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 II 
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.
Chapter 4

References and Lists
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-1

List of Preparers ____________________

This chapter identifies the preparers and major contributors/reviewers for this EIS and 

summarizes their education and experience levels.

Preparers:

Randy Fairbanks, IDT Leader/Tetra Tech Project Manager

Education: M.S. Forest Science/Biometrics, University of Washington, 1979

B.S. Wildlife Science, University of Washington, 1972

Professional Experience: 38 years (including 22 years working on Forest Service projects)

Cliff Barnhart, Forester/Logging & Transportation Planner

Education: B.S. Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 1987

Professional Experience: 25 years (including 20 years working on Forest Service projects)

David Cox, Geologist/Hydrologist

Education: B.S. Geology, Western Washington University, 2000

Professional Experience: 11 years (including 4 years with the Forest Service)

John Crookston, Ecologist

Education: M.S. Ecology, San Diego State University, 2007

B.S. Biology, University of California San Diego, 2002

Professional Experience: 9 years

Matt Dadswell, Social Scientist

Education: Ph.D. studies, Geography, University of Washington

M.A. Geography, University of Cincinnati, 1990

B.A. Economics and Geography, Portsmouth Polytechnic, 1988

Professional Experience: 20 years

Robert Evans, Landscape Architect

Education: M.S. Landscape Architecture, Auburn University, 2006

M.S. Regional Planning, Auburn University, 2006

B.S. Environmental Design, Auburn University, 2003

Professional Experience: 6 years

Jennifer Hawkins, Environmental Scientist

Education: B.S. Environmental Science, Marist College, 1994

Professional Experience: 16 years

Dylan Hitner, Forest Engineer, EI, LSI

Education: B.S. Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 2011

Professional Experience: 2 years
4 References and Lists

4-2 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Joe Iozzi, Silviculturist

Education: Silviculture Institute, University of Washington, 1985

B.S. Forest Management, Rutgers University, 1977

Professional Experience: 32 years (including 19 years with the Forest Service) 

Chris James, Hydrologist

Education: M.S. Forest Hydrology, University of Washington, 2007

Graduate studies in Environmental Management and Engineering, Portland State University 

B.A. Environmental Resources (Chemistry minor), Lewis and Clark College, 1999

Professional Experience: 7 years (including 2 years with the Forest Service and BLM)

Johanna Kovarik, Geologist 

Education: M.S., Western Kentucky University 2007 

B.A., Western Michigan University, 2004 

Professional Experience: 7 years with the Forest Service

John Knutzen, Fish Biologist

Education: M.S. Fisheries, University of Washington, 1977

B.A. Biology, Western Washington State College, 1972

Professional Experience: 34 years

Timothy Marshall, Archaeologist

Education: M.A. Archaeology, East Carolina University, 2000

Professional Experience: 11 years (including 4 years with the Forest Service)

Teresa Opolka, Ecologist

Education: B.S. Biology, Seattle University, 1998

Professional Experience: 13 years

MaryJo Watson, GIS Coordinator/Analyst

Education: B.S. Computer Information Systems, Menlo College

Professional Experience: 19 years

Brita Woeck, Wildlife Biologist

Education: M.S. Wildlife Ecology and Management, University of Missouri, 2003

B.S. Wildlife Science, University of Washington, 1999

Professional Experience: 12 years 

Major Contributors/Reviewers:

Kent Nicholson, District Ranger

Education: M.A. Business Administration (with honors), University of Alaska, 2007

B.A. Business Administration, University of Alaska, 1996

Forest Experience: 8 years (27 years in timber in Southeast Alaska)

Jason C. Anderson, District Ranger 

Education: B.A. Biological Sciences, California State University - Stanislaus, 1997 

Forest Service experience: 7 years 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-3

James Kelly, Program Planning Specialist, Team Leader 

Education: Northern Essex Community College, Southern Oregon University 

Forest Service experience: 15 years 

Delilah Brigham, Fish Biologist 

Education: B.S. Aquatic Resources, Sheldon Jackson College 1996 

Forest Service experience: 9 years 

Sally Burch, GIS Coordinator 

Forest Service experience: 20 years 

Other professional experience: 3 years 

Marla Dillman, Wildlife Biologist 

Education: B.S., Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984 

Forest Service experience: 25 years 

Victoria Houser, Recreation Planner 

Education: B.S., St. Lawrence University 2000, Masters State University of New York -

Environmental Science and Forestry 2005 

Forest Service experience: 6 years 

Richard Jacobson, Civil Engineering Technician 

Education: Oregon State University, Forest Engineering Institute 1994 

Forest Service experience: 17 years 

Kristen Lease, Forester, Ecologist 

Education: B.S. Forest Resource Management, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 2003 

Forest Service experience: 7 years 

Frank W. Roberts, Planning Staff 

Education: B.S., Forestry, Michigan Technological University, 1976 

Forest Service experience: 30 years 

Becki Saari, Soils Technician 

Education: Completing B.S. in Soil Science and Land Resources with the University of Idaho 

Forest Service experience: 6 years 

Robert "Mike" Sheets, Certified Silviculturist 

Education: Graduate of the Natural Resource Institute 1999-2000, University of West Virginia, 

BS in Forest Resource Management 1992, Dabney S. Lancaster College, AS in Forestry 1987 

Forest Service experience: 17 years 

Julianne Thompson: Forest Hydrologist 

Education: B.S. Natural Resources Management, California Polytechnic State University, 1985 

Graduate studies in Wildland Hydrology, Colorado State University 1985-1988 

Forest Service experience: 20 years 
4 References and Lists

4-4 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Distribution List _____________________

A copy of the Big Thorne Project Draft EIS or a letter with a link to the online copy was sent to

the following parties. These parties either commented on the project, requested a copy of the

DEIS during scoping or at some other time during the NEPA process, or are part of the Tongass

National Forest mandatory mailing list (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Sections 23.2 and

63.1).

Agencies 

Alaska Board of Fisheries, Ketchikan, AK

Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air and Water Quality, Juneau, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Division of Sport Fishing, Ketchikan, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Division of Subsistence, Douglas, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Douglas, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Division of Habitat, Craig, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Division of Habitat, Douglas, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal and Ocean Mgmt, Juneau, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Ketchikan, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Transportation, Juneau, AK 

Alaska Dept. of Transportation, Craig, AK

Alaska Div. of Governmental Coordination, Juneau, AK

Alaska Land Use Council, Office of the Governor, Juneau, AK

Alaska Office of the Governor, Juneau, AK

Environmental Protection Agency, Alaska Operations Office, Anchorage, AK 

Environmental Protection Agency, EIS Filing Section, Washington, DC 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA 

Federal Aviation Administration (USDOT), Anchorage, AK 

Federal Railroad Administration (USDOT), Washington, DC

Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, DC

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Div., Juneau, AK 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Mgmt. Div., Juneau, AK 

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, Washington, DC 

National Park Service, Anchorage, AK

Small Business Administration, Seattle, WA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office, Juneau, AK 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division, Portland, OR

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division, Ft. Shafter, HI

U.S. Army Engineer District, Anchorage, AK 

U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, DC 

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impact Branch, Washington, DC 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Policy and Strategic Planning Office, Washington, DC

U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance, Washington, DC 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD, Riverdale, MD 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Craig, AK

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Juneau, AK

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Kenai, AK 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-5

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Palmer, AK 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC 

USDA Forest Service, Charley Streuli, Petersburg Supervisor's Office, Petersburg, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Cynthia Sever, Petersburg Supervisor's Office, Petersburg, AK

USDA Forest Service, Director of Forest Management, Regional Office, Juneau, AK

USDA Forest Service, Beth Pendleton, Regional Forester, Regional Office, Juneau, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Lab, Juneau, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Forrest Cole, Ketchikan Supervisor's Office, Ketchikan, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Kathy Peterson, Sitka Supervior’s Office, Sitka, AK

USDA Forest Service, Kent Nicholson, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Thorne Bay, AK

USDA Forest Service, Craig Ranger District, Craig, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Thorne Bay, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT

USDA Forest Service, Sue Jennings, Petersburg Supervisor’s Office, Petersburg, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Susan Howle, Ketchikan Supervisor's Office, Ketchikan, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, AK 

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC 

USDA National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD 

USDA Office of Civil Rights, Washington, DC

USDA Office of Planning and Accountability, Washington, DC

USDI Alaska Affairs, Washington, DC 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Ketchikan, AK 

USDI Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance, Anchorage, AK 

USDI Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance, Washington, DC 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC

U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC

U.S. Navy Environmental Protection Division, Washington DC

Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, Burbank, WA

Individuals 

Adrian Morris, Klawock, AK

Allyn Hayes, Ward Cove, AK

Andrew Dolloff, Blacksburg, VA

Barbara Huffman, Ketchikan, AK

Barnett Freedman, Thorne Bay, AK

Bart Eaton, Vashon, WA

Ben Mitchell, Sitka, AK

Bill & Peggy Byford, Wrangell, AK

Bill Pfeifer, Ketchikan, AK

Bill Rotecki, Ketchikan, AK

Bob & Mary Lou Smart, Edna Bay, AK

Bob Armstrong, Ketchikan, AK 

Bob Bramblett, Bozeman, MT

Brent Cole, Craig, AK

Brian Castle, Craig, AK

C.W. Shingleton, Coffman Cove, AK
4 References and Lists

4-6 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Carleen Gotelli, Ketchikan, AK

Charlene Heath, Ward Cove, AK

Charley Streuli, Petersburg, AK

Cheryl Fecko, Craig, AK

Chuck Bateman, Coffman Cove, AK

Cindy Barber, Ketchikan, AK

Craig Moore, Ketchikan, AK

David Anniskette, Klawock, AK

Deidra Holum, Ketchikan, AK

Dick Allen, Ketchikan, AK

Dick Artley, Grangeville, ID

Dick Simkins, Hamilton, MT

Dick Young, Coffman Cove, AK

Dorothy Brady, Wrangell, AK

Dorothy Sheppard, Naukati, AK

Doug Rhoeds, Craig, AK

Ed & Marion Glenz, Meyers Chuck, AK

Ed Zastrow, Ketchikan, AK

Edward Mechum, Ketchikan, AK

Edward Coville, Ward Cove, AK

Eric Wyatt, Edna Bay, AK

Erik Johnson, Olympia, WA

Frank & Pat Roppel, Wrangell, AK

Fred Ensign, Craig, AK

Fred Triem, Petersburg, AK

Gary Zumstro, Sequim, WA

Gary, Jean, & Katie Soderberg, Coffman Cove, AK

George Woodbury, Woodbury Enterprise, Wrangell, AK 

Gerald Welsh, Whale Pass, AK

Gerald Weston, Ketchikan, AK

Gordon & Marilyn Olsen, Petersburg, AK

Hal Sheppard, Craig, AK

Harriet Wadley, Craig, AK

Harvey Shelley, Klawock, AK

Henry Rambosek, Ketchikan, AK

Ira & Lucille Merrill, Wrangell, AK

J.W. Peterson, Ketchikan, AK

James Kelly, Thorne Bay, AK

Jack Oien, Ketchikan, AK

Jan Burgess, Hydaburg, AK

Jay Hansen, Craig, AK

Jay Urquhart, Juneau, AK

Jeanette Brucker, Coffman Cove, AK

Jenny Vassess, Ketchikan, AK

Jerry Linden, Two Harbors, MN

Jerry Lutton, Craig, AK

Jerry Stidd, Ketchikan AK

Jim Colier, Wrangell, AK
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-7

Jim Hendricks, Ketchikan, AK

Jim Jakebek, Ketchikan, AK

Jim See, Craig, AK

Jim McFarland, Thorne Bay, AK 

Joe Williams II, Ketchikan, AK

John Clifton, Ketchikan, AK 

Joseph Sebastian, Point Baker, AK

Joseph Stanton, Klawock, AK

Judith Willis, Coffman Cove, AK

Julia Longfield, Ketchikan, AK

Karen McCullough, Petersburg, AK

Karen Peterson, Thorne Bay, AK

Keith Dahl, Thorne Bay, AK

Kenneth Kiffer, Ketchikan, AK

Kim & Barbara Turley, Auke Bay, AK

Larry & Brenda Trumble, Klawock, AK

Larry & Jeannine Wilkinson, Thorne Bay, AK

Larry Young, Petersburg, AK

Len Brady, Thorne Bay, AK

Lester Douglas, Hydaburg, AK

Lewis Hiatt, Craig, AK

Linda Voorhees, Ketchikan, AK

Linnaea Olsen, Ward Cove, AK

Lonnie Collins, Bellingham, WA

Lynn Chaco, Thorne Bay, AK

Lynn Fischhaber, Craig, AK

Matilda Kushnick, Ketchikan, AK

Michael George, Klawock, AK

Michael Kampnich, Craig, AK

Michael McKinley, Ketchikan, AK

Michelle Page, Coffman Cove, AK

Mike Douville, Craig, AK

Mike McKimens, Craig, AK

Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Smith, Ward Cove, AK

Mr. & Mrs. John Storie, Pendleton, OR

Neil Gilbertson, Ketchikan, AK

P.A. McGarrigan, Ketchikan, AK

Pat Tolson, Hydaburg, AK

Patricia Muzzana, Anchorage, AK

Patrick Gardner, Craig, AK

Paul Brown, Sekiu, WA

Paul Friesema, Evanston, IL

Pete & Wanda Rice, Craig, AK

Pete Isom, Thorne Bay, AK

Pete Smith, Ketchikan, AK

Randall Jahnke, Ward Cove, AK

Randy Fairbanks, Kirkland, WA

Richard Myren, Juneau, AK
4 References and Lists

4-8 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Richard Rathbone, Wrangell, AK

Richard Reeves, Springfield, OR

Rick Hirschberb, Olympia, WA

Roger Amundson, Ward Cove, AK

Ron Williams, Sr., Klawock, AK

Roy & Carole Hines, Ward Cove, AK

Roy Clark, Craig, AK

Russ Bartels, Edna Bay, AK

Sam Rabung, Neets Bay, AK

Shannon Hofstedt, Ward Cove, AK

Stephen Hofstedt, Ward Cove, AK

Steve Lewis, Tutitlek, AK

Steve Meredith, St. Helens, OR

Steve Warren, Edna Bay, AK

Susan Domenowske, Ketchikan, AK

Terry Schmitt, Ward Cove, AK

Tim Miles, Juneau, AK

Victoria Merritt, Craig, AK

Wally Kennedy, Craig, AK

Walt Begalka, Ketchikan, AK

Wes & Patricia Davidson, Ketchikan, AK

Wesley Buss, Coffman Cove, AK

Wesley Etherington, Coffman Cove, AK

William Cheney, Kake, AK

William Hollywood, IV, Ketchikan, AK

William Hendricks, Ketchikan, AK

William Joseph, Sr., Klawock, AK

William Pierce, Coffman Cove, AK

William Singer, Jr., Ward Cove, AK

William Messmer, Wrangell, AK

Libraries 

Colorado State University Library, Fort Collins, CO 

Craig Public Library, Craig, AK 

Douglas Public Library, Juneau, AK

Elfin Cove Public Library, Elfin Cove, AK

Haines Public Library, Haines, AK 

Hollis Public Library, Hollis, AK 

Hyder Public Library, Hyder, AK 

Kake Community Library, Kake, AK 

Kasaan Community Library, Kasaan, AK 

Ketchikan Public Library, Ketchikan, AK 

Kettleson Memorial Library, Sitka, AK 

Mendenhall Valley Public Library, Juneau, AK

Pelican Public Library, Pelican, AK 

Petersburg Public Library, Petersburg, AK 

Skagway Public Library, Skagway, AK 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-9

Tenakee Springs Public Library, Tenakee Springs, AK 

Thorne Bay Community Library, Thorne Bay, AK 

University of Minnesota Forestry Library, St. Paul, MN 

USDA National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD 

Wrangell Public Library, Wrangell, AK 

Organizations and Businesses 

3-D Logging, Thorne Bay, AK

Adam Baskett's Equipment Repair, Thorne Bay, AK

Adventure Alaska Southeast, Thorne Bay, AK

Alaska Cooperative Extension, Anchorage, AK

Alaska Fibre, Petersburg, AK

Alaska Forest Association, Ketchikan, AK 

Alaska Forest Products, Naukati, AK

Alaska Pacific Powder Company, Ketchikan, AK

Alaska Rainforest Campaign, Sitka, AK 

Alaskan Wood Products, Thorne Bay, AK

Alcan Forest Products, Ketchikan, AK

Basic Transportation Company, Ketchikan, AK

Bear Valley Lodge, Ketchikan, AK

Big "R" Manufacturing, Greeley, CO

Blue Lagoon Oyster Farm, Coffman Cove, AK

Boardwalk Wilderness Lodge, Thorne Bay, AK

Burgess Logging Inc., Leavenworth, AK

CARE, Ketckikan, AK

Carson Helicopters, Grants Pass, OR

Cascade Sand & Gravel, Petersburg, AK

Cascadia Wildlands Project, Cordova, AK 

Cedar Bite Trading Post, Edna Bay, AK

Center for Biological Diversity, Idyllwild, CA

Center for Science in Public Participation, Victoria, BC, Canada

Chilkoot Lumber Company, Haines, AK

Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Portland, OR 

Construction Machinery, Inc., Ward Cove, AK

Cove Lumber, Coffman Cove, AK

CSL Farm and Services, Edna Bay, AK

Custom Cuts, Ketchikan, AK

D & L Woodworks, Hoonah, AK

Doig Enterprises, Shelton, WA

Durette Construction Inc., Ward Cove, AK

Earthjustice, Juneau, AK

Eagle Wood Products, Craig, AK

Edna Bay Fish and Game Advisory Committee, Edna Bay, AK

Erickson Air-Crane LLC, Central Point, OR

Evergreen Helicopters, Anchorage, AK

Forest Conservation Council, Santa Fe, NM

Greenpeace, Sitka, AK 

H & L Salvage, Thorne Bay, AK
4 References and Lists

4-10 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Hedges B & B, Coffman Cove, AK

High Drive Drilling & Blasting, Ketchikan, AK 

J & J Forest Products, Humptulips, WA

Juneau Empire, Juneau, AK

Kasaan Mountain Lumber & Log, Kasaan, AK

Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce, Ketchikan, AK

Ketchikan Cutting Company, Ketchikan, AK

Ketchikan Daily News, Ketchikan, AK

Ketchikan Visitors Bureau, Ketchikan, AK

KFSK News, Petersburg, AK

Last Chance Enterprises, Thorne Bay, AK

Log Cabin Resort & RV, Klawock, AK

Mariner, Inc., Ketchikan, AK

Murwood, Craig, AK

NBA, Sitka Branch, Sitka, AK

Naukati Adventures, Naukati, AK

Natural Resource Defense Council, Olympia, WA 

Natural Resource Defense Council, Washington, DC

Naukati West Homeowners Association, Naukati, AK

Northern Star Cedar, Craig, AK

Northland Services, Inc., Thorne Bay, AK

Papac Alaska Logging, Inc., Craig, AK

Petro Alaska Inc., Thorne Bay, AK

Phoenix Logging, Klawock, AK

Portac Inc., Beaver, WA

Porter Lumber, Thorne Bay, AK

Prince of Wales Chamber of Commerce, Klawock, AK

Prince of Wales Conservation League, Craig, AK

Prince of Wales Loggers League, Craig, AK

Reid Brothers Logging & Construction, Petersburg, AK

Reinhart Employee Affairs & Public Relations, Ketchikan, AK

Resource Development Council of Alaska, Anchorage, AK

Samson Tug & Barge, Sitka, AK

Schmolck Mechanical Contractors, Ketchikan, AK

Seaford Construction, Thorne Bay, AK

Skyline Logging, Craig, AK

Society of American Foresters, Ketchikan, AK

SE Alaska Wood Products, Petersburg, AK

Southeast Alaska Resources, Ketchikan, AK

Southeast Alaska Timber, Ketchikan, AK

Southeast Exposure, Ketchikan, AK

Southeast Stevadoring Corp., Ketchikan, AK

Sierra Club, Juneau Group, Juneau, AK 

Sitka Conservation Society, Sitka, AK 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Juneau, AK 

Southeast Conference, Juneau, AK 

St. Nick Forest Products, Craig, AK

Sumner Strait Advisory Committee, Point Baker, AK
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-11

Tetra Tech EC, Bothell, WA

The Mill, Inc., Petersburg, AK

The Wilderness Society, Anchorage, AK 

Thorne Bay Wood Products, Thorne Bay, AK

Thuja Plicata Lumber, Thorne Bay, AK

Timber Data Company, Eugene, OR

Timbersource.com, Winchester, KY

Tolko Industries Ltd., Quesnel, BC, Canda

Tongass Cave Project

Tongass Conservation Society, Ketchikan, AK 

TRUCO, Naukati, AK

Viking Lumber, Craig, AK 

Welser Sawmill, Thorne Bay, AK

Western Gold Cedar Products, Thorne Bay, AK

Whitestone Logging, Inc., Hoonah, AK

Wood Cuts, Thorne Bay, AK

W.R. Jones & Son Lumber Company, Craig, AK

W.R. Tongsgard Logging & Lumber, Juneau, AK

Wrangell Resource Council, Wrangell, AK

Ziegler, Cloudy, King & Petersen Attorneys at Law, Ketchikan, AK

Public Officials, Tribal Organizations, and Cities 

Albert Kookesh, Alaska State Representative, Juneau, AK

Angoon Community Association, Angoon, AK

Cape Fox Corporation, Ketchikan, AK

Chilkat Indian Village, Haines, AK

Chilkoot Indian Association, Haines, AK

City of Coffman Cove, Coffman Cove, AK 

City of Craig, Craig, AK 

City of Hydaburg, Hydaburg, AK 

City of Kasaan, Kasaan, AK

City of Ketchikan, Ketchikan, AK

City of Klawock, Klawock, AK 

City of Sitka, Sitka, AK

City of Thorne Bay, Mayor, Thorne Bay, AK 

Community Council of Hollis, Hollis, AK

Community of Edna Bay, Edna Bay, AK

Community of Naukati West, Ketchikan, AK 

Community of Whale Pass, Ketchikan, AK 

Craig Community Association, Craig, AK

Don Young, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, Juneau, AK 

Douglas Indian Association, Juneau, AK

Haida Corporation, Hydaburg, AK

Hoonah Indian Association, Hoonah, AK

Hydaburg Cooperative Association, Hydaburg, AK

Kake Tribal Corporation, Kake, AK

Kavilco Inc., Ketchikan, AK

Kavilco Inc., Seattle, WA
4 References and Lists

4-12 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Ketchikan Indian Corporation, Ketchikan, AK

Klawock Cooperative Association, Klawock, AK

Klawock Heenya Corporation, Klawock, AK

Klawock Tribal Government, Klawock, AK

Kootznoowoo Inc., Juneau, AK

Lisa Murkowski, Senator, U.S. Senate, Ketchikan, AK 

Mark Begich, Senator, U.S. Senate, Anchorage, AK 

Metlakatla Indian Community, Metlakatla, AK

Organized Village of Kake, Kake, AK

Organized Village of Kasaan, Ketchikan, AK

Organized Village of Saxman, Ketchikan, AK

Petersburg Indian Association, Petersburg, AK

Point Baker Community Council, Point Baker, AK 

Port Protection Community Association, Port Protection, AK 

Sealaska Corporation, Juneau, AK 

Shaan-Seet, Inc., Craig, AK

Sitka Tribe of Alaska, Sitka, AK

Tlingit and Haida Central Council, Juneau, AK

Tongass Tribe, Ketchikan, AK

University of Alaska Land Mgmt., Anchorage, AK 

Wrangell Cooperative Association, Wrangell, AK 

Yak-Tat-Kwann, Inc., Yakutat, AK

Yakutat Tlingat Tribe, Yakutat, AK
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-13

Glossary ___________________________ Abiotic: Non-living. Climate is an abiotic component of ecosystems. 

Access: The opportunities to approach, enter, and make use of public lands.

Access management: Acquiring rights and developing and maintaining facilities needed by 

people to get to and move through public lands (physical attributes). 

Active channel: As defined for purposes of the riparian standards and guidelines includes stream 

channels, secondary channels, and braided channels. For the Alluvial Fan Process Group, it also 

includes gravel outwash lobes. 

Adfluvial fish: Species of populations of fish that do not go to sea, but live in lakes and enter 

streams to spawn. 

Affected environment: The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area being 

analyzed. 

Age class: A distinct aggregation of trees originating from a single natural even or regeneration 

activity, or a grouping of trees, e.g., 10-year age class, as used in inventory or management. 

Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS): The official list of cultural resources in the State 

of Alaska, maintained by the Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Division of Parks and 

Outdoor Recreation. 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA): Passed by Congress in 

ecosystem 1980, this legislation designated 14 National Forest wilderness areas in Southeast 

Alaska. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980. Public Law 

96-487, 96th Congress, 94 Stat. 2371-2551. Section 810 requires evaluations of subsistence 

impacts before changing the use of these lands. 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA): Public Law 92-203, 92nd Congress, 85 Stat. 

2371-2551. Approved December 18, 1971, ANCSA provides for the settlement of certain land 

claims of Alaska natives and for other purposes. 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV): A gasoline powered, off-road vehicle used for accessing rote areas 

for recreational and work related activities: note all terrain vehicles generally have high 

clearance, high traction, high maneuverability and low speed. See Off-road vehicle 

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ): The amount of timber that may be sold within a certain time 

period from an area of suitable land. The suitability of the land and the time period are specified 

in the Forest Plan. 

Alluvial fan: A cone-shaped deposit of organic and mineral material made by a stream where it 

runs out onto a level plain or meets a slower stream. 

Alluvium: Recent soil deposits resulting from modern rivers, including the sediment laid down 

in river beds, flood plains, lakes and at the foot of mountain slopes and estuaries. 

Alpine: Parts of mountains above tree growth. 
4 References and Lists

4-14 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Amphipods: Any member of the invertebrate order Amphipoda (class Crustacea) inhabiting all 

parts of the sea, lakes, rivers, sand beaches, caves, and moist (warm) habitats on many tropical 

islands. 

Anadromous fish: Fish which mature and spend much of their adult life in the ocean, returning 

to inland waters to spawn. Salmon and steelhead are examples of anadromous species of fish. 

Anadromous Fisheries Habitat Assessment: An assessment conducted in 1994 within the 

Tongass National Forest (published in 1995) to study the effectiveness of current procedures for 

protecting anadromous fish habitat and to determine the need for any additional protection. 

Aphid: A small (1 to 6 mm or 0.04 to 0.24 inches), soft-bodies, often pear-shaped insect of the 

family Aphididae (Homoptera) that sucks sap from leaves, stems or roots: note aphids excrete 

the processed sap as honeydew. 

Aquatic ecosystem: A stream, channel, lake or estuary bed, the water itself, and the biotic 

communities that occur therein. 

Aquatic Habitat Management Unit class: See stream classes 

Aquifer: A saturated, permeable geologic unit of sediment or rock that can transmit significant 

quantities of water under ordinary hydraulic gradients. 

Aspect: The direction a slope faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect. 

ASQ: See allowable sale quantity. 

Average-snow deer habitat: POG forest below 1,500 feet. POG is defined as all seven-size 

classifications including SD-4H, SD-4N, SD-4S, SD-5H, SD-5N, SD-5S, and SD-67 in the SDM 

GIS data. It is considered in reference to deer winter habitat. Also called average-snow deer 

winter range. 

Background: The distant part of a landscape. The seen or viewed area located from 3 or 5 miles 

to infinity from the viewer (see also “Foreground” and “Middleground”). 

Bankfull width: The width of the wetted channel when the water surface is at the same elevation 

as the active floodplain. 

Basal area: The area of the cross section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 1/2 feet above 

the ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The term 

basal area is often used to describe the collective basal area of trees per acre. 

Beach fringe: The area inland from salt water shorelines that is typically forested. 

Bedload: Sand, silt, and gravel, or soil and rock debris rolled along the bottom of a stream by the 

moving water. 

Benthic: Pertaining to the sea bottom or to organisms that live on the sea bottom. 

Best management practice (BMP): Land management methods, measures or practices selected 

by an agency to meet its non-point source control needs. BMPs include, but are not limited to 

structural and non-structural controls and operation and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be 

applied before, during and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the 

introduction of pollutants into receiving waters. BMPs are selected on the basis of site-specific 

conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and 

technical feasibility. BMPs are found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-15

Biogeographic provinces: Twenty-one ecological subdivisions of Southeast Alaska that are 

identified by generally distinct ecological, physiogeographic, and biogeographic features. 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. 

Biological assessment: A biological analysis conducted for major Federal construction projects 

requiring an environmental impact statement, in accordance with legal requirements under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536). The purpose of the assessment and 

resulting document is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to affect a species that 

has been listed or proposed as an endangered or threatened species. 

Biological diversity: The number and abundance of species found within a common 

environment. This includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and the ecological 

processes that connect everything in a common environment. 

Biological evaluation: A documented USDA Forest Service review of programs and activities 

that contains sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any 

species that has been listed or proposed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive. 

Biomass: The total weight of all living organisms in a biological community. 

Biotic: Living. Green plants and soil microorganisms are biotic components of ecosystems. 

Blowdown: See Windthrow. 

Board foot: A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood contained in an 

unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide. 

Braided streams or channels: A stream flowing in several dividing and reuniting channels 

resembling the strands of a braid, the cause of division being the obstruction by sediment 

deposited by the stream. FP 7-5 

Browse: Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs that animals eat. Browse is often 

used to refer to the shrubs eaten by big game, such as elk and deer. 

Buffer: A vegetative strip or management zone of varying size, shape, and character maintained 

along a stream, lake, road, recreation site, or different vegetative zone to mitigate the impacts of 

action as on adjacent lands. 

Cable logging: Logging that involves the transport of logs from stump to collection points by 

means of suspended steel cables. 

Canopy: The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to the 

uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be use to describe lower layers in a multi-storied forest. 

Capability: The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, 

and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of 

management intensity. 

Carrying capacity: The estimated maximum number of animals that can be sustained over the 

long-term in an area. 

Cavity: A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting, and 

reproduction. 
4 References and Lists

4-16 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

Channel: A natural waterway of perceptible extent that periodically or continuously contains 

moving water. It has a definite bed and banks which serve to confine the water. 

Channel type: A means of distinguishing parts of a stream system into segments that have fairly 

consistent physical and biological characteristics. For descriptions, see “Channel Type Field 

Guide,” Forest Service publication R10-MB-6. 

Clearcut: Harvesting method in which essentially all trees are cleared in one cut. It prepares the 

area for a new, even-aged stand. The area harvested may be a patch, stand, or strip large enough 

to be mapped or recorded as a separate age class in planning. 

Climax: The culminating stage in plant succession for a given site. Climax vegetation is stable, 

self-maintaining, and self-reproducing. 

Coarse Canopy Old-growth Forest: Old-growth forest that has lower crown density (number 

of trees) and non-uniform crown sizes and heights including large crowns and many canopy 

gaps. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal 

government. 

Commercial forest: Forest land tentatively suitable for the production of continuous crops of 

timber and that has not been withdrawn. 

Composition: What an ecosystem is composed of. Composition could include water, minerals, 

trees, snags, wildlife, soil, microorganisms, and plant species, 

Conifer: A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree. 

Connectivity (of habitats): A measure of the extent that forest areas between or outside reserves 

provide habitat for breeding, feeding, dispersal, and movement. 

Corridor: Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation may 

create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows where wildlife feed. 

Cover: Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live vegetation, 

boulders, or undercut stream banks. Animals use cover to escape from predators, rest, or feed. 

Critical habitat: Specific areas designated as critical by the Secretary of Interior or Commerce 

for the survival and recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Crown (of a tree): The tree canopy; the upper part of a tree or woody plant that carries the main 

branch system and foliage. 

Cumulative effects: Effects on the environment that result from separate, individual actions that, 

collectively, becomes significant over time. 

Decommissioning: To remove those elements of a road or buildings that reroute hillslope 

drainage and present slope stability hazards. For NFS roads, decommissioning removes the road 

from the long-term forest road transportation system. Otherwise, decommissioning is the same 

for all roads. Action on the ground for decommissioning ranges from blocking the entrance and 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-17

removing drainage structures to obliterating the road, returning the natural contours, and 

replanting vegetation. The end result is the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a 

more natural state (36 CFR 212.1). See also Road Decommissioning. 

DBH: See diameter at breast height. 

Deep-snow winter range: HPOG is forested habitat below 800 feet on south- and west-facing 

aspects (HPOG is equivalent to SD-5S, SD-5N and SD-67), and is considered in reference to 

deer and marten winter habitat. 

Deer winter range (Habitat): An area, usually at lower elevation, used by big game during the 

winter months; usually smaller and better-defined than summer ranges. 

Developed recreation: That type of recreation that occurs where modifications (improvements) 

enhance recreation opportunities and accommodate intensive recreation activities in a defined 

area. 

Development LUDs: Land use designations that permit commercial timber harvest (Timber 

Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed) and convert some of the old-growth 

forest to early-to-mid-successional, regulated forests. 

Diameter at breast height (DBH): The diameter of the stem of a tree measured at breast height 

4.5 feet from the ground. Note: on sloping ground the measure is taken from the uphill side. 

Direct employment: The jobs that are immediately associated with a given activity. 

Dispersed recreation: That type of recreation use that requires few, if any, improvements and 

may occur over a wide area. This type of recreation involves activities related to roads, trails and 

undeveloped waterways and beaches. The activities do not necessarily take place on or adjacent 

to a road, trail, or waterway, only in conjunction with it. Activities are often dayuse oriented and 

include hunting, fishing, boating, off-road vehicle use, hiking and among others. 

