Agencies, Tribes, and other Entities Consulteda123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Agencies, Tribes, and other Entities Consulted The Forest Service also invited several

Cowlitz Valley Ranger District

214

Agencies, Tribes, and other Entities Consulted The Forest Service also invited several Federal, State, and tribal entities to engage in informal or formal

comment, discussion, and/or consultation on this EA.

Indian Tribes In compliance with 36 CFR 800.3(f), initiation of the NHPA Section 106 process included notification to

four federally-recognized tribes, including the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Nisqually

Indian Community, and the Yakama Nation. Notification letters were sent on June 9, 2014 to the

designated cultural resources program manager for each of the Tribes with an invitation to consult

regarding the proposed project. No decision on the Silver Creek Thin project will be made until tribal

consultation is concluded.

Washington State Historic Preservation Office A copy of the heritage survey report was also submitted to the Washington State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO). Prior to a decision being made, the Forest Service must receive concurrence with the

survey report and findings from the State Archaeologist on behalf of SHPO.

US Fish and Wildlife Service Per regulations on interagency cooperation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (1973),

as amended, the Forest Service submitted a Wildlife Biological Assessment (BA) to the Department of

Interior - US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on August 31, 2015 to initiate formal consultation for the

Silver Creek Thin proposed action. The following determinations were submitted: May Affect, Not

Likely to Adversely Affect gray wolf; May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect marbled murrelet

(MAMU); May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect northern spotted owl (NSO); May Affect, Likely

to Adversely Affect Critical Habitat for marbled murrelet; May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Critical Habitat for northern spotted owl.

A Fisheries Biological Assessment was also submitted to FWS with a determination of No Effect for

Columbia River Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and a determination of May Effect, Likely to

Adversely Affect for Essential Fish Habitat.

The Forest Service will not sign a decision regarding the Silver Creek Thin project until FWS responds

with a Biological Opinion, which may identify Conservation Measures, Reasonable and Prudent

Measures, and/or mandatory Terms and Conditions that must be implement in order to minimize and/or

monitor the impact of the project on listed species.

National Marine Fisheries Service The Forest Service submitted a Fisheries Biological Assessment (BA) to NOAA National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) on August 21, 2015 with determinations for listed fish species and their habitat

as follows: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect for Lower Columbia River (LCR) steelhead trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), LCR Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and LCR Coho salmon (O. kisutch);

May Affect: Essential Fish Habitat; May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect Critical Habitat for Lower

Columbia River (LCR) steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and LCR Chinook salmon (O.

tshawytscha). The Forest Service will not sign a decision regarding the Silver Creek Thin project until

NMFS responds with a Biological Opinion, which may identify Conservation Measures, Reasonable and

Prudent Measures, and/or mandatory Terms and Conditions that must be implement in order to minimize

and/or monitor the impact of the project on listed species.

Silver Creek Thin Preliminary EA

215

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.

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

http://www.orwapif.org/


216

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.

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


217

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 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.

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


218

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.

Howell, Betsy L. and N. M. Maggiulli. 2011. Conservation Assessment for the Cascade Torrent

Salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae). U.S.D.A. Forest Service Region 6 and U.S.D.I. Bureau of

Land Management Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program.

Hudec, Jessica. 2013. Condition Class Assessment (unpublished report). Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

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].

Malt, J.M., and D.B. Lank. 2007. Temporal dynamics of edge effects on nest predation risk for the

marbled murrelet. Biological Conservation. 140 (1-2): 160-173 pp.

Malt, J.M., and D.B. Lank. 2009. Marbled Murrelet nest predation risk in managed forest landscapes:

dynamic fragmentation effects at multiple scales. Ecological Applications 19(5):1274-1287.

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


219

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.

Olson, D.H.; Rugger, C. 2007. Preliminary study of the effects of headwater riparian reserves with

upslope thinning on stream habitats and amphibians in western Oregon. Forest Science. 53(2): 331-

342.

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#page=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.

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.

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

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


220

Senderak, K. 2015. Silver Creek Thin 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.

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

thesis, University of Washington.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1971. Soil Resource Inventory. Gifford Pinchot National

Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. Vancouver, WA.


221

US Department of Agriculture 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.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1990. Record of Decision Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Gifford Pinchot

National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region, Vancouver, WA.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1998. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2520, R-6

Supplement No. 2500.98-1. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1999. Nisqually Watershed Analysis. Cowlitz Valley

Ranger District, Randle, WA.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1999. Unpublished GIS layer. Geologic hazards (gpghz).

Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver, WA.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1999b. Landtype Association (gplta). Gifford Pinchot

National Forest. Vancouver, WA.

US Department of Agriculture 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.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2001. Wind River Watershed Analysis. 2nd

Iteration.

Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver, WA.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2004c. Likelihood of Occurrence Key.

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

US Department of Agriculture 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/

US Department of Agriculture 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/.

US Department of Agriculture 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

US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic

Crusts. Soil Quality Institute; Grazing Lands Technology Institute.

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001b. Bull Trout Survey (unpublished report). Gifford

Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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


222

US Department of Commerce. 2012. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information

System, Washington, D.C. Tables CA05N, CA25N;

US Department of Commerce. 2013. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, Washington, D.C.

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.

US Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. 2012. Protected Areas Database of the United States

(PADUS) version 1.3. Rasker, R. 2006. "An Exploration Into the Economic Impact of Industrial

Development Versus Conservation on Western Public Lands." Society and Natural Resources. 19(3):

191-207; U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Census Bureau, Governments Division, Washington,

D.C.; U.S. Department of Interior. 2009. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Washington D.C.; U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 2009. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Interior.

2009. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Interior. 2007. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Interior. 2012. Office of Natural

Resources Revenue. Washington, D.C.; Additional sources and methods available at

www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps-hdt.

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.

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

Forest. Vancouver, WA.

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.

Washington 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.

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.

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

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


223

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.


224

Appendix A: Issues Raised During Scoping

Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme

Roads

I very strongly recommend 1)The crossing of the East

Fork of Silver Creek be replaced, 2) But only with a low

removable bridge that, with its piers, would be

removed through winters. (several attachments and

additions to scoping letter were also received detailing

the history of the 47 road, the previous crossings, and

history of right of ways in that area)

The great justification for constructing the difficult and

expensive seven mile road from Randle into the upper

Silver Creek drainage was recognized- that is why the

extraordinary effort and expense was expended to

build the road in the late 1960's.

A) Access to this area from the Cowlitz Valley Ranger

Station administrative office via this road is very, very

much shorter than by any alternative route.

B) Without this road, haul of forest products would

require that the haul expensively lift the products over

mountain passes of 3,000 ft. or higher elevation and

over much longer roads.

C) In full protection of the environment downstream,

most especially of the residents, homes and other

human improvements downstream, the crossing

structure must not increase the likelihood or impact of

The team discussed the subject of a potential crossing of East Fork

Silver Creek at length due to a number of factors, including the high

public interest in restoring access to the forest on FR 47; a concern

for the economic and logistical feasibility of hauling timber from the

subwatershed without a crossing at this location; and, the potential

ecological and human impacts of placing another structure that could

catastrophically fail in the path of flood debris and impact

downstream communities. The team agreed there is no simple

solution to this issue and so the deciding official requested a

preliminary economic analysis to determine the cost of constructing a

variety of types of crossings (including a temporary bridge) at this

location to inform the economic analysis of the project. An economic

analysis will be included in the EA that will include the anticipated

haul cost. In addition, the cost estimates for types of crossings that

would be feasible at this location will be discussed whether or not it is

included as a part of the proposed action or alternative.

Reconstruction / Economics

/ Flood Hazard / Historic

Information

Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest

225


any flood or landslide event in the East Fork of Silver

Creek.

D) The low removable bridge will be very much less

expensive to construct than the $5 million bridges

suggested. The seasonal removal of the bridge and

piers should be easy and inexpensive by just the

Forest Service road crew. Either a railroad flat car

bridge (lightweight, so preferable) or an Army Bailey

Bridge is suggested, with lightweight removable steel

ramps and piers at each end. If a Bailey Bridge is

used, the Army might handle its construction and

seasonal removal as an exercise for low cost. To me,

considering a multi-million-dollar bridge here is

grotesquely unreasonable- East Fork of Silver Creek is

just “not that big of a deal.”

Any action on the existing log jam and landslide debris

there (at FR 47 crossing with East Fork Silver Creek)

should be very carefully considered. Removal should

be done only if it is certain to decrease the likelihood or

impact of a future event. My feeling is that careful

consideration would conclude that it should not be

disturbed.

The team discussed a project at this location and concurred that

disturbing or dislodging the log jam and debris at this crossing would

not be prudent.

Flood hazard

I suggest the Bin Wall retaining walls at MP 5 be

inspected by an engineer familiar with them, perhaps

by someone from the successors to the Armco

manufacturer.

Thank you for sending this valuable historic information. If this section

of road becomes a candidate for use in the proposed action, the

retaining walls will be inspected (and we will send you some

pictures!).

Historic Information

http://www.aksteel.com/contact-us/

http://www.aksteel.com/contact-us/


226


Opportunities to invest in this infrastructure through the

maintenance and improvement of systems roads

should be evaluated. This maintenance can lead to

reduction and elimination of potential sediment delivery

sources, while maintaining access for the various

users.

The team recognizes the importance of providing a system of road

infrastructure that will support a variety of forest uses but we are also

mandated to respond to existing (and declining) road maintenance

budgets, and of course the human and ecological risks caused by the

road system. Timber projects are one way to leverage additional

funds to provide critical upkeep and maintenance of roads to address

resource damage and safety issues, and the team will seek to

produce a balanced access management proposal in this project.

Access / Maintenance

The use of new temporary roads and existing non-

system roads will help to reduce logging costs. When

BMPs are used, these roads can be relatively low

standard roads and then decommissioned as planned.

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 and responding to soil and geologic

instability in the Silver Creek area.

Temporary roads

Include an analysis of effects of temporary roads and

road reconstruction proposed and the economic and

ecological tradeoffs of individual road segments.

The effects of any road construction or reconstruction (temporary and

system) will be analyzed and disclosed in the EA. The IDT typically

reviews every candidate stand as a group, with the line officer

present, to make clear the economic and ecological tradeoffs being

made in the context of vegetation and/or road treatments proposed.

These “stand by stand” discussions will be documented and feed into

the analyses disclosed in the EA.

Effects

The scoping letter proposes to construct an

undisclosed amount of road. This violates the law.

