references -...

Cowlitz Valley Ranger District

180

References ABR, Inc. 2009. Radar Surveys for Marbled Murrelets in Mt. Rainier National Park,

Washington, 2009. Unpub. Report prepared for Mt. Rainier National Park, Ashford,

Washington, by ABR, Inc., Forest Grove, OR. 17 pp.

Aguilar, A.M. 2013. Forest Plan Soils Guidelines Regarding Mechanical Harvesters on Gifford

Pinchot National Forest (Draft White Paper). Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver,

WA.

Akins, Jocelyn. 2009. Cascades Carnivore Project, Forest Carnivore Monitoring on the Gifford

Pinchot National Forest: Year 1 and 2 Progress Report. Unpublished Report prepared for

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Gifford Pinchot National Forest. 21 pp.

Altman, B. and J. Alexander. 2008. Habitat conservation plan for landbirds in the coniferous

forests of western Washington and Oregon. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

www.orwapif.org

Aubry et al, 2011. Wolverine Distribution and Ecology in the North Cascades Ecosystem 2011

Annual Report.

Aubry, K.B., C.M. Senger, R.L. Crawford. 1987. Discovery of Larch Mountain Salamanders

Plethodon larsilli in the Central Cascade Range of Washington. Biological Conservation 42:

147-152.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 99-127 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J.

Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA

Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-254, Fort Collins, CO.

Beechie, T.J.; Pess G.; Kennard P.; Bilby R.E.; Bolton S. 2000. Modeling Recovery Rates and

Pathways for Woody Debris Recruitment in Northwestern Washington Streams. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:436–452.

Bilby, R.E., Sullivan, K., Duncan, S.H., 1989, The generation and fate of road-surface sediment

in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington: Forest Science, v. 35, p. 453-468.

Bjornn, T.C.; Reiser, D.W.. 1991. “Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams.” In: Meehan,

W.R.. Influences of forest and rangeland management of salmonid fishes and their habitats.

Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 83-138.

Boyd, Diane. 1999. Carnivores-wolves, Chapter 7 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coords., Effects

of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on effects of

recreation on wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Brockway, D., Topik, C., Hemstrom, M., Emmingham, W.H., 1983. Plant Association and

Management Guide for the Pacific Silver Fir Zone. Gifford Pinchot National Forest, USDA

Forest Service, R6-Ecol-130a-1983. Portland, OR.

Brosofske, Kimberly D.; Chen, Jiquan, Naiman, Robert J., and Franklin, Jerry F. 1997.

Harvesting Effects on Microclimate Gradients From Small Streams to Uplands in Western

Washington. Ecological Applications. 7:1188-1200.

http://www.orwapif.org/

Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI

181

Brown, G. W. 1985. Landslide Damage to the Forest Environment. In: Swanston, Doug ed.

Proceedings of a Workshop on Slope Stability: Problems and Solutions in Forest

Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station, Government Technical Report PNW-180.

Busskohl, C. B. 2009. Email Comm. Forest Soils Scientist. Umatilla National Forest. 2517 S.W.

Hailey Avenue, Pendleton, Oregon 97801.

Carroll, C., M.K. Phillips, N.H. Schumaker, and D.W. Smith. 2003. Impacts of landscape change

on wolf restoration: a reintroduction program based on static and dynamic spatial models.

Conservation Biology 17(2):536-548.

Chan, S.S.; Larsen D.J.; Maas-Hebner K.G.; Emmingham W.H.; Johnston S.R.; Mikowski D.A.

2006. Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast

Range Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 36: 2696-2711.

Comfort, E.J.; Roberts, S.D.; Harrington C.A.; Davis, L. R. 2010. Midcanopy growth following

thinning in young-growth conifer forests on the Olympic Peninsula western Washington.

Forest Ecology and Management 259: 1606-1614.

Crandell, D. R. 1971. Postglacial lahars from Mount Rainier Volcano, Washington. U.S.

Geological Survey Professional Paper , 677, 75 p. Available:

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp677. [July 2, 2013]

Current Vegetation Survey (CVS), Random Grid Surveys. Data available at

www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage .

Curtis, Robert O. 1982. A Simple Index of Stand Density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science. Vol.

28, No. 1, pp 92-94.

Davis, L.R., Puettmann K. J.; Tucker, G.F. 2007. Overstory response to alternative thinning

treatments in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Northwest Science. 81(1):1-14.

Delaney, D.K., and T.G. Grubb. 2003. Effects of off-highway vehicles on northern spotted owls:

2002 results. A report to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-

Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division under Contract No. 439129-0-0055. USDA

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. May 2003. 38 pages.

Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter

noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76.

Dixon, G. E. 2002. Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal

Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management

Service Center. 219 p.

Dobkin, D. S. 1994. Conservation and management of Neotropical migrant landbirds in the

northern Rockies and Great Plains. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.

Dugger, K.M., R.G. Anthony, and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive

competition: barred owls, spotted owls, habitat, and the demons of competition present.

Ecological Applications 21(7) pp. 2459-2468.


182

Evans Mack, D., W. P. Ritchie, S. K. Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, P. Harrison, and T. E. Hamer.

2003. Methods for surveying Marbled Murrelets in forests: a revised protocol for land

management and research. Pacific Seabird Group Technical Publication Number 2. Available

from http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org. 81 pp.

Foltz, R.B., Copeland, N.S., and Elliot, W.J. 2009. “Reopening abandoned forest roads in

northern Idaho, USA: Quantification of runoff, sediment concentration, infiltration, and

interrill erosion parameters.” Journal of Environmental Management: pp 2542-2550.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2007. Roles of forests in climate

change. Available at www.fao.org/forestry/site/climatechange/en .

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B.L. Biswell, A.

Ellingson, E.C. Meslow, G.S. Miller, K.A. Swindle, J.A. Thrailkill, F.F. Wagner, and D. E.

Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs

149:1-35.

Forsman, Eric D.; Meslow, E. Charles; Wight, Howard M. 1984. Distribution and biology of the

spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs No. 87. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA FS

General Technical Report PNW-8. Pacific Northwest Forest Range Experimental Station,

Portland, OR. 417pp.

Franklin, J.F.; Moir W. H.; Hemstrom, M.A.;Greene, S.E.; Smith, B.G. 1988. The Forest

Communities of Mount Rainier National Park. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park

Service.

Froehlich, H. A.; Miles, D. W. R.; Robbins, R. W. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on compacted

skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 49:1015-1017.

Garland, J.J. 1997. Designated Skid Trails Minimize Soil Compaction. The Woodland Workbook,

EC 1110. Oregon State Univ. Extension Service.

Garman, S.L.; Cissel J.H.; Mayo J.H. 2003. Accelerating Development of Late-Successional

Conditions in Young Managed Douglas-Fir Stands: A Simulation Study. General Technical

Report PNW-GTR-557.

GEOBOB database. 2006. GEOBOB database replaced the ISMS database in 2005.Interagency

Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). 2007. Species Fact sheet for Peltigera

pacifica. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-lichens.shtml

Gomez, D.M., R.G. Anthony, and J.P. Hayes. 2005. Influence of thinning of Douglas-fir forests

on population parameters and diet of northern flying squirrels. Journal of Wildlife

Management 69(4):1670-1682.

Haggerty, S. 2008. Pers. Comm. Forest Soil Scientist. Olympic National Forest. 295142 Highway

101 S., Quilcene, Washington 98376.

Hamer, T.E., and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting

stands. Pages 69-82 in C.J. Ralph et al. (Tech. eds.). Ecology and conservation of the marbled

http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/

http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/climatechange/en

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-lichens.shtml


183

murrelet. United States Department. Of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest General

Techincal Report -152. Albany, CA.

Hamer, Thomas and S. Kim Nelson. 1998. Effects of disturbance on Nesting Marbled Murrelets:

Summary of Preliminary Results. Prepared for Paul Henson, US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Portland, Oregon. January 1998. 24 pp.

Hanson, E., D. Hays, L.L. Hicks, L. Young, and J.R Buchanan. 1993. Spotted owl habitat I

Washington: A report to the Washington Forest Practices Board. Washington Forest Practices

Board Spotted Owl Scientific Advisory Group, Olympia, W A, December 20, 1993.

Herrington, R.E. and J.H. Larson. 1985. Current status, habitat requirements and management of

the Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larsilli (Burns). Biological Conservation 34: 169-

179.

Hicks, L.L., H.C. Stabins, and D.R. Herter. 1999. Designing spotted owl habitat in a managed

forest. Journal of Forestry, July 1999. pp. 20-25.

Hoblitt, R.P., Walder, J.S., Driedger, C.L., Scott, K.M., Pringle, P.T., and Vallance, J.W. 1995.

Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey.

Littell, J.S., M. McGuire Elsner, L.C. Whitely Binder, and A.K. Snover(eds). 2009. The

Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a

Changing Climate – Executive Summary. In The Washington Climate Change Impacts

Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate, Climate Impacts Group,

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Available at:

www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciaexecsummary638.pdf

Livezy, K.B. 2007. Barred Owl Habitat & Prey: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature.