Distance zones: Areas of landscapes denoted by specified distances from the observer 

(foreground, middleground or background). Used as a frame of reference in which to discuss 

landscape characteristics of Management activities. 

Disturbance: A force that results in changes in the structure and composition through natural 

events such as wind, fire, flood, avalanche, or mortality caused by insect or disease outbreaks or 

by human caused events (e.g., timber harvest) 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): The version of the statement of 

environmental effects required for major Federal actions under Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and released to the public and other agencies for review and 

comment. 

Early forest succession: The biotic (or life) community that develops immediately following the 

removal or destruction of vegetation in an area. For instance, grasses may be the first plants to 

grow in an area that was burned. 

Ecological subsections: Eighty-five terrestrial ecosystems mapped and described for Southeast 

Alaska and adjourning areas of Canada (Nowacki et al. 2001). These mid-sized terrestrial 

ecosystems body similar ecological characteristics including landforms, streams, vegetation, 
4 References and Lists

4-18 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

soils, and wetlands. They provide a practical basis for ecosystem management, planning, and 

research. 

Ecology: The interrelationships of living things to one another and the environment, or the study 

of these interrelationships. 

Edge: The more or less well defined boundary between two or more elements of the 

environment, e.g., a field adjacent to a woodland or the boundary of different silvicultural 

treatments. 

Effects: Effects, impacts, and consequences as used in this Environmental Impact Statement are 

synonymous. Effects may be ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the 

components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historical, cultural, 

economic, or social, and may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. 

Direct effects: Results of an action occurring when and where the action takes place. 

Indirect effects: Results of an action occurring at a location other than where the action takes 

place and/or later in time, but in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Cumulative effects: Results of collective past, resent and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Element (of ecosystems): An identifiable component, process, or condition of an ecosystem. 

Endangered species: Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified and defined in 

accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register. 

Endemic: Restricted to a particular locality. For example, a particular species or subspecies may 

occur on only one or a very few islands. 

Environmental analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short and longterm environmental effects, incorporating the physical, biological, economic, social and 

environmental design arts and their interactions. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document prepared by a federal agency in which 

anticipated environmental effects of a planned course of action or development are evaluated. A 

federal statute (Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) requires that such 

statements be prepared. It is prepared first in draft or review form, and then in a final form. An 

impact statement includes the following pints: (1) the environmental impact of the proposed 

action, (2) any adverse impacts which cannot be avoided by the action, (3) the alternative courses 

of actions, (4) the relationships between local short-term productivity, and (5) a description of 

the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would occur if the action were 

accomplished 

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity or other 

geological activities. 

Escape cover: Vegetation of sufficient size and density to hide an animal, or an area used by 

animals to escape predators. 

Estuary: An ecological system at the mouth of a stream where fresh water and salt water mix, 

and where salt marshes and intertidal mudflats are present. The landward extent of an estuary is 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-19

the limit of salt-intolerant vegetation, and the seaward extent is a stream’s delta at mean low 

water. 

Even-aged Management: The application of a combination of actions that result in the creation 

of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. The difference in age between 

trees in forming the main canopy level of a stand usually does not exceed 20 percent of that age 

of the stand at harvest rotation age. Clearcut, shelter wood, or seed tree cutting methods produce 

even-aged stands. 

Executive Order: An order or regulation issued by the President or some administrative 

authority under his or her direction. 

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI): Describes the visual appearance of the landscape at the time 

the project area scenery assessment in conducted. ESI is measured by the following condition 

types, as described in the Forest Plan: 

Type I: Landscapes where only ecological change has occurred, except for trails needed for 

access. Landscapes appear to be untouched by human activities. 

Type II: Landscapes where change is not noticed by the average forest visitor unless pointed 

out. These landscapes have been altered but changes are not perceptible. 

Type III: Landscapes where changes are noticeable by the average forest visitor, but they do 

not attract attention. Changes appear to be minor disturbances. 

Type IV: Landscapes where changes are easily noticed by the average forest visitor and may 

attract attention. Changes appear as disturbances but resemble natural patterns in the landscape.

Type V: Landscapes where changes are very noticeable and would be obvious to the average 

forest visitor. Changes tend to stand out, dominating the view of the landscape, but are shaped 

to resemble natural patterns. 

Type VI: Landscapes where changes are in glaring contrast to the landscape’s natural 

appearance. Changes appear as dramatic, large scale disturbances that strongly affect the 

average forest visitor. 

Felling: The cutting down of trees. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): The final version of the statement of 

environmental effects required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. It is a revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

to include public and agency responses to the draft. The decision maker chooses which 

alternative to select from the FEIS, and subsequently issues a Record of Decision (ROD). 

Fiscal year (FY): October 1 through September 30. The Fiscal Year is referred to by the 

calendar year which begins on January 1. For example, October 1, 1996, through September 30, 

1997 is referred to as Fiscal Year 1997. 

Fisheries habitat: Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish, or have the potential to 

support fish. 

Fish passage barrier: A point in a stream which presents a barrier to some life stage of a fish 

species, also called “red pipes” in some Agency documents; e.g. barriers may be the lip of a 
4 References and Lists

4-20 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

culvert placed too high for juvenile fish, or a series of natural falls that do not allow any fish 

passage. 

Floodplain: That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the river channel, which is covered with 

water when the river overflows its banks at flood stages in response to a 100 year storm event. 

Fluvial: Of, or pertaining to streams and rivers. 

Forage: All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife and livestock. 

Forb: A grouping/category of herbaceous plants which are not included in the grass, shrub or 

tree groupings/categories; generally smaller flowering plants. 

Foreground: A term used in visual management to describe the stand of trees immediately 

adjacent to a scenic area, recreation facility or forest highway. The area is located less than 1/4 

mile from the viewer. (See Background and Middleground.) 

Forest health: An expression of the relationship among biotic and abiotic influences on the 

forest (i.e., insects, diseases, atmospheric deposition, silvicultural treatments, harvesting 

objectives for a given forest unit now or in the future and sustain long-term site productivity. 

Forest Road or Trail: A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its

resources. (36 CFR 212.1) 

Forested land: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having 

had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. 

Forest Plan: Source of management direction for an individual Forest specifying activity and 

output levels for a period of 10-15 years. Management direction in the Plan is based on the issues 

identified at the time of the Plan’s development. 

Forest Road or Trail: A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest Supervisor: The official responsible for administering National Forest lands on an 

administrative unit, usually one or more National Forests. The Forest Supervisor reports to the 

Regional Forester. 

Forest Transportation Atlas: A display of the System of roads, trails, and airfields of an 

administrative unit. 

Forest Transportation Facility: A forest road or trail or an airfield that is displayed in a forest 

transportation atlas, including bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine access facilities, safety 

devices, and other improvements appurtenant to the forest transportation system (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest Transportation System: The system of National Forest System roads, National Forest 

System trails, and airfields on National Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs): A set of rules and guidance that directs 

management activities and establishes the environmental quality, natural renewable and 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-21

depletable resource requirements, conservation potential, and mitigation measures that apply to 

several land use designations. 

Fragmentation: An element of biological diversity that describes the natural condition of 

habitats in terms of the size of discrete habitat blocks or patches, their distribution, the extent to 

which they are interconnected, and the effects of Management on these natural conditions. Also 

the process of reducing the size and connectivity of stands within a forest. 

FSH: Forest Service Handbook 

FSM: Forest Service Manual 

Fuels: Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that is capable of burning. 

Fuelwood: Wood cut into short lengths for burning. 

Function: All the processes within an ecosystem through which the elements interact, such as 

succession, the food chain, fire, weather, and the hydrologic cycle. 

Game species: Any species of wildlife or fish that is harvested according to prescribed limits 

and seasons. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): Information processing technology to input, store, 

manipulate, analyze, and display spatial and attribute data to support the decision making 

process. It is a system of computer maps with corresponding site-specific information that can be 

electronically combined to provide reports and maps 

Geomorphology: The study of the forms of the land surface and the processes producing these 

surfaces. Also the study of the underlying rocks or parent materials and the landforms present 

that were formed in geological time. 

Ground water: Water within the earth that supplies wells and springs. Specifically, water in the 

zone of saturation where openings in soils and rocks are filled; the upper surface level forms the 

water table. 

Guideline: A preferred or advisable course of action or level of attainment designed to promote 

achievement of goals and objectives. 

Habitat: The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by wildlife or 

plant species or a population of each species. 

Habitat capability: The estimated maximum number of fish or wildlife that can be supported by 

the amount and distribution of suitable habitat in an area. 

Habitat diversity: The number of different types of wildlife habitat within a given area. 

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI): A measure of the capability of the habitat to support deer, 

based on a variety of environmental factors, for example, slope, elevation, aspect, and forest 

type. 

Habitat type: A way to classify land area. A habitat type can support certain climax vegetation, 

both tree and undergrowth species. Habitat typing can indicate the biological potential of a site. 

Historic properties: The physical rains of districts, sites, structures, buildings, networks, events, 

or objects used by humans in the past. They may be historic, prehistoric, architectural, or 

archival in nature. Heritage properties are non-renewable aspects of our national heritage. 
4 References and Lists

4-22 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Hydric soil: A soil that is wet long enough to periodically produce anaerobic conditions, thereby 

influencing the growth of plants. 

Hydrologic cycle: The complete cycle, through which water passes, commencing as 

atmospheric water vapor, passing into liquid and solid form as precipitation, thence along or into 

the ground surface, and finally again returning to the form of atmospheric water vapor, by means 

of evaporation and transpiration. Also called Water Cycle. 

Hydrologic recovery: A return to natural conditions of water collection, storage, and discharge. 

Hydrology: The science dealing with the study of water on the land, in the soil and underlying 

rocks, and in the atmosphere. 

Individual tree selection: See regeneration method. 

Interception: The process where precipitation is caught and held by foliage and lost by 

evaporation before it reaches the ground. 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT): A group of individuals with different training assembled to 

solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one 

scientific discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem. Through interaction, 

participants bring different points of view and a broader range of expertise to bear on the 

problem 

Intermediate cut: The removal of trees from a stand sometime between the beginning or 

formation of the stand and the regeneration cut. Types of intermediate cuts include thinning, 

release, and improvement cuttings. 

Intermittent stream: A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives 

water from streams or from some surface source, such as melting snow. 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA): An undeveloped area typically exceeding 5,000 acres that 

meets the minimum criteria for Wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act and that was 

inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) 

process, subsequent assessments, or forest planning. 

Irretrievable commitment: Applies to losses of production or use of renewable natural 

resources for a period of time. For example, timber production from an area is irretrievably lost 

during the time an area is allocated to a no-harvest prescription. If the allocation is changed to 

allow timber harvest, timber production can be resumed. The production lost is irretrievable, but 

the action is not irreversible. 

Irreversible commitments: Decisions causing changes which cannot be reversed. For example, 

if a roadless area is allocated to allow timber harvest and timber is actually harvested, that area 

generally cannot, at a later date, be allocated to Wilderness. Once harvested, the ability of that 

area to meet Wilderness criteria has been irreversibly lost. Often applies to nonrenewable 

resources such as minerals and cultural resources. 

Issue: A point, matter, or section of public discussion or interest to be addressed or decided. 

Karst: A type of topography that develops in areas underlain by soluble rocks, primarily 

limestone. Dissolution of the subsurface strata results in areas of well-developed surface 

drainage that are sinkholes, collapsed channels, or caves. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-23

Land and Resource Management Plan: Also called the Forest Plan or just the Plan, this 

document guides the Management of a particular National Forest and establishes management 

standards and guidelines for all lands of that National Forest. 

Land Use Designation (LUD): A defined area of land specific to which management direction 

is applied. 

Landing: A cleared area to which logs or trees are transported for loading onto trucks for 

transport to a mill or log transfer facility. Barges are sometimes used for landings in Southeast 

Alaska. 

Landscape: A large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to 

factors such as geology, soils, climate, and human impacts. Landscapes are often used for coarse 

grain analysis. 

Large woody debris (LWD): Any large piece of relatively stable woody material having a 

diameter of at least 4 inches and a length greater than 3 feet that intrudes into the stream channel. 

Litter (forest litter): The freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material on the forest 

floor. This layer includes foliage, bark fragments, twigs, flowers, and fruit. 

Log transfer facility (LTF): Formerly referred to as terminal transfer facilities, log transfer 

facilities include the site and structures used for moving logs and timber products from landbased transportation forms to water-based transportation forms (or vice versa). 

Logging systems: The equipment configuration employed for yarding logs; that is, moving the 

logs from the stump to the “landing,” the point on a road at which they are loaded on trucks for 

transportation from the unit. Logging systems fall into the following main categories, in order of 

increasing cost: 

Shovel logging: These mobile machines that travel throughout the unit to skid or swing logs to 

the landing. Common in Southeast Alaska is shovel logging, in which a log loader or “shovel” 

moves logs from the stump to the landing by repeatedly swinging the logs closer to the 

landing. 

Cable systems: These consist of a stationary “yarder” at the landing; that is, a set of winches 

powering wire rope cables that travel through the top of an integrally mounted steel tower. 

The cables move logs to the landing, lifting the partly or completely clear of the ground 

through the lift provided by the tower. Because the equipment is stationary at the landing, and 

does not travel on the unit, site impacts are limited to soil and stream disturbance caused by 

dragging the logs. 

Helicopter yarding: This consists of a helicopter lifting the logs via an attached choker (cable) 

from the felling point to a landing or to a barge. Ground disturbance is minimized as logs are 

fully suspended. The helicopter yarding method is generally used where it is uneconomical to 

construct roads or it is infeasible for other conventional harvest systems to meet the harvest 

prescription objectives. 

MBF: Thousand board feet (see board feet) 

Management action: Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the National 

Forest. 
4 References and Lists

4-24 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Management direction: A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the 

associated land use prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining the desired condition 

of the Forest Plan. 

Management indicator species (MIS): Plant or animal species, communities, or special habitats 

selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation to 

assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other 

species with similar habitat needs which they may represent. 

Marine Access Facility (MAF): 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. 

Mass movement or mass wasting: The down-slope movement of large masses of earth material 

by the force of gravity. Also called a landslide. 

Mass movement index (MMI): Rating used to group soil map units that have similar properties 

with respect to the stability of natural slopes. 

Matrix: The least fragmented, most continuous pattern element of a landscape; the vegetation 

type that is most continuous over a landscape. 

Mature timber: Trees that have attained full development, especially height, and are in full seed 

production. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): An agreement between the Forest Service and others 

agencies resulting from consultation between agencies that states specific measures the agencies 

will follow to accomplish a large or complex project. A memorandum of understanding is not a 

fund obligating document. 

Microclimate: The climate of a small site. It may differ from the climate at large of the area due 

to aspect, tree cover (or the absence of tree cover), or exposure to winds. 

Middleground: The visible terrain beyond the foreground where individual trees are still visible 

but do not stand out distinctly from the landscape; area located from 1/4 mile to 3-5 miles from 

the viewer. (See “Foreground” and “Background.”) 

Mineral soil: Soil that consists mainly of inorganic material, such as weathered rock, rather than 

organic matter. 

Mitigation: Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or rectify the impact of land management 

activities. 

Model: An idealized representation of reality developed to describe, analyze, or understand it; a 

mathematical representation of the relationships under study (e.g., FORPLAN, wildlife habitat 

capability models). 

Monitoring and evaluation: The periodic evaluation of forest management activities to 

determine how well objectives were met and how management practices should be adjusted. See 

“adaptive management.” 

Mortality: Trees dying from natural causes, usually by size class in relation to sequential 

inventories or subsequent to incidents such as storms or insect and disease epidemics. The term 

mortality can also refer to the rate of death of a species in a given population or community. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-25

Mosaic: Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape, such as areas with trees and 

areas without trees occurring over a landscape. 

Motor Vehicle Use Map: A map that reflects designated roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System. 

Multiple-use management: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of 

National Forest lands for a variety of purposes such as recreation, range, timber, wildlife and fish 

habitat, and watershed. 

Muskeg: Muskeg is a wetland type (also called “peatland”) in Southeast Alaska that has 

developed over thousands of years in depressions, or flat areas on gentle to steep slopes. These 

bogs have poorly drained; acidic, organic soils materials that support vegetation that can be 

either sphagnum moss or herbaceous plants. These vegetation types may have a lesser abundance 

of shrubs and stunted trees. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Congress passed NEPA in 1969 to encourage 

productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment. One of the major 

tenets of NEPA is its emphasis on public disclosure of possible environmental effects of any 

major action on public lands. Section 102 of NEPA requires a statement of possible 

environmental effects to be released to the public and other agencies for review and comment. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act requiring the preparation of Forest 

Plans. 

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. 

National Forest System Trail: A forest trail other than a trail that has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county or other local public road authority. 

National Register of Historic Places: A register of cultural resources of national, state, or local 

significance, maintained by the Department of the Interior. 

National Wild and Scenic River System: Rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational, 

geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, designated by Congress 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for preservation of their free-flowing condition. May be 

classified and administered under one or more of the following categories: Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational. 

Natural resource: A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human needs. 

Net sawlog volume: Trees suitable in size and quality for producing logs that can be processed 

into lumber. In Southeast Alaska, depending on the market, the volume may be processed as pulp 

or lumber. 

No action alternative: The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if current 

proposed action or alternatives were not selected for the Logjam Timber sale. 

Non-game: Wildlife species that are not hunted for sport, or subsistence. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice in the federal register of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement on a proposed action. 
4 References and Lists

4-26 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Off-highway vehicle: Any vehicle which is restricted by law from operating on public roads for 

general motor vehicle traffic; includes: motorbikes, mini-bikes, trail bikes, snowmobiles, dune 

buggies, all-terrain vehicles, and four-wheel drive, high clearance vehicles (FSM 2355.01). 

Old growth: Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in tree sizes and species, 

decadent old trees, and standing and dead woody material. 

Old-growth reserve (OGR): A contiguous unit of old-growth habitat to be managed to maintain 

the integrity of the old growth forest ecosystem. 

Open road density: The length of forest development roads open for public access and use per 

unit area of land; usually expressed as miles of open road per square mile of land. 

Organic soil: Soils that contain a high percentage (greater than 15 percent) of organic matter 

throughout the soil depth. 

Overstory: The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory. 

Parent material: The unconsolidated, and more or less chemically weathered, mineral or 

organic matter from which soils develop. 

Partial cut: Any cutting in which only part of the stand is harvested. This may include thinning, 

selection, shelterwood, or an overstory removal. 

Partial retention: A visual quality objective which, in general, means man’s activities may be 

evident but must rain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

Patch: An area of homogeneous vegetation, in structure and composition. 

Personal use: The use of a forest product, such as firewood, for home use and not for 

commercial use. 

Planning area: The area of National Forest System controlled by a decision document. 

Plant communities: An assemblage of plants that, in general, occur together on similar site 

conditions. 

Population viability: Probability that a population will persist for a specified period of time 

across its range. In reference to the Alaska Coastal Management Program, consistent with 

enforceable policies of approved management programs unless compliance is prohibited based 

upon the requirements of existing law applicable to the Federal agency’s operations. 

Precommercial thinning: Removing some of the trees from a stand that is too small to be sold 

for lumber or house logs, so the raining trees will grow faster. 

Predator: An animal that lives by preying on other animals. Predators are at or near the tops of 

food chains. 

Prescribed fire: Fire set intentionally in wildland fuels under prescribed conditions and 

circumstances. Prescribed fire can rejuvenate forage for livestock and wildlife or prepare sites for 

natural regeneration of trees. 

Prescription: A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to one 

that meets management goals taking in consideration ecological, economic and societal 

constraints. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-27

Process group: A combination of similar stream channel types based on major differences in 

landform, gradient, and channel shapes. 

Productive: The ability of an area to provide goods and services and to sustain ecological 

values.

Productive old growth (POG): Old-growth stands capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre 

per year with 8,000 or more board feet per acre. 

Public participation: Meetings, conferences, seminars, workshops, tours, written comments, 

responses to survey questionnaires, and similar activities designed and held to obtain comments 

from the public about Forest Service planning. 

Public land: Land for which title and control rests with a government: Federal, state, regional, 

county, or municipal. 

Qualitative: Relating to or involving comparisons based on individual qualities. 

Ranger district: The administrative sub-unit of a National Forest that is supervised by a District 

Ranger who reports directly to the Forest Supervisor. 

Raptor: A bird of prey, such as an eagle or hawk. 

RARE II: Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. The national inventory of roadless and 

undeveloped areas, within the National Forests and Grasslands. 

Recharge: The addition of water to ground water by natural or artificial processes. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A public document separate from be associated with and 

environmental impact statement that identifies all alternatives, provides the agency’s final 

decision, the rationale behind the decision, and the agency’s commitments to monitoring and 

mitigating. 

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

resources that categorizes recreation opportunities into seven classes; each class is defined in 

terms of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience needs based on the extent to 

which the natural environment has been modified, the type of facilities provided, the degree of 

outdoor skills needed to enjoy the area and the relative density of recreation use. 

The seven classes are: 

Primitive: An unmodified environment generally greater than 5,000 acres in size and located 

generally at least 3 miles from all roads and other motorized travel routes. A very low 

interaction between users (generally less than 3 group encounters per day) results in a very 

high probability of experiencing solitude, freedom, closeness to nature, tranquility, selfreliance, challenge, and risk. Evidence of other users is low. Restrictions and controls are not 

evident after entering the land unit. Motorized use is rare. 

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized: A natural or natural-appearing environment generally greater 

than 2,500 acres in size and generally located at least 1/2 mile (greater or less depending on 

terrain and vegetation, but no less than 1/4 mile) but not further than 3 miles from all roads 

and other motorized travel routes. Concentration of users is low (generally less than 10 group 

encounters per day), but there is often evidence of other users. There is a high probability of 
4 References and Lists

4-28 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

experiencing solitude, freedom, closeness of nature, tranquility, self reliance, challenge, and 

risk. There is a minimum of subtle on-site controls. No roads are present in the area. 

Semi-Primitive Motorized: A natural or natural-appearing environment generally greater than 

2,500 acres in size and generally located within 1/2 mile of primitive roads and other 

motorized travel routes used by motor vehicles; but not closer that 1/2 mile (greater or less 

depending on terrain and vegetation, but no less than 1/4 mile) from better-than primitive 

roads and other motored travel routes. Concentration of users is low (generally less than 10 

group encounters per day), but here is often evidence of other users. There is a moderate 

probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, and tranquility along with a high 

degree of self-reliance, challenge, and risk in using motorized equipment. Local roads may be 

present, or along saltwater shorelines there may be extensive boat traffic. 

Roaded Natural: Resource modification and utilization are evident, in a predominantly 

naturally-appearing environment generally occurring within 1/2 mile (greater or less 

depending on terrain and vegetation, but no less than 1/4 mile) from better-than-primitive 

roads and other motorized travel routes. Interactions between users may be moderate to high 

(generally less than 20 group encounters per day), with evidence of other users prevalent. 

There is an opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites but with some chance 

for privacy. Self-reliance on outdoor skills is only of moderate importance with little 

opportunity for challenge and risk. Motorized use is allowed. 

Roaded Modified: Vegetative and landform alterations typically dominate the landscape. 

There is little onsite control of users except for gated roads. There is moderate evidence of 

other users on roads (generally less than 20 group encounters per day), and little evidence of 

others or interactions at campsites. There is opportunity to get away from others but with easy 

access. Some self-reliance is required in building campsites and use of motorized equipment. 

A feeling of independence and freedom exists with little challenge and risk. Recreation users 

will likely encounter timber management activities. 

Rural: The natural environment is substantially modified by land use activities. Opportunity to 

observe and affiliate with other users is important as is convenience of facilities. There is little 

opportunity for challenge and risk and self-reliance on outdoor skills is of little importance. 

Recreation facilities designed for group use are compatible. Users may have more that 20 

group encounters per day. 

Urban: Urbanized environment with dominant structures, traffic lights and paved streets. This 

class may have natural appearing backdrop. Recreation places maybe city parks and large 

resorts. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is very important as is 

convenience of facilities and recreation opportunities. Interaction between large numbers of 

users is high. Outdoor skills, risk, and challenge are unimportant except for competitive 

sports. Intensive on-site controls are numerous. 

Recreation places: Identified geographical areas having one or more physical characteristics 

that are particularly attractive to people in recreation activities. They may be beaches, streamside 

areas, roadside areas, trail corridors, hunting areas, or the immediate area surrounding a lake, 

cabin site, or campground. 

Recreation site: A specific site and/or facility occurring within a Recreation Place. Examples of 

recreation sites include: recreation cabins, trailheads, picnic areas, and wildlife viewing blinds. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-29

Red pipes: Passage barriers to various life stages of fish, generally culverts place improperly. 

Reforestation: The reestablishment of forest cover either naturally or artificially (by direct 

seeding or planting). 

Regeneration: The renewal of a tree crop by either natural or artificial means. The term is also 

used to refer to the young crop itself. 

Regional Forester: The official of the USDA Forest Service responsible for administering an 

entire region of the Forest Service. 

Reserve trees: Live or dead trees that are retained for various resource objectives such as 

wildlife, structural diversity, etc. 

Resident fish: Fish that are not migratory and complete their life cycles in fresh water. 

Responsible official: The Forest Service employee who has been delegated authority to make a 

specific decision. 

Restoration (of ecosystems): Actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve a desired, 

healthy, and functioning condition. 

Retention: The amount of commercial forest land removed from the timber base to protect other 

resources. 

Riparian area: The area including a stream channel, lake or estuary bed, the water itself, and the 

plants that grow in the water and on the land next to the water. 

Riparian Management area (RMA): Land areas delineated in the Forest Plan to provide for the 

Management of riparian resources. Specific standards and guidelines, by stream process group, 

are associated with riparian management areas. Riparian Management areas may be modified by 

watershed analysis 

Road: A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trial (36 

CFR 212.1). 

Road decommissioning: Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded 

roads to a more natural state. The term generally refers to temporary roads constructed for timber 

harvests that have has stream courses restored, culverts removed, waterbars added where needed, 

and cut and fill slopes revegetated (36 CFR 212.5). 

Road construction or reconstruction: Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence 

of all costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road. 

Road density: The number of road miles per square mile of land area (miles per square mile) 

Roadless area: An area of undeveloped public land where there are no improved roads 

maintained for travel by means of motorized vehicles intended for highway use. 

Road maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road, necessary to retain or restore the road to the 

approved road management objective (FSM 7712.3). 

Road maintenance level: The level of service maintained for a specific road, consistent with 

road management objectives and maintenance criteria (FSH 7709.58, section 12.3) 
4 References and Lists

4-30 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Maintenance Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to 

vehicle traffic. The closure period is one year or longer. Basic custodial maintenance is 

performed. 

Maintenance Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. 

Maintenance Level 3: Assigned to roads maintained for passenger car use but not for comfort 

and convenience. 

Maintenance Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide moderate comfort and convenience at 

moderate speeds. Maintenance Level 5 – Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of 

comfort and convenience. Normally roads are double-laned and paved or aggregate surfaced 

with dust abetment. 

Road management objective (RMO): Defines the intended purpose of an individual road based 

on management area direction and access management directives. Road management objectives 

contain design criteria, operation criteria and maintenance criteria. 

Road storage: Storage is a term used only for NFS roads. The physical on-the-ground changes 

are similar to a decommissioned road; however, roads in storage are considered part of the longterm forest road transportation system and may be opened to vehicular traffic in the future. The 

process/action of storage involves closing a road to vehicle traffic and placing it in a condition 

that requires minimum maintenance to protect the environment and preserve the facility for 

future use. Drainage structures in live drains are completely removed to restore natural patterns. 

Ditch relief culverts may be left in place and supplemented with deep water bars in order to 

minimize the cost of reusing the road in the future. 

ROD: See record of decision 

ROS: See recreation opportunity spectrum. 

Rotation: The number of years required to establish and grow timber crops to a specified 

condition of maturity. 

Sawtimber (sawlog): Trees that are 9 inches in diameter at breast height or larger that can be 

made into lumber. 

Scale: In ecosystem management, it refers to the degree of resolution at which ecosystems are 

observed and measured. 

Scoping: The ongoing process to determine public opinion, the agency receives comments and 

suggestions, and determine issues during the environmental analysis process. It may involve 

public meetings, telephone conversations, or letters. 

Sedge: A family of plants with solid stems found in marshy areas. 

Seen landscape: Those areas visible from the most frequently used travel ways (boat route, 

recreation road, or trail), or use area (recreation cabin or anchorage). 

Sensitive species: Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes or impacts 

from activities. The official designation is made by the USDA Forest Service at the Regional 

level and is not part of the designation of Threatened or Endangered Species made by the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-31

Seral: The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is transitional. If left alone, 

the seral stage will give way to another plant or animal community that represents a further stage 

of succession. 

Shell midden: A term referring to shell and bone that have been discarded after harvest and 

processing for subsistence use. 

Silviculture: The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, 

and quality of forests to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a 

sustainable basis. 

Silvicultural system: A planned series of treatments whereby forests are tended, harvested, and 

replaced resulting in a forest of distinctive form. Systems are classified according to the method 

of carrying out the process. 

Size class: One of the three intervals of tree stem diameters used to classify timber in the Forest 

Plan data base. The size classes are: Seedling/Sapling (less than 5 inches in diameter); Pole 

Timber (5 to 9 inches in diameter); Sawtimber (greater than 9 inches in diameter) 

Slash: The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or left after a storm, fire, or other 

event. Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, branches, bark, etc. 

Snag: A standing dead tree. Snags are important as habitat for a variety of wildlife species and 

their prey. 

Soil compaction: The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy equipment on 

soils can compact the soil and thereby change it in some ways, such as in its ability to absorb 

water. 

Soil productivity: The capability of a soil, in its normal environment, to produce a specific plant 

or sequence of plants under a specific sequence of management. 

Sortyard: A location used to sort grades, types, and size of logs. 

Special use permit: A permit issued to an individual or group by the USDA Forest Service for 

use of National Forest System land for a special purpose. Examples might be a Boy Scout 

Jamboree or a mountain bike race. 

Stand: A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age, and condition. 

Standards and guidelines: Standard: A course of action or level of attainment required by the 

forest plan to promote achievement of goals and objectives. 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): The official appointed or designated pursuant to 

Section 10 1(b) (1) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, to administer 

the State Historic Preservation Program. 

Stream classes: A means to categorize stream channels based on their fish production values. 

There are four stream classes on the Tongass National Forest. They are: 

Class I: Streams and lakes with anadromous or adfluvial fish habitat; or high-quality resident 

fish waters listed in Appendix 68.1, Region 10 Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (FSH 

2609.24), June 1986; or habitat above fish migration barriers known to be reasonable 

enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. 
4 References and Lists

4-32 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Class II: Streams and lakes with resident fish populations and generally steep (6-15 percent) 

gradient (can also include streams from 0-5 percent gradient) where no anadromous fish occur, 

and otherwise not meeting Class I criteria. These populations have limited fisheries values and 

generally occur upstream of migration barriers or have other habitat features that preclude 

anadromous fish use. 

Class III: Perennial and intermittent streams with no fish populations but which have sufficient 

flow or transport sufficient sediment and debris to have an immediate influence on downstream 

water quality or fish habitat capability. These streams generally have bank-full widths greater 

than 5 feet and are highly incised into the surrounding hill slope. 

Class IV: Intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels with insufficient flow or 

sediment transport capabilities to have an immediate influence on downstream water quality or 

fish habitat capability. These streams generally are shallowly incised into the surrounding hill 

slope. 

Non-streams: Rills and other watercourses, generally intermittent and less that 1 foot in bankfull 

width, little or no incision into the surrounding hill slope, and with little or no evidence of scour. 

Stumpage: The value of the timber as it stands uncut in terms of an amount per unit area; 

synonym stumpage value. 

Subsistence: Section 803 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act defines 

subsistence use as “the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild 

renewable resources for direct, personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, 

tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of non-edible 

byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or 

sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.” 

Subspecies: An aggregate of similar populations of a species generally inhabiting a geographic 

subdivision of the range of the species and differing taxonomically (e.g. different size or color) 

from other populations of the species. 

Succession: The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. Conditions 

of the prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions that are favorable for the 

establishment of the next stage. 

Successional stage: A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare ground 

to climax. The grass-forb stage of succession precedes the woody shrub stage. 

Suitable forest land: Forest land for which technology is available that will ensure timber 

production without irreversible resource damage to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions, 

and for which there is reasonable assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked, and for 

which there is management direction that indicated that timber production is an appropriate use 

of that area. 

Surface resources: Renewable resources that are on the surface of the earth, such as timber and 

forage, in contrast to ground water and minerals which are located beneath the surface. 

Sustainable: The yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given intensity 

of management is said to be sustainable. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-33

Sustained yield: The amount of renewable resources that can be produced continuously at a 

given intensity of management.

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 included in a forest 

transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1) 

Terrestrial ecosystems: Plant communities that are not dependent on a perpetual source of 

water to grow. 

Thinning: The practice of removing some of the trees in a stand, in a manner that the remaining 

trees will grow faster. The remaining trees grow faster because of reduced competition for 

nutrients, water, and sunlight. Thinning may also be done to change the characteristics of a stand 

for wildlife or other purposes. Thinning may be done at two different stages: 

Precommercial thinning – Removing trees that are too small to make a merchantable product to 

improve tree spacing and promote more rapid growth. 

Commercial thinning – Removing trees that have reached sufficient size to be manufactured into 

a product to improve tree spacing and promote more rapid growth. 

Threatened species: A listed plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened 

species are identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and 

published in the Federal Register. 