The EA will disclose any proposed road construction or

reconstruction. It is essential for IDT specialists to have site-specific

road information to conduct their analyses and make determinations

with a reasonable degree of confidence. At the time of the scoping

letter, exact road segments and locations were not established, as

the proposed action was still being refined.

Road construction

Roads damage the proper ecological functioning of the

natural resources in a forest (numerous views and

We acknowledge that roads can cause impacts to natural resources,

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

Effects


227


citations opposing forest road construction are

attached to this assertion); temp roads should be

obliterated after use

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.

Increase number of miles of road to close and stabilize

or decommission in areas that are have sensitive

habitats or where roads are having significant effects

to water quality in the project area

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 roads 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.

Decommissioning

Vegetation Management / Silvicultural Prescription

Logging “plunders and desecrates the land”

(numerous views and citations opposing timber

harvest are attached to this assertion)

The thinning prescriptions proposed will be 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. 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 both enhance ecological values

and provide economic benefit.

Effects

Discuss what resources or conditions will be “restored”

by logging the forest. Timber sales should not be

called “restoration projects” (numerous views and

The Purpose and Need for commercial harvest of timber is clearly

stated to be partially for the economic benefit of the community.

Where commercial harvest is proposed and also benefits some

Effects


228


citations opposing logging are attached to this request

and assertion).

aspect of forest structure, composition, and function, it will be

disclosed and explained in the EA. Other restoration projects that

might be proposed will be explained in the EA to detail their potential

consequence or benefit on ecosystem health.

Maximize acres treated in this planning area. 3500

acres is only about 50% or less of Silver Creek

subwatershed. Particularly treating LSR before they

reach 80 years and maintaining future production of

Matrix lands.

The acres proposed for treatment in the planning area will represent

a variety of factors including those you mention such as stand age,

management allocation, future production and management activities

in the area, access, feasibility, and a suite of natural resource

considerations that must be given in any stand. It’s also important to

note that approximately 30% of the Silver Creek subwatershed is

private land, and outside of Forest Service jurisdiction.

Area treated / LSR

To meet Purpose and Need, make treatments

commercially viable through selection of appropriate

harvest systems and temp/system road work to access

harvest units. Suggestions include: Maximize use of

ground-based harvesting and yarding to enhance

commercial viability; Downhill yarding in a thinning will

be less expensive and should have less residual stem

damage with a wider spacing; Maximizing volume per

acre removal for helicopter units can lower the

harvesting cost/mbf. This can also reduce the need to

return for additional removals in the near term when

volume per acre may not be substantial enough to

support helicopter operations.

The team appreciates the desire to make the project commercially

viable in all aspects (vegetation management, restoration, etc.).

The line officer has identified a logging systems specialist who will be

part of the IDT in order to bring “implementation savvy” to the

discussion of feasibility on any vegetation treatments proposed in this

project. In addition, contracting officers and administrators participate

during the planning process to help provide insight into the tradeoffs

associated with selecting one harvest system over another. It is

important for the IDT to be aware possible harvest systems in a given

stand to be able to conduct their analyses and make determinations

with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Logging systems /

Economics

Consider hardwood removals where appropriate to

support hardwood processors infrastructure.

Investigate opportunities to convert hardwoods to

conifer in riparian reserves.

The team will investigate hardwood removal opportunities in the

planning area. The IDT will investigate where there may be

opportunities to use commercial or non-commercial vegetation

treatments in Riparian Reserves to accomplish restoration objectives,

Hardwoods / Economics


229


while maintaining consistency with Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Objectives.

The thinning prescription appears to be well thought

out but it is important to maintain sufficient canopy

cover to keep the forest soils and underbrush moist

and cool, and keep streams cool, particularly as our

summers get warmer and drier. Heavy thinning also

increases fire danger by allowing more drying of

underbrush and soils. We also need to leave trees

standing for future generations’ benefit.

The thinning prescriptions proposed will be consistent with direction




silvicultural science. The effects on understory vegetation, soils, fire,

stream temperatures, and many other resources will be discussed in

the in the EA.

Wherever thinning is proposed, there will be a plan to deal with slash

that may contribute to fire hazard.

Habitat / Fire Hazard /

Climate Change

Supportive of thinning in crowded plantation stands of

40-80 years only. Avoid thinning in older, naturally

regenerated stands.

Stands (plantations or naturally regenerated) evaluated for

silvicultural treatment in this project will be reviewed and analyzed to

determine appropriate prescriptions based on their management

objectives (as described in the NWFP and Forest Plan), natural

resource concerns (including riparian areas, old-growth or legacy

features, special species or habitats), and practical considerations

(economic value, road access). The majority of stands initially

identified in the project area are indeed plantations, but if there are

opportunities to meet the purpose and need for the project in

naturally regenerated stands while maintaining “natural”

characteristics and protecting resources, the team is directed by the

deciding official to do so.

Plantations vs. Naturally

Regenerated Stands

Create larger openings in stands to stimulate forage

species for ungulates

The team will investigate opportunities, where appropriate, to create

forage openings in the project area. It is unclear what would be a

“larger” opening (not specified in the letter received).

