alternative 3 influences access to the 

greatest amount habitat (4.73 miles) above 27 red culverts and has the potential to increase 

access to the greatest portion of habitat if all red culverts were removed Alternatives 2, 4, 

and 5 may likely have similar improvements on habitat access, including about 3 miles of 

primarily Class II fish habitat (Table FISH-7). None of the action alternatives could affect 

access to a substantial amount of Class I habitat (0.13 mile or less for all action 

alternatives) if all of these Class I culverts were replaced. Central Thorne River and North 

Big Salt Lake subwatersheds have the most fish habitat (1.2 and 1.0 miles, respectively) 

that could potentially be reconnected to downstream fish populations for Alternatives 2, 3, 

4, and 5. As noted, prioritization, based on potential amount of upstream habitat that 

could be reconnected from red culvert removal, has been developed and is included in the 

road cards. Final decisions on removal of red culverts will be made in the ROD or during 

implementation on a case-by-case basis. 

Overall, there is little difference between the action alternatives as none of the project 

alternatives would have a marked effect on potentially restoring access to fish habitat 

upstream of red culverts in the project area. Under the action alternatives, about 3 to 5 

miles of habitat at most would potentially have fish passage access improved possibly 

within 5 to 15 years. Similar passage access may occur under the No-action Alternative

but it depends on future non-project funding. Limited Class I habitat will also be gained 

under any alternative (Knutzen 2012).

The effects of the Old Growth Reserve change on fish habitat and fish resources is 

discussed in Environmental Consequences section in Issue 2 above, and will not be 

repeated here. Similarly, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to aquatic habitat can be 

found in Environmental Consequences section under Issue 4 above and no further discussion 

is provided in this section.

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

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

states that all federal agencies must consult NMFS for actions and proposed actions that 

may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine and 

anadromous fish species. This Draft EIS and incorporated sections constitute the formal 

EFH assessment. The Forest Service determined that the Big Thorne project may 

adversely affect freshwater and marine EFH. NMFS will be consulted on Forest Service

determination and they will provide conservation recommendations if needed. The Forest 

Service will respond to NMFS conservation recommendations in a letter format providing 
3 Environment and Effects

3-342 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

the Forest Service’s formal response. This will satisfy the EFH consultation requirement 

based on the 2007 Agreement with NMFS. NMFS comments and recommendations and 

the Forest Service response will provided in an appendix to the Final EIS.

There are four main steps in the consultation process:

1. The Forest Service determines if the proposed action will have “no adverse 

effect” or if it “may adversely affect” EFH. Only the “may adversely affect” 

determination triggers consultation.

2. An EFH assessment is prepared by the Forest Service as a component of the 

NEPA document and forwarded to the NMFS to initiate formal consultation.

3. The NMFS will respond in writing as to whether it concurs with the conclusion 

in the EFH assessment. In addition, they may provide extra conservation 

recommendations to minimize effects of the action on EFH.

4. The Forest Service must provide a written response to NMFS within 30 days 

explaining their evaluation of the conservation recommendations. The response 

may include reasons for not following the recommendations.

EFH is the water and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity. For EFH, “fish” refers to federally managed fish or shellfish species and their 

prey. Freshwater EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other bodies 

of water currently and historically accessible to salmon. Marine EFH in Alaska includes 

estuarine and marine areas from tidally submerged habitat to the 200-mile exclusive 

economic zone.

EFH for Pacific salmon recognizes six critical life history stages: (1) spawning and 

incubation of eggs, (2) juvenile rearing, (3) winter and summer rearing during freshwater 

residency, (4) juvenile migration between freshwater and estuarine rearing habitats, (5) 

marine residency of immature and maturing adults, and (6) adult spawning migration. 

Habitat requirements within these periods can differ significantly and any modification of 

the habitat within these periods can adversely affect EFH.

Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action (Alternative 2) for the Big Thorne project would harvest 4,944 acres 

of old-growth National Forest System land and construct 30 miles of new road and 

reconstruct 19 miles of existing roads and 5 miles of road construction on a 

decommissioned roadbed on Prince of Wales Island. The other three action alternatives 

propose harvest ranging from 6,383 to 9,481 acres of combined old growth and young 

growth, and new road construction ranging from 9 to 41 miles, reconstructed road ranging 

from 16 to 39 miles, and 6 to 15 miles of road construction on a decommissioned roadbed. 

The road construction includes both temporary and system roads, which all would be 

decommissioned or placed into storage after harvest. After timber harvest is complete, 

temporary roads would be decommissioned when their use period is over, and system 

roads stored within 1 to 5 years. The number of new road crossings on Class I streams 

range from zero to seven among the alternatives (exclusive of reconstructed crossings or 

those over reused decommissioned roadbeds). All fish streams on new roads and those 

constructed roads on decommissioned road prisms would be crossed with a bridge or log 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-343

culvert structure. These structures would be prioritized for removal during system road 

storage, 1 to 5 years after timber harvest is complete, and for temporary roads to be 

decommissioned, after their use period is over. Various yarding systems including cable, 

shovel, and helicopter are proposed. Logs would either be trucked to mills on the island 

or barged from one of the MAFs discussed below. 

Potential Adverse Effects on Freshwater EFH

The Big Thorne project area has over 1,500 known miles of stream in 37 subwatersheds

that have some proposed activities among all considered alternatives. Of this total, 412

miles are Class I streams (see Table FISH-3). Eagle Creek, Thorne River, Ratz Creek,

and tributaries are important fish-bearing streams in the Big Thorne project area. Eagle 

Creek, Thorne River, and Ratz Creek have pink, chum, sockeye, and coho salmon, Dolly 

Varden char, cutthroat trout, and steelhead (ADF&G 2011b). Table FISH-8 shows the 

salmon species and their life stage that could be affected by the Big Thorne project.

Table FISH-8. Salmon Species and their Freshwater Life Stages that could be 

Affected by the Big Thorne Project

Salmon

Species

Freshwater

Eggs

Freshwater Larvae 

and Juveniles

Estuarine

Juveniles

Freshwater

Adults

Pink X X X X

Chum X X X X

Sockeye X X X X

Coho X X X X

As discussed in the existing conditions section, ARD has been an issue for fish resources 

from past road construction actions in one known region north of the project area on the 

Prince of Wales Island. In this area, over 3.5 miles of stream habitat and fish resource 

were adversely affected by ARD (AMEC 2008). Remediation actions were found to 

remedy the problem area. The pyritic material in the naturally occurring Descon 

formation can produce acid drainage to streams under the right water and air conditions 

(see Issue 4 in this section for analysis of the effects of this relative to project actions). 

This material however has commonly been used for road construction in the Big Thorne 

project area (estimated to be over 250 miles of roads) without apparently causing ARD to 

streams or adversely affecting fish resources. 

Road construction and quarry development as a result of the project would utilize and 

excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. It is estimated that 6.3 miles of new road 

construction with Alternative 2 would be across Descon Shale bedrock. Any existing 

material source or newly developed source within the Descon Formation and used to 

construct access to the proposed harvest areas shall be assessed as to its ARD potential.

As discussed under Issue 4, actions will be in place, including monitoring of rock sources 

and potential installation of limestone rock to neutralize acid runoff, to insure that 

potential ARD issues for fisheries and aquatic resources will be controlled and eliminated 

for any potential project-related action.

In this EFH assessment, the Forest Service determined that the Big Thorne project may 

adversely affect EFH because fish streams are directly or indirectly affected by harvest 

and stream crossings. All action alternatives would result in minor effects on water 
3 Environment and Effects

3-344 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

quality and aquatic habitat. These potential impacts include increased peak flows, 

increased sediment delivery, altered riparian vegetation (Class IV streams and new road 

stream crossing), and disturbed channel integrity (see Issue 4). While all of these effects 

are minor, they will have some short-term adverse effects to migratory, spawning, and 

rearing habitat for anadromous salmonids. However, by following the standards and 

guidelines and BMPs in the Forest Plan, the effects on EFH would be minimized for the 

following reasons: 

 All newly constructed and reconstructed NFS system roads that are used for the 

Big Thorne project would be left open seasonally for wood gathering and stored 

within 1 to 5 years after timber haul and associated activities are complete 

Temporary roads would be decommissioned after their use period is over and 

priority fish passage structures on newly constructed temporary roads would be 

removed in all alternatives. Any impassable existing culverts (ie red pipes) on 

rebuilt roads that are stored or decommissioned would be prioritized for removal 

on a case-by-case basis. 

 All Class I and II streams in the Big Thorne project area would be protected by a 

minimum no-cut buffer of 100 feet with additional area protected depending on 

process groups, sensitive riparian soils, elevated windthrow concern, and other 

relevant resource concerns according to the Forest Plan and Tongass Timber 

Reform Act. 

 Class III streams would be protected at least by a no-harvest buffer to the top of 

the side slope (v-notch) according to the Forest Plan (USDA 2008b). 

 Additional precautionary measures would be prescribed to minimize windthrow in 

RMA buffers where the risk of windthrow is high. These measures include 

retaining additional trees adjacent to the RMA. 

 Maintenance will be built into road construction contracts that will correct existing 

erosion features.

 Bridges or log culverts would be placed over fish streams on new road crossings 

and constructed roads over existing road prisms to avoid risks of channel 

disturbance and culvert blockage. Priority crossings would be removed when 

roads are stored (system roads) or decommissioned (temporary roads). 

 BMPs would be implemented to protect water quality and aquatic habitat 

protection for all freshwater streams within the project area. See unit cards 

(Appendix B) for specific applications of BMPs. 

 Any rock sources from Descon shale area formation used for road surfacing and 

road construction in all alternatives would be assessed as to its ARD potential to 

minimize effects on pH and dissolved metals concentrations in streams on the 

project area.

Potential Adverse Effects on Marine EFH 

The two MAFs that the Big Thorne project may use are the Coffman Cove and Thorne 

Bay MAFs. On October 31, 2008, the State of Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) assumed authority over the Authorization to Discharge under the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-345

Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) for Section 402 modification of 

Section 404 permits for log transfer facilities which received a Section 404 permit prior to 

October 22, 1985, and log transfer facilities in Alaska. The Tongass National Forest 

requested and received for most sites an adoption and/or renewal of the pre-existing 

NPDES General Permits for both pre-1985 (AK-G70-000 and post-1985 (AK-G70-1000) 

log transfer facilities in Alaska. The Coffman Cove site was renewed on April 15, 2009; 

however, the Thorne Bay APDES site permit was not renewed (see Thorne Bay MAF 

section below). Because the waters in this part of the bay are 303 (d) listed for bark 

residue, no additional bark discharge is allowed in these waters until the water quality 

issues are resolved. Thus, no permit reissuance for an APDES is allowed under State or 

Federal regulations. Additionally, the Coffman Cove site has been transferred to the 

authority of the City of Coffman Cove, and is no longer a Forest Service–managed 

facility.

Coffman Cove MAF

The MAF in Coffman Cove is a viable option for a timber purchaser to move logs off 

Prince of Wales Island. The Coffman Cove MAF is a sloped shot-rock fill with a mid-tide 

riprap-buttressed barge loading ramp. This is a barge loading–only facility. It was 

recently (2011) used for barging of logs destined to Klawock. The last dive survey was in 

2001 with a zone of bark deposit of 0.18 acre. If log transport in water were to occur at 

this site other than by barge, additional dive surveys would be needed. The Forest Service 

conducted an overlapping dive survey in 2003 from the MAF to the new site of the Interisland Ferry Authority ferry dock to identified eelgrass beds. Only one eelgrass bed was 

found close to the MAF site, which covered approximately one square meter. The 

majority of the intertidal plant growth was Fucus sp. (rockweed), Desmarestia viridis, and 

Halosaccion glandiforme (sea sac).

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources tideland lease number is ADL 27882 

expiring in 2021 and was transferred to the City of Coffman Cove. The National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES), AK-G70-0039, was issued on February 7, 2003. 

The Coffman Cove site was renewed as a state administered APDES permit in April 15, 

2009. As noted above, use of this facility is now managed by the City of Coffman Cove. 

Thorne Bay MAF

The MAF in Thorne Bay is viable option for a timber purchaser to move logs off Prince of 

Wales Island. The sort yard has a trap to reduce sedimentation entering the waters of 

Thorne Bay. The Thorne Bay MAF is listed as a Tier I, Category 5, Section 303(d) water 

quality limited waterbody (ADEC 2006b, p. 89). The Thorne Bay MAF (Alaska ID 

#1010362) was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for debris (bark and woody material 

from the MAF and log raft area), and hydrogen sulfide (ADEC 1996, p. 39). Excess 

debris from the MAF has accumulated on the bottom of Thorne Bay. Review of the data 

in 1998 showed that the levels of hydrogen sulfide complied with water quality standards 

outside the mixing zone authorized for dredging. Hence, hydrogen sulfide was removed 

from the listing by ADEC in 1998 (ADEC 1999, p. 5). In 2006, ADEC removed the 

marine log storage area in Thorne Bay from the 303(d) listing but not the remaining 35-

acre log transfer area. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-346 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

While the MAF is in operation, dive surveys must be conducted annually to monitor bark 

accumulation (ADEC requirement). Bark debris has been shown to smother natural 

substances and potentially reduce prey organisms. The last dive to monitor the bark 

deposit took place during April 2004. The MAF had an area with continuous bark cover 

of 6.45 acres and an area with discontinuous bark cover of 2.26 acres. Thorne Bay has a 

zero maximum daily loading for the bark contaminant; therefore this is a barge loading 

only facility. Therefore, no permit reissuance for an APDES permit is allowed under state 

or federal regulations. Since no in-water log storage or direct in-water log rafting is 

planned, no more-recent dive surveys have been made in this region. 

For both facilities, elimination of transportation of logs by in-water rafting would nearly 

eliminate any bark accumulation in the respective bay area, thus greatly reducing potential 

adverse effects to marine systems associated with bark accumulation.

Table FISH-9 and Table FISH-10 show the fish species that may be located in the marine 

environments and their life stage that could be affected by the use of the log transfer 

facilities for the Big Thorne project.

Table FISH-9. Marine Species and Their Life Stages that could be Affected by the Big 

Thorne Project

Species Eggs Larvae

Early

Juvenile

Late

Juvenile Adults

Arrowtooth Flounder (Atheresthes 

stomias)

X X X

Atka Mackerel (Pleurogrammus

monopterygius)

X X

Dover Sole (Microstomus pacificus) X X X X

Flathead Sole (Hippoglossoides

elassodon)

X X X X

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) X X X X

Pacific Ocean Perch (Sebastes alutus) X X X

Rex Sole (Glyptocephalus zachirus) X X X X

Rock Sole X X X

Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) X X X X

Sculpin (Cottidae family) X X

Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish

(Sebastes borealis)

X X

Skates (Rajidae family) X

Squid X X

Walleye Pollock (Theragra

chalcogramma)

X X X X

Weathervane Scallops X X

Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes

ruberrimus)

X X X

Yellowfin sole (Limanda aspera) X X X X
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-347

Table FISH-10. Salmon Species and Their Marine Life Stages that could be Affected by 

the Big Thorne Project

Salmon Species Estuarine Juveniles Marine Juveniles

Marine Immature and

Maturing Adults

Pink X X X

Chum X X X

Coho X X X

Sockeye X X X

Primary prey items for the following species are based on the Gulf of Alaska Fishery 

Management Plan (NPFMC 1998):

 Sablefish feed throughout the water column. Larval sablefish feed on a variety of 

zooplankton. Juveniles feed primarily on macrozooplankton and euphausiids. 

Adults are opportunistic feeders. Their main diet is other fish, including salmon 

fry and Pollock. Other food includes benthic invertebrates, squid, jellyfish, and 

fishery discards.

 Sculpins mainly feed near the bottom. Prey items include crabs, barnacles, and 

mussels. Larger sculpins eat fish.

 Adult chum, sockeye, coho, and pink salmon are primarily fish eaters, although 

pelagic crustaceans and squid are also consumed, particularly by pink salmon. 

Juvenile salmon consume plankton and small crustaceans.

 Arrowtooth flounder feed in gravel-mud substrates near the seafloor. Adults feed 

on other groundfish. Juveniles feed on euphausiids, crustaceans, amphipods, and 

young pollock. Larvae feed on phytoplankton and zooplankton.

 Pacific cod are omnivorous. Adult cod feed mostly on other fish such as walleye 

pollock, yellowfin sole, and fisheries discard. Young cod feed mostly on 

invertebrates such as amphipods, crangonid shrimp, polychaete worms, and 

bivalves.

 Skates feed on bottom invertebrates (crustaceans, mollusks, polychaetes) and fish.

 Walleye pollock feed throughout the water column on copepods, euphausiids, 

young pollock, and other fish.

 Yelloweye rockfish eat primarily fish including other small rockfish, herring, 

sandlance, as well as caridean shrimp, small crabs, and lingcod eggs.

 Shortraker and rougheye rockfish feed primarily on shrimp, squids, and 

myctophids. Juveniles feed on shrimp and amphipods.

 Pacific Ocean perch are overwhelmingly planktivorous, and may eat small shrimp 

and squids. Juveniles eat mostly calanoid copepods and euphausiids.

Primary prey items for the following species are based on information from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Alaska Fisheries Science Center website:2

 2 http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/
3 Environment and Effects

3-348 ▪ Fisheries Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Atka mackerel are a schooling semi-demersal fish. Juveniles and adults eat mainly 

copepods and euphausiids, but have been known to eat shrimp, gastropods, 

annelids, and fish eggs and larvae.

 Rock sole eggs are adhesive and are laid on the bottom of the ocean. The larvae 

that hatch consume small zooplankton until they metamorphosis into juveniles. 

Juveniles are abundant in shallow, near-shore waters and feed on polychaetes and 

small crustaceans. Adult continue to eat small invertebrates throughout their lives.

 Yellowfin sole adults exhibit a benthic lifestyle and occupy separate winter 

spawning and summertime feeding distributions feeding mainly on benthic infauna 

and epifauna, euphausiids, and fish.

 Flathead sole adults exhibit a benthic lifestyle and occupy separate winter 

spawning and summertime feeding distributions with their diet composed 

primarily of organisms living on the bottom (epibenthic) and pelagic organisms in 

close association with the bottom (nektobenthic). Flathead sole less than 30 

centimeters (cm) total length consumed mainly mysids, gammarid amphipods, 

and decapod shrimps, whereas flathead sole larger than 30 cm total length 

consumed mainly ophiuroids, walleye pollock, and decapod shrimps.

 Rex sole feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates. Small (<15 cm standard 

length [SL]) rex sole feed mainly on amphipods and other crustaceans. Large (15-

45 cm SL) rex sole prey chiefly on polychaetes. Rex sole <20 cm SL prey 

primarily on euphausiids, decapod crab larvae, copepods, Oikopleura, and 

ostracods. Mollusks form only a minor part of rex sole diet. Euphausiids are 

principal prey only during summer and cumaceans and Oikopleura are more 

common during the winter.

 Dover sole feed almost exclusively on benthic infaunal and epifaunal 

invertebrates, mainly polychaetes, ophiuroids, and mollusks. Amphipods are 

important crustacean prey and Pelecypods make up the most molluskan biomass 

consumed. Annelids are usually dominated in the diet of juvenile Dover sole.

The Forest Service determined that the Big Thorne project may adversely affect marine 

EFH in the project area. Adverse effects include diminished habitat for managed species 

and their prey and reduced rearing capability for juvenile salmon due to potentially 

reduced water quality. Water quality effects include fuel spills from equipment used for 

loading barges which are likely to be limited in both quantity and distribution as most 

activity and spills would be on shore having only localized effects to nearshore fish and 

fish food resources from runoff to the marine environment. Impacts to these waters are 

expected to be minimal for the following reasons: 

 Standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan and implementation of BMPs would 

be used at the Thorne Bay facility

 Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay MAFs are barge loading–only facilities greatly 

reducing potential for adverse bark accumulations and they would be the most 

viable options for a timber purchaser to move logs off Prince of Wales Island. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Fisheries ▪ 3-349

EFH Conclusion

Based on the known effects from timber harvest and road building, the Forest Service 

believes that the Big Thorne project may adversely affect freshwater EFH and marine 

EFH. The Forest Service determines that by implementing Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, BMPs, and project-specific mitigation, effects to essential fish habitat would 

be minimized under all action alternatives. Additional impacts to EFH are likely to occur 

only from unforeseen events such as landslides, debris blockages of culverts, fuel spills,

and road failures. A copy of this Draft EIS will be sent to the NMFS, and the Forest 

Service will continue participating in the EFH consultation process.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Listed Fish or Sensitive Fish 

Species 

Herring rearing, feeding and spawning habitat can be adversely affected by actions that add 

sediment such as dredging, reduce water quality such as oil spill, nearshore habitat 

modification including log storage, and other related construction actions like boat traffic and 

noise (Carls et al.1999, Misund et al. 1996, Valbo et al. 2002, Barnhart 1988, NOAA 2012). , 

To the degree that these activities occur in association with this project, the potential exists for 

impact. However, currently implemented standard BMPs during all project phases would 

greatly reduce the potential for these types of impacts. Log transport activities at the potential 

MAFs of Prince of Wales Island may have some effect on nearshore habitat use by juvenile 

herring as well, although the effect would be very minor and infrequent. 

In summary, Alternative 1 would not affect Southeast Alaska DPS Pacific herring, a Tongass 

National Forest Sensitive species, because no action would be undertaken. Under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, Pacific herring is unlikely to have substantial adverse effects as 

direct spawning disruption is unlikely to occur from specific actions at any of the MAF and 

effects to rearing habitat quality and quantity would be slight and infrequent from all potential 

project actions.

Also, the presence of Threatened or Endangered salmon and steelhead from the Pacific 

Northwest has commonly been documented for Southeast Alaska inside channels. 

Occurrence near project affected areas and facilities is unknown, but may be uncommon 

(Tucker et al. 2011; Oris and Jaenicke 1996; Trudel et al. 2009; McNeil and Himsworth 

1980). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in Alaskan waters. Based on 

the 2008 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008c) any proposed actions indirectly resulting 

from the Forest Plan will be evaluated on case-specific bases as to their effect on listed species 

and may include formal or informal consultation with NMFS at the time of project evaluation. 

This will include the development in a report called a Biological Assessment (BA). A 

completed BA/BE (Biological Evaluation) for the Big Thorne project, which includes federal 

ESA listed and candidate fish species and Forest Service sensitive species that may be near 

the proposed project, is included in a separate document in the project record. The conclusion 

of the BA, which considered the actions of all alternatives, is that the project would not cause 

any adverse effects to federally listed fish species, resulting in a “no effects” determination. 

The conclusion in the BE for the Forest Service sensitive Pacific herring is “may impact 

individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.”
3 Environment and Effects 

3-350 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Wetlands

Introduction

This section summarizes wetland resources in the project area. Wetlands are defined by 

the Tongass Forest Plan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water 

or groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated 

soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3; 40 CFR 230.3). The three widely accepted functions that 

wetlands may provide are water quality improvement, hydrologic functions, and wildlife 

habitat. Wetlands may reduce flooding, improve water quality through sequestration of 

physical (sediment) and chemical contaminants in the water, and provide habitat for a 

variety of plants and animals. 

Management activities on NFS lands are required to comply with the Forest Plan and 

federal and state laws. Relevant standards and guidelines and regulations intended to 

protect wetlands include the Tongass Forest Plan; Executive Order 11990 (Protection of 

Wetlands), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Wetlands are extensive in the project area, 

covering more than half of the land area. Due to the extent of wetlands in the project area 

and because forested wetlands are managed for their timber resources, complete 

avoidance of wetlands during road planning and construction is not feasible. However, 

higher value and rare wetlands such as estuaries and tall sedge fens have been avoided. . 

Where a wetland cannot be avoided, the impacts are to be minimized. Best management 

practices (BMP) 12.5 provides guidance for wetland information, evaluation, and 

protection.

Wetland type and extent were estimated based on the Tongass Wetland Mapping layer and 

field verified in about 85 percent of the old-growth units. The young-growth units have 

not been field verified; however, additional field review for these units would be 

conducted upon implementation. Wetlands were classified according to the Tongass 

Wetland Classification System (DeMeo and Loggy 1989). Additional detailed 

information regarding the regulatory framework, methodology, and analysis of wetlands 

in the project area can be found in the Soil and Wetland Resource Report (Cox et al.

2012).

Affected Environment

Approximately 55 percent of the project area (127,386 acres) is covered by wetland. 

Wetland types are interspersed throughout the project area, although some wetland types 

tend to be more common in some portions of the project area. Forested wetlands 

comprise about 25 percent of the project area and are particularly common in the southern 

third of the project area. Forested wetland/emergent short sedge complex wetlands 

comprise about 13 percent of the project area and are common along the eastern and 

western edges of the project area. Non-forested wetland types comprise 18 percent of the 

project area and are interspersed throughout the project area, although alpine wetland is 

particularly common in the north-central portion of the project area. Wetland types are 

described in detail in the following sections.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wetlands ▪ 3-351

Wetland Types

Forested Wetland

Forested wetlands are wetlands dominated by vegetation greater than 20 feet in height. In 

the project area, species composition of the overstory is varied and may contain the 

following species: western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western red-cedar (Thuja

plicata), shore pine (Pinus contorta) and yellow cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis). The 

understory is often dominated by skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) and deer 

cabbage (Nephrophyllidium crista-galli). Forested wetlands occur on poorly or very 

poorly drained hydric mineral and organic soils. Forested wetlands are most common on 

broad glacial valley bottoms, gently sloping hill slopes or benches, but are also commonly 

found on steep terrain in areas overlaying volcanic geology. Forested wetlands provide 

important functions including wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, peak flow 

reduction and erosion control, organic matter production and export, and nutrient and 

carbon cycling (Cooke 2005). Forested wetlands may support the transfer of water to 

downslope resources, function as recharge areas for groundwater and streams, and provide 

depositional areas for sediment and nutrients. The project area contains 57,450 acres of 

forested wetland, comprising approximately 25 percent of the land area in the project area. 

Forested Wetland/Emergent Short Sedge Complex

The forested wetland/ emergent short sedge complex is less than 50 percent forested. The 

forested wetland and emergent short sedge wetlands are so intermixed that they cannot be 

mapped at a small scale. Forested wetland/ emergent short sedge complexes share 

characteristics of both forested wetland and emergent short sedge types. Sphagnum 

mosses, sedges, and skunk cabbage dominate these wetlands with low volume class 

hemlock, cedar, and pine. Soils are very poorly drained hydric organic soils, with 

occasional hydric mineral soils in small pockets of forested wetland. These complexes are 

commonly found in riparian areas and occur in gently sloping hill slopes and benches, 

glacial valley bottoms, lower foot slopes, and on broad ridge tops. Both complexes 

contribute to the transfer of water downslope, groundwater and stream recharge, and 

carbon and nutrient cycling. These complexes provide terrestrial and aquatic habitat for 

wildlife species, such as black bear, deer, and mink. The forested wetland/emergent shortsedge complex is the second most abundant type of wetland in the project area and covers 

approximately 29,361 acres and 13 percent of the project area. 

Emergent Short Sedge Wetland

Emergent short sedge wetlands contain organic soils that are very poorly drained, 

moderately deep and are dominated by short sedges and mosses, although there are often 

patchy areas of shrubs and shore pine. They may include poor fens and rich bogs and 

there is typically some water flow through. Emergent short sedge wetland is often found 

on lower foot slopes, in valleys, and on broad ridge tops. These wetlands provide habitat 

for distinctive plants and animals and contribute water to downslope resources, provide 

carbon and nutrient cycling benefits for watershed function, provide water storage for 

flood and erosion control (EPA 2011). These wetlands cover approximately 10,085 acres 

(4 percent of the project area).
3 Environment and Effects

3-352 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Emergent Tall Sedge Fens

Emergent tall sedge fens are characterized by a diverse community of sedges, dominated 

by tall sedges such as Sitka sedge, with a variety of forbs and occasional stunted trees, 

usually spruce or hemlock. Soils are typically deep organic muck, often with some thin 

layers of alluvial mineral soil material. They occur in landscape positions where they 

receive some run-off from adjacent slopes resulting in somewhat richer nutrient status 

than bogs. These wetlands function as areas of recharge of groundwater and streams, 

deposition and storage of sediment and nutrients, and for waterfowl and terrestrial 

wildlife habitat, including black bear, mink, river otter, and beaver. Tall sedge fens are 

located in areas with water flow through and many contain beaver ponds; the open water 

component provides habitat for a variety of wildlife including waterfowl, beaver, otter, 

and fish. Tall sedge fens account for about 2,549 acres (1 percent) of the project area.

Alpine Muskeg

Alpine muskegs are similar to emergent sedge and muskeg complexes; however, they 

occur at higher elevations in the landscape, such as ridge tops and mountain summits and 

are typically closed hydrologic systems. Alpine muskegs are dominated by sphagnum 

moss with a wide variety of other plants adapted to very wet, acidic, organic soils. 

Vegetation is a combination of muskeg and sedge meadows of peat deposits, and lowgrowing blueberry and heath on higher rises. Similar to muskeg, stunted trees less than 15 

feet high are common. Alpine muskegs are important for snow storage and can be a 

source for snowmelt water throughout the spring and early summer months. These 

wetlands also provide summer habitat for wildlife. Alpine muskeg wetlands cover 

approximately 20,653 acres (9 percent) of the project area.

Moss Muskeg

Moss muskegs are characterized by nutrient-limiting acid peat bogs, dominated by sphagnum 

moss and peat deposits. Muskeg wetlands support a distinctive flora which are adapted to life 

in these acidic, wet, low-nutrient environments (EPA 2011). Common plants include 

ericaceous shrubs such as cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), 

cottongrass (Eriophyllum spp.), Labrador tea (Ledum grandifolium), and sundews (Drosera 

spp.) and occasional stunted trees, particularly shore pine (Pinus contorta), may also be 

present. Soils are typically organic peat deposits and accumulate over unconsolidated glacial 

till or impermeable glacial silts, typically on gentle or nearly level slopes. Moss muskegs 

often have no significant inflow or outflow of water other than precipitation, thus ponded 

areas, a result of a high water table, occur within the wetland. These wetlands function as 

areas of surplus water and peat accumulation creating a stable microclimate and habitat for 

waterfowl and wildlife, including cranes, black bear, amphibians, mink, and deer. Moss 

muskegs account for approximately 7,240 total acres (3 percent) of the project area. 

Estuaries

Estuaries are intertidal zones where brackish saltwater mixes with fresh water from rivers 

or streams. They are the least represented type of wetland on the project area supporting 

complex and productive ecosystems for vegetation, fish and wildlife. There are two types 

of estuarine wetlands: emergent wetlands in the upper tidal zone, and intertidal, regularly 

flooded zones. The emergent wetlands are characterized by grasses and sedges, especially 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wetlands ▪ 3-353

tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), Lyngby’s sedge (Carex lyngbei) and dune wild 

rye (Leymus mollis) in the upper tidal zone. The intertidal, regularly flooded zone largely 

comprises aquatic algal beds and rocky or unconsolidated shore. The Forest Service 

manages the estuarine wetlands above mean high tide (USDA Forest Service 2008). The 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines give estuaries a 1,000-foot buffer. Estuaries cover 

approximately 47 acres in the project area.

Past Activities that affected Wetlands

The majority of wetlands in the project area are undisturbed and intact. However, because 

55 percent of the project area is covered by wetlands, total avoidance has not been

practicable. Past impacts include forested wetlands that were previously logged as well 

as road construction through wetlands. Previously logged forested wetlands are in the 

process of regenerating, and support young forests. Past road construction in both uplands 

and wetlands, primarily associated with timber harvesting, has occurred in the project 

area. 

Road Construction

Roads across sloping wetlands may affect hydrologic connectivity across the wetland due to 

road ditches or road fills. A total of 1,113 acres of wetland have been replaced by roads in the 

project area. Road building on wetlands has occurred primarily on forested wetland (about 691 

acres) and forested wetland/ emergent short sedge wetland (301 acres), covering about 1 percent 

of each wetland type in the project area. Forested wetlands and forested wetland/ emergent 

short sedge wetlands are common, covering nearly 25 and 13 percent of the project area, 

respectively.

Implementation of adequate road drainage minimizes the impacts to hydrologic 

connectivity of wetlands. About 120 acres of a combination of tall sedge fen, emergent 

sedge fen, moss, and alpine muskeg wetlands have been converted to road, less than 1 

percent of the total acreage of these wetland types. Based on research regarding the effect 

of road construction impacts on adjacent wetlands in Southeast Alaska (Glaser 1999; 

Kahklen and Moll 1999; McGee 2000), effects to wetland hydrology and vegetation 

adjacent to these roads are expected to be limited to a few meters of the road. Table 

WET-1 displays the existing acreage and miles of wetlands impacted by roads.

Past Harvest

Timber harvest on wetlands has temporary effects on wetland hydrology. Rainfall 

interception studies (Patric 1966; Beaudry and Sagar 1995; Banner et al. 2005) indicate 

that the amount of rainfall hitting the soil surface will increase following clearcutting. 

Soils within harvested sites tend to gain higher moisture levels resulting in slower growth 

in the seedling and sapling stage. Soil moisture conditions remain elevated until 

evapotranspiration surfaces in the canopy of a young stand become equivalent to preharvest conditions. Depending on the soil moisture status of the wetland, this effect can 

range from negligible to lasting more than 20 years. In partially harvested stands, 

retention of a portion of the canopy cover would help minimize the effect of timber 

harvest on soil moisture. Many of the forested wetlands on the Big Thorne project area 

support commercial stands of timber. Some of these stands have been harvested in the 
3 Environment and Effects

3-354 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

past and some are proposed for harvest in this EIS. Table WET-1 displays the existing 

acres of wetlands harvested by wetland habitat type.

Table WET-1. Existing Road Construction and Timber Harvest on Wetlands

Habitat Type

Total 

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Road Construction Timber Harvesting

Acres Filled 

for Road 

Construction

Percent of 

Type Filled in 

Project Area

Miles 

of 

Road

Acres 

Harvested

Percent of 

Type 

Harvested in 

Project Area

Moss Muskeg1 7,240 61 0.8% 12.8 546 8%

Alpine Muskeg1 20,653 6 <0.1% 1.2 54 0.3%

Emergent Tall Sedge Fen1 2,549 6 0.2% 1.2 145 6%

Emergent Short Sedge Fen1 10,085 47 0.5% 9.8 294 3%

Forested Wetland/

Emergent Short Sedge 

Complex

29,361 301 1.0% 62.6 2,833 10%

Forested Wetland 57,450 691 1.2% 143.2 10,458 18%

Estuarine 47 0 0 0.1 142 28%

Totals 127,385 1,112 0.9% 230.9 14,344 11% 1 Harvested acres of non-forested wetland included due to inclusions of small areas within past harvest units. 2 Harvested prior to forest plan requirements that prohibit harvesting in estuaries.

Wetland Avoidance

The extent of wetlands in the project area has resulted in past wetland impacts. 

Approximately 41 percent of existing roads in the project area are in wetlands and 55 

percent of the project area is wetland. Thus, it can be concluded that past road 

construction activity has avoided wetlands where practicable, because the proportion of 

roads in wetlands is lower than the proportion of roads in the project area.. However, 

wetland impacts have occurred as a result of the extensive, interspersed wetland coverage 

in the project area and the location of harvestable timber. Access to timber through road 

construction on wetlands is often the most economically viable and lowest overall impact 

option. Wetland impacts from road construction have occurred to access timber, which 

may be located on forested wetland or on upland areas separated by wetland. Wetland 

impacts have also occurred when steep slopes are avoided for road construction; often 

construction of a road in a wetland is the environmentally preferred alternative to 

construction on a steep slope. Within the context of past project objectives, including 

economics and minimizing environmental harm, past road construction has avoided 

wetlands to the extent practicable in the project area.

Environmental Consequences

The analysis area selected for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project 

includes the entire project area. This boundary was selected because project effects on 

wetlands are primarily limited to the watershed of the effected wetlands and the project 

area generally follows watershed boundaries. An interdisciplinary project team has 

identified key indicators for measuring project effects on wetlands. These indicators are: 

 Acres of wetland filled for road construction, 

 Acres of harvest on forested wetlands, and
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wetlands ▪ 3-355

 Cumulative acres of wetland habitat harvested and removed from productivity by 

roads.

The effects of the Big Thorne project on wetlands would be limited through the sitespecific application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines as well as BMPs for all action 

alternatives. In particular, the LUD-specific measures identified in Chapter 3, the Forestwide measures identified in the Wetlands section of Chapter 4 of the 2008 Forest Plan, 

and the baseline provisions included in the CWA, would be implemented. 

All action alternatives propose some level of timber harvest on forested wetlands. The 

effects of timber harvest (primarily increased soil moisture levels) on forested wetlands 

are expected to be temporary. All harvested sites are expected to regenerate naturally. 

Due to the preponderance of wetlands and the interspersed nature of wetlands with 

uplands on the project area, complete avoidance of wetlands from proposed road 

construction activities is not practicable. Most proposed roads would be constructed on 

forested wetlands and uplands. All estuaries are avoided by proposed roads in the action 

alternatives. All proposed roads will be constructed according to state approved BMPs as 

required by 33 CFR 323. State-approved BMPs consist of those BMPs documented in 

FSH 2509.22 and documented on the road cards in the Big Thorne project record. All 

roads through wetlands will also follow the 15 baseline provisions provided in 33 CFR 

323 also documented on the road cards. Table WET-2 provides a summary of proposed 

timber harvest and road construction wetlands.

The four action alternatives avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. Site-specific wetland 

avoidance is documented on the road cards for NFS road segments and the unit cards for 

temporary road segments (unit cards and road cards are in Appendices B and C of this 

EIS). At the project scale, 42 percent of all proposed roads, both NFS and temporary, are 

on wetlands in Alternative 2. In Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, a total of 35, 37, and 37 percent 

of the proposed NFS and temporary roads are on wetlands, respectively. Within all action 

alternatives, from 26 to 36 percent of the proposed harvest is on sites classified as forested 

wetlands. Access within and to these stands often requires crossing wetlands. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-356 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table WET-2. Road and Timber Harvesting Impacts on Wetland Types by Action 

Alternative

Impact Type Wetland Type Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Road 

Construction1/2/ 

(acres)

Moss Muskeg4 0.7 2 0.2 0.1

Alpine Muskeg4 1 1 0.1 0

Emergent Tall Sedge 

Fen4/

0 0 0 0

Emergent Short Sedge 

Fen4/

0.3 0.3 0.3 0

Forested /Emergent 

Short Sedge Complex

11 13 4 0.4

Forested Wetland 61 74 20 19

Total Acres of 

Wetland Road 

Impact

74 90 25 19

Timber 

Harvesting3/4/ 

(acres)

Moss Muskeg4/ 24 34 16 27

Alpine Muskeg4/ 6 11 11 11

Emergent Tall Sedge 

Fen4/

0 0 0 0

Emergent Short Sedge 

Fen4/

10 18 17 17

Forested /Emergent 

Short Sedge Complex

77 192 165 176

Forested Wetland 1,732 2,776 1,653 2,074

Total Acres of 

Harvested Wetland

1,850 3,031 1,863 2,304

1/ Road acreage calculated based on a 40-foot wide road disturbance area.

2/ Reconstruction of temporary roads through wetlands is not included in the proposed road construction numbers, as 

these areas are included in number of acres of existing roads.

3/ Includes all harvest prescriptions, including partial harvest and young growth thinning. 

4/ Acres of harvest on non-forested wetland are due to small inclusions of forest land within a wetland map unit that is 

typically non-forested, or small inclusions of non-forested wetland on the edges of or inside harvest units. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Description of Alternative 1

Alternative 1 is the No-action Alternative. In addition to being an alternative to the 

proposed action it provides a baseline for evaluation of the impacts associated with the 

action alternatives. It would result in no timber harvest or road construction activities in 

wetlands as a result of the project. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1

No wetlands would be impacted under Alternative 1 due to harvest or road construction as 

a result of the Big Thorne project. Vegetation on forested wetlands harvested in the past 

would continue to grow toward hydrologic maturity (many stands have already reached 

this stage). Wetlands impacted by roads in the past would continue to be impacted. 

Vegetation would occupy ditch lines and, in the case of closed roads the roadbed, may be 

occupied by red alder. The road prism would remain in an upland condition. Road 

ditches, where present, support a variety of upland and wetland vegetation depending on 

local conditions and seed sources. Hydrologic and vegetation effects would typically 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wetlands ▪ 3-357

remain limited beyond the road prism (Glaser 1999; Kahklen and Moll 1999; McGee 

2000).

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Road construction and timber harvest are proposed in wetlands in all action alternatives. 

Effects common to all alternatives are summarized below and effects are discussed by 

alternative in the following subsections.

Road impacts, required to access timber, would result in a permanent loss of wetland 

acreage in all action alternatives. Acres of impacts from roads for each alternative are 

described in the following sections and summarized in Table WET-2. Acres of wetland 

loss due to road impacts generally correspond to the total miles of proposed road 

construction for each alternative.

Effects from Road Building

The effects of road building on wetlands may vary based on the substrate (soil type) and 

the landscape position of the wetland. Regardless of the type and location, road 

construction on wetlands results in an overall loss of wetland acreage. 

Road construction on peatlands of the Tongass National Forest was studied and found to 

have little effect on wetland vegetation, hydrology, or water quality adjacent to the road 

(Glaser 1999). These wetland types are often located on ridge tops and relatively flat 

areas and the soils in these landscape positions are typically peat soils over bedrock. 

Changes to the plant community and hydrology were found to be limited to within a few 

meters of the road. This is theorized to be due to the high water-holding capacity of the 

soil and abundant local precipitation. 

Roads crossing slope wetlands have a higher chance of disrupting the down-gradient flow 

of water, as water is intercepted by roadside ditches and potentially blocked by the road 

bed. The implementation of BMPs for road construction on wetlands in these landscape 

positions is necessary to prevent adverse hydrological impacts to wetlands located downgradient of the road. While application of BMPs provides some assurance that surface 

water streams will not be diverted by roads, ground and surface water may be captured 

and diverted to the nearest stream or drainage-relief culvert. However, the high 

precipitation rates and soil moisture in Southeast Alaska appears to minimize the impacts 

of water that is intercepted by roadside ditches. A study in Southeast Alaska indicated 

that water level disruptions from road building quickly recover beyond the immediate 

road vicinity (McGee 2000). An additional study on the effects of roads on hydrology 

indicated that the effects range from between 5 and 10 meters on each side of the road 

prism (Kahklen and Moll 1999). 

Effects from Timber Harvesting

Forested wetlands cover 25 percent of the project area and are managed for their timber 

resources. As a result, the action alternatives would conduct harvest on 1,653 to 2,776

acres of forested wetlands, depending on the alternative.

The three widely accepted functions that wetlands provide are water quality maintenance, 

hydrologic functions, and wildlife habitat. Research regarding the effects of timber 
3 Environment and Effects

3-358 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

harvesting on forested wetlands and their functions is limited (CSS 2005). Project effects 

on two of these functions are not exclusive to wetlands; wildlife habitat effects are 

analyzed in the Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Report (Woeck 2012) and effects on 

water quality can be found in the Watershed Resource Report (James 2012). Research 

regarding potential project effects on wetland hydrology and tree growth rates are 

described below.

Research has demonstrated that the water balance of coastal forests can be affected 

through timber harvest (Patric 1966; Beaudry and Sagar 1995; Banner et al. 2005; Julin 

and D’Amore 2003), leading to an increase in soil moisture and slower growth in 

seedlings and saplings. This effect is the result of removal of the forest canopy resulting 

in an increase in the amount of precipitation reaching the ground surface and lower 

evapotranspiration rates. Timber harvest is proposed in wetlands in all action alternatives. 

Harvest activities are expected to have a minimal and short-term effect on wetland soil 

moisture. Removal of timber would lead to a short-term increase in soil saturation until 

young-growth establishes evapotranspiration surfaces similar to pre-harvest conditions. 

Effects on soil moisture will likely be less in areas where partial cutting is utilized. The 

proposed harvest in all action alternatives would not pose a long-term negative impact to 

wetlands in the project area.

Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes to harvest timber from approximately 1,732 acres of forested 

wetland. An additional 117 acres mapped as wetland also occur within harvest units; 

these primarily represent forested wetland/emergent short sedge (77 acres), which can be 

up to 50 percent forested and mapped inclusions of non-forested wetlands (40 acres). 

Following harvest, trees growing on these wetlands would likely grow slower than trees 

on upland sites. Soil moisture would temporarily increase as described in Effects 

Common to All Action Alternatives. Approximately 80 percent of the harvested wetlands 

would be clearcut with the remaining having partial harvest prescriptions. These partial 

harvest areas would be expected to have soil moisture increases that are lower, due to the 

lower proportion of trees harvested. Although this alternative would have the lowest 

overall amounts of harvest on wetlands, this is due to the absence of young-growth 

thinning in this alternative. Alternative 2 would have the second-highest effect from 

harvesting on wetlands due to the amount of acreage clearcut. 

Road construction under this alternative would result in conversion of wetland to road on

approximately 61 acres of forested wetlands, 11 acres of forested wetland/ emergent short 

sedge, less than 1 acre of moss muskeg, less than 1⁄2 acre of emergent short sedge, and 1 

acre of alpine muskeg. The specific effects are described above. This alternative would 

have the second-highest amount of wetland affected by road construction. 

Overall, this alternative would have the second-highest impact to wetlands, with 74 acres 

of wetland fill due to road construction and the second-highest amount of clearcut forested 

wetland. This alternative would have fewer impacts than Alternative 3, and more impacts 

than Alternatives 4 and 5. Although the overall acreage of harvest on wetlands would be 

higher for all other alternatives, these impacts are temporary, and as noted above, have a 

much lower effect for the substantial acreage that has partial harvest and thinning 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wetlands ▪ 3-359

prescriptions. The effects due to road fill are more significant due to the resulting long 

term loss of wetland acreage. In comparison to the other alternatives, Alternative 2 would 

fill 16 fewer acres than Alternative 3 and would fill an additional 49 and 55 acres over 

Alternatives 4 and 5, respectively. 

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 proposes to harvest timber from approximately 2,776 acres of forested 

wetland, 192 acres of forested wetland/ emergent short sedge, 34 acres of moss muskeg, 

18 acres of emergent short sedge, and 11 acres of alpine muskeg. Following harvest, trees 

growing on these wetlands would likely grow slower than trees on upland sites. Soil 

moisture would temporarily increase as described in Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives. Approximately 65 percent of the harvested forested wetlands would be 

clearcut, 18 percent would have partial harvest prescriptions and 17 would be young 

growth thinning. These partial harvest and thinned areas would be expected to have soil 

moisture increases that are lower, due to the lower proportion of trees harvested. This 

alternative would have the highest overall amounts of harvest on wetlands and the highest 

amount of clear cuts on wetlands. Alternative 3 would have the highest effect from 

harvesting on wetlands due to the amount of acreage clearcut. 

Road construction under this alternative would result in conversion of wetland habitat to 

road on approximately 74 acres of forested wetlands, 13 acres of forested wetland/ 

emergent short sedge, 2 acres of moss muskeg, 0.3 acre of emergent short sedge, and 

1 acre of alpine muskeg. The specific effects are described above. This alternative would 

have the highest amount of wetland affected by road construction. 

Overall, this alternative would have the highest impact to wetlands, with 90 acres of 

wetland fill due to road construction and the highest amount of clearcut forested wetland. 

In comparison to the other alternatives, Alternative 3 would fill 16, 65, and 71 more acres

of wetland than Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, respectively. 

Alternative 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 proposes to harvest timber from approximately 1,653 acres of forested 

wetland, 165 acres of forested wetland/ emergent short sedge, 16 acres of moss muskeg, 

17 acres of emergent short sedge, and 11 acres of alpine muskeg. Following harvest, trees 

growing on these wetlands would likely grow slower than trees on upland sites. Soil 

moisture would temporarily increase as described in Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives. Approximately 31 percent of the harvested wetlands would be clearcut, 43 

percent would have partial harvest prescriptions and 26 percent would be young growth 

thinning. These partial harvest and thinned areas would be expected to have soil moisture 

increases that are lower, due to the lower proportion of trees harvested. This alternative 

would have the second lowest overall amount of harvest on wetlands but the overall 

lowest effect from harvesting on wetlands due to the smallest amount of clear cutting and 

the large proportion of the harvest that is a partial harvest prescription or young growth 

thinning. 

Road construction under this alternative would result in conversion of wetland habitat to 

road on approximately 20 acres of forested wetlands, 4 acres of forested wetland/ 
3 Environment and Effects

3-360 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

emergent short sedge, 0.2 acre of moss muskeg, 0.3 acre of emergent short sedge, and 

0.1 acre of alpine muskeg. The specific effects are described above. This alternative 

would have the second lowest amount of wetland affected by road construction. 

Overall, this alternative would have the second lowest impact to wetlands, with 26 acres 

of wetland fill due to road construction and the lowest amount of clearcut forested 

wetland. Although this alternative has the lowest amount of clearcut harvest of forested 

wetlands, it would have the second lowest effect because it has more acres of wetland fill 

than Alternative 5. The effects due to road fill would have a greater overall effect due to 

the resulting long term loss of wetland acreage compared to the temporary effects 

resulting from harvesting on wetlands. In comparison to the other alternatives, 

Alternative 4 would fill 6 more acres of wetland than Alternative 5, and would have 49 

and 65 fewer acres of wetland fill than Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. 

Alternative 5 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 proposes to harvest timber from approximately 2,074 acres of forested 

wetland, 176 acres of forested wetland/ emergent short sedge, 27 acres of moss muskeg, 

17 acres of emergent short sedge, and 11 acres of alpine muskeg. Following harvest, trees 

growing on these wetlands would likely grow slower than trees on upland sites. Soil 

moisture would temporarily increase as described in Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives. Approximately 59 percent of the harvested wetlands would be clearcut, 21 

percent would have partial harvest prescriptions and 20 percent would be young growth 

thinning. These partial harvest and thinned areas would be expected to have soil moisture 

increases that are lower, due to the lower proportion of trees harvested. This alternative 

would have the second-lowest level of clearcutting on wetlands following Alternative 4.

Road construction under this alternative would result in conversion of wetland habitat to 

road on approximately 19 acres of forested wetlands, and 0.4 acres of forested wetland/ 

emergent short sedge, 0.1 acre of moss muskeg.

This alternative would have the lowest amount of wetland affected by road construction. 

Overall, this alternative would have the lowest impact to wetlands, with 19 acres of 

wetland fill due to road construction and the second lowest amount of clearcut forested 

wetland. Although this alternative has the second lowest amount of clearcut harvest of 

forested wetlands, it would have the lowest overall effect because it has the least number 

of acres of wetland fill. The effects due to road fill would have a greater overall effect due 

to the resulting long-term loss of wetland acreage compared to the temporary effects 

resulting from harvesting on wetlands. In comparison to the other alternatives, 

Alternative 5 would have 55, 71, and 6 fewer acres of wetland fill than Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4, respectively. 

