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 Unpublished Report prepared for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.
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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.
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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
National Forest. Vancouver, WA.
USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Likelihood of Occurrence Key.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
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
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.
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
189
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme
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
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.
Thinning prescription/
Economics
Close roads (but do not decommission) 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
Roads
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
190
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme
future management needs, aquatic and terrestrial risk posed by the
road, and feasibility to analyze within the scope of this project.
Look for as many opportunities to decommission roads
as possible
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
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.
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.
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
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
191
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme
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
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 /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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
192
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme
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
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.
Thinning prescription
Do not thin in Riparian Reserves unless treatments will
benefit aquatic and riparian resources
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.
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
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
193
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
194
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme
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
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 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
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
195
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Response Theme
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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
6 40.3 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 1.5 3.72
40.3 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 1.28 3.18
40.3 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 3.08 7.64 14.54
7 13.7 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 30 0.02 0.15
13.7 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 5 36.50 36.64
8 4.78 Stream 6 Intermittent 180 30 1.25 26.15
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
114.52 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 0.4 0.35
114.52 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 0.19 0.17
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
197
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
114.52 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 0.34 0.30
114.52 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 30 0.14 0.12
114.52 Stream 6 Intermittent 180 60 0.47 0.41
114.52 Stream 7 Perennial 180 60 2.46 2.15
114.52 Stream 7a Perennial 180 30 0.26 0.23
114.52 Stream 7b Intermittent 180 30 0.13 0.11
114.52 Stream 8 Intermittent 180 30 0.31 0.27
114.52 Stream 9 Perennial 180 60 0.83 0.72
114.52 Stream 9a Intermittent 180 60 1.45 1.27
114.52 Stream 9b Intermittent 180 60 0.83 0.72
114.52 Stream 9c Intermittent 180 60 0.33 0.29
114.52 Stream 10 Perennial 180 30 0.15 0.13
114.52 Stream 11 Perennial 180 30 0.16 0.14
114.52 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 1.6 1.40 9.93
11 17.35 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 0.67 3.86
17.35 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 0.7 4.03
17.35 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 0.71 4.09
17.35 Mesatchee Perennial 360
180 2.69 15.50
17.35 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 0 0.00 27.49
12 113.6 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 0.41 0.36
113.6 Stream2 Perennial 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Stream 3 Perennial 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Stream 4 Perennial 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 30 0.38 0.33
113.6 Stream 6 Perennial 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Stream 7 Intermittent 180 30 0.31 0.27
113.6 Stream 8 Perennial 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Stream 9 Intermittent 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Stream 10 Intermittent 180 30 0.35 0.31
113.6 Stream
10a Intermittent 180 30 0.16 0.14
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
198
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
113.6 Stream 11 Intermittent 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Stream 12 Intermittent 180 30 0.33 0.29
113.6 Stream 13 Intermittent 180 30 0.27 0.24
113.6 Stream 14 Intermittent 180 0 0 0.00
113.6 Mesatchee Perennial 360
180 24.73 21.77
113.6 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 0 0.00 23.71
13 151.3 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 1 0.66
151.3 Stream 1a Intermittent 180 60 0.44 0.29
151.3 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 2.37 1.57
151.3 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 2.14 1.41
151.3 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 30 0.86 0.57