Threshold: The point or level of activity beyond which an undesirable set of responses begins to 

take place within a given resource system. 

Timber classification: Forested land is classified under each of the land management 

alternatives according to how it relates to the management of the timber resource. The following 

are definitions of timber classifications used for this purpose. 

Nonforest: Land that has never supported forests and land formerly forested where use for 

timber production is precluded by development or other uses.

Forest: Land at least 10 percent stocked (based on crown cover) by forest trees of any size, or 

formerly having had such tree cover and not currently developed for nonforest use. 

Suitable: Land to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis. 

Unsuitable: Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative 

regulation (for example, wilderness), or identified as inappropriate for timber production in the 

Forest planning process. 

Timber stand improvement (TSI): All non-commercial intermediate cuttings and other 

treatments to improve composition, condition, and volume growth of a timber stand. 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA): This Act (1990) requires annual appropriations for 

timber management on the Tongass National Forest, with a provision providing for the multiple 

use and sustained yield of all renewable resources. 

Tractor logging: A logging method that uses tractors to carry or drag logs from the stump to a 

collection point. 
4 References and Lists

4-34 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Trail: A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and 

managed as a trail. 

Turbidity: An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed 

rather than transmitted in straight lines through a water sample; turbidity in water is caused by 

the presence of suspended matter such as clay, silt, finely divided organic and inorganic matter, 

plankton, and other microscopic organisms. 

Two-aged management: A regeneration method in which a portion of the trees in a harvest unit 

are cut in one entry, and the rest are left as residual trees, either singly or in patches resulting in 

the creation of two seperate age classes within the stand. The residual trees remain unharvested 

to provide structural diversity or other attributes to the developing new stand. 

Unauthorized road or trail: A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail; or a temporary road 

or trail; and is not included in a forest transportation atlas. 

Understory: The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath the overstory in a stand of trees. 

Unsuitable lands: Forest land that is not managed for timber production. Reasons may be 

matters of policy, ecology, technology, silviculture, or economics 

Utility volume: Logs that do not meet minimum requirements for sawtimber but are suitable for 

the production of usable chips. 

Value comparison unit (VCU): First developed for the 1979 Tongass Land Management Plan 

as distinct geographic areas that generally encompass a drainage basin containing one or more 

large stream systems. Boundaries usually follow easily recognizable watershed divides. There 

are 926 units established to provide a common set of areas for which resource inventories could 

be conducted and resource value interpretations made. 

Variety class: A way to classify landscapes according to their visual features. This system is 

based on the premise that landscapes with the greatest variety or diversity have the greatest 

potential for scenic value. 

Vegetation management: Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest 

vegetation for multiple-use purposes. 

Viable population: The numbers of individuals of a species sufficient to ensure the long-term 

existence of the species in natural, self-sustaining populations that are adequately distributed 

throughout their range. 

Viewshed: An expansive landscape or panoramic vista seen from a road, marine waterway, or 

specific viewpoint. 

Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC): The capability of the landscape to visually absorb 

management activities. Landscapes are rated with high, moderate or low abilities to absorb 

management activities. These ratings reflect the degree of landscape variety in an area, viewing 

distance and topographic characteristics. As an example, steep, evenly sloped landscapes viewed 

in the foreground to middle ground are typically given a low VAC rating. 

Visual resource: A part of the landscape important for its scenic quality. It may include a 

composite of terrain, geologic features, or vegetation. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-35

Volume strata: Divisions of old-growth timber volume derived from the interpreted timber type 

data layer (TIMTYP) and the common land unit data layer (CLU). Three volume strata (low, 

medium, and high) are recognized in the Forest Plan. 

Water table: The upper surface of ground water or that level below which the soil is saturated 

with water. 

Water yield: The runoff from a watershed, including groundwater outflow. 

Watershed: The entire region drained by a waterway, or into a lake or reservoir. More 

specifically, a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water 

to the stream flow at that point. 

Wetlands: 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. 

Wild and Scenic River: Rivers or sections of rivers designated by congressional actions under 

the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Wild and scenic rivers may be classified and administered 

under one or more of the following categories: 

Wild river areas: Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

Scenic river areas: Rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with watersheds 

still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. 

Recreational river areas: Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or 

railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone 

some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Wilderness: Areas designated by congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act or 

subsequent Acts. Wilderness is defined as undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Wilderness areas 

are protected and managed to preserve their natural conditions, which generally appear to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of human activity substantially 

unnoticeable; have outstanding opportunities for solitude or for a primitive and confined type of 

recreation; include at least 5,000 acres or are of sufficient size to make practical their 

preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired condition; and may contain features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value as well as ecologic and geologic interest. On the 

Tongass National Forest, Wilderness has been designated by ANILCA and TTRA. 

Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA): A division of land used by the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game for wildlife analysis. 

Windfirm: Trees not likely to be blown over by the wind. These are usually trees that have been 

exposed to the wind throughout their life and have developed a strong root system or trees that 

are protected from the wind by terrain features or other trees. 

Windthrow: The act of trees being uprooted by the wind. In Southeast Alaska, Sitka spruce and 

hemlock trees are shallow rooted and susceptible to windthrow. There are generally three types 

of windthrow 
4 References and Lists

4-36 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Endemic, where individual trees are blown over; 

Catastrophic, where a major windstorm can destroy hundreds of acres; and 

Management related, where the clearing of trees in an area make the adjacent standing trees 

vulnerable to windthrow. 

Winter Range: An area, usually at lower elevation, used by big game during the winter months; 

usually smaller and better defined than summer ranges. 

Yarding: Moving cut trees from where they fell to a centralized place (landing) for hauling 

away from the stand. 

Young growth: Forest growth that has regenerated naturally or has been planted after some 

drastic interference (for example, clearcut harvest, serious fire, or insect attack) with the previous 

forest growth. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-37

References _________________________

Abrahamson, M. 2012. Prince of Wales Area Redefines its Economy After the Timber Decline. 

In Alaska Economic Trends. August. Volume 32, 8. Available online at: 

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/trends/

Ackerman, R.E., K.C. Reid, and J.D. Gallison. 1987. Archaeology of Thorne Bay: A Survey of 

22 Timber Harvest Units on Prince of Wales Island, Southeastern Alaska. Center for 

Northwest Anthropology Project Report No. 6, Washington State University, Pullman.

Ackerman, R.E., K.C. Reid, J.D., Gallison, and E.R. Chesmore, Jr. 1987. Archaeology of 

Coffman: A Survey of 15 Timber Harvest Units on Prince of Wales Island, Southeastern 

Alaska. Center for Northwest Anthropology Project Report No. 5, Washington State 

University, Pullman.

Alaback, P.B. 1982. Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western hemlock forest of 

southeast Alaska. Ecology 63:1932–1948. 

Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 2011. Permit Holder and Crew Member 

Counts by Census Area & City of Residence. Available online at: 

http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/cpbycen/2010/Mnu.htm

ADCCED (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development). 2011. 

Community Profiles Online. Available online at: 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm

ADCCED (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development). 2012. 

Southeast Alaska Timber Industry Businesses Database. Email communication between C. 

Pinkel, Development Specialist II and M. Dadswell, Tetra Tech. February 22.

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 1996. Alaska’s 1996 Water Quality 

Assessment Report. Juneau, Alaska.

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 1999. Alaska’s 1998 Final Section 

303(d) Listed Water Quality-Limited Waterbodies. Juneau, Alaska.

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2006. Alaska’s Final 2006 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Juneau, Alaska.

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011a. Water Quality Standards, 

amended as of May 26, 2011. 18 AAC 70. 59 pages. Retrieved on January 31, 2011 from: 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/18_AAC_70_as_Amended_Through_Ma

y_26_2011.pdf

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011b. Division of Spill 

Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program. Accessed at: 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/bfprojects.htm
4 References and Lists

4-38 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011c. Division of Spill 

Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program. Salt Chuck Mine, Mill Area. 

Accessed at: http://www.dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/salt-chuck.htm

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011d. Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites Database. Cleanup Chronology Report for 

USFS Thorne Bay Landfill. Accessed at: 

http://146.63.9.103/Applications/SPAR/CCReports/Site_Report.aspx?Hazard_ID=3141

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1999. Goshawk ecology and habitat 

relationships on the Tongass National Forest. Appendix 1 Summary of activity at 

documented goshawk nest areas, Southeast Alaska, 1985-1998. Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration 1998 Field Season Progress Report 1 January 1998 – 31 December 1998, Study 

SE-4-2. Prepared by ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation, Douglas and Ketchikan. 

Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2005. Alaska Wildlife Harvest summary 2004-

2005. Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, Alaska.

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2007. Sitka black-tailed deer harvest report, 

Southeast Alaska, 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Wildlife 

Conservation. 

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2011. Unit 2 black bear management report. 

Pages 67-95 In P. Harper, ed. Black bear management report of survey and inventory 

activities 1 June 2007-30 June 2010. Prepared by S. Bethune. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game Project 17.0. Juneau, AK.

ADF&G. 2012. Status of wolves in Southeast Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Div of Wildlife Conservation. October, 2012. 9 pp. (Paper was not available when DEIS 

hard copy went to press; it is included in DEIS electronic version only).

Alaska Department of Labor. 2009. Table 4.3 Alaska Places 2000-2009. Available online at: 

http://labor.alaska.gov/research/pop/popest.htm

Alaska Department of Labor. 2010. Components of Population Change for Alaska Regions, 

Boroughs and Census Areas, 2000-2009. Available online at: 

http://labor.alaska.gov/research/pop/popest.htm

Alaska Department of Labor. 2011a. PL 94-171 Redistricting Data for Places. Available online 

at: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/redistrarea.cfm

Alaska Department of Labor. 2011b. Industry Employment Estimates 2010. Southeast. 

Available online at: http://labor.alaska.gov/research/ces/ces.htm

Alaska Department of Labor. 2011c. Annual Employment and Earnings. Available online at: 

http://labor.alaska.gov/research/qcew/qcew.htm

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2011b. Interative Maps for the Catalog of 

Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. 

website: http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FlexMaps/fishresourcemonitor.html?mode=awc
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-39

Alaska Department of Labor. 2011d. Labor Force Statistics by Month. September 2011. 

Available online at: http://labor.alaska.gov/research/labforce/labforce.htm

Alexander, S. J. and D. J. Parrent. 2012. Estimating Sawmill Processing Capacity for Tongass 

Timber: 2009 and 2010 Update. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Research Note PNW-RN-568. July. Available online 

at: www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rn568.pdf

Aley, T., C. Aley, W. Elliot, and P. Huntoon. 1993. Karst and cave resource significance 

assessment, Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest, Alaska, Final Report, prepared for 

the Ketchikan Area of the Tongass National Forest. 76 pp. + appendix.

Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with 

different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366. 

Andruskiw, M., J.M. Fryxell, I.D. Thompson, and J.A. Baker. 2008. Habitat-mediated variation 

in predation risk in the American marten. Ecology 89:2273-2280.

As, S. 1999. Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conservation Ecology [online] 

3(1): 1. Available online at: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art1/

Baichtal, J.F. 1997. Application of a Karst Management Strategy: Two Cases Studies from the 

Tongass National Forest, Southeastern Alaska; The Challenges of Implementation. In: 

Proceedings of the 1997 Karst and Cave Management Symposium 13th National Cave 

Management Symposium Bellingham, Washington and Chilliwack and Vancouver Island, 

BC, Canada, October 7-10, 1997, Bellingham, Washington. R. R. Stitt (ed.), pp. 4-11.

Baichtal, James. 2011. Email communications concerning acid rock drainage in the Big Thorne 

project area. 

Baichtal. 2012. Winter weather cycles in southeast Alaska and the implications to Sitka 

blacktail deer numbers. USDA Forest Service, Powerpoint.

Baichtal, J.F.; and D.N. Swanston. 1996. Karst Landscapes and Associated Resources: A 

Resource Assessment. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-383. Portland, Oregon: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p.

Banner, A., P. LePage, J. Moran and A. de Groot (editors). 2005. The HyP3 Project: pattern, 

process, and productivity in hypermaritime forests of coastal British Columbia – a 

synthesis of 7-year results. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. Spec. Rep. 10. 

Barnhart, C., and D. Hitner. 2012a. Timber economics resource report, Big Thorne Project. 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry). Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger 

District, Tongass National Forest.

Barnhart, C., and D. Hitner. 2012b. Transportation resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra 

Tech EC, Inc. (Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry). Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger 

District, Tongass National Forest.

AMEC Geomatrix, Inc., 2008. Data report for the FS 3030 Road Site. Prince of Wales Island, 

Alaska. Project number: 14481. November 2008. Retrieved on March 24, 2009 from 

http://home.gci.net/~fsrd3030/
4 References and Lists

4-40 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Barnhart, C., D. Hitner, and J. Iozzi. 2012. Timber and silviculture resource report, Big Thorne 

Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry). Prepared for Thorne Bay 

Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Beard, J. M. 2011. North Thorne Project Area Watershed Restoration Plan. USDA Forest 

Service Tongass National Forest. Thorne Bay Ranger District. August 2011.

Beaudry, P.G. and R.M. Sagar, 1995. The Water balance of a Coastal Cedar Hemlock 

Ecosystem. Presented at a joint meeting of the Canadian Society for Hydrological Sciences 

and the Canadian Water Resources Association: Mountain Hydrology, Peaks and Valleys 

in research and applications May 17-19, 1995. 

Ben-David, M., R.T. Bowyer and J.B. Faro. 1996. Niche Separation by Mink and River Otters: 

Coexistence in a Marine Environment. Oikos 75(1):41-48.

Ben-David, M., R.W. Flynn, and D. M. Schell. 1997. Annual and seasonal changes in diets of 

martens: evidence from stable isotope analysis. Oecologia 111:280-291. 

Bethune, S. 2009. Unit 2 wolf management report. Pages 31–40 in P. Harper (ed). Wolf 

management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2005–30 June 2008. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

Bethune, S. (ADF&G). 2011. Personal communication regarding pre-commercial thinning in the 

project area.

Bidlack, A.L., and J.A. Cook. 2001. Reduced genetic variation in insular northern flying 

squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) along the North Pacific Coast. Animal Conservation 4:283–

290.

Bidlack, A.L. and J.A. Cook. 2002. A nuclear perspective on endemism in northern flying 

squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) of the Alexander Archipelago, Alaska.

Bissonette J, Harrison D, Hargis C, Chapin T. 1997. The influence of spatial scale and scalesensitive properties on habitat selection by American marten. In: Bissonette J (ed) Wildlife 

and landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Bishop, D.M., M. Stevens. 1964. Landslides on Logged Areas in Southeast Alaska. U.S. Forest 

Service Research Paper. NOR-1. Northern Forest Experiment Station. Juneau, AK. 1964. 

Bloxton, T. 2002. Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of northern 

goshawks in western Washington. Master’s Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Boag, D. A., and M. A. Schroeder. 1992. Spruce Grouse. In: A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. 

Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences. 

Washington, DC. The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Boland, J.L., J.P. Hayes, W.P. Smith, and M.M. Huso. 2009. Selection of day-roosts by Keen’s 

myotis (Myotis keenii) at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Mammalogy 90:222–234.

Bormann, B.T., H. Spaltenstein, M. McClellan, F. Ugolini, K. Cromack JR., and S. Nay. 1995. 

Rapid Soil Development After Windthrow Disturbance in Pristine Forests. Journal of 

Ecology. Vol 83. No. 5. p 756. 1995.
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-41

Bosakowski, T., B. McCullough, F.J. Lapsansky, and M. E. Vaughn. 1999. Northern goshawks 

nesting on a private industrial forest in western Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 

33:240–244

Bosch, M. 2004. BA and BE effects, and determinations of effects, for TEPS species. USDA 

Forest Service. Region 10. 2 pp.Bosch, J. M. and Hewlett, J. D. 1982. A review of 

catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and 

evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55: 323. 

Bowyer, R.T., G.M.Blundell, M. Ben-David, S.C. Jewett, T.A. Dean, and L.K. Duffy. 2003. 

Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on river otters: injury and recovery of a sentinel 

species. Wildlife Monographs No. 153:1–53.

BPIF (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group). 1999. Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska 

Biogeographic Regions, Version 1.0. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Anchorage, AK. 45 pp.

BPIF (Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group). 2011. Priority landbird species.

Boyce, D.A. Jr.; R.T. Reynolds, R.T. Graham. 2006. Goshawk status and management: What 

do we know, what have we done, where are we going. In: Morrison, Michael. Ed. The 

northern goshawk: a technical assessment of its status, ecology and management. Cooper 

Ornithological Society: 312–325

Brainerd, S.M., H. Andren, E.E. Bangs, E.H. Bradley, J.A. Fontaine, W. Hall, Y. Iliopoulos, 

M.D. Jiminez, E.A. Jozwiak, O. Liberg, C.M. Mack, T.J. Meier, C.C. Miemeyer, H.C. 

Pedersen, H. Sand, R.N. Schultz, D.W. Smith, P. Wabakken, and A.P. Wydeven. 2008. 

The effects of breeder loss on wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:89–98.

Brinkman, T.J. 2009. Resilience of a deer hunting system in southeast Alaska: integrating 

social, ecological, and genetic dimensions. Dissertation. University of Alaska Fairbanks, 

Fairbanks, AK.

Brinkman, T.J., T. Chapin, G. Kofinas, and D.K. Person. 2009. Linking hunter knowledge with 

forest change to understand changing deer harvest opportunities in intensively logged 

landscapes. Ecology and Society 14:1

Bryant, M. D., Caouette, J., Wright, B. 2004. Evaluating stream habitat survey data and 

statistical power using an example from Southeast Alaska. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 24:1353-1362. 

Bryant, M.D.; D.N. Swanston; R.C. Wissmar; and B. E. Wright. 1998 Coho Salmon Populations 

in the Karst Landscape of Northern Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 127:425-433, 1998

Burger, A.E, 2002. Conservation assessment of Marbled Murrelets in British Columbia: a review 

of the biology, populations, habitat associations, and conservation. Technical Report Series 

No. 387. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia. 

Burkey, T.V. 1995. Extinction rates in archipelagoes: implications for populations in 

fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology 9:527–541. 
4 References and Lists

4-42 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 

283–296 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, eds. Martens, 

sables, and fishers: Biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. NY. 

Buskirk, S.W., and Zielinski, William J. 1997. American marten (Martes americana) ecology 

and conservation. Pages 17-22 in J.E. Harris, and C.V. Ogan, (eds.), Mesocarnivores of 

northern California: biology, management, and survey techniques, workshop manual. 

August 12-15, 1997, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. The Wildlife Society, 

California North Coast Chapter, Arcata, CA. 127 p.

Calder, J. 2006. Largest islands of the United States. Online (www.worldsandlandinfo.com); 

Available at http://www.worldislandinfo.com/USLARGESTV1.html.

Caouette, J.P, and E.J. DeGayner. 2005. Predictive mapping for tree sizes and densities in

southeast Alaska. Landscape and Urban Planning. 72: 49-63

Carey, A.B. 2000. Ecology of northern flying squirrels: implications for ecosystem 

management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Pages 45–66 in R.L. Goldingay and J.S. 

Scheibe (eds). Biology of gliding mammals. Filander Verlag, Forth, Germany. 

Carey, A.B. 2003. Biocomplexity and Restoration of Biodiversity in Temperate Coniferous 

Forest: Inducing Spatial Heterogeneity with Variable-density Thinning. Forestry 76(2).

Carls, M. G., P. M. Harris, S.W. Johnson, M. R. Lindeberg, A. D. Neff and R. Waples. 2008. 

Status Review of Lynn Canal Herring (Clupea pallasii). National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Juneau, AK. 154 p.

Carls, M.G., S. D.Rice and J.E. Hose,1999. Sensitivity of fish embryos to weathered crude oil: 

Part I. Low-level exposure during incubation cases malformations, genetic damage, and 

mortality in Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasi). Environ, Tox. Chem. 18:481-493.

Carlson, R.J. 2005. North Thorne Timber Harvest Project- R2003100554016 (archaeological 

survey). USDA Forest Service, Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Cederholm, C. J., L. M. Reid, E. 0. Salo. 1980. Cumulative Effects of Logging Road Sediment 

On Salmonid Populations In The Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. 

Presented to the conference Salmon-Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the 

Pacific Northwest? Seattle, Washington, October 6-7, 1980. Contribution No. 543, College 

of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195. 

Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace. 2011. Petition to list the Alexander 

Archipelago Wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) as threatened or endangered under the United States 

Endangered Species Act. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 10, 2011.

Cerveny, L. K. 2005. Tourism and Its Effects on Southeast Alaska Communities and 

Resources: Case Studies From Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research Paper PNW-RP-566. July. Available online 

at: www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_rp566/pnw_rp566a.pdf

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President. Washington, D.C. 

December 10. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/index.html
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-43

Chalfoun, A. D., F. R. Thompson And M. J. Ratnaswamy. 2002. Nest Predators And 

Fragmentation: A Review And Meta-Analysis. Conservation Biology 16:306–318. 

Chamberlin, T. W., Harr, R. D., and Everest, F. H. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture and 

watershed processes. American Fisheries Society (Special Publications) 19: 181-

206Correll, D. 2001. Vegetated Stream Riparian Zones: Their Effects On Stream 

Nutrients, Sediments, and Toxic Substances. Crystal River, Florida

Chapin F.S., III, O.E. Sala, I.C. Burke, J.P. Grime, D.U. Hooper, W.K. Lauenroth, A. Lombard, 

H.A. Mooney, A.R. Mosier, S. Naeem, S.W. Pacala, J. Roy, W.L. Steffen, D. Tilman.

1998. Ecosystem consequences of changing biodiversity. BioScience 48:45–52. 

Chen, J., Franklin, J., and Spies, T. 1993. Contrasting microclimates smong clearcut, edge, and 

interior of Old-Growth Douglas-fir forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol.63, 

No.1. 1993, pp.219-237.

Chen, J., Franklin, J., and Spies, T. 1995. Growing-season microclimate gradients from clearcut 

edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications, Vol.5, No.1. February 

1995, pp. 74-86.

Cook, J.A., A.L. Bidlack, C.J. Conroy, J.R. Demboski, M.A. Fleming, A.M. Runck, K.D. Stone, 

and S.O. MacDonald. 2001. A phylogeographic perspective on endemism in the 

Alexander Archipelago of southeast Alaska. Biological Conservation 97:215–227.

Cook, J.A., N.G. Dawson, and S.O. MacDonald. 2006. Conservation of highly fragmented 

systems: the north temperate Alexander Archipelago. Biological Conservation 133:1–15.

Cooke 2005. Cooke Scientific Services, Inc. Pacific Northwest Forested Wetland Literature 

Survey Synthesis Paper. April 2005. 95 pp.

Concannon, J.A. 1995. Characterizing structure, microclimate and decomposition of peatland, 

beachfront, and newly-logged forest edges in southeastern Alaska. Ph.D. 

Cotter, P. 2007. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles). In J.W. Schoen and E. Dovichin, 

editors. The coastal forests and mountains ecoregion of southeastern Alaska and the 

Tongass National Forest: a conservation assessment and resources synthesis

CSS. 2005. Pacific Northwest Forested Wetland Literature Survey Synthesis Paper. Cooke 

Scientific Services, Inc. April 2005. 95 pp.

Cox, D., T. Opolka, and J. Hawkins. 2012. Soil and wetland resource report, Big Thorne Project. 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Croke J, S. Mockler, P. Fogarty, and I. Takken. 2005. Sediment concentration changes in runoff 

pathways from a forest road network and the resultant spatial pattern of catchment

connectivity. Geomorphology 68: 257-268.

Crookston, J. 2012. Climate change analysis and resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra 

Tech EC, Inc. Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Dadswell, M. 2012a. Recreation resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Dadswell, M. 2012b. Inventoried roadless areas resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech 

EC, Inc. Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.
4 References and Lists

4-44 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Dadswell, M. 2012c. Lands and wild and scenic rivers resource report, Big Thorne Project. 

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Dadswell, M. 2012d. Socioeconomics resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J.. 2011. Relationship of multidecadal global temperatures to 

multidecadal oceanic oscillations. Pages 161-184 in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., EvidenceBased Climate Science, Elsevier Inc.

Darimont, C.T., and T.E. Reimchen. 2002. Intra-hair stable isotope analysis implies seasonal 

shift to salmon in gray wolf diet. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 80: 1638-1632.

Davis, H., Hamilton, A. N., Harestad, A. S. and Weir, R. D. (2012), Longevity and reuse of 

black bear dens in managed forests of coastal British Columbia. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 76: 523–527.

Dawson, N.G., S.O. MacDonald, and J.A. Cook. 2007. Endemic mammals of the Alexander 

Archipelago. Chapter 6.7, Pages 1–11 in J. Schoen and E. Dovichin (eds). The Coastal 

Forests and Mountains Ecoregion of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest: 

a conservation assessment and resource synthesis. Audubon and Nature Conservancy, 

Special Publication.

Day, R.H., K.J. Kuletz, and D.A. Nigro. 1999. Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris). 

The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

NY. Available online at: http://www.bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/435. (Accessed 

October 2011)

Deal, R.L., and J.C. Tappeiner. 2002. The effects of partial cutting on stand structure and 

growth in western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in Southeast Alaska. Forest Ecology and 

Management 159:173–186.

DeGange, A.R. 1996. Extinction Rates in Archipelagos: Implications for Populations in 

Fragmented Habitats. Conservation Biology 9:527–541.

Dellasala, D.A., J.C. Hagar, K.A. Engel, W.C. McComb, R.L. Fairbanks, and E.G. Campbell. 

1996. Effects of silvicultural modifications of temperate rainforest on breeding and 

wintering bird communities, Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska. The Condor 

98:706–721.

Demboski, J.R., B. K. Jacobsen, and J. A. Cook. 1998. Implications of cytochrome b sequence 

variation for biogeography and conservation of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus) of the Alexander Archipelago, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1771–

1776.

DeMeo, T.E., D. Loggy, 1989. Identification, Classification, and Delineation of Wetlands Using 

Soils and Vegetation Data. Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. Final Report for 

Tongass Land Managmeent Plan. January 1989.

Dickerman, R.W., and J. Gustafson. 1996. The Prince of Wales spruce grouse: a new 

subspecies from southeastern Alaska. Western Birds 27:41–47.
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-45

Dietrich, P.J., and B. Woodbridge. 1994. Territory fidelity, mate fidelity, and movements of 

color-marked northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in the southern Cascades of 

California. Pages 130-132 In Block, W.M., M. L. Morrison, and H. Hildegard Reisner, 

eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 16. 

The Cooper Ornithological Society.

Dillaha, T. A., and Inamdar, S. P. 1997. Buffer Zones as Sediment Traps or Sources. In: Buffer 

Zones: Their Processes and Potential in Water Protection. N.E Haycock, T.P. Burt, K.W.T. 

Goulding and G. Pinay (Eds.) 1997 Quest Environmental. Available on: 

www.kingarthurscamlan.org/biosw/docs/BufferZones(locked).pdf pg41.

Dillman, M. 2009. Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation for the Logjam Project. USDA 

Forest Service, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Thorne Bay, AK

Dillman, K. 2010. Conservation Assessment for Lobaria amplissima. Tongass National Forest, 

March 2010.

Doyle, F. I. and J. N. M. Smith. 1994. Population responses of northern goshawks to the10-year 

cycle in numbers of snowshoe hares. Studies in Avian Biology 16:122-129

Dugan, D., G. Fay, H. Griego, and S. Colt. 2009. Nature-Based Tourism in Southeast Alaska. 

ISER Working Paper 2009.1. March. Institute of Social and Economic Research, 

University of Alaska Anchorage. Available online at: www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu

Euskirchen, E.S., Q. Li. and K.A. Harper. 2006. The influence of edges on plant communities: 

research frontiers for forested landscapes. Pages 71–88 in Ecology of Hierarchical 

Landscapes: From Theory to Application. Edited by J. Chen, S. Saunders, K. Broskofske 

and T.R. Crow. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY.

Evans, R. 2012. Scenery resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared for 

Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 61:603–610. 

Fahrig, L., 1999. Forest loss and fragmentation: which has the greater effect on persistence of 

forest-dwelling animals? Pages 87–95 in J.A. Rochelle, L.A. Lehmann, and J. Wisniewski 

(eds). Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and Management Implications. Brill, NY. 

Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, 

Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515. 

Farmer, C.J., and M.D. Kirchhoff. 2007. Ecological classification of deer habitat in the Tongass 

National Forest, Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 88:73–84. 

Farmer, C.J., D.K. Person, and R.T. Bowyer. 2006. Risk factors and mortality of black-tailed 

deer in a managed forest landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1403–1415.

Federal Register. 2008. Endangered and threatened wildlife: Notice of 90-day finding on a 

petition to list the three ice seal species as threatened or endangered species. Vol. 73, No. 

172. 3 pp.
4 References and Lists

4-46 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Fifield, T.E, and J. Raymond-Yakoubian. 2008. Logjam Timber Sale Project- R2008100554056 

(archaeological survey). USDA Forest Service, Craig Ranger District, Tongass National 

Forest.

Fifield, T.E, and A. D. Laybolt. 2004. Cobble Timber Project Area (archaeological survey). 

USDA Forest Service, Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Flaherty, E.A., M. Ben-David, and W.P. Smith. 2010. Diet and food availability implications 

for foraging and dispersal of Prince of Wales northern flying squirrels across managed 

landscapes. Journal of Mammalogy 91: 79-91.

Flather, C. H; Bevers, M; and J. Hof. 2002. Prescribing habitat layouts: analysis of optimal 

placement for landscape planning. Pages 428-453 in Gutzwiller KJ, editor. Applying 

landscape ecology in biological conservation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Flaherty, E.A., W.P. Smith, S. Pyare, and M. Ben-David. 2008. Experimental trials of the 

northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) traversing managed rainforest landscapes: 

perceptual range and fine-scale movements. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86:1050–1058. 

Flanders, L.A., J. Sherburne, T. Paul, M. Kirchhoff, S. Elliot, K. Brownlee, B. Schroeder, and M. 

Turek. 1998. Tongass Fish and Wildlife Resource Assessment. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game. Technical Bulletin No. 98-4. 

Flatten, C., K. Titus, and R. Lowell. 2001. Northern goshawk monitoring, population ecology 

and diet on the Tongass National Forest 1 April 1999-30 September 2001. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. Final Research 

Performance Report. Federal Aid Grant SE-4, studies 2 to 6. Juneau, AK. 32pp.

Fleming, M.A., and J.A. Cook. 2002. Phylogeography of endemic ermine (Mustela erminea) in 

southeast Alaska. Molecular Ecology 11:795–807.

Flynn, R. 1991. Ecology of martens in southeast Alaska. Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Progress 

Report. Grant W-23-4. Study 7.16. 33 pp.

Flynn, R., and T.V. Schumacher. 1997. Ecology of martens in southeast Alaska. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Progress Report. 

Grant W-24-5, Study 7.16. Juneau, AK. 

Flynn, R.W., and T. Schumacher. 2001. Ecology of martens in southeast Alaska, 1 July 2000–

30 June 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal aid in wildlife restoration 

final research performance report, grants W-23-4 to W-27-4. Study 7.16. Juneau, AK.

Flynn, R., T.V. Schumacher, and M. Ben-David. 2004. Abundance, prey availability, and diets 

of American martens: implications for the design of old-growth reserves in Southeast 

Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Research Final Report. 

Flynn, R., S.B. Lewis, L.R. Beier, and G.W. Pendleton. 2007. Brown bear use of riparian and 

beach zones of northeast Chichagof Island: implications for streamside management in 

coastal Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Research Final Report.

Fox, T. 2008. Winter ecology of Vancouver Canada geese in southeast Alaska. Thesis, 

University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-47

Franklin, J.F., Berg, D.R., Thornburgh, D.A., Tappeiner, J.C., 1997. Alternative silvicultural 

approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. Pages 111–140 in 

K.A. Kohm, J.F. Franklin (eds). Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding 

bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:585–592. 

Fryxell. J. 2009. Luck Lake Stream Resotration Opportunities, Stream Survey Report; 

Compiled by Jenny Fryxell, TEAMS Enterprise Unit for the Craig Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest.

Fryxell, J. 2010. Luck Lake Area, Eagle Watershed Restoration Plan. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 

Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. December 17, 2010.

Fuller, T. K., L. D. Mech, and J. F. Cochrane. 2003. Wolf population dynamics. Pages 161–191 

in L. D. Mech and L. Boitani (eds). Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. 

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Furniss, M.J., Roelofs, T.D., and Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: 

Influences Of Forest and Rangeland Management On Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. 

American Fisheries Society (Special Publication). 297-323.

Gilbertsen, N. and D. Robinson. 2001. Prince of Wales Island. Alaska Economic Trends. 

November.

Glaser, P.H. 1999. The Impact of Forestry Roads on Peatlands Within the Tongass National 

Forest, Southeast Alaska. Unpublished white paper. 

Grant, G.E.; Lewis, S.L.; Swanson, F.J.; Cissel, J.H.; McDonnell, J.J. 2008. Effect of forest 

practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for 

western Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, 

Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76p. 

Greiser, T.W. 1994. Cultural Resources Specialist Report: Control Lake Environmental Impact 

Statement, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Prepared by Historical Research Associates 

Inc., for Ebasco Environmental, under contract to the Tongass National Forest. Contract # 

53-0109-3-00369.

Gomi, T., Moore, R. D., and Dhakal, A. S. 2006. Headwater stream temperature response to 

clear-cut harvesting with different riparian treatments, coastal British Columbia, Canada, 

Water Resources Research 42, W08437, doi:10.1029/2005WR004162. 