Cumulative Effects 

Because the effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are consistent 

across all alternatives, the cumulative effects are comparable by alternative. Table WET3 indicates the estimated cumulative acres of tree harvesting and road effects on wetlands 

from past, present and foreseeable projects within the project area. Present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects are described in more detail at the beginning of Chapter 3.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wetlands ▪ 3-361

Alternative 1

Approximately 14,344 acres of timber have been harvested from wetlands on the project 

area, including 10,458 acres of forested wetland, 2,833 acres of forested wetland/emergent 

sedge complex and 1,053 acres of non-forested wetland. This equates to about 11 percent 

of the wetlands on the project area. On wetlands where timber has been harvested, 

vegetation would continue to grow toward hydrologic maturity, and overall soil moisture 

levels would return to pre-harvest conditions. Vegetation on the oldest harvest areas 

would be more than 30 years old, are generally vigorous young-growth stands, and soil 

moisture conditions should be returning to near pre-harvest conditions. 

Table WET-3. Estimated Acres of Cumulative (Existing, Project, and Foreseeable) 

Wetland Impacts from Harvesting by Alternative

Project Category

Total Wetland Impacts Due to 

Harvesting

Total Wetland Impacts Due to 

Roads

Acres

% of Total Wetlands in 

Project Area Acres

% of Total Wetlands 

in Project Area

Past Projects 14,344 11% 1,112 2.5%

Big Thorne 

Project

Alt. 1 0 0% 0 0.0%

Alt. 2 1,849 1.5% 62 0.1%

Alt. 3 3,031 2.4% 74 0.1%

Alt. 4 1,863 1.5% 25 0.1%

Alt. 5 2,304 1.8% 18 <0.1%

Reasonably 

Foreseeable Projects1/ 37 0.03% .03 <.01% Cumulative Projects 2/

Alt. 1 14,381 11% 1,112 2.5%

Alt. 2 16,230 13% 1,174 2.6%

Alt. 3 17,412 14% 1,186 2.6%

Alt. 4 16,244 13% 1,137 2.6%

Alt. 5 16,685 13% 1,130 2.5%

1/ Impacts calculated assuming projects have a similar level of impact as the proposed action for the Big Thorne Project. 

Acres calculated based on projects described at beginning of Chapter 3 (Control Lake 351 acres, State Lands 635 acres, 

Free Use and Micro-sales 100 acres)

2/ Includes past projects, Big Thorne project, and present/reasonably foreseeable projects.

About 691 acres of forested wetland, 301 acres of forested/emergent complex, and 1,112 

acres non-forested wetlands have been converted to road surfaces; ditches and fill slopes

in the project area (see Table WET-1). Open roads on the project area would continue to 

receive incidental use by recreation visitors. Vegetation would grow in ditch lines on all 

roads, and on closed roads vegetation will likely colonize the road surfaces.

Contributions for current and reasonably foreseeable projects would have additional 

impacts, contributing approximately an additional 37 acres of harvesting on wetlands and 

less than a tenth of an acre of road impacts. Cumulatively, these reasonably foreseeable 

impacts would have little cumulative effect, resulting in less than a 1 percent of additional 

wetland effects by harvesting and roads, see Table WET-3. About 86 percent of wetlands 

in the project area would be in a natural condition and would not have been affected by 

past activities. Of the wetland acreage affected, less than 3 percent would be due to road 

impacts.
3 Environment and Effects

3-362 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 2

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in cumulative effects (existing, current and 

reasonably foreseeable, and Big Thorne) of approximately 16,230 acres of timber 

harvested from wetlands on the project area, including 12,223 acres of forested wetland, 

2,913 acres of forested wetland/emergent sedge complex and 1,094 acres of non-forested 

wetland. This equates to about 13 percent of the wetlands on the project area. This 

alternative would result in an increase of about 2 percent over the No-action Alternative 

and similar cumulative acres harvested on wetlands as Alternatives 4 and 5. This 

alternative would have less cumulative effects on harvesting compared to Alternative 3. 

However, because Alternatives 4 and 5 include substantial acreages of thinning and partial 

harvest and this alternative includes more clearcutting, this alternative would have secondhighest effects on wetlands due to timber harvesting. On wetlands where timber has been 

harvested, vegetation would continue to grow toward hydrologic maturity, and overall soil 

moisture levels would return to pre-harvest conditions. Vegetation on the oldest harvest 

areas would be more than 30 years old, are generally vigorous young-growth stands, and 

soil moisture conditions should be returning to near pre-harvest conditions. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in cumulative impacts of about 1,174 acres 

of wetland converted to road surfaces, ditches and fill slopes in the project area, consisting 

of 742 acres of forested wetland, 310 acres of forested/emergent complex, and 122 acres 

of non- forested wetlands (see Table WET-1). Open roads on the project area would 

continue to receive incidental use by recreation visitors. Vegetation would grow in ditch

lines on all roads, and on closed roads vegetation will likely colonize the road surfaces. 

This alternative would result in the second-highest cumulative acres of wetland impacts 

due to roads of the. Overall, the total cumulative increase due to roads would be about a 

tenth of a percent higher than Alternatives 1 and 5 and similar to Alternatives 3 and 4 

(Table WET-3). 

Under Alternative 2, about 84 percent of wetlands in the project area are would remain in 

a natural condition and would not have been affected by past activities. This is one 

percent lower than Alternative 1, similar to Alternatives 4 and 5, one percent lower than 

Alternative 3. Of the wetland acreage affected, less than 3 percent would be due to road 

impacts.

Alternative 3

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in cumulative effects (existing, current and 

reasonably foreseeable, and Big Thorne) of approximately 17,412 acres of timber 

harvested from wetlands on the project area, including 13,266 acres of forested wetland, 

3,028 acres of forested wetland/emergent sedge complex and 1,117 acres of non-forested 

wetland. This equates to about 14 percent of the wetlands on the project area. This 

alternative would result in an increase of about 3 percent over the No-action Alternative

and 1 percent over the remaining action alternatives. This alternative would have the 

highest cumulative effects from harvesting. On wetlands where timber has been 

harvested, vegetation would continue to grow toward hydrologic maturity, and overall soil 

moisture levels would return to pre-harvest conditions. Vegetation on the oldest harvest 

areas would be more than 30 years old, are generally vigorous young growth stands, and 

soil moisture conditions should be returning to near pre-harvest conditions. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wetlands ▪ 3-363

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in cumulative effects of about 1,186 acres of 

wetland converted to road surfaces, ditches and fill slopes in the project area, consisting of

752 acres of forested wetland, 311 acres of forested/emergent complex, and 123 acres 

non-forested wetlands (see Table WET-1). Open roads on the project area would continue 

to receive incidental use by recreation visitors. Vegetation would grow in ditch lines on 

all roads, and on closed roads vegetation will likely colonize the road surfaces. This 

alternative would result in the highest cumulative acres of wetland effects due to roads. 

Overall, the total cumulative increase due to roads is about a tenth of a percent higher than 

Alternatives 1 and 5 and similar to Alternatives 3 and 4 (Table WET-3). 

Under Alternative 3, about 83 percent of wetlands in the project area are would remain in 

a natural condition and would not have been affected by past activities. This is 3 percent 

lower than Alternative 1, 1 percent lower than the remaining action alternatives. Of the 

wetland acreage affected, less than 3 percent would be due to road impacts.

Alternative 4

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in cumulative effects (existing, current and 

reasonably foreseeable, and Big Thorne) of approximately 16,244 acres of timber 

harvested from wetlands on the project area, including 12,143 acres of forested wetland, 

3,001 acres of forested wetland/emergent sedge complex and 1,099 acres of non-forested 

wetland. This equates to about 13 percent of the wetlands on the project area. This 

alternative would result in an increase of about 2 percent over the No-action Alternative, 1 

percent lower than Alternative 3, and similar to Alternatives 2 and 5. This alternative 

would have the lowest cumulative effects from harvesting due to the amount of harvest 

that would be partial cutting or thinning of young growth, as described in the 

Environmental Consequences section. On wetlands where timber has been harvested, 

vegetation would continue to grow toward hydrologic maturity, and overall soil moisture 

levels would return to pre-harvest conditions. Vegetation on the oldest harvest areas 

would be more than 30 years old, are generally vigorous young growth stands, and soil 

moisture conditions should be returning to near pre-harvest conditions. 

Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in cumulative effects of about 1,137 acres of 

wetland converted to road surfaces, ditches and fill slopes in the project area, consisting of

712 acres of forested wetland, 305 acres of forested/emergent complex, and 123 acres non 

forested wetlands (see Table WET-1). Open roads on the project area would continue to 

receive incidental use by recreation visitors. Vegetation would grow in ditch lines on all 

roads, and on closed roads vegetation will likely colonize the road surfaces. This 

alternative would result in the second lowest cumulative acres of wetland effects due to 

roads. Overall, the total cumulative increase due to roads is about a tenth of a percent 

higher than Alternatives 1 and 5 and similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table WET-3). 

Under Alternative 4, about 84 percent of wetlands in the project area are would remain in 

a natural condition and would not have been affected by past activities. This is 2 percent 

lower than Alternative 1, 1 percent lower Alternative 3 and similar to Alternatives 2 and 5. 

Of the wetland acreage affected, less than 3 percent would be due to road impacts.
3 Environment and Effects

3-364 ▪ Wetlands Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 5

Implementation of Alternative 5 would result in cumulative effects (existing, current, and 

reasonably foreseeable, and Big Thorne) of approximately 16,685 of timber harvested from 

wetlands on the project area, including 12,564 acres of forested wetland, 3,012 acres of forested 

wetland/emergent sedge complex and 1,109 acres of non-forested wetland. This equates to 

about 13 percent of the wetlands on the project area. This alternative would result in an increase 

of about 2 percent over the No-action Alternative and 1 percent lower than Alternative 3 and 

similar to Alternatives 2 and 4. This alternative would have the second lowest cumulative 

effects from harvesting. On wetlands where timber has been harvested, vegetation would 

continue to grow toward hydrologic maturity, and overall soil moisture levels would return to 

pre-harvest conditions. Vegetation on the oldest harvest areas would be more than 30 years old, 

are generally vigorous young growth stands, and soil moisture conditions should be returning to 

near pre-harvest conditions. 

Implementation of Alternative 5 would result in cumulative effects of about 1,130 acres of 

wetland converted to road surfaces, ditches, and fill slopes in the project area, consisting of 708 

acres of forested wetland, 302 acres of forested/emergent complex, and 120 acres non forested 

wetlands (see Table WET-1). Open roads on the project area would continue to receive 

incidental use by recreation visitors. Vegetation would grow in ditch lines on all roads, and on 

closed roads vegetation will likely colonize the road surfaces. This alternative would result in 

the lowest cumulative acres of wetland effects due to roads. Overall, the total cumulative 

increase due to roads is similar to the Alternative 1 and about a tenth of a percent lower than the 

remaining action alternatives (Table WET-3). 

Under Alternative 5, about 84 percent of wetlands in the project area are would remain in 

a natural condition and would not have been affected by past activities. This is 2 percent 

lower than Alternative 1, 1 percent lower Alternative 3, and similar to the remaining 

action alternatives. 
Environment and Effects3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-365

Botany

Introduction 

This section provides a summary of existing conditions and the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects on sensitive and rare plants in the Big Thorne project area. Only one 

species in Alaska, Polystichum aleuticum (C. Christen.) is listed as endangered. Its 

known range is restricted to Adak Island in the Aleutian Islands. No proposed or federally

listed species are known on the Tongass National Forest. Full discussion of the botany 

resource is available in the Biological Evaluation for Plants (Opolka 2012a) and the 

Botany Resource Report (Opolka 2012b) located in the project record.

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants is the project 

area. The analysis area for cumulative effects to sensitive and rare plants considers 

Biogeographic Provinces 14 and 18, which includes all of Prince of Wales Island, plus 

some of the neighboring islands (see Land Division section at the beginning of Chapter 3). 

This area represents the most biologically and physiographically similar area and is 

geographically isolated. These provinces were used for cumulative effects analysis 

because many of the Sensitive and Rare plants have a range that extends beyond the 

project area and species viability must take other populations into consideration. 

Methods

Field Surveys

Prior to field surveys, a prefield review of the project area was conducted. This included 

review of aerial photographs, discussions with resource specialists, a review of previously 

documented species, and a review of GIS habitat data to determine habitat types present in 

the project area. 

Focused intuitive surveys for Sensitive and Rare plants were conducted for the project. 

This survey type involves identifying suitable habitat for targeted species and then 

focusing the survey effort within those identified habitats. The field surveys were 

conducted in 2009, 2010, and 2011 at an appropriate time of year to identify targeted 

species. Field surveys included portions of 153 harvest units and covered approximately 

15 percent of the unit pool area, 3 percent of the project area, and 10 miles of proposed 

road. Surveys were also conducted outside of harvest units and in non-development 

LUDs, which aided in the cumulative effects analysis for alternative comparison. 

Multiple populations of sensitive and rare plant species were identified as a result of field 

surveys for this project. Based on field surveys, the spatial extent of each population was 

mapped and digitized and a plant count or estimate was made for each. Additional field 

surveys have been completed and results will be considered and incorporated into the 

Final EIS. Additional details of the prefield review and field survey can be found in the 

Biological Evaluation for Plants (Opolka 20012a) in the project record.

Habitat Suitability Models

General habitat suitability models have been developed for several sensitive plant species 

on the Tongass National Forest, including two of the species found in a number of 
3 Environment and Effects

3-366 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

locations in the project area: Alaska rein orchid (Piperia unalascensis) and lesser roundleaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata; USDA Forest Service 2011). Use of the model for 

analysis for analysis of effects was based on guidance outlined in the habitat suitability 

model report (USDA Forest Service 2011). The primary use of the models was to estimate 

the percentage of potentially suitable habitat affected by alternative relative to the total 

suitable habitat within the project area and the cumulative effects analysis area. These 

models are considered only a tool for identifying potential suitable habitat; they do not 

provide accurate information on the actual distribution of sensitive plants, but can be used 

in a relative sense for comparisons. Therefore, the models need to be used in combination 

with other information, including professional expertise and field survey data, to make 

determinations of risk regarding project effects on these species. 

GIS Analyses

GIS layers were created for known sensitive and rare plant populations (with plant count 

information) and survey areas. Using this information, effects on populations and 

individuals were estimated. A direct effect to a population was recorded if part of a 

sensitive plant population polygon overlapped with a road, landing, or harvest area. An 

indirect effect to a sensitive or rare plant population was recorded if any of the activities 

causing a direct effect were located within 50 meters of a sensitive plant polygon. The 

number of individuals directly or indirectly affected was estimated by adjusting the plant 

count for each polygon based on the proportion of the polygon area affected. 

Affected Environment

Sensitive Plants

There are 17 plant species and one lichen that have been designated as Sensitive on the 

Alaska Regional Forester’s list; 16 of these are known or suspected to occur on the 

Tongass National Forest. Five of these species have been documented on the Thorne Bay 

Ranger District; three of these have been documented in the project area. The Thorne Bay 

Ranger District is within the potential range of an additional five species, which are 

suspected to occur on the District. Table BOT-1 summarizes the general habitat 

requirements of the 10 plant species that are either known to occur or suspected to occur 

on the Thorne Bay Ranger District. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-367

Table BOT-1. Known or Suspected Plants in the Thorne Bay Ranger District

Scientific Name Common Name Presence1/ Habitat

Botrychium spathulatum Spatulate moonwort Suspected Lightly vegetated coastal dunes 

and meadows and alpine slopes

Botrychium tunux Moosewort fern Suspected Lightly vegetated coastal 

beaches and alpine scree

Cypripedium 

parviflorum var. 

pubescens

Large yellow lady’s 

slipper orchid

Known Peatlands, occasionally on 

limestone substrates, open 

forested habitats

Ligusticum calderi Calder’s loveage Suspected Subalpine meadows, 

occasionally of calcareous 

origin, perhaps in glacial 

refugia; forest edges; muskegs 

and fens

Lobaria amplissima none Known Coastal areas on the forest 

fringe, often on the water-side 

of tree boles and large limbs

Piperia unalascensis Alaska rein orchid Known Forested areas, roadsides and 

frequently on edges between 

forest and muskeg

Platanthera orbiculata Lesser round-leaved 

orchid

Known A variety of habitats, most 

commonly in forested habitats 

and along the forested muskeg 

edge. Found in both old and 

young growth.

Romanzoffia 

unalaschcensis

Unalaska mist-maid Known Coarse substrates including 

stream side gravelly areas, rock 

outcrops and crevices, and 

coastal areas

Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson’s 

checkermallow

Suspected Coastal areas in the zone 

between estuary and forest

Tanacetum bipinnatum Dune tansy Suspected Sandy soils in coastal areas

1/ Known=known to occur in the Thorne Bay Ranger District. 

 Suspected=suspected to occur in the Thorne Bay Ranger District

Two sensitive species were found with some regularity during project field surveys; these 

are the Alaska rein orchid and the lesser round-leaved orchid. Twenty-four populations of 

the former and 110 populations of the latter were located in the project area. 

Alaska Rein Orchid: The 24 populations of the Alaska rein orchid documented in the 

project area have an estimated plant count of 867 individuals, which represents about 

90 percent of the known individuals located on the Tongass National Forest. The majority 

of populations in the project area are concentrated along the Thorne Bay to Control Lake 

highway, in the North Thorne River drainage, west of Sandy Beach, and north of Luck 

Lake. These plants typically are found at the edge of muskeg and old growth forest, 

although they are also been found in forest interiors and along road edges. In the project 

area, it frequently has been found along edges between the forest and muskeg and some of 

the largest populations have been found along roads and in ditches. Approximately 

75 percent of the known individuals are in non-productive old growth, in areas unlikely to 

be harvested.
3 Environment and Effects

3-368 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Lesser Round-leaved Orchid: The lesser round-leaved orchid was observed at numerous 

locations during field surveys for the Big Thorne project. A total of 110 populations of 

this species were mapped, containing an estimated 3,923 individuals, which represents 

about 73 percent of the known individuals on the Tongass National Forest. The majority 

of populations in the project area are concentrated in the same general areas as the Alaska 

rein orchid—along the Thorne Bay to Control Lake highway, in the lower North Thorne 

River drainage, west of Sandy Beach, and north of Luck Lake.

This plant is typically found in old growth, often in productive old growth, but commonly 

in non-productive old growth. Approximately two-thirds of the known populations in the 

project area are located in non-productive old growth, effectively preserving the majority 

of the known population for this plant.

Although it is mostly found in old growth, the plant is occasionally found in older younggrowth stands and disturbed habitats. Approximately 10 percent of known populations of 

this plant were found in young growth (forest-wide). It is unknown if these plants 

survived the initial harvest, became established subsequent to harvest, or if they were 

more or less abundant prior to the original harvest. Due to the unknowns regarding the 

tolerance of this plant to past harvest and its distribution in young growth, the effects of 

harvest on this plant are not clearly understood. Some plants may be damaged or killed 

during harvesting; however, plants growing in young growth have either survived or 

repopulated the area after clearcutting. 

Rare Plants

Rare plant species having known or suspected occurrence on the Tongass National Forest 

are evaluated based on a list derived from the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (USDA 

Forest Service 2009). Included are species with a State Ranking3 of S1, S2, or 

occasionally S3, excluding species that are already listed as Sensitive on the Tongass 

National Forest. Additional plants have been evaluated for this project because they are 

known to be rare, but do not yet have a State ranking by the ANHP. The list may change 

with plants added or dropped as additional information on plant distribution and taxonomy 

is learned. 

Two rare plants were found during surveys within the Big Thorne project area, including 

western meadowrue (Thalictrum occidentale) and lance leaf grapefern (Botrychium 

lanceolatum). Western meadowrue was found at 13 locations, almost entirely on stream 

banks and lake shores, while the lance leaf grapefern was found at one location, in forest 

habitat near Luck Lake.

 3 Rank S1 indicates a plant is critically imperiled and extremely rare in the State of Alaska.

Rank S2 indicates that within the State of Alaska the status of this species is imperiled due to rarity 

(between 6 and 20 occurrences) or some other concern.

Rank S3 indicates the plant is rare or uncommon (21-100 occurrences) in the State of Alaska.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-369

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

The project has the potential to have direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on sensitive 

plant species. Direct effects are those that would occur immediately or soon after the 

implementation of the action. Indirect effects are those effects that are may occur at a 

later point in time after the project has been implemented. Cumulative effects are those 

that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the source of the action.

Direct effects of the project may include the following:

 Physical Damage—Plants may be destroyed or damaged through crushing by 

logging equipment and activities associated with tree felling and yarding. Road 

building would completely bury or remove plants or entire populations if they 

were located in the road bed and could also damage plants or populations of plants 

that are located along the perimeter of the road embankment. 

Indirect effects of the project may include the following: 

 Hydrology—Road building can alter the hydrology, as surface and ground water 

may be redirected and channelized by roadside ditches, altering the hydrologic 

regime. Increased water levels may result in the death or decline in vigor of plants 

not adapted to a high water table. Conversely, plants adapted to wetland 

conditions may become desiccated by a decrease in water availability. Removal of 

the tree canopy results in changes in light, temperature and soil moisture 

(Heithecker and Halpern 2007), potentially beyond the tolerance levels of some 

species. BMPs will be implemented that will limit alterations to hydrology (see 

Watersheds Resource Report [James 2012]).

 Light Levels—Partial or complete removal of the tree canopy results in an increase 

in the light levels in the understory, potentially resulting in light levels beyond the 

tolerance for shade dependent species. Once the stand regenerates, light levels 

will decrease with increasing canopy cover due to high density of small conifers. 

This too may alter normal light requirements for many species, including Sensitive 

and Rare plants.

 Invasive Species—Increased light levels associated with tree harvesting, expansion 

of the road network, and ground disturbing activities can result in the introduction 

and/or spread of invasive species. Invasive species can out-compete native species 

and colonize preferred habitat. 

The indirect effects distance used for analysis was based on past research on the edge 

effect changes to microclimate, changes in understory vascular plants in mature or old 

growth forest in response to adjacent clearcutting, the temporal edge effects, and the 

tolerance to edge habitat of the species of concern. Changes to microclimate can be 

observed up to 200 meters or more into adjacent unharvested stands (Concannon 1995;

Chen 1993, 1995), although the long-term effects on understory vegetation are less clear. 

At least in the short term (less than 5 years post-harvest), the research indicates that 

changes are either not apparent or limited to within 10 meters of the edge (Concannon 
3 Environment and Effects

3-370 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

1995; Heithecker and Halpern 2007). Known locations for sensitive and rare plants in the 

project area were also evaluated, based on their known occurrences and apparent tolerance 

for edge habitat. Based on all available information, a distance of 50 meters was used as 

the outer limits for indirect effects, with consideration given to the gaps in research, 

potential unknowns with regards to habitat requirements, and changes that may occur over 

the course of decades. Additional details of these studies and the distribution of existing 

plant populations with respect to edge environments are included in the Biological 

Evaluation for Plants and Botany Resource Report (Opolka 2012a, 2012b), which are in 

the project record. 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Through project design, efforts to avoid and minimize impacts on sensitive plants have 

been taken to prevent or reduce effects to known populations of sensitive and rare plants. 

These measures were conducted to ensure viability of sensitive and rare plants in the 

project area. Following is a summary of these measures.

• The only species with direct effects is widely distributed in the project area. Those 

with fewer populations or only one population were avoided under all alternatives. 

• Where sensitive plants were widely distributed, proposed effects were not always 

avoidable. To minimize effects to individuals and the species the geographic 

extent of the population was considered. For example, for lesser round-leaved 

orchid, all alternatives directly affect individuals. However, these effects, for all 

alternatives, preserved the geographic extent of plant distribution in the project 

area. Populations near the geographic extent of the species distribution, and 

isolated populations were avoided under all alternatives.

• Population size and vigor was considered for populations that may be affected. 

Where populations were affected, they were generally small, with few individuals 

present or had poor habitat quality, such as at the edge of blowdown where 

additional blowdown was likely to occur. 

• Where larger populations were affected, this was generally only done when there 

were large, extensive populations located nearby.

• Easily avoided populations, such as those on the edge of a stream buffer or along a 

unit edge were avoided.

• Legacy forest structure placement considered sensitive plants; when possible these 

legacy areas were designed to include sensitive plant populations.

• Appendix D in the Botany resource report (Opolka 2012b) and the unit cards 

(Appendix B of this EIS) summarize every unit that had, or has sensitive or rare 

plants in or near the unit. Proposed effects are explained with a summary that may 

include relevant considerations such as the geographic species distribution, 

population size and vigor, and occurrence frequency in the project area. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-371

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the sum of the direct and indirect effects from the Big Thorne 

project plus other projects that have occurred in the past, are presently occurring, or are 

expected to occur in the foreseeable future. Individually these effects may be minor, but 

together can result in cumulative effects over time. The analysis area for cumulative 

effects is explained previously under the Analysis Area section. 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project are used to determine the risk of 

the project on sensitive species that may potentially be affected by the project. This is 

conducted through a risk assessment, included in the Biological Evaluation for Plants 

(Opolka 2012a).

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

For all the assessed species, Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative would not result in

direct or indirect effects on Sensitive or Rare plant populations or their habitats as a result 

of the Big Thorne project. As a result, there would be no incremental cumulative effects 

associated with the Big Thorne project. Past timber harvest, road construction, and other 

activities have resulted in some impacts to the habitats of these assessed species. 

However, the standards and guidelines (particularly those associated with beach and 

estuary fringe and riparian management areas) and the low level of reasonably foreseeable 

projects in alpine and subalpine habitats, peatlands, and rock outcrops, and the Forest Plan 

conservation strategy indicate that cumulative effects on these plants would be low.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Spatulate Moonwort (Sensitive Species)

In southeastern Alaska, spatulate moonwort is known to grow on maritime sand dunes 

(USFS 2009b). There are only two known populations in Alaska, on Chichagof Island 

and Kruzof Island (USFS 2009b). Spatulate moonwort is suspected to occur in the Thorne 

Bay Ranger District although there are no known occurances. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would not affect known populations or habitat of spatulate moonwort. The 

habitat in which this plant is predominantly known to grow would not be affected by the 

project. No timber harvest is proposed within 1,000 feet of the beach/estuary with this 

project. Direct and indirect effects to this plant are not anticipated by any of the project 

alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

None of the action alternatives would result in direct or indirect effects to known 

populations of this plant or its habitat. In addition, although limited timber harvest is 

permitted, the Forest Plan provides protections for the ecological integrity of beach and 

estuary fringe within 1,000 feet of saltwater shorelines. Consequently, the project would 

not result in cumulative effects to this plant. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-372 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Moosewort Fern (Sensitive Species)

In Alaska, moosewort fern is known to grow on sandy beaches in the upper meadow zone 

and in alpine areas (USFS 2009b). Moosewort fern is suspected to occur in the Thorne 

Bay Ranger District although there are no known occurances. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would not affect known populations or habitat of moosewort fern. The habitat 

in which this plant is predominantly known to grow, such as lightly vegetated coastal 

beaches and alpine scree, would not be affected by the project. No timber harvest is 

proposed within 1,000 feet of the beach/estuary with this project. Direct and indirect 

effects to this plant are not anticipated by any of the project alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

None of the action alternatives would result in direct or indirect effects to known 

populations of this plant or its habitat. In addition, although limited timber harvest is 

permitted, the Forest Plan provides protections for the ecological integrity of beach and 

estuary fringe within 1,000 feet of saltwater shorelines. Consequently, the project would 

not result in cumulative effects to this plant. 

Dune Tansy (Sensitive Species)

Dune tansy grows in well drained, sandy soils in coastal areas (USDA Forest Service 

2009b). Dune tansy is suspected to occur in the Thorne Bay Ranger District, although 

there are no known populations. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would not affect known populations or habitat of dune tansy. No timber 

harvest is proposed within 1,000 feet of the beach/estuary with this project. Direct and 

indirect effects to this plant are not anticipated by any of the project alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

None of the action alternatives would result in direct or indirect effects to known 

populations of this plant or its habitatIn addition, although limited timber harvest is 

permitted, the Forest Plan provides protections for the ecological integrity of beach and 

estuary fringe within 1,000 feet of saltwater shorelines. Consequently, the project would 

not result in cumulative effects to this plant. 

Henderson’s Checkermallow (Sensitive Species)

Henderson’s checkermallow grows in coastal areas in the zone between the estuary and 

forest. It is suspected to occur in the Thorne Bay Ranger District, although there are no 

known occurences. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would not affect known populations or habitat of Henderson’s 

checkermallow. No timber harvest is proposed within 1,000 feet of the beach/estuary with 

this project. Direct and indirect effects to this plant are not anticipated by any of the 

project alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-373

Cumulative Effects

None of the action alternatives would result in direct or indirect effects to known 

populations of this plant or its habitat. In addition, although limited timber harvest is 

permitted, the Forest Plan provides protections for the ecological integrity of beach and 

estuary fringe within 1,000 feet of saltwater shorelines. Consequently, the project would 

not result in cumulative effects to this plant. 

Calder’s Loveage (Sensitive Species)

Calder’s loveage inhabits forest edges, wetlands, and subalpine meadows, occasionally of 

calcareous origin in areas that may have been spared from glaciation during the last ice 

age (USFS 2009). It is documented on Prince of Wales Island and is suspected to occur in 

the Thorne Bay Ranger District (USFS 2009b), although there are no known occurences.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would have no effects to known populations of Calder’s loveage. This plant 

is not known to occur in the project area, although potential habitat is present. The project 

could potentially affect undetected individuals and habitat through road building activities, 

which could occur in wetland habitat. Individuals growing along forested edges could 

also be affected. Direct effects could occur through damage by machinery and placement 

of fill material during road building or harvesting. Indirect effects are also possible, 

potentially occurring as a result of soil moisture changes as a result of road building 

activities and windthrow or changes in cover due to harvesting. However, the overall risk 

to Calder’s loveage as a result of this project is low.

Cumulative Effects

None of the action alternatives would result in direct or indirect effects to known 

populations of this plant, although there could be cumulative effects to undetected 

individuals due to past, present, and future construction of roads in this plant’s habitat. 

All action alternatives would result in road construction through wetlands (see Wetlands 

section), with the greatest potential effects caused by Alternative 3, followed by 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. However, the amount of cumulative road mileage on wetlands 

represents only a very small percentage of the overall wetland habitat in the project area, 

less than 3 percent for all action alternatives. Another potential cumulative risk factor for 

this species in Biogeographic Provinces 14 and 18 is potential mining activity at the south 

end of Prince of Wales Island, especially near Bokan Mountain, which has a number of 

known locations for this species. However, no direct effects from mineral exploration 

activities have occurred to date and mine developments are not yet reasonably foreseeable. 

The overall risk to Calder’s loveage as a result of this project is low due to a lack of 

effects to known populations and because it commonly occurs in habitats where 

management activities are unlikely to occur or limited. 

Lobaria Amplissima (Sensitive Species)

Lobaria amplissima grows on the trunks and large branches of living trees and has been 

found on several different tree species where it grows at the beach fringe (USDA Forest 

Service 2009b). L. amplissima has been documented on the Thorne Bay Ranger District 

(USDA Forest Service 2009) and three populations, containing almost 20 individuals,

were identified in the project area. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-374 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would have no direct effects to known populations or habitat of Lobaria 

amplissima. No timber harvest is proposed within 1,000 feet of the beach/estuary with 

this project. This lichen usually grows on trees facing the ocean, and the majority of dust 

would be “filtered” by existing trees and vegetation. Further, due to the amount of 

precipitation in Southeast Alaska, the number of days that dust would be present is 

limited. 

Project-related dust may indirectly effect one known population located close to a main 

haul road. To minimize effects on a population located near existing NFS road 300000 

(the Sandy Beach Road) at milepost 24.8, consider using the provision of the contract 

clause for the application of water to the road surface within 300 feet of this population to 

reduce dust if the amount of dust is expected to increase with the use of the road for a 

particular contract. Frequency of water application would be dependent on the road use 

intensity and weather conditions. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects due to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects are possible. 

Past timber harvest and road construction that occurred prior to Forest Plan beach buffer 

standards and guidelines may have impacted this lichen, due to the harvesting of trees that 

it grows on. Cumulative effects due to present or future timber harvesting projects are 

expected to be minimal due to the beach buffer requirements. Cumulative effects due to 

past, present, recreational use of the beach and firewood cutting may affect this lichen, 

although the Big Thorne project would not contribute to these effects. Two of the known 

locations in the project area are located on trees in areas that are being used recreationally, 

which may impact survival of the lichens at these locations. Overall risk to this species as 

a result of the project is low.

Unalaska Mist-Maid (Sensitive Species) 

There are three known occurrences of this plant in Southeast Alaska, with one of these 

occurrences located on the Tongass National Forest, on nearby Heceta Island. Unalaska 

mist-maid grows in gravelly substrates in a variety of locations, from streams to rock 

outcrops (USDA Forest Service 2009b), and on Heceta Island it is found on high elevation 

limestone. This plant is not known to occur in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would have no effects on known populations of Unalaska mist-maid. The 

project could potentially directly affect undetected individuals and habitat through road 

building activities. Direct effects could occur through damage by machinery and 

placement of fill material during road building. Indirect effects are also possible, 

potentially occurring as a result of soil moisture changes due to road building or timber 

harvest. The risk of adverse effects to this plant is low, as minimal impacts to its habitat 

are likely to result from the project, and would primarily result from stream crossings. 

Potential effects to undetected individuals would be greatest among Alternative 3, which 

has the most road building and stream crossings, followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, in 

that order. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-375

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to Unalaska mist-maid due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects are possible. Past projects, primarily those involving road building, may have 

impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the project area. Similarly, current or future 

projects (described in Chapter 3) that involve road building, including the Big Thorne 

Project, could affect undetected individuals or habitat. The potential for cumulative effects 

as a result of the project would be the highest from Alternative 3, which has the most road 

building and stream crossings, followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, in that order. Overall 

risk to this plant as a result of the project is low, due to a lack of effects to known 

populations and the limited activities expected to occur in its habitat.

Large Yellow Lady’s Slipper (Sensitive Species) 

The large yellow lady’s slipper is typically found in peatlands and is known to occur in 

the Thorne Bay Ranger District, although the known locations are not in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The project would have no effects to known populations of large yellow lady’s slipper. 

The project could potentially directly affect undetected individuals and habitat through 

road building activities in this plant’s known habitat (primarily peatlands) and timber 

harvest in open forest habitats. Direct effects could occur through damage by machinery 

and placement of fill material during road building. Indirect effects are also possible, 

potentially occurring as a result of soil moisture changes as a result of road building 

activities. The risk of adverse effects to this plant is low, as minimal impacts to its habitat 

are likely to result from the project. Potential effects to undetected individuals and habitat 

would be greatest among Alternative 3, which has the most road building, followed by 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to this plant due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are 

possible. Past projects, primarily those involving road building, may have impacted 

undetected individuals or habitat in the project area. Similarly, current or future projects 

(described in Chapter 3) that involve road building, including the Big Thorne project, could 

affect undetected individuals or habitat and timber harvest in open forest habitats. Road 

maintenance could affect existing plants located near roads. Cumulative effects as a result 

of the project would be from Alternative 3, which has the most road building, followed by 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, in that order. The overall risk to this plant as a result of this 

project is low due to a lack of effects to known populations and because it commonly 

occurs in habitats where management activities are unlikely to occur or limited. 

Lance Leaf Grapefern (Rare Species)

One population of three individuals is present in the project area in forested habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

None of the action alternatives would result in any direct or indirect effects to known 

populations of lance leaf grapefern, a rare plant. Potential effects to undetected 

individuals and habitat would be greatest among Alternative 3, which has the most 

harvesting, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, and 4.
3 Environment and Effects

3-376 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on this plant could occur to undetected individuals in forested habitat, 

primarily through timber harvesting. Past projects, including those that involve road 

building or timber harvesting, may have impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the 

project area. Similarly, current or future projects (described in Chapter 3) that involve 

these activities, including the Big Thorne project, could affect undetected individuals or 

habitat. The potential for cumulative effects as a result of the project would be highest 

from Alternative 3, which has the most harvesting, followed by Alternatives 2, 5, and 4, in 

that order. The overall risk to this plant in the cumulative effects analysis area as a result 

of this project is moderate or less due to a lack of effects on known populations and 

potentially suitable habitat

Western Meadowrue (Rare species)

Western meadowrue is typically found along lakeshores and stream banks; in the project 

area, it was typically found along larger, fish-bearing streams. Thirteen populations of 

over 1,900 plants are known in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

None of the action alternatives would result in any direct effects to known populations of 

western meadowrue, a rare plant. In addition, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would not have any 

indirect effects on known populations of this species. Two helicopter units in Alternative 

3 (Units 420 and 439) could indirectly affect two known populations of this plant 

representing 17 percent of the known populations in the project area and about 50 percent 

of the individual plants known to exist in the project area. The project could potentially 

directly affect undetected individuals and habitat through road building activities. Direct 

effects could occur through damage by machinery and placement of fill material during 

road building. Indirect effects are also possible, potentially occurring as a result of soil 

moisture changes due to road building or timber harvest. The risk of adverse effects to 

this plant is low, as minimal impacts to its habitat are likely to result from the project, and 

would primarily result from stream crossings. Potential effects to undetected individuals 

would be greatest among Alternative 3, which has the most road building and stream 

crossings, followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, in that order. 

Cumulative Effects

This plant is commonly found along streams and lakes, which are generally protected by 

buffers under the current forest plan; the state also requires buffers for streams and lakes. 

Prior to these buffers being required, past projects likely did affect this plant and its habitat. 

However, due to the present requirement of stream and lake buffers, little habitat is likely 

to be directly affected by present or future projects. Past, projects primarily those 

involving road building, may have impacted undetected individuals or habitat in the project 

area. Similarly, current or future projects (described in Chapter 3) that involve road 

building, including the Big Thorne project, could affect undetected individuals or habitat. 

The potential for cumulative effects as a result of the project would be the highest from 

Alternative 3, which has the most road building and stream crossings (and potential indirect 

effects), followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, in that order. The overall risk to this plant on 

the cumulative effects analysis area as a result of this project is low due to the absence of 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-377

direct effects to known populations and because it commonly occurs in habitats (stream and 

lake buffers) where management activities are unlikely to occur or limited. 

Alaska Rein Orchid (Sensitive Species) 

Alaska rein orchid has been documented in the project area and 24 populations of this 

species have been mapped. The total estimated plant count for these 24 populations is 867 

individuals, which represents about 90 percent of the known individuals located on the 

Tongass National Forest. 

These plants typically are found at the edge of muskeg and old-growth forest, although 

they also occur in forest interiors and along road edges. In the project area, some of the 

largest populations were found along roads and in ditches. Approximately 81 percent of 

the known individuals in the project area were found in areas mapped (using cover type 

mapping) as nonforest or non-productive old growth (i.e., areas unlikely to be harvested).

Conservative habitat suitability models were used to evaluate the amount of potential 

suitable habitat present in the project area. Survey efforts covered approximately a 

quarter of the potential suitable habitat for this species within the unit pool.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects to Alaska rein orchid as a result of the Big Thorne project are summarized by 

alternative and in Table BOT-2. All alternatives avoid direct effects to known Alaska rein 

orchid plants. Avoidance and minimization measures were previously summarized and 

were applied to proposed harvest in the vicinity of this species. Appendix D of the Plant 

Biological Evaluation (Opolka 2012a) and the Botany Resource Report (Opolka 2012b) 

summarizes the avoidance measures unit by unit for this plant. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-378 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table BOT-2. Percentage of Known Populations and Estimated Percentage of Individuals of Alaska 

Rein Orchid Directly or Indirectly Affected in the Project Area by the Big Thorne 

Project

Type 

Affected

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Populations 

Affected 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 2 0 5

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Known 

Populations 

Potentially 

Affected1/

0% 0% 0% 21% 0% 29% 0% 8% 0% 21%

Individuals 

Affected2/ 0% 0% 0 45 0 54 0 5 0 45

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Known 

Individuals 

Potentially 

Affected3/ 

0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 6% 0% 0.6% 0% 5%

1/There are 24 known populations in the project area.

2/ Number of individuals affected was estimated by multiplying the number of individuals identified in a population by the proportion of 

that population area within the direct or indirect effect zone (see Methods Section). There are approximately 867 known individuals in the 

project area.

3/ There are approximately 867 known individuals in the project area.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not result in any direct or indirect effects on known populations of 

Alaska rein orchids, as a result of the Big Thorne project. 

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have no direct effects on known populations of the Alaska rein 

orchid, as all new roads and harvest units avoid known populations. However, this 

alternative could indirectly affect 5 populations totaling 45 individuals of this plant. This 

alternative would have similar effects to populations and individuals as Alternative 5, less 

than Alternative 3, and more than Alternative 4. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would have no direct effects on known populations of Alaska rein orchid. 

This alternative could indirectly affect 7 populations totaling 54 individuals of this plant. 

This alternative would have the largest effect on individuals and populations of all the 

alternatives. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-379

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would have no direct effects on known populations of Alaska rein orchid. 

This alternative could indirectly affect 2 populations totaling five individuals of this plant

and would have the lowest effect on individuals and populations. 

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 would have no direct effects on known populations of Alaska rein orchid. 

This alternative could indirectly affect 5 populations totaling 45 individuals of this plant. 

This alternative would have a similar level of effect on individuals and populations as 

Alternative 2, less than Alternative 3, and more than Alternative 4. 

Cumulative Effects

The following cumulative effects analysis summarizes known affects with respect to the 

project area and biogeographic provinces 14 and 18,. Present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects could affect undetected individuals through timber harvesting and road building 

activities. Because of its prevalence along roadsides, road maintenance activities could 

also affect individuals; however, these would likely affect only an insignificant portion of 

the populations in the project area and biogeographic provinces 14 and 18. Cumulative 

effects on potential suitable habitat include past projects and the Big Thorne project. 

While reasonably foreseeable projects would contribute to effects on suitable habitat, 

specific project boundaries are not known for all projects and it is not possible to 

consistently analyze effects to potential suitable habitat for these projects. This section 

summarizes cumulative effects by alternative; after that, summaries of cumulative effects 

for the project area and for biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 are provided. 

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not result in any direct or indirect effects on any known populations, 

as a result of the Big Thorne project. Past projects have directly affected approximately 

17 percent of the potentially suitable habitat in the project area and approximately 

11 percent of the potentially suitable habitat in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 (Prince 

of Wales Island and adjacent islands). With reasonably foreseeable projects, these 

percentages would be approximately 17 percent for the project area and 12 percent for 

biogeographic provinces 14 and 18.

Alternative 2

In the project area, this alternative would not directly affect any known populations, but 

would potentially indirectly affect an estimated 21 percent of the known populations and 5

percent of the known individuals. In biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative 

would potentially indirectly affect about 17 percent of the known populations and 5 

percent of the known individuals. This alternative would have the second-highest level of 

indirect effects on populations and individuals, similar to that of Alternative 5. It would 

have less effect than Alternative 3 and more than Alternative 4.

Past projects have directly affected approximately 17 percent of the potentially suitable 

habitat in the project area (based on habitat modeling).). Alternative 2 would affect an 

additional 3 percent, resulting in 20 percent of potentially suitable habitat being affected 
3 Environment and Effects

3-380 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

in the project area. In biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, approximately 11 percent of 

potentially suitable habitat has been directly affected and contributions by Alternative 2,

plus reasonably foreseeable projects, would increase the overall effect to about 12 percent. 

This alternative would have less effect on suitable habitat than Alternative 3. It would 

have similar effects to suitable habitat as Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Alternative 3 

In the project area, this alternative would not directly affect any known populations, but 

would potentially indirectly affect an estimated 29 percent of the known populations and 6 

percent of known individuals. In biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative 

would potentially indirectly affect about 23 percent of the known populations and 6 

percent of the known individuals. 

Past projects have directly affected approximately 17 percent of potentially suitable 

habitat in the project area. Alternative 3 would affect an additional 4 percent, resulting in 

21 percent of potential suitable habitat affected in the project area. In biogeographic 

provinces 14 and 18, approximately 11 percent of potential suitable habitat has been 

directly affected and contributions by this alternative, plus reasonably foreseeable 

projects, would increase the overall effect to about 12 percent. This alternative would 

have the highest level of indirect effects and effects to suitable habitat.

Alternative 4

In the project area, this alternative would not directly affect any known populations, but 

would potentially indirectly affect an estimated 8 percent of the known populations and 

0.6 percent of known individuals. In biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative 

would potentially indirectly affect about 7 percent of the known populations and 1 percent 

of the known individuals. This alternative would have the lowest effect on this plant.

Past projects have directly affected approximately 17 percent of potentially suitable 

habitat in the project area (based on habitat modeling). Alternative 4 would affect an 

additional 2 percent, resulting in almost 20 percent of potential suitable habitat affected in 

the project area. In biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, approximately 11 percent of 

potentially suitable habitat has been affected and contributions by this alternative, plus 

reasonably foreseeable projects, would increase the overall affect to about 12 percent. 

This alternative would have slightly less cumulative potential suitable habitat effect than 

Alternative 3 and similar effects as the other action alternatives.

Alternative 5

In the project area, this alternative would not directly affect any known populations, but 

would potentially indirectly affect an estimated 21 percent of the known populations and 

5 percent of known individuals. In biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative 

would potentially indirectly affect about 17 percent of the known populations and 5 

percent of the known individuals. This alternative would have similar effects on this plant 

as Alternatives 2 and 3 and larger effects than Alternative 4.

Past projects have directly affected approximately 17 percent of potentially suitable 

habitat in the project area (based on habitat modeling). As a result of the Big Thorne 

project, an additional 3 percent would be affected by this alternative, resulting in about 20
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-381

percent of potential suitable habitat affected in the project area. In biogeographic 

provinces 14 and 18, approximately 11 percent of potential suitable habitat has been 

affected and contributions by this alternative, plus reasonably foreseeable projects, would 

increase the overall affect to about 12 percent. This alternative would have less effect on 

suitable habitat than Alternative 3, and similar effects as Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Summary of Cumulative Effects for the Project Area

The estimated percentage of individuals potentially indirectly affected in the project area 

would range from as low as 0.6 percent (Alternative 4) to as high as 6 percent (Alternative 

3). These indirect effects would likely be of much lower intensity than those resulting 

from known direct effects, which are completely avoided by the project for this species. 

Present and reasonably foreseeable projects could directly or indirectly affect additional 

individuals, although there are no known effects at this time. However, limited effects 

could occur as a result of road maintenance activities, micro timber sales, or 

precommercial thinning (e.g., precommercial thinning is planned for a unit that is adjacent 

to a population growing along the road north of Luck Lake).

Cumulative effects may result from this project in combination with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable projects. In order to approximate the cumulative effects that 

have already occurred to the Alaska rein orchid, a general habitat model was used to 

evaluate potential suitable habitat; these results summarized above by alternative. Based 

on this analysis, past projects have affected approximately 17 percent of potentially 

suitable habitat in the project area. As a result of the Big Thorne project, cumulative 

effects could range from 20 percent (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) to 21 percent (Alternative 

3). Present and reasonably foreseeable projects would slightly increase the amount of 

potential suitable habitat affected, but the cumulative effects would still range from 20 to 

21 percent.

In summary, because none of the alternatives would result in direct effects on known 

populations, because the majority of known individuals are in non-productive old growth 

habitats in areas unlikely to be harvested, and because the project would not result in a 

loss of sufficient potential suitable habitat likely to adversely affect the population 

viability, it is concluded that the project may adversely affect individuals, but is not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the project area, nor would it cause a trend toward federal 

listing for any of the action alternatives. Refer to the Biological Evaluation for Plants in 

the project record for a more detailed evaluation, including descriptions by unit of indirect 

effects.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Biogeographic Provinces 14 and 18

The known cumulative effects to individuals in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 as a 

result of the Big Thorne project are the same as those listed above for the project area, as 

there are no additional known effects to individual plants or populations. The estimated 

percentage of individuals potentially indirectly affected as a result of the Big Thorne 

project in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 would range from as low as 0.6 percent

(Alternative 4) to as high as 6 percent (Alternative 3). Present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects include current timber harvesting on state and NFS lands, and pre-commercial 

thinning of young growth. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-382 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Other projects that could impact this plant in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 include 

remaining harvest in the Logjam, Control Lake, Soda/Nick, and Chasina, and other timber 

sale projects, as well as additional harvest on non-NFS lands. Although no additional 

known affects to this species have been identified, it should be noted that it was not on the 

sensitive species list prior to 2009, and thus would not have been a targeted species in 

surveys. Identification of this plant can be difficult unless the plant is flowering, which 

requires that the surveys be conducted at the right time for identification. Although 

undetected populations could be present, it is likely that the degree of effect on this 

species as a result of past timber sale projects was relatively low, since this plant 

commonly grows near muskeg edges in unproductive timber areas that are not 

commercially viable for harvest. Additional harvest on state and private lands is expected 

to have similar effects to those on National Forest lands.

Past harvest has affected about 11 percent of the modeled potential suitable habitat in 

biogeographic provinces 14 and 18. Cumulatively, if the Big Thorne harvest is added, the 

total cumulative effect is expected to be no more than 12 percent with any of the 

alternatives. 

A total of 36 known populations of Alaska rein orchid totaling 959 individuals are known 

on the Tongass National Forest. The majority of these, including 30 populations and 953 

individuals occur in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18. An additional population is in 

biogeographic province 4; three known populations are in biogeographic province 6, and 

two known populations are in biogeographic province 15. 

In summary, because none of the alternatives would result in direct effects on known 

populations, because the majority of known individuals are in non-productive old growth 

habitats in areas unlikely to be harvested, and because the project would not result in a 

loss of sufficient potential suitable habitat likely to adversely affect the population 

viability, it is concluded that the project may adversely affect individuals, but is not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 or on the Tongass, nor 

would it cause a trend toward federal listing for any of the action alternatives. Refer to the 

Biological Evaluation for Plants in the project record for a more detailed evaluation, 

including descriptions by unit of indirect effects.

Lesser Round-Leaved Orchid (Sensitive Species) 

The lesser round-leaved orchid was observed in numerous locations during field surveys 

for the Big Thorne project. A total of 110 populations of this species were found in the 

project area. The total estimated plant count for these populations was 3,923 individuals, 

which represents about 73 percent of the known individuals in the Tongass National 

Forest.

Survey efforts covered approximately 18 percent of the potential suitable habitat for this 

species within the unit pool and approximately 4 percent of the potential suitable habitat 

in the project area (based on generalized habitat modeling).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects to lesser round-leaved orchid are summarized by alternative 

and in Table BOT-3. All of the action alternatives have effects to lesser round-leaved 

orchid. Avoidance and minimization measures were previously summarized and were 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-383

applied to proposed harvest in the vicinity of this species. Appendix D in the Botany 

resource report (Opolka 2012b) and the unit cards (Appendix B of this EIS) summarize 

the avoidance measures unit by unit for this plant. 