Journal of Raptor Research, Vol. 4, No. 3.

Mahoney, R. 1992. Silvicultural Decisions II: Mechanized vs. Conventional Logging. UI

Extension Forestry Information Series I, FM12. [online]. Available:

http://www.uidaho.edu/extension/forestry/content/products/harvesting. [July 1, 2013].

Mech, L. David and Luigi Boitani. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation.

University of Chicago Press, 448pp.

Mech, L.D. 2000. Leadership in wolf, Canis lupus, packs. Canadian Field-Naturalist 114(2):259-

263.

Mieman, S., R. Anthony, E. Glenn, T. Bayless, A. Ellingson, M.C. Hansen, and C. Smith. 2003.

Effects of commericial thinning on home-range and habitat-use patterns of a male northern

spotted owl: a case study. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003, 31(4):1254-1262.

Millar, C., N.L. Stephenson, S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future:

Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145-2151.

Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of juvenile spotted owls in western Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon

State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciaexecsummary638.pdf

http://www.uidaho.edu/extension/forestry/content/products/harvesting


184

Napper, C.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Howes, S. 2009. Soil-Disturbance Field Guide. 0819 1815P. San

Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and

Development Center. 112 p.

Oakleaf, J.K., D.L. Murray, J.R. Oakleaf (and others), 2006. Habitat selection by recolonizing

wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 70(2):554-

563.

Oliver, Chad and Bruce Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw-Hill Inc. NY, NY.

Olson, D.H.; Chan S.S. 2004. Riparian buffer widths and thinning: effects on headwater

microclimates and aquatic dependent vertebrates. Northwestern Naturalist 85:84.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Plant Division, Noxious Weed Control, Scotch Broom. Web

site accessed 2/8/2010. http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/profile_scotchbroom.shtml.

Pearson, R.R., and K.B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted

owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research.

37: 265-276.

Peterson, A. 2008. Gravel inspection, history and standards. In Proceedings, 2008 Weeds across

borders conference, eds. Darbyshire and Prasad, available at

https://www.invasiveplants.ab.ca/WABProceedings/Acrobatfiles/WAB2008Complete.pdf#pa

ge=133.

Peterson, James, J. Dunham, P. Howell, S. Bonar, and R. Thurow, 2000. Interim Protocol for

Determining Bull Trout Presence. (Draft Copy).

Pollock, Michael M., Beechie, Timothy J., Liermann, Martin, and Bigley, Richard E., 2009.

Stream Temperature Relationships to Forest Harvest in Western Washington. Journal of the

American Water Resources Association.

Raley, Catherine M., and Keith B. Aubry. 2006b. Density of potential foraging structures and

pileated woodpecker foraging activity on Sun Pass State Forest, Oregon. Update to Final

Report. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. 12 pp.

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the

marbled murrelet in North America: an Overview. Pages 3-22 in C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M.G.

Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds.). Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. General

Technical Report. PSW-GTW-152. Pacific Southwest Experimental Station, U.S. Forest

Service, Albany, California. 420 pp.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D.

W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A.

O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Ithaca, NY.

Roberts, S.D.; Harrington C.A. 2008. Individual tree growth response to variable-density thinning

in coastal Pacific Northwest forests.

http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/profile_scotchbroom.shtml

https://www.invasiveplants.ab.ca/WABProceedings/Acrobatfiles/WAB2008Complete.pdf#page=133

https://www.invasiveplants.ab.ca/WABProceedings/Acrobatfiles/WAB2008Complete.pdf#page=133


185

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in

relation to postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 257:151-159.

Senderak, K. 2013. Nisqually Timber Sale Silviculture Resource Report. Zone Silviculturist.

Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Cowlitz Valley Ranger District, Randle, Washington.

Sidle, R. C. 1985. Factors Influencing the Stability of Slopes. In: Swanston, Doug ed.

Proceedings of a Workshop on Slope Stability: Problems and Solutions in Forest

Management. UDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,

GTR PNW-180.

Singleton, P.H., J.K. Lehmkuhl, W.L. Gaines, S.A. Graham. 2010. Barred Owl Use and Habitat

Selection in Eastern Cascades, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2): 285-294.

Sutherland, S., and C. Nelson. 2010. Nonnative plant response to silvicultural treatments: a

model based on disturbance, propagules pressure, and competitive abilities. Western Journal

of Applied Forestry. 25(1) 27-33.