Gomi T, R.D. Moore, and M.Hassan. 2005. Suspended sediment dynamics in small forest 

streams of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

41(4):877-898. 

Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, R.D. Woodsmith, M.D. Bryant. 2001. The characteristics of woody 

debris and sediment distribution in headwater streams, southeast, Alaska. Can. J For. Res. 

31 1386-1399. NRC Canada. 2001. 
4 References and Lists

4-48 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Gucinski, H., Furniss, M. J., Ziemer, R. R., Brookes, M. H. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of 

scientific information. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103p.

Hagar, J.C., W.C. McComb, and W.H. Emmingham. 1996. Bird communities in commercially 

thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 

353-366.

Hanley, T.A., C.T. Robbins, and D.E. Spalinger. 1989. Forest habitats and the nutritional 

ecology of Sitka black-tailed deer: a research synthesis with implications for forest 

management. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

General Technical Report PNW-230.

Hanley, T.A., and C.L. Rose. 1987. Influence of overstory on snow depth and density in 

hemlock-spruce stands: implications for management of deer habitat in southeastern 

Alaska. Res. Note PNW-RN-459. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Hargis C.D., J.A. Bissonette and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and 

land¬scape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172. 

Harper, K.A., S.E. MacDonald, P.J. Burton, J. Chen, K.D. Brosofske, S.C. Saunders, E.S. 

Euskirchen, D. Roberts, M.S. Jaiteh, and P. Esseen. 2005. Edge influence on forest 

structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 19:768–782.

Harr, R.D. 1986. Effects of clearcutting on rain-on-snow runoff in Western Oregon: a new look 

at old studies. Water Resources Research, Vol. 22, No. 7, pages 1095-1100. 

Harris A.S. 1989. Wind in the forests of southeast Alaska and guides for reducing damage. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-244.

Haufler, J.B. 2006. Review of Conservation Science Produced Since 1997 and Its Relationship 

to the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Final Draft. Prepared 

for Tongass National Forest. Ecosystem Management Research Institute (EMRI). August 

2006. 

Heithecker, Troy and Charles Halpeern. 2007. Edge-related gradients in microclimates in forest 

aggregrates following structural retention harvests in western Washington. Forest and 

Ecology Management, 248 (2007) 163-173. May 8, 2007. 

Hejl, S.J., K.R. Newlon, M.E. McFadzen, J.S. Young, and C.K. Ghalambor. 2002. Brown 

creeper (Certhia americana). The birds of North America. Number 669.

Hennon, P.E., D.V. d’Amore, D.T. Wittwer, and J.P. Caouette. 2007. Yellow-cedar decline: 

conserving a climate-sensitive tree species as Alaska warms. Proceeding of the 2007 

National Silviculture Workshop, Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-733.

Hennon, P.E., D.V. d’Amore, P.G. Schaberg, D.T. Wittwer, and C.S. Shanley. 2012. Shifting 

climate, altered niche, and a dynamic conservation strategy for yellow-cedar in the North 

Pacific Coastal Rainforest. Bioscience 62(2):147-158.
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-49

Hetrick N.J., Brusven M.A., Meehan, W.R., and Bjornn, T.C. 1998. Changes in solar input, 

water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous input and storage after 

canopy removal along two small salmon streams in southeast Alaska. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society. Vol. 127, pages 859-875.

Hicks, B.J., et al. 1991. Long-term Changes in Streamflow Following Logging in Western 

Oregon and Associated Fisheries Implication. Water Resources Bulletin 27(2): 217-226. 

Holloway, G.L., and W.P. Smith. 2011. A meta-analysis of forest age and structure effects on 

northern flying squirrel densities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 668-674.

Hoover, J.P., M.C. Brittingham, and L.J. Goodrich. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on nesting 

success of wood thrush. Auk 112:146-155.

Hubbart, J.A., Link, T.E., Gravelle, J.A., Elliot, W.J. 2007. Timber harvest impacts on water 

yield in the continental/maritime hydroclimatic region of the United States. Forest Science. 

Vol. 53, No. 2, pages 169 – 180.

Hudson, R. 2001. Roberts Creek Study Forest: preliminary effects of partial harvesting on peak 

streamflow in two S6 Creeks. Forest Research Extension Note EN-007, Hydrology, March 

2001. Vancouver Forest Region, Nanaimo, BC, Canada. 

Hupp, J.W., J.I. Hodges, Jr., B.P. Conant, B.W. Meixell, and D.J. Groves. 2010. Winter 

distribution, movements, and annual survival of radiomarked Vancouver Canada geese in 

southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:274–284.

ISLES. 2009 ISLES program website http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/ISLES_ 

website_final_20091028/ isles_home.html. Accessed October 2011.

Iverson, G.C., G.D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R.E. Lowell, D.C. Crocker-Bedford, P.F. 

Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation assessment for the Northern Goshawk in 

southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service Publication PNW-GTR-387

Jacobson, Rich. 2011. Personal communication concerning road storage bid prices. Prince of 

Wales Transportation Planner.

James, C. 2012. Watershed resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared 

for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Johnson, A.C.; and Edwards, R.T. 2002. Physical and chemical processes in headwater 

channels with red alder. In: Johnson, A.C.; Haynes, R.W.; Monserud, R.A. eds. Congruent 

Management of Multiple Resources: Proceedings From The Wood Compatibility Initiative 

Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-563. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 101-108. 

Johnson, C.A., J.M. Fryxell, I.D. Thompson, and J.A. Baker. 2009. Mortality risk increases 

with natal dispersal distance in American martens. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 

Biological Sciences.

Jones, J.A. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, 

regrowth, and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water 

Resources Research 36 (9): 2621-2642. 
4 References and Lists

4-50 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Jones, J.A. and Grant, G.E. 1996. Peak Flow Responses to Clear-cutting and Roads in Small 

and Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 4: 

959-974. 

Julin, K.R. 1997. Assessments of wildlife viability, old-growth timber volume estimates, 

forested wetlands, and slope stability. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-392. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Julin, K.R and D’Amore, D. 2003. Tree growth on forested wetlands of southeastern Alaska 

following clearcutting. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 18 (1):30-34.

Kahklen and Hartsog. 1999. Results of Road Erosion Studies on the Tongass National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service, Juneau Forestry Sciences Lab. 47 pp. 

Kahklen K. and J.Moll. 1999. Measuring the effects of roads on Goundwater: Five case studies. 

USDA FS Tech. and Devel. Program. 9977 1801-SDTDC. January 1999. 

Karwan, D.L., Gravelle, J.A., and Hubbart, J.A. 2007. Effects of Timber Harvest on Suspended 

Sediment Loads in Mica Creek, Idaho. In Press. In Special Issue on Headwater Forest 

Streams, Forest Science, 53(2): 181-188.

Keane, J.J., M.L. Morrison, and D.M. Fry. 2006. Prey and weather factors associated with 

temporal variation in Northern Goshawk reproduction in the Sierra Nevada California. 

Stud. Avian Biol. 31:85–99. Pages 85-99 In M.L. Morison, ed. The northern goshawk: a 

technical assessment of its status, ecology, and management

Keppeler, E.T.; Lewis, J.; Lisle, T.E. 2003. Effects of forest management on streamflow, 

sediment yield, and erosion, Caspar Creek Experimental Watersheds. In: Renard, Kenneth 

G.; McElroy, Stephen A.; Gburek, William J.; Canfield, H. Evan; Scott, Russell L., eds. 

First Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, 2003 October 27-30. 

Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 77-82.

Kimbell, A. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis. Forest 

Service Chief’s letter to the Forest Service National Leadership Team.

Kirchhoff, M.D., and T.A. Hanley. 1992. A quick-cruise method for assessing deer winter 

range in southeast Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Habitat Hotline 92-1. 

Kissling, M. L. 2003. Effects of forested buffer width on breeding bird communities in coastal 

forests of southeast Alaska with a comparison of avian sampling techniques. Thesis, 

University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Kissling, M.L., and E.O. Garton. 2008. Forested buffer strips and breeding bird communities in 

southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:674–681

Kline, J. D. 2006. Defining an Economics Research Program to Describe and Evaluate 

Ecosystem Services. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-700. December.

Knutzen, J. 2012. Fisheries resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared 

for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Kohira, M. 1995. Diest and summer habiat use by wolves on Prince of Wales Island, southeast 

Alaska. Master's thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK. As cited in Schoen, J. and 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-51

D. Person. 2007. Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), Chapter 6.4 in J. 

Schoen and E. Dovichin, eds., A Conservation Assessment and Resource Synthesis for The 

Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion in the Tongass National Forest and Southeast 

Alaska. Audubon Alaska and The Nature Conervancy, March 2007.

Kovarik, J. 2011. Karst resource report, Big Thorne Project. Thorne Bay Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest.

Kreutzweiser, D.P.; Capell, S.S. 2001. Fine sediment deposition in streams after selective 

forest harvesting without riparian buffers. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 31(1): 

2134-2142.

Kuletz et al. 1995. Inland habitat suitability for the marbled murrelet in southcentral Alaska. 

Pages 141-150 in C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds). Ecology 

and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Albany, CA. 

Landwehr D.J., 1994. Inventory and Analysis of Landslides Caused by the October 25, 26, 1993 

Storm Event on the Thorne Bay Ranger District. Ketchikan Area Watershed Group. 

Unpublished monitoring report.

Landwehr, D. 1998. The Effectiveness of Standards and Guidelines in Preventing Additional 

Mass Movement. Ketchikan Area Watershed Group. An 89-94 KPC FEIS Monitoring 

Report. February 1998.

Landwehr, D. 2011. Personal communication. Email from D. Landwehr at USFS to M.J. 

Watson at Tetra Tech on October 13, 2011 documenting Tongass National Forest 

estimation of landslide initiation analysis and estimation of naturally occurring 

disturbances.

Landwehr, D. J., and G. Nowacki, 1999. Statistical Review of Soil Disturbance Transect Data 

Collected on the Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. Unpublished Monitoring 

Report. February, 1999.

Larsen, D.N. 1984. Feeding Habits of River Otters in Coastal Southeastern Alaska. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 48:1446–1452.

Laurent, Thomas H. 1974. The forest ecosystem of southeast Alaska: 6. Forest diseases.. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-023. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.

Lewis, S.B. 2001. Breeding season diet of northern goshawks in southeast Alaska with a 

comparison of techniques used to examine raptor diet. Master’s Thesis, Boise State 

University, Boise, ID

Lewis, S.B., K. Titus, and M.R. Fuller. 2006. Northern goshawk diet during the nesting season 

in southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1151–1160.

Li, Q., J. Chen, B. Song, J.J. LaCroix, M.K. Bresee, and J.A. Radmacher. 2007. Areas 

influenced by multiple edges and their implications in fragmented landscapes. Forest 

Ecology and Management 242:99–107.

Logan, B. USDA Forest Service. Personal communication regarding deer and wolves.
4 References and Lists

4-52 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Luce, C. H. and Wemple, B. 2001. Introduction to the Special Issue on Hydrologic and 

Geomorphic Effects of Forest Roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26(2): 111-

113.

Maas, K.M., Still, J.C., Bittenbender, P.E. 1992. Mineral investigations in the Ketchikan Mining

District, Alaska, 1991: Prince of Wales Island and vicinity. OFR 81-92. Juneau, AK: US.

MacDonald, S., and J Cook. 1999. The mammal fauna of Southeast Alaska. University of 

Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

MacDonald, S.O., and J.A. Cook. 2007. Mammals and amphibians of southeast Alaska. 

Special Publication Number 8. The Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New 

Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

Malt, J., and D. Lank. 2007. Temporal dynamics of edge effects on nest predation risk for the 

marbled murrelet. Biological Conservation 140:160–173.

Manuwal, D. A., and N. J. Manuwal. 2002. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in the 

coastal coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Studies in Avian Biology 25:103–112. 

Marshall, T. 2011. Heritage resource report, Big Thorne Project. Thorne Bay Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest.

Maser C., and Z. Maser. 1988. Interactions among squirrels, mycorrhizal fungi, and coniferous 

forests in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 48:358–369. 

Maser, C. and Sedell, J. 1994. From the forest to the sea; the ecology of wood in streams, 

rivers, estuaries, and oceans. St Lucie Press. 

Matlack, G.R. 1994. Vegetation dynamics of the forest edge- trends in space and successional 

time. Journal of Ecology 82:113–123. 

May, C. L. and Gresswell, R.E. 2003. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater

streams in the southern Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research; 

33 (8), pp. 1352-1362. 

McClaren, E. 2004. “Queen Charlotte” goshawk. In Accounts and measures for managing 

Identified Wildlife - Accounts V. 2004. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

McClellan, M. H. 2007. Unpublished data on file at the Juneau Forest Science Laboratory from 

the Alternatives to Clearcutting study provided by Pat Heuer on March 3, 2008.

McDowell Group. 2005. Juneau Cruise Visitor Profile 2005. Alaska Travelers Survey. 

Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau. Available online at: 

http://www.traveljuneau.com/downloads/ATSJuneauCruiseFinal.pdf

McDowell Group. 2007. Alaska Visitors Statistics Program. Alaska Visitor Volume and 

Profile. Summer 2006. April.

McDowell Group. 2010. Economic Impact of Alaska’s Visitor Industry. Prepared for the State 

of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development. March.

McGee, Katherine. 2000. Effects of Forest Roads on Subsurface and Subsurface Flow in 

Southeast Alaska. Thesis submitted to Oregon University. 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-53

McNay, R.S. 1995. The ecology of movements made by Columbian black-tailed deer. 

Dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 

McNeil, W. J. and D. C. Himsworth (eds.). 1980. Salmonid ecosystems of the North Pacific. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Mercer, E. 2010. Population Projections, 2010 to 2034. Alaska by Age, Sex, and Race. Alaska 

Economic Trends. December. Pages 4-11

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p.

Misund, O.A. , J.T.Ovredal, and M.T. Hafsteinsson. 1996. Reactions of herring schools to the 

sound field of a survey vessel. Aquatic Living Resources 9: 5-11.

Montgomery, D. R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability. 

Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 6, pages 1925-1932. 

Moore, R. and S.M. Wondzell. 2005. Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in 

the Pacific Northwest: A review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

41(4):763-784. 

Moselle, K. ADF&G. 2011. Personal communication regarding wolves and black bears

Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution 10:58–62.

Neal, E.G., Walter, M. ., Coffeen, C. 2002. Linking the Pacific decadal oscillation to seasonal 

stream discharge patterns in Southeast Alaska. Journal of Hydrology 263 (2002) pages 188 

– 197. 

Nelson, A. 2010. Survival of Prince of Wales spruce grouse in southeast Alaska. Master's 

thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. As cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. 

Prince of Wales spruce grouse species assessment and listing priority assignment form. 

Nelson, C. and Halpern, C. 1995. Short-term effects of timber harvest and forest edges on 

ground-layer mosses and liverworts. Canadian Journal of Botany, Vol 83: pp. 610-620. 

NRC Research Press. June 2005. Available on-line at: http://canjbot.nrc.ca

Nilson, C.H., C.N. Long, and W.C. Zipperer. 1995. Effects of wildland development on forest 

bird communities. Landscape and Urban Planning 32:81-92.

NPFMC (North Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat 

Assessment Report for Groundfish Resources of the Gulf of Alaska Region. Technical 

Team for EFH for Groundfish in the Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council (NPFMC), Anchorage, Alaska 119 p. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh

har/.pdf

Nowacki, G., M. Shephard, P. Krosse, W. Pawuk, G. Fisher, J. Baichtal, D. Brew, E. Kissinger, 

and T. Brock. 2001. Ecological subsections of Southeast Alaska and neighboring areas of 

Canada. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Technical Publication R10-TP-75.

Oliver, C. D. and Larson, B. C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics, Updated Edition. John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc., New York. 519 pp.
4 References and Lists

4-54 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Opolka, T. 2012a. Biological evaluation for plants, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Opolka, T. 2012b. Botany resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared 

for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Opolka, T. 2012c. Invasive plant risk assessment, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Opolka, T. 2012d. Invasive species resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 

Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Orsi, J. A. and H. W. Jaenicke. 1996. Marine distribution and origin of prerecruit Chinook 

salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in Southeastern Alaska. Fisheries Bulletin. 94: 48--

497

Parrent, D.J. 2011. Tongass Sawmill Capacity and Production Report for CY 2010. Final 

Report. October 13. State & Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

Patric J.H. 1966. Rainfall Interception by Mature Coniferous Forests of Southeast Alaska. J. of 

Soil and Water Conservation. November-December Issue, 1966.

Paustian, S. J. 1987. Monitoring nonpoint source discharge of sediment from timber harvesting 

activities in two Southeast Alaska watersheds. In: Water Quality in the Great Land, 

Alaska’s Challenge: Proceedings of the Alaska Chapter of the American Water Resources 

Association. Water Research Center-Institute of Northern Engineering, University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks, Report IWR-109. 

Paustian, S. J., (ed). 1992. A channel type user’s guide for the Tongass National Forest, 

Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. R10-TP-26, 179 pages. Note: 

the relevant information is also summarized in Appendix D of the Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b). 

Paustian, S.J. and D. Kelliher. 2010. A Channel Type Users Guide, by Paustian et al. revised 

October 2010. Technical Paper 26, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, Juneau, AK. http://dspace.nitle.org/bitstream/handle/10090/20008/Channel-TypeUser-Guide-Revision.pdf?sequence=16

Payer, D. C. 1999. Influences of timber harvesting and trapping on habitat selection and 

demographic characteristics of marten. Dissertation. University of Maine, Orono. 

Peacock, E., M.M. Peacock, and K. Titus. 2007. Black bears in southeast Alaska: the fate of 

two ancient lineages in the face of contemporary movement. Journal of Zoology 271:445–

454.

Person, D. 2001. Alexander Archipelago wolves: ecology and population viability in a disturbed, 

insula landscape. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK.

Person, D. 2010. Estimating wolf populations in southeast Alaska using noninvasive DNA 

sampling. Federal aid annual progress report, State wildlife grant number W-33-8. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK

Person, D.K., and B.D. Logan. 2012. A spatial analysis of wolf harvest and harvest risk on 

Prince of Wales and associated islands, southeast Alaska. Final Wildlife Research Report, 
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-55

ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2011-1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife 

Conservation, Juneau, AK.

Person, D.K., and A.L. Russell. 2008. Correlates of mortality in an exploited wolf population. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1540–1549.

Person, D.K., and A.L. Russell. 2009. Reproduction and den site selection by wolves in a 

disturbed landscape. Northwest Science 83:211–224.

Person, D.K., M. Kirchhoff, V. Van Ballenberghe, G.C. Iverson, and E. Grossman. 1996. The 

Alexander Archipelago wolf: a conservation assessment. General Technical Report PNWGTR-384. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR.

Peterson, K. 2012. Prince of Wales Timber Operators. Email communication between K. 

Petersen and M. Dadswell, Tetra Tech. February 3.

Piatt, J. F., K. J. Kuletz, A. E. Burger, S. A. Hatch, V. L. Friesen, T. P. Birt, M. L. Arimitsu, G. 

S. Drew, A. M. A. Harding, K. S. Bixler. 2006. Status review of the Marbled Murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2006-1387. 258 pp. 

Piatt, J.F., K.J. Kuletz, A.E. Burger, S.A. Hatch, V.L. Friesen, T.P. Birt, M.L.Arimitsu, 

G.S.Drew, A.M.A. Harding, and K.S. Bixler. 2007. Status Review of the marbled 

murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2006-1387.

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of forest and 

rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society. 

Special Publication. 19:389-423

Poiani, K.A., B.D. Richter, M.G. Anderson, and H.E. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity Conservation 

at Multiple Scales: Functional Sites, Landscapes, and Networks. Bioscience 50:133–146.

Porter, B. 2008. Black bear management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 

June 2007. P. Harper, editor. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

Porter, B. ADF&G. 2012. Personal communication regarding recent wolf harvest in GMU 2.

Prichett, M. 2006. Historic spawn herring database. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Juneau, AK.

Prussian, A. 2008. Sal Creek Watershed Restoration-Results and Monitoring. USDA Thorne 

Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. 

Prussian, K. 2010. Throughfall monitoring – Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Tongass National 

Forest. Unpublished Paper. Accessed at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2010_monitoring_report/1021PrussianThro

ughfall.pdf

Prussian, A. and Bair, B. 2006. Cobble Area Aquatic Watershed Restoration Prioritization and 

Rehabilitation Plan. USDA, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, April.
4 References and Lists

4-56 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Pyare, S., and W.P. Smith. 2005. Functional Connectivity of Tongass Old-Growth Reserves: 

An Assessment Based on Flying-Squirrel Movement Capability. Progress Report for 

Tongass monitoring grants, April 30.

Pyare, S., W.P. Smith, and C.S. Shanley. 2010. Den use and selection by northern flying 

squirrels in fragmented landscapes. Journal of Mammalogy 91:886–896.

Rabe, D. 2009. Population status of Prince of Wales spruce grouse in Southeast Alaska. Final 

performance report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. September. 8 pp. 

Ralph, C.J. and S.L. Miller. 1995. Offshore population estimates of Marbled Murrelets in 

California. pp. 353-360 in Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Rashin, E. B., Clishe, C. J., Loch, A. T. and Bell, J. M. 2006. Effectiveness of Timber Harvest 

Practices for Controlling Sediment Related Water Quality Impacts. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 42(5):1307-1327. 

Reid, L. M. and Dunne, T. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water 

Resources Research. Vol 20. No 11: 1753-1761.

Reid, W.V., and K.R. Miller. 1989. Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific Basis for 

Conserving Biodiversity. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Reid, D.G., L. Waterhouse, P.E.F. Buck, A.E. Derocher, R. Bettner, and C.D. French. 2000. 

Inventory of the Queen Charlotte Islands ermine. In: L.M. Darling (ed). Proceedings of a 

conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk, Kamloops, B.C., 

15–19 February 1999. Volume 1. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 

Victoria, B.C. and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. 490 pp.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. 

Goodwind, R.Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the 

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, 

CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217

Reynolds, R.T., J.D. Wiens, and S.R. Salafsky. 2006. A review and evaluation of factors 

limiting northern goshawk populations. Studies in Avian Biology 31

Ralph, C.J. and S.L. Miller. 1995. Offshore population estimates of Marbled Murrelets in 

California. pp. 353-360 in Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Robinson, S.K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented 

Illinois landscape. pp 408-418 in J.M. Hagan and D.W. Johnson, editors, Ecology and 

Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington 

D.C. 609pp.

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. 

Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 

267:1987–1990.
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-57

Russell, A.L. 1999. Habitat relationships of spruce grouse in southeast Alaska. Thesis. Texas 

Tech University, Dallas, TX.

Saari, B. 2009. Logjam EIS Soil and Wetland Resources Report. USDA Forest Service, Thorne 

Bay Ranger District – Tongass National Forest. May 2009.

Saari, B. 2011, personal communication. Phone call from B. Saari at USFS to M.J. Watson at 

Tetra Tech on October 18, 2011 identifying Tongass National Forest methods for 

estimating natural disturbance.

Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, and B.R. Noon. 2005. Patterns of temporal variation in goshawk 

reproduction and prey resources. Journal of Raptor Research 39: 237-246.

Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, B.R. Noon, and J.A. Wiens. 2007. Reproductive responses of 

northern goshawks to variable prey populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 

2274-2283.

Scheibe, J.S., W.P. Smith, J. Bassham, and D. Magness. 2006. Locomotor performance and 

cost of transport in the northern flying squirrel, Glaucomys sabrinus. Acta Theriologica 

51:169–178.

Scherer, R., and Pike, R. G. 2003. Management Activities on Streamflow in the Okanagan 

Basin: Outcomes of Literature Review and a Workshop. Forest Research and Extension 

Partnership.

Schoen, J.W. and Kirchhoff, M.D. 1990. Seasonal habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer on 

Admiralty Island. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:371-378.

Schoen, J.W., M.D. Kirchhoff, and O.C. Wallmo. 1984. Sitka black-tailed deer/old-growth 

relationships in southeast Alaska: implications for management. Pages 315–319 in W.R. 

Meacham, T.R. Merrell, and T.A. Hanley (eds). Proceedings of the symposium on fish and 

wildlife relationships in old growth forests. American Institute of Fisheries Research 

Biologists, Juneau, AK. 

Schrader, B. and Hennon, P. 2005. Assessment of Invasive Species in Alaska and its National 

Forests. August 30, 2005. 

Sheets, Robert. 2011. Personal communications concerning young-growth thinning and the Big 

Thorne projects, 2009-2011. 

Smith, N, R. Deal, J. Kline, D. Blahna, T. Patterson, T.A. Spies, and K. Bennett. 2011. 

Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest 

Overview. Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-852. 

August.

Smith, W.P. 2005. Evolutionary diversity and ecology of endemic small mammals of 

southeastern Alaska with implications for land management planning. Landscape and 

Urban Planning 72:135–155.

Smith, W.P., And D.K. Person. 2007. Estimated persistence of northern flying squirrel 

populations in temperate rain forest fragments of Southeast Alaska. Biological 

Conservation 137:626–636. 
4 References and Lists

4-58 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Smith, W.P., S, Gende, and J.V. Nichols. 2004. Ecological correlates of flying squirrel 

microhabitat use and density in temperate rainforests of southeastern Alaska. Journal of 

Mammalogy 85:540–551.

Smith, W.P., D.K. Person, and S. Pyare. 2011. Source-sinks, metapopulations, and forest 

reserves: conserving northern flying squirrels in the temperate rainforests of southeast 

Alaska. Pages 399–422 in J. Liu, V. Hull, A.T. Morzillo, and J.A. Wiens (eds). Sources, 

sinks, and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Soule, M.E. 1983. What do we really know about extinction? As Cited in Dawson, N.G., S.O. 

MacDonald, and J.A. Cook. 2007. Endemic mammals of the Alexander Archipelago. 

Chapter 6.7, Pages 1–11 in J. Schoen and E. Dovichin (eds). The Coastal Forests and 

Mountains Ecoregion of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest: a 

conservation assessment and resource synthesis. Audubon and Nature Conservancy, 

Special Publication.

Soule M.E., and M.A. Sanjayan. 1998. Conservation targets: Do they help? Science 279:2060-

2061

Sperry, D.M. 2006. Avian nest survival in post-logging coastal buffer strips on Prince of Wales 

Island, Alaska. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Spies, T.A. 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of old-growth forests. Journal of Forestry 

April/May:14–20.

Stangl, J.T. 2009. Tongass National Forest project level goshawk inventory protocol. USDA 

Forest Service, Sitka, AK. 9 pp. 

Stenhouse, I. and S. Senner. 2005. Alaska WatchList—2005. Audubon Alaska. Anchorage, 

Alaska.

Stephens, F.R., Gass, C.R. and R.F. Billings. 1968. Soils and site index in Southeast Alaska. 

Report Number two of the Soil-Site index Administrative Study. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region. 

Stone, K. D., and J. A. Cook. 2000. Phylogeography of black bears (Ursus americanus) of the 

Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1218–1223. 

Sturtevant, B.R., J.A. Bissonette, and J.N. Long. 1996. Temporal and spatial dynamics of boreal 

forest structure in western Newfoundland: silvicultural implications for marten habitat 

management. Forest Ecology and Management 87:13–25. 

Suring, L.H., D.C. Crocker-Bedford, R.W. Flynn, C.S. Hale, G.C. Iverson, M.D. Kirchhoff, T.E. 

Schenck, L.C. Shea, and K. Titus. 1993. A Proposed Strategy for Maintaining Welldistributed Viable Populations of Wildlife Associated with Old-growth Forests in Southeast 

Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region; report of the 

interagency committee, Tongass Land Management Planning Team.

Swanson, F. J., Benda, L., Duncan, S., Grant, G., Megahann, W., Reid, L., and Zeimer, F. R. 

1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in the pacific northwest 

landscapes. In Salo, E.O, and Cundy, T.W. (Eds), Proceedings, Streamside Management: 

Forestry – Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Seattle, Wa. 9-38
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-59

Swanston, D. 1969. Mass wasting in Coastal Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Stations, USDA Institute of Northern Forestry, Juneau, 

Alaska. Research Paper PNW-83.

Swanston, D. N. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, 5. Soil Mass Movement, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S.D.A. Portland, OR. pp 2-4. 

Swanston, D. 2006. Assessment of landslide risk to the urban corridor along Mitkof Highway 

from planned logging of Mental Health Trust Lands. Unpubl. 19 pp.

Swanston, D. and D. Marion. 1991. Landslide Response to Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Juneau, Alaska and USDA 

Forest Service Southern Forest Experiment Station, Oxford, Mississippi.

Swanston, D.N. and Walkotten, W.J. 1969. The Effectiveness of Rooting as a Factor of Shear 

Strength in the Karta Soil. FS-PNW-1604:26.

Szepanski, M.M., M. Ben-David, and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1999. Assessment of anadromous 

salmon resources in the diet of the Alexander Archipelago wolf using stable isotope 

analysis. Oecologia 120:327-335.

Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a Vital Element of 

Landscape Structure. Oikos 68:571–573.

Tetra Tech and Stuntzner Engineering and Forestry. 2011a. Ratz Harbor Treatment Options 

Report – Prince of Wales Island Young Growth Thinning Feasibility Study & Proposed 

Action Development. Prepared for Tongass National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

Tetra Tech and Stuntzner Engineering and Forestry. 2011b. Thorne Bay Northwest Treatment 

Options Report – Prince of Wales Island Young Growth Thinning Feasibility Study & 

Proposed Action Development. Prepared for Tongass National Forest, USDA Forest 

Service.

Thompson, I.D., and A.S. Harestad. 1994. Effects of logging on American martens with models 

for habitat management. Pages 355–367 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, 

and R.A. Powell (eds). Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell 

University Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 pp. 

Thompson, J. and Tucker, E. 2007. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality, Forest Plan Monitoring – Aquatic Synthesis, Tongass National Forest, Progress 

Report – July 2007. Unpublished report available in Logjam planning file. 

Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer, and S.A. Thomasma. 1994. Gray wolf response 

to refuge boundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:61–68. 

Tonina, D., Luce, C. H., Rieman, B., Buffington, J. M., Goodwin, P., Clayton, S. R., Ali, S. M., 

Barry, J. J., and Berenbrock, C. 2008. Hydrological response to timber harvest in northern 

Idaho: Implications for channel scour and persistence of salmonids. Hydrological 

Processes. Vol. 22. 3223-3235.

Trudel, M,, J. Fisher, J. A. Orsi, J.F. T. Morris, M. E. Thiess, R. M. Sweeting, S. Hinton, E. A 

Fergusson, and D. W. Welsh. 2009. Distribution and migration of juvenile Chinook 
4 References and Lists

4-60 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

salmon derived from coded wire tag recoveries along the continental shelf of Western 

North America. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society. 138: 1391-1391.

Tucker, E. and Thompson, J. 2010. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality, Forest Plan Monitoring –Tongass National Forest. July 2010. Available on Forest 

Service FTP site: 

ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/chugtong_r10/watershed/SWCA/TongassBMPEffectiveness/T

uckerThompson2010.pdf

Tucker, S. , M. Trudel, D. W. Welch, J. R. Candy, J. F. T. Morris, M. E. Thiess, C. Wallace, and 

T. D. Beacham. 2011. Life history and seasonal stock-specific ocean migration of juvenile 

Chinook salmon. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society. 140: 1101-1191.

Turcotte, F. R. Courtois, R. Couture, and J. Ferron. 2000. Impact a court terme de l'exploitation 

forestier sur le tetras du Canada (Falcipennis canadensis). Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 30: 202-210. Ac cited in Williamson, S.J., D. Keppie, R. Davison, D. Bureau, S. 

Carriere, D. Rabe, and M. Schroeder. 2008. Spruce grouse conservation plan. Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Washington, D.C. 73 pp

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. P8. Hispanic or Latino by Race. Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-

Percent Data. Available online at: www.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. State & County QuickFacts. Available online at:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. QT-PL - Race, Hispanic or Latino, Age, and Housing Occupancy: 

2010. Available online at: www.census.gov

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Wetland Types. Available on-line at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/bog.cfm

USDA Forest Service. 1982. ROS Users Guide. U.S. Government Printing Office. Available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/rosguide_1982.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Issuing 

Special Use Permits for Big-Game Guide and Outfitter Services. Ketchikan Area, Tongass 

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Land and resource management plan, Record of Decision, April 

1999. FS-639. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Tongass National Forest land and resource management plan. 

R10-MB-338dd. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997c. Tongass land and resource management plan revision, final 

environmental impact statement, Appendix, Volume 2. R10-MB-338f. Juneau, AK: Alaska 

Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final EIS. Volume 2. 

Washington Office, Washington D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. 36 CFR Part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; 

Final Rule. Washington, DC.
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-61

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Service Handbook, Alaska Region. Aquatic Habitat 

Management Handbook. FSH 2090.21, effective November 16, 2001. R-10 2090.21-2001-

1.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Tongass National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report for Fiscal Year 2002. Retrieved on April 24, 2008 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2002_monitoring_report/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan: Final 

Supplemental EIS Record of Decision. R10-MB-481c. USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan: Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (including Vol.II: Appendix C-Part 1 and 

Vol. III: Appendix C-Part 2). R10-MB-481a,b,c. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 

Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003c. Tongass National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report for Fiscal Year 2003. Retrieved on April 24, 2008 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2003_monitoring_report/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2003d. Tongass National Forest – Forest Level Roads Analysis. Tongass 

National Forest. January 2003 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Cobble Landscape Assessment. Tongass National Forest, R10-

MB-515. September 2004.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Tongass National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report for Fiscal Year 2004. Retrieved on April 24, 2008 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2004_monitoring_report/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Tongass National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report for Fiscal Year 2005. Retrieved on April 24, 2008 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2005_monitoring_report/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Landscape Character Types of the Tongass National Forest, CD 

Manual. Prepared by Tetra Tech. Prepared for the Tongass National Forest, Juneau.