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not result in any direct or indirect effects on any known populations

of lesser round-leaved orchids, as a result of the Big Thorne project. 

Alternative 2

This alternative would directly affect 22 of the 110 known populations and an estimated 

157 individuals of this plant in the project area. This reflects a direct effect on 20 percent 

of the known populations in the project area, although only 4 percent of the total 

individuals known to inhabit the project area would be directly affected. 

Table BOT-3. Percentage of Known Populations and Estimated percentage of Individuals of Lesser 

Round-Leaved Orchid Directly or Indirectly1/ Affected in the Project Area by the Big 

Thorne Project

Type Affected

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Direct

Effects

Indirect

Effects

Populations Affected 0 0 22 22 28 26 4 25 20 19

Estimated Percentage 

of Known Populations 

Potentially Affected in 

Project Area2/

0% 0% 20% 20% 25% 24% 4% 22% 18% 17%

Individuals Affected3/ 0 0 157 407 306 903 7 411 171 401

Estimated Percentage 

of Known Individuals 

Potentially Affected 

in Project Area 4/

0% 0% 4% 10% 8% 23% 0.2% 10% 4% 10%

1/ Indirect populations potentially affected in the table include only those in addition to the ones directly affected to avoid double 

counting.

2/ There are 110 known populations in the project area.

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

population area within the direct or indirect effect zone (see Methods Section). 

4/ There are approximately 3,923 known individuals in the project area.

This alternative could indirectly affect 22 additional known populations and an estimated

407 individuals of this plant. This reflects a potential combined direct or indirect effect on 

40 percent of the known populations in the project area, although just 14 percent of the 

total known individuals in the project area could be directly or indirectly affected. 

Alternative 2 would be intermediate in terms of direct and potential indirect effects on the

lesser round-leaved orchid. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would directly affect 28 known populations and an estimated 306 

individuals of this plant. This reflects a direct effect on 25 percent of the known 

populations in the project area and 8 percent of the total individuals in the project area. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-384 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

This alternative could indirectly affect 26 additional known populations and an estimated

903 individuals of this plant. This reflects a potential combined direct or indirect effect on 

54 percent of the known populations in the project area and 31 percent of the total known

individuals in the project area. Alternative 3 would have the highest direct and potential 

indirect effects on the lesser round-leaved orchid. 

Alternative 4

Under this alternative, sensitive plant populations would often be deferred from harvest, 

by either excluding the plant population from the unit or through including the population 

in unharvested areas of units with partial harvest prescriptions. This alternative would 

directly affect 4 known populations and an estimated 7 individuals of this plant. This 

reflects a direct effect on 4 percent of the known populations in the project area and 0.2 

percent of the total known individuals known to inhabit the project area. 

This alternative could indirectly affect 25 additional known populations and an estimated 

411 individuals of this plant. This reflects a potential combined direct or indirect effect on 

26 percent of the known populations in the project area and 10 percent of the total known

individuals in the project area. Alternative 4 would have the lowest level of direct and 

potential indirect effects, much lower than with the other action alternatives. 

Alternative 5

This alternative would directly affect 20 known populations and an estimated 171

individuals of this plant. This reflects a direct effect on 18 percent of the known 

populations in the project area and 4 percent of the total known individuals in the project 

area. 

This alternative could indirectly affect 19 additional known populations and an estimated

401 individuals of this plant. This reflects a combined direct or indirect effect on 35 

percent of the known populations in the project area and 14 percent of the total known 

individuals in the project area. Alternative 5 would be intermediate in terms of direct and 

potential indirect effects on the lesser round-leaved orchid.

Cumulative Effects

The following cumulative effects analysis summarizes known effects with respect to the 

project area and biogeographic provinces 14 and 18. Present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects could affect undetected individuals through timber harvesting and road building 

activities. Cumulative potential suitable habitat includes past projects and the Big Thorne 

project. While current or reasonably foreseeable projects would likely contribute to 

effects on suitable habitat, specific project boundaries are not known for all projects and it 

is not possible to consistently analyze effects to potential suitable habitat for these 

projects. This section summarizes cumulative effects by alternative; after that, summaries 

of cumulative effects for the project area and for biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 are 

provided. 

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not result in any direct or indirect effects on any known populations, 

as a result of the Big Thorne project. Past projects have directly affected approximately 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-385

28 percent of the potentially suitable habitat in the project area and approximately 

16 percent of the potentially suitable habitat in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18 (Prince 

of Wales Island and adjacent islands).). With reasonably foreseeable projects, these 

percentages would be approximately 29 percent for the project area and 17 percent for 

biogeographic provinces 14 and 18.

Alternative 2

In the project area, this alternative would directly affect an estimated 4 percent and 

potentially indirectly affect 10 percent of the known individuals (14 percent 

cumulatively). For biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative would directly 

affect 4 percent and indirectly affect 9 percent of the known individuals (13 percent 

cumulatively). Alternative 2 would be intermediate in effects for these provinces.

Past projects have directly affected approximately 28 percent of potential suitable habitat 

in the project area (based on habitat modeling). As a result of Alternative 2 and other 

reasonably foreseeable harvest (including non-NFS harvest), an additional 4 percent 

would be affected by this alternative, resulting in about 32 percent of potential suitable 

habitat affected in the project area. Within Biogeographic provinces 14 and 18,

approximately 16 percent of potential suitable habitat has been directly affected and 

contributions by this alternative plus reasonably foreseeable harvest, would increase the 

overall effect by about 1 percent, to about 17 percent cumulatively. This alternative 

would affect less suitable habitat than Alternative 3 and a similar amount as Alternatives 4

and 5. 

Alternative 3 

In the project area, this alternative would directly affect an estimated 8 percent and 

potentially indirectly affect 23 percent of the individuals (31 percent cumulatively). For 

biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative would directly affect about 7 percent 

and indirectly affect about 21 percent of the known individuals (28 percent cumulatively). 

This alternative would have the highest effects on this plant.

Past projects have directly affected approximately 28 percent of potential suitable habitat 

in the project area (based on habitat modeling). As a result of Alternative 3 and other 

reasonably foreseeable harvest (including non-NFS harvest), an additional 5 percent 

would be directly affected, resulting in 33 percent of potential suitable habitat directly 

affected in the project area. For biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, approximately 16

percent of potential suitable habitat has been affected and contributions by this alternative 

would increase the overall effect by about 2 percent, to about 18 percent cumulatively. 

This alternative would have the highest effects to potential suitable habitat. 

Alternative 4

In the project area, this alternative would directly affect an estimated 0.2 percent and 

potentially indirectly affect 10 percent of the individuals (10 percent cumulatively). For 

biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative would directly affect about 0.1 percent 

and indirectly affect 8 percent of the known individuals (8 percent cumulatively). This 

alternative would have the lowest effect on this plant.
3 Environment and Effects

3-386 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Past projects have directly affected approximately 28 percent of potentially suitable 

habitat in the project area (based on habitat modeling). As a result of Alternative 4 and 

other reasonably foreseeable harvest (including non-NFS harvest), an additional 3 percent 

would be affected, resulting in 31 percent of potential suitable habitat directly affected in

the project area. For biogeographic provinces 14 and 18approximately 16 percent of 

potential suitable habitat has been directly affected and contributions by this alternative 

would increase the overall effect by about 1 percent, to about 17 percent cumulatively. 

This alternative would have lower effects on potential suitable habitat compared with

Alternative 3, and have similar effects as Alternatives 2 and 5.

Alternative 5

In the project area, this alternative would directly affect an estimated 4 percent and 

indirectly affect 10 percent of the individuals (14 percent cumulatively). For 

biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, this alternative would directly affect about 3 percent 

and indirectly affect 7 percent of the known individuals (10 percent cumulatively). This 

alternative would have intermediate effects relative to the other alternatives.

Past projects have directly affected approximately 28 percent of potentially suitable 

habitat in the project area (based on habitat modeling). As a result of Alternative 5 and 

other reasonably foreseeable harvest (including non-NFS harvest), an additional 4 percent 

would be affected, resulting in 31 percent of potential suitable habitat directly affected in 

the project area. For biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, approximately 16 percent of 

potential suitable habitat has been directly affected and contributions by this alternative 

would increase the overall effect by about 1 percent, to almost 17 percent cumulatively.

This alternative would have intermediate effects on potential suitable habitat relative to 

the other alternatives.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for the Project Area

The estimated percentage of individuals directly affected in the project area as a result of 

the Big Thorne project would be as low as 0.2 percent (Alternative 4) to 8 percent 

(Alternative 3). The estimated percentage of individuals potentially indirectly affected in 

the project area as a result of the Big Thorne project would be as low as 10 percent 

(Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) to as high as 23 percent (Alternative 3). Alternatives 2 and 5 

have similar indirect effects as Alternative 4. Alternative 4 was designed to avoid effects 

to sensitive and rare plants, so these numbers may initially seem to contradict the intent of 

this alternative. However, the indirect effects are slightly higher due to avoidance of 

direct affects in Alternative 4, which typically have much more of an adverse effect on 

plants. 

Populations of this plant are concentrated in the project area, particularly in the southcentral portion of the project area. During project planning, populations located near the 

outer edge of population concentrations, or larger outlying populations, were protected 

from roads and harvest to preserve the geographic distribution of this plant. Similarly,

populations within units were often protected by designating legacy retention in these 

areas (for units in VCUs requiring legacy). These measures were done primarily in 

Alternative 4, but they were implemented to a degree in all alternatives. These efforts to 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Botany ▪ 3-387

minimize effects to populations are documented on the unit cards and in the Botany 

Resource Report (Opolka 2012b). 

In order to approximate the cumulative effects that have already occurred to the lesser 

round-leaved orchid, the general habitat model was used to evaluate potential suitable 

habitat in the project area. About 28 percent of potentially suitable habitat has been 

previously affected in the project area, primarily through timber harvesting and road 

building. When the effects of the Big Thorne project are included, an additional 2 to 

3 percent would be affected, resulting in cumulative effects ranging from 30 percent 

(Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) to 31 to 33 percent (Alternative 3). Present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects would slightly increase the amount of potential suitable habitat 

affected, by less than 1 percent. 

For these reasons, it is expected that the project may adversely affect individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area or cause a trend toward federal 

listing for any of the action alternatives. Refer to the Botany Resource Report (Opolka 

2012a) in the project record for a unit by unit explanation detailing direct and indirect

effects and mitigation for rare and sensitive plants.

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Biogeographic Provinces 14 and 18

The known cumulative effects to individuals in biogeographic provinces 14 and 18, as a 

result of the Big Thorne project, are the same as those listed above for the project area, 

with the exception of one additional individual directly impacted as a result of the Logjam 

project. Present and reasonably foreseeable projects for biogeographic provinces 14 and 

18 include current timber harvesting timber harvesting on state and NFS lands, PCT of 

young growth, and the potential for commercial thinning of young growth on the National 

Forest. Projects outside the project area include remaining harvest in the Logjam, Control 

Lake, Soda/Nick, Chasina, and other timber sale projects, as well as additional harvest on 

non-NFS lands. 

The estimated percentage of individuals directly affected in biogeographic provinces 14 

and 18 as a result of the Big Thorne project would range from 0.2 percent (Alternative 4) 

to 7 percent (Alternative 3). The estimated percentage of individuals potentially indirectly 

affected in these provinces as a result of the Big Thorne project would be as low as 9

percent (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) to 21 percent (Alternative 3). 

Approximately 16 percent of potential suitable habitat has been directly affected in 

biogeographic provinces 14 and 18. When the Big Thorne project effects, plus the effects 

of other reasonably foreseeable harvest (including non-NFS harvest) are included, the 

increase would be between 1 and 2 percent depending on the alternative, with the 

maximum affected at about 18 percent for Alternative 3. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects that may affect known populations include the Logjam 

project, where one plant may be directly affected. Although additional plants were not 

found during Logjam project surveys, this species was not on the Sensitive Species List at 

that time and was not targeted for surveys. Other timber sale projects in biogeographic 

provinces 14 and 18 may affect suitable habitat, but none are expected to affect known 

populations. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-388 ▪ Botany Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

In order to evaluate the impact on the extent of the distribution of lesser round-leaved 

orchid with respect to the Tongass National Forest, the distribution of populations across 

the forest were mapped. A total of 282 known populations of lesser round-leaved orchid 

and 5,360 individuals are known on the Tongass National Forest. The majority of 

individuals (4,362), but less than half of the populations (127) occur in biogeographic 

provinces 14 and 18. Additional populations of this plant are found in two other 

biogeographic provinces. Thirty-two populations of about 500 plants are in biogeographic 

province 13, to the northeast of the project area and 123 populations; totaling about 510 

plants are in biogeographic province 15 located east and southeast of the project area. 

In summary, the Big Thorne project would directly affect between 0.2 percent 

(Alternative 4) and 8 percent (Alternative 3) of the known individual plants identified in 

the Big Thorne project area, which is between 0.1 percent (Alternative 4) and 6 percent 

(Alternative 3) of the known individual plants on the Tongass. About 44 percent of all the 

known individuals in the project area are in non-productive old growth habitats (i.e., 

unlikely to be harvested). The Big Thorne project has avoided direct effects on at least 92 

percent of known individuals in the project area, even under Alternative 3. Although 

potential indirect effects range from 10 to 23 percent, the potential adverse effects are 

much less likely than those expected from direct effects. In addition, about 9 percent of 

all known populations of this plant have been found in areas mapped as young-growth, 

mostly from 40 to 50 years old. Although there are many unknowns surrounding these 

plants, they are apparently not restricted to productive old-growth stands. For these 

reasons, it is expected that the project may adversely affect individuals, but is not likely to 

result in a loss of viability in the biogeographic provinces or cause a trend toward federal 

listing for any of the action alternatives. Refer to the Botany Resource Report (Opolka 

2012a) in the project record for a unit by unit explanation detailing direct and indirect 

effects and mitigation for rare and sensitive plants.
3 Environment and Effects

3-389 ▪ Invasive Plants Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Invasive Plants

Introduction

This analysis is based on known invasive plants and their expected response to habitat 

alteration and vectors as a result of project activities. Species are considered invasive if 

they are not native to an ecosystem and are likely to cause harm to human health, the 

economy, or the environment (Executive Order [EO] 13112). 

In October 2007, the Tongass National Forest adopted guidelines for invasive plant 

management with a supplement to FSM 2080 (Supplement No. R10 TNF-2000-2007-1). 

The objective of this supplement is to provide an integrated pest management approach 

for managing invasive plants on the Tongass National Forest. This supplement requires 

the development of a risk assessment as part of an environmental analysis for grounddisturbing activities. The risk assessment for this project is in the project record (Opolka 

2012c). The 2008 Forest Plan includes direction on invasive species, which include the 

overall context of desired conditions (see Biodiversity goals and objectives) as well as 

standards and guidelines for invasive species. These were based on a number of laws, but 

most directly on EO 13112. Specifically, EO 13112 directs all federal agencies to address 

the impacts that their actions may have on invasive species. 

The Alaska Natural Heritage Program’s (ANHP) Weed Ranking Project (see 

http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/akweeds_ranking_page.htm) was used to develop a list of 

target invasive plants about which the Forest has concerns. This ranking process takes 

into account the following characteristics for each plant species: potential ecological 

impact, biological characteristics, dispersal ability, current distribution, and the feasibility 

of control. Plants are then ranked on a scale of 0-100, with 100 having the highest 

invasiveness rank. The Tongass National Forest High-Priority Invasive Plant Species List 

is a list of target plants of which the Forest is most concerned (USDA Forest Service 

2007). This list uses the ANHP Weed Ranking Project results to rank the invasiveness of 

each species. Those species known to occur on the Forest, as well as several not yet here, 

with a ranking higher than 60 are highlighted for management concerns. In addition to the 

target list of high priority species, the Tongass is also concerned about other species not 

on this list, depending on their abundance, location, and threats to ecosystem functions 

and/or biodiversity. 

Methodology

Invasive plant surveys were conducted on Prince of Wales Island in 2005 for all 

Maintenance Level 3 and 4 road systems. This project included surveys every 1⁄4 mile 

along the road system as well as at each intersection and rock quarry encountered. 

Overall, 2,635 non-native plant sites were documented in areas such as rock quarries, road 

intersections, and road pullouts. The survey covered approximately 584 miles of road. 

Surveys were done at the appropriate time of year to identify the broadest range possible 

of non-native plant species. 

In addition to the contract invasive plant surveys in 2005, surveys in the Big Thorne 

project area were conducted in 2009, 2010, and 2011 along existing system roads, 
3 Environment and Effects

3-390 ▪ Invasive Plants Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

temporary roads, landings, LTFs and in natural settings. If any non-native plants were 

observed, the boundary of the infestation was recorded with GPS and delineated in GIS. 

Affected Environment

A total of 61 non-native plant species are documented to occur within the project area. Of 

these, 11 are classified as high-priority invasive plant species by the Tongass National 

Forest. Table INV-1 summarizes these plants, their invasive ranking, and the populations 

and locations in the project area.

Table INV-1. High Priority Invasive Plant Species found in the Project Area

Scientific Name Common Name

Invasive 

Rank1/

Populations and 

Location2/

Cirsium arvensis Canada thistle 76 6 populations; SE and SW 

portion of project area

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle 61 27 populations; SE and SW 

portion of project area

Hieracium 

aurantiacum,

orange hawkweed, 79 115 populations; scattered 

primarily in southern portion 

of project area

Hieracium caespitosum meadow hawkweed 79 3 populations; 1 population in 

NE portion of project area, 2 

populations near southern edge 

of project area

Senecio jacobaea tansy ragwort 63 5 populations; located near 

project boundary in southern 

and SE portion of project area

Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle, 61 1 population in southern 

portion of project area

Crepis tectorum narrow-leaf hawk's 

beard

54 17 populations in southern 

portion of project area

Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy 61 164 populations, ubiquitous

Melilotus alba white sweetclover 80 1 population in southeastern 

corner of project area

Phalaris arundicacea reed canarygrass 83 607 populations, common 

along existing roads and has 

been found in riparian areas

Tanacetum vulgare common tansy 57 6 scattered populations

1/ Numerical Rankings assigned according to the Alaska Natural Heritage Program’s (ANHP) Weed Ranking Project. 

Ranked on a scale of 0-100, with 100 having the highest invasiveness risk.

2/ Populations primarily located adjacent to roads; maps of invasive plant populations available in the project record.

Invasive Plant Risk Assessment

The invasive plant risk assessment was conducted according to FSM 2080 (Supplement 

No. R10 TNF-2000-2007-1), which requires an invasive plant risk assessment for 

ground-disturbing activities. The risk assessment evaluates the locations of known 

invasive plants, existing habitat vulnerability, and the potential response of invasive plants 

as a result of project actions that result in habitat alteration and increased vectors. 

Additional details regarding the basis of risk assessment are included in the 

Environmental Consequences section. The invasive plant risk assessment (Opolka 2012c) 

and Invasive Species Resource Report (Opolka 2012c) are also in the project record.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Invasive Plants ▪ 3-391

In an attempt to limit the spread of invasive plants during project implementation, the 

following mitigation and monitoring measures are required for the project:

 Mitigation Measures

- In order to avoid the introduction of new invasive plants into the project area, 

ground-based equipment (road building equipment, yarders, shovels, skidders, 

forwarders, harvesters, processors or feller bunchers, etc.) will be cleaned prior 

to implementation and mobilization, if the equipment is imported to Prince of 

Wales Island from another location. 

- Only Forest Service approved rock sources will be used;

- Any new introductions of high-priority invasive plants found in the Project 

Area will be treated according to Forest Service Manual supplement (TNF 

2000-2007-1), and the Region 10 and Tongass Invasive Plant Management 

Plan as part of the District’s program of work for invasive species 

management.

- The specific invasive plant populations in Table INV-2 have been identified 

for manual treatment (hand-pulling) or monitoring based on their limited 

distribution in the project area, potential for spread, and feasibility for 

treatment. 

 Monitoring Measures

- Newly constructed roads, existing roads that were improved, and any active 

rock quarries in the Project Area will be monitored for at least 3 years after 

project completion for new non-native plant introductions.

- Monitor treated plant populations as noted in Table INV-2 and according to the 

Tongass Invasive Plant Management Plan and the District’s program of work.

Ongoing Treatments

Independent of the mitigation and monitoring measures recommended for the project, the 

Forest Service also has an ongoing invasive plant program of work. This work varies 

from year to year, and will continue as funding allows. In the past several years, this 

program has monitored and treated a number of infestations in the vicinity of the project 

area. A summary of past treatment information is available in the project record. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-392 ▪ Invasive Plants Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table INV-2. Specific Invasive Plant Populations for which Treatment is Recommended

Species Location Comments

Cirsium arvensis

Canada thistle

Two populations, one each by 

Units 26 and 116

Both have been treated in the past, 

recommend monitoring and follow-up 

treatments

Cirsium vulgaris

bull thistle

Several populations located by 

Units 1, 2, 4, 22, 501, 502,

All have been treated in the past, recommend 

monitoring and follow-up treatments

Crepis tectorum

narrow-leaf hawk’s beard

One population by Unit 6 Treatment recommended

Senecio jacobaea

tansy ragwort

One population by Units 58 and 

59, one population along haul 

route by Sandy Beach

All locations have been treated. The 

population by Units 58 and 59 is not known 

to persist; this location should be monitored 

and treated if plants are observed. The 

population by Sandy Beach is known to 

persist and should be treated.

Sonchus arvensis

perennial sowthistle

One population adjacent to the 

existing road that goes through 

Unit 504

Treatment recommended

Tanacetum vulgare

common tansy

Two populations by Unit 363, 

three additional populations by 

Units 68, 135, and 572

Populations by Units 68 and 135 have been 

treated; monitoring has not observed 

continued infestations. These locations 

should continue to be monitored and treated 

if plants are observed. Populations by Units 

363 and 572 should be treated.

Melilotus alba

white sweet clover

1 population in southeastern 

corner of project area west of 

Unit 123.

Population has been treated; monitor and 

treat if plants are observed. 

Environmental Consequences

All of the alternatives would result in some risk to the spread of invasive plants in the 

project area; even the No-action Alternative would have a moderate risk of spread due to 

existing invasive plants and traffic along the road system. Overall risk of invasive plant 

spread under the action alternatives is moderate to high along roadsides. However, risk of 

introduction of new invasive plants and spread of existing invasives into natural habitats 

and along temporary roads is considered moderate and short term (Opolka 2012c). 

Mitigation measures have been designed to minimize the risk of invasive plant spread. 

The risk of invasive plant spread can be measured through the vectors in the analysis area, 

habitat vulnerability, and the proximity of existing invasive plant infestations. These are 

described in more detail in the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment (Opolka 2012c), available 

in the project record. 

The relative potential for invasive plant spread can be measured through the acres 

harvested, miles of road built, number of stream crossings, and acres of rock quarries 

developed as a result of the project and can be compared by alternative. The effects of 

project actions are described below with respect to risk of invasive plant spread. Potential 

project effects that may result in invasive plant spread or establishment are indirect 

effects. As a result of habitat alteration and/or vectors, invasive plant spread could result 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Invasive Plants ▪ 3-393

from project activities. These are discussed in a comparative format in the following 

subsections.

Effects from Timber Harvest

Habitat alteration as a result of the project will occur as timber is harvested in the project 

area, resulting in an increase in the acreage of habitat altered through clear cutting and 

partial harvest of old growth and the thinning of young growth. These actions could 

create habitat conditions vulnerable to invasive plant establishment with increased light 

levels, and proximity to existing populations of invasive plants. Timber harvesting would 

also remove wind-breaks, thereby creating new wind-paths that could spread seeds. 

The project would use a combination of conventional (cable and shovel) and helicopter 

harvesting methods. The logging system used also affects risk because of variability in 

habitat alteration due to ground disturbance and an increase in vectors. Slightly higher 

risk is associated with conventional (shovel or cable) logging systems compared with 

helicopter. Tongass soil monitoring shows a small difference in detrimental soil 

disturbance between partial suspension (cable and shovel) (3 percent) and full suspension 

(helicopter) (2 percent) (Landwehr and Nowacki 1999). Additional soil disturbance not 

categorized as detrimental may also be possible in harvest units. These areas may result 

from smaller disturbances to the organic surface layer of the soil. Persistence of invasives 

is not likely to occur in these areas. 

Another factor in the risk of invasive plant spread relative to harvesting method 

(conventional versus helicopter) is the proximity to existing roads, which often harbor 

invasive plants. Helicopter units are frequently located in remoter areas without road 

access, and thus in areas that are less likely to be infested with invasive plants. 

Alternatively, conventional harvesting requires road access and equipment usage in the 

unit (for shovel harvesting) and thus an increased exposure to invasive plants. The risk 

associated with invasive plant spread into harvest units is temporary. As these areas 

revegetate, invasive plants are expected to be out-competed by native vegetation. 

Harvest prescriptions would include clearcuts and partial harvests of old growth and 

thinning of young growth. Risk associated with harvest prescription is related to the 

amount of light reaching the ground surface. Clearcuts result in removal of the tree 

canopy, high light levels, and have a higher risk of invasive plant spread. Partial harvests 

and thinning result in partial canopy removal and moderate lower risk of invasive plant 

spread due to increased light levels. While the overall acres harvested is a factor and will 

be considered in this analysis, the highest overall risk of invasive spread due to harvesting, 

when also considering habitat alteration and vectors, includes roads and conventionally 

harvested (shovel and cable) clearcuts, while the lowest overall risk would be partial 

harvesting by helicopter. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-394 ▪ Invasive Plants Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table INV-3. Summary of Acres Harvested by Logging System, Prescription, and 

Alternative

Logging 

System Alternative

Old Growth Young 

Growth Total Acres

Harvested

Estimated 

Acres of Soil 

Disturbance1/ Clearcut Partial 

Harvest Thinning

Conventional 

(Shovel, 

Cable)

1 0 0 0 0 0 

2 3,301 15 0 3,316 99 

3 4,312 15 2,572 6,899 168 

4 1,389 474 2,160 4,023 81 

5 1,794 0 2,081 3,875 85 

Helicopter

1 0 0 0 0 0 

2 931 696 0 1,627 26 

3 1,474 1,108 0 2,582 41 

4 510 1,849 0 2,359 29 

5 2,148 1,070 0 3,218 54 

Total

1 0 0 0 0 0 

2 4,232 711 0 4,943 125

3 5,786 1,123 2,572 9,481 209

4 1,899 2,323 2,160 6,382 110

5 3,942 1,070 2,081 7,093 139

1/ Assumes 3% disturbance for conventional clearcut, 2% disturbance for helicopter clearcut, 1.5% disturbance (half of 

clearcut disturbance) for conventional partial harvest and thinning, and 1% disturbance (half of clearcut disturbance) 

for helicopter partial harvest and thinning.

Effects of Roads

Roads may result in altered habitat susceptible to invasive plant spread and their use and 

creation may result in additional vectors that could spread invasive plants. Use of roads 

by people and animals provides a source of invasive plant dispersal. Animals may spread 

invasive plant species through ingesting their seeds or transporting seeds on their fur or 

feathers. People may spread invasive plants along roads and trails by transporting seeds 

on their shoes, clothing, and vehicles. New road construction would also alter habitat and 

create areas of continuous soil disturbance and open habitats where invasive plants may 

continue to spread. Vehicles and equipment (both off and on-road) use could also 

transport these invasive plants along the road network and into the forest. Road 

maintenance including vegetation mowing also may disperse invasive plants along the 

road system. Many of the existing invasive plants present along the road network may 

also spread through wind and water dispersal. All of these vectors contribute to invasive 

plant dispersal and it is difficult to determine which vector has the greatest impact. The 

combination of these vectors results in a high risk of spread of invasive plants along the 

roadway, substantiated by the presence of invasive plants along the existing road system. 

Although the risk of invasive plant spread along existing roadways is high, risk of spread 

into forested habitats is generally low due to existing dense vegetation cover. While the 

majority of invasive plants are located along the road system, invasive plants can spread 

into other natural habitats. For example, the seeds of reed canarygrass may enter roadside 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Invasive Plants ▪ 3-395

drainages and be transported into streams and wetlands. Similarly, the windblown seeds 

of invasive plants may be transported into vulnerable habitats. The project will involve 

the construction or reconstruction of new roads; the type of road constructed (i.e., long 

term or short term) impacts the risk of invasive spread. Roads open permanently would 

create long-term opportunities for invasive plant spread and establishment. Temporary 

roads or roads that would be decommissioned after use are expected to become vegetated 

with native species eventually, but would present a risk in the shorter term for invasive 

plant introduction and spread. New system roads created for the project will remain open 

for 1 to 5 years after harvest, with temporary roads typically open for a shorter period. 

Between 1 and 5 miles of road (depending on alternative) will be converted to motorized 

trail use, resulting in long-term habitat alteration and vectors along these trails. Existing 

roads that will require maintenance for the project are a concern due to the potential for 

invasive plants to be transported to new areas during maintenance activities and new 

ground disturbance that could be vulnerable to new invasive plant infestations. While 

each type of road may have effects on invasive plant spread, the overall total road miles 

for each alternative has the greatest effect for invasive spread, since populations of 

invasive plants are concentrated along the road network and are likely to spread along this 

network due to the vectors and habitat vulnerability described above. The number of 

stream crossings required generally increases along with road mileage. Each road-stream 

crossing alters riparian habitat, resulting in vulnerability due to vegetation removal, 

increased light, and soil disturbance. Similar to roadways, rock quarry development also 

creates a habitat vulnerable to invasive plant infestations, due to the frequency of substrate 

disturbance and open habitat. 

Implementation of any of the action alternatives may result in establishment of invasive 

plants, as all action alternatives will result in habitat alteration from tree harvesting, road 

construction, stream crossings, and rock quarry development. However, the logging 

methods and prescriptions, miles of road constructed, and rock quarries developed vary 

substantially among alternatives as does the potential risk of invasive plant introduction 

and spread. These are discussed by alternative in the following section and summarized 

Table INV-4.

Table INV-4. Summary of Acres Harvested, Road Construction, Number of Stream 

Crossings, and Acres of Rock Quarry as a result of the Big Thorne Project

Total Acres 

Harvested 

(including younggrowth thinning)

Total Miles of Road 

Construction and 

Reconstruction1/

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings2/

Acres of Rock 

Quarries3/

Alternative 1 0 0 0 0

Alternative 2 4,944 54 85 35

Alternative 3 9,481 95 112 56

Alternative 4 6,383 41 39 19

Alternative 5 7,093 31 16 16

1/ Includes all types of road construction and reconstruction.

2/ Includes all new road crossings of streams classes 1-4 proposed for use by the project in the project area.

3/ Assumes 1-acre of rock quarry development needed for every mile of road construction.
3 Environment and Effects

3-396 ▪ Invasive Plants Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Habitat alteration associated with the Big Thorne project under this alternative would be 

the same as existing conditions; there would not be tree harvesting, new stream crossings, 

rock quarries, or road building as a result of the Big Thorne project. The risk of invasive 

plant spread 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 includes mostly clearcutting and a small amount of partial-cutting 

prescriptions, using conventional (cable and shovel) logging systems, as well as helicopter 

yarding to harvest old-growth timber on about 4,944 total acres. Approximately twothirds of the harvesting would be done using conventional methods, with the remaining 

utilizing helicopters. Approximately 86 percent of the harvested acreage would be 

clearcut. This alternative would result in 3,301 acres of conventionally harvested clearcut, 

which has the highest risk for invasive plant spread, considering harvest prescription and 

harvest method(described in the Effects from Timber Harvest subsection above). 

This alternative proposes approximately 54 total miles of road construction and 

reconstruction consisting of 19 miles of reconstruction of stored system roads, 12 miles of 

new system road, 23 miles of temporary road, and 4 new miles of motorized trail use. 

This alternative also proposes 85 stream crossings, and the construction of approximately 

35 acres of rock quarries. Effects of these actions are discussed in detail under the 

preceding road construction effects section.

This alternative would have the second-highest amount of conventionally harvested 

clearcuts, total road construction, stream crossings and rock quarry development; 

correspondingly, it would have the second-highest level of risk for invasive plant spread

among the alternatives, based on these actions.

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative includes mostly clearcutting and a small amount of partial-cutting 

prescriptions, using conventional (cable and shovel) logging systems, as well as helicopter 

yarding to harvest old-growth timber on about 6,910 total acres. In addition, Alternative 3 

includes commercial thinning of young growth on 2,572 acres using conventional 

harvesting systems. This alternative would result in 4,312 acres of conventionally 

harvested clearcut, which has the highest risk for invasive plant spread, considering 

harvest prescription and harvest method (described in the Effects from Timber Harvest 

subsection above). This alternative proposes approximately 95 total miles of road 

construction and reconstruction consisting of 39 miles of reconstruction of stored system 

roads, 18 miles of new system road, 39 miles of temporary road, and 5 new miles of 

motorized trail use. This alternative also proposes 112 stream crossings, and the 

construction of approximately 56 acres of rock quarries. Effects of these actions are 

discussed in detail under the preceding road construction effects section.

This alternative would have the most acres of conventionally harvested clearcuts, road 

construction, stream crossings, and rock quarry development and would have the highest 

level of risk for invasive plant spread among the alternatives, based on these actions. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Invasive Plants ▪ 3-397

Alternative 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative includes mostly clearcutting and a small amount of partial-cutting 

prescriptions, using conventional (cable and shovel) logging systems, as well as helicopter 

yarding to harvest old-growth timber on about 4,223 total acres. In addition, Alternative 4 

includes commercial thinning of young growth on 2,160 acres using conventional 

harvesting systems. This alternative would result in 1,389 acres of conventionally 

harvested clearcut, which has the highest risk for invasive plant spread, considering 

harvest prescription and harvest method (described in the Effects from Timber Harvest 

subsection above). This alternative proposes approximately 41 total miles of road 

construction and reconstruction consisting of 22 miles of reconstruction of stored system 

roads, 3 miles of new system road, 16 miles of temporary road, and 2 new miles of 

motorized trail use. This alternative also proposes 39 stream crossings, and the 

construction of approximately 19 acres of rock quarries. Effects of these actions are 

discussed in detail under the preceding road construction effects section.

This alternative would have the second-lowest amount of conventionally harvested 

clearcuts, road construction, stream crossings, and rock quarry development; 

correspondingly, it would have the second lowest level of risk for invasive plant spread 

among the alternatives, based on these actions. 

Alternative 5 – Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative includes mostly clearcutting and a small amount of partial-cutting 

prescriptions, using conventional (cable and shovel) logging systems, as well as helicopter 

yarding to harvest old-growth timber on about 5,012 total acres. In addition, Alternative 5 

includes commercial thinning of young growth on 2,081 acres using conventional 

harvesting systems. This alternative would result in 1,794 acres of conventionally 

harvested clearcut, which has the highest risk for invasive plant spread, considering 

harvest prescription and harvest method, (described in the Effects from Timber Harvest 

subsection above). This alternative proposes approximately 31 total miles of road 

construction and reconstruction consisting of 16 miles of reconstruction of stored system 

roads, 2 miles of new system road, 14 miles of temporary road, and 1 new mile of 

motorized trail use. This alternative also proposes 16 stream crossings, and the 

construction of approximately 16 acres of rock quarries. Effects of these actions are 

discussed in detail under the preceding road construction effects section.

This alternative would have the lowest amount of conventional clearcuts, road 

construction, stream crossings, and rock quarry development; correspondingly, it would 

have the lowest level of risk for invasive plant spread among the alternatives, based on 

these actions.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects is the project area, as this is where the majority of 

activities would originate that would cause invasive plant spread and the creation of 

vulnerable habitats subject to invasion. 

Existing foreseeable projects that may contribute to invasive plant spread include the other 

timber sales, commercial thinning, and other projects (described in the Known Projects 

section), resulting in habitat alteration through timber harvesting, road construction, road 
3 Environment and Effects

3-398 ▪ Invasive Plants Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

maintenance, stream crossings and rock quarry development. Effects of these projects 

would be similar to the effects previously described in the Environmental Consequences 

section. Microsales are generally located adjacent to existing roads and usually will not 

require new roads, although they could result in invasive plant spread as a result of altered 

habitat, habitat vulnerability and associated vectors from project activities. See harvesting 

effects section and risk assessment (in the project record) for additional details. Timber 

sales on state land are expected to occur, as noted in the section at the beginning of this 

chapter, and result in the construction of 4 miles of additional roads, which could result in 

the spread of invasive plants. 

Habitat alteration and an increase in vectors through tree harvesting, road construction, 

stream crossings and rock quarry development would contribute to the cumulative effects 

of invasive plant spread as a result of the past, present and foreseeable projects in the 

project area. Cumulative effects due to timber harvesting include effects due to the 

proposed project, current projects, and foreseeable projects in the project area. Acres of 

past timber harvest are not included due to the relatively quick regeneration of harvested 

sites and the low likelihood of invasive plant persistence in old harvest units. Forested 

areas regenerate rapidly, resulting in dense native vegetation growth and a low likelihood 

of invasive plant persistence. For this reason, these areas are only temporarily susceptible. 

For this reason, only acres harvested since the year 2000 are considered to contribute to 

cumulative effects (approximately 2,355 acres).

These effects are described previously in the Environmental Consequences section and are 

cumulatively summarized in Table INV-5. 

Table INV-5. Cumulative Timber Harvesting Impacts

Alternative

Cumulative Effects - Acres

Past Harvest1/ Big Thorne 

Harvest2/

Present & Reasonably 

Foreseeable Projects3/ Total

1 2,355 0 1,046 3,401

2 2,355 4,944 1,046 8,345

3 2,355 9,481 1,046 12,882

4 2,355 6,383 1,046 9,784

5 2,355 7,093 1,046 10,494

1/ Past harvest since the Year 2000.

2/ Harvest proposed by the Big Thorne Project

3/ Acres calculated based on projects described in the Known Projects Section 

Implementation of the Prince of Wales Island ATM (see Transportation Section) on the 

Thorne Bay Ranger District would slowly reduce the spread of invasive plants where 

roads are closed or decommissioned, as a result of changing the type of use and 

maintenance the road receives. These changes would be expected to occur over a period 

of years, as decreased road use enables native vegetation to colonize the road and outcompete invasive plants or prevents their establishment. Over time canopy closure and 

native vegetation would out-compete invasive plants. The table below summarizes by 

alternative the results of implementation of the ATM. With implementation of this plan, 

there would be 101 miles of open and maintained road in the project area and 105 miles of 

road open and maintained for OHV use. Motorized trail use would vary by alternative, 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Invasive Plants ▪ 3-399

with Alternative 1 the lowest with 44 miles and Alternative 3 the highest with 49 miles. 

The highest number of cumulative road miles would result from Alternative 3, followed 

by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. The No-action Alternative would have the lowest cumulative 

effects. The cumulative effects of stream crossings and rock quarries are similar and also 

summarized in Table INV-6.

Table INV-6. Summary of Cumulative Acres Harvested, Road Construction, Number of 

Stream Crossings, and Acres of Rock Quarry as a result of the Big Thorne Project

Alternative

Total Acres 

Harvested 1/ Total Roads 2/

Number of 

Stream 

Crossings3/

Acres of Rock 

Quarries4/

Alternative 1 3,401 552 1,447 569

Alternative 2 8,345 586 1,532 604

Alternative 3 12,882 608 1,559 625

Alternative 4 9,784 571 1,486 588

Alternative 5 10,494 568 1,463 585

1/ Includes only present (harvest since 2000) and reasonably harvesting and that expected from the Big Thorne Project

(including commercial thinning); see Table INV-5.

2/ Includes all roads, including state, private, NFS and temporary roads. Includes roads that are existing and those expected 

from present and reasonably foreseeable projects and the Big Thorne Project. 

3/ Includes existing and new project crossings on open, stored, closed and decommissioned roads

4/ Assumes 1-acre of rock quarry development needed for every mile of road construction. Includes rock quarry acreages 

from existing and reasonably foreseeable projects, and the Big Thorne Project. 

Following is a summary of the cumulative impacts by alternative including the acres 

harvested, road miles, stream crossings, and rock quarries in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1

For Alternative 1, the combination of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects 

within the Big Thorne project area would result in cumulative impacts of 3,401 acres of 

timber harvest or commercial thinning (including past harvest since 2000), approximately 

552 total road miles, 1,447 total stream crossings, and 569 total acres of rock quarries. 

This alternative would have the lowest amount of timber harvest and the lowest 

cumulative number of roads, stream crossings, and rock quarries. As a result, it would 

have the lowest cumulative risk of invasive plant spread. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2

For Alternative 2, the combination of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

with the Big Thorne project area would result in cumulative impacts of approximately 586

road miles, 1,532 stream crossings, and 604 acres of rock quarries. This alternative would 

result in 8,345 acres of harvest or commercial thinning (including past harvest since 

2000). It would have the third-highest acreage of timber harvesting/thinning, the secondhighest acreage of old growth harvest, and the second-highest number of total road miles, 

stream crossings and acres of rock quarry development, among the alternatives. Due to 

these disturbances, it would have the second-highest risk of invasive plant spread. The 

extent of this cumulative effect would be less than that experienced under Alternative 3, 

but more than under Alternatives 4 and 5.
3 Environment and Effects

3-400 ▪ Invasive Plants Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 3

For Alternative 3, the combination of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

within the Big Thorne project area would result in cumulative impacts of approximately 

608 road miles, 1,559 stream crossings, and 625 acres of rock quarries. This alternative 

would result in 12,882 acres of new timber harvesting or thinning (including past harvest

since 2000) and the highest cumulative amount of harvest, road miles, and acres of rock 

quarry development. Due to these disturbances, it would have the highest cumulative risk 

for invasive plant spread.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 4

For Alternative 4, the combination of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

within the Big Thorne project area would result in cumulative impacts of approximately 

571 total road miles in the project area, 1,486 stream crossings, and 588 acres of rock 

quarries. This alternative would result in 9,784 acres of timber harvesting (including past 

harvest since 2000). Of the action alternatives, this alternative would have the secondlowest amount of acreage of new timber harvesting/thinning. However, this alternative 

would have the lowest cumulative amount of old-growth harvest and the second-lowest 

amount of road miles, stream crossings, and acres of rock quarry development. 

Alternative 4 would have a slightly greater contribution to cumulative effects on invasive 

plant species compared to Alternative 5, due to more road miles, stream crossings and 

rock quarry development, but less than Alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 5

For Alternative 5, the combination of the present and reasonably foreseeable projects with 

the Big Thorne project would result in cumulative impacts of approximately 568 total road 

miles, 1,463 stream crossings, and 585 acres of rock quarries. This alternative would 

result in 10,494 acres of timber harvesting (including past harvest since 2000). Of the 

action alternatives, this alternative would have the second-highest cumulative acres of 

new timber harvest/thinning and the lowest cumulative road mileage, stream crossings and 

rock quarry development. Primarily due to the reduction in road mileage and rock 

quarries, this alternative would cumulatively have the lowest risk of invasive spread of the 

action alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-401

Timber and Vegetation

Introduction 

Resource Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects for timber and vegetation is 

the Big Thorne project area. 

Inventory Methods and Units of Measure

Initial project area information was obtained from the Thorne Bay Ranger District GIS 

library, aerial photos, and Forest Activities Tracking System ( FACTS). During the 2010 

and 2011 field seasons, a silviculturist and other staff from the Thorne Bay Ranger 

District performed an inventory of the original unit pool in the project area using walkthrough exams and a combination of basal area and fixed area stand exam sample plots, 

which were recorded at each plot location. Plots were located at a frequency of 

approximately one per 10 acres or at least six plots per proposed harvest unit for units less 

than 60 acres in size. The basal area plots were utilized to estimate the basal area per acre 

by species (both live and dead), and the fixed area plots were used to estimate the trees per 

acre by species in each unit. Volumes were estimated using average volume to basal area 

ratios for each species based upon whether the majority of the stand was in high, medium 

or low volume strata. Observations such as stand development stage, stand structure, 

windthrow potential, insect, disease and decay occurrence, site characteristics, and other 

information were incorporated into the exam procedure. Observations and plot data for 

each unit are stored in the planning record for this project. The information gathered by 

this inventory contributed to development of a site-specific silvicultural diagnosis and 

logging system feasibility for the proposed timber stands.

Forest Land Classification

NFS lands are defined by vegetative cover, soil type, and administratively designated land 

use. This classification scheme is intended to show the amount of land covered by 

forested vegetation with further divisions to show the amount land capable of timber 

production (Figure TBR-1).

To be considered suitable for timber management, lands must be determined tentatively 

suitable for timber management and must be within a LUD that allows timber harvest. 

For this project, these LUDs are Timber Production, Modified Landscape, Scenic 

Viewshed, Recreational River, and Scenic River. Although these LUDs allow timber 

harvest, some acres within each LUD would not be available for harvest due to protections 

defined in the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for other resources. Some of the 

protections in the Big Thorne project area include RMAs, over-steepened slopes, and 

retention of legacy forest structure. Figure TBR-1 shows the land classifications for the 

217,679 acres of NFS land in the Big Thorne project area.
3 Environment and Effects

3-402 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure TBR-1. Current NFS Land Classifications in the Big Thorne Project Area

Non-forest Land

About 5 percent (11,945 acres) of the NFS land in the Big Thorne project area is classified 

as non-forest. Non-forest land is land that is biologically unable to support at least a 10 

percent tree cover. This land classification includes muskegs, rock outcrops, talus slopes, 

alpine vegetation, and river systems, among others.

Forest Land

About 95 percent (205,734 acres) of the NFS land in the Big Thorne project area is 

classified as forest land. Forest land has at least 10 percent tree cover of any size, or 

formerly had such tree cover and is not currently developed for non-forest use (36 CFR 

219.3). Forest land is divided into productive (137,276 acres) and unproductive forest 

land (68,458).

Productive Forest Land

About 63 percent (137,276 acres) of the NFS land in the Big Thorne project area (67 

percent of forest land) is classified as productive forest land. These lands have timber 

volumes of at least 8,000 board feet per acre or have the potential to achieve this volume 

and are capable of maintaining that volume. This land is capable of producing 20 cubicNational Forest System Lands

217,679 acres

Non-productive Forest 

Land

68,458 acres

Productive Forest Land

137,276 acres

Suitable Forest Land

48,477 acres

Unsuitable Forest Land

88,799 acres

Old-growth Timber

22,387 acres Young-growth Timber

26,090 acres

Forest Land

205,734 acres

Non-Forest Land

11,945 acres
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-403

feet per acre, per year of tree growth. Productive forest land includes young-growth 

stands that have regenerated with conifer species after natural or human disturbance. 

There are 42,038 acres of young growth originating from harvest, 636 acres originating 

from natural disturbance, and 94,439 acres of POG. Productive forest lands are further 

classified as either suitable or unsuitable for timber production.

Suitable Forest Land / Suitable and Available Forest Land 

The Forest Plan assigned LUDs that allow timber harvest in areas that were determined to

be suitable for timber production. Some land was removed from the suitable timber base 

due to Forest Plan standards and guidelines within those areas. Appendix A of the Forest 

Plan describes the process that was used to identify suitable forest land. About 62 percent 

(85,530 acres) of the productive forest land in the Big Thorne project area is classified as 

tentatively suitable for timber production. However, only 35 percent (48,477 acres) of the 

productive forest lands are classified as tentatively suitable and are within LUDs that 

allow timber harvest; these lands are considered suitable for timber production. 

Approximately 46 percent of the suitable forest land (22,387 acres) is currently in POG 

while the remaining 54 percent (26,090 acres) is in young growth.

Unsuitable Forest Land

Unsuitable forest lands are lands that have resource concerns that preclude timber harvest 

or are in LUDs that preclude timber harvest. Areas with slopes greater than 72 percent 

that have unstable soils, high vulnerability karst lands, areas within riparian, beach and 

estuary buffers, and OGRs are examples of forest land classified as unsuitable for timber 

production. About 65 percent (88,799 acres) of the productive forest land in the Big 

Thorne project area is classified as unsuitable for timber production. Most of these lands 

are in POG, but 16,585 acres (19 percent) are in young growth, having been harvested 35-

60 years ago.

National Forest System lands within the project area total 217,679 acres; these acres 

exclude saltwater and non-NFS acres (there are 14,169 acres of non-NFS land within the 

project area and these acres are not included in Figure TBR-1). 

The Big Thorne project proposes to harvest a maximum of 25 percent (5,550 acres) of the 

remaining suitable old growth within the project area. In addition, two alternatives for the 

Big Thorne project area propose different levels of modification to the location of the Oldgrowth LUDs adding an additional potential harvest of 1,527 acres (in both alternatives) 

from what is currently classified as Old-growth Habitat LUD in the Forest Plan. 

Alternatives in the Big Thorne project also propose commercial thinning harvest on up to 

about 2,572 acres in young-growth stands when they are 50 years in age and older. None 

of the young growth is in RMAs or beach fringe; about 72 acres are in Old-growth Habitat

LUD. Although this LUD is not considered suitable for timber production, thinning 

would be for the purpose of improving habitat quality in closed canopy stands and 

accelerating development of old-growth stand conditions. Combined, the maximum area 

under consideration for treatment in the Big Thorne project area includes approximately 

9,649 acres.

Initially, the IDT identified 20,668 acres of potential harvest units within the Big Thorne 

project area (see Table TBR-1). These acres included old growth from suitable lands 
3 Environment and Effects

3-404 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

based upon current Forest Plan LUDs, old growth that would be suitable after proposed 

Forest Plan changes to the OGR LUD in the project area, and young-growth thinning units 

identified in the project area. Of those original acres, about 9 percent were removed from 

harvest consideration in order to be consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule, about 9

percent were removed due to Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) buffers and other 

riparian buffers, and about 33 percent were removed due to other resource concerns such 

as soils, timber, economics, Forest Plan legacy requirements, wildlife, and karst. The 

remaining acres included in the Draft EIS unit pool consist of 7,364 acres that are 

primarily old-growth typical of Southeast Alaska and 2,572 acres of 40- to 60-year-old 

spruce-hemlock natural regeneration. The primary species in the old-growth and mature

timber types are western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), 

mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and Alaska 

yellow cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis). The primary species in the young-growth stands 

are western hemlock and Sitka spruce.