Swanston, D. N. 1974. Slope Stability Problems Associated with Timber Harvesting in

Mountainous Regions of the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Government Technical Report PNW-21.

Tappeiner, J.C.; Huffman, D.; Marshall D.; Spies T.A.; Bailey J.D. 1997. Density, ages, and

growth rates in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Can. J. For. Res.

27:638-648.

Taylor, K., J. Mangold, L. Rew. 2011. Weed species dispersal by vehicles. Montana State

Univesity Extension. Available at

http://weedeco.msu.montana.edu/publications/agricultural.html.

Thomas, J.W., D.A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R.J. Pederson, L.D. Bryant. 1988. Habitat

effectiveness index on Blue Mountain winter ranges. USFS. General Technical Report PNW-

GTR-218. 28 pp.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A

conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl; report of the interagency Scientific

Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service,

Portland, Oregon, May 1990. 427 pp.

Thomas, J.W., H. Black, R.J. Scherzinger, R.J. Pederson. 1979. Deer and Elk. In J.W. Thomas,

ed. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington.

Handbook 533. USDA. Portland, OR. 512 pp.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Gunderson, A.G.; Holthausen,

R.S.; Marcot, B.G.; Reeves, G.H.; Sedell, J.R.; Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and

management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth

forests of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC: 530 p.

Topik, C., Halverson, N.M., Brockway, D.G., 1986. Plant Association and Management Guide for

the Western Hemlock Zone. Gifford Pinchot National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region, R6-ECOL-230A-1986. Portland, OR.


186

Urgenson, L. 2006. The ecological consequences of knotweed invasion into riparian forests.

Unpublished thesis, University of Washington.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Climate Change – Health and Environmental Effects

– Forests [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/forests.html#tree.

[November 8, 2012]

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203

pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Arlington, VA. 24 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix

occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi +258 pp.

USDA Forest Service 1971. Soil Resource Inventory. Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Pacific

Northwest Region. Vancouver, WA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994. Record of Decision for

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standard and Guidelines for Management of

Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of

the Northern Spotted Owl. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. Gifford Pinchot National

Forest. Pacific Northwest Region, Vancouver, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2520, R-6 Supplement No.

2500.98-1. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Nisqually Watershed Analysis. Cowlitz Valley Ranger District,

Randle, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Unpublished GIS layer. Geologic hazards (gpghz). Gifford Pinchot

National Forest. Vancouver, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999b. Landtype Association (gplta). Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Vancouver, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999c. Potential natural vegetation zones (gppvg). [online]. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/data-library/gis/gifford-pinchot/. [July 1, 2013]. Gifford Pinchot

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Wind River Watershed Analysis. 2nd

Iteration. Gifford Pinchot


USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Likelihood of Occurrence Key.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/forests.html#tree

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/data-library/gis/gifford-pinchot/

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/


187

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants,

Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Pacific Northwest Region. R6-

NR-FHP-PR-02-05 Portland, OR. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Record of decision and final environmental impact statement and

forest plan amendment #20, Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Columbia River Gorge

National Scenic Area (Washington portion): site-specific invasive plant treatment project and

forest plan amendment. Pacific Northwest Region. Available at

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/site-specific/GIP/.

USDA Forest Service. GUIDE TO NOXIOUS WEED PREVENTION PRACTICES, Version 1.0,

Dated July 5, 2001, available at http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/prevention/index.shtml

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts. Soil

Quality Institute; Grazing Lands Technology Institute.

USDA, Forest Service. 2001b. Bull Trout Survey (unpublished report). Gifford Pinchot National

Forest. Vancouver, Washington.

Von der Lippe, M., and I. Kowarik. 2008. Long distance dispersal of plants as a driver of plant

invasions. Conservation Biology 21(4): 986-996.

WA State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2006. Written findings: Class B-designate weed: herb

Robert. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Written_findings/Geranium _robertianum.html.

Accessed 2/9/2007.

Wade, J.; Herman, L.; High, C. T.; Couche, D. 1992. Soil Resource Inventory. Gifford Pinchot


Wade, J.; High, C. T. 1992b. NEPA Assistance for the Soil Resource. Gifford Pinchot National

Forest. Vancouver, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. North Rainier Elk Herd Plan. Wildlife

Program, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 63pp.

Weins, J.D. 2012. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted

owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Dissertation submitted to Oregon State University,

Corvalis, OR. 156 pp.

Williams, R.E.; Shaw, III, E.G.; Wargo, P.M.; Sites, W.H. 1986. Armillaria Root Disease. Forest

Insect and Pest Leaflet 78, USDA Forest Service.