Early Seral


230


Urge that early seral openings are kept small and

consideration is given to mimic natural disturbance

(leaving legacy features such as snags and downed

wood) to have a more modest prescription than

traditional clearcuts

The team is not sure what is meant by “traditional clearcut” because

this type of harvest varies dramatically based on land ownership and

management objectives. The goal for early seral openings in this

project would be to highlight and retain complexity where it exists in

stands that are appropriate to harvest in this manner. Project design

measures will be included in the proposal to set size limits and

provide for protection of important legacy features and species.

Early Seral

Implement a monitoring plan to assess effectiveness

and effects of early seral treatments on such aspects

as vegetation recruitment, understory regrowth,

invasive species recruitment, use of area by

herbivores, and edge effects on surrounding forest

Monitoring for any aspect of the project will be discussed by the team

and disclosed as part of the proposed action (project design criteria).

The items you identify would provide useful information for future

similar projects on the North Zone and could be relevant to other

Forests.

Early Seral

I have NO issues with regen harvesting as long as

you're not on super-steep slopes and you're at least a

couple tree lengths away from Class I and Class II

streams.

The team will see what opportunities exist for regeneration harvest in

the planning area that are consistent with management direction and

still allow protection of Riparian Reserves and steep or unstable

slopes.

Regeneration harvest

Thin more heavily overall than what is typical in LSR

particularly in stands 60 or over since it is likely they

will not have another entry.

The thinning prescriptions proposed are consistent with direction




silvicultural science. Timber production for economic benefit is only

one goal of the Silver Creek Thin project; ultimately the purpose in

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

LSR

FS should include prescription to produce snag trees

for marbled murrelet habitat and leave areas with

important habitat for murrelet outside any gaps

created.

The vegetation prescription must be consistent with developing late-

successional characteristics inside LSR portions of the project area.

Project design criteria for improving wildlife habitat and protecting

marbled murrelet critical habitat and limiting disturbance to potential

Endangered Species


231


nesting murrelets will be included in the proposed action. Marbled

murrelet is an important wildlife concern in the Silver Creek Thin

area, and effects on the murrelet will be evaluated and disclosed to

the Fish and Wildlife Service through a Biological Assessment and

Level 1 consultation process.

Concerned about proposal to thin in plantations near

historic Northern Spotted Owl sites and in NSO critical

habitat. FS activities should not add to pressure on

spotted owls or adversely modify their habitat.

Project design criteria for improving wildlife habitat and protecting

NSO critical habitat and limiting disturbance to potential nesting

spotted owls will be included in the proposed action. Effects on the

NSO and its critical habitat will be evaluated and disclosed to the Fish

and Wildlife Service through a Biological Assessment and Level 1

consultation process.

Endangered Species

Avoid thinning in Riparian Reserves (outside a

minimum 100 foot buffer) to support ACS objectives

and avoid impacts to 303d listed Silver Creek and

federally listed salmonids in the Upper Cowlitz

watershed. Leave any trees cut in Riparian Reserves

onsite.

Width of the Riparian Reserves and of the “no harvest” buffer (if

different) will be discussed by the IDT. The no-commercial harvest

buffer for class I-IV streams will be clearly articulated in the proposed

action (project design criteria) and the team will seek to not prevent

attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives with the

selected buffers. The IDT will investigate where there may be

opportunities to use commercial or non-commercial vegetation

treatments in Riparian Reserves to accomplish restoration objectives,

while maintaining consistency with Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Objectives.

Riparian Reserves

Two tree lengths should be plenty of buffer for Class I

and Class II streams.

Width of the Riparian Reserves and of the “no harvest” buffer (if

different) will be discussed by the IDT. The no-commercial harvest

buffer for class I-IV streams will be clearly articulated in the proposed

action (project design criteria) and the team will seek to not prevent

attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives with the

selected buffers.

Riparian Reserves


232


There's no reason to NOT thin in riparian zones if the

areas are overcrowded with Douglas Fir - open them

up and allow some space for Western Red Cedar and

Big Leaf Maple and other species.

The IDT will investigate where there may be opportunities to use

commercial or non-commercial vegetation treatments in Riparian

Reserves to accomplish restoration objectives, while maintaining

consistency with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

Riparian Reserves

Economics

Supportive of second bullet in Purpose and Need. The

economic benefits created in the local communities will

serve to help support this and future projects by

helping to secure the existing forest industry

infrastructure. This infrastructure not only includes the

milling facilities, but also the logging, trucking, road

construction, and road maintenance operators.

Additionally the secondary jobs in the communities

depend on this economic activity for their success.

Most of the IDT lives near the planning area in the community of

Randle, WA, and directly understands the importance of this and

similar projects to the livelihoods of the community. Infrastructure

needed to support this project will be considered throughout the

analysis.

Purpose and Need

Consider expanding operating windows to the

maximum practically allowed, including options for

winter logging operations, to make for a more

economical thinning project.

Winter closures and other timing restrictions will be required for this

project to limit disturbance to endangered species (northern spotted

owl, marbled murrelet) and other wildlife. Wet season operation will

only be permitted with implementation of specific mitigation measures

and monitoring of soil, water quality, and weather indicators to

determine whether mitigations are effective. These measures are

considered integral to any harvest program to ensure compliance

with Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other laws.

Economics are only one facet of the purpose and need of the project,

and a variety of resource concerns must be considered in

implementation.