Table TBR-1. Original, Eliminated, and Resulting Big Thorne Unit Pool Acres 

Suitable 

Units (Old 

Growth)

OGR LUD 

Units (Old 

Growth)

Young Growth 

Thinning 

(current age 40-

60)

Combined 

DEIS Unit 

Pool

Original LSTA Unit Pool 

Acres 

13,710 3,262 3,696 20,668

Eliminated due to 2001 

Roadless Rule

1,919 0 0 1,919

Eliminated for TTRA and 

other Riparian Buffers

1,554 163 228 1,945

Eliminated for other 

resource Concerns

4,436 1,536 896 6,868

Resulting Unit Pool Acres 5,801 1,563 2,572 9,936

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

The project area is a mosaic of coniferous forests in managed and unmanaged conditions,

interspersed with muskeg, scrubland, and alpine plant communities. The forests are 

primarily western hemlock, with a Sitka spruce component and scattered Alaska yellow 

cedar and western redcedar. Higher percentages of Sitka spruce are found along streams

and other well-drained sites. The understory shrubs are primarily blueberry, huckleberry, 

and rusty menziesia. Many species of vascular plants, lichens, and mosses occur 

throughout all habitat types. Forested muskeg with a high percentage of Alaska yellow 

cedar occurs throughout the project area. Red alder is found on disturbed sites such as 

roadsides, landslides, and along stream banks. Muskegs support shore (lodgepole) pine. 

Old-Growth Species Composition

Plant associations are a type of vegetation classification system based on the climax plant

community. Stands within a specified plant association are comprised of vegetation with
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-405

similar species composition and abundance. Plant associations can be used to predict site

response to changes caused by management practices.

Most of the proposed harvest areas are a mosaic of two or more plant association series. 

The species composition in the project area, as computed from stand exam data is: western

hemlock 47 percent, Sitka spruce 22 percent, western redcedar 21 percent, Alaska yellow 

cedar 9 percent, and mountain hemlock 1 percent. These percentages are based on the 

percent net board foot volume of live and dead trees in the proposed Big Thorne harvest 

units. Although Sitka spruce represents the fewest trees per acre among the listed species, 

this species has the highest quadratic mean diameter (QMD) and therefore represents the 

largest trees.

Old-Growth Volume Strata

The POG acres are stratified into high, medium, and low volume strata. Volume strata 

were determined by using the GIS volume class layer and combining it with GIS soils and 

aspect information. Gross volume (MBF) per acre by volume strata for the project area 

was determined by the re-aggregation of stand exam plot data by volume strata (Table 

TBR-2). The following parameters define each volume strata:

High Volume Strata—Areas within timber inventory volume classes 5, 6, and 7 on 

non-hydric soils, and on hydric soils with slopes greater than 55 percent.

Medium Volume Strata—Areas within timber inventory volume classes 5, 6, and 7 on 

hydric soils with slopes less than or equal to 55 percent; areas within timber inventory 

volume class 4 that are either on non-hydric soils, or are on hydric soils greater than 55 

percent.

Low Volume Strata—Areas within timber inventory volume class 4 that are on hydric 

soils with slopes less than or equal to 55 percent.

Table TBR-2. Gross Volume per Acre by Volume Strata

Volume Strata

Average Gross Volume per 

Acre (MBF/Acre)1/ Suitable Project Area Acres

Low 31.78 5,549

Medium 39.50 6,522

High 44.67 10,316

All Suitable POG2/ 39.97 22,387

1/ Gross volume for both live and dead trees based on re-aggregated stand exam plot data. 

2/ This is a weighted average based on the suitable project area acres.

Young-Growth Stands

Young-growth stands in the project area are variable, depending on age. Young growth in 

the project area originated primarily from even-aged harvesting. Large-scale timber 

harvest in the project area began in the late 1950s and peaked in the 1960s (Figure TBR2). The stands being considered for commercial thinning were harvested in the 1960s or 

earlier. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-406 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure TBR-2. Big Thorne Project Area Harvest Acres by Decade

These stands are dominated by either western hemlock or Sitka spruce, and contain lesser 

amounts of western redcedar, red alder, mountain hemlock, and Alaska yellow cedar. 

Many of the older stands have been pre-commercially thinned and these stands currently 

contain fewer trees per acre, larger average diameters, and lower volumes per acre. 

Average net volume for young-growth stands at age 50 ranges from about 9 to 13 MBF 

per acre on medium productivity sites and from about 13 to 21 MBF per acre on high 

productivity sites. 

Forest Health and Natural Disturbance

Dwarf Mistletoe

The occurrence of dwarf mistletoe in late successional western hemlock stands is 

widespread throughout Southeast Alaska, including the Big Thorne project area. The 

small-scale (canopy gap) disturbance pattern in the old forests of coastal Alaska favors the 

short-range dispersal mechanism of hemlock dwarf mistletoe and may explain the 

common occurrence of the disease in this area (USDA Forest Service 2009). Dwarf

mistletoe presence was recorded in all proposed harvest areas in the Big Thorne project 

area wherever western hemlock was present. The majority of units included in the unit 

pool were rated low for the occurrence of dwarf mistletoe, often because of the high 

western redcedar component. There were 129 units in the current unit pool that were 

rated low, 70 rated moderate, and 41 rated high. 

Dwarf mistletoe reduces the vigor and growth rate of hemlock resulting in low quality

timber. Cankerous swellings often occur at the point of infection on limbs and main 

stems. These cankers offer an entrance for wood-destroying fungi, which can lead to 

heart and stem decay.

Dwarf mistletoe progresses relatively slowly in Southeast Alaska; however, within 

partially harvested stands, there may be some infected trees. Clearcut harvesting is an 

 -

 2,000

 4,000

 6,000

 8,000

 10,000

 12,000

 14,000

 16,000

 18,000

 20,000
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-407

effective method of controlling hemlock dwarf mistletoe if reduction or eradication of the 

disease is consistent with management objectives (USDA 2001c). Managers using 

alternative harvest techniques (e.g., large residuals left standing in clearcuts, small harvest 

units, or partial harvests) should recognize the potential reduction in timber volume and 

value from hemlock dwarf mistletoe under some of these silvicultural scenarios. 

Substantial reductions to timber are only associated with high disease levels, however. 

High levels of hemlock dwarf mistletoe will only result if numerous large, intensely 

infected hemlocks are well distributed after harvest (Forest Health Conditions in Alaska2007, page 44). In some situations, the Big Thorne project proposes to partially harvest 

stands with high mistletoe ratings in order to mitigate the effects of even-age harvest on 

wildlife and watershed resources.

Decay Fungi

Decay caused by heart and root-rotting fungi is probably the greatest single cause of 

disease-related timber volume loss in Alaska (Laurent 1974), and such damage is present 

within the Big Thorne project area. Approximately one-third of the old-growth timber 

volume in Southeast Alaska is defective, largely due to heart-rotting fungi. Heart decay

causes considerable damage in all conifer species in Southeast Alaska, but is more 

common in western hemlock, mountain hemlock, and Sitka spruce (USDA Forest Service

2009).

Decay centered in the boles of trees can weaken the support structures, thereby leading to

breakage. As the broken portion of the tree falls to the forest floor, it may wound adjacent 

trees and lead to eventual infection of the damaged trees. This is a continual process in 

old-growth forests in Southeast Alaska and contributes to the diversity of the stand 

structure. This process decreases the health and windfirmness of the stand, leading to 

decreased ability to provide a future timber supply and therefore reducing the stand’s 

ability to reach its desired condition. The volume growth rate in most old-growth units in 

the Big Thorne project are currently being either offset or exceeded by decay.

Decay-causing fungi are present in all stands within the project area. There were 62 units 

in the current unit pool that were rated high for the occurrence of decay fungi, 168 units 

that rated moderate and 10 units rated low. A high rating was given when it appeared that 

the average defect per tree in the unit would exceed 31 percent, or what is considered the 

average defect within live old-growth trees in Southeast Alaska (Insects and Diseases of 

Alaska Forests, USDA R10-TP-140, 2009 p.159). A moderate rating was given when it 

appeared that the average defect would be about 31 percent. A low rating would have 

been given if a unit was determined to be somewhat less than 31 percent. A low rating 

would usually only be noted where a large amount of the live trees in the stand are young.

Wind Disturbance

Wind is the major natural disturbance agent affecting forest dynamics in Southeast 

Alaska. It causes the loss of trees, singly or in groups, and recycles forest stands and 

maintains and renews the forest ecosystem. However, timber harvest has the potential to 

exacerbate the rate of windthrow in adjacent forest stands. The severity and frequency of 

wind disturbance is determined by many interrelated factors. These influencing factors 

include tree size and vitality, tree height-diameter ratio and crown size, slope, aspect, soil 
3 Environment and Effects

3-408 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

characteristics, stand composition, canopy structure and the characteristics of the 

surrounding topography, which may influence wind flow (Harris 1989).

Existing windthrow within a stand is an important indicator of windthrow hazard. Certain 

conditions are indicators of windthrow hazard for individual trees as well as stands. The 

windthrow history of a stand can be determined from field observations. These 

conditions, as well as a stand’s windthrow history, were used to evaluate the windthrow 

hazard for each unit. 

In the Big Thorne project area, high windthrow hazard was generally found in areas with 

exposure due to topography, vortex winds or adjacent logging. High ratings were often 

given to units with exposure to the southeast winds off Clarence Strait. There were 64 

units rated high for windthrow. These stands were generally located where high wind 

speeds and turbulence are likely to occur and where the stand structure, composition and 

tree form make the stand more susceptible to wind damage. Units that were more 

topographically sheltered from direct storm winds and had less evidence of past wind 

damage were rated moderate for windthrow. There were 150 units that rated as moderate. 

Stands rated moderate have either factors that contribute to poor anchorage with low wind 

force, moderate resistance to overturning and moderate wind force or good resistance to 

overturning and high wind force. There were 26 units that were well sheltered with little 

evidence of past wind damage. These units were rated low. 

Alaska Yellow cedar Decline

Alaska yellow cedar decline is a disease causing considerable mortality in Southeast 

Alaska. Mortality can be in small patches or can cover expansive areas. Affected trees 

may die quickly (in two to three years), or slowly over 15 years or longer with crowns 

progressively thinning.

Yellow cedar decline is characterized by extensive tree deaths occurring in and around 

open canopy forests on poorly drained soils. The distribution of yellow cedar decline 

suggests climate as a trigger with the presence of snow as the key environmental factor. 

Researchers currently believe this mortality is the result of a combination of factors 

centered around freezing injury to roots resulting from low spring snow pack and poor soil 

drainage. A change in climate about 5,000 years ago may be considered a predisposing 

factor as a shift to a cool and wet climate initiated peat development and poorer drainage 

(Hennon et al. 2012).

The 2010 Forest Health Conditions in Alaska report indicates that the Big Thorne project 

area has cumulative yellow cedar decline mainly in higher elevations with the heaviest 

concentrations on the west half of the project area and a strip along the eastern coastline. 

The walk-through stand exams within the Big Thorne unit pool indicate the heaviest 

concentrations south of the Thorne Bay to Control Lake highway. Areas with extensive 

decline are typically within lower productivity forest lands on slopes less than 25 percent. 

These areas have low site index, poor soils and low timber volume per acre which makes 

the majority unsuitable for timber production (Forest Health Report 2007).

Yellow cedar decline is estimated to be occurring on about 40,000 acres in the Thorne 

Bay Ranger District on Prince of Wales Island, an increase of approximately 5,500 acres 

from the 2004 survey. The cumulative mapping of yellow cedar decline indicates around 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-409

11,000 acres within the Big Thorne project area alone as of 2010 (Forest Health Reports 

2004-2010). Current PCT activities in the Big Thorne project area and across Prince of 

Wales Island are favoring the retention of yellow cedar. This is expected to increase the 

amount of yellow cedar in future stands.

Environmental Consequences

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for timber and vegetation resources are estimated 

using quantifiable measures or indicators for actual effects, as appropriate. The analysis 

area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the project area. The level (magnitude 

and intensity) of effects are also assessed in terms of how widespread the effect is likely to 

be and how long it is likely to last. The effects of timber harvest on forest vegetation vary 

by silvicultural prescription and the number of acres harvested by prescription. The 

following provides a discussion of effects related to the various components of the timber 

resources including stand structure, forest health and productivity, regeneration and 

species composition, and windthrow risk. Silvicultural Systems and Prescriptions

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

for the purpose of meeting pre-determined objectives. Silvicultural systems have been 

developed to produce more valuable commercial timber at a faster rate, maintain wildlife 

habitat, and either maintain or enhance scenery values. No single silvicultural system for 

a forest stand can be used to achieve all the desired combinations of amenities and 

products. Instead, a variety of treatments applied over a project area results in a mosaic of 

stands for different uses. Through the harvest of timber or other treatments, such as 

thinning or pruning, existing stands are altered by proposed management actions.

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines and USDA FSM 2400 (Timber Management) 

provide detailed information about three silvicultural systems recommended for the 

Tongass National Forest. Even-aged management results in the conversion of mature 

stands to faster growing stands of a single age. It generally includes clearcutting, seed 

tree, and shelterwood. Two-aged management results in a seedling stand with varying 

levels of older-aged residual trees. It includes clearcutting with reserves, seed tree with 

reserves, and shelterwood with reserves. Uneven-aged management results in a stand of 

younger trees interspersed with older trees, either in clumps or distributed across the 

stand. Uneven-aged systems include single-tree selection, group selection, and group

selection with reserves. 

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 Big Thorne project uses even-aged management and uneven-aged management 

silvicultural systems. The criteria used to select the appropriate silvicultural system for 

each unit include the following:

 Forest Plan LUDs;

 Standards and Guidelines requirements;

 Operational feasibility (possible logging systems);
3 Environment and Effects

3-410 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Economics;

 Windthrow hazard (the presence of tree and stand attributes determining 

windthrow potential);

 Stand conditions (diseases and decay fungi); and

 Regeneration potential

In addition, the following site-specific objectives were considered as well:

 Obtaining favorable timber sale economics and logging feasibility.

 Retaining old-growth characteristics to maintain biodiversity.

 Protecting scenery, wildlife habitat, soil, or watershed, characteristics.

 Maximizing wood-fiber production for future human use.

Silvicultural prescriptions provide guidance through the entire rotation including natural 

regeneration certification, thinning, and monitoring. A complete silvicultural prescription 

has been written for the entire length of the rotation for each unit selected for harvest. 

These are designed to address site-specific conditions within the treatment area. For 

example, RMAs with concerns for watershed stream channel stability and windthrow 

potential have been identified and would have trees retained in expanded reasonable 

assurance of windfirmness (RAW) buffers as needed. The size and configuration of the 

RAW buffer would be determined during unit layout by an interdisciplinary team as 

identified in the unit cards. In some cases, RAW buffers are accomplished through unit 

design or silvicultural system. Another example is the prescription of wind firmness for 

visual buffers that are to be established in clearcut units along visual priority routes.

Silvicultural prescriptions sometimes vary by alternative in order to address the different 

management objectives being analyzed in the range of alternatives. These differences in 

alternatives are driven by issues identified during the scoping process for this project. For 

example, a harvest unit may be planned for even-aged management under an alternative 

emphasizing the maximum timber harvest from the project area or uneven-aged 

management under an alternative using helicopter yarding methods to minimize road 

impacts and retain forest structure in alternatives emphasizing wildlife or watershed 

issues. In most cases, the silvicultural prescription for a treatment area remains the same 

between the different alternatives. Table TBR-3 shows acres by silvicultural system and 

the regeneration method for each alternative.

Even‐aged System

Under this system, clearcutting would be prescribed and 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, and provide favorable timber sale harvest 

economics and logging feasibility. Stands would regenerate into a mostly single-aged 

stand.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-411

Table TBR-3. Silvicultural System and Prescription Acres by Alternative and Yarding 

System

Silvicultural System, 

Prescription, and Alternative

Number of 

Units1/

Acres Treated

Total

Cable or 

Ground Helicopter

Even-Aged Management:

 Alternative 2 151 4,232 3,301 931

 Alternative 3 217 5,786 4,312 1,474

 Alternative 4 76 1,899 1,389 510

 Alternative 5 143 3,941 1,794 2,148

Uneven-Aged Management:

 Alternative 2 16 711 15 696

 Alternative 3 22 1,123 15 1,108

 Alternative 4 58 2,324 474 1,849

 Alternative 5 22 1,070 0 1,070

1/ Note that some units have more than one prescription.

Areas where merchantable-sized trees are retained for resource protection requirements 

are generally external to final cutting unit boundaries or are along stream zones that 

protrude into the cutting unit. Reasonable Assurance of Windfirmness (RAW) buffers

may also be applied to unit edges or stream and visual buffers that are determined to be at 

risk for wind damage after harvest. 

VCUs that have had concentrated past timber harvest activity and are at risk for not 

providing the full range of Forest Plan matrix functions are subject to the Legacy Standard 

and Guideline. These VCUs are identified by the Forest Plan. The Big Thorne project 

area includes seven VCUs with both proposed harvest and legacy requirements, out of 15 

total VCUs with proposed harvest in the project area. In legacy VCUs, harvest units with 

openings that are larger than 20 acres are required to leave 30 percent of the original unit 

opening size based on the LSTA boundary prior to field verification in legacy forest 

structure. Structure left inside of the unit for other resource concerns, excluding TTRA 

buffers, can be counted towards the 30 percent retention requirement (Forest Plan, page 4-

90). 

Legacy retention areas were identified and allocated in areas that were subject to other 

resource concerns where possible. RMAs, probable RAW areas, areas with unstable soils, 

and visual buffers were often identified as legacy. Areas with high wildlife habitat values, 

sensitive plant populations, and areas with higher logging difficulty and cost were also 

allocated to meet the legacy forest structure retention requirements. Adjustment to the 

planned legacy locations may occur during implementation to best implement multiple 

objectives.

Within even-aged harvest areas, natural regeneration is expected to be abundant and 

represent approximately the original species composition of the stand. Additional 

silvicultural treatments that follow harvest may include tree planting, PCT, girdling and/or 

pruning. These treatments can be used to influence species composition, increase 

individual tree growth, promote wood quality and enhance wildlife habitat. These 

activities will most likely be completed between 15-35 years after harvest. 

NFMA regulations provide that 100 acres is the maximum size of created openings 

allowed for the forest types of coastal Alaska, unless specific conditions exist (see Timber
3 Environment and Effects

3-412 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

and Silviculture Resource Report; Barnhart and Hitner 2012). The 2008 Forest Plan, page 

4-72, defines these conditions. With Forest Supervisor approval, where it is determined 

by environmental analysis that exceptions to the size limit are warranted, the actual size of 

openings may total 150 acres if increased unit size will produce more desirable benefits.

One proposed opening in this project exceeds 100 acres. Unit 71 is 103 acres in 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 and represents a long, relatively narrow unit with a maximum 

width of about 1,200 feet. Reconstruction of the road through the unit is necessary to 

access additional units beyond Unit 71. This road is planned for storage following 

harvest. Harvesting this timber now would reduce the cost and minimize the effects on 

closing and reopening the road at a later date. Therefore, the unit meets the criteria for 

exceeding 100 acres.

Justification for Clearcutting: Even-aged clearcutting is being prescribed in the Big 

Thorne project area to preclude or minimize the risk of post-harvest windthrow, promote 

natural regeneration, minimize logging damage, improve site productivity through 

increased soil temperature, and minimize defect and disease in the future stand to the 

maximum extent possible (Forest Plan, page 4-72).

Uneven-aged System

This prescription usually involves more intensive management than even-aged 

prescriptions. There is no final rotation age as in even-aged systems but instead regular, 

periodic entries designed to maintain three or more distinct age classes and a range of 

diameter classes in a reasonably well dispersed manner across the stand. This results in a 

stand of high structural diversity due to the high variability in tree sizes and individual tree 

characteristics. Trees may be removed individually, or in small groups or narrow 

corridors generally 2 acres or less in area. The goal of uneven-aged management is to 

economically harvest a percentage of the stand while retaining timber for future 

economically viable and sustainable entries. The next harvest under uneven-aged 

management would likely be in 50 to 100 years. This prescription would regenerate an 

uneven-aged stand (a stand with at least three age classes) by partial harvest in areas 

specified for this prescription. This silvicultural system is the least effective for reducing 

the distribution of and minimizing the loss of timber volume associated with dwarf 

mistletoe infection and decay fungi.

Single-tree or small group selection is used in units that have an uneven-aged management 

prescription and are utilizing a helicopter logging system. Helicopter yarding has been 

proposed to reduce road construction and associated costs, reduce the impact harvest 

activities might have on watersheds and wildlife, and also meet objectives for scenery. 

Uneven-aged management would be achieved by leaving either approximately 50 or 75

percent of the setting pretreatment basal area, based on standing live trees left uncut.

Healthy, young trees in the intermediate crown class would be a priority for retention to 

promote economic future entries. Older trees with low timber, but high wildlife value 

would also be a priority for retention. The canopy gaps and disturbance created by 

harvest of the remaining trees would promote new tree regeneration to facilitate future 

harvest entries as well as promote the growth of understory plants important for wildlife. 

A retention level of 75 percent is used in units that were identified as having particular 

windthrow, wildlife, or visual concerns. A retention level of 50 percent was used in units 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-413

with wildlife or visual concerns, but not requiring the higher level of retention. Future 

entries would continue the process of developing additional age classes. The next entry 

would likely occur in 50 years for units with 75 percent retention, and 100 years for units 

with 50 percent retention. This would allow the intermediate age class to develop into 

mature trees and provide for another economical harvest. The silvicultural prescription 

would maximize the flexibility of helicopter yarding to allow for the removal of a higher 

percentage of more economically valuable trees, while retaining a higher percentage of 

trees that have higher value for wildlife, or smaller diameter trees that would be more

economically valuable in the future.

Group selection is used in units where uneven-aged management is the preferred 

prescription, and the unit is operationally feasible for conventional logging systems. 

Group selection involves removing trees in small groups, up to 2 acres in size, well 

dispersed through the stand. It is used in conjunction with conventional logging systems 

because it allows sufficient room for the equipment to operate; however, helicopter 

yarding is used with this prescription in some settings where economics prohibited road 

construction to allow conventional logging systems to be used. Uneven-aged 

management would be achieved by leaving approximately 67 percent of the setting 

pretreatment area, based on standing live trees left uncut. Intermediate trees would also 

be retained, and canopy gaps created would allow for increased understory regeneration. 

The next entry would likely occur in 50 to 100 years, when another 33 percent removal 

would occur in small groups. This prescription would allow for a more economical 

harvest by allowing conventional logging systems to be used with uneven-aged 

management, which often has lower yarding costs than helicopter logging systems. The 

larger openings associated with this prescription may result in a better mixture of shade 

tolerant and intolerant regeneration than with single tree or small group selection.

Intermediate Treatments – Young Growth Units

There are approximately 2,600 acres of young-growth stands within the Big Thorne 

project area that are proposed for intermediate commercial thinning treatments. All of 

these proposed units are anticipated to be age 50 or older at the time of harvest. The 

objectives of these treatments are to improve stand composition, health, value, and 

growth. Stand value includes both wildlife habitat value as well as future timber value. 

The objectives of the intermediate treatments will vary depending upon where they fall in 

the landscape (high-value deer winter range, or upper slopes). No treatments are being 

proposed in the RMA and beach fringe.. Logging system capabilities will also be a 

consideration when selecting the intermediate treatment prescription for a stand (ground, 

uphill cable, or downhill cable). No helicopter logging is proposed due to the high 

logging costs, and subsequently poor overall economics. Timber volume removed from 

areas available for timber harvest during these treatments will count towards the allowable 

sale quantity (ASQ). An exception is 70 acres of thinning under Alternative 3 and 105 

acres of thinning under Alternative 4 that would occur in Old Growth Habitat LUD. The 

volume derived from OGRs would not contribute to the ASQ.

The timing of the majority of the young-growth treatments most likely will be during the 

second half of the implementation of the Big Thorne project. The approximate 5-year 

delay in timing will 1) allow the stands to continue to grow, which will increase thinning 
3 Environment and Effects

3-414 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

removal volumes and improve thinning economics; 2) allow the industry time to gear up 

with equipment suitable for completing the thinning treatments; and 3) allow more time 

for small log markets to develop for local utilization of the wood.

Export market conditions could have a significant effect on the economics of younggrowth treatments. Export markets were fairly strong in 2011, and are expected to persist 

with fluctuations into the future. The conditions of these markets at the time of 

implementation could greatly impact the young-growth treatments at that time. The 

development of more domestic small log markets could reduce some of the dependence on 

export, and serve to stabilize the long-term market conditions. 

The management goal of young-growth treatments in the Big Thorne project area is to 

produce an industrial wood supply while improving wildlife habitat in treated stands, 

improve stand growth and vigor, and aid in the transition to young-growth focused 

equipment and markets. The removal of an industrial wood supply would help meet the 

timber supply objectives of this project, as well allow value to be captured from wood lost 

to mortality. The density of trees in the treated young-growth stands would be reduced by 

uniform or systematic thinning. The resulting stands with more open canopies and more 

widely spaced conifers would be healthy and growing at optimum rates to produce forest 

products and more abundant and diverse understories, providing improved winter forage 

conditions for deer. Thinning would help to reduce the homogeneous stand structure, and 

to modify the stand to impart a trajectory towards a landscape that more closely mimics 

the historical stand structure. These treatments would create healthier stands that would 

have more sustainable stand growth, and would allow for more long-term flexibility in 

wood supply. The alder component would be minimal, but would be present (until 

succession converts it to conifers) for habitat diversity; conifers would be released where 

they are being suppressed. 

It is desired that at the end of the planned rotation, stands would be in a condition that 

regeneration harvests using even-aged, two-aged, or uneven-aged silvicultural systems are 

feasible and appropriate. Stands should have live crown ratios of 30 percent or higher and 

height-to-diameter ratios of less than 90 in order to be suitable for partial cutting. In 

addition, it is desired that the stands mature at different rates or have flexible rotation 

lengths so that harvests can be spread out and contribute to an even-flow, long-term 

sustained yield. This would also contribute to a greater mix of age classes and deer forage 

conditions following the next rotation. 

The IDT has identified two different types of intermediate treatments to be conducted in 

project area young-growth units: a uniform crown thin and a systematic thin. . Unit-level 

silvicultural prescriptions are being developed and will be approved by a Region 10 Forest 

Service–certified silviculturist to meet the objectives identified by the IDT. 

Uniform Crown Thin Treatment

Young-growth units planned for this treatment will be at least 50 years of age at the time 

of the treatment. The objectives of these treatments are to:

 Increase diameter-growth rate of remaining crop trees.

 Create temporary canopy gaps to increase light to the forest floor and promote 

crown expansion.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-415

 Improve tree characteristics that promote windfirmness possibly allowing future 

partial harvests.

 Reduce the effects of stem exclusion stage on wildlife winter forage and habitat.

 Remove poor quality trees from the upper and middle crown to favor the best 

codominant and dominant trees.

 Provide a volume of merchantable product in a manner that is operationally and 

economically feasible.

Logging systems used for this treatment will be ground-based and cable thinning. The 

majority of the cable thinning will be uphill yarding with narrow skyline corridors cut to a 

width between 12 and 16 feet. This treatment is only used in downhill cable yarding 

settings where full suspension of the logs can be achieved, which occur in Units 550 and 

551. 

The uniform thin treatment is being used with a “crown thinning” treatment where most 

cut trees will consist of poor quality trees from the middle and upper crown. High quality

dominant and codominant trees will be retained with the exception of trees that need to be 

removed for yarding corridors and skid trails. In general, neither Sitka spruce nor western 

hemlock would be favored and the spruce/hemlock leave trees would be the most vigorous 

individuals. Cedars and red alder would generally be retained within the leave areas. 

These treatments would result in stands which typically have between 100 and 135 trees 

per acre that are 8 inches diameter at breast height and larger.

Skips or thickets will be left where logging system difficulties occur, in portions of stands 

where windthrow risk is expected to be unacceptable after thinning, and in any areas 

where wildlife dens or nest sites are found. Gaps might occur where cable corridors come 

together at landings or other areas where extra room is needed to facilitate yarding or to 

meet wildlife or other objectives.

Systematic Thin Treatment

Young-growth units planned for this treatment will be at least 50 years of age at the time 

of the treatment. The objectives of these treatments are to:

 Increase diameter-growth rate of remaining crop trees.

 Create side lighting and temporary canopy gaps in leave corridor to increase light 

to the forest floor and promote crown expansion.

 Increase stand diversity by creating early seral conditions in cut corridors.

 Provide a volume of merchantable product in a manner that is operationally and 

economically feasible.

 Remove poor quality codominant and dominant trees.

Although uniform thinning is the preferred treatment, systematic thinning may be used to 

reduce residual tree damage, allow operational feasibility, or reduce treatment costs. 

Systematic thinning would primarily be used in cable settings with downhill yarding that 

are unable to achieve full suspension. Systematic thinning for this project would remove 

all merchantable trees within a 20- to 60-foot-wide corridor. The corridor width would 
3 Environment and Effects

3-416 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

depend on operational feasibility, visual concerns, and/or windthrow risk. Where visuals 

or windthrow are of concern, harvested corridors may be limited to a width of 20 feet. A 

60- to 120-foot-wide corridor would be retained between each harvested corridor. The 

retention corridor would be thinned where operationally feasible. Typically the trees 

removed from the leave areas would be within 50 feet of the edge of a corridor cut and the 

cut trees would consist of primarily low quality codominant and dominant trees. At least 

approximately 50 percent of the setting pretreatment basal area would be retained, 

including what is removed in the corridors.

The density of trees in these young-growth stands would be reduced by some thinning, but 

primarily by corridor cutting. The resulting stands, with more open canopies and more 

widely spaced conifers, would be healthy and growing at optimum rates to produce forest 

products, and would produce more abundant and diverse understories providing improved 

winter forage conditions for deer. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Forest Structure

Alternative 1

No new harvest activity would occur under Alternative 1. Old-growth stands would 

remain in a predominantly Old-growth condition. Small-scale, frequent disturbance 

events resulting from disease and decay would continue in these stands. At some point in 

the future it is expected that some stands in the project area would experience larger-scale 

damage from a severe storm event, leading to the regeneration of the stands in what would 

likely be a two-aged or possibly, in an extreme case, an even-aged condition. 

No commercial thinning would occur in young-growth stands. Based on stand modeling, 

young-growth stands without commercial thinning, and particularly those without PCT

treatments, would grow through a period of extended stem exclusion before gradually 

developing a more complex stand structure where understory plants return. Without 

commercial thinning, young growth stands will be prone to develop tall thin trees with 

short crowns that have little weather resistance, limiting future rotational harvest options 

to primarily the even-aged system. The Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) 

is estimated to be reached at 95 to 105 years old for stands with no previous PCT, and at 

approximately 120 years old for stands that had previous PCT. In most stands where 

commercial thinning does not occur, stem exclusion structure would dominate most of the 

entire rotation. Untreated stands will reach CMAI at a younger age and then see a 

decrease in growth rate.

This alternative would not meet many of the young-growth stand structure objectives. 

Stands would remain in a relatively homogeneous stand structure, and there would be no 

opportunity to modify the stand structure to achieve a more diverse landscape that more 

closely mimics historical stand structure. Leaving the young-growth stands in their 

current state would also cause diminished productivity and stand health, and decrease the

flexibility for future timber supply and harvest options.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-417

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Old-growth Harvest

The structure of the forest would be changed by timber harvest under all of the action 

alternatives. The change would vary by alternative based on the silvicultural prescription 

and the number of acres harvested. 

Even-aged Management:

Where even-aged management is prescribed, harvest would result in the creation of 

relatively homogenous young-growth stands primarily without any older residual trees 

present within the boundary. The new stands would naturally grow through a number of 

structural changes in the future, beginning with a brushy stage where tree regeneration is 

becoming established and understory plants flourish. This stage would be followed by a 

period of stem exclusion where inter-tree competition shades out the understory. After 

that the stand would enter a stage where tree mortality opens growing space and an 

understory, as well as some old-growth characteristics return. The time that any younggrowth forest spends in any structural stage would be dependent on the natural growing 

capability of the land and any future treatments that are applied, such as thinning.

Uneven-aged Management:

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed, numerous residual trees would be left, 

mainly dispersed across the stands. Small openings, up to 2 acres in size, may occur. The 

number of trees would depend on the amount of retention. Retention of 50 percent of the 

live basal area is planned for low and moderate wind risk areas. Retention of 75 percent 

live basal area is planned for high windthrow potential stands, as well as some stands with 

wildlife or scenery concerns. There is no final rotation age as in even-aged systems but 

instead regular, periodic entries designed to maintain three or more distinct age classes 

and a range of diameter classes in a reasonably well dispersed manner across the stand. 

This results in a stand of high structural diversity due to the high variability in tree sizes 

and individual tree characteristics. The next harvest under uneven-aged management 

would likely be in about 50 to 100 years. 

In the 50 percent retention areas, the stand structure would be expected to change from 

old-growth to a structure similar to what is naturally seen when stands are transitioning 

between understory re-initiation and old-growth. The understory re-initiation stage is the 

structural stage just before a naturally developing stand attains true old-growth structure 

(Oliver and Larson 1996, p.259-275). These stands would have three age classes, 

consisting of residual old-growth trees, residual intermediate and suppressed trees, and the 

understory that would be initiated by opening the canopy. 

Where 75 percent retention is prescribed, it is expected that the structural change postharvest would be only minor and the stand would remain in the old-growth structural 

stage after harvest and through to the next rotation if unaffected by a major natural 

disturbance event.

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

areas, the brushy stage seen after even-aged harvesting would generally not occur. The 

stem exclusion stage would generally not occur to the same magnitude seen in even-age 

stands either. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-418 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

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

should regain old-growth characteristics quickly if unaffected by a major natural 

disturbance event. As noted above, 75 percent retention units, should maintain old-growth 

structure

Where group selection occurs and 67 percent retention is prescribed, understory 

development and tree regeneration would occur rapidly inside the groups or corridors. 

Where 1-acre or larger openings are created, the brushy stage may occur. The majority of 

larger openings may reach a stem exclusion stage in 20 to 25 years after harvest. Within 

unharvested old growth along the edges of these openings, understory re-initiation would 

occur because of increased light. 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 Young-growth Treatment

Where a uniform crown thin prescription is prescribed in young-growth stands, the canopy 

of the stands would be opened up allowing more light to reach the forest floor. Trees 

would generally be evenly spaced across the stand. The stand structure would be expected 

to change from stem exclusion to more like understory re-initiation. Residual trees would 

receive more direct sunlight and most defective codominant and dominant trees would be 

removed from the stand. 

Understory vegetation would increase for a period of time until the crown of the residual 

trees expanded and closed the canopy again. The heavier the level of thinning, the longer 

the increase in understory vegetation would occur. Some natural regeneration of conifer 

(primarily hemlock) would occur. 

The diameter growth on dominant and codominant trees would increase. Epicormic 

branching would likely occur to some extent on the Sitka spruce but is expected to be 

minimal. 

The culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) and the 95 percent CMAI would be 

achieved, on average, approximately 5 to10 years later than in an untreated stand (Tetra 

Tech and Stuntzner 2011). Figure TBR-3 shows how the percent of CMAI is expected to 

change over time after the treatment. The growth rate will temporarily be less than the 

untreated stands due to trees being removed; however, the rate increases and maintains 

over time, while the untreated stands see a significant decrease in growth after 

approximately age 110. 

Where a systematic thin prescription is prescribed in young-growth stands, the canopy of 

the stands would be opened up, allowing more light to reach the forest floor. There would 

be a mosaic of stand structures including small openings with understory initiation,

thinned stands with understory re-initiation, and unthinned stands in stem exclusion. 

Understory vegetation would increase for a period of time within the corridor cuts and 

along the edges of the corridors. Natural regeneration of conifer would occur within the 

corridor cut (likely proportional to the corridor width) and, to a lesser extent, on each side 

of the corridor cut. In 20 to 25 years, it is expected that the corridor-cut areas would enter 

a stem exclusion stage as the regeneration developed without any further treatment to 

control stand density. These corridors could be pre-commercially thinned at this time.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-419

Direct and Indirect Effects on Forest Health and Productivity

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1 no new timber harvest is planned. It is expected that forest growth 

would continue to be offset by decay. Insect and disease processes would persist at 

approximately current levels but due to the general lack of thrift, the forest remains at risk 

and vulnerable to insect and disease attack. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe, where present, 

would remain in the stand and may infect hemlock stems that regenerate in the gaps 

adjacent to infected overstory trees.

No commercial thinning of young-growth would occur in the project area. These stands 

would remain in a stem exclusion stage. The relatively small spacing between each tree 

causes stress that would allow for insects and diseases to more easily spread, and the 

productivity of the stand would be less than its potential due to this overcrowding. There 

would also be a forfeiture of any opportunity to remove trees with high amounts of defect, 

such as hemlock fluting. These trees may out-compete nearby trees with little defect, 

reducing the economic potential for future harvest.

There would be no noticeable increase or decrease in the productivity of the stand for the

production of timber products except that stands that were never pre-commercially 

thinned would have significantly fewer merchantable sized stems at potential rotation age. 

Abundance of non-merchantable stems reduces the economic feasibility of harvesting and 

decreases the opportunity for a future timber supply. At some point in the future it is 

expected that some stands in the project area would experience larger-scale damage from 

a severe storm event, leading to the regeneration of those stands. Diseases present in trees 

that remain standing would likely infect the new stand to some degree.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Old-growth Harvest

Where even-aged management is prescribed, the productivity of the stand for timber 

production would be maximized. The risk of insect, disease, and decay within the newly 

established growing timber crop would be minimized. The new trees that regenerate after 

even-aged treatments would be vigorous and free from decay. The insect and disease 

processes at work in the stands previous to harvest, including hemlock dwarf mistletoe, 

would be mostly eliminated.

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed, forest health concerns can be used as 

factors to determine which trees to harvest. An attempt would be made to remove the 

trees that pose the greatest risk to the health of the new stand, but it would have to be 

balance with maintaining an economic sale, as well as meeting wildlife objectives. Due to 

the amount of disease and decay found within the old-growth stands proposed for harvest 

and constraints for visuals, economics, and wind risk, it is unlikely that all or even a 

significant proportion of the trees with disease and decay would be removed. Productivity 

of these stands would be reduced in proportion to the amount of old trees that remain and 

occupy growing space.

In uneven-aged management stands, and in single-tree selection areas in particular, there 

would be a risk of the new stands being infected with the same diseases and decays 

present in the stands at harvest. This risk would generally be proportional to the amount 

of basal area retained. Decay organisms would be transferred between trees when decay-
3 Environment and Effects

3-420 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

ridden trees fall and strike adjacent healthy trees either during harvesting operations or 

during weather events post-harvest. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe would remain in the stand 

and likely infect the hemlock regeneration even with selection criteria favoring the 

removal of infected overstory trees first. The larger old trees retained for wildlife would 

be of low vigor. These trees are not expected to grow or change in any way as a result of 

the growing space created by harvest. These trees would occupy space and restrict the 

regeneration of new trees.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Young-growth Treatment 

Where a uniform crown thin or systematic corridor thin prescription is used in younggrowth stands, stresses on trees due to overcrowding would be reduced. Trees would be 

better spaced, and individual trees that exhibit signs of disease or decay would be a 

priority for removal. Commercial thinning requires careful planning and implementation 

to avoid bole wounding and root damage to the residual crop trees. Some trees would

likely be injured regardless. These wounds may attract insects such as bark beetles, and 

would be places for decay organisms to enter the tree. When conducted correctly, 

commercial thinning would promote stand health and disease resistance long term by 

removing any diseased trees and opening growing space that reduced competition stress 

and mortality. Uniform thinning treatment would carry a greater risk for residual tree 

injury compared to systematic thinning. Stand mortality caused by overcrowding would 

decrease in the thinned portion of the stand. Stands are expected to be more resistant to 

insect and disease infestation. However, injuries to trees resulting from thinning 

operations, particularly in the uniform thin, could make some trees more susceptible to 

insects and disease. Stand volumes at harvest age would likely decrease, but tree 

diameters would be larger and trees would be more resistant to windthrow. Wildlife 

habitat value of the stand would increase due to increases in understory vegetation.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Regeneration and Species Composition

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, no harvest would occur. Openings in the forest canopy would be 

created by windthrow and trees falling as a result of decay. Hemlock regeneration would 

have a competitive advantage over other species when small openings in the canopy 

occur. At some point in the future, it is expected that some stands in the project area 

would suffer larger scale damage from a severe storm event, leading to the regeneration of 

those stands. Regeneration would likely be prolific with species composition similar to 

the former stand. Sitka spruce regeneration may have somewhat of a competitive 

advantage due to soil disturbance from upturned trees. There would be little opportunity 

to redirect where yellow cedar is currently growing to more suitable long-term sites.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Old-growth Harvest

Where even-aged management is prescribed, the resulting tree regeneration is expected to 

be vigorous and representative of the approximate species mix of the former stand. Evenaged management creates conditions that are favorable for tree planting. There would be 

a good opportunity to plant yellow cedar on sites favorable for the long-term survival of 

the species. These sites often occur where yellow cedar does not currently exist, and 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-421

given the slow regeneration of the species, it would be expected to naturally occupy these 

sites very slowly. 

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed, growing space would be limited by the 

retention of overstory trees. Natural regeneration would occur in the stand in satisfactory 

amounts; however, the limited openings in the canopy combined with the low ground 

disturbance of helicopter yarding would favor hemlock regeneration and may limit the 

regeneration of the cedars and spruce. To offset this, the retention of spruce and cedar 

advance regeneration would be important. Additionally, smaller diameter intermediate 

spruce and cedar trees with good vigor would be important to retain (Deal and Tappeiner 

2002). Due to the good species mix and the flexibility of single tree selection and group 

selection in the stands proposed for uneven-aged management, it is unlikely that a 

significant change in species composition would occur. Uneven-aged single tree selection 

does not offer a good opportunity to plant yellow cedar due to the heavy residual canopy 

cover and larger tree competition. Group selection areas would, however, offer a good 

opportunity, particularly where groups are over one acre in size. 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 Young-growth Treatment

Where a uniform thin prescription is used in young-growth stands, minor changes to 

species composition may occur. In general, neither Sitka spruce nor western hemlock 

would be favored and the spruce/hemlock leave trees would be the most vigorous 

individuals, although individual stand prescriptions may vary based on site specific stand 

characteristics. Cedars and red alder would generally be retained as much as possible 

within the leave areas. Because Sitka spruce often represents the most vigorous and less 

defective trees in the stand, it may be selected for retention more frequently than western 

hemlock.

Where a systematic thin prescription is used in young-growth stands, no significant 

changes to species composition is expected. Trees removed within the corridors would be 

representative of the species composition of the entire stand. Trees thinned from the 

matrix near the corridors would be removed as a uniform crown thin, and may cause only 

slight changes to species composition as described in the uniform thin prescription.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Windthrow Risk

Alternative 1

Under the No-action Alternative, stands would remain in a predominantly old-growth 

condition. Small-scale, frequent disturbance events would continue in the stand until a 

large-scale event occurs. The inherent windthrow risk within stands would not change 

appreciably.

No commercial thinning would occur in this alternative. Because of overcrowding, trees 

would generally have a high height to diameter ratio, which would decrease their longterm resistance to windthrow. In the short term, the stand would maintain its dense 

structure, which decreases the intensity of wind within the stand.
3 Environment and Effects

3-422 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Old-growth Harvest

Where even-aged management is prescribed, windthrow risk would be eliminated within 

the harvest unit by the removal of all large trees (Table TBR-4). The future young-growth 

stands created would typically be more windfirm than the old-growth stands they replace.

Exposed stand edges would, however, have increased risk of windthrow in the first few 

years after harvest due to the adjacent opening. In units where windthrow risk has been

determined to be of concern (Table TBR-4), specific measures have been prescribed in the 

unit cards to reduce or minimize windthrow risk adjacent to unit edges or along stream 

buffers that protrude into the harvest opening.

Table TBR-4. Pre-Harvest Wind Risk Rating by Silvicultural System and Alternative 

(acres)

Silvicultural System 

and Prescription Wind Risk Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Uneven-Aged with 25% 

Removal

High 375 651 375 441

Moderate 13 22 381 155

Low 0 0 36 0

Uneven-Aged with 33% 

Removal (Group and 

Corridor Cuts)

High 0 0 79 0

Moderate 0 0 447 0

Low 15 15 119 0

Uneven-Aged with 50% 

Removal

High1/ 0 45 86 28

Moderate 215 300 656 265

Low 88 88 145 181

Even-Aged 

Management Clearcut

High 917 1,572 627 775

Moderate 2,809 3,396 1,001 2,529

Low 838 818 271 637

1/ Acreage with high wind risk in stands prescribed for uneven-aged management with 50% removal represent settings 

with lower wind risk that were carved out of larger units with high wind risk ratings. 

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed, the basal area retention requirements were 

increased to offset the potential for blowdown in high windthrow risk areas. As a result, it 

is expected that wind risk would remain approximately the same as in the stand prior to 

harvest. Monitoring results from the Alternatives to Clearcutting Study, 5 years postharvest in wind-prone areas, reveal approximately 5 percent loss of basal area with the 75 

percent basal area retention prescription (McClellan 2007). Based on these results, only 

minor amounts of windthrow are expected to occur following harvest within proposed 

uneven-aged management units with high windthrow risk.

A mostly unbroken, continuous canopy would remain after harvest in 75 percent retention 

uneven-aged management units. This would reduce the risk of windthrow along unit 

edges and adjacent to stream buffers that protrude into the harvest area. In most cases, the 

uneven-aged prescription would eliminate the need for additional windfirming treatments 

in RAW zones.

In all even-aged harvest areas, RMAs that have stream channel stability concerns and 

potential for windthrow were evaluated for RAW. Those RMAs determined to be at risk 

will be reviewed in the field once preliminary unit boundaries are in place. The specific 

windfirming prescription for that RMA would be determined at that time.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Timber and Vegetation ▪ 3-423

The regenerated even-aged management stands in current high to moderate wind risk 

areas are expected to be low risk after conversion to even-aged stands. The lower wind 

risk in these stands is expected to last through the next rotation (approximately 100 years 

in the future).

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Young-growth Treatment 

Where young-growth thinning occurs, windthrow risk would increase immediately after 

harvest; however, over time, the windfirmness of the stand would increase significantly 

compared with unthinned stands. This is a result of the lower height-diameter ratios and 

higher crown ratios in the stand at rotation age, making it more windfirm, especially if 

partial harvest is desired. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects is the entire Big Thorne project area. The 

following are the only activities expected to have cumulative effects to forest vegetation.

 Continued micro-sales from the Roadside EA that will occur throughout the 

project area along existing roads;

 Firewood cutting and free use wood removal along existing and proposed roads;

 Continued PCT throughout the project area;

 Completion of the Control Lake project in the southwestern portion of the project 

area; and

 About 600 acres of harvest during the next 5 years on adjacent State lands east and 

south of Thorne Bay.

The Big Thorne project area (including non-NFS lands) has approximately 49,546 acres of 

young growth resulting from timber harvest and originating mostly from even-aged 

harvesting. Large-scale timber harvest in the project area began around 1953 and peaked 

about 45 years ago. The State of Alaska plans to harvest approximately 600 acres of old 

growth using even-aged management within the next 5 years and about 350 unharvested 

acres from the Control Lake project that remains could be harvested. Most of this harvest 

would result in the creation of even-aged forests in addition to that proposed in the Big 

Thorne project. 

Slight changes in species composition in the project area may occur as a result of harvest 

operations and follow up treatments such as pre-commercial and commercial thinning. It 

is expected that Sitka spruce would occur at slightly higher levels than in the former stand 

due to the excellent regeneration of this species under even-aged management and 

favoring of this species for crop trees during thinning operations. Conversely, the 

hemlock component would likely be reduced in proportion to the amount of Sitka spruce 

in the stand. Hemlock is not considered a favorable crop tree but is usually well 

represented due to the high numbers of stems available. Both cedar species are expected 

to be represented in amounts slightly above or approximately the same as their current 

levels. Planting of Alaska yellow cedar may be used when necessary (as determined by 

the District Silviculturist) to maintain its composition in the stand or group of stands and 

reduce the effects of yellow cedar decline. Scattered windthrow has occurred along 
3 Environment and Effects

3-424 ▪ Timber and Vegetation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

exposed stand boundaries after past harvest and recent road reconstruction activities. No 

effort to buffer or stabilize these exposed boundaries was made. Older, exposed stand 

boundaries have stabilized naturally and recently created edges along the new road 

construction are expected to stabilize also. Where abrupt stand edges are created, either 

by timber harvest or road construction, some blowdown would occur. Efforts to minimize 

blowdown are incorporated in the prescriptions but would not completely eliminate it. 

Large-scale wind events that significantly modify large areas of old-growth stand structure 

in the project area may occur in the future regardless of the alternative selected. If events 

of this magnitude do occur, it is unlikely that measures to assure reasonable windfirmness 

of stands edges or stream buffers proposed by this project will be effective.

Micro-sales, firewood cutting, and Free Use sawtimber removal will likely occur along 

existing and proposed roads. Any openings created by removal of these trees would be 

small and would likely have effects similar to uneven-aged management, single-tree 

selection timber harvests.

Not all previous harvest areas contain trees 5 feet tall or greater, and therefore do not meet 

NFMA adjacency requirements. These prior harvest areas are still considered openings 

for the purposes of scheduling or locating additional created openings (Forest Plan, p. 4-

72). Previous harvest unit acreage that did not meet these requirements was added to any 

adjacent planned harvest unit acreage to ensure that the NFMA maximum opening size 

was not exceeded. These previous harvest units have not met NFMA requirements 

because they are recent harvests. These stands are growing and may meet the NFMA 

adjacency requirements by the time of implementation.

Future PCT would provide an opportunity to maintain stand growth and productivity, 

improve windfirmness, alter species composition, and promote or maintain understory 

vegetation growth. PCT of even-aged young growth stands would occur across the Big 

Thorne project area into the future. Currently, there are a total of approximately 12,300 

acres that are expected to need PCT over the next 10 years (M. Sheets 2011). About 

1,500 acres of young growth has received NEPA clearing and is currently planned for 

PCT over the next 5 years in the Big Thorne project area (B. Case, Young Growth 

Coordinator-Silviculture, personal communication, October 2011). 

Prescriptions would be developed to manage for multiple resource values with spacing of 

leave trees based on site-specific objectives. Prescriptions would maintain a minimum 10-

foot buffer adjacent to streams and would often maintain unthinned travel corridors for 

deer and legacy forest structure patches. In non-development LUDs, prescriptions would 

often include creation of gaps and retention of unharvested thickets. These treatments 

may also be considered in development LUDs on a case-by-case basis. Practices for 

retaining and promoting yellow cedar will be incorporated into harvest and thinning 

prescriptions to compensate for the poor regeneration characteristics of the species and 

yellow cedar decline.

These future actions, when combined with any of the action alternatives, would result in 

greater structural diversity of forest stands in the project area and should have negligible 

overall effects on species composition. As noted under Direct and Indirect Effects, they 

should have beneficial effects on forest health and productivity.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-425

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Transportation

Introduction

National Forest Transportation System roads are constructed to provide access to 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 (see Chapter 4 for a glossary with transportation terms). 

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. 

The NFS roads in the analysis area were originally built for logging and the associated 

administration, though incidental recreational and subsistence use occurs throughout the 

area. Road construction in support of logging activities began in the 1960s. Road 

construction peaked during the 1970s and 1980s in support of the pulp mill in Ketchikan. 