Wilson, Todd M.; Forsman, Eric D. 2013. Thinning effects on spotted owl prey and other forest-

dwelling small mammals. In: Anderson, Paul D.; Ronnenberg, Kathryn L., eds. Density

management for the 21st Century: west side story. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-880. Portland,

OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 79–90.

Zielinski, W. J., K. M. Slauson, C. R. Carroll, C. J. Kent, and D. G. Kudma. 2001. Status of

American martens in coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy 82:478-490.

Zika, P., and A. Jacobson. 2003. An overlooked hybrid Japanese knotweed (Polygonum

cuspidatum x sachalinense; Polygonaceae) in North America. Rhodora 105 (922): 143-152.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/site-specific/GIP/

http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/prevention/index.shtml

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Written_findings/Geranium%20_robertianum.html.%20Accessed%202/9/2007

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/Written_findings/Geranium%20_robertianum.html.%20Accessed%202/9/2007


188

Appendix A: Issues Raised During Scoping

Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme

Treat hazard trees along haul routes The Forest Service cannot require a timber purchaser to treat hazard

trees besides those that pose an imminent threat to thinning

operations and haul.

Roads

Use temporary and spur roads to make timber harvest

economical

The interdisciplinary team is seeking access management solutions

for efficient harvest of timber while still minimizing the extent of new

disturbance in the project area.

Roads

Do not decommission any roads Currently the Forest Service is unable to fully fund the maintenance

of all existing roads on the Forest. Lack of road maintenance poses

environmental and safety risks. It is important to address these

issues through decommissioning or closure and stabilization, where

appropriate, such as where future management activities are not

expected to occur. The line officer has asked the team to consider

only closure and stabilization, not decommissioning, based on public

and interdisciplinary input. A preliminary list of road to propose for

closure is being derived from a variety of criteria based on known

future management needs, aquatic and terrestrial risk posed by the

road, and feasibility to analyze within the scope of this project.

Roads

Create 1-3 acre openings in stands to stimulate early

seral habitat for wildlife/big game; explore “linear

meadow” and Franklin/Johnson Moist Forest Strategy

The Nisqually Thin project area does not contain suitable conditions

to create early-seral openings, given that the area is predominantly in

the LSR land allocation. In addition, adjacent state and private lands

currently offer ample opportunity for big game forage, as they are

generally in an earlier state of forest regeneration along much of the

FS boundary.

Thinning prescription /

Wildlife

Consider winter logging/ easing timing restrictions to Winter closures and timing restrictions will be required for this project

to limit disturbance to endangered species (northern spotted owl,

Economics / Timing


189


make for a more economical thinning project marbled murrelet) and other wildlife, in addition to preventing damage

to soil and water resources during the wet season, as required by

law. Economics are only one facet of the purpose and need of the

project, and a variety of resource concerns must be considered in

implementation.

restrictions

Use smaller (25-50 ft) no-cut buffers in riparian zones

to increase harvest volume and improve riparian

structure

The thinning prescriptions proposed are consistent with direction

provided in the NWFP and Forest Plan for Late Successional

Reserve and Matrix, are consistent with the National Forest

Management Act, and are based on a synthesis of established

silvicultural science. Timber production for economic benefit is only

one goal of the Nisqually Thin project; ultimately the purpose in LSR

is to help stands develop more quickly into “old growth” stands.

Riparian Buffers /

Economics / Thinning

prescription

Thin more heavily overall than what is in proposed

action








Thinning prescription/

Economics

Close roads (but do not decommission) Currently the Forest Service is unable to fully fund the maintenance









Roads


190




Look for as many opportunities to decommission roads

as possible

Currently the Forest Service is unable to fully fund the maintenance











Roads

Supportive of pre-commercial thinning to improve

health and vigor of younger stands

Pre-commercial treatments will be included in the proposed action Thinning prescription

Supportive of variable density prescription, gaps and

skips, in LSR. Supportive of timber-production oriented

prescription in Matrix. Supportive of leaving quality

down wood and snags in all units.








Thinning prescription

Consider closure of trails that receive little use in

project area (Cave Creek #225, Big Creek trail #252

from #251 to Rd 8440 and redesignate remaining

portion of #252 as part of #251, Greenwood Lake

#253, Allen Mountain #269)

The team developed a purpose and need that focused around

thinning and restoration treatments to achieve primarily ecological

objectives. Specific resource concerns were not cited in this

comment.

