Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary EA
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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.
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary EA
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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.
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary EA
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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.
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary EA
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
226
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
227
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
228
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
229
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
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. 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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
230
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
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 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
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
231
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
232
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
233
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
234
Scoping Comment Received Interdisciplinary Team Discussion Theme
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)).
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
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
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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.
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
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
4778012 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.80
4778042 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.43
4778043 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2.9
4778045 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.39
4778046 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.1
4778628 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.20
4778630 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.10
6353032 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.16
7500051 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.32
7500064 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 1.40
7500065 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.12
8500110 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 1.00
8500111 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.64
8500606 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.35
8500652 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.30
8511018 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.40
8522000 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 1.83
SUBTOTAL 14.29
4700000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 7.33
4700135 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.00
4700178 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.20
4700184 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.00
4740000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3.02
4740015 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.80
4745000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3.90
4773000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3.40
4778000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1
4778011 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.70
6300000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3.50
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
238
Road # OPML Treated Miles
7500000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 5.8
7561000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.30
7561018 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.10
7561021 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.20
8500000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 15.70
8500108 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.71
8500146 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.55
8511000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.64
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.
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
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
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
Impassable. Heavy waterbarring, log out,
vegetation in roadway. Minor sloughing. Very brushy.
Washout at MP 0.15
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
241
Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-
Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-
Maintenance Field Notes
4778046 0-.1 Need culvert installations.
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)
Somewhat passable, very brushy. Minor sloughing.
Only needing road to MP 0.1.
4778628 0-.2
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) Good Road
4778630 0-0.1
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) Good Road
6353032 0.34-0.5
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)
Is at the end of the 4700174. Did not see that section
7500051 0-0.32
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 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.
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 sloughed at MP 0.48. Good road bed. Brushy.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
242
Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-
Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-
Maintenance Field Notes
7500065 0-.12
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)
Good road no washouts. Brushy.
8500110 0-1.0
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) Passaable but verty brushy.
8500111 0-0.64
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)
Good road, hard pack with gravel. Brushy. Alder growing on roadway after first 300 feet. Unpassable. Plugged culvert at channel.
8500606 0-0.35
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)
Unpassable. Vegetation in roadway full grown in.
8500652 0-0.3
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)
Stump at intersection and slope of road impassable. Rutting occuring.
8511018 0-0.4
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)
Passable with small vehicle. Staring to brush in.
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
243
Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-
Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-
Maintenance Field Notes
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.
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)
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed. (T811,
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
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed. (T811,
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.
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed. (T811,
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.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
244
Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-
Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-
Maintenance Field Notes
4740000 0-3.02
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) Good condition B,BL, DL
4740015 0-0.8
Minor roadway reconstruction of roadbed, shoulder and ditch. Cross drain and drivable dip installations
needed.
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed. (T811,
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.
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed. (T811,
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.
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed.
Reinstall waterbars. (T811, T-836, T-854)
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.
Perform prehaul maintenance including road side brushing, surface rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure and logging
out maintenance as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T839, T842, T851)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed.
Reinstall waterbars. (T811, T-836, T-854)
Impassable. Road needs to be reestablished. Major logging out, brushing, surface and base maerial. Hard to even tell where road is.
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
245
Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-
Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-
Maintenance Field Notes
6300000 12.3-15.8
Temporary road construction of Intersection @ 63 and 47 junction.
Repair and replace damaged culverts
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.
Reinstall waterbars. (T811, T-836, T-854)
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
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.
Reinstall waterbars. (T811, T-836, T-854)
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed.
Reinstall waterbars. (T811, T-836, T-854)
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
Perform prehaul maintenance including road side brushing, surface rock, blading, ditch and drainage structure maintenance
as needed. (T811, T813, T831, T834, T839, T842)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed.
Reinstall waterbars. (T811, T-836, T-854)
Impassable, several washouts.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District
246
Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-
Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-
Maintenance Field Notes
7561021 0-0.2
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)
8500000 6.5-22.2
Reconstruction road shoulder washout MP 13.0, possible culvert
replacement.
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)
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)
Perform posthaul maintenance including roadside brushing,
blading and drainage maintenance as needed. (T811,
T-836, T-854)
Drivalble. Logs across road, brushy. Crosses 2 channels possibly 6.
8500146 0-0.55
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) 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..
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) Good road, gravel. Passable. Minor brushing.
ASPHALT ROADS
Silver Creek Thin Preliminary Environmental Assessment Gifford Pinchot National Forest
247
Road # MP's Pre-harvest treatment-
Reconstruction Pre-harvest treatment-Maintenance Post-harvest treatment-
Maintenance Field Notes
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.