This analysis considers the effects of the new construction and reconstruction of roads 

used to access the proposed timber harvest. It also analyzes the status of these roads after 

timber harvest (open or closed). The units used in this report for measuring the effects 

and comparing the alternatives include the following:

 Miles of NFS road construction,

 Miles of temporary road construction,

 Miles of NFS road reconstruction,

 Miles of road to remain open to motorized vehicle traffic,

 Miles of road to be closed associated with these timber harvest activities, and

 Cost including maintenance of open roads, reconstruction, and new (NFS and 

temporary) road construction.

Methodology

The analysis area for the transportation system includes the project area and road 

segments leading into the project area. Roads extending from within the project area and 

terminating outside the project area are also included, as travel within the project area is 

required to reach these road segments. 

Information sources for transportation analysis include the transportation GIS records 

which house the spatial data for road locations. A complete list of road attributes and 

definitions of these attributes is located in the project record. 

The Forest Service has conducted road condition surveys on many of the existing roads in 

the Big Thorne project area. These surveys supply site-specific detailed information about 

each road (and section of road) surveyed as of the date of the survey, including the 

following: 

 Whether the road, or a particular section of the road, is drivable;
3 Environment and Effects

3-426 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Number, size, and condition of drainage structures and bridges;

 Barriers to vehicle access (vegetation, barrier ditches, pulled bridges, slides, etc.);

 Maintenance requirements; and

 Barriers to fish passage through road drainage structures.

This information is used to (1) identify maintenance trends, (2) provide information for 

problem analysis, and (3) set priorities for scheduling and funding work. The detailed 

road condition surveys can be found in the planning record. The majority of the road 

condition surveys within the project area were completed between 1998 and 2002. 

Updates to the road condition survey data on some road segments were completed by the 

Forest Service as recently as 2008.

Proposed new road construction routes were laid out by transportation specialists and field 

reviewed by resource specialists during 2010 and 2011. Specific comments and concerns 

along with site-specific mitigation measures are discussed in the respective resource 

reports and in the road cards for system roads or the unit cards for temporary roads. 

Roads are included or excluded from each alternative based on access needed for the 

alternative and the alternative design criteria. 

Affected Environment 

Forest roads are classified as NFS roads, temporary roads, and unauthorized roads by 36 

CFR 212.1. The definitions for these road types are provided below. 

 National Forest System road: “A forest road other than a road which has been 

authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other 

local public road authority.” NFS roads are generally required to provide longterm or intermittent motor vehicle access. These roads receive constant or 

intermittent use depending upon the timing of the timber harvest(s) and other 

activities. NFS roads form the primary transportation network in the project area. 

When a road is not needed in the short term but future use is anticipated, it is 

closed and placed in storage. 

 Temporary road or trail: “A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or 

authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a 

forest road or trail, and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas.” 

Temporary roads are intended for short-term use and maintained for a limited time 

usually to access a timber harvest unit. Temporary roads are decommissioned 

after a timber harvest. Road decommissioning activities result in the stabilization 

and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state. The term 

“decommissioned roads” generally refers to temporary roads constructed for 

timber harvests that have had stream courses restored, culverts removed, waterbars 

added where needed, and cut and fill slopes re-vegetated. 

 Unauthorized Road or Trail: “A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a 

temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas.” 

These include unplanned roads and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been 

designated and managed as roads or trails. Roads that are no longer under permit 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-427

or authorization and have not been decommissioned are also considered 

unauthorized. 

Road Maintenance and Reconstruction 

The maintenance and reconstruction of the existing system roads depend largely on the 

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

of periodic repairs to an existing road surface, brushing, cleaning, and repairing drainage 

features. Maintenance can include reconditioning the original road template, grading the 

road surface, cleaning roadside ditches, and removing vegetation that may encroach upon 

the road or block vision. 

NFS roads are managed by a system of maintenance levels (ML), depending on their 

intended use and suitability for various types of vehicles. These levels range between ML

1 (closed and in storage), ML 2 (suitable for high-clearance vehicles), ML 3 (suitable for 

passenger vehicles, rough surface), ML 4 (suitable for passenger vehicles, smooth 

surface), and ML 5 (suitable for passenger cars, dust free, possibly paved). Grading and 

other maintenance would generally take place more often on a maintenance level 4 road 

than on a level 3 road, and would be expected to occur less often on a level 2 road. ML 1 

roads are left to a self-maintaining condition that requires little or no maintenance. 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. 

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, 31.12). 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 best management practices, and maintain the existing 

infrastructure for National Forest management activities. The timing of this work may 

coincide with this project's analysis, but is not part of this project. Any effects from 

ongoing road maintenance and reconditioning work are included in the cumulative effects 

analysis for this project. 

Management of NFS roads is dynamic in the sense that roads are given both an 

operational maintenance level (OPML) and an objective maintenance level (OBML). The 

purpose of maintenance levels is to define the level of service provided by, and 

maintenance required for, a specific road or segment. Roads are often built and operated 

at a higher maintenance level during the timber sale or other activities than they are 

afterwards. 

OPML is the maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering current needs,

road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. It defines the level to 

which the road is currently being maintained. It reflects the current condition. 

OBML is the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road 

management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. 

The objective maintenance level may be the same as, or higher or lower than, the 
3 Environment and Effects

3-428 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

operational maintenance level (FSH 7709.58, Sec. 12.3 – Transportation System 

Maintenance Handbook).

Roads can be changed from the OPML status to the designated OBML through a variety 

of activities. Road storage is the most common activity, which redesignates a road from a 

ML 2 to ML 1. This can occur at any time due to the analysis completed in the POW 

Access Travel and Management DN/FONSI and based on resource needs, funding, and 

management direction. 

The current OPML and OBML of NFS roads in the Big Thorne project area are displayed 

in Table TRAN-1.

Table TRAN-1. Big Thorne Analysis Area NFS Roads

Operational Maintenance Objective Maintenance Miles

1 - Basic Custodial Care (Closed) 1-Basic Custodial Care (Closed) 119

2-High Clearance Vehicles 2

D-Decommission 7

2 - High Clearance Vehicles 1-Basic Custodial Care (Closed) 85

2-High Clearance Vehicles 133

3-Suitable For Passenger Cars 1

D-Decommission 10

3 - Suitable For Passenger Cars 2-High Clearance Vehicles 5

3-Suitable For Passenger Cars 67

Total 429

Marine Access Facility 

An MAF is an area used by humans to transfer items from land to saltwater or vice versa, 

that contains a structure such as a mooring buoy, dock, LTF, boat ramp, or a combination 

of these. An LTF is used to transfer logs and timber products from land-based 

transportation forms to water-based transportation forms (or vice-versa). These facilities 

are often used for the movement of equipment needed for logging and road building. 

There are two existing LTFs in or near the Big Thorne project area, one at Coffman Cove 

and one at Thorne Bay. Both are viable options for a timber purchaser to move logs off 

Prince of Wales Island. 

Rock Quarries

There is a need for a rock source during the construction of the new system and temporary 

roads, and reconstruction and maintenance of the existing NFS roads in this project. It is 

preferred that the rock source is close to the site of road construction or maintenance, 

usually within 2 miles. 

There are numerous rock quarries throughout the project area and usually there is one 

within a few miles of the proposed site. The easy accessibility of existing rock quarries 

may eliminate the need to develop some new rock quarries. New rock quarries may be 

developed to support new road construction and road maintenance. Quarry sites would be 

developed within 500 feet of a road and avoid Class I and Class II stream buffers, oldgrowth habitat reserves, eagle and goshawk nest tree buffers, and non-developmental 

LUDs. With either the expansion of an existing quarry or the development of a new site, 

the area footprint would not exceed 5 acres.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-429

Approximately 15 percent (35,074 acres) of the Big Thorne project area is underlain by 

the Descon Formation. The Descon Formation is an Ordovician to Silurian aged black, 

thin-bedded shale and/or chert. Most of the Descon Formation area indicated on the 

geologic map of the Big Thorne project area contains disseminated pyrite. Some shear 

and fault zones within this formation are more heavily mineralized than others. The 

Coffman Cove Road project (a Federal Highways project) utilized a rock source from this 

Formation within a mineralized shear zone for a portion of the construction. The use of 

this pyritic material in the road’s subgrade resulted in the generation of ARD, which 

negatively impacted water quality and aquatic environments downstream of the 

construction. Subsequent testing of the waters above the Coffman Cove Road cleanup

effort showed some metal values exceeding Alaska State Water Quality Standards, 

suggesting that mineralization exists in other zones within the watersheds. Existing Forest 

roads and quarries in this area are constructed from the Descon Formation. It is estimated 

that 254 miles of existing road likely constructed from the Descon Shale exist within the 

project area. It is not known if the material sources used in this construction contained 

mineralization. However, no previous problems have been observed (Jim Baichtal 2011).

Road construction and quarry development within the project area would utilize and 

excavate into the underlying Descon Shale (see individual alternative discussions for 

amount of road built across Descon Shale bedrock). Any existing material source or 

newly developed source within the Descon Formation and used to construct access to the 

proposed harvest areas shall be assessed as to its ARD potential.

Travel Analysis Process 

The desired condition for the forest transportation system is guided in part by 36 CFR 

212.5 - Road System Management. Part b provides guidance for determining the 

minimum road system needed. 

The Travel Analysis Process (TAP), formerly referred to as the Roads Analysis Process 

(RAP), is a tiered, science-based system of analysis. The first tier is the Forest-wide 

Roads Analysis, which is an analysis for the entire Tongass National Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2003). The Forest-wide Roads Analysis provided management recommendations 

for maintenance level (ML) 3, 4, and 5 roads. The second tier, or mid-level tier, is the 

Prince of Wales Roads Analysis, which includes the Big Thorne project area (USDA 

Forest Service 2005). This report details the analysis methods and recommendations for 

travel management for ML 1 and 2 roads on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. 

Copies of these analyses are located in the project record. Combined, these analyses 

recommend road management objectives for all existing NFS roads on Prince of Wales 

Island. Recommendations documented in the Prince of Wales roads analysis, 

supplemented by input from public comment, led to the proposed action developed for the 

ATM for Prince of Wales and surrounding islands (USDA Forest Service 2009).

The third tier is the project-level analysis. The proposed road management objectives 

(RMO) for the project area are included in this analysis. The RMO plan for each 

proposed system road in the project area is also detailed in the road cards of this EIS 

(Appendix C) and those roads selected will become part of the Record of Decision. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-430 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

The Big Thorne travel management plan incorporates the Decision Notice for the Prince 

of Wales ATM (2009). The ATM institutes a system of routes designated for motor 

vehicle use including class of vehicle, and if appropriate, time of year for motor vehicle 

use. The designated route system is shown on a Motor Vehicle Use Map. The map can 

be updated annually and will be adjusted as conditions change. These maps are available 

at the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger District offices. 

Descriptions of Travel Management Designations are as follows:

 Open And Maintain – Maintain open for use by high clearance vehicles; OHV use 

will not be allowed. 

 Open and Maintain with OHV – Maintain open for mixed use by high clearance 

vehicles and OHVs. Engineering suitability study has been conducted prior to 

designation of mixed use on the motor vehicle use map. 

 Storage – Each drainage structure is evaluated to determine the appropriate storage 

strategy. Drainage structures may be removed or bypassed with waterbars to 

restore natural drainage patterns. Additional water bars or rolling dips may be 

added to control runoff. Seed and fertilize disturbed soils. This is intended to be 

the primary maintenance strategy applied on intermittent use roads during their 

closure cycle. ML 1, closure and basic custodial maintenance, is assigned. This 

level of maintenance is synonymous with Alaska Forest Resources Practices Act 

designation of inactive roads. 

 Decommission – This takes the road out of the National Forest Road System. 

Decommissioning roads involves restoring roads to a more natural state. 

Activities used to decommission a road may include, but are not limited to, the 

following: reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, restoring 

vegetation, blocking the entrance to the road, installing water bars, removing 

culverts, reestablishing drainage-ways, removing unstable fills, pulling back road 

shoulders, or other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated 

with the unneeded road. This level of maintenance is synonymous with Alaska 

Forest Resources Practices Act designation of closed roads. 

 Motorized Trail – NFS road will be stored as ML 1 road, but will be dualdesignated as motorized trail for OHV use. Site-specific designs may be required 

prior to designation on the motor vehicle use map. 

 Hiking Trail – This takes a road out of the National Forest Road System and places 

it into a recreational trail. No motorized access is allowed. 

 Seasonal Closure – NFS road will remain drivable with most structures remaining; 

however, the road will be seasonally closed by designating it as such on the 

MVUM map. The road will have an OPML of 1. Additional water bars or rolling 

dips may be added to control runoff.

RMOs define the intended purpose of an individual road based on management area 

direction and access management objectives. RMOs contain design criteria, operation 

criteria, and maintenance criteria. The proposed travel management designations for each 

existing NFS road segment in the project area are included in the Record of Decision for 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-431

the Prince of Wales ATM. The RMOs for existing roads with proposed changes and 

proposed new NFS roads are included in the Big Thorne Travel Analysis Report (see 

project record). No changes were made to the existing road RMOs as defined in the 

Prince of Wales ATM.

Best Management Practices 

BMPs are used to ensure soil and water resources are considered in transportation 

planning activities. Specific BMPs are listed by resource on the road cards in Appendix C 

of the Draft EIS. Effects of roads on resources are reduced through application of 

standards and guidelines and BMPs. The standards and guidelines particularly relevant to 

transportation can be found in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008) beginning on 

page 4-80. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative 1, no new road construction or reconstruction would occur as a result of 

the Big Thorne project and current management plans would continue to guide the 

management of NFS roads. All system roads would be managed as directed by the Forest 

Plan, RMOs, and previous NEPA decisions. This alternative would neither increase nor 

decrease access to the area for recreational and subsistence activities. A decision to 

implement this alternative would not impact projects that are already planned or currently 

being implemented.

No changes would be made to the ATM for existing roads. The OBML is the 

maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road management 

objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. The OBML 

may be the same, higher, or lower than the operational maintenance level. Each NFS road 

has an OBML assigned. The current OBMLs assigned to each road would guide the 

future management of that road. As resources and funding become available, roads would 

be stored or upgraded to match the currently assigned OBML. Table TRAN-2 

summarizes the miles of road available for each type of travel.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest result in a total of 429 miles of 

NFS road and 118 miles of temporary road grades within the Big Thorne project area. 

The Forest Plan’s transportation goal is to “Develop and manage roads and utility systems 

to support resource management activities; recognize the potential for future development 

of major Transportation and Utility Systems.” Alternative 1 proposes no new 

development of roads. This alternative would forfeit any opportunity to develop or 

enhance the current road system. Road maintenance, culvert replacement, and timber 

micro-sales would continue, and road closures prescribed by the Access Travel 

Management Plan would continue as funding allows. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-432 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table TRAN-2. Big Thorne Analysis Area OBML and RMO Plan

Objective Maintenance Level Travel Management Miles

1 – Basic Seasonal Closure 11

Motorized Trail 41

Storage 153

Total 205

2 – High Clearance Vehicles Open & Maintain 33

Open & Maintain With OHV 105

Storage 1

Total 139

3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars Open & Maintain 68

Total 68

D - Decommission Decommission 14

Motorized Trail 3

Total 17

Grand Total 429

Another cumulative effect of the No-action Alternative would be a forfeiture of any 

opportunity to integrate implementation of the Prince of Wales ATM plan with Big 

Thorne stewardship contracts. This may reduce funding opportunities and slow the 

implementation process for placing roads in storage and for the completion of road 

restoration projects.

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives 

In addition to using existing roads, some new NFS and temporary road construction would 

be needed to access harvest units within the project area for silvicultural activities. All 

new construction would be off of the existing road system. 

New System Roads

All newly constructed NFS roads would have an OBML of 1, but would be managed as a 

ML 2 during timber sale activities. After completion of the timber sale activities, these 

roads would be placed in a self-maintaining hydrologic status as they may remain open an 

additional 1 to 5 years to allow for regeneration surveys and firewood removal. This 

would include the placement of drivable water bars or dips at all drainage culvert 

locations to direct water across the road in event that the culvert plugs. During this period 

the road would be seasonally closed, and would be open only from May 1 to November 

30. Each of the closed NFS roads would be needed periodically in the future for timber 

salvage and/or expansion into timber production LUDs.

New Temporary Roads

Temporary roads are not needed for long-term management of the National Forest. 

Temporary roads do not access future timber lands and do not have resource concerns that 

require engineering controls in construction. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after timber harvest. This involves removing culverts and bridges, 

restoring natural drainage patterns, and allowing the roadway to re-vegetate. 

Road Reconstruction

Roads proposed for reconstruction are existing NFS roads currently in storage; most 

drainage structures have been removed to restore natural drainage patterns and the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-433

roadway has re-vegetated with alders in some cases. Reconstruction activities would 

include brushing, clearing of alders and replacing drainage structures. Reconstruction 

would keep the roads in a safe and useful condition for which they are managed, while 

meeting Forest Plan standard and guides and following the applicable BMPs (see RMO 

road cards for road site-specific items). No changes are being proposed to the OBML and 

RMO designated in the Prince of Wales ATM. 

All reconstructed roads would be managed as ML 2 during timber sale activities. After 

completion of the timber sale activities, these roads would be placed in a self-maintaining 

hydrologic status as they may remain open an additional 1 to 5 years for regeneration 

surveys and firewood removal. This would include the placement of drivable water bars 

or dips at all drainage culvert locations to direct water across the road in event that the 

culvert plugs. During this period the road would be a seasonally closed, and would be 

open only from May 1 to November 31. 30. Other design elements like oversized culverts 

may be used to help reduce the need for routine drainage maintenance. Each of the closed 

NFS roads would be needed periodically in the future for timber salvage and/or expansion 

into timber production LUDs.

These roads would be reviewed annually and would be categorized as intermittent service 

roads (ML 1) after the completion of timber sale and additional activities and physically 

blocked or natural vegetation allowed to eliminate motorized access. Drainage structures 

would remain in place with additional cross drains (water bars and dips), and the road 

would be considered stored. A review would be conducted at the time of closure for any 

additional resource concerns needing to be addressed. 

Wetlands Avoidance

An analysis was completed for the location of all new roads to minimize impacts to soils, 

water and associated resources in accordance with BMPs. Road location will be 

completed to avoid wetlands whenever practicable. Wetlands were unavoidable on some 

portions of the location due to safety, engineering design constraints, and consideration 

for other resources. Alternatives to the location on wetlands would mean longer, highercost roads that may have impacted similar areas of wetlands. High-value wetlands were 

particularly avoided wherever practicable.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 2 proposes construction of 11 miles of NFS road, of which 1 mile would be 

constructed over decommissioned existing road beds. Future harvest along these roads is 

a possibility, as well as future extensions. This alternative would enhance opportunities 

for other timber harvest projects by providing access through suitable timber lands. This 

alternative proposes construction of 23 miles of temporary road, of which 4 miles would 

be constructed over existing decommissioned road beds. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after timber haul is complete. This alternative would reconstruct and 

temporarily open 19 miles of NFS road currently in storage. New and reconstructed NFS 

roads would remain open shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map, to highway legal 

vehicles, seasonally from May 1 to November 30 for 1 to 5 years to allow for firewood 

removal. Approximately 4 miles of roads would be converted to motorized trails when 
3 Environment and Effects

3-434 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

the roads are stored. With full ATM implementation, a total of 48 miles of motorized 

trails would exist in the project area.

Of the four action alternatives, Alternative 2 proposes the second highest amount of new 

road construction (Table TRAN-3). This alternative also ranks second highest in 

transportation development costs (Table TRAN-4). The road development proposed in 

this alternative would satisfy the minimum requirements needed to allow cost effective 

and efficient timber harvest. This alternative has a high proportion of conventional 

logging systems, as opposed to helicopter, relative to Alternatives 4 and 5. Conventional 

logging systems require more road development to allow access to the harvest units. The 

additional road development costs are offset by the lower harvest costs achieved by these 

systems. In areas where road development costs or resource concerns outweighed the 

benefits of road development, helicopter logging systems were used to allow harvest 

without additional road development.

Borrow pits and quarries would be needed for road construction. Every 2 miles of new 

road construction would require about a 2-acre rock quarry. This equates to about 35

acres of developed rock sources. Where feasible existing quarries would be used, 

however, most new road construction would require the development of new rock 

quarries. All newly developed borrow quarries would be reviewed and cleared by 

resource specialists prior to development. Reconstruction of decommissioned road grades 

would require significantly less rock. Typically this type of construction will utilize 

existing borrow quarries.

Road construction and quarry development within the project area would utilize and 

excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. It is estimated that 1.1 miles of new road 

construction, and 2.5 miles of stored NFS road reconstruction would be across Descon 

Shale bedrock. Any existing material source or newly developed source within the 

Descon Formation and used to construct access to the proposed harvest areas shall be 

assessed as to its ARD potential.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-435

Table TRAN-3. Big Thorne Area Existing and Proposed Roads1/ 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Proposed New – new construction 0.0 10.5 15.2 2.5 1.7

Proposed New – on existing decommissioned roads 0.0 1.5 2.3 0.6 0.0

Existing NFS roads 429 429 429 429 429

Total NFS roads after implementation 429 441 446 432 431

Proposed Temp – new construction 0.0 19.2 26.0 9.1 7.7

Proposed Temp – existing decommissioned roads 0.0 3.8 12.6 7.3 6.1

Current Decommissioned Temp 118 118 118 118 118

Total Decommissioned Temp after 

implementation 118 141 157 134 132

Total Proposed – new construction 0.0 29.7 41.2 11.6 9.4

Total Proposed existing decommissioned roads 0.0 5.3 14.9 7.9 6.1

Total Proposed Road Development 0.0 35.0 56.1 19.5 15.5

Reconstruction of Stored NFS Roads 0.0 19.3 39.0 21.5 15.6

1/ Numbers may not sum correctly due to rounding.

Table TRAN-4. Big Thorne Road Development Costs 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

NFS Road Construction $0 $1,869,000 $2,788,000 $455,000 $301,000

Temporary Road 

Construction

$0 $2,312,000 $3,268,000 $1,182,000 $992,000

NFS Stored Road 

Reconstruction

$0 $1,319,000 $2,411,000 $1,265,000 $1,009,000

Total Road 

Development Cost

$0 $5,500,000 $8,467,000 $2,902,000 $2,302,000

Note: Costs are estimated by road, but are not exact values; these values are presented to provide a relative comparison 

between the alternatives. All costs are subject to change.

New road construction crosses seven fish streams. All fish streams would be crossed with 

a bridge or log culvert structure. These structures would be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis and would either be removed during road storage or remain in place. Storage would 

occur approximately 1 to 5 years after harvest unless the road is designated for immediate 

storage in the road card due to resource concerns.

Cumulative effects of past road development plus Alternative 2 would result in a total of 

440 miles of NFS road and 141 miles of decommissioned temporary road grades within 

the Big Thorne project area (see Table TRAN-3). This is the second highest amount of 

NFS and temporary roads created by an alternative. The increase in the cumulative 

amount of NFS roads would help achieve 2008 Forest Plan objectives and desired 

conditions for transportation, timber, and economics. With reasonably foreseeable 

projects, total NFS and temporary roads on NFS lands would only increase by about 1 

mile.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 3 proposes construction of 17 miles of NFS roads, of which 2 miles would be 

constructed over decommissioned road beds. All new construction would be from the 

existing or proposed road system with the exception of 3 miles which are constructed 
3 Environment and Effects

3-436 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

from a state road east of Thorne Bay (Proposed 3000145 and 3000147 roads). This 

alternative would reconstruct and temporarily open 39 miles of NFS road currently in 

storage. New and reconstructed NFS roads would remain open, as shown on the Motor 

Vehicle Use Map, to highway legal vehicles, seasonally from May 1 to November 30 for 1

to 5 years to allow for firewood removal. Approximately 5 miles of roads would be 

converted to motorized trails when the roads are stored. With full ATM implementation,

a total of 49 miles of motorized trails would exist in the project area.

This alternative proposes construction of 39 miles of temporary road, of which 13 miles 

would be constructed over decommissioned road beds. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after timber haul is complete. 

Of the four action alternatives, Alternative 3 proposes the highest amount of new road 

construction (Table TRAN-3). This alternative also ranks highest in transportation 

development costs (Table TRAN-4). The road development proposed in this alternative is 

the minimum amount of road required to harvest the units in accordance with the 

objectives of this alternative. This alternative harvests the largest amount of timber of any 

alternative. This alternative also has a high proportion of conventional logging systems 

being used, as opposed to helicopter. Conventional logging systems require more road 

development to allow access to the harvest units. The additional road development costs 

are offset by the lower harvest costs achieved by these systems. In areas where road 

development costs or resource concerns outweighed the benefits of road development, 

helicopter logging systems were used to allow harvest without additional road 

development. Borrow pits and quarries would be needed for road construction. Every 2

miles of new road construction would require about a 2-acre rock quarry. This equates to 

56 acres of developed rock sources. Where feasible, existing quarries would be used; 

however, most new road construction would require the development of new rock 

quarries. All newly developed borrow quarries would be reviewed and cleared by 

resource specialists prior to development. Reconstruction of decommissioned road grades 

would require significantly less rock. Typically, this type of construction would utilize 

existing borrow quarries.

Road construction and quarry development within the project area would utilize and 

excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. It is estimated that 5.1 miles of new road 

construction, and 4.9 miles of stored NFS road reconstruction would be across Descon 

Shale bedrock. Any existing material source or newly developed source within the 

Descon Formation and used to construct access to the proposed harvest areas shall be 

assessed as to its ARD potential.

New road construction crosses 12 fish streams. All fish streams would be crossed with a 

bridge or log culvert structure. These structures would be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis and would either be removed during road storage or remain in place. Storage would 

occur approximately 1 to 5 years after harvest unless the road is designated for immediate 

storage in the road card due to resource concerns.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest result in a total of 446 miles of 

NFS road and 157 miles of decommissioned temporary road grades within the Big Thorne 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-437

project area (see Table TRAN-3). This is the highest amount of NFS and temporary road 

created by an alternative. The increase in the cumulative amount of NFS roads would

help achieve 2008 Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions for transportation, timber, 

and economics by developing a transportation system that could be utilized for future 

timber sales and silvicultural treatments. With reasonably foreseeable projects, total NFS 

and temporary roads on NFS lands would only increase by about 1 mile.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 4 proposes construction of 3 miles of NFS road, of which 1 mile would be 

constructed over decommissioned road beds. All new construction would be from the 

existing and proposed road system. This alternative proposes construction of 16 miles of 

temporary road, of which 7 miles would be constructed over decommissioned road beds. 

All temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber haul is complete. This 

alternative would reconstruct and temporarily open 22 miles of NFS road currently in 

storage. New and reconstructed NFS roads would remain open, as shown on the Motor 

Vehicle Use Map, to highway legal vehicles, seasonally from May 1 to November 30 for 1

to 5 years to allow for firewood removal. Approximately 2 miles of roads would be 

converted to motorized trails when the roads are stored. With full ATM implementation,

a total of 46 miles of motorized trails would exist in the project area.

Of the four action alternatives, Alternative 4 proposes the second lowest amount of new 

road construction (Table TRAN-3). This alternative also ranks second lowest in 

transportation development costs (Table TRAN-4). The road development proposed in 

this alternative is the minimum amount of road required to harvest the units in accordance 

with the objectives of this alternative. This alternative harvests the smallest amount of 

timber of any alternative. In areas where road development costs or resource concerns 

outweighed the benefits of road development, helicopter logging systems were used to 

allow harvest without additional road development. This alternative emphasized minimal 

impacts on wildlife resources, which was achieved using a higher proportion of partial cut 

harvests with helicopter logging systems. Helicopter logging generally requires minimal 

additional road building. Longer yarding distances can be achieved, allowing timber to be 

yarded to the closest existing road in most cases. The lower road development costs are 

offset by the higher harvest costs associated with this system.

Borrow pits and quarries would be needed for road construction. Every 2 miles of new 

road construction would require about a 2-acre rock quarry. This equates to 19 acres of 

developed rock sources. Where feasible existing quarries would be used; however, most 

new road construction would require the development of new rock quarries. All newly 

developed borrow quarries would be reviewed and cleared by resource specialists prior to 

development. Reconstruction of decommissioned road grades would require significantly 

less rock. Typically, this type of construction would utilize existing borrow quarries.

Road construction and quarry development within the project area would utilize and 

excavate into the underlying Descon Shale. It is estimated that 0.9 mile of new road 

construction, and 1.8 miles of stored NFS road reconstruction would be across Descon 

Shale bedrock. Any existing material source or newly developed source within the 
3 Environment and Effects

3-438 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Descon Formation and used to construct access to the proposed harvest areas shall be 

assessed as to its ARD potential.

New road construction crosses two fish streams. All fish streams would be crossed with a 

bridge or log culvert structure. These structures would be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis and would either be removed during road storage or remain in place. Storage would 

occur approximately 1 to 5 years after harvest unless the road is designated for immediate 

storage in the road card due to resource concerns.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest result in a total of 432 miles of 

NFS road and 134 miles of decommissioned temporary road grades within the Big Thorne 

project area. This is the second lowest amount of NFS and temporary road created by an 

alternative (Table TRAN-3). The decrease in the cumulative amount of NFS roads would 

reduce access to more areas for future timber harvests or silvicultural treatments. This 

would reduce opportunities to move towards achieving the Forest Plan desired conditions 

for timber, transportation, and economics, resulting in higher transportation development 

costs to implement future timber sales and silvicultural activities. With reasonably 

foreseeable projects, total NFS and temporary roads on NFS lands would only increase by 

about 1 mile.

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 5 proposes construction of 2 miles of NFS road. All new construction would 

be from the existing and proposed road system. This alternative proposes construction of 

14 miles of temporary road, of which 6 miles would be constructed over decommissioned 

road beds. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after timber haul is complete. 

This alternative would reconstruct and temporarily open 16 miles of NFS road currently in 

storage. New and reconstructed NFS roads would remain open, as shown on the Motor 

Vehicle Use Map, to highway legal vehicles, seasonally from May 1 to November 30 for 1

to 5 years to allow for firewood removal. Approximately 1 mile of road would be 

converted to motorized trails when the roads are stored. With full ATM implementation a 

total of 45 miles of motorized trails would exist in the project area.

Of the four action alternatives, Alternative 5 proposes the least amount of new road 

construction (Table TRAN-3). This alternative also ranks lowest in transportation 

development costs (Table TRAN-4). The road development proposed in this alternative is 

the minimum amount of road required to harvest the units in accordance with the 

objectives of this alternative. This alternative harvests the least amount of timber of any 

action alternative. In areas where road development costs or resource concerns 

outweighed the benefits of road development, helicopter logging systems were used to 

allow harvest without additional road development. This alternative emphasizes minimal 

impacts on watersheds, which was achieved by minimizing stream crossings, road 

development, and the use of ground-based equipment. Helicopter logging would be used 

more extensively to accomplish these objectives. Helicopter logging generally requires 

minimal additional road building. Longer yarding distances can be achieved, allowing 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-439

timber to be yarded to the closest existing road in most cases. The lower road 

development costs are offset by the higher harvest costs associated with this system.

Borrow pits and quarries would be needed for road construction. Every 2 miles of new 

road construction would require about a 2-acre rock quarries. This equates to 16 acres of 

developed rock sources. Where feasible existing quarries would be used; however, most 

new road construction would require the development of new rock quarries. All newly 

developed borrow quarries would be reviewed and cleared by resource specialists prior to 

development. Reconstruction of decommissioned road grades would require significantly 

less rock. Typically, this type of construction would utilize existing borrow quarries.

New road construction crosses one fish stream. All fish streams would be crossed with a 

bridge or log culvert structure. These structures would be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis and would either be removed during road storage or remain in place. Storage would 

occur approximately 1 to 5 years after harvest unless the road is designated for immediate 

storage in the road card due to resource concerns.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 431 

miles of NFS roads and 132 miles of decommissioned temporary road grades within the 

Big Thorne project area (see Table TRAN-3). The decrease in the cumulative amount of 

NFS roads would reduce access to more areas for future timber harvests or silvicultural 

treatments. This would reduce opportunities to move towards achieving the Forest Plan 

desired conditions for timber, transportation, and economics resulting in higher 

transportation development costs to implement future timber sales and silvicultural 

activities. With reasonably foreseeable projects, total NFS and temporary roads on NFS 

lands would only increase by about 1 mile.

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table TRAN-3 summarizes the miles of proposed road construction along with the miles 

of existing road for both NFS and temporary roads. Proposed construction is broken out 

to show the number of miles of new road location (new construction) and the number of 

miles that is reconstruction of a decommissioned road. Reconstruction of 

decommissioned roads typically results in less site impacts and is significantly lower in 

cost than new construction. Temporary roads are decommissioned after their period of 

use has expired; they will not be open and drivable and are not counted as part of the NFS 

roads network. Temporary roads are not needed for future access and are typically 

constructed to a lower design standard than system roads resulting in a lower construction 

cost. Temporary roads will not provide the public access to firewood after timber harvest 

is complete. System roads may remain open an additional 1 to 5 years for regeneration 

surveys and firewood removal.

Estimated costs for construction of roads are shown in Table TRAN-4. NFS roads in 

Southeast Alaska are more expensive to build than in other parts of the nation. The major 

factor that contributes to higher costs is obtaining the rock for the roadbed. Rock is 

obtained by blasting bedrock, which is then hauled and shaped into a road over typically 

soft, uneven terrain. Other factors that contribute to the high cost of constructing 
3 Environment and Effects

3-440 ▪ Transportation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Southeast Alaskan roads include the higher costs of shipping and labor, the numerous 

drainage structures needed, and more complex logistics involved.

Road development costs are based upon regional average costs for constructing roads in 

Southeast Alaska. Costs are applied based upon an average cost per mile for different 

classifications of road construction and reconstruction with an additional cost per fish 

stream crossing. The following costs were used for estimating the road development costs 

for each alternative (Reeves 2011):

 New NFS road construction $175,000/mile

 NFS road constructed over decommissioned road grade $30,000/mile

 New temporary road construction $110,000/mile

 Temporary road construction over decommissioned road grade - $20,000/mile

 NFS stored road reconstruction $30,000/mile

 Additional cost for fish stream crossings (temp. bridges) $20,000/bridge

Road storage can reduce annual and deferred road maintenance costs by removing 

drainage structures, installing waterbars, and other means to stabilize the road surface 

until the road is needed again. Decommissioning will remove the road from the NFS

inventory. When a road is decommissioned work items include a combination of the 

following: reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, restoring vegetation, 

blocking the entrance to the road, installing water bars, removing culverts, reestablishing 

drainage-ways, removing unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders, or other methods 

designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded road. 

Costs for road storage are estimated at $4,000/mile and are based on recent bids received 

for the POW road storage work (R. Jacobson, 2011). Temporary road decommissioning is 

estimated at $3,000/mile. These costs are based on Davis-Bacon wages. Costs can vary 

depending on necessary work items, location, fuel prices and other factors. Existing roads 

that are considered to be stored are surveyed to measure the effectiveness of the storage 

measures. When necessary, additional storage work may be prescribed to stabilize a road. 

Table TRAN-5 displays the estimated costs for road storage of the proposed roads and 

decommissioning of the temporary roads. 

Table TRAN-5. Estimated Costs of Road Storage and Decommissioning

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Storage of NFS Roads 

After Use

$0 $124,000 $225,000 $98,000 $69,000

Decommission Temporary 

Roads

$0 $69,000 $115,000 $49,000 $42,000

Total Storage and 

Decommissioning

$0 $193,000 $330,000 $147,000 $111,000

Table TRAN-6 displays the RMOs for the Big Thorne project area based on full 

implementation of the proposed travel management plan. The RMOs for each existing 

road are found in the Prince of Wales ATM. The RMOs for proposed roads can be found 

on the road cards in Appendix C of this Draft EIS as well as the Travel Analysis Report 

found in Appendix B of the Transportation Resource Report (Barnhart and Hitner 2012).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Transportation ▪ 3-441

All action alternatives increase the miles of road in storage, Alternative 3 having the 

largest increase and Alternative 5 having the least increase. No changes were made to the 

ATM for existing NFS roads.

Table TRAN-6. Travel Management Plan for Project Area after Implementation of

Proposed RMOs (miles)

Travel Management Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Open & Maintain 101 101 101 101 101

Open & Maintain With OHV 105 105 105 105 105

Storage 165 172 177 166 166

Seasonal Closure 11 11 11 11 11

Motorized Trail 44 48 49 46 45

Decommission 14 14 14 14 14

Total 429 440 446 432 431
3 Environment and Effects 

3-442 ▪Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Recreation

Affected Environment

Recreation use in the Big Thorne project area includes freshwater fishing, big game and 

waterfowl hunting, OHV use, kayaking and canoeing, hiking and wildlife viewing, 

picnicking, and camping among other activities. The following section is divided into five 

parts that provide an overview of regional and local tourism and describe Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings, recreation places and sites, OHV use, and 

outfitter/guide use in the project area. 

Tourism

Southeast Alaska

The visitor industry in Alaska is very seasonal, with the majority of visitation taking place 

between May and September. An estimated 1,160,000 out-of-state visitors came to 

Southeast Alaska in summer 2006, the most recent year that regional data are available, 

with the majority of these visitors arriving by cruise ship (McDowell Group 2007). In 

addition to experiencing the Tongass from the deck of the cruise ship and exploring ports 

of call, many passengers also take at least one trip to the Forest during their visit 

(McDowell Group 2005). Non-cruise visitors tend to either use package deals designed to 

provide transportation, lodging, meals, and activities, or visit as independent travelers. 

Independent travelers tend to design their own travel itineraries, utilize public 

transportation systems, and stay in local communities. For the majority of Alaska visitors, 

it is important to experience the natural resources, cultural history, and wildness of the 

region. The McDowell Group (2010) estimated that total visitor-related employment 

supported 10,600 jobs and $373 million in labor income in Southeast Alaska from 

October 2008 through September 2009, about 21 percent of total regional employment 

and 17 percent of total labor income. Supplemental analysis of the USDA Forest Service 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program data estimated that the Tongass 

received 2.3 million annual visits, with average spending per party of $287.20. This 

analysis estimated that every 10,000 visits supported 13.7 direct local jobs (White and 

Stynes 2010). 

Prince of Wales Island

Prince of Wales Island offers world class fishing and one of the highest populations of black 

bear in the country, as well as more than 1,500 miles of logging roads, most of which are 

gravel. The Alaska Marine Highway does not stop at any ports on Prince of Wales Island and 

large cruise ships, which, as noted above, account for the majority of visitors to Southeast 

Alaska, do not visit the island either. Most visitors to Prince of Wales Island arrive either by 

float plane from Ketchikan or via the Inter-Island Ferry between Ketchikan and Hollis. In

2011, a 50- to 75-passenger cruise ship began visiting Prince of Wales Island, stopping at El 

Capitan Cave, Klawock, and the Naukati West Shellfish Nursery, a private oyster farm in Sea 

Otter Sound. 

An estimated 15,000 out-of-state residents visited Prince of Wales Island in summer 2006, 

about 1.5 percent of total visitors to Southeast Alaska (McDowell Group 2007). A study by 

the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) estimated that 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-443

12,326 visitors participated in nature-based tourism on Prince of Wales Island in 2007, 

bringing in more than $30 million in gross revenues, with most of this revenue related to sport 

fishing (Dugan et al. 2009). The majority of this revenue (over 80%) comes from the remote 

lodges on islands scattered around Prince of Wales Island. Craig also has large lodges with 

this type of clientele. All of these lodges have direct waterfront access and focus on saltwater 

fishing. These operations are accessed by float plane from the larger communities with jet 

service (Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg). The experience is self-contained; clients 

typically do not visit any of the recreation sites in the project area or use the road system 

(Dugan et al. 2009). 

Most sport fish visitors stay in one of the island’s lodges, with a smaller number staying in 

cabins or other local accommodations. Fishing lodges are located in Craig, Klawock, Thorne 

Bay, and Coffman Cove, as well as in more remote locations scattered around the island. 

Sport fish visitors to Craig, Klawock, and the remote lodges focus on saltwater fishing. 

Lodges and day charter operators in Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove offer a combination of 

saltwater and freshwater fishing (Dugan et al. 2009).

Bear hunting is popular on the island, with guided black bear hunting and drop-off and 

transporter services available. The number of visitors and revenues associated with bear 

hunting are, however, much lower than those associated with sport fishing (Dugan et al. 

2009). More than 80 percent of all guided hunts are conducted by motorized boat in shoreline 

areas; only one guide provides hunting on the Prince of Wales Island road system. The 

number of hunting guides is limited based on an administrative cap on the number of guided 

black bear hunts allowed on the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts (USDA Forest 

Service 2010). In addition, no outfitter/guide hunting is allowed in much of the Big Thorne 

project area based on the Big Game EA closure of the central WAAs (1318 and 1319) on 

Prince of Wales Island (USDA Forest Service 1993).

The existing road system on Prince of Wales Island offers opportunities for sightseeing and 

exploring, as well as providing access for hunters and OHV enthusiasts. All roads designated 

as open under the Prince of Wales Island ATM process have been identified as important to 

local users for recreation and subsistence hunting and gathering of firewood. Visitors are able 

to travel to Prince of Wales Island with their vehicles via the Inter-Island Ferry between 

Ketchikan and Hollis; access has also been available in the past from Wrangell and Petersburg 

via limited ferry service to Coffman Cove. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The ROS system is a land classification system developed by the Forest Service to help 

identify and describe possible combinations of recreation activities, settings, and 

experiences for management purposes (USDA Forest Service 1982). The ROS system 

portrays the appropriate combination of activities, settings, and experiences along a 

continuum that ranges from primitive to highly modified environments. Seven 

classifications are identified along this continuum: 

 Primitive (P)

 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM)

 Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM)
3 Environment and Effects

3-444 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 Roaded Natural (RN)

 Roaded Modified (RM)

 Rural (R)

 Urban (U)

ROS classes represent a spectrum of possible experiences, from those with a high 

probability of self-reliance, solitude, challenge, and risk to those with a relatively high 

degree of interaction with other people. The settings, activities, and probable recreation 

experience opportunities associated with each ROS setting are described in Appendix A to 

the Recreation Resource Report (Dadswell 2012) prepared for this project.

The ROS does not specify or prescribe what types of activities are allowed in an area. 

The LUDs assigned in the Forest Plan prescribe allowable management activities, along 

with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Therefore, if a LUD allows for 

increased development, timber harvest, or increased recreation use, then the descriptive 

ROS character may change to reflect the new development. Since expanded development 

is allowed within the project area based on the area’s LUDs, a change in ROS setting is 

allowed as a management objective of the existing plan. In addition, changes to existing 

ROS allocations were anticipated as part of the management objectives and direction 

incorporated in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008b).

The Big Thorne project area encompasses approximately 232,000 acres, including 14,300 

acres of non-NFS lands. These non-NFS lands are not included in the ROS analysis, 

leaving approximately 217,700 acres of NFS land within the project area. More than half 

(58 percent) of this area has been inventoried as Roaded Modified (RM) (Table REC-1). 

Community road systems, including the existing networks of Forest Service roads, 

provide access to developed and dispersed recreation opportunities in these areas. The 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) setting accounts for 32 percent of the project 

area, with the Primitive (P) and Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) settings each accounting 

for about 5 percent. The areas inventoried as P and SPM, where opportunities for more 

remote recreation are available, largely coincide with the Thorne River, Karta, and Ratz 

IRAs, and encompass much of the Honker Divide Canoe Route (Figure REC-1). The 

remaining land in the project area, less than 1 percent, has been inventoried as Roaded 

Natural (RN) (0.4 percent), Rural (R) (0.2 percent), and Urban (U) (0.1 percent) (Table 

REC-1). The RN areas are located along the shoreline near Sandy Beach. The R and U 

areas are located near and adjacent to the city of Thorne Bay (Figure REC-1).

Table REC-1. ROS Designations within the Big Thorne Project Area

ROS Class Acres Percent of Project Area

Primitive (P) 10,509 5

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) 69,231 32

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) 10,826 5

Roaded Natural (RN) 976 0

Roaded Modified (RM) 125,501 58

Rural (R) 503 0

Urban (U) 133 0

Total 217,679 100

1/ ROS designations are presented for NFS lands within the project area only.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-445

Figure REC-1. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Settings within the Big Thorne 

Project Area 
3 Environment and Effects

3-446 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Recreation Places and Sites

The majority of the Tongass National Forest is undeveloped and primarily used for 

dispersed recreation activities. Viewing scenery and wildlife, boating, fishing, 

beachcombing, hiking, and hunting are the primary dispersed recreation activities that take 

place on the Forest. While most areas of the Forest have the potential to provide 

recreation opportunities to a varying degree, patterns of use tend to be associated with 

existing road systems, known protected boat anchorages, boat landings, and aircraft 

landing sites. These types of locations, with one or more physical characteristics that are 

particularly attractive to people for recreation activities, were identified as recreation 

places as part of the planning analysis for the 1997 Forest Plan and incorporated as part of 

the process that resulted in the current Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Four main types of recreation places were identified: marine, hunting, fishing, and tourism 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a). In the Big Thorne project area, marine recreation places are 

located at the mouth of Thorne Bay and also extend along the shore from Sandy Beach to 

Ratz Harbor. Recreation places important for hunting include the road system that extends 

north of the city of Thorne Bay, as well as portions of the Thorne River and Ratz IRAs. 

Fishing recreation places extend along portions of the Thorne River and Hatchery Creek 

system, and encompass Luck Lake. These areas are also identified as Tourism recreation 

places, as are the Marine recreation places at Thorne Bay and Ratz Harbor, and the area 

around Control Lake, Eagles Nest Campground, and Balls Lake Picnic Area.

Recreation sites are specific sites and/or facilities where recreation activities are localized. 

Recreation sites include, but are not limited to, developed recreation sites, such as trails, 

picnic sites, campsites, interpretive sites, and Forest Service cabins. They also include 

undeveloped sites with significant natural features like waterfalls or geologic formations 

that are destinations for National Forest visitors. Like recreation places, developed and 

undeveloped recreation sites on the Tongass were identified as part of the planning 

process for the 1997 Forest Plan. Developed recreation sites are identified by name in 

Figure REC-2. Recreation sites are discussed in the following sections.

Developed Recreation Sites

Thirteen developed recreation sites are located in the Big Thorne project area (Table REC2). The locations of 10 of these sites are identified on Figure REC-2. The three sites not 

labeled on the map are the Falls Creek Fishing Access point, the Boyscout Multiuse Trail, 

and the Cutthroat Road Trail. 

The Forest Service does not charge fees for recreation sites or trails, other than the cabin 

reserve system, and there are no trail counters or other devices to calculate use at these 

locations. As a result, there is no systematic estimation of use for most recreation areas on 

the Thorne Bay Ranger District. For the purposes of this analysis, each of the developed 

recreation sites within the project area was assigned a rating of high, medium, or low use 

by the Recreation Planner for the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts based on 

observations and professional judgment (Table REC-2). The following sections provide 

summary information for each of the 13 developed recreation sites identified in the Big 

Thorne project area.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-447

Figure REC-2. Recreation Sites in the Big Thorne Project Area
3 Environment and Effects

3-448 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table REC-2. Developed Recreation Sites in the Big Thorne Project Area

Site Name Description

Site Use 

Rating1/

Gravelly Creek Picnic Area Large day-use area with fishing access to Gravelly Creek and 

Thorne River

High

Sandy Beach Picnic Area Large day-use area with beach and water access High

Honker Divide Canoe Route 30-mile-long canoe route and hiking trail on the Hatchery 

Creek/Thorne River system

Low

Eagles Nest Campground Campground with 12 sites and a short interpretive trail Medium

Balls Lake Picnic Area and 

Trail

Picnic area with a community shelter and 2.2 mile trail around 

the lake

Low

Fishing Access Falls Creek Fishing access at the confluence of Thorne River and Falls 

Creek 

High

Luck Lake Day Use Primitive boat launch on the north end of Luck Lake Medium

Big Lake Fish Pass Trail Short gravel trail to fish passage viewing area Low

Boyscout Multiuse Trail OHV trail system Medium

Cutthroat Road/Trail 5-mile-long road/trail closed to motorized use; used by hikers, 

bikers, and skiers

Medium

Hatchery Creek Trail 0.5-mile-long boardwalk trail to Hatchery Creek Falls High

Honker Lake Cabin Recreation cabin on the northeast side of Honker Lake **

Control Lake Cabin Recreation cabin on the north shore of Control Lake **

Notes:

1/ High is over 500 visitors per year, medium is estimated at 100-500, and low is anything under 100 visitors per year. 

Estimates are based on extrapolations from limited informal observations in the field.

** Use for recreation cabins is recorded by reserved nights at each cabin. In 2008, the Honker Lake and Control Lake 

cabins were reserved for 27 nights and 69 nights, respectively. These totals were generally consistent with the average 

number of reservations at these cabins from 2004 to 2008.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2011

Gravelly Creek Picnic Area 

A large day use picnic area located about 3 miles from the city of Thorne Bay (adjacent to 

State Highway 929), this site provides fishing access to Gravelly Creek and the Thorne 

River. A short wheelchair-accessible trail leads from a paved parking area to the river 

where there are several picnic sites, restrooms, and a shelter. Four species of salmon, 

rainbow and cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden char and spring and fall runs of steelhead occur 

in the Thorne River. Recreation use at this site is considered high (Table REC-2).

Sandy Beach Picnic Area 

A large day use, picnic area located about 6 miles north of the city of Thorne Bay, this site 

is situated among a stand of Sitka spruce and cedar adjacent to Sandy Beach. Picnic area 

facilities include a shelter and restroom facilities. Visitors use the beach and enjoy the 

view of Clarence Strait. Sandy Beach Picnic Area is a popular location and use is 

considered high (Table REC-2).

Honker Divide Canoe Route

The Honker Divide Canoe Route starts at the Hatchery Creek Bridge on Coffman Cove 

Road (Forest Road 30) and travels southeast over 30 miles of streams and lakes in the 

Hatchery Creek/Thorne River system before ending at the city dock in the city of Thorne 

Bay. Thorne River and Hatchery Creek are connected by a low divide that affords a 2- to 

3-mile canoe portage. The Honker Divide Canoe Route is entirely located within the Big 

Thorne project area. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-449

Fishing opportunities on the Thorne-Hatchery system are nationally known. The area 

receives extensive use as a recreational fishery for a variety of species, including coho, 

sockeye, chum, and pink salmon, as well as cutthroat, rainbow, and steelhead trout and 

Dolly Varden char. Thorne River produces the largest run of steelhead on Prince of 

Wales Island and is considered one of five high-quality freshwater fishing areas on the 

island. Opportunities for wildlife viewing are also a draw and subsistence hunting is a 

common activity in the surrounding area.