Recreation


191


Consider improvements to certain trails (#251 trailhead

on FR 8410, trailhead for Cora Lake on FR 8420).

The IDT and line officer see the value of making recreation

improvements in the area of the Nisqually Thin proposal. However,

we felt that these types of projects are somewhat outside the scope

of the goals of this project and would not be practical to analyze.

Recreation

Evaluate safety , access, and use of High Rock

Lookout

The IDT and line officer see the value of making recreation

improvements in the area of the Nisqually Thin proposal. However,

we felt that these types of projects are somewhat outside the scope

of the goals of this project and would not be practical to analyze.

Recreation/Heritage

Revisit watershed prioritization process and evaluate

all needed watershed restoration work for this project

area

The watershed analysis from 2002 is a key reference tool the team is

using to build a list of potential restoration projects. “All” restoration

work needed in this project area cannot not be surveyed and

analyzed for practical reasons, but the team is seeking a suite of

projects that would balance various resource objectives and

restoration concerns.

Restoration

Close/Stabilize and Decommission more roads Currently the Forest Service is unable to fully fund the maintenance







and interdisciplinary input. A preliminary list of roads to propose for


future management /access needs, aquatic and terrestrial risk posed

by the road, and feasibility to analyze within the scope of this project.

Roads

Evaluate selection/creating gaps around potential

marbled murrelet nest trees; fully evaluate impacts to

Marbled murrelet is an important wildlife concern in the Nisqually Thin

area, and effects on the murrelet will be evaluated.

Wildlife/Endangered Species

Act


192


murrelet

Thoroughly evaluate thinning effects on Northern

Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat, and potential

interaction with Barred Owl

NSO, critical habitat, and barred owl interactions will all be

considered through this analysis process.

Wildlife/Endangered Species

Act

Use Variable Density Thinning framework for stand

prescriptions in LSR and Matrix; use skips and gaps,

retain down wood and snags, etc.

The thinning prescriptions proposed will be consistent with direction







Thinning prescription

Do not thin in Riparian Reserves unless treatments will

benefit aquatic and riparian resources








Aquatic/thinning prescription

Minimize construction of temp roads The interdisciplinary team is seeking access management solutions

for efficient harvest of timber while still minimizing the extent of new

disturbance in the project area.

Roads

Seriously consider climate change in project analysis;

especially re: increased stream temps and earlier peak

flows effect on fish; how to create a more resilient

ecosystem with this project; disclose effects of natural

disturbance versus harvest regarding release of

The analysis will not attempt to quantify carbon emissions or

sequestration. However, the proposal will seek to create resilience in

forest and riparian ecosystems to a variety of climatic conditions and

potential future scenarios.

Climate change


193


carbon

Evaluate cumulative effects. Cumulative effects of the proposed action will be evaluated at the

appropriate temporal and spatial scales for the resources analyzed.

NEPA/Cumulative effects

Evaluate an adequate range of alternatives The IDT is discussing the need for additional alternatives. NEPA/Alternatives

Eliminate all harvest within 0.7 miles of historic or

existing Northern Spotted Owl site centers to

ameliorate potential adverse impacts to NSO

NSO, critical habitat, and barred owl interactions will all be

considered through this analysis process. Harvest buffers/restrictions

based on NSO sites will be evaluated and consulted with FWS, and

will rely on the best available science.

ESA/Wildlife

Consider an alternative that eliminates construction of

temporary roads entirely, or at least removes units 1,

29, and 34 from the unit pool due to high percentage of

temp roads within.

The team is investigating ways to minimize new temporary road

construction wherever possible. After discussing this comment, the

team reviewed units 1, 29, and 34 and

Roads

Establish a minimum 75-ft buffer between 52 road and

unit boundary to mitigate visual impacts

This suggestion will be included as design criteria to protect visual

quality.

Recreation/Visual

Creation/preservation of snags and down wood should

only be in Purpose and Need if there is certainty that

these activities will occur – since these activities are

dependent on uncertain funding, they should not be

displayed as a positive benefit or mitigation for sale-

related impacts

The planning and NEPA for any project does not ensure its

implementation on the ground, given the vagaries of federal

appropriations and how and which operations on the National Forest

are funded every year. It is reasonable to expect that creation of

snags and down wood will occur as proposed, based on the

expectation that timber harvest in the Nisqually Thin area would be

As of this writing, snags and down wood are not being viewed a

“mitigation” for sale-related impacts, but as a separate component of

the proposed action.