151.3 Stream 4a Intermittent 180 30 0.25 0.17
151.3 Stream 6 Intermittent 180 30 1.01 0.67
151.3 Stream 6a Intermittent 180 30 0.52 0.34
151.3 Stream 8 Intermittent 180 30 0.58 0.38
151.3 Stream 10 Intermittent 180 30 0.51 0.34 6.40
14 316.03 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 13.51 4.27
316.03 Stream 1a Intermittent 180 30 0.47 0.15
316.03 Stream 1b Intermittent 180 60 4.79 1.52
316.03 Stream 1c Intermittent 180 60 0.16 0.05
316.03 Stream 1d Intermittent 180 30 0.4 0.13
316.03 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 2.92 0.92
316.03 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 120 28.55 9.03
316.03 Stream 3a Intermittent 180 60 2.68 0.85
316.03 Stream 3b Intermittent 180 60 0.25 0.08
316.03 Stream 3c Intermittent 180 60 3.12 0.99
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 3d Intermittent 180 60 0.69 0.22
316.03 Stream 3e Intermittent 180 60 0.62 0.20
316.03 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 1.38 0.44
316.03 Stream 4a Intermittent 180 30 0.58 0.18
316.03 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 60 0.58 0.18
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
199
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
316.03 Stream 6 Intermittent 180 60 0.12 0.04
316.03 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 5.7 1.80
316.03 Wetland 2 Perennial 180 60 2.25 0.71
316.03 Wetland 3 Perennial 180 60 0.58 0.18
316.03 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 14.8 4.68 26.82
15 36.87 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 3.96 10.74
36.87 Stream 1a Intermittent 180 60 0.32 0.87
36.87 Stream 1b Intermittent 180 60 0.53 1.44
36.87 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 0.62 1.68
36.87 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 0.56 1.52 16.25
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 1b Intermittent 180 30 0.19 0.19
100.43 Stream 1c Intermittent 180 0 0 0.00
100.43 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 0.26 0.26
100.43 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 60 0.97 0.97
100.43 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 30 0.02 0.02
100.43 Big Creek Perennial 360 180 6.25 6.22
100.43 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 3.63 3.61 16.16
17 80.01 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 1.09 1.36
80.01 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 0.63 0.79
80.01 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 0.5 0.62
80.01 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 1.77 2.21
80.01 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 60 8.4 10.50
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 3a Intermittent 180 30 0.74 1.24
59.79 Stream
3a1 Intermittent 180 30 0.24 0.40
59.79 Stream 4 Perennial 180 30 0.46 0.77
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
200
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
59.79 Stream 5 Perennial 180 60 4.13 6.91 17.68
20 56.57 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 0.62 1.10
56.57 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 0.32 0.57
56.57 Berry Creek
Perennial 360
180 0.78 1.38 3.04
21 256.77 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 1 0.39
256.77 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 2.66 1.04
256.77 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 0.49 0.19
256.77 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 30 0.26 0.10
256.77 Stream 5 Perennial 180 60 4.4 1.71
256.77 Stream 5a Intermittent 180 30 0.28 0.11
256.77 Stream 5b Intermittent 180 30 0.05 0.02
256.77 Stream 5c Intermittent 180 30 0.18 0.07
256.77 Stream 5d Perennial 180 60 2.3 0.90
256.77 Stream 6 Intermittent 180 60 3.2 1.25
256.77 Stream 6a Intermittent 180 60 1.76 0.69
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 7 Perennial 180 60 4.88 1.90
256.77 Stream 7a Intermittent 180 60 0.54 0.21
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 8 Intermittent 180 30 0.86 0.33
256.77 Stream 9 Intermittent 180 30 0.64 0.25
256.77 Stream 9a Intermittent 180 60 2.54 0.99
256.77 Stream 10 Intermittent 180 60 5.56 2.17
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 11 Intermittent 180 30 1.13 0.44
256.77 Stream
11a Intermittent 180 30 0.56 0.22
256.77 Stream 12 Intermittent 180 30 0.99 0.39
256.77 Stream
12a Intermittent 180 30 0.59 0.23
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
201
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
256.77 Stream 13 Intermittent 180 60 3.98 1.55
256.77 Berry Creek
Perennial 360
180 2.53 0.99
256.77 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 3.51 1.37
256.77 Wetland 2 Perennial 180 60 0.73 0.28 19.46
22 53.89 Stream 1 Perennial 180 60 4.33 8.03
53.89 Stream 1a Intermittent 180 60 0.1 0.19
53.89 Stream 1b Intermittent 180 30 0.36 0.67
53.89 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 30 0.07 0.13
53.89 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 1.05 1.95 10.97
23 47.21 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 0.72 1.53
47.21 Stream 1a Perennial 180 30 1.32 2.80 4.32
24 35.94 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 0.71 1.98
35.94 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 0.46 1.28
35.94 Stream 3 Perennial 180 60 4.85 13.49
35.94 Stream 3a Intermittent 180 30 0.36 1.00
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
26 41.56 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 2.06 4.96
41.56 Stream 2 Perennial 180 60 1.88 4.52
41.56 Rocky Creek
Perennial 180 120 0.13 0.31 9.79
27 35.18 Stream 1 Perennial 180 30 1.36 3.87
35.18 Stream 1a Perennial 180 60 0.22 0.63
35.18 Wetlands Wetlands 180 60 1.22 3.47
35.18 Berry Creek
Perennial 360
180 0.1 0.28 8.24
28 95.13 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 0.08 0.08
95.13 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 0.71 0.75
95.13 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 60 5.66 5.95
95.13 Stream 3a Intermittent 180 60 0.18 0.19