The Honker Divide Canoe Route is part of the Thorne River/Hatchery Creek/Barnes Lake, 

which was recommended for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System during the 

1997 Forest Plan revision. This river was recommended for the following outstandingly 

remarkable values: scenery, recreation, fish, and wildlife (see the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

section, below).

Compared to some of the other developed recreation areas in the Big Thorne project area, 

the Honker Divide Canoe Route receives relatively low levels of use (Table REC-2). 

However, this type of comparison is somewhat misleading because the Honker Divide 

Canoe Route offers a challenging, remote recreation experience that relies upon limited 

encounters with other parties.

Eagles Nest Campground

Located on Balls Lake, about 16 miles west of Thorne Bay on State Highway 929, Eagles 

Nest Campground has 12 campsites, restroom facilities, an accessible interpretive trail, 

and a boat launch on Balls Lake for canoes or kayaks. There are also opportunities to fish 

for trout and Dolly Varden from the shore. Recreation use at this location is considered 

medium (Table REC-2).

Balls Lake Picnic Area and Trail

Also located on Balls Lake, this picnic area is located about 0.5 mile from the Eagles Nest 

Campground. The picnic area includes two picnic tables, a large community shelter, and a 

vault toilet. The trailhead for the 2.2-mile Balls Lake Trail is located near the shelter. 

Day users can also follow a 0.5-mile trail to Eagles Nest Campground, interpretive trail, 

and boat launch. Recreation use at this location is considered low (Table REC-2).

Fishing Access Falls Creek

This is a widened pull-off for parking along the Thorne Bay Highway (State Highway 

929). A somewhat hardened, 500-foot trail leads from the pull-off to the confluence of the 

Thorne River and Falls Creek. This is a popular location for fishing access and recreation 

use at this location is considered high (Table REC-2).

Luck Lake Day Use Area

This area consists of a primitive boat launch and small parking area that provide access to 

the north end of Luck Lake. Located about 6 road miles south of Coffman Cove, this area 

is used by canoeists and kayakers. There is also a swimming area near the access site, and 

people fish the lake for sockeye salmon and cutthroat and lake trout. Recreation use at 

this location is considered medium (Table REC-2).
3 Environment and Effects

3-450 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Big Lake Fish Pass Trail

This short, accessible gravel trail takes visitors to a platform viewing area that overlooks a 

fish ladder on Ratz Creek. Interpretive signs provide information about the life cycle of 

salmon and fish passage. During the late summer and fall salmon runs, visitors can see 

salmon leap up the fish pass. This trail is located about 22 road miles north of Thorne 

Bay. Recreation use at this location is considered low (Table REC-2).

Boyscout Multiuse Trail

The Boyscout Multiuse Trail is an old road system (3017-3018 Roads) that has been 

closed to highway vehicles but left open for OHV use, with an 85-foot-long OHV bridge 

installed in the mid-1990s. Easily accessible from Thorne Bay, the trail climbs in 

elevation and provides views of Clarence Strait. Recreation use at this location is 

considered medium (Table REC-2).

Cutthroat Road/Trail

Cutthroat Road/Trail is a relatively flat, higher elevation former logging road that is gated, 

preventing motor vehicles from entering. This 5-mile-long road/trail is used by walkers, 

bikers, and skiers. Recreation use at this location is considered medium (Table REC-2).

Hatchery Creek Trail

This 0.5-mile-long boardwalk trail leads to Hatchery Creek Falls. The falls offer 

opportunities for salmon fishing and wildlife viewing. Recreation use at this location is 

considered high (Table REC-2).

Honker Lake Cabin

Located on the northeast side of Honker Lake (also known as Lake Galea), about 6 miles 

downstream of the put-in location for the Honker Divide Canoe Route, this Forest Service 

cabin is isolated and accessible only by floatplane or canoe. Waterfowl are abundant, 

especially the Canada goose or “honker.” There is good fishing in the lake for cutthroat, 

rainbow, and Dolly Varden trout, as well as coho and sockeye salmon; Sitka black-tailed 

deer, black bear, and wolves are often sighted here. Consistent with its remote location, 

the Honker Lake Cabin receives relatively low levels of use, with 27 nights reserved in 

2008. 

Control Lake Cabin

This cabin, located on the north shore of Control Lake, is about 18 road miles from 

Thorne Bay and accessed from State Highway 929. The Lower Thorne River, which 

offers fishing and boating opportunities, is located a short drive away and the cabin is a 

popular staging location for recreation activities in the area. The lake has resident 

populations of cutthroat and Dolly Varden trout and sockeye salmon. The Control Lake 

Cabin receives relatively high use, with 69 nights reserved in 2008.

Undeveloped Recreation Sites 

In addition to the developed recreation sites discussed above, the planning process for the 

1997 Forest Plan identified a number of undeveloped recreation locations in the Big 

Thorne project area (Figure REC-2). These locations include sites that are recognized 

sites for undeveloped recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, as well as 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-451

sites that offer developed recreation facilities that are not managed or maintained by the 

Forest Service. There are also two developed sites in the project area not managed by the 

Forest Service: the old Colby Cabin, a non-Forest Service cabin on the Honker Divide 

Canoe Route, which is popular with Honker Divide users; and the boat launch at Ratz 

Harbor, used for small boats to access Clarence Strait.

Other undeveloped sites identified on Figure REC-2, include a series of locations along 

the Honker Divide Canoe Route that have been identified as good fishing spots. The 

locations identified along Sandy Beach Road (Forest Road 30) represent popular beaches, 

many with hammocks and fire pits established by local users. Other undeveloped sites 

shown on Figure REC-2 mainly provide opportunities for dispersed recreation 

opportunities, including fishing and hunting. Other recreation sites in the project area not 

identified on Figure REC-2 include well-beaten, user-made paths along the lower Thorne 

River that provide access to fishing opportunities. 

Table REC-3 lists a number of the undeveloped recreation sites in the project area that 

have been identified as receiving consistent use in recent years. The table also presents 

approximate estimates of site use based on the site rating criteria used to evaluate the 

developed sites in Table REC-2, above. 

Table REC-3. Estimated Use of Undeveloped Recreation Sites in the Big Thorne 

Project Area Identified as Receiving Consistent Use

Site Name Site Use Rating1/

Steelhead Gravel Pit Medium

301500 Pit Medium

Eightmile Fishing Hole Medium

Goose Creek Fishing Hole High

Thorne River Bridge High

North Thorne Falls Medium

Snakey Lakes Low

Thorne River Trapper's Cabin2/ Low

Lava Creek Multiuse Trail Medium

Tory Shores Beach Low

Sal Creek Beach Low

Sandy Beach North Medium

Eagle Creek Medium

Luck Creek Medium

Notes:

1/ High is over 500 visitors per year, medium is estimated at 100-500, and low is 

anything under 100 visitors per year. Estimates are based on extrapolations from 

limited informal observations in the field.

2/ This cabin is also known as the old Colby Cabin.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2011

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

The extensive road system in the project area offers opportunities for OHV use. While 

State of Alaska OHV laws state that OHVs may not be used on any state highway or open 

road connected to a state highway, OHV use is a common mode of access on Prince of 

Wales Island. OHVs travel almost entirely on the hardened road surfaces on Prince of 

Wales Island. The Forest Service recently addressed OHV use on the island, as well as 

other road management objectives, through the ATM process. The Environmental 
3 Environment and Effects

3-452 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Assessment prepared for this process indicated that there has been an increase in the 

number of OHV users on Prince of Wales Island in recent years, which has led to the 

development of the Prince of Wales Island Off-Road Vehicle Club (USDA Forest Service 

2009).

The Road Management Objectives (RMOs) for the existing roads in the Big Thorne 

project area include 105 miles of road open and maintained with OHV use and 44 miles of 

motorized trail for OHV use. Popular locations for OHV use in the Big Thorne project 

area include the Boyscout Multiuse Trail (about 16 miles long). The Steelhead and North 

Thorne road systems (approximately 12 miles and 50 miles long, respectively) are also 

popular for hunting and driving. All roads designated as open under the ATM process 

have been identified as important to local users for recreation and subsistence hunting and 

gathering of firewood.

Special Use Permits and Outfitter/Guide Use

A recent Recreation Visitor Capacity Analysis prepared for the Craig and Thorne Bay 

Ranger Districts identified 186 locations on these Districts used by outfitters and guides 

between 2004 and 2008. Seven of these locations are in the Big Thorne project area 

(Table REC-4). Between 2004 and 2008, a total of 1,553 days of use were recorded at 

these seven locations, with total use over this period ranging from just 3 clients at Angel 

Lake to 867 clients on Thorne River (USDA Forest Service 2010). Fishing was the only 

recorded activity at five of the seven locations, and accounted for the vast majority of the 

location days at the other two locations, Ratz Creek and Thorne River (Table REC-4).

Viewed in terms of the 186 locations identified on Prince of Wales and surrounding 

islands, Thorne River ranked second in terms of total recorded location days between 

2004 and 2008, with Luck Lake and Hatchery Creek ranked ninth and tenth, respectively 

(USDA Forest Service 2010). An EA is currently being undertaken to determine the 

amount of outfitter and guide use to allow within the Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger 

Districts. 

Table REC-4. Outfitter and Guide Locations and Use in the Big Thorne Project Area

Outfitter and Guide 

Location

2004-2008

Total Use1/ Fishing1/ Camping1/ Hunting1/

Thorne River 867 861 6 0

Luck Lake 248 248 0 0

Hatchery Creek 240 240 0 0

Trumpeter Lake 110 110 0 0

Ratz Creek 80 62 6 12

Big Lake 5 5 0 0

Angel Lake 3 3 0 0

Note:

1/ Use is reported in location days; a location day represents one client in one location, regardless of 

the time spent on NFS lands.

USDA Forest Service 2010

Environmental Consequences

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to recreation is the Big 

Thorne project area. Effects are assessed in terms of changes in the ROS settings in the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-453

project area, as well as potential impacts to Recreation Places and Sites, OHV Use, and 

Special Use Permits and Outfitter/Guide Use. Changes in ROS settings are quantified in 

acres; other potential impacts are discussed in qualitative terms.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The distribution of ROS settings in the project area would change under all of the action 

alternatives (Table REC-5). Viewed in terms of the project area, the resulting changes 

would represent a small share of the affected settings under any of the alternatives. 

Change to existing ROS settings would occur where land allocated to the SPNM and SPM 

ROS settings is within 0.5 mile of a new system or temporary road. Changes would also 

occur to areas currently allocated to the RN ROS setting. These areas would all change to 

RM. In addition, harvest units in SPNM would also change to RM because the SPNM 

setting is not a compatible ROS class for areas with timber harvest. Change from a more 

primitive ROS represents a change in recreation resources in the affected areas. People 

are likely to have a different type of experience in these sites following timber harvest. 

More visitors may be able to access these locations due to harvest-related developments. 

More use is likely to lead to more encounters, which is consistent with a more developed 

ROS.

Table REC-5. ROS Settings by Alternative

ROS Setting

Alternative (acres)

1 2 3 4 5

Primitive (P) 10,509 10,509 10,509 10,509 10,509

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

(SPNM)

69,231 67,224 66,374 68,201 68,310

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) 10,826 10,408 9,031 10,631 10,653

Roaded Natural (RN) 976 371 180 803 968

Roaded Modified (RM) 125,501 128,531 130,949 126,900 126,603

Rural (R) 503 503 503 503 503

Urban (U) 133 133 133 133 133

Grand Total 217,679 217,679 217,679 217,679 217,679

Net Change in Acres

SPNM to RM 0 2,007 1,795 195 921

SPM to RM 0 418 2,857 1,030 173

RN to RM 0 605 796 173 8

Recreation Places and Sites

The action alternatives could potentially result in short- and long-term impacts to 

recreation places and sites. Short-term impacts would result from the presence of crews 

and equipment on roads in the project area, which may have temporary impacts on 

recreation access, as well as the quality of the recreation experience for affected users. 

Impacts would also occur in the areas directly affected by new road construction, 

reconstruction of existing roads, and timber harvest activities. The presence of road 

building and logging crews and the noise associated with their activities are likely to 

affect the quality of the recreation experience in adjacent and nearby areas. These types 

of impacts would generally be limited to the immediate area of activity and limited in 

duration. Recreation users engaged in dispersed recreation activities, like hunting, fishing, 
3 Environment and Effects

3-454 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

and OHV use, would likely be temporarily displaced to other similar locations in the 

general vicinity.

Long-term impacts could result from changes in access, particularly where new system 

roads would remain open for a period of years following harvest to allow for wood 

gathering and other uses. Long-term impacts would also result from changes in scenery as 

a result of harvest activities. These impacts are more likely to occur in old-growth harvest 

units because commercial thinning of young growth units is not expected to have longterm impacts to scenery. Impacts to scenery are addressed in the Scenery section of this 

document. 

Developed Recreation Sites

Thirteen developed recreation sites are located within the Big Thorne project area (Table 

REC-2; Figure REC-2). With the exceptions of the Honker Divide Canoe Route and 

Honker Lake Cabin, these sites are all accessed from the existing road system. Most of 

these sites would experience short-term impacts from the presence of road building and 

logging crews and equipment on nearby roads, as well as from log trucks. In addition, 

harvest units are proposed in relative proximity to several of these sites under one or more 

of the action alternatives. These sites are discussed below.

Gravelly Creek Picnic Area 

Timber harvest is proposed across State Highway 929 from the Gravelly Creek Picnic 

Area. Although located on a slope facing the road, the proposed harvest unit is unlikely to 

be visible from the picnic area because of the vegetation screening on both sides of the 

highway. Noise and other activity associated with harvest in this area, which includes 

temporary road construction, would be apparent to people using the picnic area. These 

impacts would occur under all of the action alternatives and would be temporary.

Sandy Beach Picnic Area

Timber harvest is proposed across Sandy Beach Road (Forest Road 30) from the Sandy 

Beach Picnic Area. The proposed harvest units are not expected to be visible from the 

picnic area, mainly due to vegetation screening and local topographic relief. Further, 

recreation activities at this picnic area are oriented toward the beach and Clarence Strait, 

away from the proposed harvest units. However, noise and other activity associated with 

harvest near this area, which includes temporary road construction, would likely be 

apparent to people using this picnic area. Log trucks using Sandy Beach Road would also 

be apparent to people using this area.

Harvest would occur in these units under Alternatives 2 and 3 using ground based logging 

systems. Under Alternative 4, the proposed harvest units would become part of a new Old 

Growth Reserve. The units would be helicopter logged under Alternative 5.

Honker Divide Canoe Route

Timber harvest, road reconstruction, and new road construction is proposed off the 3015 

road, north of State Highway 925 under Alternatives 2 through 4. Harvest would occur in 

this area under Alternative 5, but would only involve limited road construction, as the 

units closest to the Canoe Route would be helicopter logged. These harvest units are 

located outside the Thorne River IRA. Activity in these areas is unlikely to be visible 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-455

from the Canoe Route and there are no associated scenery concerns. Noise generated by 

logging and road construction/reconstruction could be audible to recreationists traveling 

the Canoe Route and would likely affect the quality of their remote recreation experience. 

Helicopter logging under Alternative 5 would be apparent to recreationists traveling the 

Canoe Route and would affect the quality of their recreation experience. These impacts 

would be temporary.

Additional harvest near the Canoe Route is proposed under Alternative 3. Under this 

alternative, harvest would occur along Honker Road, northeast of Thorne Lake. Limited 

road construction would be required in this area, and a small part of the overall harvest 

area would be logged by helicopter. Four of the proposed units, located between 0.75 and 

1 mile from the river corridor, could be partially visible from some portions of the lakes 

along the Honker Divide Canoe Route. Harvest in these areas is not expected to affect the 

quality of the recreation experience along the canoe route. Noise and other activity 

associated with harvest in this area would, however, be apparent to people traveling this 

part of the Canoe Route and would affect the quality of their remote recreation experience. 

These impacts would be temporary.

Eagles Nest Campground and Balls Lake Picnic Area and Trail

No harvest units are proposed in the immediate vicinity of these recreation sites under any 

of the action alternatives. Units are proposed across the Craig Thorne Bay Highway from 

these sites and sounds of timber harvest activities would be heard by campers and day use 

site visitors.

Fishing Access Falls Creek

This site, located near the Gravelly Creek Picnic Area, would experience similar impacts 

to the picnic area. These impacts would occur under all of the action alternatives and 

would be temporary.

Luck Lake Day Use Area

Old-growth timber harvest is proposed near this day use area under Alternatives 2, 3, and 

5. Alternatives 3 through 5 include young-growth units that follow Forest Road 3030 and 

extend along the entire length of the west side of the lake. In addition, Alternative 3 

includes harvest units in the OGR located immediately north of the lake. Noise and other 

activity associated with harvest in this area would be apparent to people using the day use 

area and recreating on the lake. Harvest in the old growth units near the lake would also 

have long-term impacts to the scenery in this area as viewed from the day use area and 

lake. Commercial thinning of young growth units is not expected to have long-term 

impacts to scenery. 

Big Lake Fish Pass Trail

Timber harvest is proposed in the vicinity of this trail under all of the action alternatives. 

Alternatives 3 through 5 include young-growth units located either side of the road that 

provides access to the trail. Harvest in these areas would likely require temporary closure 

of this road to allow safe access for logging equipment and crews and would block access 

to the trail. These impacts would be temporary. Impacts to scenery are discussed in the 

Scenery section of this document.
3 Environment and Effects

3-456 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Boyscout Multiuse Trail

Parts of the old road systems (3017-3018 Roads) that comprise the Boyscout Multiuse 

Trail would be used to access proposed harvest units under all of the action alternatives. 

This is especially the case under Alternatives 3 through 5, which include young-growth 

units along Forest Road 3018. Harvest in these areas would likely require temporary 

closure of these roads to allow safe access for logging equipment and crews and would 

block access to the trail. Logging activity in nearby areas would also be apparent to users 

of the Boyscout Multiuse Trail. These impacts would be temporary. A number of roads 

that branch off Forest Road 3018 would require reconstruction, but Forest Road 3018 

itself would not need any reconstruction work.

Logging could also result in some long-term impacts to scenery in old-growth units near 

the trail, which could affect the quality of the OHV recreation experience. Commercial 

thinning in young-growth areas along the road system is not expected to have long-term 

impacts to scenery.

Control Lake Cabin

No harvest units are proposed in the immediate vicinity of this recreation site under any of 

the action alternatives. The closest proposed harvest unit is located the other side of the 

lake and across Control Lake-Klawock highway. Some timber harvest planned for units 

across the state highway would be partially visible in the background or middleground 

(see Scenery Section) and audible from across Control Lake. 

Other Developed Recreation Sites

No harvest units are proposed in the vicinity of the other developed recreation sites in the 

Big Thorne project area—Cutthroat Road/Trail, Hatchery Creek Trail, and Honker Lake 

Cabin—under any of the alternatives. These sites are, therefore, not expected to be 

affected under any of the alternatives.

Undeveloped Recreation Sites

With the exception of the undeveloped recreation sites along the Honker Divide Canoe 

Route, the majority of the undeveloped recreation sites discussed in the Affected 

Environment section are accessed from the existing road system (Figure REC-2). Most of 

these sites would experience short-term impacts from the presence of road building and 

logging crews and equipment on nearby roads, as well as from log trucks. Long-term 

impacts to these sites would primarily result from changes to scenery, which could 

potentially affect the quality of the recreation experience, especially in more remote areas 

where harvest has not occurred in the recent past. Impacts to scenery are evaluated in the 

Scenery section of this document. Impacts to undeveloped sites along the Honker Divide 

Canoe Route would be similar to those discussed for the Canoe Route as a whole, above.

Implementation of the applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and BMPs would 

mitigate potential impacts to fisheries. As a result, none of the alternatives are expected to 

have measurable effects on fish habitat and are, therefore, unlikely to affect sport fishing 

or businesses that focus on sport fishing.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-457

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

Potential impacts to road systems that receive recreational OHV use in the project area are 

likely to be similar to those described above for the Boyscout Multiuse Trail. The action 

alternatives would likely require temporary closure of parts of the road/trail system to 

allow safe access for logging equipment and crews. Logging activity in nearby areas 

would be apparent to users of this road/trail system. Long-term visual impacts could 

result from harvest in nearby old-growth units, but much of the area adjacent to these 

roads has been harvested in the past. Commercial thinning in young-growth areas along 

the road system under Alternatives 3 through 5 is not expected to have long-term impacts 

to scenery. 

Most of the new roads proposed under the action alternatives would be temporary and 

would be decommissioned after timber harvest and hauling is completed. Some of the 

new roads would be system roads and would remain seasonally open (May 1 to November 

30) for 1 to 5 years to allow for firewood removal. These new roads would be seasonally 

open to highway legal vehicles only and would not provide additional OHV opportunities. 

However, full implementation of the proposed Road Management Objectives (RMOs) for 

the proposed roads would result in a small increase in the miles of motorized trail suitable 

for OHV use in the project area under all four action alternatives. There would be no 

changes to the ATM for existing NFS roads.

Special Use Permits and Outfitter/Guide Use

Seven locations in the Big Thorne project area are currently authorized for outfitter/guide 

use under special use permits. These locations are identified in Table REC-4. Fishing 

was the primary outfitter/guide activity at all seven locations. Increased traffic and 

temporary road closures could have an impact on the locations that outfitter/guides choose 

for access. These impacts would be localized and temporary. None of the proposed 

alternatives are expected to result in long-term impacts to the ability of outfitter/guides to 

use these areas. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on recreation because there would 

be no timber harvest or road construction/reconstruction under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on recreation because there would be no 

timber harvest or road construction/reconstruction under this alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative 2, a total of 2,007 acres would change from the SPNM ROS setting to 

RM (Table REC-5). This represents approximately 3 percent of the 69,231 acres currently 

allocated to SPNM in the project area. In addition, an estimated 418 acres would change 

from the SPM ROS setting to RM and 605 acres would change from the RN ROS setting 
3 Environment and Effects

3-458 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

to RM; these changes represent approximately 4 percent and 62 percent of the total acres 

in the project area currently allocated to these ROS settings, respectively (Table REC-5).

This alternative would result in short-term impacts to recreation places and sites, as 

described in the Recreation Places and Sites section, above. This alternative does not 

include young-growth thinning and would harvest fewer total acres than the other action 

alternatives (Alternatives 3 through 5). It would harvest fewer old-growth acres than 

Alternative 3, more than Alternative 4, and nearly the same amount as Alternative 5. 

Long-term impacts to recreation places and sites would primarily be related to changes in 

scenery. 

Alternative 2 would have short-term impacts on OHV users, as described in the OffHighway Vehicle Use section, above. There would be no increase in the miles of 

roads/trails available for OHV use in the short-term under this alternative. Full 

implementation of the proposed RMOs for proposed roads would result in a small increase 

(3 miles) in the miles of motorized trail suitable for OHV use.

This alternative would have short-term impacts on outfitter/guide use, but is not expected 

to have long-term impacts on the ability of outfitter/guides to use currently permitted 

locations. 

Recreation use patterns in the project area are not expected to change greatly as a result of 

this alternative because the popular recreation sites in the project area would not 

experience long-term effects and access to fishing and hunting activities is likely to 

remain relatively consistent. Potential impacts to wildlife populations and the availability 

of hunting and fishing species are summarized above and addressed in more detail in the 

Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use and Fisheries sections of this document.

Cumulative Effects 

The existing road systems and harvested areas have heavily influenced the character and 

value of recreation use in the Big Thorne project area. Past land management activities in 

the area have involved moderate to intensive timber management and road development. 

The influence of these activities on recreation opportunities in the area is reflected in the 

current ROS settings shown in Figure REC-1. Remote recreation opportunities are 

primarily available in the IRAs, which comprise about 40 percent of the project area. The 

roaded parts of the project area are mainly allocated to the RM setting. Harvest and road 

building activities proposed under this alternative are located outside the existing IRAs

and, as noted above, would result in a reduction in SPNM, SPM, and RN acres in the 

project area (Table REC-5). 

The reasonably foreseeable projects identified in the project area would also be largely 

concentrated outside the IRAs in the project area. As a result, this alternative is not 

expected to contribute to long-term changes to overall patterns of recreation use in the 

project area. Existing opportunities would continue to be available for those seeking 

remote and primitive recreation experiences and those seeking access to fishing and 

hunting opportunities would continue to have those opportunities.

Short-term cumulative impacts could occur if one or more of the reasonably foreseeable 

projects were to coincide in time and space with the project. This could result in 

additional temporary disruptions to recreation use and could affect the quality of the 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-459

recreation experience in localized areas. These types of impacts would be limited to the 

duration of road building and harvest activities in a particular location.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative 3, a total of 1,795 acres would change from the SPNM ROS setting to 

RM (Table REC-5). This represents approximately 3 percent of the 69,231 acres currently 

allocated to SPNM in the project area. In addition, an estimated 2,857 acres would 

change from the SPM ROS setting to RM and 796 acres would change from the RN ROS 

setting to RM; these changes represent approximately 26 percent and 82 percent of the 

total acres in the project area currently allocated to these ROS settings, respectively (Table 

REC-5).

This alternative would result in short-term impacts to recreation places and sites, as 

described in the Recreation Places and Sites section, above. Alternative 3 would harvest 

more total acres (old growth and young growth) than the other action alternatives 

(Alternatives 2, 4, and 5), ranging from 1.3 times (Alternative 5) to 1.9 times as many 

(Alternative 2). This alternative would also require more road construction and 

reconstruction. 

Assuming that short-term impacts to recreation sites and places would increase with the 

amount of logging and road building, impacts resulting from temporary closures to road 

and trail systems to allow safe access for logging equipment and crews would likely be 

higher under this alternative than under the other action alternatives. This would also be 

the case with other impacts related to the presence of road building and logging activities. 

Logging activities may also be more apparent to recreation users under this alternative 

than under Alternative 2 because this alternative involves commercial thinning of younggrowth units, which tend to be located closer to existing road systems than old-growth 

stands. Commercial thinning in young-growth areas is expected to have short-term 

impacts on recreation. In addition, the commercial thinning prescribed under this 

alternative may increase the deer forage in the area and provide more opportunities for 

hunting. Impacts to deer are discussed in the Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use 

section of this document. This alternative includes a larger area of commercial thinning 

than Alternatives 4 and 5, the other alternatives that have a commercial thinning 

component.

Alternative 3 has the potential to affect recreation users traveling the Honker Divide 

Canoe Route because it includes harvest units and road building along Honker Road, 

northeast of Thorne Lake. These potential impacts are discussed further in the Recreation 

Places and Sites section, above.

Alternative 3 would have short-term impacts on OHV users, as described in the OffHighway Vehicle Use section, above. Logging activities may be more apparent to OHV 

users under this alternative than under Alternative 2 because it involves commercial 

thinning of young growth along existing road systems that are used by OHVs. Short-term 

road closures would also be required on some popular OHV trail systems. There would 

be no increase in the miles of roads/trails available for OHV use in the short term under 
3 Environment and Effects

3-460 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

this alternative and full implementation of the proposed RMOs for proposed roads would 

result in a small increase (4 miles) in the miles of motorized trail suitable for OHV use.

This alternative would have short-term impacts on outfitter/guide use, but is not expected 

to have long-term impacts on the ability of outfitter/guides to use currently permitted 

locations. 

Recreation use patterns in the project area are not expected to change greatly as a result of 

this alternative because the popular recreation sites in the project area would not 

experience long-term effects and access to fishing and hunting activities is likely to 

remain relatively consistent. Potential impacts to wildlife populations and the availability 

of hunting and fishing species are addressed in the Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use 

and Fisheries sections of this document.

Cumulative Effects 

Harvest and road building activities proposed under this alternative are located outside the 

existing IRAs and, as noted above, would result in a reduction in SPNM, SPM, and RN 

acres in the project area (Table REC-5). 

In conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, this alternative is not expected 

to contribute to long-term changes to overall patterns of recreation use in the project area. 

Existing opportunities would continue to be available for those seeking remote and 

primitive recreation experiences and those seeking access to fishing and hunting 

opportunities would continue to have those opportunities.

Short-term cumulative impacts could occur if one of more of the reasonably foreseeable 

projects were to coincide in time and space with the project. This could result in 

additional temporary disruptions to recreation use and could affect the quality of the 

recreation experience in localized areas. These types of short-term cumulative impacts 

would likely be larger under Alternative 3 because more acres would be harvested and 

more miles of road would be constructed and reconstructed under this alternative.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative 4, a total of 195 acres would change from the SPNM ROS setting to 

RM (Table REC-5). This represents approximately 0.3 percent of the 69,231 acres 

currently allocated to SPNM in the project area. In addition, ,an estimated 1,030 acres 

would change from the SPM ROS setting to RM and 173 acres would change from the 

RN ROS setting to RM; these changes represent approximately 10 percent and 18 percent 

of the total acres in the project area currently allocated to these ROS settings, respectively 

(Table REC-5).

This alternative would result in short-term impacts to recreation places and sites, as 

described in the Recreation Places and Sites section, above. Alternative 4 would involve 

the lowest amount of old-growth harvest among the action alternatives, and would thin 

fewer acres of young growth than Alternatives 3 and 5. Long-term impacts to recreation 

places and sites would primarily be related to changes in scenery. These impacts are 

discussed in the Scenery Resource Report (Evans 2012). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-461

Logging activities may also be more apparent to recreation users under this alternative 

than under Alternative 2 because this alternative involves commercial thinning of younggrowth units, which tend to be located closer to existing road systems than old-growth 

stands. Commercial thinning in young growth areas is expected to have short-term 

impacts on recreation. In addition, the commercial thinning prescribed under this 

alternative may increase the deer forage in the area and provide more opportunities for 

hunting. Impacts to deer are discussed in the Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use 

section of this document. This alternative involves fewer commercial thinning acres than 

Alternative 3 and more than Alternative 5.

Alternative 4 would have short-term impacts on OHV users, as described in the OffHighway Vehicle Use section, above. Logging activities may be more apparent to OHV 

users under this alternative than under Alternative 2 because it involves commercial 

thinning of young growth along existing road systems that are used by OHVs. These 

impacts would be short term. There would be no increase in the miles of roads/trails 

available for OHV use in the short term under this alternative and full implementation of 

the proposed RMOs for proposed roads would result in a relatively small increase (2 

miles) in the miles of motorized trail suitable for OHV use.

This alternative would have short-term impacts on outfitter/guide use, but is not expected 

to have long-term impacts on the ability of outfitter/guides to use currently permitted 

locations. 

Recreation use patterns in the project area are not expected to change greatly as a result of 

this alternative because the popular recreation sites in the project area would not 

experience long-term effects and access to fishing and hunting activities is likely to 

remain relatively consistent. Potential impacts to wildlife populations and the availability 

of hunting and fishing species are addressed in the Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use 

and Fisheries sections of this document.

Cumulative Effects 

Harvest and road building activities proposed under this alternative are located outside the 

existing IRA and, as noted above, would result in a reduction in SPNM, SPM, and RN 

acres in the project area (Table REC-5). Viewed in conjunction with other reasonably 

foreseeable projects, this alternative is not expected to contribute to long-term changes to 

overall patterns of recreation use in the project area. Existing opportunities would 

continue to be available for those seeking remote and primitive recreation experiences and 

those seeking access to fishing and hunting opportunities would continue to have those 

opportunities.

Short-term cumulative impacts could occur were one of more of the reasonably 

foreseeable projects to coincide in time and space with the project. This could result in 

additional temporary disruptions to recreation use and could affect the quality of the 

recreation experience in localized areas. These types of impacts would be limited to the 

duration of road building and harvest activities in a particular location. 
3 Environment and Effects

3-462 ▪ Recreation Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 5 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative 5, a total of 921 acres would change from the SPNM ROS setting to 

RM (Table REC-5). This represents approximately 1 percent of the 69,231 acres currently 

allocated to SPNM in the project area. In addition, an estimated 173 acres would change 

from the SPM ROS setting to RM and 8 acres would change from the RN ROS setting to 

RM; these changes represent approximately 2 percent and 10 percent of the total acres in 

the project area currently allocated to these ROS settings, respectively (Table REC-5).

This alternative would result in short-term impacts to recreation places and sites, as 

described in the Recreation Places and Sites section, above. This alternative would 

involve the second largest number of total acres harvested, ranking second to Alternative 

3 in terms of old-growth and young-growth acres. This alternative would require fewer 

miles of new road construction and road reconstruction than the other action alternatives 

because a larger portion of the units would be helicopter logged. Long-term impacts to 

recreation places and sites would primarily be related to changes in scenery. These 

impacts are discussed in the Scenery Resource Report (Evans 2012). 

Logging activities may also be more apparent to recreation users under this alternative 

than under Alternative 2 because this alternative involves commercial thinning of younggrowth units, which tend to be located closer to existing road systems than old-growth 

stands. Commercial thinning in young-growth areas is expected to have mostly short-term 

impacts on recreation and is not expected to have long-term impacts on scenery. In 

addition, the commercial thinning prescribed under this alternative may increase the deer 

forage in the area and provide more opportunities for hunting. Impacts to deer are 

discussed in the Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use section of this document. This 

alternative involves fewer commercial thinning acres than the other action alternatives 

(Alternatives 3 and 4) that include commercial thinning.

Alternative 5 would have short-term impacts on OHV users, as described in the OffHighway Vehicle Use section, above. Logging activities may be more apparent to OHV 

users under this alternative than under Alternative 2 because it involves commercial 

thinning of young growth along existing road systems that are used by OHVs. These 

impacts would be short term. There would be no increase in the miles of roads/trails 

available for OHV use in the short term under this alternative and full implementation of 

the proposed RMOs for proposed roads would result in a relatively small increase (1 mile) 

in the miles of motorized trail suitable for OHV use.

This alternative would have short-term impacts on outfitter/guide use, but is not expected 

to have long-term impacts on the ability of outfitter/guides to use currently permitted 

locations. 

Recreation use patterns in the project area are not expected to change greatly as a result of 

this alternative because the popular recreation sites in the project area would not 

experience long-term effects and access to fishing and hunting activities is likely to 

remain relatively consistent. Potential impacts to wildlife populations and the availability 

of hunting and fishing species are addressed in the Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use 

and Fisheries sections of this document.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Recreation ▪ 3-463

Cumulative Effects 

Harvest and road building activities proposed under this alternative are located outside the 

existing IRA and, as noted above, would result in a reduction in SPNM, SPM, and RN 

acres in the project area (Table REC-5). Viewed in conjunction with other reasonably 

foreseeable projects, this alternative is not expected to contribute to long-term changes to 

overall patterns of recreation use in the project area. Existing opportunities would 

continue to be available for those seeking remote and primitive recreation experiences and 

those seeking access to fishing and hunting opportunities would continue to have those 

opportunities.

Short-term cumulative impacts could occur were one or more of the reasonably 

foreseeable projects to coincide in time and space with the project. This could result in 

additional temporary disruptions to recreation use and could affect the quality of the 

recreation experience in localized areas. These types of impacts would be limited to the 

duration of road building and harvest activities in a particular location.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-464 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Scenery

Introduction

This section provides an assessment of the current condition of the project area and the 

potential effects of implementing the proposed action and the alternatives on scenery 

resources. Scenery resource direction for the project area is contained in the 2008 Forest 

Plan and described in the Scenery Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (Chapter 4) for 

each specific management prescription or LUD (Chapter 3). The process of planning 

harvest units and how scenery resources were taken into account is documented in the 

Scenery Resource Report in the project record, as well as in the unit and road cards of 

Appendices B and C.

Methodology

The scenic resource objectives are based on the visibility of landscapes from identified 

Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas (VPRs) listed in Appendix F of the Forest Plan, 

incorporating management objectives of the Forest Plan land use designations. The scenic 

resource evaluation of the project area initially reviewed the GIS mapping data of 

inventoried visual resource attributes for content and accuracy. The adopted scenic 

integrity objectives (SIOs) for the project were formulated in GIS incorporating the Forest 

Plan land use designations and the distance zone visual resource attribute.

The analysis area for the scenery analysis is represented by the project area, because it 

contains the viewsheds used in the assessment.

Field reconnaissance surveys were conducted in 2011 by visiting VPRs and observing 

potential harvest areas. Project area landscapes were documented from key viewing 

points along VPRs using a digital single-lens reflex camera. Individual photographs were 

combined to create panoramic views of the proposed unit locations and the surrounding 

landscape. These photographs were used to evaluate the area visible from VPRs, existing 

scenery integrity, and the conditions needed to achieve the SIOs identified in the Forest 

Plan (Table SCEN-1).

Table SCEN-1. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for the primary LUDs in the project 

area as identified in the Forest Plan .

LUD Foreground Middleground Background Seldom Seen

Old-growth Habitat High High High High

Scenic River High Moderate Moderate Low

Recreational River Moderate Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Very Low

Scenic Viewshed High Moderate Moderate Very Low

Modified Landscape Moderate Low Low Very Low

Timber Production Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-465

Affected Environment

Landscape Character

Tongass National Forest is divided into 11 geographic areas defined as “landscape 

character types” that have general or distinguishing physical, biological, and cultural 

characteristics which, help define the visual significance of a landscape (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). Most of Prince of Wales Island and all of the project area falls into what is 

defined as the Prince of Wales Mountains/Lowlands landscape character type. This 

landscape character type consists of rounded, but often rugged mountains to 3,000 feet 

and higher, separated by hilly or rolling terrain and lowlands and dominated by forest 

vegetation. Hemlock and hemlock-spruce forests occur on well-drained sites, while 

mixed conifers and lodgepole pine forests occupy wetter areas. The forests are often 

moderately to highly productive on the steeper slopes and valley bottoms and 

nonproductive or low productive in the wetter lowlands. Open shrubby bogs and fens 

occur on the wettest spots and open alpine areas occur on mountain tops. Past timber 

harvest has produced many stands in various successional stages. Thorne Bay, Coffman 

Cove, Naukati, Klawock, and other settlements occur within or adjacent to the area, and 

roads, buildings, and other structures are very visible in or near these communities.

Scenic Attractiveness

Scenic attractiveness is the primary indicator of the intrinsic beauty of a particular 

landscape character type and of the positive responses it evokes in people. It helps 

determine landscapes that are important for scenic beauty, as well as those that are of 

lesser value, based on commonly held perceptions of the beauty of landform, vegetation 

pattern, composition, surface water characteristics, and land use patterns and cultural 

features (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

The scenery management system provides a process that rates the inherent scenic 

attractiveness based on the values listed above as either Class A – Distinctive, B – Typical 

or C – Indistinctive. The inventory for the project area identifies 11 percent of its 

landscape as Class A – Distinctive, 89 percent as Class B – Typical, and none as Class C –

Indistinctive. 

Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas (VPRs)

Appendix F of the Forest Plan identifies routes and use areas from which scenery is to be 

emphasized for each Ranger District. They include popular roads people drive, cabins or 

recreation areas that people use, and trails on which they hike or canoe. They also include 

cruise ship, ferry boat, and personal watercraft routes that are frequently travelled, or 

popular saltwater anchorages. VPRs specific to Thorne Bay Ranger District are identified 

on page F-18 in Appendix F of the Forest Plan. 

There is a high concentration of VPRs in the project area (Figure SCEN-1). They include 

the following: 

 Main roads through the project area, including Klawock to Control Lake Junction, 

Control Lake Junction to El Capitan, Control Lake Junction to Thorne Bay, 

Thorne Bay to Sandy Beach, and Sandy Beach to Coffman Cove. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-466 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure SCEN-1. Major Visual Priority Routes & Use Areas in Big Thorne Project Area 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-467

 Dispersed recreation areas including Sandy Beach, Ratz Harbor, Salt Chuck, 

Control Lake, Snakey Lakes, Honker Lake, Honker Canoe Route, lower Thorne 

River, and Eagle Creek.

 Developed recreation areas including Eagles Nest Campground (Balls Lake), Balls 

Lake Picnic Area, Gravelly Creek Picnic Area, Sandy Beach Picnic Area, and Ratz 

Harbor Boat Launch.

 Forest Service recreation cabinsincluding the ones at Control Lake and Honker Lake.

 Hiking trails including Eagles Nest Trail, Balls Lake Trail, Honker Divide Canoe

Trail, and Gravelly Creek Trail.

 Communities including Thorne Bay.

 Recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers including the Thorne River/Hatchery 

Creek/Barnes Lake.

 Alaska Marine Highway Routes and Small Boat and Mid-size Tour Boat Routes 

including Clarence Strait.

 Saltwater Use Areas including Thorne Bay to Snug Anchorage.

 Boat Anchorages including Big Ratz Harbor and Little Ratz Harbor.

Visibility and Distance Zones

The SIO for a given area is dependent on the LUD, as described above, together with its 

visibility (i.e., seen vs. not seen areas) and distance zones (i.e., foreground, middleground, 

and background) from VPRs. Therefore, visibility and distance zones must be mapped 

and combined with LUD to determine SIO. They are mapped by measuring foreground, 

middleground, and background distances from the identified VPRs. The percentage of the 

project area mapped in the different distance zones are as follows: Foreground 9 percent, 

Middleground 24 percent, Background 2 percent, and Not Seen 65 percent.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs)

The Forest Service developed and implemented the Visual Management System in 1974. 

This long-serving system was replaced by the newer (but similar) Scenery Management 

System in 1995. Under this new system, SIO is the term used to describe the visual 

condition of the landscape.

The SIO is used to also describe the degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic 

landscape, and is assigned to the combination of LUDs and distance zones, as seen from 

visual priority travel routes and use areas.

SIOs for the Tongass National Forest LUDs can be found on pages 4-56 to 4-59 of the Forest 

Plan. The acreages of SIOs found in the project area are presented in Table SCEN-2. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-468 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table SCEN-2. Acreage of Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) in the Project Area

SIO Project Area Acres

High 83,633

Moderate 8,036

Low 33,487

Very Low 92,523

Total NFS 217,679

Non-National Forest 14,169

Total All Lands 231,848

Figure SCEN-2 spatially displays the SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan for the project area. 

The SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan are defined as follows:

 Very High SIO: Landscapes where the landscape character is intact with only 

minute, if any, deviations. 

 High SIO: Landscapes where the landscape character “appears” intact. 

Deviations are not readily evident to the casual observer. 

 Moderate SIO: Landscapes where the landscape character “appears slightly altered.” 

Deviations are noticeable to the casual observer, but do not dominate landscape. 

 Low SIO: Landscapes where the landscape character “appears moderately 

altered.” Deviations can begin to dominate a scene, but must blend with 

surrounding landscape, as viewed by the casual observer. 

 Very Low SIO: Landscapes where the landscape character “appears heavily 

altered.” Deviations clearly dominate, but must blend to some degree.

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI)

The Forest Plan (p. 4-56) states that it is important to compare the existing scenic integrity 

of the project area to the SIO of the land use designation. This is to determine if existing 

condition conflicts with Forest Plan SIOs and how much additional disturbance is 

allowed. 

Existing scenic integrity (ESI) is defined as the current state of the landscape, considering 

previous human alterations (USDA Forest Service 1995, p. I-2). The latest spatial data on 

record that represents ESI is the existing visual conditions layer (EVC) (Table SCEN-3).

Table SCEN-3. Existing Visual Condition/Existing Scenic Integrity in the Project Area

EVC/ESI Type Project Area Acres

Type 1 - Natural 86,330

Type 2 - Naturally Appearing 128

Type 3 - Slightly Altered 14,016

Type 4 - Altered 49,660

Type 5 - Heavily Altered 67,545

Total NFS 217,679

Non-National Forest 14,169

Total All Lands 231,848
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-469

Figure SCEN-2. Scenic Integrity Objectives in the Big Thorne Project Area 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-470 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Visual Absorption Capability

Visual absorption capability (VAC) is defined as an index of the relative ability of a 

landscape to accept alteration (e.g., timber harvesting) without significantly affecting its 

visual character, and is classified as being High, Intermediate, or Low. For example, High 

VAC means that landscape has the greatest ability to absorb change, where Low VAC 

means a low ability to absorb change generally due to steep slope conditions.

Timber harvest unit sizes can be influenced by the VAC settings in combination with 

SIOs (see Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Scenery), and referring to these 

factors in the unit layout and design portion of the planning process is recommended. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects for scenery in all affected viewsheds are estimated 

using quantifiable measures or indicators for actual effects, as supported by the references 

(for example, percent of visible areas are an indicator for increased visibility under each 

alternative). The level (magnitude and intensity) of effects is also characterized by 

measures/indicators 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. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects Common to the Action Alternatives

The effects of the Big Thorne project would be limited through the site-specific 

application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines in all alternatives. In particular, the 

LUD-specific measures identified in Chapter 3 and the Forest-wide measures identified in 

the Scenery section of Chapter 4 would be implemented.

For the Big Thorne project, mitigation to reduce scenery effects was incorporated into 

harvest unit design and harvest unit prescriptions for all alternatives. Units with moderate 

or high SIOs were given priority for mitigation. Primary measures included: 1) deferring 

harvest of a setting or group of settings; 2) modifying unit size and/or shape; 3) changing 

prescription to partial harvest with 25 to 50 percent removal; 4) use of vegetative 

screening or buffers adjacent to VPRs; and 5) when needed, have the Forest landscape 

architect involved in final unit design. Where new roads are proposed or existing roads 

are reconstructed, the expansion of existing rock quarries would be required; final design 

of this expansion would be reviewed by the Forest landscape architect. , if there are 

scenery concerns. 

In general, the effects of the alternatives on scenery would be derived from the harvest of 

old growth, thinning of young growth, and road construction and reconstruction. Among 

these actions, the harvest of old growth and new road construction would have the greatest 

effect. Thinning of young growth would have very minimal effects on scenery because 

from half to two-thirds of the original stand would remain, including the tallest trees. This 

definitely applies to uniform thinning, which was the preferred method. However, strip 

thinning is used where necessary because of logging system requirements, and it has the 

potential to create visual issues. The resolution is that where strips could be a visual 

concern, the strip width was adjusted to be 20 feet wide. A width slightly less than the 

expected spacing between leave trees in the other thinning prescriptions, thus their 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-471

visibility would be minimized. For these reasons, the discussions that follow emphasize 

the effects of old-growth harvest and road construction.

All alternatives would meet the level of scenic quality prescribed by the SIOs adopted for 

the affected landscapes in the Forest Plan. The overall effects from management activities 

within the project area would be visually evident to varying degrees dependent upon 

distance at which observed, type and extent of harvest, and weather conditions at the time 

observed. Visual disturbance would be dispersed throughout the project area with no 

single area impacted beyond maximum disturbance thresholds at any one time. 

A general measure of the direct effects of the alternatives is the acreage of harvest units 

and miles of road by SIO. Because Old-growth Habitat LUDs would change under 

Alternatives 3 and 4, there would be changes in the SIOs that need to be achieved in 

specific areas (see Issue 2 scenery discussions, earlier in this chapter). The new SIO 

allocations under Alternatives 3 and 4 are mapped in Figures SCEN-3 and SCEN-4. 

These can be compared with the existing SIOs in Figure SCEN-2.

Table SCEN-4 presents these acreages and categorizes them by method of harvest. This 

information is referred to in the following alternative-specific discussions. In general, 

Alternative 3 includes the highest acreage of harvest in both High and Moderate SIO, 

while Alternative 4 includes the lowest acreage. Alternatives 2 and 5 would be 

intermediate.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-472 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure SCEN-3. Scenic Integrity Objectives with Alternative 3 in the Big Thorne 

Project Area
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-473

Figure SCEN-4. Scenic Integrity Objectives with Alternative 4 in the Big Thorne 

Project Area.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-474 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Similarly, Table SCEN-5 presents the road miles to be constructed and reconstructed by 

SIO for each alternative. Again in general, Alternative 3 includes the highest road

construction and reconstruction mileage in High and Moderate SIOs; however, 

Alternative 5 would include the lowest mileages. Alternatives 2 and 4 would be 

intermediate.

A description of each alternative, with specific information regarding units of special 

visual concern, is provided in the following subsections.

Table SCEN-4. Clearcut (CC) and Partial Cut (PC) Harvest Acreage by Scenery Integrity 

Objective under the Action Alternatives

SIO

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

CC PC CC PC CC PC CC PC CC PC

High 0 0 57 15 58 16 24 16 57 15

Moderate 0 0 151 52 331 84 49 52 155 50

Low 0 0 1,007 494 1,418 873 680 628 974 602

Very Low 0 0 3,016 150 3,979 150 1,145 1,627 2,756 402

TOTAL 0 0 4,232 711 5,786 1,123 1,899 2,324 3,941 1,070

Table SCEN-5. Road Construction (Con) and Reconstruction (Rec) Mileage by Scenery 

Integrity Objective under the Action Alternatives

SIO

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Con Rec Con Rec Con Rec Con Rec Con Rec

High 0 0 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5

Moderate 0 0 1.3 0.2 4.8 0.5 2.0 0.4 1.7 0.3

Low 0 0 8.6 3.4 15.7 6.4 7.6 2.3 5.0 3.3

Very Low 0 0 24.4 14.7 33.8 30.1 9.1 18.3 8.0 11.2

Non-NFS 0 0 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3

TOTAL 0 0 34.9 19.3 56.1 39.0 19.5 21.5 15.5 15.6

Alternative 1

Under the No-action Alternative, no timber harvest or thinning and no road construction 

or reconstruction would occur under the Big Thorne project. Therefore, no direct or 

indirect effects on scenery would occur, except for those associated with small roadside 

sales, thinning, and road maintenance and storage activities, which would result in 

insignificant changes. This alternative defers timber harvest in the project area and 

maintains the existing visual character of the landscape. Previously harvested units within 

the project area would continue to mature and develop the visual characteristics of a more 

natural appearing and undeveloped forest.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would meet the SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan. Timber harvest and road 

construction would occur as described in Tables SCEN-4 and SCEN-5. Clearcut harvest 

would occur on 58 acres of High SIO and 171 acres of Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-4). In 

addition, 0.6 mile of road would be constructed in High SIO and 1.3 miles would be 

constructed in Moderate SIO; an additional 0.9 mile of existing road would be 

reconstructed in High and Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-5). No commercial harvest of 

young growth would occur in this alternative. Specific harvest unit mitigation measures 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-475

for visually sensitive units that are designed to meet the adopted SIO are described in the 

following paragraphs.

Units 5950-1, 5950-2, and 5950-22, along the highway from Klawock to Control Lake 

Junction, are partially or entirely (595-22) within Scenic Viewshed LUD and portions of 

them are included in High SIO. All units were modified to include a visual buffer along 

the highway to partially screen views into the units from the VPR.

Unit 5950-24 is also along the highway from Klawock to Control Lake Junction and is 

partially within Scenic Viewshed LUD with the remainder in Modified Landscape. As a 

result, most of the unit is either Moderate or High SIO. The unit is set back 200 to 

500 feet from the highway, but is on a slope that rises 300 or so feet above the highway 

and is visible from highway straight stretches. Therefore, this unit was prescribed for 

uneven-aged management with 50 percent basal area retention.