Proposed Action / Effects

analysis

EA should include consideration and protection of

species and habitat occurrences in nearby area (same

The wildlife analysis will include the best data available at the scale

relevant to the species for which we manage. If other agency data is

Wildlife data / analysis


194


townships), as mapped by Washington Dept of Fish

and Wildlife, particularly for elk forage

available and relevant, we will do our best to integrate it into the

analysis.

Encourages practices that will maintain habitat and set

forest stands on a trajectory toward contributing to

NSO and marbled murrelet habitat where possible and

appropriate

A majority of the vegetation prescription must be consistent with

developing late-successional characteristics given that much of the

project lies in LSR. Project design criteria for improving wildlife

habitat where possible will be included.

Wildlife

Commercial thinning harms “countless natural

resources… especially aquatic resources” –

(numerous views and citations opposing timber

harvest are attached to this assertion)

The thinning prescriptions proposed will be consistent with direction




silvicultural science. We understand that public perception of timber

harvest is controversial; however, there is a solid scientific foundation

for use of thinning in this region to enhance ecological values and

provide economic benefit.

Thinning (effects)

Roads damage the proper ecological functioning of the

natural resources in a forest (numerous views and

citations opposing forest road construction are

attached to this assertion); temp roads should be

obliterated after use

We acknowledge that roads can cause impacts to natural resources,

and these will be analyzed and disclosed in the EA. Any temporary

roads needed for the proposed action would be closed and stabilized

following use for harvest. The team is also looking at additional roads

to close and stabilize in the project area to reduce risk to natural

resources.

Roads (effects)

Scoping was conducted improperly / Comment period

is required for pre-decisional EAs

Scoping was conducted through a legal notice at the discretion of the

line officer, and was not intended to limit the time frame for providing

scoping input. The EA had not been drafted, and the proposed action

was not refined. The public has the option of providing input up until

the point at which a decision is made, but we requested scoping

responses be provided within a timeframe that would allow them to

be most helpful to integrate into the analysis.

NEPA/ Scoping process


195


Law requires that USFS obtain a NPDES permit and

disclose that the permit has been obtained

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a permit

program that helps control water pollution by regulating point sources

that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The EPA

has revised 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14), its Phase I storm water

regulations, to clarify that storm water discharges from logging roads

do not constitute storm water discharges associated with industrial

activity and that a NPDES permit is not required for these storm

water discharges.

NPDES/ Water quality


196

Appendix B: No Commercial Harvest Buffers No commercial harvest buffers for stream and wetlands by harvest unit (Note: stream buffers of

“0” are stream channels that fall within a larger stream buffer of a fish bearing channel).

Harvest Unit Nbr

Harvest Unit Size (ac)

Stream or waterbody

Stream Type

Interim Riparian Reserve width (ft)

No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial

Harvest Buffer in Unit (ac)

Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit

Total % of Buffer area in Harvest

Unit

1 125 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 1.2 0.96

125 Wetlands Wetlands 180 60 38.44 30.75 31.71

2 16.9 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 7.3 43.20 43.20

3 17.6 None None 180 0 0 0.00 0.00

4 108.7 Stream 1 Perennial 120 15.3 14.08

108.7 Stream 1a Perennial 180 30 0.56 0.52

108.7 Stream 1b Intermittent 180 30 0.14 0.13

108.7 Berry Creek

Perennial 360

180 1.2 1.10

108.7 Wetlands Wetlands 180 60 4.4 4.05

108.7 Nisqually

River Perennial

360 180 6.4 5.89 25.76

5 19.9 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 0.85 4.27

19.9 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 0.14 0.70

19.9 Berry Creek

Perennial 360

180 1.87 9.40 14.37



40.3 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 3.08 7.64 14.54


13.7 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 5 36.50 36.64


4.78 Stream 7 Intermittent 180 30 0.21 4.39 30.54

9 52.85 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00

52.85 Mesatchee Intermittent 180 180 4.19 7.93 7.93

10 114.52 Stream 1 Perennial 180 30 1.32 1.15




197

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit




114.52 Stream 7 Perennial 180 60 2.46 2.15





114.52 Stream 9a Intermittent 180 60 1.45 1.27


114.52 Stream 9c Intermittent 180 60 0.33 0.29



114.52 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 1.6 1.40 9.93




17.35 Mesatchee Perennial 360

180 2.69 15.50

17.35 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 0 0.00 27.49


113.6 Stream2 Perennial 180 0 0 0.00

113.6 Stream 3 Perennial 180 0 0 0.00






113.6 Stream 9 Intermittent 180 0 0 0.00


113.6 Stream

10a Intermittent 180 30 0.16 0.14


198

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit





113.6 Mesatchee Perennial 360

180 24.73 21.77

113.6 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 0 0.00 23.71















316.03 Stream 1d Intermittent 180 30 0.4 0.13






316.03 Stream

3c1 Intermittent 180 30 0.29 0.09

316.03 Stream

3c2 Intermittent 180 30 0.31 0.10


316.03 Stream 3e Intermittent 180 60 0.62 0.20





199

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit


316.03 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 5.7 1.80



316.03 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 14.8 4.68 26.82






16 100.43 Stream 1a Perennial 180 30 1.43 1.42

100.43 Stream

1a1 Perennial 180 60 2.12 2.11

100.43 Stream

1a2 Perennial 180 60 1.18 1.17

100.43 Stream

1a3 Intermittent 180 30 0.11 0.11

100.43 Stream 1a1a

Intermittent 180 30 0.07 0.07


100.43 Stream 1c Intermittent 180 0 0 0.00




100.43 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 6.25 6.22







80.01 Berry Creek

Intermittent 180 180 1.74 2.17 17.66

18 15.48 None - 180 - 0 0.00 0.00

19 59.79 Stream 3 Perennial 180 60 5 8.36


59.79 Stream

3a1 Intermittent 180 30 0.24 0.40



200

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit

59.79 Stream 5 Perennial 180 60 4.13 6.91 17.68



56.57 Berry Creek

Perennial 360

180 0.78 1.38 3.04









256.77 Stream 5d Perennial 180 60 2.3 0.90



256.77 Stream

6a1 Intermittent 180 30 0.11 0.04

256.77 Stream

6a2 Intermittent 180 30 0.03 0.01



256.77 Stream 7b Perennial 180 30 1.36 0.53

256.77 Stream

7b1 Intermittent 180 30 0.24 0.09

256.77 Stream

7b2 Intermittent 180 60 1.43 0.56





256.77 Stream

10a Intermittent 180 30 0.13 0.05

256.77 Stream

10b Intermittent 180 60 1.04 0.41


256.77 Stream

11a Intermittent 180 30 0.56 0.22


256.77 Stream

12a Intermittent 180 30 0.59 0.23


201

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit


256.77 Berry Creek

Perennial 360

180 2.53 0.99









47.21 Stream 1a Perennial 180 30 1.32 2.80 4.32





35.94 Stream 3b Perennial 180 60 0.85 2.37

35.94 Stream 4 Perennial 180 30 0.32 0.89 21.01

25 13.73 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 0.11 0.80 0.8



41.56 Rocky Creek

Perennial 180 120 0.13 0.31 9.79



35.18 Wetlands Wetlands 180 60 1.22 3.47

35.18 Berry Creek

Perennial 360

180 0.1 0.28 8.24













202

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit

95.13 Berry Creek

Perennial 360

180 7.88 8.28




446.27 Stream

10a Perennial 180 60 0.35 0.08

446.27 Stream

Complexes

Intermittent and

Perennial 180 30/60 152 34.06

446.27 Wetlands Wetlands 180 60 1.2 0.27 34.41



92.13 Stream

13a Intermittent 180 30 1.63 1.77

92.13 Stream

13b Intermittent 180 30 0.25 0.27


92.13 Stream

14a Intermittent 180 60 0.98 1.06


92.13 Wetlands Wetlands 180 60 12.3 13.35 20.00



80.97 Stream

1a1 Intermittent 180 60 1.58 1.95 5.56







118.79 South Fork Catt Creek

Perennial 360

180 14.13 11.89 17.02





Perennial 360

180 21.55 30.88

69.79 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 3.63 5.20



203

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit




106.43 Stream 8a Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00 10.21









52.27 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 22.6 43.24 58.01













37 30.79 Stream2 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00




30.79 Stream 4d Intermittent 180 60 0 0.00





204

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit











Perennial 360

180 3.38 3.10 15.55




82.78 Stream

5a1 Intermittent 180 60 1.5 1.81

82.78 Stream


82.78 Stream














70.75 Stream

5a4 Intermittent 180 30 0.16 0.23

70.75 Stream

5a5 Intermittent 180 30 0.08 0.11

70.75 Stream

5a6 Intermittent 180 30 0.22 0.31


205

Harvest Unit Nbr


Stream or waterbody

Stream Type


No Commercial

Harvest Buffer

Width (ft)

No Commercial


Percent Buffer

in Harvest

Unit


Unit

70.75 Stream

5a7 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00