Operating restrictions

Include a local market lumber analysis in the EA or

DEIS that includes:

An economic analysis will be included in the EA as well as disclosure

of the communities and business sectors potentially affected by the

Economic analysis


233


1) the name(s) of the communities and mills that need

the forest products,

2) the current volume under contract for these mills

and volume in the log-yard,

3) how you became aware of the mill’s need for

volume,

4) other tourist dependent businesses in these

communities (motels, restaurants etc.) that could be

harmed by more logging in the area,

5) the effect to the financial viability of the community

and mill if this sale isn’t purchased by the local mill,

and

6) measures that will be taken to assure mills outside

the local area will not purchase the Silver Creek timber

sale.

proposal.

NEPA

Nowhere in the organic Act or any other law or USFS

policy does it state that removing trees to feed lumber

mills is a legitimate reason to log (and damage) public

land.

The management direction, policy, and other guidance that are the

foundation for the purpose and need will be discussed in the EA.

Purpose and Need

The scoping letter is silent on monitoring. Read 40

CFR 1505.3(d) And include a monitoring plan in the

EA (letter includes a list of specific items to include in

monitoring plan)

The EA will discuss any monitoring that will be required or

recommended as part of the proposed action and its objective. This

had not been identified at the time of scoping. 40 CFR 1505.3(d)

applies specifically to the requirement for monitoring of

Monitoring


234


implementation of decisions documented in a Record of Decision

(ROD) and analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An

Environmental Assessment (EA), with a documented Decision Notice

(DN) may also include monitoring but it is not required except in

implementation of adaptive management proposal (see 36 CFR

220.7(b)(2)(iv)).


235

Appendix B: Interdisciplinary Team Members

Name Specialty

Aldo Aguilar Soil Resources

Andrea Durham Recreation

Kevin Flores Heritage and Cultural Resources

Jennifer Harris Fire and Fuels

John Jakubowski Wildlife Biology

Hunter Kashdan Logging systems

Brad Krieckhaus Botany and Invasive Species

Mike McConnell Hydrology

Sarah Rockey Roads and Engineering

Kevin Senderak Silviculture and IDT leader

Erica Taecker NEPA and IDT leader

Ken Wieman Fish Biology

Additional participation and review by:

Carol Chandler –Wildlife

Joe Gates – Silviculture

Ronelle Goens – Timber Sale Administration

Baker Holden – Fisheries

Jessica Hudec – Fire Ecology

Kraig Kidwell – Timber Sale Administration/Contracting

Crista O’Conner - Botany

Dave Olson – Natural Resources

Paul Smale – Hydrology/Aquatics

John Squires – Pinchot Partners

Ruth Tracy – Watershed Resources

Jamie Tolfree – Pinchot Partners


236

Appendix C: Transportation System Report

Introduction The data for the Silver Creek Thin Roads Analysis was collected through on the ground

inspection of roads and culverts within the analysis area. Road maintenance objective levels

based on the Forest Plan were the baseline to determine if roads within the analysis area are

meeting the objective level needs. Road density maps, known culvert locations, existing road log

reports, and analysis area maps all derived from corporate databases helped identify and verify

road system items. Road density was calculated using Geographical Information System data by

dividing the road miles within the sub-watershed by the total area of the sub-watershed.

Confirmation of road system items were then completed through a field verification process,

where every listed road system item within the analysis area was verified. Unclassified roads,

additional culverts, road closure effectiveness, and road reconstruction/maintenance needs were

also identified during the field verification process.

Describing the situation The road system in the Silver analysis area is serving three users. The most frequent use of this

road system is for recreational purposes. The second is for commercial harvest of special forest

products. The third road user of the Silver analysis area is through resource managers and their

project personnel monitoring and carrying out prescriptions associated with their resource.

At this time the overall condition of the Silver analysis area road system is fair to poor. Some

portions of the existing road system is experiencing erosion, surface damage due to outdated

construction/design practices, failed culverts and lack of road maintenance and or permanent

erosion control measures. Some road sections have road side vegetation due to the minimal road

maintenance. Select maintenance and reconstruction of problem areas will need to occur to

remedy the existing condition.

Currently there are approximately 15 miles of closed roads and 82 miles of open roads within the

Silver analysis area. These roads are listed below by road number, operational maintenance level,

and miles.

Transportation System The major access routes in the Silver Creek area consists of the Forest Service Roads (FR)

4700000, 8500000, 7500000 roads, all of which are ML 2 and provide access to the area. Beyond

these major access routes, the roads stay at a ML 2 and become ML 1. Some ML 2 roads have

been managed at their current level while others have not been. All ML 1 roads are managed at

their current level. All the routes provide a variety of surface types. There is no private land

access within the planning area, but the road system does provide access to private lands outside

of the forest boundary.

Most of the roads within the area are in maintenance level 2 status. The majority of these roads

are drivable, however some have experienced considerable damage during the 2011 flood event

and are in need of reconstruction and maintenance. Level 2 roads that are not currently drivable

that will be drivable after the sale include sections of the 7500000, 4700135 and the 7561000.


237

Level 2 roads that will be treated as Level 1 roads include: 4778000, 4778011, 7561018 and

8500108.

The majority of the maintenance level 1 roads are effectively closed, however most have few or

no drainage features in place. Some road surface erosion is occurring. Most of the maintenance

level 1 roads within the Silver planning area were closed by placing berms at the beginning of the

road. Typically, these roads are not being used by vehicles and subsequently have grown over

with grass and some small trees. Except for an occasional cut bank failure and rutting, they are in

good condition, and in many cases have closed themselves.