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Prince of Wales roads analysis. Prepared by Thorne Bay Ranger 

District, Thorne Bay, AK. 

USDA Forest Service, 2005. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska. 2004. USDA Forest Service, 

R10-PR-3.

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Cobble Area Aquatic Watershed Restoration Prioritization and 

Rehabilitation Plan. Prepared Cooperatively by the Thorne Bay Ranger District, . Tongass 

National Forest, and TEAMS Planning Enterprise: Aaron Prussian and Brian Bair, Authors.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Tongass National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report for Fiscal Year 2006. Retrieved on April 24, 2008 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2006_monitoring_report/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service, 2006. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2005. USDA Forest Service, 

R10-PR-5.
4 References and Lists

4-62 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. North Thorne Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

Unpublished draft. United Stated Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Tongass 

National Forest. R10-MB-449. August 2006.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Service Handbook, Alaska Region. Region 10 Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook. FSH 2509.22, effective July 14, 2006. R-10 2509.22-

2006-1. Retrieved on June 3, 2008 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fieldfsh2000.html

USDA Forest Service. 2006. FSM 2500, Region 10 Watershed and Air Management Manual, 

Supplement number R-10 2500-2006-1.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. FSM 2080 Noxious Weed Management Supplement no. R10-

TNF-2000-2007-1.

USDA Forest Service, 2007b. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2006. USDA Forest Service, 

R10-PR-11.

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Plan Amendment

Record of Decision. R10-MB-603a. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Forest Plan. R10-MB-603b. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment. R10-MB-603c. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, Juneau.

USDA Forest Service, 2008. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2007. USDA Forest Service, 

R10-PR-18.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Access Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment, 

Prince of Wales and Surrounding Islands. USDA Forest Service, Craig and Thorne Bay 

Ranger Districts, Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, 2009b. Insects and Diseases of Alaskan Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, Technical Publication R10-TP-140.

USDA Forest Service 2009c. Logjam Timber Sale Final Environmental Impact Statement. R10-

MB-701B. Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, Assessment 

and Proposed Revisions to the 2002 List. Tongass National Forest, Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Rare Plant List. Thorne Bay Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service, 2009. Insects and Diseases of Alaskan Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, Technical Publication R10-TP-140.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Outfitter-Guide Use Report, Recreation Visitor Capacity 

Analysis. Craig and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts. December.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Tongass National Forest Annual Monitoring and evaluation report 

for Fiscal Year 2010. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/monitoring/monitoring.shtml
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-63

USDA Forest Service, 2010c. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2009. USDA Forest Service, 

R10-PR-21.

USDA Forest Service. 2010d. Third Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and the Alaska State 

Historic Preservation Officer regarding Heritage Resource Management on National 

Forests in Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Standard Lotic PFC Checklist. Unpublished documents. Tongass 

National Forest, Thorne Bay Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Habitat Suitability Models for Five Sensitive Plant Species on the 

Tongass National Forest, Southeastern Alaska. March 31, 2011

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Recreation Site Use Data. Information provided by Victoria 

Houser, Recreation Planner, Craig Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Watershed Condition Framework: a framework for assessing and 

tracking changes to watershed condition. FS-977. May 2011. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/Watershed_Condition_Framework.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2011d. USDA Investment Strategy for in Support of Rural Communities 

in Southeast Alaska 2011-2013. R10-MB-73. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. 2011 Direction for Project-level Deer, Wolf, and Subsistence 

Analysis. September 2011.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Timber Supply and Demand: 2010. Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act Section 706(a) Report to Congress. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region. Draft. October 12.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Tongass Limited Shipping Policy Issue Paper, April 2011

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1, National Core BMP 

Technical Guide. FS-990a.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Remaining Timber Sales Volumes and Values as of December 31, 

2011. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r10/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev2_03

8785

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Prince of Wales Island Current Timber Sale Purchasers. 

Unpublished data. January.

USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1998. Riparian Management. A User Guide to 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. 

Technical Reference 1737-15.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating 

Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses. April. Available 

online at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/index.html
4 References and Lists

4-64 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

U.S. Environmental Protetion Agency (EPA). 2011. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Wetland Types. Available on-line at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/bog.cfm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. The spectacled eider. From 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm. 2 pp

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Queen Charlotte goshawk status review. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. The Steller’s eider. From 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm. 2 pp

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Spotlight species action plan: yellow-billed 

loon. Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, AK

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species assessment and listing priority 

assignment form: Falcipennis canadensis isleibi Prince of Wales spruce grouse. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 7.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. The spectacled eider. Available online at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm (Accessed October 2011).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. The short-tailed albatross. Available online at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm (Accessed October 2011).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Correspondence to Mr. Steve Paustian by Ed Neal, 

Hydrologist. July 28, 2000. Available in the Logjam Timber Sale planning record.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. US Geological Survey National Water Information 

Systems online records for Stations 15081497 (Staney Creek). Retrieved on September 23, 

2011 from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/ 

United Nations Environment Programme. 1991. Fourth Revised Draft Convention on Biological 

Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme. – your citation says “United National 

Environment Programme”

Wallmo, O.C., and J.W. Schoen. 1980. Responses of deer to secondary forest succession in 

southeast Alaska. Forest Science 26:448–462. 

Walters, D. and Prefontaine, B. 2005. Stream Temperature Monitoring Report 19972002, 

Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Unpublished report available in Logjam planning file. 

Warren, J. and R. Kreiger. 2011. Fish Harvesting in Alaska. Alaska Economic Trends. 

November.

Weckworth, B.V., N.G. Dawson, S.L. Talbot, M.J. Flamme, and J.A. Cook. 2011. Going 

coastal: shared evolutionary history between coastal British Columbia and southeast Alaska 

wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE 6(5):1–8

Weckworth, B.V., S.L. Talbot, and J.A. Cook. 2010. Phylogeography of wolves (Canos lupus) 

in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy 91:363–375
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-65

Weckworth, B.V., S. Talbot, G.K. Sage, D.K. Person, and J. Cook. 2005. A signal for 

independent coastal and continental histories among North American wolves. Molecular 

Ecology 14:917–931.

Wemple, B.C. et al. 1996. Channel Network Extension by Logging Roads in Two Basins, 

Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin. American Water Resources 

Association V 32 NO.6. Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD). 2008. 

Phase I Site Assessment Data Report – FS 3030 Road. Water Quality Assessment. Project 

number 14481. Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington. 137 pp. 

White, E.M. and D.J. Stynes. 2010. Characterization of Resident and Non-resident Visitors to

Alaska National Forests. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and 

Oregon State University

White, K.S., G.W. Pendleton, and E. Hood. 2009. Effects of snow on Sitka black-tailed deer 

browse availability and nutritional carrying capacity in southeastern Alaska. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 73:481–487.

Wilcove, D.S. 1987. From fragmentation to extinction. Natural Areas Journal 7: 23–29. 

Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate 

zone. Pages 237-256 in M. E. Soulé (ed). Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and 

diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

Williamson, S.J., D. Keppie, R. Davison, D. Bureau, S. Carriere, D. Rabe, and M. Schroeder. 

2008. Spruce grouse conservation plan. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Washington, D.C. 73 pp.

Willson, M.F., K.C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous Fish as Keystone Species in Vertebrate 

Communities. Conservation Biology 9(3): 489-497.

Wipfli, M.S.; Gregovich, D.P. 2002. Export of invertebrates and detritus from fishless 

headwater streams in southeastern Alaska: implications for downstream salmonid 

production. Freshwater Biology. 47: 957-969. 

Wissmar, R.C., Swanston, D.N., Bryant, M.D., and McGee, K. 1997 Factors Influencing Stream 

Chemistry in Catchments on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Freshwater Biology. 38: 301-

314.

With, K.A. 1999. Is landscape connectivity necessary and sufficient for wildlife management? 

Pages 97-115 in J.A. Rochelle, L.A. Lehman, and J. Wisniewski, eds. Forest 

fragmentation: Wildlife and management implications. Leiden, The Netherlands.

Woeck, B. 2012a. Wildlife and subsistence resource report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, 

Inc. Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest.

Woeck, B. 2012b. Biological Assessment & Biological Evaluation – Wildlife and Fish, Big 

Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass 

National Forest.

Wood. R.E. 1990. Black bear survey-inventory progress report. Pages 1-6 In S.O. Morgan, ed. 

Annual report of survey-inventory activities. Part IV. Black bear. Volume XX. Alaska 
4 References and Lists

4-66 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Department of Fish and Game Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Progress 

Report. Project W-23-2, Study 17.0. Juneau, AK.

Woodsmith, R. D., Noel, J. R., Dilger, M. L. 2005. An approach to effectiveness monitoring of 

floodplain channel aquatic habitat: channel condition assessment. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 72: 177-204. 

Yeo, J.J., and J.M. Peek. 1992. Habitat selection by female Sitka black-tailed deer in logged 

forests of southeastern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:253–261.
References and Lists 4

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Chapter 4 – References and Lists ▪ 4-67

Index ______________________________

access, 1-19

acid rock drainage (ARD), 2-11, 3-272, 3-

335, 3-336

air quality, 3-11, 3-12

alternative development, 2-1, 2-2

best management practices (BMPs), 2-12, 

3-431

biodiversity, 3-99 to 3-106, 3-132 to 3-145

biogeographic province, 3-3

black bear, 3-116, 3-117, 3-195 to 3-201

climate change, 3-324, 3-325

Coffman Cove, 3-13, 3-505 to 3-507

corridors (animals and plants), 3-145 to 3-

159

Craig, 3-13, 3-14, 3-505 to 3-507

deer, 2-17, 2-18, 3-98, 3-99, 3-106 to 3-109, 

3-159 to 3-170

design criteria, 2-9 to 2-13

ecosystem services, 3-510 to 3-512

endemic species, 3-122 to 3-123, 3-218 to 

3-220

environmental justice, 3-515, 3-516

essential fish habitat, 3-341 to 3-349

fisheries, 2-11, 2-19, 3-49, 3-85 to 3-87, 3-

263 to 3-266, 3-281, 3-326 to 3-349

game management unit, 3-2

goshawk, 2-18, 3-125, 3-128, 3-129, 3-223 

to 3-228

heritage resources, 3-500 to 3-504

Hollis, 3-14, 3-505 to 3-507

invasive plants, 2-10, 2-11, 3-389 to 3-400

inventoried roadless areas, 2-1 to 2-4, 3-2, 

3-61, 3-72, 3-482 to 3-492

irreversible and irretrievable commitments, 

3-518, 3-519

issues, 1-10 to 1-13

karst, 3-301 to 3-323

Kasaan, 3-14, 3-15, 3-505 to 3-507

Klawock, 3-15, 3-505 to 3-507

land status, 3-12

land use designations (LUDs), 1-14 to 1-17, 

2-3 to 2-7, 3-50, 3-51, 3-62 to 3-64, 

3-73 to 3-75

legacy forest structure, 2-3, 2-4, 2-8, 2-9, 2-

10

logging system, 3-25 to 3-29

management indicator species (MIS), 3-106 

to 3-118, 3-159 to 3-157

marine access facilities (MAF), 2-11, 3-344 

to 3-349, 3-428

marten, 2-18, 3-113 to 3-116, 3-186 to 3-195

migratory birds, 3-123, 3-124, 3-220 to 3-

223

mitigation, 2-9 to 2-13

monitoring, 2-12, 2-13

off-highway vehicles (OHVs), 3-451, 3-

452, 3-457

Old-growth Reserves, 1-12, 2-3 to 2-8, 2-

14, 3-43 to 3-92

Naukati Bay, 3-15, 3-16, 3-505 to 3-507

past harvest, 3-4, 3-5

patch size and fragmentation, 2-17

Prince of Wales flying squirrel, 3-119 to 3-

121, 3-208 to 3-215
4 References and Lists

4-68 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Prince of Wales spruce grouse, 3-121, 3-

122, 3-215 to 3-218

productive old growth (POG), 2-17, 3-97, 

3-98, 3-401 to 3-409

project record, 1-20

proposed action, 1-5, 1-6, 2-2, 2-3

public involvement, 1-6 to 1-10

purpose and need, 1-4, 1-5

reasonably foreseeable projects, 3-5 to 3-11

recreation, 3-50, 3-91, 3-92, 3-442 to 3-463

restoration, 3-8, 3-9

roads, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-16, 3-

353, 3-394, 3-395, 3-425 to 3-441, 3-

474

scenery, 3-50, 3-89 to 3-90, 3-464 to 3-481

scenic integrity objectives, 3-467 to 3-469, 

3-472 to 3-479

scoping, 1-7

sensitive and rare plants, 2-6, 3-49, 3-87 to 

3-89, 3-365 to 3-388

stewardship 1-18, 1-19

subsistence, 1-12, 1-13, 2-17, 3-49, 3-50, 3-

95, 3-98, 3-99, 3-129 to 3-131, 3-229 

to 3-243

suitable forest land, 3-401 to 3-404

Thorne Bay, 3-12, 3-13, 3-505 to 3-507

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species, 3-125 to 3-129, 3-223 to 3-

228, 3-349

timber economics, 1-11, 2-3 to 2-5, 2-16, 3-

17 to 3-42, 3-439 to 3-440

timber harvest, 2-15, 3-23 to 3-25, 3-393, 3-

394, 3-409 to 3-424, 3-474

timber jobs, 2-16, 3-19 to 3-22, 3-34 to 3-

36, 3-509

Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management 

Strategy, 1-17, 1-18, 3-32, 3-33 

timber supply, 1-11, 2-3 to 2-5, 3-17 to 3-

42, 3-79 to 3-85

Tongass Forest Plan and conservation 

strategy, 3-44, 3-45

unavoidable adverse effects, 3-519

value comparison unit (VCU), 3-1

vegetation, 3-97, 3-98, 3-401 to 3-404

visual priority routes and use areas, 3-465 

to 3-467

watersheds, including cumulative effects, 1-

13, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-19, 3-2, 3-244 

to 3-299

wetlands, 3-350 to 3-364, 3-433

wilderness, 3-492 to 3-496

wild and scenic rivers, 3-497 to 3-499

wildlife analysis area, 3-2, 3-3

wildlife habitat, 1-12, 1-13, 2-6, 2-17, 3-93 

to 3-228

windthrow, 2-10, 3-338, 3-407, 3-408, 3-

421 to 3-424

wolf, 3-98, 3-99, 3-109 to 3-113, 3-170 to 

3-186

yellow-cedar, 2-14, 2-15, 3-408, 3-409

young growth, 3-405, 3-406, 3-413 to 3-424
Appendix A

REASONS FOR SCHEDULING THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE 

BIG THORNE PROJECT

FY 2012
Appendix A

Table of Contents

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

How Does the Big Thorne Project Fit into the Tongass Timber Sale Program? How Does the Forest 

Service Decide where Timber Sale Projects should be Located?...........................................................1

Why is Timber from the Tongass National Forest Being Offered for Sale? ..........................................3

How Does the Forest Service Develop Forecasts about Future Timber Market Demand?....................5

What Steps Must Be Completed to Prepare a Sale for Offer?..............................................................10

How Does the Forest Service Maintain an Orderly and Predictable Timber Sale Program?...............11

How Appeals and Litigation Affect the Timber Sale Program ............................................................14

How Does The Forest Service Decide Where Timber Harvest Projects Should Be Located?.............15

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................18

References............................................................................................................................................19
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 1

APPENDIX A – REASONS FOR SCHEDULING THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE 

BIG THORNE PROJECT

Introduction

Coordinated timber sale planning is essential for meeting the goals of the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and to provide an orderly flow of timber to local 

industry. To determine the volume of timber to offer each year, the Forest Service can look 

to current market conditions and the level of industry operations. However, the planning 

process for timber harvest projects requires the Forest Service to rely on projections of 

future harvest levels to decide how many timber sale projects to begin each year. This 

document explains how the Forest Service uses information about future markets and past 

experience with timber sale planning to determine the volume of timber that needs to be 

started through this process each year. This appendix relies heavily on the current annual 

timber demand analysis and the most recent timber sale schedule.

The purpose of this appendix is two-fold: first, to explain why this project was selected for 

inclusion into the Tongass Timber Program and second, to explain the basis and 

components of the Tongass Timber program. To accomplish this, the following questions 

are answered:

 How does the Big Thorne Project fit into the Tongass Timber Sale Program?

 Why is timber from the Tongass National Forest being offered for sale?

 How does the Forest Service develop forecasts about future timber market demand?

 What steps must be completed to prepare a sale for offer?

 How does the Forest Service maintain an orderly and predictable timber sale 

program?

How Does the Big Thorne Project Fit into the Tongass 

Timber Sale Program? How Does the Forest Service 

Decide where Timber Sale Projects Should be Located?

This project is currently in Gate 2, Project Analysis and Design (See Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 30 and subsequent discussion about the Gate System) and 

involves environmental analysis and public disclosure as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The sawlog volume considered for harvest under the 

alternatives ranges from 83 to 167 MMBF and the utility volume ranges from 11 to 22

MMBF with harvest potentially beginning in 2013. This volume would contribute to the 

Tongass timber sale program. A no-action alternative was also analyzed in the DEIS. If an 

action alternative is selected in the decision for this project, this volume will be added to 

the volume available for sale.
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 2 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

This project contributes to the timber sale program planning objective of providing an 

orderly flow of timber from planning through harvest to meet timber supply requirements. A 

position statement (Gate 1) was completed to document that this project warrants additional 

investment of funds and personnel. Therefore, it is reasonable to be conducting the 

environmental analysis for this project at this time.

This project meets all laws and regulations governing the removal of timber from National 

Forest System lands, including Forest Service policies as described in Forest Service manuals 

and handbooks, and the Forest Plan and Record of Decision. Based on current year and 

anticipated future timber demand and the timber supply provisions of the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act, the Big Thorne Timber Harvest is needed at this time to meet timber sale needs 

identified on the approved multiple-year timber sale plan. Anticipated budget allocations and 

resources are sufficient to prepare and offer this project for sale as scheduled.

Why is This Project Occurring in This Location?

Areas are selected for environmental analysis for timber harvest projects for a variety of 

reasons. The reasons this project was considered in this area include:

 The project area offers economic timber that could contribute to local demand.

 The project area includes a well-developed road system that provides access to many 

of the proposed timber harvest units and may be used to transport harvested logs.

 A substantial infrastructure of existing sawmills is located in or near the project area, 

connected by the road system. This includes the largest remaining sawmill in 

Southeast Alaska.

 The project area is on the Prince of Wales Island road system, includes the City of 

Thorne Bay, and is near Coffman Cove, Naukati Bay, Craig, Klawock, and other 

cities, which would help support direct and indirect employment through the supply 

of personnel, goods and services.

 The Big Thorne project area contains sufficient acres of suitable and available forest 

land to make this timber harvest proposal reasonable. Areas with available timber 

need to be considered for harvest in order to seek to provide a supply of timber from 

the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand from such 

forest, and (2) meets the market demand from such forest for each planning cycle, 

pursuant to Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA).

 The Big Thorne project can use the existing and currently permitted MAFs at Thorne 

Bay and Coffman Cove. 

 The proposed harvest units are within development land use designations (LUD) as 

allocated by the Forest Plan. An exception is some young-growth thinning in Oldgrowth Habitat LUD which is being done to improve habitat.

 Effects on subsistence resources from timber harvest are projected to have few 

differences based on the sequence in which areas are harvested. Harvesting other 

areas with available timber on the Tongass National Forest is expected to have similar 

potential effects on resources, including subsistence resources, because of widespread 

distribution of subsistence use and other factors. Harvest within other areas is 

foreseeable under the Forest Plan.
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 3

In conclusion, this project area can provide a mixture of uses in compliance with the laws 

that govern National Forest management and is consistent with direction in the Forest Plan.

Why is Timber from the Tongass National Forest Being 

Offered for Sale?

National Legislation_______________________________

On a national level, the legislative record is clear about the role of the timber program in the 

multiple-use mandate of the national forests. One of the original objectives for creation of 

national forests was to provide natural resources, including timber, for the American public.

The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (partially repealed in 1976) directed the agency to 

manage the forests in order to "improve and protect the forest ... [and] for the purpose of 

securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber

for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States" (emphasis added). The 

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 directs the Forest Service to administer federal 

lands for “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.”

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 states that “the Secretary of 

Agriculture...may sell, at not less than appraised value, trees, portions of trees, or forest 

products located on National Forest System Lands.” Although the heart of the Act is the land 

management planning process for national forests, the Act also sets policy direction for 

timber management and public participation in Forest Service decision making. Under 

NFMA, the Forest Service was directed to “limit the sale of timber from each national forest 

to a quantity equal to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest annually 

in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis.”

The NFMA directs the Forest Service to complete land management plans for all units of the 

National Forest System. Forest plans are developed by an interdisciplinary team to provide 

for the coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and 

wilderness. Forest plans designate areas of national forest where different management 

activities and uses are considered appropriate, including those areas suitable for timber 

harvest.

Alaska-Specific Legislation_______________________

Timber from the Tongass National Forest is being offered for sale as part of the multiple-use 

mission of the Forest Service identified in the public laws guiding the agency. In addition, 

Alaska-specific legislation and the Tongass Forest Plan direct the Forest Service to seek to 

provide timber to meet market demand, subject to certain limitations.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act (TTRA) provide direction on the issue of Tongass timber supply. Section 101 of 

TTRA amended the ANILCA timber supply mandate and fixed budget appropriations and 

replaced them with the following text in Section 705 (a):

Sec. 705. (a) Subject to appropriations, other applicable law, and the requirements of the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588); except as provided in subsection (d) 

of this section, the Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with providing for the multiple use 
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 4 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

and sustained yield of all renewable forest resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from 

the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such 

forest and (2) meets the annual market demand from such forest for each planning cycle.

Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan, as amended) _____________________

The Tongass Land Management Plan was completed in 1979 and revised in 1997. The 

Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan Amendment 

(Forest Plan) was signed by the Alaska Regional Forester on January 23, 2008. The Forest 

Plan incorporates new resource information and scientific studies and reflects an extensive 

public involvement process. The 2008 Forest Plan defines appropriate activities within each 

of 19 land use designations (LUDs). Approximately 79 percent of the Tongass was allocated 

to LUDs where scheduled commercial timber harvest is not allowed.

The decision for the 2008 Forest Plan establishes the annual average allowable sale quantity 

(ASQ, the maximum amount of timber that may be offered for sale) at 267 million board feet 

(MMBF). This is the same as the ASQ established for the previous Forest Plan in 1997.

While technically a limit on sale volume, in effect the ASQ also limits the amount of timber 

that may be harvested on the Tongass National Forest.

The environmental effects analysis in the Final EIS for the 2008 Forest Plan assumed the 

maximum timber harvest allowed under each alternative would occur annually over the next 

100 to 150 years. In that way, the Forest Plan analysis displayed the maximum environmental 

effects that could be reasonably foreseen. However, substantially less timber volume and 

acres have actually been harvested over the last several years than the maximum level 

allowed under the 1997 Forest Plan (see Figure A-1). Thus, the effects on resources are 

expected to be less than projected in the 2008 Final EIS for the Forest Plan Amendment.

Figure A-1. Tongass Timber Harvest, Fiscal Years 2001-2011

The Record of Decision for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment includes transition language 

for projects that were being planned when the Forest Plan was completed. That language 

47.8

33.8

50.8

46

49.6

43.1

18.7

28 28

36

32.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Timber Harvest - mmbf per year
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 5

identifies three different categories of projects, depending on how far along they were in 

the project planning process when the Forest Plan Amendment was completed, and 

specifies the extent to which projects in each category must comply with the amended 

Forest Plan. The transition language lists this project as being in Category 3, which requires 

the Forest Supervisor to incorporate the direction in the 2008 Forest Plan.

USDA Investment Strategy for Creating Jobs and Healthy 

Communities in Southeast Alaska

Most rural communities in Southeast Alaska are experiencing declining populations 

especially in the younger age groups, fewer job opportunities, and increasing energy costs. 

USDA agencies (Farm Service Agency, Forest Service, Rural Development) and the U.S. 

Economic Development Administration (USEDA) are partnering to revitalize communities 

by moving towards a more diversified economy and restore public lands by supporting job 

creation in areas that offer growth potential: fisheries and mariculture, recreation and 

tourism, forest management, and renewable energy. 

The goals of this USDA Investment Strategy include: 

 creating quality jobs and sustainable economic growth; 

 promoting small business creation, expansion, and retention; 

 improving access to capital; and 

 promoting job training and educational opportunities. 

Working with the Juneau Economic Development Council (JEDC), USDA agencies 

collaborated with over 120 leaders from local businesses and communities to identify 

initiatives in four areas—Ocean Products, Visitor Services, Forest Products, and Renewable 

Energy—that will create a regional competitive advantage, thereby raising the economic 

conditions for all of Southeast Alaskans. 

The partnership recently released a report that lists job creation initiatives for Southeast 

Alaska. The report (USDA Forest Service 2011d) was developed by these four economic 

cluster working groups made up of Southeast Alaska leaders in business, academia, 

nongovernmental organizations and State, local and Tribal governments. The process 

brings business leaders together with government and others to collaborate rather than 

compete; providing a platform where ideas to create economic opportunities can emerge.

How Does the Forest Service Develop Forecasts about 

Future Timber Market Demand?

Consistent with the provisions of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the Forest Service 

makes two types of forecasts of market demand for timber from the Tongass National 

Forest. The first, “planning cycle market demand,” forecasts the long-term demand for 

timber from the Tongass over the life of the Forest Plan, derived from trends in 

international demand for end products manufactured from such timber. Based on these 

long-term projections, the Forest Service also estimates annual market demand in order to 

determine how much timber to plan to offer for sale.
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 6 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Market Demand for the Planning Cycle_______________

Research economists with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station 

have prepared several studies of “planning cycle market demand” for Tongass timber, 

including three General Technical Reports by Brooks and Haynes (1990, 1994, and 1997).

In 2006, the PNW Research Station published new harvest projections (Brackley et al. 

2006). This report and an addendum to it (Brackley and Haynes, 2008) provided key 

information for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment analysis.

The Brackley et al. 2006 projections include four scenarios: 1) limited lumber production, 

which represents the situation the timber industry in Southeast Alaska has faced over the 

last several years; 2) expanded lumber production, which assumes some form of demand 

stimulus occurs; 3) medium integrated industry, which assumes sufficient demand stimulus 

occurs to cause an expansion of the current industry capacity and better utilization of forest 

products removed from public timber sales; and 4) high integrated industry, assumes some 

kind of additional demand stimulation to result in full utilization of all types of forest 

products available from the Tongass. More detailed information about these scenarios and 

their assumptions is in the Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS and ROD (January 2008), and 

in Brackley and Haynes, 2008.

The Brackley et al. 2006 study displays alternative projections of derived demand for 

timber from the Tongass National Forest. For the first two scenarios, which assume no 

market for low-grade sawlogs and utility volume, the estimates of planning cycle demand 

include sawtimber only. For the two integrated industry scenarios, the projections include 

total volume, including both sawlogs and utility. Utility volume must be cut down along 

with higher-quality timber even if there is no demand for it. It is the total volume of timber 

cut on the Tongass that is of most interest, in part because environmental effects result from 

total volume cut. In addition, any comparison of scenarios must be based on comparable 

figures. Table A-1 shows annualized Brackley et al 2006 projections for all four scenarios

in terms of total volume.

After the Brackley et al. 2006 study was published, the Regional Forester approved a policy 

under which timber purchasers may ship to the lower 48 states unprocessed certain smalldiameter and low-quality logs harvested from the Tongass, up to 50 percent of the volume 

harvested on each sale. This policy creates a market opportunity for low-quality material 

that the Brackley et al. 2006 study assumed would not be utilized under scenarios 1 and 2. 
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 7

Table A-1. Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Volume Necessary to Supply Derived 

Demand for Decked Log Volume and Chips, in Million Board Feet (MMBF); 

(Alexander, 20081

)

Year

Scenario 1

Limited

lumber

Scenario 2

Expanded 

lumber

Scenario 3

Medium

integrated

Scenario 4

High

integrated

2007 49.8 61.9 67 67

2008 49.8 66.4 139 139

2009 51.3 72.4 151 151

2010 52.8 78.5 166 166

2011 52.8 84.5 184 184

2012 54.3 90.5 204 286

2013 55.8 98.1 204 291

2014 57.3 105.6 204 295

2015 58.9 113.2 204 299

2016 58.9 122.2 204 303

2017 60.4 131.3 204 308

2018 61.9 140.3 204 312

2019 63.4 150.1 204 317

2020 64.9 163.0 204 325

2021 66.4 175.0 204 333

2022 67.9 187.1 204 342

2023 69.4 200.7 204 351

2024 70.9 215.8 204 360

2025 72.4 230.9 204 370 1

Annualized calculation to fulfill derived demand scenarios from Brackley et al. (2006). This table was created using 

annualized values provided by Dr. Allen Brackley (personal communication, Nov 29 2006) from the model used to develop 

derived demand estimates in Brackley et al. (2006). The values for Limited Lumber Scenario and Expanded Lumber 

scenarios reported in this table have been adjusted to include low quality material not included in the demand projections 

and include saw logs, cedar export, and utility (chip) volumes available from sawmill production. The Medium and High 

Integrated Scenarios are not adjusted and include saw logs, cedar exports, chip volumes, low-grade material, and utility in 

Brackley et al. (2006).
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 8 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Annual Market Demand____________________________

The annual market demand forecast is a methodology used to set the short-term goals for 

the Tongass Timber Sale program – volume the Forest plans to offer for sale in the current 

year, pending sufficient funding and sufficient NEPA-cleared volume ready for sale.

The formulas and procedures used in forecasting annual market demand are described in a 

Forest Service report titled Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber (Morse, 

2000). These procedures, which have become known as the “Morse methodology,” are 

based on the premise that:

 Forest product markets are volatile, especially in the short run.

 Timber purchasers in Southeast Alaska have few alternative suppliers of timber if 

they cannot obtain it from the Tongass National Forest. Oversupplying this market 

has relatively few adverse economic effects; undersupplying it can have much greater 

negative economic consequences.

 It takes years to prepare National Forest timber for sale, including completion of 

environmental impact statements.

 It is difficult to estimate demand for timber from the Tongass, even a year or two in 

advance.

 Industry must be able to respond to rapidly changing market conditions in order to 

remain competitive.

Accordingly, the Morse methodology establishes a system that considers factors such as 

mill capacity and utilization of that capacity, and seeks to build and maintain sufficient 

volume of timber under contract (i.e., timber purchased but not yet harvested) to allow the 

industry to react promptly to market fluctuations. Industry actions such as annual harvest 

levels are monitored and timber program targets are developed by estimating the amount of 

timber needed to replace volume harvested from year to year. The methodology is adaptive, 

because if harvest level drop below expectations and other factors remain constant, future 

timber sale offerings would also be reduced to levels needed to maintain the target level of 

volume under contract. Conversely, if harvest levels rise unexpectedly, future timber sale 

targets would also increase sufficiently to ensure that the inventory of volume under 

contract is not exhausted. By dealing with uncertainty in a flexible, science-based fashion, 

the Morse methodology is an example of adaptive management.

The Morse methodology originally used the projected harvest from the final 1997 Brooks 

and Haynes report. These procedures were updated (Alexander, 2008) to use the annual 

projected harvest figures from Brackley et al. 2006 in calculations of annual timber offer 

targets. No further changes to the Morse methodology were required as a result of the 

updated long-term demand projections contained in the Brackley et al. study.

In 2008, due to the Region 10 shipment policy, the Ketchikan veneer mill, and the success 

of Alaska producers in niche or specially markets, Brackley et al. 2008 determined that 

demand for National Forest timber in Alaska was on a trajectory most similar to scenario 2 

(expanded lumber production). In 2011, due to the sharp downturn in wood products 

markets, the ‘Limited Lumber’ scenario was used. However, due to the export policy and 
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 9

good overseas markets, this projection is back to being based on the ‘Expanded Lumber, 

Scenario 2.

For FY 2012, the goal for volume of timber to be offered is 127 MMBF. This number is not 

intended to represent actual timber purchases in any given year. Rather, it reflects the 

estimated volume of timber the Forest Service needs to offer to replace the volume 

expected to be harvested and help build a 2-3 year supply of timber under contract, which 

allows the industry to respond to market fluctuations. The actual volume of timber offered 

for sale in any given year, however, reflects a combination of factors, such as final budget 

appropriations; completing the NEPA process; the practice of offering smaller sales for 

smaller operators rather than all the volume from a NEPA decision; the statutory 

requirement that timber sales offered in the Alaska Region appraise positive; and volume 

affected by litigation. Due to these factors, the amount of timber that is offered and sold 

may be less than the expected timber purchases as predicted in the annual demand 

calculations. The document displaying the annual demand calculation and a summary of the 

factors used in these calculations are in the project record and on the Alaska Region public 

website (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5349461.pdf).

The planned annual timber volume offer could include a combination of new, previously 

offered, and reconfigured timber sales. Both green timber and salvage sales will be 

components of this program. Offerings will consist of those targeted for Small Business 

qualified firms, as well as a portion of the volume being made available for the open 

market.

For planning and scheduling purposes, the Tongass uses a 5-year timber sale plan, which is 

consistent with Forest Service Manual 2430. This 5-year plan is based on completed and 

ongoing environmental analyses and contains information to purchasers and other 

interested parties, and provides a plan that can be adjusted in response to changing market 

conditions. This plan is also located on the Alaska Region timber management public 

website after it is approved by the Forest Supervisor (see the reference section at the end of 

this appendix for the internet address).