Unit 5960-27 is along the highway from Control Lake Junction to Thorne Bay and is 

entirely within the Scenic Viewshed LUD. As a result, most of the unit has an adopted 

SIO of High and the unit was modified to include a visual buffer along the highway, 

which in conjunction with a riparian buffer, would partially screen views into the unit 

from the VPR. 

About 11 acres of Unit 59701-62 and about 27 acres of Unit 5790-119 are inside the outer 

edge of the Recreational River LUD and have Moderate SIOs. Neither of these units is 

visible from anywhere near the river and both would meet SIOs. No other units in this 

alternative are expected to be visible from the Scenic or Recreational River corridor and 

no effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenery value is expected.

Unit 5790-119 is near the highway from Control Lake Junction to Thorne Bay and is also 

close to the Thorne River and the Gravelly Creek Picnic Area. This unit is screened by a 

wide (400- to 700-foot) buffer along the highway, which is established for other resource 

reasons and identified as legacy.

Units 5850-138 and 5850-139 are located about 1⁄4-mile inland from Sandy Beach. These 

units are clearcut, but two settings were deferred to reduce the size of the visible portion 

and legacy was added in many areas to partially screen the harvest. The units contain 

areas with Moderate, Low, and Very Low SIOs.

Units 585-140, 585-141, 585-142, and 584-143 are located about a mile north of the 

previous two units and are also close to the Sandy Beach to Coffman Cove Road and are 

generally over 1,500 feet from saltwater. These units were modified by deferring settings, 

changing some prescriptions to uneven-aged management, and adding substantial legacy 

areas between the units and the road and saltwater. The remaining harvest areas are 

mostly Low with some Very Low and 2 acres of Moderate SIOs. Overall, the visibility of 

some harvest areas would be a distraction from the natural scenic environment but 

confined to relatively small areas.

Units 584-153 and 584-154 are located further north along the Sandy Beach to Coffman 

Cove Road, south of Ratz Harbor. They are about 1,200 feet from saltwater. Unit 584-

153 would be clearcut, but is 72 percent in Low and Very Low SIO with 13 acres in 

Moderate SIO. Unit 584-153 would be partial cut (uneven-aged management).
3 Environment and Effects 

3-476 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Units 584-149, 584-161, 584-171, and 583-174 are units on slopes along Clarence Strait 

that are varying distances from saltwater. These are all prescribed for uneven-aged 

management. 

Units 581-191, 581-192, and 581-193 are along the Sandy Beach to Coffman Cove Road 

adjacent to Luck Lake. They are small clearcut units ranging from 9 to 20 acres in size 

and would be visible to some degree from the road. Unit 581-192 contains some 

screening along the road. All of the units are screened by riparian buffers and legacy from 

Luck Lake.

Units 581-194, 581-195, 581-197, and 581-200 are located on the mid- to upper-slopes to 

the west of Luck Lake. These units contain clearcut and partial cut (uneven-aged 

management) settings and include a large portion of helicopter harvest. The adopted SIO 

for these units consists entirely of Low and Very Low.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would meet the SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan. Timber harvest and road 

construction would occur as described in Tables SCEN-4 and SCEN-5. Clearcut harvest 

would occur on 59 acres of High SIO and 362 acres of Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-4). In 

addition, 0.7 mile of road would be constructed in High SIO and 5.0 miles would be 

constructed in Moderate SIO; an additional 1.8 mile of existing road would be 

reconstructed in High and Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-5). Thinning of young growth 

would occur in this alternative. Specific harvest unit mitigation measures for visually 

sensitive units that are designed to meet the adopted SIO are described in the following 

paragraphs.

Units 595-1, 595-2, 595-22, 595-24, 596-27, and 579-119, along the highways from 

Klawock to Control Lake Junction and from Control Lake Junction to Thorne Bay, would 

be treated the same as described under Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 includes 

Units 5972-115, 5972-116, and 5972-117, which also occur along the Control Lake 

Junction to Thorne Bay highway. These units include portions in Moderate SIO as well as 

Low SIO. Screening from the highway is provided by visual buffers, in the form of 

legacy, that follow the highway, complementing existing riparian buffers. 

Portions of Units 575-380, 575-381, 575-382, 575-383, 575-384, 575-386, 575-387, and 

575-394 may be visible in the middleground at distances of a mile or more from the 

Honker Divide Canoe Route from a few locations on lakes near the middle of the route. 

They have Low and Very Low SIOs. Large portions of the more visible upper slopes 

were deferred to reduce their visibility and reduce opening size. Although these units 

could slightly reduce visual quality from a few locations along this portion of the route, 

for the vast majority of the canoe route and the Scenic River corridor (even in this portion 

of the route), they would not be visible. The slight change in distance views is not 

expected to affect the overall classification of the Scenic River as having outstandingly 

remarkable scenery values. The visibility of Units 597.1-62 and 579-119, partially in the 

Recreational River LUD, would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Units 585-138, 585-139, 585-140, 585-141, 585-142, and 584-143, located near and to the 

north of Sandy Beach, would be treated the same as described under Alternative 2. 

Similarly, Units 584-153 and 584-154, located further north along the Sandy Beach to 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-477

Coffman Cove Road, south of Ratz Harbor, would also be treated the same as for 

Alternative 2.

Units 584-149, 584-161, 584-171, and 583-174, located on slopes along Clarence Strait at 

varying distances from saltwater, would be treated the same as described under 

Alternative 2.

Units 584-452, 584-454, 584-455, 584-456, and 584-457 are also located on slopes along 

Clarence Strait, generally 1,000 to 4,000 feetfeet from saltwater. They include some 

acreage with Moderate SIO, but they are mostly in Low SIO. The two largest units with 

the majority of the Moderate SIO area would be partial cut (uneven-aged management), 

while the smaller units would be clearcut.

Units 582-207, 582-212, 582-213, and 582-463 are located on slopes close to Clarence 

Strait between Ratz Harbor and Eagle Creek. All of these units are generally about 1,000 

ft from saltwater, but are allocated to Low SIO. However, all of the units, except for 582-

207, which is only 12 acres, would be partial cut (uneven-aged management).

Units 581-191, 581-192, and 581-193, along the Sandy Beach to Coffman Cove Road 

adjacent to Luck Lake, and Units 581-194, 581-195, 581-197, and 581-200, located on the 

mid- to upper-slopes to the west of Luck Lake, would be treated as for Alternative 2.

Units 581-464, 581-465, and 581-466 are located along Eagle Creek, between Luck Lake 

and Clarence Strait. These clearcut units consist primarily of Moderate and Low SIO. 

They are generally screened along the creek by its riparian buffer, a number of legacy 

patches on the steam-side of the units, and the relatively flat topography.

Units 581-469, 581-470, and 581-471 are located along the Sandy Beach to Coffman 

Cove Road north of Luck Lake. These clearcut units are almost entirely in Moderate and 

Low SIO. They are screened along the road with a visual buffer, which is incorporated 

into the units as legacy.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would meet the SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan. Timber harvest and road 

construction would occur as described in Tables SCEN-4 and SCEN-5. Clearcut harvest 

would occur on 25 acres of High SIO and 49 acres of Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-4). 

These acreages are by far the lowest among the action alternatives. In addition, 0.2 mile 

of road would be constructed in High SIO and 1.8 miles would be constructed in 

Moderate SIO; an additional 0.6 mile of existing road would be reconstructed in High and 

Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-5). Thinning of young growth would occur in this 

alternative. Specific harvest unit mitigation measures for visually sensitive units that are 

designed to meet the adopted SIO are described in the following paragraphs.

Units 595-1, 595-2, 595-22, and 579-119, along the highways from Klawock to Control 

Lake Junction and from Control Lake Junction to Thorne Bay, would be treated the same 

as described under Alternative 2. Similarly, the visibility of Units 597.1-62 and 579-119, 

partially in the Recreational River LUD, would be the same as described under 

Alternative 2.Units 585-139, 585-140, 585-142, and 584-143, located near Sandy Beach 

and to the north of it, would be treated the same as described under Alternative 2. Note 

that Units 585-138 and 585-141, which are described with this group, were dropped from 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-478 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 4. Similarly, Unit 584-154, located further north along the Sandy Beach to 

Coffman Cove Road, south of Ratz Harbor, would also be treated the same as for 

Alternative 2. Again, note that Unit 584-153 is not included in Alternative 4.

Units 584-149, 584-171, and 583-174, located on slopes along Clarence Strait varying 

distances from saltwater, would be treated the same as described for Alternative 2. Unit 

584-161, which is described in this group, is not included in Alternative 4.

Units 582-212 and 582-213, located on slopes close to Clarence Strait between Ratz 

Harbor and Eagle Creek, would be treated the same as described for Alternative 3. Note 

that Units 582-207 and 582-463, which are part of this group, are not included in 

Alternative 4. 

Units 582-207, 582-212, 582-213, and 582-463 are located on slopes close to Clarence 

Strait between Ratz Harbor and Eagle Creek. All of these units are generally about 1,000 

ft from saltwater, but are allocated to Low SIO. However, all of the units, except for 582-

207, which is only 12 acres, would be partial cut (uneven-aged management). 

Units 581-194, 581-195, 581-197, and 581-200, located on the mid- to upper-slopes to the 

west of Luck Lake, would be treated as described for Alternative 2.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 would meet the SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan. Timber harvest and road 

construction would occur as described in Tables SCEN-4 and SCEN-4. Clearcut harvest 

would occur on 58 acres of High SIO and 175 acres of Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-4). In 

addition, 0.4 mile of road would be constructed in High SIO and 2.5 miles would be 

constructed in Moderate SIO; an additional 0.8 mile of existing road would be 

reconstructed in High and Moderate SIO (Table SCEN-5). Thinning of young growth 

would occur in this alternative. Specific harvest unit mitigation measures for visually 

sensitive units that are designed to meet the adopted SIO are described in the following 

paragraphs.

Units 595-1, 595-2, 595-22, 595-24, 596-27, and 579-119, along the highways from 

Klawock to Control Lake Junction and from Control Lake Junction to Thorne Bay, would 

be treated the same as described under Alternative 2. Similarly, the visibility of Units 

597.1-62 and 579-119, partially in the Recreational River LUD, would be the same as 

described under Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 5 includes Units 5972-115, 5972-

116, and 5972-117 are along the highway from Control Lake Junction to Thorne Bay 

highway. These units would be treated as described under Alternative 3. 

Units 585-138, 585-139, 585-142, and 584-143, located near Sandy Beach and to the 

north of it, would be treated the same as described under Alternative 2. Note that Units 

585-140 and 585-141, which are described with this group, were dropped from 

Alternative 5. 

Units 584-149, 584-161, 584-171, and 583-174, located on slopes along Clarence Strait 

varying distances from saltwater, would be treated the same as described for Alternative 2.

Units 582-212 and 582-213, located on slopes close to Clarence Strait between Ratz 

Harbor and Eagle Creek, would be treated the same as described for Alternative 3. Note 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-479

that Units 582-207 and 582-463, which are part of this group, are not included in 

Alternative 5. 

Units 581-191, 581-192, and 581-193, along the Sandy Beach to Coffman Cove Road 

adjacent to Luck Lake, and Units 581-194, 581-195, 581-197, and 581-200, located on the 

mid- to upper-slopes to the west of Luck Lake, would be treated as for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects consider the overall scenic effects expected as a result of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future development. These effects include timber harvest, 

roads, rock pits, associated construction activities, and existing effects of adjacent nonNational Forest System lands. Previous development in the project area has modified the 

scenic environment of many areas from a natural condition to a condition where some 

landscapes appear heavily altered. These effects of past timber harvest would continue to 

lessen over time, becoming more natural appearing during the reasonably foreseeable 

future.

The scale or spatial extent from which to consider cumulative effects for the scenery 

resource can be represented as a viewshed, or for the purpose of this analysis, the VCUs, 

which have similar boundaries. Reasonably foreseeable activities such as thinning and 

road maintenance would not add additional scenic effects to the point of changing the 

overall scenic integrity as cumulative effects change over time (temporal extent) as 

young-growth stands mature. After a period of 30 years, young-growth stands are 

considered to have visually recovered.

Percent Allowable Visual Disturbance represents an index of cumulative effects modeled 

as the expected visual consequences of timber harvest during the analysis, and is described 

in Appendix B of the Forest Plan Final EIS, page B-23. Visual disturbance outcomes vary 

by the scenic objectives for each of the LUDs available for timber harvest. Using this 

model it was assumed for viewsheds within the Timber Production LUD that up to 50 

percent of a viewshed may be under development at one time. For viewsheds within the 

Modified Landscape LUD, up to 25 percent may be under development at one time. This 

is calculated by adding the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable harvest acres and 

dividing by the acres of a viewshed or VCU. Table SCEN-6 represents a comparison of the 

expected cumulative visual disturbance by alternative. As noted above, all harvest areas 30 

years old or younger were included as past disturbance. Because uneven-aged management 

and commercial thinning do not add to cumulative effects on a viewshed or landscape 

scale, only even-aged management is included.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-480 ▪ Scenery Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table SCEN-6 Cumulative Visual Disturbance in terms of Cumulative VCU Harvest (<30 yr-old young growth) and Percent of 

VCU Area Harvested for All Lands (includes past harvest, future Big Thorne harvest, other future NF harvest, and 

future State harvest)1/

VCU

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Cum. 

Acres3/ Cum. %

Cum. 

Acres3/ Cum. %

Cum. 

Acres3/ Cum. %

Cum. 

Acres3/ Cum. %

Cum. 

Acres3/ Cum. %

5740 1,706 6 1,706 6 1,706 6 1,706 6 1,706 6

5750 403 2 403 2 609 3 403 2 403 2

5760 546 4 559 4 559 4 546 4 559 4

5780 1,016 16 1,558 24 1,558 24 1,030 16 1,483 23

5790 1,170 11 1,549 14 1,618 15 1,422 13 1,526 14

5800 928 6 1,268 8 1,596 10 1,110 7 1,387 9

5810 2,046 10 2,439 12 2,715 13 2,243 11 2,383 12

5820 - 0 12 0 12 0 - 0 - 0

5830 1,172 9 1,437 12 1,445 12 1,267 10 1,361 11

5840 1,206 9 1,485 11 1,540 11 1,364 10 1,500 11

5850 735 7 961 9 1,052 10 833 8 872 8

58602/ 2,314 14 2,617 16 2,861 18 2,546 16 2,658 16

59502/ 4,550 21 5,194 24 5,303 25 4,938 23 5,116 24

59602/ 279 2 341 3 341 3 309 2 341 3

5971 213 7 239 7 239 7 213 7 239 7

59722/ 2,663 12 3,413 16 3,582 16 2,916 13 3,354 15

ALL VCUs 20,948 9 25,180 11 26,734 12 22,847 10 24,889 11

1/ Includes past harvest between 1981 and 2010; excludes past harvest greater than 30 years old as visually recovered. For the action alternatives, includes all proposed old-growth 

even-aged management acres; does not include commercial thinning of young growth or uneven-aged management.

2/ These VCUs include past harvest on state and private lands.

3/ 1,047 acres of future non-Big Thorne harvest is included on state and NFS lands.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Scenery ▪ 3-481

As shown in Table SCEN-6, all VCUs in all alternatives are below the total allowable 

visual disturbance thresholds of 50 percent for Timber Production areas and all are equal 

to or below the 25 percent for Modified Landscape areas. Only two VCUs (5780 and 

5950) have values above 18 percent for any of the alternatives. VCU 5780 (North Thorne 

River) has a cumulative percent of 24 percent in Alternatives 2 and 3, and 23 percent in 

Alternative 5. VCU 5950 (Steelhead Creek) has a cumulative percent of 21 percent in 

Alternative 1, 23 percent in Alternative 4, 24 percent in Alternatives 2 and 5, and 25 

percent in Alternative 3. The high values for VCU 5950 are partially caused by a high 

percentage of harvest on private lands in the western portion of the VCU, which is not 

connected to most of the viewsheds in the VCU. 

The visual effects of timber harvest are greatest immediately following completion of the 

project. Within 5 years, vegetation would begin to grow, transitioning in color from 

brown to light green. Green tree retention in the harvested areas (especially in unevenaged management areas, but also due to legacy, visual buffers, riparian buffers, and other 

leave areas) would reduce the overall contrast of new growth with the surrounding forest. 

From 5 to 20 years after tree removal, young trees become established reaching a height 

of approximately 15 to 30 feet and further reducing the color contrast with adjacent 

forested areas. After 50 years, the emerging forest would achieve a height of 

approximately 50 to 100 feet. Although still a lighter green in color than mature or oldgrowth forest, the color contrast at this point is less and textural differences are more 

apparent because the young-growth stands appears much more uniform. Edge lines 

forming the boundary of harvested areas also become less apparent, with the appearance 

further reduced by asymmetrical design. At 80 years after a harvest, stand vegetation 

achieves 75 percent of its mature height. At 100 years, the stand would reach 

approximately 100 feet in height and appearance of the past harvest would not be evident.

Assuming implementation of the Forest Plan, harvest of all suitable timber lands within 

the Big Thorne project area would occur within the next 100 to 120 years. During this 

period, the project area would be transitioning towards meeting the desired condition for 

the development LUDs. The landscape would be characterized by a mixture of stands 

ranging in stages of development. Age-classes of these stands would include recently 

harvested or regenerating stands, stands of young-growth composed of pole sized trees, to 

more mature young-growth and old-growth stands. The appearance of the activities 

associated with timber harvest within the Timber Production LUD will present a 

landscape highly modified by this change. To a lesser degree, landscapes within the 

Modified Landscape LUD and Scenic Viewshed LUDs will appear less modified by 

change. Landscapes within the Old-Growth Habitat and Semi-remote Recreation LUDs 

would remain unchanged.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-482 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness

Introduction

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are defined as undeveloped areas typically exceeding 

5,000 acres that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the 

Wilderness Act and were inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review 

and Evaluation (RARE II) process and during subsequent updates and forest planning 

analyses. The Tongass is currently using the IRA boundaries associated with the 2001 

Roadless Rule (USDA Forest Service 2001), which are identified in a set of maps, 

associated with the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final EIS, Volume 2, 

dated November 2000. These maps identify 9.3 million acres in IRAs on the Tongass and 

correspond closely with the 1996 roadless area inventory that was prepared for the 1997 

Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 1997). Including Wilderness, the Tongass 

National Forest is currently more than 90 percent roadless.

There is no designated Wilderness located within the Big Thorne project area. The Karta 

River Wilderness forms the southern boundary of the project area.

Analysis Methods

This project-level analysis does not evaluate roadless areas for wilderness 

recommendation. It does, however, summarize the roadless characteristics associated 

with the IRAs in the project area. Detailed descriptions of the IRAs on the Tongass are 

included in Appendix C to the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Final 

Supplemental EIS (SEIS), Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations 

(USDA Forest Service 2003). These characteristics are also discussed in more detail in 

the individual resource sections in this EIS. Table IRA-1 summarizes the roadless 

characteristics considered and the section in this chapter where potential effects are 

discussed.

Table IRA-1. Roadless Characteristics and Discussion Sections

2001 Roadless Rule Characteristics Chapter 3 Section

Biological Values

Diversity of plant and animal communities Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence 

Use, Botany, Fisheries

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive 

species, and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of 

land

Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence 

Use, Botany, Fisheries

Physical Values

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air Issue 3: Cumulative Watershed 

Effects, Soils 

Sources of public drinking water Aquatics

Social Values

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive 

Motorized classes of dispersed recreation opportunities

Recreation

Reference landscapes Scenery

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality Scenery

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites Heritage Resources

Other locally identified unique characteristics Recreation and Heritage Resources

Source: USDA Forest Service 2000
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness ▪ 3-483

None of the alternatives propose old-growth harvest units, young-growth thinning units, 

new roads, or reconstructed roads within IRAs and there would be no direct impacts to 

IRAs under any of the alternatives. The 2001 Roadless Rule does not prohibit 

development outside of IRAs; however, development close to an IRA could indirectly 

affect roadless area characteristics. The following analysis assessed these potential 

indirect effects by assessing the “zones of influence” that would be associated with 

activities outside but close to an IRA. The zones of influence considered in this analysis 

are a 600-foot buffer around old-growth harvest units and a 1,200-foot buffer placed 

around roads (USDA Forest Service 2003). 

The analysis focuses on potential impacts to the unique or outstanding biological, physical 

or social values of the IRAs. Roadless characteristics (i.e., values or features that make 

the area meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness 

Act) are described in the Roadless Area Conservation Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 

2000, Vol. 1, pp. 3-3 to 3-7).

Affected Environment

There are three IRAs partially located within the 232,000-acre Big Thorne project area: 

509 – Kogish, 510 – Karta, and 511 – Thorne River. One IRA – 512 – Ratz is entirely 

located in the project area. These areas are shown in Figure IRA-1. Summary data are 

presented in Table IRA-2. Approximately 47 percent of the area within these IRAs 

(92,232 acres) is located within the Big Thorne project area, ranging from just 5 percent 

(2,974 acres) of the Kogish IRA to all of the Ratz IRA (Table IRA-2). 

IRAs comprise approximately 40 percent (92,232 acres) of the Big Thorne project area, 

including 29 percent of the project area’s Development LUDs and 60 percent of the NonDevelopment LUDs.

Table IRA-2. Inventoried Roadless Areas Located within the Big Thorne Project 

Area (partially or wholly)

Roadless 

Area Number Name

Total 

Acres

Acres in the 

Project Area

Percent of IRA in 

the Project Area1/

IRA as a Percent of 

the Project Area2/

509 Kogish 64,466 2,974 5% 1%

510 Karta 51,212 19,684 38% 8%

511 Thorne River 72,970 64,252 88% 28%

512 Ratz 5,322 5,322 100% 2%

Total 193,970 92,232 47% 40%

Notes:

1/ This represents the IRA acres in the project area as a percentage of each IRA.

2/ This represents the IRA acres in the project area as a percentage of the entire project area.

Source: 2001 Roadless Rule Inventoried Roadless Information
3 Environment and Effects 

3-484 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure IRA-1. Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Big Thorne Project Area
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness ▪ 3-485

The following subsections describe the four IRAs that are partially or fully within the Big 

Thorne project area. These descriptions draw upon the 2003 Final SEIS IRA 

characteristics that were incorporated by reference into the 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2003, Volume III Appendix C). For those IRAs only partially 

located within the project area—the Kogish, Karta, and Thorne River IRAs—the 

following discussions mainly focus on the portions of the IRA within the project area. 

The other IRA – Ratz – is entirely located within the project area.

Kogish IRA

The Kogish IRA (#509) is located on the west side of central Prince of Wales Island 

(Figure IRA-1). The area is bounded to the south by non-NFS lands managed by the State 

of Alaska and the San Cristoval Channel. The west boundary is formed by the West Coast 

Waterway, including the Gulf of Esquibel, Tonowek Bay, and Tonowek Narrows. Roads

and harvested areas form the boundaries to the north and east of the area. Access to the 

area is primarily from the Staney Creek road system to the north or via boat or floatplane 

to the south and west. Only the easternmost portion of this IRA is located within the Big 

Thorne project area, and the portion of the IRA within the project area comprises just 5 

percent of the total IRA acres (Table IRA-2). 

More than half of the Kogish IRA (59 percent) is allocated to development LUDs, with 

the remaining 41 percent allocated to non-development LUDs (Table IRA-3). Less than 

half (40 percent) of the portion of this IRA located within the Big Thorne project area is 

allocated to development LUDs, with the remaining 60 percent allocated to nondevelopment LUDs.

Table IRA-3. Kogish IRA Acres by LUD

Land Use Designation Total IRA Acres

IRA Acres in the 

Project Area

Development LUD

Timber Production 36,270 164

Modified Landscape 834 237

Scenic Viewshed 699 787

Development LUD Total 37,802 1,188

Non-Development LUD

Old-growth Habitat 4,345 1,787

Semi-remote Recreation 22,319 0

Non-Development LUD Total 26,664 1,787

Overall Total 64,466 2,974

The 2003 Forest Plan SEIS discusses all the values used to rate the Wilderness potential of 

this IRA (USDA Forest Service 2003, pp. C2-357 to C2-367). Most of the Kogish IRA 

appears natural and unmodified; however, the eastern portion, which is in the project area, 

and the northern boundary, are heavily influenced by nearby developments. In addition, 

there are approximately 3.4 miles of existing road and 196 acres of past harvest within the 

portion of the IRA that is in the project area. However, the overall area has high natural 

integrity and moderate apparent naturalness. When rated separately, the western portion 

rates out with very high natural integrity and apparent naturalness. The opportunity for 

solitude is considered high and the opportunity for primitive recreation is very high. 

Approximately 14 percent of the landscape is considered distinctive for the character type 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-486 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

from a scenery standpoint. The area associated with the western shoreline is rich in 

cultural history and the roadless area has a few areas of karst development. 

Biological Values

There are no unique ecological values in the Kogish IRA. The major fish-producing 

waters in this IRA are Staney Creek, Shaheen Creek, the streams of Salt Lake Bay, 

Elevenmile Creek, Big Salt Lake, and Shinaku Creek. The area also includes portions of 

the Staney Creek headwaters; Staney Creek is a major fish producer. These waters 

provide habitat for coho, pink, and chum salmon, steelhead trout, and Dolly Varden char. 

Sitka black-tailed deer, black bear, wolves, marten, mink, river otter, and bald eagles are 

the best known species that inhabit the area. A number of bald eagle nest sites have been 

documented along the coastline and inland along Elevenmile Creek.

The only federally listed T&E species likely to occur within or adjacent to the roadless 

area are the humpback whale (endangered) and the Steller sea lion (threatened). These 

species, along with the Pacific herring (a candidate species), are found in adjacent marine 

waters.

Physical Values

Two areas of limestone with potential karst have been identified in this IRA at the head of 

Nossuk Bay and the Peninsula to Point Swift. Both of these areas are outside the Big 

Thorne project area. There are no glaciers or unique geologic features known within this 

area. There are no recreation or other facilities located in this IRA. As a result, demand 

does not currently exist for domestic water use. There are no existing or planned 

hydroelectric or domestic water projects.

Social Values

Areas of scientific and educational value in this IRA are limited to the cultural sites along 

the shoreline. These sites are outside the Big Thorne project area.

Recreation use in this IRA is not well documented and is generally believed to be low 

because of access difficulties and the lack of recreation attractions, such as major stream 

or lake systems. Some recreation use occurs along the shoreline, outside the project area.

The existing visual condition of the area is predominantly natural; however, the northern 

and eastern edges of the IRA have been modified by developments. The more scenic 

parts of the IRA are concentrated around the relatively rugged and diverse terrain of 

Kogish Mountain and Staney Cone, and along the intricate shorelines and island groups in

Salt Lake Bay and Nossuk Bay. These areas are outside the Big Thorne project area.

There is evidence of prehistoric and historic use of this roadless area, particularly along 

the saltwater shorelines. The Tlingit people maintain strong connections with specific 

locations and general areas along the west coast of Prince of Wales Island. Many areas 

have been identified by local people as important for resource gathering and hunting, 

including Elevenmile, Salt Lake Bay, and Nossuk Bay, and numerous prehistoric and 

historic sites have been identified in these areas. None of these areas are in the Big 

Thorne project area.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness ▪ 3-487

Karta IRA

The Karta IRA (#510) consists of several unconnected roadless sections that surround the 

Karta Wilderness (Figure IRA-1). The unconnected sections are separated by roads and 

harvested areas or by wilderness. This IRA includes the Rio Roberts watershed, which is 

part of a mostly undeveloped, old-growth connection between the Karta Wilderness to the 

south and Calder Holbrook LUD II area located on the northwest tip of Prince of Wales 

Island (USDA Forest Service 2003). 

Access to the Karta IRA is via boat or floatplane along Twelvemile Arm and Karta Bay, 

floatplane via Control Lake or Black Bear Lake, and via the roads along the north, south, 

and west area boundaries.

The majority of the Karta IRA (78 percent) is allocated to development LUDs, with the 

remaining 22 percent allocated to non-development LUDs (Table IRA-4). More than half 

(59 percent) of the portion of this IRA located within the Big Thorne project area is 

allocated to development LUDs, with the remaining 41 percent allocated to nondevelopment LUDs.

Table IRA-4. Karta IRA Acres by LUD

Land Use Designation Total IRA Acres

IRA Acres in the 

Project Area

Development LUDs

Timber Production 24,820 9,028

Experimental Forest 6,016 0

Modified Landscape 6,533 2,086

Scenic Viewshed 2,387 401

Development LUD Total 39,757 11,515

Non-Development LUDs

Old-growth Habitat 10,922 8,169

Municipal Watershed 314 0

Semi-remote Recreation 219 0

Non-Development LUD Total 11,456 8,169

Overall Total 51,212 19,684

The 2003 Forest Plan SEIS discusses all the values used to rate the Wilderness potential of 

this IRA (USDA Forest Service 2003, pp. C2-368 to C2-378). The Karta Roadless Area 

appears natural and unmodified, especially near the wilderness, but is often influenced by 

developments adjacent to most of the other boundaries. In addition, there are 

approximately 5.4 miles of existing road and 206 acres of past harvest within the portion 

of the IRA that is in the project area. However, the overall area has moderate natural 

integrity and apparent naturalness. The opportunity for solitude is high, and the 

opportunity for primitive recreation is very high; however, during the peak season there is 

daily floatplane traffic transporting visitors in and out of the wilderness area, and this 

affects solitude in the Karta Roadless Area. 

Biological Values

There are no unique ecological values in the Karta IRA. The primary fish-bearing waters 

in this roadless area are Control Lake, Steelhead Creek, Rio Roberts Creek, Paul Young 

Creek, upper Maybeso Creek, and upper Harris River. These waters provide habitat for 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-488 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout. Four of 

the eight VCUs in this area have been identified by ADF&G as primary salmon and 

sportfish producers, with two others listed as primary sportfish producers.

This area has large populations of Sitka black-tailed deer, black bear, wolves, otter, 

marten, mink, loon, and common waterfowl. Bald eagle nest sites have been located 

along the coastline and inland along Rio Roberts Creek. Marbled murrelet, Queen 

Charlotte goshawk, and harlequin duck may also occur in the area.

The only federally listed threatened and endangered species likely to occur within or 

adjacent to the roadless area are the humpback whale (endangered) and the Steller sea lion 

(threatened). These species, along with the Pacific herring (a candidate species) are found 

in adjacent marine waters.

Physical Values

There are no known karst or cave resources, glaciers, or unique geologic features in this 

roadless area. Two public recreation cabins in this area create a demand for water. 

Approximately 373 acres of the area are allocated to the Municipal Watershed LUD and

managed to preserve water quality for the community of Klawock. 

Social Values

The Maybeso Experimental Forest, one of only two experimental forests on the Tongass 

National Forest, is partly located in this roadless area, and there are also opportunities to 

study fish, wildlife, forests, and geologic processes.

This roadless area, which mainly provides semi-primitive recreation opportunities, 

contains 17 inventoried recreation places; these places cover 10,134 acres, about 18 

percent of the roadless area. The historic cabin on Salmon Lake is a one-of-a-kind 

structure on the National Historic Register. The area is important for subsistence hunting 

and gathering to the communities of Hydaburg, Klawock, Thorne Bay, and Craig. 

Ketchikan residents also use the area, primarily for deer hunting.

The existing visual condition of the area is predominantly natural; however, the landscape 

in approximately 22 percent of the area appears moderately to heavily modified due to 

logging and roading activity along the northern and southern boundaries.

The roadless area has a rich cultural history of native prehistoric and historic usage. There 

are prehistoric village sites, rock art, and other physical indications of native occupancy of 

sites within the area.

Thorne River IRA 

The Thorne River IRA (#511) is located approximately 5 air miles northwest of Thorne Bay

(Figure IRA-1). Most of the Thorne River drainage is included within this IRA. The IRA is 

bordered by State Highway 929 to the south, State Highway 925 to the west, and forest 

roads to the east and north, affording road access to all sides of the area. Two closed road 

systems provide non-motorized access to the interior of the IRA. The Honker Divide Canoe 

Route provides water access through the area along Hatchery Creek and the Thorne River. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness ▪ 3-489

The majority of the Thorne Bay IRA (71 percent) is allocated to non-development LUDs, 

with the remaining 29 percent allocated to development LUDs (Table IRA-5). This is also

the case with the portion of this IRA located within the Big Thorne project area, with 71 

percent of the area allocated to non-development LUDs and 29 percent to development 

LUDs. 

The 2003 Forest Plan SEIS discusses all the values used to rate the Wilderness potential of 

this IRA (USDA Forest Service 2003, pp. C2-379 to C2-390). The Thorne River IRA is 

mostly unmodified and appears natural. Roaded areas form all the boundaries and 

influence the area to some degree, especially in the eastern portion. In addition, there is 

approximately 0.8 mile of existing road and 86 acres of past harvest within the portion of 

the IRA that is in the project area. However, the area has overall high natural integrity 

and apparent naturalness. Separating the eastern lobe out of the area would increase the 

natural integrity rating to very high. The opportunity for solitude is high, and the 

opportunity for primitive recreation is very high within the area. 

Table IRA-5. Thorne River IRA Acres by LUD

Land Use Designation Total IRA Acres IRA Acres in the Project Area

Development LUD

Timber Production 9,276 7,931

Modified Landscape 9,788 9,814

Scenic Viewshed 2,293 696

Development LUD Total 21,356 18,441

Non-Development LUD

Old-growth Habitat 39,386 33,652

Research Natural Area 1,620 1,620

Special Interest Area 68 0

Scenic River 10,540 10,540

Non-Development LUD Total 51,614 45,811

Overall Total 72,970 64,252

Biological Values

The major fish-bearing waters in this area are Thorne River, Thorne Lake, Hatchery 

Creek, Lake Galea, and Logjam Creek. The headwaters for Logjam Creek provide habitat 

for coho salmon. This area has large populations of Sitka black-tailed deer, black bear, 

wolves, otter, marten, mink, and bald eagles. The only known inland-nesting bald eagles 

in Southeast Alaska are located in the Thorne-Hatchery Creek area.

The Thorne River connects a series of large lakes that are a special feature of this roadless 

area. This IRA also includes a large block of old-growth habitat that is part of the Forestwide conservation strategy. 

The only federally listed threatened and endangered species in the Tongass are the 

humpback whale (endangered) and the Steller sea lion (threatened), both marine species. 

In addition, Pacific herring is a candidate species. There is no marine habitat available in 

the Thorne River Roadless Area. Four Forest Service Region 10 Sensitive Species are 

suspected or known to occur within the area: the trumpeter swan, osprey, Peale's peregrine 

falcon, and the Queen Charlotte goshawk.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-490 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Physical Values

Three small areas of karst are located in the hills southwest of Cutthroat Lake and several 

small caves have been mapped in this roadless area. The topography of the lower Thorne 

River is dominated by drumlins, which control the vegetation and hydrology of the area. 

There are no glaciers in the area.

The one public recreation cabin on Honker Lake creates the only water demand in the 

entire area. There are no existing or planned hydroelectric or domestic water projects 

within the roadless area.

Social Values

The Rio Roberts Research Natural Area is located within the roadless area. This Research 

Natural Area contains riparian flood plain spruce stands, upland old growth forest, natural 

second-growth stands, and upland hemlock on drumlin fields (glacial features). Research 

Natural Areas provide opportunities for baseline monitoring of ecological processes and 

non-manipulative observation.

This Research Natural Area provides primarily semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

Opportunities for solitude and serenity are high, especially along the Thorne River 

corridor and adjacent upland areas. The natural integrity of this area is intact and largely 

unmodified except for one recreation use cabin (Honker Lake Cabin) and a small trail 

system. The majority of the area appears natural, with the exception of areas around the 

boundaries of the IRA where the landscape character is influenced by adjacent 

development.

At least one cultural site along the Thorne River, a prehistoric campsite, has been 

determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Because 

of the high-value fish resources of the Thorne River, the prehistoric and historical use of 

this area was probably relatively high.

Ratz IRA

The Ratz IRA (#512) is located on the east side of Prince of Wales Island, approximately 

5 air miles south of Coffman Cove and 15 air miles north of Thorne Bay (Figure IRA-1). 

This IRA is bounded to the northeast by Clarence Strait, with roads and harvested areas 

forming the IRA’s other boundaries. Access to the area is via boat or floatplane through 

Ratz Harbor, by floatplane and the unnamed lake located north of Baird Peak within the 

IRA, or by foot from the roads along the boundaries of the area.

The majority of the Ratz IRA (85 percent) is allocated to development LUDs, with the 

remaining 15 percent allocated to non-development LUDs (Table IRA-6). The entire IRA 

is located within the project area. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness ▪ 3-491

Table IRA-6. Ratz IRA Acres by LUD

Land Use Designation Total IRA Acres IRA Acres in the Project Area

Development LUD

Modified Landscape 4,515 4,515

Development LUD Total 4,515 4,515

Non-Development LUD

Old-growth Habitat 808 808

Non-Development LUD Total 808 808

Overall Total 5,322 5,322

The 2003 Forest Plan SEIS discusses all the values used to rate the Wilderness potential of 

this IRA (USDA Forest Service 2003, pp. C2-391 to C2-399). The Ratz IRA has 

moderate to low scenic quality; none of the landscape is classified as distinctive from a 

scenery standpoint. The karst on Baird Peak is a special feature of this roadless area. This 

small roadless area is in a natural, unmodified condition and has a high level of natural 

integrity. The opportunity for solitude within the area is moderate due to the area’s 

relatively small size. Nearby management activities and road traffic may be heard 

especially along the north, south and western boundaries. The opportunity for primitive 

recreation is relatively high, but decreases toward the edges of the area. This IRA 

includes approximately 0.3 mile of existing road and 12 acres of past harvest. 

Biological Values

There are no unique ecological values in the area. There are no anadromous fish-bearing 

waters in this roadless area. The area has populations of Sitka black-tailed deer, black 

bear, wolves, and other animals and birds common to Prince of Wales Island. Migrating 

trumpeter swan and goshawks use this area.

The only federally listed threatened and endangered species in the Tongass are the 

humpback whale (endangered) and the Steller sea lion (threatened), both marine species. 

These species, along with the Pacific herring (a candidate species), are found in adjacent 

marine waters.

Physical Values

The northeast flank of Baird Peak is underlain by marble into which extensive karst 

systems have developed. The karst in the northeastern portion of the roadless area 

contains several small caves. There are no sources of public drinking water in this IRA.

Social Values

The intensely developed karst on the northeast face of Baird Peak, as well as forests and 

wildlife, are of scientific interest.

This IRA provides primarily semi-primitive recreation opportunities. There are no 

developed recreation facilities in this area. The area receives some dispersed recreation 

and subsistence use, primarily hunting and fishing.

About 60 percent of the landscape in this roadless area appears natural and unaltered by 

human activity. The visual condition of the remainder of the area appears moderately to 

heavily altered due to developments around the periphery of the area.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-492 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

It is likely that there has been some native prehistoric and historic use within the roadless 

area but this has not been confirmed through cultural resource investigations.

Unroaded Areas

Unroaded areas are generally less than 5,000 acres in size and do not meet the minimum 

criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act. The inventory for the 

2003 Forest Plan Revision SEIS, which was subsequently updated for the 2008 Forest 

Plan Amendment, identified five unroaded areas that are partially within the Big Thorne 

project area, with a combined total area of 12,284 acres, 6,554 acres of which are located 

within the project area. The 2003 Forest Plan Revision SEIS analyzed these unroaded 

areas and found they did not have wilderness potential due to their size and/or 

configuration. 

No standards and guidelines to maintain the physical, biological and social characteristics 

of unroaded areas have been established in the Forest Plan or national direction. 

Therefore, changes to these areas, as a result of timber harvest activities, are acceptable 

under the Forest Plan and effects are generally expected to be similar to those in nearby 

roaded areas. 

Wilderness

Karta River Wilderness

The Big Thorne project area is bordered to the south by the Karta River Wilderness. The 

Karta River Wilderness consists of 39,894 acres located about five miles by water from 

Kassan and Hollis. The area includes the drainage of the Karta River system (which 

empties into the southwest corner of Karta Bay) and two major lakes, Salmon and Karta. 

The Karta River Wilderness is known for its rugged, alpine beauty and the Karta River 

drainage is considered to be a high quality fishery. Wildlife in the area includes wolves, 

black bears, black-tailed deer, beavers, otters, mink, marten, and trumpeter swans and 

other waterfowl are often seen on the river. The Karta River Wilderness is a popular 

destination for subsistence fishing and recreation. The majority of use in this Wilderness

occurs along the Karta River corridor.

Environmental Consequences

Inventoried Roadless Areas

None of the alternatives propose old-growth harvest units, young-growth thinning units, 

new roads, or reconstructed roads within IRAs and, as a result, there would be no direct 

impacts to IRAs. Two of the alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) would, however, involve 

adjustments to the boundaries of small OGRs outside of IRAs so that more of these OGRs 

are placed within IRAs in the project area. The potential effects of these changes to IRAs 

are discussed below by alternative.

Indirect effects on the roadless area character may occur as a result of project activities 

that take place outside the boundaries of the IRA. The analysis presented in this section 

assesses indirect effects on roadless area characteristics as a result of “zones or areas of 

influence” that include a 600-foot buffer around old growth units and a 1,200-foot buffer 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness ▪ 3-493

placed around roads (USDA Forest Service 2003). Table IRA-7 identifies the IRA acres 

that would fall within these buffers by alternative.

Table IRA-7. Area of Influence by Alternative (acres)

Inventoried Roadless 

Area1/

Total IRA Acres 

in the Project 

Area

Area of Influence by Alternative (acres)

1 2 3 4 5

509 - Kogish 2,974 0 10 123 10 11

510 - Karta 19,684 0 436 437 342 272

511 - Thorne River 64,252 0 793 1,176 647 800

512 - Ratz 5,322 0 227 435 209 113

Total 92,232 0 1,466 2,171 1,208 1,196

Note:

1/ The Zone of Influence for each alternative is the total area within 1,200 feet of a new road or within 600 feet of an 

old-growth harvest unit (including helicopter harvest units).

Wilderness

None of the proposed alternatives would affect the Karta River Wilderness because no 

timber harvest or related activities are planned within the Wilderness area. In addition, 

the Karta River Wilderness character is primarily centered around the productive Karta 

River system. Sights and sounds of timber harvest activities within the Big Thorne project 

area to the north would not travel to the river system. As a result, the biological, physical, 

and social aspects of the Karta River Wilderness would not be affected by any of the 

proposed alternatives. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects 

to the Karta River Wilderness under any of the alternatives and the following alternativespecific discussions address IRAs only.

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on IRAs because there would be no 

timber harvest or road construction/reconstruction under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on IRAs because there would be no 

timber harvest or road construction/reconstruction under this alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 2 would not include any old-growth harvest units, young-growth thinning 

units, new roads, or reconstructed roads within any of the IRAs in the Big Thorne project 

area and therefore, it would not have any direct effects. There are no proposed changes to 

IRAs under this alternative. Road construction and timber harvest under this alternative

could indirectly influence roadless characteristics on about 1,466 acres or 1.6 percent of 

the 92,232 acres in the four IRAs located in the project area (Table IRA-7). This acreage 

represents less than 1 percent of the 195,614 total acres within the four IRAs (including 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-494 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

areas outside the project area). This alternative is not expected to adversely impact the 

biological, physical, and social values associated with the IRAs in the project area.

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 2 would not directly affect the IRAs in the project area and indirect effects are 

not expected to adversely impact the biological, physical, and social values associated 

with the IRAs. As a result, this alternative is not expected to incrementally add to 

cumulative effects to IRAs. Present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Big Thorne 

project area are discussed at the beginning of Chapter 3 in the Known Projects in the Big 

Thorne Project Area section.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would not include any old-growth harvest units, young-growth thinning 

units, new roads, or reconstructed roads within any of the IRAs in the Big Thorne project 

area. Changes to existing LUDs would occur within the IRAs in the project area as a 

result of changes to the boundaries of small OGRs. These changes should have the effect 

of providing additional protection to these IRAs due to stronger LUD protections. 

Changes to existing LUDs would occur in all four IRAs in the project area under this 

alternative. These changes may be summarized as follows, with changes in LUDs 

compared to the entire IRA, not just the portion in the Big Thorne project area.

 Kogish IRA—644 acres currently allocated to the Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs would be changed to the Old-growth 

Habitat LUD, a net gain of about 2 percent in total non-development LUD acres in 

this IRA.

 Karta IRA—231 acres currently allocated to the Timber Production LUD would be 

changed to the Old-growth Habitat LUD, a net gain of about 2 percent in total nondevelopment LUD acres in this IRA.

 Thorne River IRA—4,490 acres currently allocated to the Timber Production and 

Modified Landscape LUDs would be changed to the Old-growth Habitat LUD, a 

net gain of about 9 percent in total non-development LUD acres in this IRA.

 Ratz IRA—1,002 acres currently allocated to the Modified Landscape LUD would 

be changed to the Old-growth Habitat LUD, more than doubling the 808 acres (a 

net gain of 124 percent) currently allocated to non-development LUDs in this IRA.

Road construction and timber harvest under this alternative could indirectly influence 

roadless characteristics on about 2,171 acres or about 2.4 percent of the 92,232 acres in 

the four IRAs located in the project area (Table IRA-7). This acreage represents about 1.1

percent of the 195,614 total acres within the four IRAs (including areas outside the project 

area). This alternative is not expected to adversely impact the biological, physical, and 

social values associated with the IRAs in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Changes to existing LUDs within IRAs would occur under Alternative 3, but these 

changes should have the effect of providing additional protection to these IRAs due to 

stronger LUD protections. Alternative 3 would not directly affect the IRAs in the project 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness ▪ 3-495

area and indirect effects are not expected to adversely impact the biological, physical, and 

social values associated with the IRAs. As a result, this alternative is not expected to 

incrementally add to cumulative effects to IRAs. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would not include any old-growth harvest units, young-growth thinning 

units, new roads, or reconstructed roads within any of the IRAs in the Big Thorne project 

area. Changes to existing LUDs would occur within the IRAs in the project area as a 

result of changes to the boundaries of small OGRs. These changes should have the effect 

of providing additional protection to these IRAs due to stronger LUD protections. 

Changes to existing LUDs would occur in three of the four IRAs in the project area under 

this alternative. These changes may be summarized as follows, with changes in LUDs 

compared to the entire IRA, not just the portion in the Big Thorne project area.

 Kogish IRA—1,041 acres currently allocated to the Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs would be changed to the Old-growth 

Habitat LUD, a net gain of about 4 percent in total non-development LUD acres in 

this IRA.

 Karta IRA—666 acres currently allocated to the Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs would be changed to the Old-growth 

Habitat LUD, a net gain of about 6 percent in total non-development LUD acres in 

this IRA. In addition, 121 acres of Modified Landscape and Scenic Viewshed 

would be changed to Timber Production.

 Ratz IRA—442 acres currently allocated to the Modified Landscape LUD would 

be changed to the Old-growth Habitat LUD, a net gain of about 55 percent in total 

non-development LUD acres in this IRA. 

Road construction and timber harvest under this alternative could indirectly influence 

roadless characteristics on about 1,208 acres or about 1.3 percent of the 92,232 acres in 

the four IRAs occurring within the project area. This acreage represents less than 1 

percent of the 195,614 total acres within the four IRAs (including areas outside the project 

area). This alternative is not expected to adversely impact the biological, physical, and 

social values associated with the IRAs in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Changes to existing LUDs within IRAs would occur under Alternative 4, but these 

changes should have the effect of providing additional protection to these IRAs due to 

stronger LUD protections. Alternative 4 would not directly affect the IRAs in the project 

area and indirect effects are not expected to adversely impact the biological, physical, and 

social values associated with the IRAs. As a result, this alternative is not expected to 

incrementally add to cumulative effects to IRAs.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-496 ▪ Inventoried Roadless Areas & Wilderness Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 would not include any old-growth harvest units, young-growth thinning 

units, new roads, or reconstructed roads within the IRAs. Road construction and timber 

harvest under this alternative could indirectly influence roadless characteristics on about 

1,196 acres or about 1.3 percent of the 92,232 acres in the four IRAs located in the project 

area. This acreage represents less than 1 percent of the 195,614 total acres within the four 

2001 IRAs (including areas outside the project area). This alternative is not expected to 

adversely impact the biological, physical, and social values associated with the IRAs in 

the project area.

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 5 would not directly affect the IRAs in the project area and indirect effects are 

not expected to adversely impact the biological, physical, and social values associated 

with the IRAs. As a result, this alternative is not expected to incrementally add to 

cumulative effects to IRAs.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wild and Scenic Rivers ▪ 3-497

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Introduction

There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers on Prince of Wales Island and associated 

islands. However, during the 1997 Forest Plan revision, five river/lake systems were 

determined eligible and suitable for designation, and have been recommended for 

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System: Essowah Lakes and streams, Kegan Lake 

and streams, Salmon Bay Lake and stream, Sarkar Lakes, and Thorne River/Hatchery 

Creek/Barnes Lake. 

Affected Environment 

Within the project area is a portion of the Thorne River/Hatchery Creek/Barnes Lake 

recommended Wild and Scenic River that, in its entirety, runs up the Thorne River from 

Thorne Bay to its headwaters and down Hatchery Creek through Sweetwater Lake to Lake 

Bay near Coffman Cove. The segments that fall within the project area are classified as 

scenic and recreational and allocated to the Scenic River and Recreational River LUDs, 

respectively. The recreational segment represents the lower Thorne River and the 

remainder, which represents the majority in the project area, is scenic. This river is 

recommended for the following outstandingly remarkable values: 

 Fish—Fishing opportunities exist throughout most of the year. Sport species 

include coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon, as well as cutthroat, rainbow, and 

steelhead trout and Dolly Varden char. Thorne River produces the largest run of 

steelhead on Prince of Wales Island, and the watershed is listed among the 19 

“high quality” watersheds identified by ADF&G in Southeast Alaska for fisheries 

values.

 Wildlife—Extensive wetlands areas provide habitat for waterfowl, loons, great 

blue herons, and trumpeter swans. Sweetwater Lake is important wintering area 

for trumpeter swans. Other wildlife species that occur in the corridor are bald 

eagles, black bear, wolves, river otter, seals, marten, mink, weasels, beaver, and 

Sitka black-tailed deer. The only known inland-nesting bald eagles in Southeast 

Alaska occur in the Thorne-Hatchery area.

 Recreation—Sport fishing use is extensive due to the diverse sport species 

available. Convenient road access and three public reservation cabins along the 

corridor bring visitors to the area. Extensive canoe opportunities exist with the 

Honker Divide Canoe Route, which starts at Hatchery Creek Bridge on the 

Coffman Cove Road and traverses 30 miles of streams and lakes ending at the city 

dock in Thorne Bay. Opportunities for wildlife viewing are also a draw and 

subsistence hunting is a common activity in the area. 