Within the project area, the majority of roads have varying degrees of drainage problems.

Typically, these problems are a result of inadequate drainage design, and a general lack of

maintenance. Most roads have not been maintained since the flood event and in some cases the

last timber sale activity.

Table 56. Summary of Existing Roads and Management Level Status in Silver Creek Thin Project Area

Road # OPML Treated Miles

4700174 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2.85


















SUBTOTAL 14.29

4700000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 7.33








4778000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1




238

Road # OPML Treated Miles









SUBTOTAL 51.85

4700000 2- HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 9.77

5200000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CAR 2.51

8500000 2- HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 6.50

SUBTOTAL 18.78

Road Reconstruction and Maintenance Some roads used for timber sale operations will be reconstructed to meet current traffic service

level standards. Road maintenance includes maintaining drainage structures, blading and shaping

the roadway, adding some additional surfacing rock and clearing logs and brush from roads.

Specific activities include:

Reconstruct shoulder and replace culvert of Forest Road (FR) 8500000 at milepost 13.0.

Reclaim asphalt from mileposts 0 to 6.5 of Forest Road 8500000 and from mileposts 10.3

to 17.1 of Forest Road 4700000. Asphalt will be pulverized and reclaimed to the full

depth of asphalt and approximately 6” of existing crushed base rock under the asphalt for

the entire width of asphalt sections including turnouts and curve widening. It will be

blended in place so that the resulting blend is 50% pulverized asphalt and 50% crushed

aggregate. Blend will be graded and compacted. Where we cannot recover enough

crushed base rock from the existing road to produce a 50%/50% blend, additional crushed

rock will be added to produce the designed mix. Asphalt reclamation will not occur

within 200’ of any stream crossing or nearest cross drain, whichever is less. Asphalt

removal will occur inside the buffer areas.

Blasting and crushing of rock at St. Regis (FR 7500000) and Boundary (FR 4740015)

quarries for road fill and surfacing. If St. Regis rock pit cannot be developed, a

commercial source will be used for maintenance and reconstruction purposes in the FR

7500000 corridor.

Replace washed-out culverts at mileposts 0.00, 0.48, 0.77 and 1.52 of FR 4700174.

Install temporary bridge where FR 4778043 crosses Willie Creek at milepost 0.2, repair

washout with culvert at milepost 0.3 and unbury culvert at milepost 2.2. Reconstruct

road junction with FR 4778042 for bridge delivery and installation.

Repair washout with culvert at milepost 0.15 of FR 4778045.

Repair washouts with culverts on FR 4778046.

Repair embankment at milepost 0.48 of FR 7500064, remove slide and unbury culvert at

milepost 0.97 and unbury culvert at milepost 1.09.

Install culverts at mileposts 0.01, 0.45, 0.87 and 1.3 of FR 8522000.

Remove slough at milepost 4.7 of FR 4700000.

Deep patch repair between mileposts 10.58 and 16.12 of FR 4700000.


239

Realignment at milepost 16.12 and 16.2 with embankment repair at milepost 16.15 of FR

4700000.

Reconstruct length of FR 4700135 including ditch, shoulder, surface, embankment repair

and blasting near terminus.

Reconstruct length of FR 4700184 including ditch, shoulder, surface and embankment

repair.

Reconstruct length of FR 4740015 including ditch, shoulder, and surface and cross drain

installation.

Reconstruct FR 4745000 between mileposts 0 and 1.2 including ditch, shoulder, surface

and embankment repair.

Reconstruct FR 4773000 at milepost 0.1 including ditch, shoulder, surface and

embankment repair.

Reconstruct FR 4778000 including ditch, shoulder and surface repair between milepost

0.08 and 0.91.

Repair washouts and replace culverts at milepost 0.39, 0.42, 0.46, 0.87 and 0.91 of FR

4778000.

Reconstruct length of FR 4778011 including ditch, shoulder and surface repair and

culvert replacement at mileposts 0.56 and 0.6.

Reconstruct length of FR 6300000 including ditch, shoulder, surface repair and culvert

replacement.

Repair washouts and replace culverts at mileposts 4.8 and 5.5 of FR 7500000.

Reconstruct roadway at MP 1.8 and 2.3 including ditch, shoulder, surface and

embankment repair.

Un-bury culvert at milepost 1.08 and repair washouts and replace culverts at mileposts

1.25 and 1.3 of FR 7561000.

Reconstruct FR 8511000 including ditch, shoulder, surface and embankment repair.

Construct approximately 7.41 miles of new, temporary road and re-open approximately

7.43 miles of existing non-system road. All temporary roads will be closed and returned

to a more natural state after all harvest activities have been completed.

Maintain about 85 miles of system road; includes ditch line and drainage structure

cleaning, brushing, blading and shaping the roadway, as well as adding some additional

surfacing rock and clearing logs and danger trees from the roads where necessary.


240

Table 57. Pre- and Post-harvest Road Reconstruction and Maintenance Summary for Silver Creek Thin

Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-

Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-

Maintenance Field Notes

GRAVEL AND NATIVE SURFACE ROADS

4700174 0-2.85

Washout repairs MP 0.0, 0.48 & 1.52. Culvert replacements needed at washouts and old log culvert at 0.77. Stream running along road. Temporary road construction of

Intersection @ 4700 junction by pass first crossing.