95.13 Stream 3b Intermittent 180 30 0.86 0.90
95.13 Stream 3c Intermittent 180 60 0.82 0.86
95.13 Stream 3d Intermittent 180 60 1.87 1.97
95.13 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 4 4.20
95.13 Stream 4a Intermittent 180 60 0.07 0.07
95.13 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 60 3.18 3.34
95.13 Stream 5a Intermittent 180 60 0.38 0.40
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
202
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
95.13 Berry Creek
Perennial 360
180 7.88 8.28
95.13 Wetland 1 Perennial 180 60 1.08 1.14
95.13 Wetland 2 Perennial 180 60 0.6 0.63 28.77
29 446.27 Stream 10 Perennial 180 60 3.58 0.80
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
30 92.13 Stream 10 Perennial 180 60 1.14 1.24
92.13 Stream 13 Intermittent 180 30 2.85 3.09
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 14 Intermittent 180 60 0.29 0.31
92.13 Stream
14a Intermittent 180 60 0.98 1.06
92.13 Stream 15 Intermittent 180 30 0.13 0.14
92.13 Wetlands Wetlands 180 60 12.3 13.35 20.00
31 80.97 Stream 1 Perennial 180 30 1.22 1.51
80.97 Stream 1a Perennial 180 30 1.7 2.10
80.97 Stream
1a1 Intermittent 180 60 1.58 1.95 5.56
32 118.79 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 1.21 1.02
118.79 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 0.72 0.61
118.79 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 1.93 1.62
118.79 Stream 3a Intermittent 180 30 0.19 0.16
118.79 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 0.94 0.79
118.79 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 60 1.1 0.93
118.79 South Fork Catt Creek
Perennial 360
180 14.13 11.89 17.02
33 69.79 Stream 2 Perennial 180 60 1.6 2.29
69.79 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 1 1.43
69.79 Stream 3a Intermittent 180 60 0.43 0.62
69.79 South Fork Catt Creek
Perennial 360
180 21.55 30.88
69.79 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 3.63 5.20
69.79 Wetland 6 Perennial 180 60 0.48 0.69 41.11
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
203
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
34 106.43 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 2.56 2.41
106.43 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 3.66 3.44
106.43 Stream 8 Intermittent 180 60 4.65 4.37
106.43 Stream 8a Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00 10.21
35 52.27 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 0 0.00
52.27 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00
52.27 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 5.27 10.08
52.27 Stream 4a Intermittent 180 30 0.14 0.27
52.27 Stream 4b Intermittent 180 60 1.09 2.09
52.27 Stream 4c Intermittent 180 60 0.84 1.61
52.27 Stream 4d Intermittent 180 60 0.38 0.73
52.27 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00
52.27 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 22.6 43.24 58.01
36 56.87 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 30 1.07 1.88
56.87 Stream 1a Intermittent 180 30 0.13 0.23
56.87 Stream 1b Intermittent 180 30 0.63 1.11
56.87 Stream 1c Intermittent 180 60 1.06 1.86
56.87 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 2.56 4.50
56.87 Stream 2a Intermittent 180 30 0.96 1.69
56.87 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00
56.87 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 0.09 0.16
56.87 Stream 4a Intermittent 180 30 0.14 0.25
56.87 Stream 4b Intermittent 180 60 0.33 0.58
56.87 Stream 4c Intermittent 180 30 0.13 0.23
56.87 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 0.77 1.35 13.84
37 30.79 Stream2 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00
30.79 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 60 0.22 0.71
30.79 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 30 0.15 0.49
30.79 Stream 4c Intermittent 180 30 0.05 0.16
30.79 Stream 4d Intermittent 180 60 0 0.00
30.79 Stream 5 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00
30.79 Stream 6 Intermittent 180 60 0.26 0.84
30.79 Stream 7 Intermittent 180 60 0.4 1.30
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
204
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
30.79 Stream 8 Intermittent 180 60 0.35 1.14
30.79 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 21.37 69.41
30.79 Wetland 4 Perennial 180 60 0.07 0.23
30.79 Wetland 5 Perennial 180 60 0.26 0.84
30.79 Wetland 6 Perennial 180 60 0.59 1.92 77.04
38 109.07 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 5.47 5.02
109.07 Stream 1a Intermittent 180 30 0.55 0.50
109.07 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 30 1.66 1.52
109.07 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 5.9 5.41
109.07 South Fork Catt Creek
Perennial 360
180 3.38 3.10 15.55
39 82.78 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 0.54 0.65
82.78 Stream 5 Perennial 180 60 3.09 3.73
82.78 Stream 5a Intermittent 180 30 0.26 0.31
82.78 Stream
5a1 Intermittent 180 60 1.5 1.81
82.78 Stream
5a2 Intermittent 180 60 0.8 0.97
82.78 Stream
5a3 Intermittent 180 60 0.5 0.60
82.78 Stream 5b Intermittent 180 30 0.59 0.71
82.78 Stream 7 Intermittent 180 30 0.65 0.79
82.78 Stream 8 Intermittent 180 30 0.74 0.89
82.78 Stream 8a Intermittent 180 30 0.17 0.21
82.78 Stream 9 Intermittent 180 60 1.24 1.50
82.78 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 11.19 13.52 25.69
40 70.75 Stream 2 Intermittent 180 60 0.83 1.17
70.75 Stream 3 Intermittent 180 60 0.84 1.19
70.75 Stream 4 Intermittent 180 60 3.6 5.09
70.75 Stream 4a Intermittent 180 30 0.11 0.16
70.75 Stream 5 Perennial 180 60 1.55 2.19
70.75 Stream 5a Intermittent 180 60 4.93 6.97
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
Niqually Thin DRAFT EA/FONSI
205
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
70.75 Stream
5a7 Intermittent 180 30 0 0.00
70.75 Stream 5b Intermittent 180 30 0.94 1.33
70.75 Stream 6 Intermittent 180 30 0.77 1.09 19.83
41 53.92 Stream 1 Intermittent 180 60 3.01 5.58
53.92 Catt Creek Perennial 360 180 8.01 14.86 20.44