Both the “annual market demand” and the “planning cycle market demand” projections are 

important for timber sale program planning purposes. They provide guidance to the Forest 

Service to request budgets, to make decisions about workforce and facilities, and to indicate 

the need to begin new environmental analysis for future program offerings. They also 

provide a basis for expectations regarding future harvest, and thus provide an important 

source of information for establishing the schedule of probable future sale offerings. The 

weight given to the projections will vary depending on a number of factors, such as how 

recently they were done and how well they appear to have accounted for recent, sitespecific events in the timber market. More information on timber demand on the Tongass 

National Forest is presented in Appendix G of the Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2008c).
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 10 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

What Steps Must Be Completed to Prepare a Sale for 

Offer? 

The Tongass National Forest’s timber sale program is complex. A number of projects are 

underway at any given point in time, each of which may be in a different stage of planning 

and preparation. A system of checkpoints, or “gates”, helps the Forest Service track the 

accomplishments of each stage of a project from inception to contract termination.

Gate 1 – Initial Planning of Timber Sale Project_________

A Timber Sale Project Plan, often referred to as a Position Statement, is a brief analysis of 

the project area with the intent of determining the feasibility of a potential timber sale.

After the Position Statement is developed, the Forest Service decides whether the project 

area merits continued investment of time and funds in sale planning.

Gate 2 – Project Analysis, Sale Area Design, and 

Decision_________________________________________

This step is commonly referred to as the “NEPA” phase and includes field work, public 

scoping, analysis, draft disclosure of the effects of the project on the environment, public 

comment, final analysis and disclosure, decision, and potentially administrative appeals and 

litigation. Gate 2 activities must be completed before a sale is awarded. Legislation, policy 

changes, and appeals and litigation have recently extended completion of some projects, 

often doubling the desired time frame.

Gate 3 – Preparation of a Timber Sale_________________

During this step, the information and direction included in the decision document from 

Gate 2 is used to layout units and design roads on the ground. Additional site-specific 

information is collected at this time. In order to maintain an orderly flow of sales, Gate 3 

activities need to be complete before a sale is advertised.

Gate 4 – Advertise a Timber Sale_____________________

The costs and value associated with the timber sale designed in Gate 3 are appraised and 

packaged in a timber sale contract. The contract is a legally binding document that tells a 

prospective timber sale purchaser how the sale must be harvested to conform to the project 

decision document. This step occurs during the final year of the project development and 

culminates with the advertisement of the project for sale.

Gate 5 – Bid Opening______________________________

Gate 5 is completed with the opening of bids for the project. If a bid is submitted, 

contractual provisions govern when the award of the sale takes place, when the sale will be 

completed (contract length and operation season), and how timber removal is to occur.

Gate 6 – Award a Timber Sale Contract_______________

Gate 6 is the formal designation of a contract between a bidder and the Forest Service.
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 11

How Does the Forest Service Maintain an Orderly and 

Predictable Timber Sale Program? 

Pools of Timber (Pipeline Volume)____________________

As discussed earlier, the Forest Service tracks the accomplishment of the different steps of 

development of each timber sale with the Gate System (Forest Service Handbook 2409.18).

From a timber sale program standpoint, it is also necessary to track and manage multiple 

projects as they move through the Gate System. Because of the timeframes needed to 

accomplish a given timber sale and the complexities inherent in timber sale project and 

program development, it is necessary to track various timber sale program volumes from 

Gate 1 through Gate 6.

The goal of the Tongass National Forest is to provide an even flow of timber sale offerings 

on a sustained-yield basis to meet market demand. In recent years, this has been difficult to 

accomplish due to a combination of uncertainties such as delays related to appeals and 

litigation; changing economic factors, such as rapid market fluctuations; and industryrelated factors, such as changes in timber industry processing capabilities. To achieve an 

even flow of timber sale offerings, ‘pools’ of volume in various stages of the Gate System 

are maintained so volume offered can be balanced against current year demand and market 

cycle projections.

Today, upward trends in demand are resolved by moving out-year timber projects forward, 

which may leave later years not capable of meeting the needs of the industry. In other 

instances, a number of new projects are started based on today’s market but will not be 

available for a number of years. By the time the added projects are ready for offer, the 

market and demand for this volume may have changed. Three pools of timber volume are 

tracked to achieve an even flow of timber sale offerings.

The objective of the timber pools concept is to maintain sufficient volume in preparation 

and under contract to be able to respond to yearly fluctuations in a timely manner. Table A2 displays the current estimated volume in each pool, as well as the goal which the Tongass 

has established for the volume to be maintained in each pool, based on historic patterns.

Appeals and litigation can cause timber sale projects to be reevaluated, which can cause 

delays in making projects available to move through the pools, thereby not fully meeting 

the goals for volumes in each pool.

Pool 1 - Timber Volume Under Analysis (Gate 1 and Gate 2)_____

Volume in Gate 1, the initial planning step, represents a large amount of volume, but 

represents a relatively low investment in each project. This relatively low investment level 

offers the timber program manager a higher degree of flexibility and thus, does not greatly 

influence the flow of volume through the pipeline. A signed Project Plan (FSH 2409.18, 

Chapter 20) is the completion of this gate.

Gate 2, timber volume under environmental analysis, includes sales being analyzed and 

undergoing public comment through the NEPA process. This pool includes any project that 

has started the scoping process through those projects ready to have a decision issued. In 

addition, tracking how much volume is involved in appeals or litigation may be necessary 
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 12 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

to determine possible effects on the flow of potential timber sales. A signed NEPA decision 

(FSH 2409.18, Chapter 30) is the completion of this gate. Volume affected by appeals and 

litigation is tracked as a subset of this pool (Table A-3). 

Based on historic patterns, the Tongass has established a goal for the pipeline volume to be 

maintained in each of the timber pools. The goal for Pool 1 is to be maintained at 

approximately 4.5 times the amount of the projected harvest to account for projects at 

various stages of analysis. That goal reflects a number of factors which can lead to a 

decrease in volume available, such as a decision in Gate 1 to drop further analysis in a 

particular planning area (called the “no go” decision), a falldown in estimated volume 

between Gate 1 and Gate 2, and volume not available for harvest due to appeals or 

litigation.

Pool 2 - Timber Volume Available for Sale (Gates 3, 4, and 5)____

Timber volume available for sale includes sales for which environmental analysis has been 

completed, and have had any administrative appeals and litigation resolved. Enough 

volume in this pool is needed to be maintained to be able to schedule future sale offerings 

of the size and configuration that best meets market needs in an orderly manner. Although 

projects may meet the above criteria, sales may not be offered if they appraise deficit or if 

changed circumstances would affect the ability to offer them. Whether a sale offering 

appraises deficit may change over time depending on the market and other factors. Also, 

some projects are either designed for small sales, or otherwise slated for small sales, if that 

determination was made as part of an informal appeal resolution or as part of a project’s 

decision. 

The amount of volume to be offered as small sales is based on a determination of the need 

of mills in the vicinity of the project area. Also taken into consideration is the amount of 

volume under contract.

As a matter of policy and sound business practice, the Forest Service announces probable 

future sale offerings through the Periodic Timber Sale Announcement. Delays at Gate 2 

have affected sale preparation (Gate 3) and have made scheduling of sales uncertain. At 

Gate 4, sales have been fully prepared and appraised, and are available to managers to 

advertise for sale. This allows potential purchasers an opportunity to do their own 

evaluations of these offerings to determine whether to bid, and if so, at what level.

Timber in this pool can include a combination of new sales, previously offered unsold 

sales, and remaining volume from cancelled sales. The goal is to maintain Pool 2 at 

approximately 1.3 times the amount of the projected harvest to allow flexibility in offering 

sales.

Pool 3 - Timber Volume Under Contract (Gate 6) ______________

Timber volume under contract contains sales that have been sold and a contract awarded to 

a purchaser, but which have not yet been fully harvested. Contract length is based on the 

amount of timber in the sale, the current timber demand, and the accessibility of the area for 

mobilization. The longer the contract period, the more flexibility the operator has to remove 

the timber based on market fluctuations. Timber contracts typically initially give the 

purchaser 3 years to harvest and remove the timber purchased; however, they can be 
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 13

extended under certain circumstances, such as inoperable periods of weather, injunctions, 

and other contractual delays.

The Tongass attempts to maintain roughly 3 years of unharvested volume under contract to 

the industry as a whole. This volume of timber is the industry’s dependable timber supply, 

which allows adaptability for business decisions. This practice is not limited to the Alaska 

Region, but is particularly pertinent to Alaska because of the nature of the land base. The 

relative absence of roads, the island geography, the steep terrain, and the consequent 

isolation of much of the timber land means that timber purchasers need longer-than-average 

lead times to plan operations, stage equipment, set up camps, and construct roads prior to 

beginning harvest.

A combination of projected harvest and projected demand is used to estimate the volume 

needed to maintain an even-flow timber sale program. As purchasers harvest timber, they 

deplete the volume under contract. Timber harvest is then planned and offered by the 

agency as sales that give the industry the opportunity to replace this volume and build or 

maintain their working inventory. Although there will be variation for practical reasons 

from year to year, in the long-run over both the high points and low points of the market 

cycle, the volume harvested will equal the timber volume sold, excluding cancelled sales.

The goal for Pool 3, volume under contract, is to maintain timber volume at approximately 

three times the amount of annual projected harvest. This allows the purchasers to have a 

continuous supply of timber volume available for harvest so they can plan their operations 

and be flexible to allow for weather conditions and market fluctuations.
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 14 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Table A-2. Accomplishments in Gate System and Timber Pools (MMBF)

Pipeline Pool Volume 2012 Goal FY 12

Pool 1 

Volume Under Analysis 

(Gate 1 and 2) 

571 1 270 to 480 2

Pool 2 

Volume Available for Sale

(Gate 3, Gate 4 and Gate 5)

165 3 10 4

Pool 3 

Volume Under Contract 

 (Gate 6)

381 5 104 6

1 The goal for volume under analysis is approximately 4.5 times the projected harvest for the current year (using 127 MMBF 

for the 2012 timber demand based on expanded lumber scenario). 2 Volume under analysis includes all timber volume in projects with a completed project plan (Gate 1) through completion 

of the environmental analysis (Gate 2). This figure includes about 4 MMBF of young-growth and stewardship projects. 3 The goal for volume available for sale is to have at least 1.3 times the projected harvest for the current year (based on 127

MMBF) in sales that have approved NEPA and completion of timber sale preparation.

4 Although the NEPA-cleared volume is 172 MMBF, most of this is not available for a sale offering except for small sales 

(57.9 MMBF). The estimated volume that is not available is either considered deficit at this time (70.7 MMBF) or affected 

by the reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless Rule (67.2 MMBF). This figure does include volume involved with on-going 

litigation – see Table A3. 5

The goal for volume under contract is for purchasers to have three times the volume under contract (based on 127 MMBF). 6 Estimated volume under contract available for harvest as of December 2012 (from USDA Forest Service Timber 

Management public website; the Internet address is provided in reference section at the end of this appendix). 

How Appeals and Litigation Affect the Timber Sale 

Program

Timber harvest projects require site-specific environmental analysis that usually is 

documented in an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement 

(EIS). The public is notified of the analysis and is provided the opportunity to comment on 

proposals and file an appeal on decisions. The administrative appeal process for most 

timber harvest projects takes up to 105 days before implementation to occur.

When decisions are appealed and affirmed through the administrative appeal process, the 

project can still be litigated. Although litigation does not always preclude offering timber 

for sale, the Forest Service and potential purchasers are often reluctant to enter into a 

contract where the outcome is uncertain. Recently, sales were enjoined from harvest after 

the contracts were awarded. Since litigation can be a lengthy process, litigation can also 

affect the Forest’s ability to provide a reliable timber supply. Often with an unfavorable 

decision, the court will vacate the project’s decision requiring more environmental analysis 

to occur. 

Table A-3. Timber Volume Involved in Appeals and/or Litigation1

Timber volume with decision reversed on appeals 2 72.8 MMBF

Timber volume involved with current litigation 109.5 MMBF 1 As of February 2012. 2 Decision overturned during internal review.
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 15

How Does The Forest Service Decide Where Timber 

Harvest Projects Should Be Located?

Forest Plan Land Use Designations________________

The location of timber sale projects is based first on the land allocation decisions in the 

Forest Plan. Under the Forest Plan, lands designated for possible timber harvest are in the 

development land use designations (LUDs), primarily the Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs.

Timber Resource Land Suitability_________________

The second consideration is the suitability of the land for timber production. Many acres 

within the development LUDs are not suitable for timber production due to non-forest 

vegetation, poor soils or steep slopes. The process for determining the suitability of the land 

is found in the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment, Appendix A. Figure A-2 depicts the 

classification of all the lands within the Tongass National Forest. For the Forest Plan 

Amendment analysis, four percent of the Tongass land base or 663,000 acres is the suitable, 

available and scheduled forest land, which provides the land base for the allowable sale 

quantity of 267 MMBF per year. Under the 2008 Forest Plan, the remainder of the land, 

approximately 96 percent, is not physically suitable, does not allow timber harvest, or is not 

scheduled.
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 16 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Figure A-2. 2008 Forest Plan Timber Resource Suitability Analysis

Non-Forest land – Land that has never supported forests, e.g. muskeg, rock, ice, etc.

Withdrawn Lands – Lands designated by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or Chief for purposes that preclude timber 

harvest, e.g. Wilderness Areas.

Non-productive Forest – Forest land not capable of producing commercial wood on a sustained yield basis.

Productive Forest, Not suitable, Physical Attributes – Forest land unsuitable for timber due to physical attributes (steep 

slopes, soils, etc.) and/or inadequate information to ensure restocking of trees within five years of final harvest.

Productive Forest, Not Suitable, Non-development LUD – Productive forest lands where timber production is not allowed 

due to Forest Plan land use designation, e.g. Semi-Remote Recreation, Old-growth Habitat, etc.

Productive Forest, Suitable and Available, Scheduled – Forest land that meets all the criteria for timber production 

suitability and is available and is scheduled by the Forest Plan over the planning horizon.

Productive Forest Suitable and Available Unscheduled – Forest land that meets all the criteria for timber production 

suitability, is available for harvest, however was not scheduled in the Forest Plan model for harvest includes the model 

implementation reduction factor (MIRF) acreage of 226, 000 acres.

Non-Forest land

41%

Withdrawn lands

25%

Non-Productive Forest

14%

Productive Forest -

Not suitable

6%

Productive Forest 

Suitable and Available 

- Unscheduled 2%

Productive Forest 

Suitable and Available 

-

Scheduled 4%

Productive Forest 

Non-Development 

LUD

8%
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 17

District-level Planning__________________________

The Forest Supervisor for the Tongass National Forest is responsible for the overall 

management of the Forest’s timber sale program. Included within these responsibilities is 

making the determination on the amount of timber volume to be made available to industry.

Whether or not sufficient funding is appropriated to attain the program is the responsibility 

of the Congress and the President.

District Rangers develop a timber sale plan of potential timber harvest projects. The goal of 

the plan is to attain the targeted offer level for the current year, based on the estimated 

annual market demand, and to develop a timber program for several years of the planning 

cycle. The offer level for the current year is based, to the extent possible, on the forecasted 

annual market demand. Actual demand may fluctuate from year to year due to short-term 

market fluctuations. Actual offer levels vary year to year depending on several factors, 

including volume in Gates 2 through 3, and current market conditions.

The District Ranger is responsible for identifying and recommending the project areas for 

the 5-Year Timber Sale Plan. The Ranger’s role is to develop and recommend to the Forest 

Supervisor timber harvest projects that meet Forest Plan goals and objectives. Districts 

work on various timber sale projects simultaneously, resulting in continual movement of 

projects through the stages of the timber program pipeline. This schedule allows the 

necessary time to complete preliminary analysis, resource inventories, environmental 

documentation, field layout preparations and permit acquisition, appraisal of timber 

resource values, advertisement of sale characteristics for potential bidders, bid opening, and 

physical award of the timber sale. Project delays through the completion of Gate 2 

attributable to legal injunctions and litigation have affected the offer level in recent years.

Once all of the Rangers’ recommendations are made and compiled into a consolidated 

schedule, the Forest Supervisor is responsible for the review and approval of the final 

timber sale plan and prioritization of projects as necessary.

Considerations the District Ranger takes into account for each project include:

 If the project area contains a sufficient number of suitable timber production acres 

allocated to development land use designations. Consideration includes if the timber 

volume being considered for harvest can be achieved while meeting Forest Plan 

goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines.

 Other resource uses and potential future uses of the area and of adjacent areas and of 

non-National Forest System lands.

 Areas where the investment necessary for project infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) is 

achievable with the estimated value of timber volume in the project area. Where 

infrastructure already exists, such as the Big Thorne project area, the sale would 

allow any maintenance and upgrade of the facilities necessary for removal of timber 

volume.

 Areas where investments for the project coincide with long-term management based 

on Forest Plan direction. 

The implementation of the sales on the timber sale plan depends in part on the final budget 

appropriation to the agency. In the event insufficient budget is allocated, or resolution of 
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 18 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

pending litigation or other factors delay planned sales, timber sale projects are selected and 

implemented on a priority basis. Generally, the higher-priority projects include sales where 

investments such as road networks, camps or log transfer facilities have already been 

established or where land management status is not under dispute. The distribution of sales 

across the Tongass is also taken into account to distribute the effects of sales and to provide 

sales in proximity to timber processing facilities. Timber sale projects scheduled for the 

current year that are not implemented, or the remaining volume of projects that are only 

partially implemented, are shifted to future years in the plan. The sale plan becomes very 

dynamic in nature due to the number of influences on each district.

Conclusion

There is a long legislative recognition that timber harvest is one of the appropriate activities 

on national forests, starting with the founding legislation for national forests in 1897. The 

Organic Administration Act provides that national forests may be established “to improve 

and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable 

conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and 

necessities of the citizens of the United States.”

Congress’ policy for national forests, as stated in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 

1960, is “the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” Accordingly, 

Congress has authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to sell trees and forest products from 

the national forests “at no less than appraised value.” The National Forest Management Act 

directs that forest plans shall “provide for multiple use and sustained yield, and in 

particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, 

fish and wilderness.” ANLICA provided for timber harvest from the Tongass as well as 

other uses such as subsistence. Effects on subsistence resources from timber harvest 

Tongass-wide are projected to have few differences based on the sequence in which areas 

are harvested. Because of the multiple use mandate and other requirements of the laws, 

these effects to subsistence are necessary, consistent with sound management of public 

lands. 

In addition to nationwide statutes, Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act directs 

the Forest Service to seek to meet market demand for timber from the Tongass, subject to 

certain qualifications. It is the goal of the Tongass National Forest to provide an even-flow 

of timber on a sustained-yield basis and in an economically efficient manner. The amount 

of timber offered for sale each year is based on the objective of offering enough volume for 

sale to meet the projected annual demand. That annual demand projection starts with 

installed mill capacity, and then looks to industry rate of capacity utilization under different 

market scenarios, the volume under contract, and a number of other factors, including 

anticipated harvest and the range of expected timber purchases.

As described by Morse (April 2000), in terms of short-term economic consequences, 

oversupplying the market is less damaging than undersupplying it. If more timber is offered 

than purchased in a given year, the unsold volume is still available for re-offer in future 

years. The unsold volume would have no environmental effects because it would not be 
Appendix A

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix A ▪ 19

harvested. Conversely, a short fall in the supply of timber can be financially devastating to 

the industry.

References

Alexander, S. 2008. Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Procedures: Using Updated

Information about Market Demand to Schedule FY 2006 Timber Offerings. USDA 

Forest Service Region 10, Juneau AK. 10 p. On file with: Regional Economist, Alaska 

Region, PO Box 21628, Juneau AK 99802.

Brackley, A.M.; Rojas, T.D.; Haynes, R.W. 2006. Timber products output and timber 

harvests in Alaska: projections for 2005-25. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-677. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 33 p.

Brackley, A.M. and Haynes, R.W. 2008. Timber Products Output and Timber Harvests in 

Alaska: An Addendum. Res. Note PNW-RN-559. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Brooks, D.J.; Haynes, R.W. 1997. Timber products output and timber harvests in Alaska: 

projections for 1997-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-409. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p.

Morse, K.S. 2000a. Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber: Using Adaptive 

Management to Implement Sec. 101 of the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. April 

2000. Manag. Bull. R10-MB-413. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Alaska Region. 43 p.

Morse, K.S. 2000b. Tongass National Forest timber sale procedures: Using Information 

About Market Demand to Schedule FY2001 Timber Sale Offerings. October 2000. On 

file with: Regional Economist, Ecosystem Planning. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 17 p.

USDA Forest Service, 2008a, Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision, January 2008.

USDA Forest Service, 2008b, Forest Plan, January 2008.

USDA Forest Service, 2008c, Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, January 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau, 

Alaska: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass 

National Forest. R10-MB-481a.

USDA Forest Service. Alaska Region website, Resource Management, Tongass Five Year 

Timber Sale Plan (2011-2015).

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r10/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev2

_038785 (accessed February 10, 2012).
Appendix A

Appendix A ▪ 20 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B

UNIT CARD INTRODUCTION
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 1

Appendix B 

Unit Card Introduction

The unit cards in Volumes III, IV, and V are presented in numerical order and include 

maps and narratives describing site-specific information about each unit, activities 

proposed within each unit, the silvicultural prescription and any unit-specific resource 

concerns and protection or mitigation measures related to those concerns. For units that 

vary in shape, prescription, or logging system by alternative, the unit card text is specific 

to each alternative. Because of the many differences among the alternatives and the fact 

that often a subject unit is constant among alternatives, but adjacent units shown on the 

map are not, an individual map is provided for each action alternative that includes the 

subject unit. In the Big Thorne project, most of the economic, wildlife, and watershed 

concerns are mitigated through the allocation of units among alternatives and through the 

selection of the silvicultural system or harvest prescription. Other resource concerns, such 

as soils, scenery, and fisheries, are mitigated by unit design and adherence to Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines and best management practices (BMPs). 

The unit card narratives and maps, in combination with Final EIS, the resource reports and 

GIS map layers, would be used during the implementation process to ensure that all 

aspects of the project are implemented within applicable standards and guidelines. Some 

adjustments to the prescription or changes to unit boundaries can be expected during 

implementation as needed to better meet specific on-site resource management and 

protection objectives. The Responsible Official will determine if the changes warrant 

additional analysis and a supplement to this EIS.

We expect that changes between the draft and final phases of the EIS will occur to 

respond to comments as well as to respond to new information gathered during any 

additional field reconnaissance and scientific review. 

The following text describes the layout of the unit cards and provides general information 

on the harvest treatments and resource components of the unit cards. This information is 

important to consider in conjunction with the more specific information provided on the 

cards. Additionally, this introduction to the unit cards is designed to provide specific 

direction regarding the implementation of the project that pertains to certain circumstances 

that occur across multiple units. Rather than repeat this information on each individual 

unit card the direction for that circumstance is provided here. For example under Evenaged systems within the Harvest systems and Silvicultural Systems section below, the 

direction for mitigating windthrow along harvest opening edges is provided once rather 

than being repeated in each individual unit card text. This direction applies to all units

being proposed for even-aged management. 

Unit Card Header Information 

Each unit card has a header block with information used to generally describe the stand’s 

size, location, and volume proposed for harvest. Each header block contains the following 

information: 

Unit Number: This is the number assigned to identify the unit.
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 2 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Alternatives: This identifies the alternative(s) in which the unit is proposed.

Total Unit Acres: This is an estimate of total acres within the unit using aerial photos and 

GIS information. These numbers have been rounded. 

Net Harvest Volume (MBF): This is the estimated volume in thousand board feet, 

available for harvest in the unit as determined from field estimates and stand examination 

plots. 

VCU Number: The value comparison unit (VCU) the proposed harvest area falls 

predominantly within. 

Land Use Designation (LUD): The land use designation or designations the proposed 

harvest unit falls within: Modified Landscape (ML), Scenic Viewshed (SV) and Timber 

Production (TM). 

Harvest System: The method by which the timber is planned to be removed or yarded 

from the unit. 

Prescription: The silvicultural system and regeneration method proposed for the unit.

Harvest Treatments and Silvicultural Systems

Silvicultural systems refer to a complete set of treatments used to manage forest stands 

and forest landscapes over long periods of time. This process includes the harvest or 

regeneration of the stand, intermediate cuttings, and other treatments necessary for the 

development and replacement of the forest stand. Silvicultural systems are applied 

through prescriptions, the written records of the examination, diagnosis, and treatment 

regimes prescribed for the stand. The final prescriptions, including detailed sale layout 

and marking instructions for any harvest units will be completed at the time of the Record 

of Decision for the FEIS. The project record for the DEIS currently contains a draft 

Region 10 Silvicultural diagnosis and prescription worksheet that documents the existing 

condition within each proposed harvest unit and the silvicultural prescription options

available to meet alternative objectives. 

Each unit card contains a narrative summarizing any concerns, recommendations, BMP’s,

and/or mitigations. The silviculture section contains a synopsis of the existing condition, 

desired condition and the planned prescription to move the stand from the existing to the 

desired condition. The existing condition text documents stand-specific information such 

as stand structure, insect, disease and defect ratings and windthrow risk. These ratings are 

for the unit as a whole. Specific portions of the unit may vary from the overall ratings. In 

some instances the windthrow discussion in Fisheries section, which is specific to riparian 

management areas (RMAs), may differ from the overall unit rating. The additional detail 

provided for RMAs is necessary for determining reasonable assurance of wind firmness 

(RAW) requirements along certain streams. 

Individual unit card maps display harvest plans by alternative. Three symbols denote 

what parts of the original planned unit are to be harvested and by what method. Within 

old-growth units light grey indicates helicopter yarding and dark grey indicates either 

cable or shovel yarding. Helicopter, shovel or cable yarding areas will either be harvested 

under an even-aged regeneration system utilizing the clear cut method or by the uneven-
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 3

aged regeneration system utilizing the single tree or group selection method. Areas 

planned for uneven-aged management are denoted on the unit card maps with a tree 

symbol which is indicated in the map legend as “partial cut”. Helicopter, shovel or cable 

yarding areas not indicated as “partial cut” are planned for clear cutting. 

Sometimes portions of the original reconnaissance area are not scheduled for harvest. 

These areas are typically where standards and guidelines exclude timber harvest from 

specific ground conditions to assure the conservation of certain resources within what 

would otherwise be areas available for harvest. Unsuitable soils and riparian management 

areas are examples. These areas must be excluded from harvest regardless of alternative

because they physically have been determined unsuitable for harvest. In other cases 

certain portions of units are excluded from harvest to achieve management objectives 

required by standards and guidelines although the timber is otherwise suitable for harvest. 

Legacy and visual buffers are representations and actual implementation may vary but 

will meet the same objectives. In these areas there are generally no physical circumstances 

that preclude harvest however they may be planned to coincide with or expand on such 

areas if the opportunity exists. Legacy and visual buffer areas are generally more flexible 

in how they are located within the unit as long as they achieve their design objectives. 

In some cases portions of originally planned units have been deferred from timber harvest 

although there are no restrictions to harvest noted on the unit card map. These areas are 

denoted by white or no shading. There are two common circumstances resulting in the 

deferral of these areas. First is where portions of the original unit where found during unit 

reconnaissance to have timber with volume and or value that obviously would not support 

the cost of logging. These areas are usually muskeg inclusions or low volume-high defect

cedar areas where poor drainage restricts tree growth. These areas typically have a 

merchantable sawlog volume of less than 8 mbf /acre, which is considered as unsuitable 

timber. In other instances portions of units or entire units have been deferred from harvest 

in an alternative to meet the specific design criteria or mitigations. An example would be 

where a wildlife travel corridor is maintained between two harvest areas in Alternative 4. 

Even-aged Systems (Clearcut) 

An even-aged system produces stands that consist of trees of the same or nearly the same 

age. A stand is even-aged if the range in tree ages normally does not exceed 20 percent of 

the rotation age (the age at which the stand is harvested). Stands would not be reentered 

for a regeneration cut until the next rotation in approximately 100 years. The regeneration 

method chosen to achieve even-aged management is clearcutting. Where this treatment is 

recommended, it has been determined that it is optimal for the site. 

Even though all or a majority of the merchantable trees within a unit would be harvested 

by clearcutting, merchantable-sized trees are often retained within the unit for resource 

protection requirements. These may include stream buffers along unit boundaries or those 

that protrude into units and visual buffers. Reasonable assurance of windfirmness (RAW) 

buffers may also be applied to unit edges and stream or visual buffers that are determined 

to be at risk for wind damage after harvest. In addition, 30 percent of the proposed 

opening may be retained in patches or large groups of trees within the unit boundary for 
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 4 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

the purpose of retaining legacy forest structure in VCUs where legacy is required by the 

Forest Plan (see below). 

Justification for the use of even-aged systems are: (1) the control of disease such as 

hemlock dwarf mistletoe, (2) minimize the effects of windthrow and logging damage, and 

(3) the creation of conditions favorable for regeneration of Sitka spruce, Alaska yellowcedar and western red cedar (Forest Plan, p 4-71 and 4-72). 

General Direction Regarding the location of Even-aged 

Management Unit Boundaries:

Design units approximately as shown on the unit card map with adjustments as needed to 

make boundaries reasonably wind firm. For example, bring unit boundaries to the edges 

of existing young-growth or muskeg and to the lee side of a ridgeline where possible. 

Avoid sharp points, dips or other deviations in the unit boundary in areas exposed to 

southerly winds particularly where high wind risk timber types occur. Review the planned 

unit design with the district Silviculturist prior to layout to help identify problem areas. 

Where wind firm edges cannot be located and resources are at risk external to the unit 

boundary, review for RAW needs. Interdisciplinary review of RAW zones as described in 

the fish/watershed section on the unit card or otherwise identified along boundaries should 

occur at the time of layout to determine the RAW zone prescriptions. The presale lead for 

the unit should notify the IDT when preliminary boundaries have been located. At that 

time the IDT will review boundary locations in the field and determine the appropriate 

RAW zones and the harvest prescriptions. 

NFMA regulations state that 100 acres is the maximum size of created openings allowed 

for the forest types of coastal Alaska, unless exempted under specific conditions. For the 

purpose of identifying a created opening size and what constitutes a break between evenaged openings the Forest Plan requires that leave strips between openings be of sufficient 

size to be managed as a separate stand or at least 10 acres. Where leave areas are required 

to reduce the size of an opening, avoid the isolation of suitable timber by leaving an 

economically operable setting where possible. Riparian management areas may also be

used to constitute a break in unit size if they are at least 10 acres in size. . Past even-aged 

harvest areas with adequately restocked regeneration approximately 5 feet tall are no 

longer considered openings for the purpose of determining the 100 acre size limit.

Exceptions to individual units to the 100 acre size limit have specific text regarding that 

determination on the individual unit card. 

General Direction Regarding the Implementation of the Legacy 

Forest Structure Standard and Guideline:

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. In these VCUs, harvest units with openings larger than 20 acres are 

required to leave 30 percent of the original unit opening size in legacy forest structure. 

Structure left inside of the unit for other resource concerns, excluding Tongass Timber 

Reform Act (TTRA) buffers, can be counted towards the 30 percent retention requirement 

(Forest Plan, page 4-90). VCUs with legacy requirements are identified by the Forest 
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 5

Plan. Out of the 15 VCUs with proposed harvest in the Big Thorne project area, 7 VCUs 

have legacy requirements; these are VCUs 5790, 5810, 5830, 5840, 5850, 5860, and 5972. 

The original unit boundary is defined as the planned boundary of the unit (from the 

logging system and transportation analysis (LSTA)) prior to field verification. After field 

verification, however, the standard and guideline states that structure left within units for 

other resources can meet the 30 percent retention requirement as long as the structure is 

not within a TTRA buffer mapped during the LSTA and is representative of the existing 

old-growth stand characteristics of the unit, including age, size class, species composition 

and structural components. The acreage requirements of legacy are stated for each unit in 

the Silviculture text section of each unit card along with the number of acres that are 

shown on the unit card map for comparison. The planned legacy locations typically 

coincide with areas having other resource concerns such as unsuitable soils and riparian 

management areas. Each individual unit card text will state what other resource concerns

the legacy placement should coincide with to best meet the objectives of the alternative 

design. The final location of legacy within harvest units can be adjusted from what is 

planned on the unit card maps if a more favorable design is identified during 

implementation. 

Per Forest Plan direction legacy acres must remain indefinitely after harvest and shall be 

tracked as reserve areas through the life of the next stand.

Uneven-aged Management

Uneven-aged management maintains or creates a stand with trees of three or more distinct 

age (size) classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups. Trees may be removed 

individually, or in small groups or strips generally 2 acres or less in area. There is no final 

rotation age as in even-aged or two-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 maintains a stand with relatively 

consistent tree cover of high structural diversity due to the high variability in tree sizes 

and individual tree characteristics. This remaining structure generally provides more 

diverse wildlife habitat than other regeneration systems and also reduces the visual 

impacts of the harvest area. The timber production 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. 

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 as well as facilitate the use of unevenaged management needed to meet scenery objectives. Uneven-aged management would be 

achieved by leaving approximately either 50 or 75 percent of the setting pretreatment 

basal area, based on standing live trees left uncut. Intermediate trees would also be 

retained, and canopy gaps created would allow for increased understory regeneration. 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 
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 6 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

with wildlife or visual concerns, but not requiring the higher level of retention. Future 

entries would continue the process of developing additional age classes. 