 Scenery—The river corridor offers a diverse landscape for scenery with 

contrasting elements of rock, old-growth forest, muskegs, alpine, meadows, and 

rounded mountains. The chain of lakes along the Honker Divide Canoe Route are 

interconnected by streams and portages and allow visitors to view unique 

wetlands, and diverse shorelines and stream channels. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-498 ▪ Wild and Scenic Rivers Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

The goals for the Scenic River and Recreational River LUDs include managing the scenic 

or recreational river “segments to maintain their outstandingly remarkable values and 

classification eligibility until Congress designates the segments or decides not to designate 

them” (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 3-81, 3-88).

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Scenic River LUD 

The major portion of the Scenic River LUD lies inside the Big Thorne project area 

boundary. None of the alternatives propose timber harvest or road construction within the 

Scenic River LUD, resulting in no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. 

Recreational River LUD 

The Recreational River LUD includes the lower Thorne River from about a mile upstream 

of the mouth of Goose Creek to Thorne Bay, including the estuary of the Thorne River. 

The LUD generally includes lands within 0.25 mile of the stream or estuary. Two

proposed old-growth harvest units and one proposed commercial thinning unit for the Big 

Thorne project are partially within the Recreational River LUD. Approximately 11 acres 

of old-growth Unit 597.1-62 is within the Recreational River LUD along the north side of 

the Thorne River just west of the beginning of the North Thorne River Road. The closest 

portion of the unit is about 1,000 feet from the Thorne River. The southern 27 acres of 

old-growth Unit 579-119 is within the Recreational River LUD in the vicinity of Gravelly 

Creek. The closest portion of this unit is about 900 feet from the Thorne River and on the 

other side of the highway. A portion of young-growth thinning Unit 586-516 is within the 

Recreational River LUD, near the southwest shore of the Thorne River mouth. Table 

WSR-1 shows harvest acres proposed by alternative in Recreational River LUD. 

Table WSR-1. Harvest and Thinning Acres Proposed within the Recreational River 

LUD 

Unit Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

5971-62 0 11 11 11 11

5790-119 0 27 27 27 27

5860-516 0 0 35 35 35

Total Old-Growth Harvest Acres 0 38 38 38 38

Total Young-Growth Thinning Acres 0 0 35 35 35

Alternative 1 does not propose harvest or road construction and would not affect the 

Recreational River LUD. All of the action alternatives propose timber harvest within this 

LUD. Timber harvest is compatible with the Recreational River LUD, as long as the 

adjacent LUD allows it. and the activity emphasizes enhancement or maintenance of the 

outstandingly remarkable river values. The adjacent LUD to these harvest and commercial 

thinning units is Modified Landscape, which allows timber harvest. The alternatives 

proposed in the Big Thorne project would not significantly affect the outstandingly 

remarkable conditions for which the Thorne River-Hatchery Creek segments were 

recommended, and would not affect the eligibility of this river for inclusion in the Wild 

and Scenic River System (as discussed below). 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Wild and Scenic Rivers ▪ 3-499

The Thorne River and Hatchery Creek system is recommended as eligible for inclusion in 

the Wild and Scenic River System because it is outstandingly remarkable for fish, 

wildlife, recreation, and scenery. These outstandingly remarkable values are described in 

the Affected Environment section, above. The following paragraphs assess the potential 

impact of the proposed action alternatives on these outstandingly remarkable values.

 Fish—Implementation of the applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and 

best management practices would mitigate potential impacts to fisheries. As a 

result, none of the alternatives are expected to have measurable effects on fish 

habitat and are, therefore, unlikely to affect the outstandingly remarkable fishing 

opportunities in the Thorne-Hatchery system or elsewhere in the Big Thorne 

project area. 

 Wildlife—None of the alternatives would affect the wetland areas along the river 

corridor that provide habitat for waterfowl, loons, great blue herons, and trumpeter 

swans. There would also be no effect to Sweetwater Lake, which is identified as 

an important wintering area for trumpeter swans or the other wildlife species that 

are identified as occurring in the corridor. Potential reductions in deer habitat 

capability in the WAAs that coincide with the Big Thorne project area could have 

minor project area-wide impacts on Sitka black-tailed deer populations, but are 

unlikely to noticeably affect populations along the river corridor.

 Recreation—None of the alternatives would affect sport fishing opportunities or 

use of the Honker Divide Canoe Route, both of which are important aspects of the 

recreation activities along this river corridor that are considered outstandingly 

remarkable. There would also be no effect to potential wildlife viewing and 

hunting opportunities along the river corridor.

 Scenery None of the alternatives would affect the diversity of the landscapes that 

are visible from the river corridor or the wetlands, diverse shorelines, and stream 

channels that characterize the river corridor itself. Under Alternative 3, four to 

eight units (located between 0.75 and 1 mile from the river corridor) would be 

partially visible in the middleground from some portions of the lakes along the 

Honker Divide trail near the middle of the corridor. Harvest in these areas would 

be consistent with the Forest Plan and not expected to affect the scenic values that 

are considered outstandingly remarkable. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in this analysis are 

listed at the beginning of this chapter. None of the alternatives would affect the eligibility 

of the Thorne River-Hatchery Creek segments for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River 

System and would, therefore, not add incrementally to cumulative impacts on wild and 

scenic rivers.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-500 ▪ Heritage Resources Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Heritage Resources

Introduction

This section provides an overview of the archaeological investigation of the potential 

effects of the proposed Big Thorne project on extant historical properties eligible to the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as required by the Act and its application 

guidance. 

Heritage resources include a wide array of historic and prehistoric cultural sites and 

traditional cultural properties. The Forest Service conducts heritage resource 

investigations under the provisions set in the Third Programmatic Agreement (as 

amended) between the Alaska Region of the USDA Forest Service, the Alaska State 

Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(Programmatic Agreement). This agreement was developed to utilize more cost-effective, 

streamlined steps and procedures than those outlined in 36 CFR 800 and to develop a 

flexible programmatic approach for expeditiously implementing Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This agreement is in keeping with and 

adheres to the guidance provided in Forest Service policy FSM 2360. 

Consideration of the effects of the Big Thorne undertaking consisted of (1) defining the 

Area of Potential Effects (APE); (2) conducting a review of existing historic and 

archaeological information about the project area including the results of past heritage 

surveys, and through consultations with affected tribes and groups; (3) implementation of 

additional fieldwork deemed necessary to assess potential effects; (4) development of 

recommendations based on the results of 1, 2, and 3; and (5) consultation with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer to seek concurrence with recommendations regarding 

significance and effect. 

Methodology 

Past and Current Archaeological Survey in Big Thorne Project Area 

The lands immediately surrounding the Big Thorne project area have received substantial 

archaeological survey coverage during the planning process of several major timber 

harvest proposals, some of which included areas within the currently proposed project. 

They include the North Thorne Timber Harvest Project (2005), Logjam Timber Sale 

Project (2008), Archaeology of Thorne Bay: A Survey of 22 Timber Harvest Units on 

Prince of Wales Island (1987), Southeast Alaska, The Control Lake Environmental Impact 

Statement, Prince of Wales Island (1994), The Coffman Cove Archaeological Survey, 

Archaeology of Coffman Cove: A Survey of 15 Timber Harvest Units on Prince of Wales 

Island (1987), Southeastern Alaska, the Cobble Timber Project (2004) and numerous 

cultural resource surveys reported in the Central Prince of Wales Environmental Impact 

Statement (1987-1995). 

The North Thorne timber sale project was located northwest of the community of Thorne 

Bay and covered about 35,750 acres of NFS lands which included portions of the Big 

Thorne Project. Archaeologists surveyed over 1,400 acres but did not find any significant 

cultural remains.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Heritage Resources ▪ 3-501

The Thorne Bay archaeological survey conducted by William Ackerman in 1987 included 

an area extending from the head of Kasaan Bay northward into the Thorne River Valley 

and west to Control Lake. A total of 1,420 acres were surveyed and 193 test pits dug. No 

historic or prehistoric sites were found.

The Coffman Cove archaeological survey conducted by William Ackerman in 1987 

included an area extending from Luck Lake on the east coast of Prince of Wales Island to 

Hatchery and Logjam Creeks south of Sweetwater Lake and then to Tuxekan Passage on 

the western coast of the island. A total of 450 acres were surveyed and 127 test pits dug. 

No artifacts or cultural remains were identified.

The Control Lake project was located west of the Big Thorne Project and included much 

of the western portion of the project area. A total of 1,800 acres were intensively 

surveyed as part of the Control Lake project immediately west of the North Thorne project 

in VCUs 571, 574, 575, 576, 577, and 597. An additional 250 acres in the same area 

received reconnaissance survey. No cultural resources were identified. 

Archaeological survey was undertaken for the Logjam Timber Sale which was located 

northwest of the Big Thorne project. Survey of proposed timber harvest units included 

334 acres of pedestrian survey. The only cultural properties located were cultural 

modified trees (CMTs).

The formerly proposed Cobble Timber Project covered 40,394 acres including sections of 

the proposed Big Thorne project area. Of these acres, 2,770 were surveyed and 520 acres 

were cleared during past surveys. Despite extensive survey coverage, there was only one 

poorly defined fish trap, 22 CMTs and one abandoned logging camp for the entire project 

area. Most recent survey was done in 2003. It included 13 low probability units over 

approximately 118 acres and produced no cultural materials. 

During the field seasons from 2009 to 2011, a team of Forest Service archaeologists 

conducted intensive surveys of the Big Thorne project area using the methodology 

stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement, covering the necessary areas considered high 

sensitivity and a percentage of areas considered low sensitivity. Through the 

Programmatic Agreement, the Forest Service recognizes two sensitivity zones in the 

Alaska Region: high and low. Sensitivity zones are dynamic estimates or approximations 

based on interpretation of data from previous cultural resource investigations. Over 2,300 

acres of high and low sensitivity acres were cleared by Forest Service Heritage 

archaeological crews. As a direct result of the fieldwork conducted, 11 prehistoric sites 

and 3 three CMTs were recorded. None of the sites or CMTs found during the 

investigation was evaluated as to eligibility to the NHRP and as such are considered 

eligible to the Register for management purposes.

Monitoring 

The Programmatic Agreement stipulates how archaeological monitoring is to be 

conducted for the proposed project. The agreement states that a sample of all areas of 

high archaeological sensitivity will be subject to direct impact is to be monitored during 

and/or after the actual ground disturbance. The impact areas to be monitored will be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. For areas considered low sensitivity a sample of all 

areas of actual ground disturbance are to be subjected to post-disturbance monitoring. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-502 ▪Heritage Resources Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

The locations and acreage sampled will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Monitoring of these areas will commence with the start of the project’s harvest work and 

will conclude with some post-disturbance surveys.

Affected Environment 

Heritage Resources in the Project Area 

There are 25 recorded sites within a 2-mile radius of the proposed Big Thorne project. 

These include the following sites:

CRG-00019 CRG-00162 CRG-00223 CRG-00317 CRG-00388

CRG-00033 CRG-00177 CRG-00265 CRG-00318 CRG-00547

CRG-00035 CRG-00191 CRG-00314 CRG-00319 CRG-00582

CRG-00053 CRG-00192 CRG-00315 CRG-00340 CRG-00602

CRG-00158 CRG-00193 CRG-00316 CRG-00350 CRG-00603

These sites are predominantly prehistoric in nature and include shell middens, 

petroglyphs, house pits, a trail and multiple fish weirs or traps (both wooden and stone in 

composition). Two of the sites are historic mines. Only a very small portion of the

recorded sites have been evaluated as to their eligibility for the NRHP and are considered 

eligible for management purposes. In close proximity to the project area is the historic 

Salt Chuck Mine (CRG-019) which has been evaluated in the past as eligible for the 

NRHP. The prehistoric Thorne River Site (CRG-177) is found within the overall 

boundary of the project, but not in the project APE. No project activities are within 1 mile 

of its location. It has been evaluated and is considered eligible for the NRHP. 

Additionally, found adjacent to the northern boundary of the project area is a large group 

of CMTs. An archaeological team recorded 352 CMTs during surveys conducted in 2001. 

Environmental Consequences 

The APE for all alternatives is considered to be the project area as defined in this 

document. Direct effects include damage due to harvest activities and road construction 

activities. Therefore, areas of direct effect are defined as planned harvest units and road 

corridors. Indirect effects result from activities peripheral to the harvest itself. These 

would include the risk of increased damage of historic properties due to increased 

visitation of the project area. Increased visitation might result from higher numbers of 

workers in the area during harvest or from increased accessibility to the area due to road 

improvements. 

Cumulative effects to heritage resources result from the collective impacts of natural 

decay, erosion, and forest processes as well as modern cultural processes, which may 

include recreational artifact collection and vandalism of historic properties and 

developments such as timber harvest and road construction. Portions of the Big Thorne 

project area have road access and receive recreation use at present. The planned timber 

harvest will not significantly increase the use of the project area by the public, nor will it 

contribute to increased potential impacts to heritage resources. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Heritage Resources ▪ 3-503

As stated in the Programmatic Agreement Section VII B and the 2008 Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Heritage Resource Activities, section HSS1B, the preferred 

management of sites listed in, nominated to, or eligible for the NRHP is avoidance and 

protection. All of the sites previously recorded within the APE of the project and the sites 

found during the survey for the project will be fully avoided. As per the Programmatic 

Agreement, while there are historic properties present in the APE, the project would have 

no effect upon them as defined at 36 CFR 800.16(i). 

The imposition of a 1,000-foot coastal buffer aids in the avoidance of heritage properties 

because it removes the majority of the harvest and road construction activities from most 

of the areas with the highest potential for the occurrence of heritage sites. Planned harvest

units are, for the most part in low-sensitivity areas for heritage resources. 

Direct and Indirect Effects (All Alternatives)

Alternative 1, Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, would result in no changes to the existing 

condition. Recreation and subsistence uses associated with modern lake and marine 

shorelines, as well as activities associated with existing roads facilitate access to locales of 

high sensitivity for heritage resources. Alternative 1 would not change that situation. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, Direct and Indirect Effects 

Based on the results of the archaeological examination of the APE for the undertaking,

Alternatives 2 through 5 contain no proposed harvest units or roads that would have a 

direct and significant effect on extant historic properties. All historic properties found 

during the field investigation or prior to investigation were used to modify the project to 

totally avoid project effects. For heritage purposes, the effects of the alternatives are No 

Historic Properties Affected. For Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, there would be no direct 

effects.

Harvest and road construction would not significantly increase access and visitation to 

areas of high sensitivity for heritage resources. All proposed roads would be 

decommissioned or put into storage after harvest activities are complete. No indirect 

effects are anticipated from these alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects (All Alternatives) 

Cumulative effects of the Big Thorne project are considered minimal in all alternatives. 

The majority of the harvest and road construction activities are in areas not considered 

high potential for heritage resources or near known historic properties. Project activities 

are not considered to contribute significantly to the degradation of historic properties in 

the project area. This will be confirmed or refuted by the monitoring activities conducted 

during the implementation of the project and after it has concluded.

Tribal Consultation 

Consultations have been and continue to be conducted with the tribal governments and 

Native corporations of Craig, Klawock, Hydaburg, and Kasaan. The details of the project 

have been offered to all of the tribes on the island yearly at the Prince of Wales Forest 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-504 ▪Heritage Resources Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Service Tribal Consultation Meeting beginning in 2009. No concerns have been 

forwarded to the Forest Service from the associated tribes relative to the project. 

The Heritage Resource Report (R2009100554008) will be sent for review and 

consultation to the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer. As per the Programmatic

Agreement if there are historic properties present but the undertaking will have no effect 

upon them as defined at 36 CFR 800.16(i), then the Heritage Specialist may make a 

determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” and the Forest may proceed with the 

undertaking in lieu of a consensus determination of eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4. 

36 CFR 800.16(1) states that “effect” means alteration to the characteristics of a historic 

property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register. Since all the 

known historic properties have been removed from the APE for this undertaking and will 

be fully avoided, the characteristics of the historic properties eligible to the NRHP will not 

be impacted.

NHPA Section 106 Compliance 

In previous years heritage resource surveys of various intensities were conducted in the 

project APE. For this undertaking over 2,300 acres of applicable areas of the APE had

archaeological investigations according to the guidance provided in the Programmatic 

Agreement. A finding of “no historic properties affected” was recommended for all 

alternatives for the Big Thorne project. Under the terms of the existing Programmatic 

Agreement, the Forest will proceed with the project in lieu of a consensus determination 

of eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Socioeconomics ▪ 3-505

Socioeconomics

Affected Environment

The primary social and economic area of influence for the Big Thorne project includes 

those communities located in close proximity to the project area (within 12 miles) whose 

residents use the project area for subsistence, recreation, and other activities. It also 

includes communities with economic activities that could be affected by the proposed 

project, primarily wood products operations that could use the timber from the project 

area. The communities that fall into one or more of these categories are Thorne Bay, 

Coffman Cove, Klawock, Craig, Hollis, Kasaan, and Naukati Bay. Profiles are presented 

for each of these communities in the Community Profiles section, at the beginning of this 

chapter. 

The following sections address demographic characteristics and trends, economic 

conditions, and non-market values. The discussion and analysis presented in these 

sections tiers to the detailed socioeconomic information and analysis presented in Chapter 

3 of the 2008 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Demographic Characteristics and Trends

Population Trends

Southeast Alaska had an estimated population of 71,664 in 2010, with slightly more than 

two-thirds (67 percent) of that total concentrated in three cities: Juneau, Ketchikan, and 

Sitka (Alaska Department of Labor 2011). The remaining population is distributed

throughout the region in more than 30 small communities, most with populations of less 

than 1,000 residents. Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan are the closest of the larger 

population centers to the project area. 

The Big Thorne project area is located on Prince of Wales Island and is part of the Prince 

of Wales-Hyder CA.1

 The Prince of Wales-Hyder CA consists of Prince of Wales Island 

and the communities of Metlakatla and Hyder, and encompasses approximately 3,900 

square miles, with an average population density of 1.4 persons per square mile (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011a). In 2010, total population in the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was 

5,559, with 4,012 or 72 percent of this total residing on Prince of Wales Island (Table 

SOC-1). Total population in the communities located in or near the project area ranged 

from 49 in Kasaan to 1,201 in Craig (Table SOC-1). Thorne Bay had a total population of 

471 in 2010.

Total population increased by 13 percent in Alaska over the past decade (2000 to 2010), 

with much of this increase due to natural increase (more births than deaths in the existing 

population). The state also saw small gains in population through net in-migration (more 

people moving to the area than leaving) (Alaska DOL 2010). Population in Southeast 

Alaska decreased by about 2 percent between 2000 and 2010; population grew through 

 1 In 2010, Southeast Alaska was divided into seven boroughs and three census areas. The seven boroughs correspond 

with the county governments found elsewhere in the United States. The remaining unorganized area was allocated to 

three CAs: Hoonah-Angoon, Petersburg, and Prince of Wales-Hyder. CAs are statistical units that are generally 

recognized as county equivalents from a data reporting standpoint.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-506 ▪ Socioeconomics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

natural increase (6 percent), but these gains were outweighed by the number of people 

leaving the region (8 percent) (Alaska DOL 2010).

Table SOC-1. Population, 2000 and 2010

Geographic Area/Community1/ 2000 2010

Absolute 

Change

Percent 

Change

Coffman Cove 199 176 -23 -12%

Craig 1,397 1,201 -196 -14%

Hollis CDP 139 112 -27 -19%

Kasaan 39 49 10 26%

Klawock 854 755 -99 -12%

Naukati Bay CDP 135 113 -22 -16%

Thorne Bay 557 471 -86 -15%

Prince of Wales Census Subarea2/ 4,581 4,012 -569 -12%

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA3/ 6,146 5,559 -587 -10%

Southeast Alaska 73,082 71,664 -1,418 -2%

Alaska 626,932 710,231 83,299 13%

Notes:

CA – Census Area

CDP – Census Designated Place 

1/ CDPs are unincorporated communities identified by the Census for statistical purposes. Two of the seven 

communities within 12 miles of the project area—Hollis and Naukati Bay—are designated CDPs. The other five—

Coffman Cove, Craig, Kasaan, Klawock and Thorne Bay—are incorporated cities.

2/ Prince of Wales Census Subarea consists of Prince of Wales Island.

3/ The Prince of Wales-Hyder CA includes Prince of Wales Island, Metlakatla, and Hyder. Data for 2000 are for the 

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan CA. Parts of this area were annexed in May 2008 by the Ketchikan Gateway 

Borough and the newly formed Wrangell City and Borough. 

Sources: Alaska DOL 2009; U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2011a

Prince of Wales Island experienced a larger relative decrease in population than the region 

as a whole, with 569 fewer people recorded in the 2010 Census than a decade earlier, a 

decrease of 12 percent (Table SOC-1). A similar decrease was recorded in the Prince of 

Wales-Hyder CA, with total population dropping by 10 percent. However, population 

increased by a total of 440 between 2007 and 2011, which a recent article in Alaska 

Economic Trends suggests may be an indication that the local economy is stabilizing 

(Abrahamson 2012; 11). 

This decrease in population between 2000 and 2010 was evident in all the communities in 

or near the project area, with the exception of Kasaan. Reductions in population in these 

communities ranged from about 12 percent (Coffman Cove and Klawock) to 19 percent 

(Hollis) (Table SOC-1). The largest absolute decrease occurred in Craig, the largest 

community on the island, which experienced a net decrease of 196 residents (14 percent). 

There were 86 fewer residents in Thorne Bay in 2010 than in 2000, a 15 percent 

reduction. 

Population projections developed by the State of Alaska anticipate continued population 

growth statewide, but expect population to continue to decline in the boroughs and CAs in 

Southeast Alaska, including Prince of Wales-Hyder (Mercer 2010). Southeast Alaska is 

the only regional population in Alaska expected to decline over the forecast period (2009 

to 2034). This decrease is projected because low birth rates and the highest median age in 

the state mean that a sharp rise in net in-migration would be required for growth to occur 

in the future (Mercer 2010).
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Socioeconomics ▪ 3-507

Race and Ethnicity

The majority of the population in Alaska, almost two-thirds, identified as White in the 

2010 Census. Alaska Natives were the largest minority group, accounting for 14 percent 

of the total population (Table SOC-2). The share of total population that identified as 

White in Southeast Alaska (65 percent) and on Prince of Wales Island (63 percent) was 

very similar to the State overall (64 percent), but Alaska Natives accounted for a larger 

share of the total population on Prince of Wales Island (24 percent versus 14 percent, 

statewide) (Table SOC-2). 

The percentage of the population in nearby communities identifying as Alaska Native in 

2010 ranged from less than 10 percent in Coffman Cove, Hollis, Naukati Bay, and Thorne 

Bay, to 35 percent in Kasaan and 48 percent in Klawock, both of which are home to 

Federally recognized tribes. Craig also had a relatively high concentration of Alaska 

Native residents, with 232 people or 19 percent of the population identifying as Alaska 

Native in 2010 (SOC-2). These data are discussed in the Environmental Justice section 

below.

Table SOC-2. Race and Ethnicity 2010

Geographic 

Area/Community1/

Total 

Population

Percent of Total Population

White2/

American 

Indian and 

Alaska Native2/

Other 

Race2/3/

Two or 

More 

Races2/

Coffman Cove city 176 93 4 1 2

Craig city 1,201 64 19 5 12

Hollis CDP 112 88 4 3 4

Kasaan city 49 53 35 2 10

Klawock city 755 37 48 4 11

Naukati Bay CDP 113 88 6 1 5

Thorne Bay city 471 91 2 3 4

Prince of Wales Census 

Subarea

4,012 63 24 4 9

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA 5,559 50 39 3 8

Southeast Alaska 71,664 65 16 10 8

Alaska 710,231 64 14 15 6

Notes:

1/ See footnotes to Table SOC-1.

2/ Non-Hispanic only. The Federal Government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin (ethnicity) to be two separate 

and distinct concepts. People identifying as Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race. In this table people identifying 

as Hispanic or Latino are included in the Other Race category only.

3/ The “Other Race” category presented here includes census respondents identifying as Hispanic or Latino, Black or 

African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or Some Other Race. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2011a

Economic Conditions

This section provides an overview of local employment and income for Southeast Alaska 

and more specifically Prince of Wales Island, where the impacts of the Big Thorne project 

are most likely to be experienced. The following subsections focus on those economic 

sectors—forest products, commercial fishing, and recreation and tourism—that could be 

affected by the project.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-508 ▪ Socioeconomics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Direct employment in natural resource-based industries accounted for an estimated 26 

percent of total employment in Southeast Alaska in 2004 (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

This total includes estimated wood products, mining, recreation and tourism, salmon 

harvesting, and seafood processing employment, but underestimates the importance of 

resource-based employment to the region because it does not include the share of 

government employment that is resource-based. Overall, the government sector 

accounted for 38 percent of covered employment in Southeast Alaska in 2010 (Alaska 

DOL 2011b).

A total of 1,943 non-agricultural wage and salary (NAWS) jobs were identified in the 

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA in 2010, with a total combined payroll of $67.3 million (Table 

SOC-3). These data are compiled from unemployment insurance coverage data and do 

not include self-employed workers. The government sector dominates the Prince of 

Wales-Hyder CA economy, accounting for 49 percent of total NAWS employment and 54 

percent of total annual earnings (Table SOC-3). These totals include federal, state, and 

local jobs, with most of this employment concentrated in local government sector, which 

accounted for 42 percent of annual employment and wages in 2010 (Table SOC-3). The 

private sector (identified as Private Ownership in Table SOC-3) accounted for 51 percent 

and 46 percent of total employment and income, respectively, with the highest 

concentration of total employment (12 percent) in the Retail Trade sector (Table SOC-3).

Table SOC-3. Annual Employment and Earnings in the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA, 

20101/

Economic Sector

Annual Average 

Employment Annual Earnings Average 

Monthly 

Earnings ($)

Number 

of Jobs

Percent 

of Total

Millions of 

Dollars

Percent 

of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 81 4 3.4 5 3,490

--Forestry and Logging2/ 59 3 2.7 4 3,776

Construction 67 3 2.8 4 3,503

Manufacturing 116 6 2.9 4 2,102

Trade/Transportation/Utilities 340 17 9.6 14 2,341

--Retail Trade3/ 226 12 4.7 7 1,726

Information 10 1 0.3 1 2,820

Financial Activities 84 4 3.5 5 3,491

Professional & Business Services 41 2 1.5 2 3,102

Educational & Health Services 80 4 3.4 5 3,494

Leisure & Hospitality 130 7 2.9 4 1,869

Other Services 38 2 0.4 1 1,420

Total Private Ownership 987 51 30.7 46 2,594

Federal Government 112 6 6.4 10 4,782

State Government 36 2 1.9 3 4,333

Local Government 808 42 28.3 42 2,923

Total Government 956 49 36.6 54 3,193

Overall Total 1,943 100 67.3 100 2,889

Note:

1/ These data are compiled from unemployment insurance coverage data and exclude self-employed workers because 

they are not covered by unemployment insurance. Occupations with relatively high shares of self-employment include 

the fish harvesting and construction sectors.

2/ Forestry and Logging is part of the Natural Resources and Mining sector.

3/ Retail Trade is part of the Trade/Transportation/Utilities sector.

Source: Alaska DOL 2011c
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Socioeconomics ▪ 3-509

The seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate in Alaska was lower than the national 

average in September 2011, 6.7 percent versus 8.8 percent. The corresponding rate for 

Southeast Alaska was 5.8 percent, lower than the state and national averages. The 

unemployment rate in Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was more than twice the regional 

average, 12.9 percent versus 5.8 percent, and the highest in the boroughs and CAs that 

comprise Southeast Alaska (Alaska DOL 2011d).

An estimated 9.1 percent of the population was below the poverty line in Alaska in 2009. 

In Southeast Alaska, the percent of the population in boroughs/CAs below the poverty line 

ranged from just 4 percent in the Skagway Municipality to 17.2 percent in the HoonahAngoon CA. The Prince of Wales-Hyder CA had the second highest poverty rate in the 

region, with 15.4 percent below the poverty line in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b).

Median household income in Alaska was $66,712 in 2009. Median household incomes in 

Southeast Alaska boroughs/CAs ranged from 63 percent of the State median in the 

Hoonah-Angoon CA to 109 percent of the State median in Juneau. The Prince of WalesHyder CA had the second lowest median household income in the region, equivalent to 65 

percent of the State median (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b).

Forest Products Industry

The forest products industry, the natural resource-related economic sector that would be 

directly affected by the action alternatives proposed for this project, is discussed in the 

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics section of this EIS. As discussed in 

that section, regional employment in the forest products sector peaked at the end of the 

1980s, dropped sharply in the 1990s, and has continued to decline over the past decade. 

This has also been the case locally on Prince of Wales Island. Forestry and logging and 

sawmill jobs accounted for 6 percent of total employment in the Prince of Wales-Hyder 

CA in 2010, down from 15 percent of total jobs in 2000. Viking Lumber remains one of 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder’s largest private employers, with an estimated workforce of 32 

full-time equivalent employees in 2010, (Abrahamson 2012, Alexander and Parrent 2012). 

In addition, data compiled by the Forest Service and the State of Alaska identified 25 

mills and timber operators on the island (including the eight noted above) and a review of 

the Alaska Department of Commerce’s business license database identified an additional 

19 forestry-related businesses (ADCCED 2012, Alexander and Parrent 2012, Peterson 

2012, USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Commercial Fishing

The commercial fishing industry is a significant part of Alaska’s economy, and this is also 

the case for Southeast Alaska. Seafood processing employed 1,450 people in Southeast 

Alaska in 2010, with an estimated 9,182 people in Southeast Alaska employed in fish 

harvesting (Alaska DOL 2011b; Warren and Kreiger 2011). This combined total (10,632 

jobs) was equivalent to about 30 percent of total covered employment in Southeast Alaska 

in 2010.2

 

 2 Total covered employment estimates prepared by the Alaska DOL do not include the majority of fish 

harvesting jobs because most of these jobs are exempt from state unemployment insurance laws.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-510 ▪ Socioeconomics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Commercial fishing is an important part of the economy on Prince of Wales Island. 

Salmon, halibut, herring, and shellfish are all harvested in waters surrounding the island. 

Much of this harvest is taken by off-island fishers and processed in Ketchikan, Wrangell, 

and Petersburg, but processing also takes place in Craig. An estimated 564 residents on 

Prince of Wales Island were employed in fish harvesting in 2000 (Gilbertson and 

Robinson 2001). In 2010, 224 residents in the seven communities within 12 miles of the 

project area (Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, Klawock, Craig, Hollis, Kasaan, and Naukati 

Bay) held commercial fishing permits, including 151 residents in Craig, 44 residents in 

Klawock, and 20 residents in Thorne Bay. In addition, 159 residents in these communities 

held crew member licenses in 2010, including 107 residents in Craig, 29 residents in 

Klawock, and 18 residents in Thorne Bay (Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission

2011). Alaska Fish and Game reported that Prince of Wales-Hyder harvested 19.6 million 

pounds of fish in 2011, including 15.4 million pounds of salmon, resulting in earnings of 

$15.9 million (Abrahamson 2012), 

Recreation and Tourism

Recreation and tourism on Prince of Wales Island is discussed above in the Recreation 

section. As discussed in that section, recent estimates of visitors to Prince of Wales Island

indicated that 15,000 out-of-state residents visited Prince of Wales Island in summer 

2006, and an estimated 12,326 visitors participated in nature-based tourism on Prince of 

Wales Island in 2007 (McDowell Group 2007; Dugan et al. 2009). The nature-based 

tourism study estimated that these visitors brought in more than $30 million to Prince of 

Wales Island in gross revenues, with most of this revenue related to sport fishing (Dugan 

et al. 2009). Fishing lodges and sport fish charter operators are located in Craig, Klawock, 

Thorne Bay, and Coffman Cove, as well as in more remote locations around the island. 

Recreation and Tourism are discussed in more detail in the Recreation section, above, and 

the Socioeconomics Resource Report prepared for this project (Dadswell 2012).

Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are the products of functioning ecosystems that often are available 

without direct costs to people who benefit from them (Kline 2006). These services have 

been described in a number of different ways including the typology developed by the 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which is featured on the Forest Service’s 

Ecosystem Services web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/) and identifies four 

general categories of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and 

supporting. Provisioning services include wild food, fresh water, and fiber. Regulating 

services are the benefits obtained from ecosystem impacts on natural processes, such as 

air quality, climate stabilization, water quality, and erosion. Cultural services include 

recreation, aesthetic, educational, and spiritual and religious benefits. Supporting services 

are the underlying processes that maintain the conditions for life on Earth, such as nutrient 

cycling and soil formation (Smith et al. 2011). 

The concept of ecosystem services has emerged as a way of framing and describing the 

comprehensive set of benefits that people receive from nature. The Forest Service has 

been exploring use of these concepts to describe the benefits provided by forests, but the 

ecosystem service approach has not been applied operationally in a management context. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Socioeconomics ▪ 3-511

The Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station issued a technical report that 

attempts to define an economics research program to describe and evaluate ecosystem 

services (Kline 2006). More recently, the Pacific Northwest Research Station and the 

Deschutes National Forest have partnered to develop a place-based application to explore 

how this type of approach might be implemented by a national forest to enhance forest 

stewardship. Ecosystem services are discussed at the forest planning level for the Tongass 

National Forest in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008, p. 3-544 to 3-

556). 

Environmental Consequences

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the socioeconomic 

resources addressed in this section varies by resource. Effects to the timber industry are 

assessed in terms of employment and income at the regional scale (i.e., Southeast Alaska). 

where effects are expected to occur. Effects to the commercial fishing and recreation and 

tourism sectors are assessed in terms of the analysis areas assessed for those resources. 

Ecosystem services are assessed by resource throughout this EIS, with analysis areas 

established for each resource.

Economic Conditions

Forest Products Industry

Potential impacts related to the forest products industry are discussed in the Issue 1: 

Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics section, which summarizes impacts in terms 

of direct employment in logging and processing.

Commercial Fishing

Potential impacts to fish habitat are assessed in the Fisheries section of this EIS. 

Implementation of the applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and best 

management practices would mitigate potential impacts to fisheries. As a result, none of 

the action alternatives are expected to have measurable effects on fish habitat and are, 

therefore, unlikely to affect the commercial fishing or fish processing sectors. Potential 

impacts to commercial fishing and fish processing from timber harvest at the forest 

planning level are discussed in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Recreation and Tourism

A recent study estimated that nature-based tourism brought in more than $30 million to 

Prince of Wales Island in gross revenues in 2007, with most of this revenue related to 

sport fishing (Dugan et al. 2009). The majority of sport fish visitors focus on saltwater 

fishing, which accounts for most of the nature-based tourism revenue generated on the 

island. As noted with respect to commercial fishing, the fisheries analysis prepared for 

this project found that none of the alternatives are expected to have measurable effects on 

fish habitat and are, therefore, unlikely to affect businesses that focus on saltwater sport 

fishing. 

Although none of the action alternatives are expected to have measurable effects on fish 

habitat, road building and timber harvest activities could affect access to freshwater 

fishing outfitter-guide locations in the project area, as well as the quality of the recreation 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-512 ▪ Socioeconomics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

experience of outfitter-guide clients in these areas. These impacts would be localized and 

temporary. None of the proposed alternatives are expected to result in long-term impacts 

to the ability of outfitter/guides to use these areas, but may temporarily displace some use. 

Bear hunting is popular on Prince of Wales Island, with guided black bear hunting and 

drop-off and transporter services available (Dugan et al. 2009). However, the majority 

(80 percent) of guided hunts on the island are conducted by motorized boat in shoreline 

areas, with just 12 hunting location days recorded in the Big Thorne project area between 

2004 and 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2010). Potential impacts to black bears are 

evaluated in the Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use section, which assumes that black 

bears would primarily be impacted by new road construction and reconstruction, with new 

and improved roads expected to improve hunter access and potentially result in over 

harvesting. There are a number of access restrictions on black bear hunting within the 

project area, as determined by ADF&G. However, none of the alternatives are expected 

to affect businesses that offer guided black bear hunting and related services. 

Potential impacts to recreation and tourism from timber harvest at the forest planning level 

are discussed in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are those services and benefits provided by healthy ecosystems. 

Under the 2008 Forest Plan, timber management activities are governed by a large number 

of rules and regulations designed to protect or mitigate negative impacts to natural 

resources that provide ecosystem services. This is discussed further in the 2008 Forest 

Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008, p. 3-553 to 3-556). As noted in the Issue 1: Timber 

Supply and Timber Sale Economics section, the financial efficiency analysis prepared for 

this project in accordance with FSH 2409.18 does not account for non-market benefits or 

other values, benefits, and costs that are not easily quantifiable. This is not to imply that 

such values are not significant or important, but to recognize that non-market values are 

difficult to represent by appropriate dollar figures. Although the Forest Service has been 

exploring use of ecosystem services concepts to describe the benefits provided by forests, 

this type of approach has not been applied operationally in a management context (Kline 

2006; Smith et al. 2011). 

The effects of the action alternatives on these types of services are assessed in the sections 

of this EIS that address watersheds, fisheries, soils, wildlife and subsistence use, heritage 

resources, and timber and vegetation, among others. Monetary values are not assigned to 

these services, but this does not lessen their importance in the decision making process. 

Decision-makers will consider the economic values presented in the Issue 1: Timber 

Supply and Timber Sale Economics section within the context of the information 

presented elsewhere in this document, much of which cannot readily be translated into 

economic terms.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no proposed Big Thorne project under the no action alternative and the 

project would not meet the Purpose and Need, which is to contribute to a long-term supply 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Socioeconomics ▪ 3-513

of economic timber industry on Prince of Wales Island and on the Tongass National 

Forest in general (including both large and small operators). As discussed in the Issue 1: 

Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics section, the provision of a long-term stable 

and economic timber supply is intended to support local operators and encourage 

investment in the wood products industry as it transitions to second growth harvesting and 

restoration activities. Long term in this context is defined as approximately 10 years (see 

the project Purpose and Need statement). 

Current utilization rates at the mills included in the 2010 mill survey are low, with just 

13.9 percent of existing active capacity utilized in 2010 (Alexander and Parrent 2012). In 

the absence of a long-term (i.e., multiple year) stable supply of economic timber from the 

Big Thorne project or elsewhere, the future viability of existing mill operators could be 

adversely affected. Closure of one or more of the existing mills would result in a further 

reduction in jobs in the logging and sawmilling industries and could also affect local 

businesses that provide goods and services to these industries. 

The absence of a long-term supply of economic timber could also adversely affect future 

investment and the potential for increased wood products employment in the future, as 

well as the anticipated transition of the wood products industry to second growth 

harvesting and restoration activities. 

There would be no timber harvest or road construction/reconstruction under this 

alternative and no impacts to the commercial fishing or recreation and tourism industries 

on Prince of Wales Island or elsewhere in the region. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

The Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics section includes an assessment 

of potential impacts in terms of direct logging and sawmill/export employment that would 

be supported by the projected harvest volumes under each alternative. This analysis is 

based on average job/MMBF ratios developed using harvest and employment data from 

2007 to 2010 and assumes that all the units and volume identified for each alternative 

would be harvested over time. The resulting estimates are approximate numbers that 

allow a comparison of alternatives. Total estimated direct employment ranges from 391 

to 455 jobs under Alternative 4 to 792 to 915 jobs under Alternative 3, reflecting the 

relative volumes that would be made available under each alternative (see Table TSE-13 

in the Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics section). Direct employment 

is presented as a range for each alternative to account for the effect of the limited 

interstate shipment policy and export, which allows the purchaser to ship up to 50 percent 

of the total sale volume out of state in whole log form. This is discussed further in the 

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics section. The Big Thorne project

would also support indirect jobs elsewhere in the region. 

The potential impact to nearby communities with processing facilities that may utilize the 

timber will depend on many elements associated with the competitiveness and efficiency 

of individual operations. Such factors are dependent upon private business decisions, as 

well as market conditions for forest products. The Forest Service cannot predict which 

firms will successfully bid for a timber sale, and thus potential jobs and incomes are 

estimated at a regional scale, not for individual communities.
3 Environment and Effects 

3-514 ▪ Socioeconomics Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Nature-based tourism on Prince of Wales Island is mainly related to saltwater fishing. 

Saltwater fishing-related recreation and tourism is not expected to be affected under the 

action alternatives. The action alternatives would all have short-term impacts on 

recreation and outfitter-guide use in the project area, but these impacts are not expected to 

have long-term impacts (i.e., impacts that extend beyond the duration of localized project 

activities) on the ability of outfitter-guides to use currently permitted locations. Potential 

impacts to ecosystem services other than timber are not addressed in monetary terms, but 

are discussed in the other resource-specific sections of this EIS. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no timber made available under the Big Thorne 

project and timber operators on Prince of Wales Island and elsewhere in Southeast Alaska 

would not be able to bid on future timber offerings under this project. Timber projects 

listed in Appendix D, Part II and discussed above in the Issue 1: Timber Supply and 

Timber Sale Economics section would also contribute to the timber supply. As discussed 

above, in the absence of this project and other sources of long-term (multiple-year) 

economic timber, the future viability of existing operators in Southeast Alaska could be 

adversely affected. Closure of one or more mills would result in a further reduction in 

jobs in the logging and sawmilling industries and could also affect local businesses that 

provide goods and services to these industries. Further, the absence of a multiple-year 

timber supply could adversely affect the anticipated transition of the wood products 

industry to young growth harvesting and restoration activities

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Past timber sales have contributed to the development of the existing road system in the 

Big Thorne project area that would be used under this alternative. Timber harvest under 

this alternative would contribute to meeting projected market demand for timber in 

Southeast Alaska and support logging and sawmill or export jobs. The other reasonably 

foreseeable projects identified that involve timber harvest would also help meet this 

demand and support logging and sawmill or export jobs. Other reasonably foreseeable 

projects would also support jobs and income in the vicinity of the project area.

Short-term cumulative impacts to recreation and outfitter-guide use could occur if one or 

more of the reasonably foreseeable projects were to coincide in time and space with the 

project. This could result in additional temporary disruptions to recreation use and could 

affect the quality of the recreation experience in localized areas. These types of impacts 

would be limited to the duration of road building and harvest activities in a particular 

location. The reasonably foreseeable Prince of Wales Outfitter/Guide Management EA 

would allocate commercial recreational use on Prince of Wales Island. None of the 

alternatives are expected to affect the implementation or outcome of this project.
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Environmental Justice ▪ 3-515

Environmental Justice

Background and Affected Environment

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and 

incomes with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The CEQ’s Environmental Justice: 

Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997) indicates that 

environmental justice concerns may arise from impacts on the natural or physical 

environment, such as human health or ecological impacts on minority and low-income 

populations, or from related social or economic impacts.

The Big Thorne project is a federal action that has potential environmental effects. The 

following environmental justice assessment considers whether there is a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect from any of the alternatives on low-income and 

minority populations in communities near the project area, and tiers to the analyses 

presented in the Wildlife and Subsistence, Fisheries, and Heritage Resource Reports 

prepared for this project (Woeck 2012; Knutzen 2012; Marshall 2012).

The guidelines provided by the CEQ (1997) and similar direction provided by the EPA 

(1998) indicate that a minority community may be defined where either 1) the minority 

population comprises more than 50 percent of the total population, or 2) the minority 

population of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population in the 

general population of an appropriate benchmark region used for comparison. Minority 

communities may consist of a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one 

another, or a geographically dispersed set of individuals who experience common 

conditions of environmental effect. 

Race and ethnicity is discussed by community in the Socioeconomics section of this 

document. Minority communities in the vicinity of the project area include Kasaan and 

Klawock, both of which are home to federally recognized tribes. Thorne Bay, the only 

community located in the project area, is predominantly White, with 91 percent of the 

population identifying as White in the 2010 Census (see Table SOC-2). 

The CEQ guidance clarified that such analyses should recognize the interrelationships 

between cultural, social, occupational, historical, and economic factors that may amplify 

the environmental impacts. For example, subsistence in Alaska Native communities is not 

only important economically, it is also important for reasons of tradition and culture; 

consequently, impacts on subsistence resource use also impact the social and cultural lives 

of residents. The CEQ guidance clarified that the identification of disproportionate effects 

does not preclude the agency from going forward with the proposed action, but should 

heighten attention to project alternatives, mitigation and monitoring needs, and the 

preferences of the affected communities (CEQ 1997, p. 10).

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Timber harvest has the potential to affect subsistence use in the project area, which could 

disproportionately affect Alaska Native subsistence users. Potential impacts to 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-516 ▪ Environmental Justice Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

subsistence resources are discussed in detail in the section of this document that evaluates 

Issue 2: Wildlife and Subsistence Use. As discussed in that section, none of the 

alternatives are expected to affect subsistence use of fish and marine invertebrates, plants, 

or timber and firewood for personal use. 

Impacts to the wildlife component of subsistence food resources are addressed in terms of 

potential impacts to Sitka black-tailed deer, the largest component of wildlife subsistence 

resources in the project area. The action alternatives would all result in a reduction in deer 

habitat capability, with the largest reduction occurring under Alternative 3. The Issue 3: 

Wildlife and Subsistence Use analysis found that under all action alternatives, reductions 

in deer habitat capability due to the Big Thorne project in combination with past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions would further reduce the ability of WAAs 1315 and 

1420 to sustain current harvest levels. 

These potential reductions could result in changes to consumption patterns of resource use 

in the project area, but none of the alternatives are expected to have a disproportionately 

high and adverse effect on the health or well-being of the minority or low-income 

populations that use the project area. Any changes in consumption patterns and wild food 

resources, as well as other project effects, would be equally applicable to the general 

population. 
Environment and Effects 3

3-517 ▪ Other Environmental Considerations Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Other Environmental Considerations ________________

Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term 

Productivity 

The intensity and duration of the effects described in this EIS depend on the alternative 

and the mitigation measures applied to protect the resources. Most unavoidable effects 

are expected to be short-term. Short-term effects usually last less than 2 to 5 years. 

Effects would be managed to comply with established legal limits in all cases, such as 

maximum time for regeneration. Monitoring procedures and mitigation measures have 

been planned for those areas that may be affected to reduce these effects. Specific 

mitigation measures are documented in the unit and road cards (Appendices B and C of 

the Draft EIS; if a decision is made to harvest, mitigation measures for harvest units and 

roads will be listed in the ROD). 

Some localized adverse effects may occur on a recurring, though temporary, basis. 

Effects such as road construction, timber harvest, timber hauling, recreation traffic on 

untreated roads, and the operation of internal combustion engines may cause temporary 

adverse effects to air quality. 

All alternatives would come under the mandate of the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield 

Act of 1960. This act requires the Forest Service to manage NFS lands for multiple uses 

including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed. All renewable 

resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. 

The harvesting and use of standing timber can be considered a short-term use of a 

renewable resource. Trees can be reestablished and grown again as a renewable resource

if the productivity of the land is not impaired. 

Maintaining the productivity of the land is a complex, long-term objective. All 

alternatives protect the long-term productivity of the project area through the use of 

specific standards and guidelines, mitigation measures, and BMPs. Long-term 

productivity could change as a result of various management activities proposed in the 

alternatives. Timber management activities would have direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects on the economic, social, and biological environment. 

Soil and water are two key factors in ecosystem productivity, and these resources would 

be protected in all alternatives to avoid damage that could take many decades to rectify. 

Sustained yield of timber, wildlife habitat, and other renewable resources all rely on 

maintaining long-term soil productivity. Quality and quantity of water from the project 

area may fluctuate as a result of short-term uses, but no long-term effects to the water 

resource are expected to occur as a result of timber management activities. 

Timber harvest is a short-term use of wetland resources. Harvest activities are expected to 

slightly alter the hydrology of harvested wetlands for several years after harvest. Soil 

moisture levels are expected to rise slightly following harvest due to the loss of canopy 

interception. Soil moisture levels are anticipated to return to near pre-harvest levels as 

young-growth establishes and provides canopy cover across the site. 
3 Environment and Effects 

3-518 ▪ Environmental Justice Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

"Irreversible commitments" is a term that describes the loss of future options. It applies 

primarily to the effects of the use of non-renewable resources, such as minerals or cultural 

resources, or to those factors such as soil productivity that are only renewable over long 

periods of time. 

Loss of soil due to erosion and mass failures is an irreversible commitment of resources. 

The loss of soil resources has been minimized to the extent feasible in all action 

alternatives by following Region 10 Soil Quality Standards, incorporating BMPs and 

applying mitigation measures specified in this document. 

Road construction is an irreversible action because of the time it takes for a constructed 

road to revert to natural conditions. Irreversible actions also include the associated rock 

quarries which are developed in conjunction with these roads. 

Soils and wetlands displaced by road construction activities are irreversible commitments 

of project resources, due to the long-term loss of soil productivity. It is irreversible 

because the soils and wetland resources have deteriorated to the point that renewal can 

occur only over a long period of time or at a great expense, or because the wetland soils 

have been destroyed or removed. In road construction, wetland soils are either scraped 

away or are buried beneath road fill, greatly limiting their pre-disturbance productivity. 

Loss of heritage resource sites resulting from accidental damage or vandalism would be an 

irreversible commitment of resources. Standards and guidelines, survey methodology 

prior to activities, and mitigation measures specified in this document provide reasonable 

assurance that no irreversible loss of heritage resources would occur. 

“Irretrievable commitments” is a term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or 

use of natural resources. For example, some or all of the timber production from an area 

is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is 

irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume 

timber production. 

Old-growth forest structure converted to even-aged forest structure by timber harvest can 

be considered an irretrievable commitment of the old-growth structure, especially if the 

land is continually managed for optimum timber production. It is not expected that oldgrowth characteristics would naturally reoccur within harvest areas for 150 years or more; 

however, old-growth forest structure would eventually return to the landscape. However, 

foregoing timber harvest opportunities at this time in certain areas, due to resource 

concerns or economics, may represent an irretrievable commitment of resources because 

that volume cannot be harvested. The commitment is irretrievable rather than irreversible 

because future entries could harvest those areas if they are still classified as part of the 

suitable timber base. 

The reduction in the visual quality of an area due to timber harvesting would be an 

irretrievable commitment of resources. The commitment is irretrievable because 

viewsheds will typically heal from a visual quality standpoint after about 40 years. 

Second-growth trees will have the color and height needed so as not to be evident to the 

casual observer after this time. 
Environment and Effects 3

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Other Environmental Considerations ▪ 3-519

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 

Implementation of any of the action alternative would result in some adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided if the proposed 

action or alternatives are implemented. The interdisciplinary procedure used to identify 

specific harvest units and roads was designed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse 

consequences. In addition, the application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, 

mitigation measures, and a monitoring plan are intended to further limit the extent, 

severity, and duration of these effects. The specific environmental effects of the 

alternatives were discussed earlier in this chapter, and mitigation measures are discussed 

in Chapter 2. Formulation of alternatives includes the avoidance of potentially adverse 

environmental effects; however, some adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be 

completely mitigated would occur.