Perform prehaul maintenance including remove and end haul material road side

brushing, surface rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure and logging out

maintenance as needed. (T813, T-832, T839)

Perform posthaul maintenance including road side brushing,

logging out, blading and drainage maintenance as needed (T839)

Road very difficult to find large washouts. Berm.

4778012 0-.8






No culverts, scour or water on roadway. Good road. Log out

4778042 0.17-0.6 Intersection reconstruction if want to

haul out the 85.






Drivable to intersection of the 4778043. Needs surface

rock

4778043 0-2.9

Replace bridge at Willie Creek MP 0.2 with temporary bridge, was 44'

long x 22' wide deck or reroute road upstream. Washout need culvert

installations. Debris flows along road.






Berm at previous bridge location. Bridge removed.

Impassable at bridge location. Some areas could be passable, hard pack soil, some gravel. 5 sites where

debris sloughing on roadway. Very brushy. Washout MP

0.3

4778045 0-.39 MP 0.15 Washout 20' x 5' x 40'.

Need culvert installations.






Impassable. Heavy waterbarring, log out,

vegetation in roadway. Minor sloughing. Very brushy.

Washout at MP 0.15


241




4778046 0-.1 Need culvert installations.






Somewhat passable, very brushy. Minor sloughing.

Only needing road to MP 0.1.

4778628 0-.2





logging out, blading and drainage maintenance as needed (T839) Good Road

4778630 0-0.1





logging out, blading and drainage maintenance as needed (T839) Good Road

6353032 0.34-0.5






Is at the end of the 4700174. Did not see that section

7500051 0-0.32




Perform prehaul maintenance including road side brushing,

surface rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure and logging out maintenance as needed.

(T813, T839) Good road, brushy, could use

some rock

7500064 0-1.4

Embankment Repair 12' long x 3' wide x 5' deep MP 0.48. Slide on

road 21' long x 3' high x full width of road MP .97 approx 33 CY of

material to remove.






Road sloughed at MP 0.48. Good road bed. Brushy.


242




7500065 0-.12






Good road no washouts. Brushy.

8500110 0-1.0





logging out, blading and drainage maintenance as needed (T839) Passaable but verty brushy.

8500111 0-0.64






Good road, hard pack with gravel. Brushy. Alder growing on roadway after first 300 feet. Unpassable. Plugged culvert at channel.

8500606 0-0.35






Unpassable. Vegetation in roadway full grown in.

8500652 0-0.3






Stump at intersection and slope of road impassable. Rutting occuring.

8511018 0-0.4






Passable with small vehicle. Staring to brush in.


243




8522000 0-1.83

Culvert Installations 18" x 30' long MP 0.01,0.45, 0.87 and possibly 1.3.

Road slumping lots of drain dip. Intersection reconstruction at jcn with

7473 if do not want to use the 4773000. Intersection reconstruction

of 85 if want to haul out the 47.






Impassable. Need base and surface rock. Ditch needs to be reestablished. Log out, heavy brush cannot do mechanical. Bankfull at crossings 6', 3', 4', 2'. Do not have to be bankfull if pulling before wet season. At MP 0.87 need to install culvert water running down road (1st switch back). After haul pull 0.87 culvert and have stream cross road and dissipate.

4700000 3-10.33 Slough removal MP 4.7.

Perform prehaul maintenance including road side brushing, surface rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure maintenance

as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)

Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,

blading and drainage maintenance as needed. (T811,

T-836, T-854)

Surface Rock needed MP4.7-9.6. Reconstruction is

several places.

4700135 0-1.0

Major Roadway Reconstruction. Includes ditch, shoulder, roadbed

and surface repair. FP-03 303 Road Reconditioning. Embankment repair,

10-20 CY of material needed. Narrow at end of road BLASTING

may be necessary.

Perform prehaul maintenance including road side brushing, surface rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure and logging

out maintenance as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842, T851)



T-836, T-854)

Impassable. Major rutting, small berm at beginning of road, minor road repair. Has good base rock, needs surface rock. Log out. Heavy brushing cannot do mechanical brushing too much.

4700178 0-0.2





T-836, T-854) Impassable, brushy. Quarry near end of road.

4700184 0-1.0

Minor Roadway Reconstruction. Includes ditch, shoulder, roadbed

and surface repair. FP-03 303 Road Reconditioning. Embankment repair,

5 CY of material needed.





T-836, T-854)

Has asphalt apron, open. Log out, surface, blading, culvet cleaning, ditchline cleaning, drivalble to jcn of 185, need to remove logs after that. Minor fill needed 5CY.


244




4740000 0-3.02


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)



T-836, T-854) Good condition B,BL, DL

4740015 0-0.8

Minor roadway reconstruction of roadbed, shoulder and ditch. Cross drain and drivable dip installations

needed.





T-836, T-854)

Rutting occuring, water running along road from surface water run-off.

4745000 0-3.9

Minor roadway reconstruction of roadbed, shoulder and ditch,

bedrock.





T-836, T-854)

Heavy brush, log removal. Around MP 0.2 plugged culvert.

4773000 0-3.4

Minor roadway reconstruction of roadbed, shoulder and ditch at MP

0.1 where culvert is plugged.




blading and drainage maintenance as needed.