Group selection is used in units where uneven-aged management is the preferred 

prescription to meet alternative objectives, 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 (shovel and cable yarding) 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. When shovel yarding is used with uneven-aged management, 

swing corridors would be used to allow room for the equipment to operate. Size and 

distribution of corridors would be dependent on the terrain and road locations. When 

cable yarding is used with uneven-aged management, cable yarding would be conducted 

using yarding corridors. 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. Uneven-aged management would be achieved by leaving 

approximately 67 percent of the setting acreage unharvested. Intermediate trees would 

also be retained, and canopy gaps created would allow for increased understory 

regeneration. 

Commercial Thinning in Young Growth

Commercial thinning is proposed for 50-year-old and older young-growth stands under 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. The most important thing to consider is that contrary to old 

growth, young-growth stands are growing and changing rapidly. In most cases thinning 

treatment are not expected to be implemented for 5-10 years in order to allow these stands 

to continue to grow. Thinning is being proposed and evaluated now based on the analysis 

of current data projected forward in time to the expected thinning date using growth 

modeling. It is expected that additional timber inventory will occur in these stands prior to 

them being actually thinned. Marking guidelines covering the specifics of the treatment, 

such as tree spacing and species to favor for retention will be refined at that time based on 

the most up to date stand data. 

Young-growth Silvicultural Objective/Desired Condition

Young-growth treatment objectives and desired conditions vary with regard to the position 

of a unit on the landscape. For example, greater emphasis would be given to improving

forage production, in addition to improving stand growth/productivity, for a unit in deer 

winter range, compared to a unit located at higher elevation, above winter range. These 

treatment objectives and desired conditions are intended to influence treatment outcomes 

within the overarching LUD goals, objectives, and desired conditions defined by the 

Forest Plan. 

The majority of the project area young-growth was categorized into landscape zones by 

the Prince of Wales Island Young Growth Thinning Treatment Options reports (Tetra 

Tech and Stuntzner Engineering/Forestry, 2011a and 2011b). Portions of the project area 

not categorized in that study were categorized under the Big Thorne project. 
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 7

The landscape zone(s) for each young-growth unit are identified on the unit cards along 

with a short statement of the management objective. More detailed descriptions of the 

management objectives are provided below.

Deer Winter Range: The management goal of young-growth treatments in this landscape 

zone is to manage for a sustained yield, even flow of an industrial wood supply while 

improving wildlife habitat in treated stands during the suitable timber base rotation. 

Particular emphasis would be given to improving deer winter range conditions. 

Treatments would improve growth and productivity, improve forest health, and promote 

forest stand conditions that will provide a diverse array of marketable forest products. 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. 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 across the landscape following the next rotation.

Uplands/Mountain Slopes: The management goal of young-growth treatments in this 

landscape zone is to manage for a sustained yield, even flow of an industrial wood supply, 

while meeting multiple resource objectives, wherever possible. Treatments would 

improve growth and productivity, improve forest health, and promote forest stand 

conditions that will provide a diverse array of marketable forest products. 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. 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.

Planned Treatments for Young Growth

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 or “strip” thin. 

There is a range of treatments that can be utilized within each of these types of thinning 

prescriptions depending upon the stand conditions at the time of the treatment and the 

location of the unit with respect to the landscape zones. 

Uniform Crown Thin: 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, as well as understory plant diversity and abundance;

 improve tree characteristics that promote windfirmness possibly allowing future 

partial harvests;

 reduce the effects of stem exclusion stage on wildlife winter forage and habitat;
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 8 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

 remove poor quality trees from the upper and middle crown to favor the best 

codominant and dominant trees; and

 provide a volume of merchantable product in a manner which is operationally and 

economically feasible.

Logging systems used for this treatment will be shovel and cable systems. The majority 

of the cable thinning will be uphill yarding with narrow skyline corridors cut to a width 

between 12 and 16 feet.

Systematic Strip Thin: 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 strips to increase light to 

the forest floor and promote crown expansion

 increase stand diversity by creating early seral conditions in cut strips

 provide a volume of merchantable product in a manner which is operationally and 

economically feasible

 remove poor quality codominant and dominant trees

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. Strip thinning will remove all merchantable trees within a 20 to 60 

foot wide corridor. The corridor width will depend on operational feasibility, visual 

concerns, and/or windthrow risk. Where visuals or windthrow are of concern, strips will 

be limited to a width of 20 feet. A 60 to 120 foot wide corridor will be retained between 

each harvested strip. The retention corridor will be thinned where operationally feasible. 

No more than 50 percent of the setting pretreatment basal area may be removed, including 

what occurs in the strips. Strip thinning will primarily be used in cable settings with 

downhill yarding that are unable to achieve full suspension.

Areas where uniform crown thinning and systematic strip thinning are proposed are 

shown on unit card maps. These areas will be refined in the future based on additional unit 

reconnaissance and timber inventory. Uniform crown thinning is the preferred treatment 

and should be applied wherever found feasible at that time. 

Timber/Logging 

This section of the unit card identifies the logging system(s) proposed for the unit in each 

alternative. It also identifies the proposed temporary or system roads to be used to access 

the unit in each alternative, along with the stored system roads to be reconstructed and the 

existing system roads to be used. Roads to be used for helicopter landings are also 

identified, where appropriate. Proposed and existing system roads are identified by road 

numbers shown on the unit card maps.

Log yarding practices are based on slope stability, soil disturbance, channel type, and 

stream class. Additional measures are taken to protect RMAs from possible disturbance 

associated with tree felling and yarding. Harvest activities near Class I, Class II, and Class 
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 9

III streams require that trees be felled away from the stream buffer and that trees yarded 

across Class III stream courses, where applicable, be fully suspended to minimize the 

exposure of mineral soil. Trees near Class IV streams are felled away from the stream 

whenever feasible and logging debris introduced into Class IV streams is removed. Class 

IV streams are treated as part of the hillside, under slope stability standards and 

guidelines. Suspension requirements are used to minimize soil erosion, mass movement,

and formation of new channels.

In addition, this section identifies if a unit is located in Phase 2 of the Timber Sale 

Program Adaptive Management Strategy (see Chapter 1). 

Engineering/Roads

Detailed information on required road construction and reconstruction is provided in this 

section, including road lengths for all roads and road numbers for proposed and existing 

system roads. Road numbers are shown on the maps.

Road construction and reconstruction will follow applicable BMPs during layout and 

construction work. In particular adhere to the following BMP's: 12.17, 13.11, 14.2, 14.3, 

14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.12, 14.17, and 14.18. 

Best Management Practices 

The following best management practices (BMPs) would be applied in order to protect 

water quality in the project area as specified in the Forest Plan. These BMPs apply 

whenever the situation warrants them. For example, BMP 12.5 applies to any units or 

roads that involve wetlands; BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, and 13.16 apply to any units and road

activities involving streams; BMPs 13.2, 13.9, 13.10 apply to all timber harvest units and 

log landings; BMPs 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11, 14.12, 

14.15, 14.17, 14.18, 14.19, 14.20, 14.22, and 14.24 apply to road construction, 

maintenance, and other activities, including quarries (as appropriate); BMPs 14.26 and 

14.27 apply to activities at existing LTFs; and BMPs 12.8, 12.17, 13.1, 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 

13.11, 13.12, 13.14, 13.17, and 13.18 apply in general to all timber sale planning and 

implementation activities. Many of the most relevant BMPs are cited on the unit cards or 

are cited elsewhere in this introduction, as appropriate. 

Watershed Management

BMP 12.5 (Wetland Identification, Evaluation, and Protection) – To identify wetland 

functions and value, and provide appropriate protection measures designed to avoid 

adverse hydrologic impacts.

BMP 12.6 (Riparian Area Designation and Protection) – To identify riparian areas and 

their associated management activities. 

BMP 12.6a (Buffer Design and Layout) – To design streamside buffers to meet objectives 

defined during the implementation of BMP 12.6. 

BMP 12.8 (Oil Pollution Prevention and Servicing/Refueling Operations) – To prevent 

contamination of surface and subsurface soil and water resources from spills of petroleum 

products.
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 10 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

BMP 12.17 (Revegetation of Disturbed Areas) – To provide ground cover to minimize 

soil erosion. 

Timber Management

BMP 13.1 (Timber Sale Planning) – To incorporate soil and water resource considerations 

into timber sale planning.

BMP 13.2 (Timber Harvest Design) – To incorporate site-specific soil and water resource 

considerations into integrated timber harvest unit design criteria.

BMP 13.3 (Designating Water Quality Protection Needs on Sale Area/Unit Release 

Maps) – Delineate the location of protection areas and ensure their recognition, proper 

consideration, and protection on the ground.

BMP 13.4 (Timber Sale Operating Schedule) - To ensure that erosion control and timing 

responsibilities are incorporated into the Operating Schedule.

BMP 13.5 (Identification and Avoidance of Unstable Areas) – To avoid triggering mass 

movements and resultant erosion and sedimentation by excluding unstable areas from 

timber harvest. 

BMP 13.9 (Determining Guidelines for Yarding Operations) – To select appropriate 

yarding systems and guidelines for protecting soil and water resources. 

BMP 13.10 (Log Landing Location and Design) – To design and construct landings to 

minimize soil erosion and water quality degradation.

BMP 13.11 (Scheduling and Enforcement of Erosion Control Measures During Timber 

Sale Operations) – To ensure that the Purchaser's operations are conducted according to 

the Timber Sale Contract with respect to soil and water resource protection. 

BMP 13.12 (Site Preparation) - Maintain sufficient ground cover to minimize soil erosion.

BMP 13.14 (Completion of Erosion Control for Unit Acceptance and Sale Closure) – To 

assure that the required erosion control work is completed before unit acceptance. 

BMP 13.16 (Stream Channel Protection – Implementation and Enforcement) – To provide 

the site-specific stream protection prescriptions consistent with objectives identified under 

BMPs 12.6 and 12.6a. Objectives may include the following: 

 Maintain the natural flow regime. 

 Provide for unobstructed passage of storm flows. 

 Maintain integrity of the riparian buffer to filter sediment and other pollutants. 

 Restore the natural course of any stream that has been diverted as soon as 

practicable. 

 Maintain natural channel integrity to protect aquatic habitat and other beneficial 

uses. 

 Prevent adverse changes to the natural stream temperature regime.

BMP 13.17 (Nonrecurring "C" Provisions For Soil and Water Quality Protection) – To 

insert nonrecurring (Special) "C" provisions into the Timber Sale Contract to protect soil 
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 11

and water resources, where standard "B" or "C" provisions do not apply or are inadequate 

to protect watershed values.

BMP 13.18 (Modification of the Timber Sale Contract) – To seek an Environmental 

Modification of the Timber Sale Contract if new circumstances or conditions indicate that 

the timber sale will cause irreparable damage to soil, water, or watershed values.

Transportation and Other Facilities Management

BMP 14.1 (Transportation Planning) – To assure soil and water resources are considered 

in transportation planning activities. 

BMP 14.2 (Location of Transportation Facilities) – To assure water resources protection 

measures are considered when locating roads and trails. 

BMP 14.3 (Design of Transportation Facilities) – To incorporate site-specific soil and 

water resource protection measures into the design of roads and trails. 

BMP 14.5 (Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan) – Develop erosion control plans for road 

or trail projects to minimize or mitigate erosion, sedimentation, and resulting water quality 

degradation prior to the initiation of construction and maintenance activities. Ensure 

compliance through effective contract administration and timely implementation of 

erosion control measures.

BMP 14.6 (Timing Restrictions for Construction Activities) – Minimize erosion potential 

by restricting the operating schedule and conducting operations during lower risk periods. 

BMP 14.7 (Measures to Minimize Mass Failures) – Minimize the chance and extent of 

road-related mass failures, including landslides and embankment slumps. 

BMP 14.8 (Measures to Minimize Surface Erosion) – Minimize the erosion from 

cutslopes, fillslopes, and the road surface, and consequently reduce the risk of sediment 

production. 

BMP 14.9 (Drainage Control to Minimize Erosion and Sedimentation) – Minimize the 

erosive effects of concentrated water flows from transportation facilities and the resulting 

degradation of water quality through proper design and construction of drainage control 

systems. 

BMP 14.10 (Pioneer Road Construction) – Minimize sediment production associated with 

pioneer road construction. 

BMP 14.11 (Timely Erosion Control Measures for Incomplete Projects) – Minimize 

erosion of and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete projects by completing 

erosion control work prior to seasonal or extended shutdowns. 

BMP 14.12 (Control of Excavation and Sidecast Material) – Minimize sedimentation 

from unconsolidated excavated and sidecast material caused by road construction, 

reconstruction, or maintenance. 

BMP 14.14 (Control of In-channel Operations) – Minimize stream channel disturbances 

and related sediment production. 
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 12 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

BMP 14.15 (Diversion of Flows Around Construction Sites) – Identify and implement 

diversion and de-watering requirements at construction sites to protect water quality and 

downstream uses. 

BMP 14.17 (Bridge and Culvert Design and Installation) – Minimize adverse impacts on 

water quality, stream courses, and fisheries resources from the installation of bridges, 

culverts, or other stream crossings. 

BMP 14.18 (Development and Rehabilitation of Gravel Sources and Quarries) – To 

minimize sediment from borrow pits, gravel sources, and quarries, and to limit channel 

disturbance from gravel sources permitted for development within floodplains. 

BMP 14.19 (Disposal of Construction Slash and Stumps) – To ensure that debris 

generated during construction is prevented from obstructing channels or encroaching on 

stream, and sensitive karst features.

BMP 14.20 (Road Maintenance) – Maintain all roads in a manner which provides for soil 

and water resources protection by minimizing rutting, road prism failures, sidecasting, and 

blockage of drainage facilities. 

BMP 14.22 (Access and Travel Management) – Control access and manage road use to 

reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation from road surface disturbance especially 

during the higher risk periods associated with high runoff and spring thaw conditions. 

BMP 14.24 (Road Obliteration) – Reduce sediment generated from temporary or shortterm roads and return the land to production by obliterating roads at the completion of 

their intended use.

BMP 14.26 (Daily LTF Cleanup) – Assure cleanup of bark, debris, or other solid 

materials daily when accumulations are present. Dispose of the materials in an acceptable 

manner, to prevent water quality degradation.

BMP 14.27 (Log Storage/Sort Yard Erosion Control) – To avoid generation of fine 

particles, and control the overland flow of particles carrying hazardous materials into 

waterways.

Botany

Sensitive or rare plant populations located either within units or within 50 meters (164

feet) of the unit are noted on the unit cards. Unit cards also include actions taken to avoid 

or mitigate effects to populations and a summary of direct and indirect impacts on 

sensitive and rare plants. The plant species potentially affected by one or more unit and 

listed on the cards include:

Sensitive Plants

Alaska Rein Orchid Piperia unalascensis

Lesser Round-leave Orchid Platanthera orbiculata

Rare Plants

Western Meadowrue Thalictrum occidentale

Lance Leaf Grapefern Botrychium lanceolatum
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 13

Invasive Species

A number of specific plant populations along roads near or within specific units have been 

targeted for treatment (hand-pulling) and/or monitoring, based on their limited distribution 

in the project area, potential for spread, and feasibility for treatment. These populations

are identified on specific unit or road? cards. Invasive species treatment information for 

the project area is found in the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment and the Invasive Species 

Resource Report in the project record.

Fisheries

All known streams are shown on the unit cards. These streams and any additional streams 

found during layout will be protected by the appropriate BMPs and Forest Plan Riparian 

Standards and Guidelines. Specific stream characteristics and related protections are 

summarized below. The type and level of stream protections and mitigation is based 

mainly on designated stream class and channel process group. Project-specific 

information (that has been field verified or obtained from the Forest Service geographic 

information system (GIS)) has been included for all streams in or adjacent to the units or

crossed by proposed access roads. Additional field reconnaissance continued while 

completing the DEIS. Further field reconnaissance will be completed before the FEIS and 

will be included for units and related roads selected in the final EIS.

Riparian Management Areas 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines direct the design of riparian management areas 

(RMAs) associated with each stream in the project area. 

RMAs vary in width from the edge of the stream channel according to channel type (Table 

A1-1) and stream value class. All Class I and Class II streams are protected from 

commercial timber harvest within a minimum horizontal distance of 100 feet from the 

bankfull margins. Depending on the channel type, RMA widths can be up to 140 feet wide 

on either side of some Class I, Class II, and Class III streams. RMAs adjacent to Class III 

streams are protected from commercial timber harvest, except along palustrine channel 

types. RMA widths on Class III streams are topographically delineated along channel 

types with steep side-slopes and are measured to set distances along other channel types. 

Unit card maps show the location of all streams and the associated RMAs. RMA widths 

for each Class I, Class II, and Class III streams are prescribed in the unit card narratives. 

Unit card narratives also identify those streams that will require a RAW buffer review 

during implementation; the RAW buffer will be identified by the ID Team during layout.

A grid system and a stream number is used to assist the reader in locating the stream. 

Where there is a windthrow and/or landslide rating, it is for the area adjacent to the 

stream. 

Road crossings described on the unit cards are for temporary roads only. System road 

crossings are discussed on the road cards. 
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 14 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Process Groups and Channel Types 

The Tongass National Forest defines stream channel types according to the Channel Type 

User Guide (Paustian et al.1992, Paustian and Kelliher 2010), the foundation upon which 

aquatic habitat management prescriptions are developed. Channel types are defined within 

the context of fluvial process groups that describe the interrelationship between watershed 

runoff, landform relief, geology, and glacial or tidal influences on fluvial erosion and 

deposition processes. Individual channel type classifications are defined by physical 

attributes such as channel gradient, channel width, channel pattern, stream bank incision 

and containment. Table A1-1 shows the Forest Plan codes used on the unit card narratives. 

See the Forest Plan, Figure D-1 (page D-4) for a visual representation of the typical 

distribution of channel process groups. Each unit card summarizes the protection for a 

particular unit. Only the channel types found in proposed timber harvest units are listed.

Table A1-1. Channel Types In or Adjacent to Proposed Harvest Units 

Process Group Channel Type 

(C-Type) Code Channel Type Description

Alluvial Fan AFM Moderate Gradient Alluvial Fan 

AFH High Gradient Alluvial Cone 

Floodplain FPS Small Flood Plain 

FPM Medium Flood Plain 

FPL Large Flood Plain 

High Gradient Contained HCLw High Gradient Low Incision, wetland phase 

HCL High Gradient Low Incision 

HCV High Gradient Upper Valley 

HCDw High Gradient Deep Incision, wetland 

phase

HCM High Gradient Moderate Incision 

HCD High Gradient Deep Incision 

Moderate Gradient Contained MCS Small Moderate Gradient Contained 

MCM Medium Moderate Gradient Contained 

MCL Large Moderate Gradient Contained

Moderate Gradient Mixed 

Control 

MMS Small Moderate Gradient Mixed Control 

MMM Medium Moderate Gradient Mixed Control 

Low Gradient Contained LCS Small Low Gradient Contained 

LCM Medium Low Gradient Contained 

Palustrine PAS Small Palustrine 

PAM Medium Palustrine 

PAB Beaver Dam/Pond 
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 15

Stream Value Classes 

The stream value class designations in the Tongass National Forest are based primarily on 

presence or absence of fish and fish type, and secondarily on stream morphology. The 

Forest Plan recognizes four stream classes based on the following criteria: 

Class I: Streams and lakes with anadromous or adfluvial fish or fish habitat; or high 

quality resident fish waters, or habitat above fish migration barriers known to be 

reasonable enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. 

Class II: Streams and lakes with resident fish or fish habitat and generally steep (6-25 

percent or higher) gradient (can also include streams with a 0-6 percent gradient) where 

no anadromous fish occur, and otherwise not meeting Class I criteria. 

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. For streams less than 30 percent 

gradient, special care is needed to determine if resident fish are present. 

Class IV: Other intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels with insufficient 

flow or sediment transport capabilities to have immediate influence on downstream water 

quality or fish habitat capability. Class IV streams do not have the characteristics of Class 

I, II, or III streams and have a bankfull width of at least 0.3 meter (1 foot). 

Stream Protection and Mitigation Actions by Stream Category

The following protections and mitigations will be applied by stream category as defined in 

BMP 13.3 to all streams designated by each category by harvest unit. 

Category A: These stream reaches are flagged with blue and white (B/W) candy striped 

flagging. Under the TTRA timber harvest shall not be within 100 feet of the stream 

channel and a Stream Course Protection Plan will be developed for that buffer. Additional 

AHMU buffers and selective harvest buffers may apply as specified in the specific Unit 

Card. Total no cut buffer is the sum of the no commercial and no programmed 

commercial harvest buffers.

Category B: These stream reaches are flagged with orange and white (O /W) candy 

striped flagging. Trees shall be felled in such a manner so that the direction of fall is away 

from the stream course. Trees or products shall not be hauled or yarded across the stream 

course unless fully suspended. Debris entering streams from harvest activities shall be 

removed. Additional AHMU buffers and selective harvest buffers may apply as specified 

in the specific Unit Card. Total no cut buffer equals the no programmed commercial 

harvest buffers.

Category C: These stream reaches are flagged with green and white (G /W) candy 

striped flagging. In so far as practicable, trees will be felled and yarded away from the 

stream course. Debris that enters the stream channel that may affect water quality or have 

potential for debris flows will be removed from the stream course.

Category A, B and C: All stream categories will implement BMPs 12.6, 12.6a, 13.9, 

13.14, and 13.16. In addition to road crossings, for all units with shovel logging, 

equipment crossing of streams must comply with BMP 13.9 and 13.16.
Appendix B

Appendix B ▪ 16 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Scenery 

The potential effects of timber harvest upon scenery within the Big Thorne project area 

were mitigated by design criteria recommended by the project landscape architects. 

Retention to meet the Forest Plan scenery objectives using uneven-aged management or 

visual buffers has been identified for a number of units, as specified in the Scenery 

concerns box on the unit card narratives. As noted in the Even-aged Systems (Clearcut) 

section, these buffers would be reviewed for windfirmness and a RAW buffer used, if 

necessary. During implementation, any units which may exceed the Scenic Integrity 

Objectives would be reviewed by the landscape architect and modified if necessary. The 

allowable seen opening size specific to each unit is stated within each unit card narrative

for units that have concerns. 

The following Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) from the Forest Plan provide standards 

for management based on the landscape’s scenic characteristics and public viewing 

concern. 

High SIO: “Design activities to not be visually evident to the casual observer” (Forest 

Plan, pg. 4-57). Activities may only repeat form, line, color and texture that are frequently 

found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, 

direction, pattern, etc. should not be evident. 

Moderate SIO: Management and design activities will be subordinate to the landscape 

character of the area. Changes in the landscape may be evident to the casual observer but 

appear as natural occurrences when contrasted with the appearance of the surrounding 

landscape. 

Low SIO: Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic landscape. 

Activities of vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from naturally established 

form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that visual characteristics are 

those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character type. 

Very Low SIO: Management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, yet 

when viewed as background, should appear to be a natural occurrence. 

Heritage Resources 

Individual unit card texts identify which units have heritage concerns. These units are not 

to be modified without consultation with Forest Service Heritage Resources. 

Soils/Wetlands

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

For instance, factors such as RMA buffers protect riparian soils and efforts to avoid slopes 

greater than 72 percent often determine the location of unit boundaries, temporary roads, 

and landings. 

Factors that can influence unit design are areas designated as unsuitable for harvest due to 

very high landslide potential, colluvial activity, MMI4 soils, slopes steeper than 72

percent, and unstable drainages. Slopes greater than 72 percent that remain within units 

have been determined to be suitable for harvest with a minimum of partial suspension or 
Appendix B

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix B ▪ 17

full suspension yarding. These factors that influence unit design and define whether slopes 

greater than 72 percent are suitable for harvest or not are addressed in the unit cards.

Temporary road crossing wetlands are noted in the unit cards. All road construction 

planned for this project is for silvicultural purposes and will be located and designed to 

meet 33 CFR 323 guidelines and State-approved BMPs.

Shovel yarding should follow BMPs 12.5, 13.2 and 13.9. Specifically, shovel operators 

should avoid non-forested areas to prevent rutting. Slopes over 25% gradient may not be 

suitable for shovel yarding under some soil moisture conditions. Use care when approving 

shovel yarding on slopes over 25% gradient. Avoid track slippage and rutting. 

All units have a minimum of partial suspension required unless otherwise stated within the 

unit card text. Some units have areas where full suspension is required. Consult the unit 

card text for details on locations (BMP 13.9).

Wildlife

All units comply with required Forest Plan Wildlife Standards and Guidelines. Any 

nests/animals dens discovered at any time will receive the necessary standard and 

guideline applications. See the description of legacy forest structure and direction in the 

Silviculture section above.

Wolves: The Forest Plan requires 1,200-foot buffer applied to all known wolf den sites in 

the project area. Two known den site buffers overlapped three proposed harvest units; the 

portions of units overlapping the buffers were removed from the unit pool. Actual den 

locations and buffers are not displayed on unit cards maps at the request of ADF&G. 

Black bears: The Forest Plan does not require buffers for black bear dens; however, in 

consultation with ADF&G for this project, to minimize den disturbance, a 300-foot buffer 

was applied to all known black bear den sites within the project area. Under all 

alternatives, portions of units overlapping the 300-foot black bear den site buffers were 

removed from the unit pool. Actual den locations and buffers are not displayed on unit 

card maps at the request of ADF&G. 

Goshawks: The Forest Plan requires a 100-acre buffer on all active goshawk nests. The

one unit in which a nest was located and an adjacent unit were eliminated from 

consideration under all alternatives by the buffer. 

Sitka black-tailed deer: Uneven-aged harvest and commercial thinning will help 

maintain or enhance black-tailed deer habitat over the long-term. Reduction of habitat 

fragmentation is also an important component of maintaining deer habitat. Where 

practical, corridors are planned to facilitate movement of deer across the landscape. Some 

units were deferred in Alternative 4 in part to address this concern and to maintain areas 

of deer winter range. 
Appendix C

ROAD CARD INTRODUCTION
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix C ▪ 1

Appendix C

Road Card Introduction

This introduction is provided to supplement the information given in each of the road 

cards in Volume VI. The road cards provide road management objectives for each 

National Forest System (NFS) road. A map accompanies each road card. Proposed new 

roads include a map for each alternative.

Road Management Objectives

Purpose and Use 

The road management objectives (RMOs) presented in this appendix establish the 

intended purpose and display the design, maintenance, and operation criteria (per FSH 

7709.55) for proposed roads within the Big Thorne project area. Site-specific design 

criteria are discussed in the second section of the RMOs; these will be used during design, 

construction, and initial monitoring of any road work proposed in this document. For 

proposed roads and roads proposed for reconstruction, a map is provided that shows the 

proposed road location and identification of areas discussed in the site-specific design 

criteria. Site-specific design criteria include road location objectives, wetland information, 

erosion control, and proposed rock borrow sources. Streams within the project area with 

proposed construction rehabilitation of stream crossing structures are shown on maps for 

existing roads. 

General Design Criteria 

The general design criteria provide various descriptions of the type of road and the 

intended purpose and future use of the road. Three Functional Classes are used by the 

Forest Service. They are: arterial, collector, and local. Arterial roads function as

mainlines, with collectors feeding traffic to arterials, and locals feeding traffic to 

collectors. Service Life indicates duration of road use. Choices are Short-term (less than 

10 years) or Long-term. Long-term is used in conjunction with the entry cycle. The 

choices are Long-term Constant or Long-term Intermittent. The roads on the island are 

listed as Long-term Intermittent (LI). Maintenance and operation criteria are developed 

from functional class, service life and other general design criteria. 

Maintenance Criteria 

The maintenance criteria include a discussion of how the road is to be maintained, 

centering on three strategies. The three maintenance strategies are: 

Active: Provide frequent cleanout of ditches and catch basins to ensure controlled 

drainage. Control roadside brush to maintain sight distance. Grade as needed to maintain 

crown and running surface. 
Appendix C

Appendix C ▪ 2 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Stormproof: Provide water bars, rolling dips, out sloping, etc., to ensure controlled runoff 

until any needed maintenance can be performed on the primary drainage system. Control 

roadside brush to maintain passage. 

Storage: The process/action of closing a road to vehicle traffic and placing it in a 

condition that requires minimum maintenance to protect the environment and preserve the 

facility for future use.

Maintenance levels and traffic service levels are discussed in the Draft EIS, Chapter 3, 

Transportation section. The operational maintenance level is the current or planned 

condition and is the level during timber harvest. Objective maintenance level is the 

desired condition after harvest activities are completed. 

The active maintenance strategy is applied to roads open and maintained for travel by a 

prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not 

considered priorities. These roads are assigned Maintenance Level 3. The active 

maintenance strategy will also at times be applied to roads intended only for use by highclearance vehicles, or Maintenance Level 2 roads. This will usually be the case when log 

haul is expected in the near future. 

An intermediate maintenance strategy is to stormproof or stabilize the road by providing 

roadway features, such as drivable water bars, and out sloping to control runoff in case the 

primary drainage system of culverts and ditches is overwhelmed during a storm event. 

Each culvert will be evaluated as to where the water would go if the culvert were to fail to

carry the high flow. A water bar or out slope at this location will minimize the potential of 

erosion of long stretches of ditch line or roadway. This is intended to be the primary 

maintenance strategy applied to roads assigned Maintenance Level 2. 

Storage is intended to be the primary maintenance strategy on intermittent use roads 

during their closure cycle. Road storage is defined in FSH 5409.17 as the “the 

process/action of closing a road to vehicle traffic and placing it in a condition that requires 

minimum maintenance to protect the environment and preserve the facility for future use.” 

Maintenance Level 1, closure and basic custodial maintenance, is assigned. A storage 

category is assigned to each road segment.

Storage Category "A" 

Future access needs within 5 to 10 years. Road is stable, with very little or no resources 

affected. Roads have minimal closure devices, typically have drivable waterbars, rolling 

dips, and nearly all existing drainage structures and bridges are retained. May be dualdesignated motorized trail. Roads can be opened by permit, contract or for administrative 

use with very little work required. Monitor every 5-7 years and adjust maintenance as 

needed.

Storage Category "B" 

Future access needs within 5 to 20 years. Most resource risks (stream diversion, slope 

failure) can be mitigated by site-specific measures that retain most drainage structures in 

place (e.g., dips by culverts, partial removal of deep fills over stream crossings, etc). May 

be dual-designated motorized trail if terrain is suitable and resource risk is low. Roads will 

require reconditioning work to be opened. 
Appendix C

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix C▪ 3

Storage Category "C"

Future access not needed in foreseeable future (20+ years), or road already needs major 

reconditioning to use road. Resource risks (stream diversion, slope failure) can not be 

mitigated by site-specific measures that retain most drainage structures in place. 

Functional cross-drains and Class IV drainage structures may be retained with dips. Nonfunctional structures are removed, unstable fills with resource risks and consequences 

from failure are treated. After storage, roads will require major reconditioning work to 

open. 

Operation Criteria 

The operation criteria include a presentation of each of the five traffic management 

strategies identified in FSM 7731 (encourage, accept, discourage, prohibit, and eliminate) 

to be applied to different traffic classes on each road. The traffic management narrative 

describes what actions will be taken in order to apply each strategy. For example, if the 

strategy “eliminate” is prescribed for standard passenger and high-clearance vehicles, the 

narrative describes the method to accomplish this, such as removal of stream crossing 

structures, gating, etc. Travel management strategies are discussed in greater detail in 

Chapter 3, Transportation. 

Site-specific Design Criteria 

The site-specific design criteria include road location objectives, wetland information, 

erosion control, proposed rock borrow sources, and all streams within the project area 

with proposed construction or rehabilitation of stream crossing structures. The road 

location discussion documents why the road is proposed in a specific location, control 

points, and alternative routes considered (if any). A main location objective is to avoid 

crossing wetlands. At times, however, it is necessary to cross wetlands in order to 

minimize the total impact of a road. These areas are discussed, documenting areas of 

mapped wetlands and why the road is located across these areas. 

All fish streams are identified, as well as non-fish streams with sufficient flow to require a 

48-inch or larger culvert. Prior to actual construction of roads and stream crossings, the 

final location, structure type, and design criteria are designed to meet all applicable Forest

Plan Standards and Guidelines, Forest Service Manual and Handbooks, best management 

practices and MOUs with Alaska Department of Fish and Game (when applicable).

Operational and Objective Maintenance Levels

Operational Maintenance Levels indicate the level of road maintenance, Maintenance 

Level 2, during sale-related activities. Objective Maintenance Levels indicate the longterm maintenance plan for the roads as described in the following definitions. 

Maintenance Levels (MLs) discussed in the Road Management Objectives (RMOs) 

include Maintenance Levels 1 and 2. The definitions for maintenance levels are from the 

Forest Service Handbook 7709.58. The purpose of the ML is to define the level of service

provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road or segment.

Maintenance Level 1

Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. 

The closure period must exceed one year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to 
Appendix C

Appendix C ▪ 4 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to 

facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining 

drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level.

Appropriate traffic management strategies are "prohibit" and "eliminate." Roads are 

closed by barrier, bridge removal or organic encroachment and are monitored for resource 

protection.

Maintenance Level 2

Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Traffic is normally minor,

usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed 

recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept 

or discourage high-clearance vehicles.

AFRPA Status

Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (AFRPA): Under this Act, all roads

will be maintained as "Active" during harvest-related activities. After these

activities are completed, the AFRPA classes on the road cards will be

implemented. These classes include:

Active: A forest road actively used for hauling logs, pulpwood, chips, or other

major forest products, or rock and other road-building materials.