Reinstall waterbars. (T811, T-836, T-854)

Water along road from plugged culvert at first turn. Ditch is heavily trenched

4778000 0-1.0

Major Roadway Reconstruction Includes ditch, shoulder, roadbed

and surface repair. FP-03 303 Road Reconditioning. Road fill failure 100 + feet. Road has several wahsouts

needing culvert installations. Road is rutting and several slumps.

Reconstruction of intersection @ 47 junction

Perform prehaul maintenance including remove and end haul material, road side brushing, surface rock, blading, ditch and

drainage structure and logging out maintenance as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T-832 T839, T842, T851)




Saturated roadbed, waterbarring, log out,

vegetation in roadway. Debris sloughing on roadway. Culvert plugged. Some areas

of hard pack road. Need base and surface material.

4778011 0-0.7

Major Roadway Reconstruction. Includes ditch, shoulder, roadbed

and surface repair. FP-03 303 Road Reconditioning. 2 log bunk culverts

10' down x 3' wide & 6' down x 4' wide.






Impassable. Road needs to be reestablished. Major logging out, brushing, surface and base maerial. Hard to even tell where road is.


245




6300000 12.3-15.8

Temporary road construction of Intersection @ 63 and 47 junction.

Repair and replace damaged culverts


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)




Fair road, gravel. Passable. Needs maintenance. Minor brushing.

7500000 0-5.8

Major Washout MP 4.8 approx 30' long x 30' deep x 20' wide. Culvert

Replacement 36" x 40'. Could develop St. Regis Quarry MP 3.9

7500 for backfill material. Washouts past 7561 jct: MP 5.9 25' long x 25' deep x 20' wide, MP 5.5 40' long x 10' deep x 10' wide with 24" x 40' culvert replacement. Roadway Reconstruction includes ditch,

shoulder, roadbed and surface repair MP 1.8 and 2.3


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)




Drivable good road could use some surface rock and

brushing.

7561000 0-1.3

. Washouts: MP 1.25 16' long x 16' wide x 8' deep culvert replacement 24" x 40'. MP 1.08 1'x2'x30' Culvert

Replacement 24" x 40'. MP 1.3 2'x5'x11' and rut 2'x2'x60'. MP 1.08-

0.65 1' rut in road.

Rutting: MP 1.3 11' long x 5' wide x 2' deep, MP 0.65-1.08' 1' deep, MP 1.08 30' long x 1' deep x 2' wide. Perform prehaul maintenance including road side brushing, surface rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure maintenance as needed. (T811,

T813, T831, T834)




Rutting and washouts occuring on road. Road bed stble.

7561018 0-0.1

9 Washouts: MP 0.1 - 3' long x 8' deep x 2' wide, MP 0.17 - 20' long x 12' deep x 20' wide with 24" x 40'

culvert replacement, MP 0.27 5' deep x 12' wide extending 90' along length of road, MP 0.33 40' long x 15' deep

x 15' wide, MP 0.35-0.4 Road completely washed out, MP 0.47 40' long x >30' deep x 15' wide 24" x 40' culvert install. MP 0.47-0.51 3' wide

x 3' deep 24" x 40' culvert replacement, water running along road way. MP 0.59 >20' deep x 20' long x 4' wide. MP 0.7 6' deepx 15'

long x 3' wide


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T839, T842)




Impassable, several washouts.


246




7561021 0-0.2


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)



T-836, T-854)

8500000 6.5-22.2

Reconstruction road shoulder washout MP 13.0, possible culvert

replacement.


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)



T-836, T-854)

Large rock needs to be removed from road. Reclaim asphalt. Good Road. Could be brushed. MP 9.37 needs some base and surface material.

8500108 0-0.71 May need to install culverts.

Perform prehaul maintenance including road side brushing, logging out, surface

rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure maintenance as needed. (T811, T813,

T831, T834, T839, T842, T851)



T-836, T-854)

Drivalble. Logs across road, brushy. Crosses 2 channels possibly 6.

8500146 0-0.55


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)



T-836, T-854) Gravel road. Passable for high clearance vehicle.

8511000 0-1.64

Minor Roadway Reconstruction of roadbed, shoulder and ditch. Road

slumping, ditch higher than road need to build up road with base and

surface material..


as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T836, T842)



T-836, T-854) Good road, gravel. Passable. Minor brushing.

ASPHALT ROADS


247




4700000 0-3, 10.33-17.1

Reclaim Asphalt MP 10.33-17.1. Deep patch repair: MP

10.58,13.5,13.6,13.8,13.69,14.18,14.68,14.78,16.12. Road Realignment MP 16.12 cut into bank 85' long x 6' wide x 30' high. Road Fill MP 16.15

take cut material from 16.12 and place in embankment. Road

Realignment MP 16.2 cut into bank 50' long x 10' wide x 15' high. If

hauling towards Randle there are 2 washouts MP 17.67 &17.68 with culvert replacement 1-48" 1-24".

Slide Removal MP 17.7. Massive washout East Fork Silver Creek

20'x13' squashed pipe. Deposit and Brushing Deposit Paved section of road.

5200000 18.59-21.10 Deposit and Brushing Deposit Paved section of road.

8500000 0-6.5 Reclaim Asphalt MP 0.0-6.5 Deposit and Brushing Deposit Paved section of road.