Inactive: A forest road on which commercial hauling is discontinued for one

or more logging seasons, and the forest landowner desires continuation of

access for fire control, forest management activities, occasional or incidental

use for forest products harvesting, or similar activities.

Closed: A road is closed when the following activities have been completed: a

road is outsloped or waterbarred, or is left in a condition suitable to control

erosion. The ditches are also left in a condition suitable to control erosion, and

bridges, culverts, and fills are removed from surface waters.

Other Resource Information 

The resource information section presents issues of concern (if any) for the following 

categories: timber/logging systems, wildlife, visual/recreation, cultural, 

lands/minerals/geology/karst, and soils/water. For proposed roads, potential concern exists 

for lines that pass through high-value deer habitat, medium- or high-vulnerability karst, or 

soils with a mass movement index ranking of 4 (MMI 4 soils). For existing roads, 

potential concern focuses on karst and soil issues. 
Appendix D

CATALOG OF PAST HARVEST AND 

PRESENT AND REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE PROJECTS 
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 1

APPENDIX D – PART I

Catalog of Past Harvest in the Big Thorne Project Area

Timber harvest has been conducted in the Big Thorne project area for more than 70 years. 

However, industrial-scale logging activity began in the 1960s. This appendix provides a

catalog of this past harvest and is stratified by Value Comparison Unit (VCU) and by 

harvest on National Forest System (NFS) lands versus state and private lands. Within 

each VCU and land ownership category, past harvest is listed by stand ID, year of stand 

origin, and acreage. 

VCU 5720

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1970 5720200506 0.5 None

1974 5720200507 0.7 

1992 5720202525 3.7 

5.0 0.0

VCU 5740

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1971 5740200502 43.2 None

1974 5740300068 157.4 

5740300074 8.1 

5740300502 194.3 

5740300503 93.3 

5740400504 55.7 

5740400505 59.7 

5740400506 9.9 

5740400507 64.9 

1975 5740400501 53.9 

5740400502 85.1 

5740400503 33.4 

5740400508 166.6 

1976 5740100501 61.6 

5740100502 66.5 

5740100503 63.5 

5740100598 4.0 

5740200504 12.6 

5740200505 49.3 

5740200506 70.2 

5740200510 11.6 

5740300501 69.5 

1977 5740100505 76.6 

5740100506 63.6 

5740200503 34.2 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 2 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5740 continued

5740200508 35.4 

1979 5740100507 88.6 

5740100508 79.1 

5740100509 65.9 

5740102509 12.1 

1980 5740100504 22.2 

5740200507 9.9 

1981 5740100510 73.0 

5740100512 55.2 

1982 5740100511 14.9 

5740100516 50.1 

5740100520 13.3 

1983 5740100513 17.7 

5740100515 21.5 

5740200509 10.0 

5740300504 74.0 

5740300505 53.8 

5740300508 84.1 

1987 5740200513 68.9 

5740300506 81.7 

5740300511 11.6 

1988 5740100514 27.9 

5740100517 80.6 

5740100518 25.9 

5740200512 41.1 

5740400511 67.8 

5740400512 17.6 

1989 5740202516 14.6 

5740300084 6.9 

5740300509 27.3 

5740400509 88.7 

5740400513 72.7 

5740400514 34.5 

5740400523 51.3 

1990 5740200516 17.6 

5740600501 21.1 

5770300513 0.0 

1991 5740100521 27.8 

5740200514 60.1 

5740300510 23.8 

5740400510 120.9 

5740800501 6.0 

1992 5740400520 28.4 

1993 5740400521 61.5 

1994 5740100599 24.3 
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 3

VCU 5740 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

5740109501 28.6 

5740309411 65.9 

5740309412 27.9 

2011 5770200030 0.3 

3,622.6 0.0

VCU 5750

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1991 5750300501 21.7 None

5750300502 39.0 

5750300503 20.6 

5750300504 63.6 

5750300505 28.4 

5750300533 15.9 

5750302501 13.1 

5750302502 14.1 

5750303501 8.9 

1992 5750200502 13.4 

5750200507 1.0 

5750300506 57.7 

5750300507 20.2 

5750300508 43.6 

5750300509 1.1 

5750302506 15.4 

5750302508 23.8 

1999 5750200003 0.4 

401.9 0.0

VCU 5760

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1989 5760300523 39.3 None

5760302523 2.3 

1990 5760100501 171.0 

5760100502 81.7 

5760100503 28.4 

1991 5760100504 28.6 

5760100505 21.5 

5760102504 41.0 

5760102505 69.2 

5760300501 61.8 

544.9 0.0
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 4 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5780

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1972 5780100505 149.7 None

1974 5780100504 7.4 

1975 5780100503 12.1 

1977 5780100501 78.8 

1987 5780100506 200.5 

1988 5780100507 6.8 

5780100508 11.6 

5780100510 60.8 

5780100511 155.5 

5780100512 35.7 

1989 5780100513 121.5 

5780100514 69.1 

1990 5780100509 60.8 

5780100516 76.5 

5780100517 75.3 

5780100518 16.4 

5780100519 16.0 

1991 5780100515 55.2 

5780104501 7.0 

1992 5780100520 20.0 

2000 5780100093 14.9 

5780100118 9.9 

2001 5780100117 82.4 

1,344.0 0.0
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 5

VCU 5790

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1962 5790200516 18.7 None

1963 5790200509 788.5 

5790200579 15.8 

1966 5790100033 40.2 

5790100042 26.4 

5790100044 32.3 

5790100045 21.5 

5790100046 21.7 

5790100504 263.1 

5790200506 800.4 

1971 5790200507 316.3 

1972 5790100503 35.5 

5790100505 25.7 

5790200510 19.4 

5790200513 9.2 

5790200517 259.4 

1973 5790200511 84.7 

5790200512 231.1 

1974 5790100501 30.8 

5790100502 89.9 

1988 5780100508 0.4 

5790100506 175.9 

1990 5790100515 10.5 

5790100516 120.2 

1993 5790200520 103.7 

5790201517 96.3 

5790202517 91.0 

1995 5790109501 30.1 

5790109502 43.8 

5790109606 48.0 

5790209501 49.6 

5790209502 13.4 

5790209503 29.5 

5790209504 27.8 

5790209505 19.4 

5790209506 14.7 

5790209601 19.2 

5790209602 21.4 

5790209603 16.9 

5790209604 22.4 

5790209605 55.0 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 6 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5790 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1996 5790200501 40.0 

5790200503 35.3 

5790200504 37.1 

1997 5790200007 15.7 

5790200030 19.4 

4,287.6 0.0

VCU 5800 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1974 5800100521 91.6 None

5800200510 100.0 

1975 5800200027 9.1 

5800200512 89.1 

5800200513 16.1 

5800200514 83.4 

1976 5800100171 5.8 

5800100172 83.2 

5800100501 121.4 

5800100503 35.1 

5800100504 83.7 

5800100505 119.0 

5800100506 117.0 

5800102506 10.8 

5800200026 64.6 

5800200029 3.8 

5800200036 111.7 

5800200511 96.9 

5800200515 102.7 

5800200530 28.7 

1977 5800100508 140.2 

5800100509 52.2 

1979 5800100502 222.2 

1980 5800100507 24.9 

1986 5800100512 50.8 

5800200516 101.9 

5800200517 51.6 

1987 5800100511 35.7 

5800100513 13.3 

5800200520 18.5 

1988 5800100518 0.4 

5800200518 7.9 

5800200523 7.1 

5800200531 9.5 
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 7

VCU 5800 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1990 5800200532 48.4 

5800200533 50.9 

1992 5800200534 56.5 

5800200535 30.5 

5800201535 19.5 

1995 5800209501 22.8 

5800209502 16.0 

5800209503 6.2 

1996 5800200501 14.9 

1998 5800100006 28.2 

5800100007 10.0 

5800100008 4.2 

5800100009 36.0 

5800100017 31.1 

5800100031 44.4 

5800100041 31.8 

5800100105 3.2 

1999 5800100109 65.2 

5800100176 32.6 

5800100180 46.3 

5800100181 47.2 

2005 5800100178 4.8 

2,760.7 0.0
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 8 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5810 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1968 5810100508 37.2 None

5810100510 118.4 

5810100511 155.0 

5810100512 78.4 

5810100521 116.7 

5810300501 9.4 

1969 5810100005 20.6 

5810100507 18.1 

5810100513 8.4 

5810100524 140.1 

5810200003 133.4 

5810200005 78.0 

5810200006 46.5 

5810200007 76.3 

5810200008 231.2 

5810200501 208.1 

5810200502 252.5 

5810200503 201.9 

5810200504 207.7 

5810300504 36.3 

5810300530 39.9 

5810400501 26.4 

5810400504 81.1 

5810400512 307.5 

5810400513 91.4 

5810400570 6.7 

5810400571 32.6 

1970 5810100501 2.9 

5810200505 98.9 

1971 5810200004 13.3 

5810200506 114.8 

5810200507 39.8 

5810200508 53.0 

5810300502 26.2 

5810400001 6.7 

5810400515 28.5 

1972 5810300503 14.2 

5810300506 10.6 

5810300508 56.5 

5810400505 7.2 

5810400507 30.4 

5810400511 34.0 

5810400514 34.1 
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 9

VCU 5810 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1973 5810300001 8.5 None

5810300505 196.0 

5810300507 27.6 

5810300509 9.9 

5810300510 71.9 

5810300512 41.2 

5810400002 13.2 

5810400503 65.8 

5810400506 78.4 

5810400508 85.2 

5810400509 279.1 

5810400510 200.6 

1974 5810100502 18.1 

5810100504 60.7 

5810300511 76.2 

1975 5810300513 73.1 

5810300514 70.1 

1987 5810300516 117.2 

5810300518 74.6 

5810300533 36.7 

1988 5810300519 25.4 

5810300532 58.8 

1989 5810100515 40.6 

5810100516 185.2 

5810100517 71.1 

5810300531 125.4 

5810400518 55.4 

5810400520 51.1 

1990 5810100518 85.2 

1992 5810100525 32.1 

5810100526 38.6 

5810300520 75.8 

5810300598 2.5 

5810400521 52.5 

5810400523 36.2 

1993 5810200572 37.9 

5810200573 19.8 

1994 5810400522 88.8 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 10 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5810 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1995 5810109501 20.1 

5810109502 32.9 

5810209501 11.3 

5810209502 14.7 

5810209503 26.1 

5810209504 17.7 

5810300599 49.7 

5810309503 7.8 

1996 5810200509 67.2 

5810200556 19.3 

2004 5810200009 13.5 

2005 5810100006 23.6 

5810100007 48.1 

5810300005 23.8 

2006 5810100025 63.4 

5810200082 49.8 

5810200083 3.1 

5810200084 65.8 

5810200085 51.0 

2008 5810400003 70.9 

2010 5810100001 18.1 

5810200001 12.8 

5810200002 21.1 

6,749.6 0.0

VCU 5820 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1969 5820100504 9.0 None

9.0
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 11

VCU 5830 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1959 5830200567 543.8 None

1960 5830200518 291.1 

5830200551 321.5 

5830200594 23.7 

5830300569 75.5 

5830300572 79.4 

5830300578 66.5 

1963 5830200502 79.2 

5830300558 25.7 

5830300577 440.3 

1964 5830100529 60.9 

5830100556 80.8 

5830100559 12.4 

1965 5830100567 20.6 

5830100568 116.5 

5830100571 63.6 

5830200569 5.8 

5830200588 8.5 

5830200590 1.5 

5830200591 7.3 

5830200593 5.6 

5830300036 5.1 

5830300040 10.8 

5830300524 181.7 

1966 5830200582 2.2 

1971 5830100599 28.1 

1989 5830100513 22.7 

5830100514 9.1 

5830100516 96.6 

5830100534 58.5 

5830300503 19.0 

5830300504 148.7 

1990 5830100530 69.7 

5830100531 80.8 

5830100536 41.1 

5830100538 72.8 

1991 5830100519 6.8 

5830100537 80.5 

1992 5830100515 17.7 

1993 5830100541 54.5 

1994 5830100540 19.2 

5830100598 64.6 

5830102540 16.1 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 12 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5830 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1995 5830209501 9.0 

5830209502 35.8 

5830209503 29.4 

5830209504 53.7 

5830209505 24.4 

5830309501 43.7 

5830309502 53.4 

5830309503 28.1 

1999 5830200018 3.2 

2006 5830100512 2.2 

5830200039 6.8 

3,726.5 0.0

VCU 5840 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1964 5840100121 456.1 None

5840100122 16.5 

5840100123 63.8 

5840100510 332.0 

1965 5840100524 117.3 

1966 5840100504 17.1 

5840100506 48.4 

5840100526 29.1 

5840200574 567.4 

5840300023 413.1 

5840300501 339.6 

5840300519 207.6 

5840300576 86.7 

1967 5840100518 9.7 

5840100521 12.6 

1968 5840300521 73.9 

1969 5840200575 87.2 

1974 5840300577 37.9 

1992 5840200597 25.4 

5840300592 48.4 

5840300593 45.4 

5840300594 83.4 

5840300595 95.5 

5840300596 67.4 
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 13

VCU 5840 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1993 5840100528 80.6 

5840100529 52.8 

5840100530 7.2 

5840200577 20.6 

5840200579 54.3 

5840200583 68.1 

5840200584 39.8 

5840200585 22.6 

5840201585 5.6 

1994 5840200582 36.1 

5840201582 30.6 

1995 5840209501 9.9 

1997 5840100024 41.5 

5840300019 29.2 

1998 5840100026 21.2 

5840100027 45.5 

5840200066 51.0 

5840200074 25.4 

5840200075 3.8 

5840200085 31.2 

5840200086 9.4 

1999 5840100069 25.9 

5840100071 29.6 

5840100106 92.6 

4,116.4 0.0

VCU 5850 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1964 5850100502 232.2 None

1965 5850100501 2,304.5 

5850100506 12.7 

1966 5850100010 50.0 

5850100511 87.6 

1969 5850100508 34.0 

1970 5850100073 5.3 

5850100503 29.1 

5850100505 10.9 

5850100509 13.9 

5850100512 36.6 

1973 5850100020 116.0 

5850100504 806.6 

5850100507 12.2 

1991 5850100537 85.8 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 14 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5850 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1992 5850100538 48.0 

1993 5850100539 61.4 

5850100540 34.4 

5850100542 153.7 

5850100543 37.5 

5850100544 59.7 

1995 5850109501 32.2 

5850109502 25.6 

5850109503 30.6 

5850109504 21.9 

5850109505 13.6 

5850109506 26.8 

5850109601 29.4 

5850109602 18.8 

5850109603 25.3 

5850109604 4.3 

5850109605 23.6 

4,484.4 0.0

VCU 5860 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1950 5860200510 4.5 1940 5860200517 12.5 

5860200511 2.1 1950 5860200516 32.5 

5860300106 3.3 5860300107 0.6 

5860300107 0.2 1957 5860300513 27.4 

1958 5860300506 17.2 5860300514 29.0 

5860302506 1.2 1958 5860300506 1.8 

1960 5860200512 6.8 5860302506 232.0 

1962 5860300501 13.7 1961 5860200504 42.5 

5860300504 411.9 1962 5860200505 10.2 

5860300505 2.8 5860300115 799.8 

5860302501 31.5 5860300501 242.6 

5860302504 0.7 5860300502 21.4 

5860303501 9.7 5860300503 107.0 

1963 5860100079 90.4 5860300505 0.0 

5860100082 13.7 5860302504 91.2 

5860100501 649.0 5860302505 77.8 

5860100509 921.2 1963 5860100509 5.7 

5860102509 1.9 5860102509 206.8 

5860103509 13.9 5860103509 1.9 

1966 5860100503 2.7 5860200048 38.5 

5860100507 5.0 1964 5860200506 14.2 

5860102503 1.2 5860200518 13.2 
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 15

VCU 5860 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1967 5860200514 5.1 1966 5860102503 33.8 

5860200515 40.6 1967 5860300515 63.9 

1969 5860100512 0.0 1969 5860100512 49.6 

5860200501 0.3 5860200501 36.9 

5860202501 2.0 1970 5860100514 17.5 

1970 5860100510 34.4 5860200509 4.9 

1972 5860100502 22.3 1973 5860100080 0.4 

5860100504 178.3 5860100506 0.0 

1973 5860100080 18.0 5860100511 0.7 

5860100081 15.3 5860102511 12.1 

5860100506 69.5 5860103511 7.0 

5860100511 26.7 5860200503 244.0 

5860100513 104.1 1988 5860200519 122.4 

5860102511 0.3 5860300507 34.1 

5860200513 6.8 5860300508 63.5 

1978 5860100505 36.4 5860300511 32.9 

1989 5860300509 0.1 5860300512 14.1 

5860300510 19.6 1989 5860200523 92.0 

5860302509 10.4 5860300509 33.5 

1995 5860109503 2.6 5860300516 4.5 

5860109504 0.2 1990 5860300517 35.4 

5860109507 9.1 1997 5860100006 0.0 

1997 5860100006 55.7 5860300151 1.2 

5860300039 8.4 2000 (blank) 65.3 

5860300052 31.8 2005 5860300115 646.8 

5860300142 41.6 No Year -- 825.0

5860300143 20.2 

5860300144 19.1 

5860300149 4.4 

5860300150 0.3 

5860300151 39.7 

5860300152 45.8 

1999 5860100075 54.7 

5860100076 57.0 

5860100077 28.4 

5860100078 13.5 

2005 5860300115 0.8 

2010 5860300540 1.1 

3,229.3 4,449.9
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 16 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5950 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1980 5950200192 0.7 1980 5950200192 414.4 

1983 5950400511 1.7 1983 5950200518 12.0 

1986 5950200501 32.3 5950200519 51.3 

5950200502 13.5 5950300517 3.4 

5950200503 4.7 5950400510 15.4 

5950200520 76.4 5950400511 246.6 

5950202501 0.0 1986 5950200501 0.4 

5950300520 60.6 5950202501 40.2 

1987 5950300518 11.6 1988 5950200522 28.5 

5950300521 60.8 5950202522 0.7 

5950400512 122.4 1989 5950200147 1.2 

5950400513 35.2 5950200150 0.5 

1988 5950202522 5.2 5950200521 21.6 

5950300519 79.4 1990 5950200045 20.0 

1989 5950200147 11.7 5950200152 3.2 

5950200150 12.3 5950200153 10.3 

5950200521 0.0 5950200154 32.0 

5950200523 48.0 5950200155 34.6 

5950300522 72.4 5950200156 34.9 

1990 5950200152 0.0 5950200157 17.0 

5950200153 1.5 5950200158 72.1 

5950200154 0.5 5950200159 28.9 

5950200155 2.8 5950200160 10.7 

5950200157 2.7 5950200161 23.6 

5950200159 2.4 5950200162 104.4 

5950200163 1.2 5950200163 17.3 

5950200164 2.0 5950200164 34.7 

5950300072 0.1 5950200165 4.1 

5950300523 146.5 5950200166 11.7 

5950300524 50.0 5950200167 22.5 

5950400108 0.5 5950200168 11.6 

5950400112 0.5 5950200169 21.4 

5950400113 0.5 5950200170 12.2 

5950400114 0.3 5950200171 9.9 

5950400115 1.1 5950200172 11.3 

5950400514 53.9 5950200173 7.3 

5950400515 50.8 5950200174 43.3 

5950400518 79.6 5950200175 2.3 

5950400519 45.5 5950200176 2.2 

5950402519 16.9 5950200177 11.4 

5950403519 1.8 5950200178 13.0 

1991 5950100501 1.0 5950200179 8.2 

5950102501 10.3 5950200180 7.5 

5950103501 30.4 5950200181 121.1 

5950104501 5.8 5950200182 18.2 

5950105501 3.5 5950200183 1.6 

5950200524 78.3 5950200184 16.9 
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 17

VCU 5950 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1991 5950200525 33.8 5950200185 17.0 

5950400516 58.8 5950200186 5.4 

5950400517 59.7 5950200187 32.5 

5950400520 41.0 5950200188 6.2 

5950400521 37.3 5950200189 5.0 

1993 5950300077 3.3 5950200190 1.4 

1995 5950200504 36.5 5950200191 19.5 

5950209601 34.2 5950200193 16.4 

5950300103 5.5 5950200194 18.2 

5950400122 1.9 5950200195 2.6 

5950400123 2.1 5950200196 90.1 

1998 5950300025 5.1 5950200197 8.6 

5950300066 2.4 5950200198 18.4 

1999 5950300067 4.1 5950200199 15.3 

5950300073 7.1 5950200200 15.3 

5950300074 6.4 5950200201 13.2 

5950400022 11.7 5950200202 15.4 

5950400116 14.5 5950200203 21.2 

5950400117 9.6 5950200204 62.2 

2000 5950200023 0.7 5950200205 1.1 

2001 5950300076 13.6 5950200206 3.6 

2003 5950200117 11.8 5950200207 1.8 

5950200126 14.2 5950200208 38.0 

5950200134 22.3 5950200209 2.1 

5950200139 23.0 5950200210 5.7 

5950200222 55.3 5950200211 2.2 

2004 5950200014 22.0 5950200212 26.9 

5950200225 28.3 5950200213 17.6 

5950200226 8.2 5950200214 7.4 

5950200227 1.0 5950200215 74.0 

5950200228 34.4 5950200216 44.0 

5950300080 39.1 5950200218 6.5 

2005 5950200001 0.1 5950200219 8.1 

5950200101 1.1 5950200220 0.2 

5950200113 18.1 5950300072 2.4 

5950200114 2.5 5950400095 19.8 

5950200120 0.4 5950400096 0.7 

5950200138 5.5 5950400097 0.7 

5950200140 0.0 5950400098 3.1 

5950400119 9.9 5950400099 20.5 

5950400120 9.1 5950400100 0.6 

5950500003 45.0 5950400101 48.6 

5950500004 3.7 5950400102 5.4 

5950500005 0.7 5950400103 3.9 

5950500011 2.1 5950400104 1.0 

5950500012 23.1 5950400105 1.0 

5950500013 3.7 5950400106 0.5 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 18 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5950 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

5950400107 7.4 

5950400108 20.5 

5950400109 62.5 

5950400110 54.6 

5950400111 40.2 

5950400112 15.9 

5950400113 55.8 

5950400114 64.6 

5950400115 72.9 

1991 5950100501 18.4 

5950102501 10.4 

2000 5950200023 4.0 

2005 5950200001 3.4 

5950200113 0.0 

5950200114 0.0 

5950200120 0.8 

5950200121 5.7 

5950200138 61.8 

5950200140 14.4 

No Year -- 28.0

2,013.5 2,909.8

VCU 5960 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1988 5960200501 18.5 1988 5960202501 0.4

5960202501 0.9 2005 5960300084 18.0

1989 5960100501 10.0 

5960102501 6.3 

5960500501 40.3 

5960500502 53.8 

1990 5960500505 35.2 

165.0 18.4

VCU 5971 

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1968 5971100501 4.2 None

1972 5971100502 71.3 

1975 5971100503 13.3 

1988 5971100504 41.0 

5971100505 81.1 

1989 5971100506 77.8 

1990 5971100507 7.1 

2000 5971100009 0.4 

5971100020 4.0 

300.3 0.0
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 19

VCU 5972

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1966 5972100046 79.6 1962 5972300501 126.0

5972100093 98.4 1989 5972302504 3.8

5972100503 10.4 

5972100505 381.0 

5972200502 62.3 

5972200503 33.9 

5972200504 9.4 

5972400501 1,173.1 

1967 5972100502 34.2 

5972100504 36.4 

1968 5972200501 11.3 

1987 5972100506 13.5 

1988 5972200506 86.3 

1989 5972200505 20.4 

5972200507 22.2 

5972200513 5.7 

5972200519 28.6 

5972200520 73.3 

5972200521 45.4 

5972200522 17.3 

5972202505 7.4 

5972300502 20.4 

5972300504 12.0 

5972300505 34.8 

5972300506 29.3 

5972300507 18.3 

5972300508 38.4 

5972300512 37.3 

5972300513 35.0 

5972302504 0.0 

5972400506 51.8 

5972400508 90.0 

5972400509 76.7 

5972400510 42.6 

5972400511 94.2 

5972400512 37.5 

5972400513 66.9 

1991 5972300515 16.3 

5972300516 23.3 

5972300517 46.7 

5972300521 28.5 

1992 5972100511 105.9 

5972200517 46.5 

5972200526 72.3 

5972300514 78.8 

5972300518 94.2 

5972300519 15.9 

5972300520 29.7 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 20 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

VCU 5972 continued

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

5972300522 2.8 

5972400514 40.4 

5972400515 68.5 

5972400516 22.4 

5972400522 14.5 

1993 5972100512 76.3 

5972100513 65.7 

5972200523 43.3 

5972200577 16.2 

1994 5972300009 13.5 

2000 5972100042 9.0 

5972200064 25.3 

2004 5972100095 13.7 

5972100096 28.0 

5972400119 18.9 

2005 5972100098 3.5 

5972200076 193.4 

5972200624 14.9 

5972200625 3.5 

5972200626 3.5 

5972300173 8.8 

5972300174 40.5 

5972300175 14.8 

5972300176 26.9 

5972300177 1.6 

5972400118 5.0 

5972400120 28.4 

5972400168 24.7 

2006 5972100105 9.8 

5972100106 23.1 

2007 5972200623 13.6 

2008 5972100514 9.4 

2010 (blank) 14.2 

5972200508 8.9 

4,400.8 129.8

VCU 5980

NFS Lands State/Private Lands

Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres Stand Yr. 

Origin

Stand ID Acres

1997 5980100154 58.3 None

58.3 0.0
Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 21

APPENDIX D – PART II

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects used for Cumulative Effects Analysis

Project Name NEPA Name Decision 

Year Project Description Year Completed Acres or Miles Resource Analyses Scale

Timber Management Projects

Roadside Micro 

Timber Sales

Roadside EA 2003 Micro Timber Sales - sales are limited 

to down, dead, or dying trees or green 

trees cut for safety and usually only 

involve only a few trees per sale.

Ongoing Assume 50 acres in project 

area for the reasonably 

foreseeable future

All 

resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

Free Use Timber 

Harvest

NA NA Up to 10,000 board feet per person 

per year. Individuals must submit a 

Free Use Permit Application to the 

Forest Service to allow Free Use 

timber harvest

Ongoing Assume 10 acres in project 

area for the reasonably 

foreseeable future 

All 

resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

Precommercial 

thinning (PCT) of 

young stands in 

project area

NA NA Up to approximately 12,300 acres are 

expected to need pre-commercial 

thinning (PCT) over the next 10 years

Ongoing Up to 12,300 acres of PCT 

over 10 years

All 

resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

State Timber Harvest 

in Project Area

NA 2010 Timber harvest and road construction 

on state lands in project area

Ongoing 635 acres and 4 miles road 

construction

All 

resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

State Timber Harvest 

outside Project Area 

but in Biogeographic 

Province 14

NA 2010 Timber harvest and road construction 

on state lands outside Project Area 

but in Biogeographic Province 14

Ongoing 2,170 acres of old growth, 

400 acres of older young 

growth, and 13.3 miles road 

construction

Deer

TES Plants

Bio. Prov. 

14 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 22 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Project Name NEPA Name Decision 

Year Project Description Year Completed Acres or Miles Resource Analyses Scale

Control Lake Project Control Lake 

Timber Sales 

Project EIS

1998 Timber harvest and road construction 

project, mostly completed.

Ongoing 351 acres of timber harvest 

(partially in roadless areas) 

and 1.2 miles of road 

construction

All 

Resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

Chasina Project Chasina 

Timber Sale 

Project EIS

1998 Timber harvest and road construction 

project, mostly completed

Ongoing 306 acres of timber harvest 

(in roadless area) and 4.5

miles of road construction

TES Plants Bio. Prov. 

14 and 18

Soda Nick Project Soda Nick EA 2007 Timber harvest and road construction 

project

Ongoing 257 acres and 0.5 mile of

road construction

Deer

TES Plants

Bio.Prov. 14 

and 

Bio.Prov. 14 

and 18

Logjam Project Logjam 

Timber Sale 

Project EIS

2009 Timber harvest and road construction 

project

Ongoing 73 MMBF of old-growth 

timber harvest from 3,422 

acres by clearcut and partial 

harvest. Includes 5 miles of 

NFS road and 17 miles of 

temp. road construction and 

3 miles reconstruction. 

Deer

TES Plants

Bio.Prov. 14 

and 

Bio.Prov. 14 

and 18

Other Projects

Prince of Wales 

Island Access Travel 

Management Plan

Access Travel 

Management 

Plan EA –

Prince of 

Wales & 

Surrounding 

Islands

2009 Plan identifies road storage, 

decommissioning, motorized trail 

development and other roadwork that 

will be implemented in the 

foreseeable future as funding is 

available

Ongoing 25 miles road storage plus 

other work 

All 

Resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 23

Project Name NEPA Name Decision 

Year Project Description Year Completed Acres or Miles Resource Analyses Scale

Road Maintenance 

and Reconditioning in 

Project Area

CE Various Maintenance and reconditioning of 

existing NFS roads is an ongoing 

process that occurs on a periodic 

basis.

Ongoing Road maintenance All 

Resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

Niblack Mineral 

Exploration

NA NA Exploration drilling using helicopter 

access

Ongoing NA TES Plants Bio. Prov. 

14 and 18

Bokan Mt. Mineral 

Exploration

NA NA Exploration drilling using helicopter 

access

Ongoing NA TES Plants Bio. Prov. 

14 and 18

Cobble Watershed 

Restoration Plan 

(2006)

NA NA Upland and riparian thinning (some 

has occurred primarily in the Ratz and 

Cobble Creek watersheds) and 

instream habitat improvements (some 

in Cobble Creek) Most of this work 

occurred in the middle to late 2000s.

Most of 

this work 

occurred 

in the 

middle to 

late 

2000s. 

Upland and riparian thinning 

and instream habitat 

improvements.

All 

Resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

Luck Creek/Eagle 

Creek Watershed 

Restoration Plan 

(2011)

NA NA High priority projects include five 

stream restoration projects, six road 

closures, and four riparian thinning 

projects. Also included are upland 

habitat improvements, road storage 

/decommissioning, and red pipe 

removal/replacements 

2012-2015 Approximately 65 acres of 

riparian thinning and a 

landslide restoration project 

will occur in the Luck/Eagle 

watershed in 2012. 

All 

Resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 
Appendix D

Appendix D ▪ 24 Big Thorne Project Draft EIS

Project Name NEPA Name Decision 

Year Project Description Year Completed Acres or Miles Resource Analyses Scale

North Thorne River 

Watershed 

Restoration Plan 

(2011)

NA NA Riparian restoration/improvement and 

road storage/decommissioning 

opportunities in the North Thorne 

watershed.

Future Highest priority actions 

include 84 acres of riparian 

thinning; 12.4 miles of road 

storm-proofing, storing, and 

decommissioning; restoring 

access to 3.5 miles of 

stream; and instream 

structure placement and 

channel restoration at three 

sites.

All 

Resources

Project Area 

and 

Watershed 

Twelvemile Creek 

Restoration Projects

Twelvemile 

Creek 

Restoration 

EA

2012 A mixture of terrestrial and aquatic 

restoration and enhancement projects 

in the Twelvemile Creek watershed 

project area, including stream habitat 

improvements, timber stand area 

improvements, road and trail projects, 

and invasive species treatment.

Future Up to 19 large wood 

instream structures, 530 

acres of riparian and upland 

thinning, 5 miles of road 

decommissioning, removal or 

replacement of 12 culverts, 

1⁄4 mile of trail development, 

and invasive weed treatment.

Deer and 

TES Plants

Bio. Prov. 

14 and Bio. 

Prov. 14 

and 18

Outfitter Guide EA Prince of 

Wales 

Outfitter and 

Guide 

Management 

Plan EA

2012 The management plan identifies the 

allocation of commercial recreational 

use on Prince of Wales Island or, in 

other words, the number of outfitter 

and guide permits for each area

2012 NA Recreation Project Area 

Gravelly Creek Trail 

Extension

NA NA Gravelly Creek Trail extension of 0.5 

mile from the Gravelly Creek Picnic 

Area to the Falls Creek Pull-off on the 

Thorne Bay Highway.

Future 0.5 mile trail extension Recreation Project Area
Appendix D

Big Thorne Project Draft EIS Appendix D ▪ 25

Project Name NEPA Name Decision 

Year Project Description Year Completed Acres or Miles Resource Analyses Scale

Honker Divide Canoe 

Route Improvements

NA NA Improve portages along the canoe 

route by constructing boardwalk, stepand-run stairways, and by hardening 

some surfaces with gravel; construct 

a new shelter on Thorne Lake

Future NA Recreation Project Area

Balls Lake Trail 

Improvements

NA NA Complete trail by hardening the 

natural tread sections with step and 

run stairways and gravel; replace 

bridges

Future NA Recreation Project Area

Luck Lake Day Use 

Area Shelter

NA NA Construct shelter on Luck Lake near 

Eagle Creek.

Future NA Recreation Project Area

Boy Scout Multi-use 

Trail Bridges

NA NA Install two new bridges along this 

stored road system to expand offhighway vehicle (OHV) use of the 

area by an additional 17 miles. The 

bridges would be placed on Lava 

Creek and Slide Creek.

Future NA Recreation Project Area

Control Lake Cabin 

Dock

NA NA Reconstruct the small dock at the 

Control Lake Cabin.

Future NA Recreation Project Area

Sal Creek Cabin 

Construction

NA NA Construct a new cabin on the beach 

near Sal Creek; reopen a small road, 

construct less than 0.5 mile of trail, 

and construct a young-growth cabin.

Future NA Recreation Project Area