United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Swift Thin Environmental Assessment

Mt. St. Helens Ranger District

Gifford Pinchot National Forest Skamania County, Washington

August 2015

For More Information Contact:

Chris Donnermeyer, Swift Thin Project Leader Mt. Adams District 2455 Hwy 141 Trout Lake, WA (509) 395-3421 [email protected] Fax: (509) 395-3424

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

ii Contents Contents ...... i Introduction ...... 1 Proposed Project Location ...... 1 Physical and Biological Setting ...... 2 Need for the Proposal ...... 5 Existing Condition ...... 5 Desired Condition ...... 7 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...... 10 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ...... 10 Proposed Action ...... 10 Commercial Thinning ...... 11 Regeneration Harvest to Create Early Seral ...... 12 Logging Systems, Temporary Roads, and Landings ...... 16 Road Reconstruction and Maintenance ...... 16 Other Vegetation Enhancement or Restoration Projects ...... 17 Implementation ...... 17 No Action Alternative ...... 18 Other Alternatives Considered ...... 19 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...... 20 Vegetation Management ...... 20 Affected Environment ...... 20 Environmental and Social Consequences ...... 22 Soil Resources ...... 34 Affected Environment ...... 34 Environmental Consequences ...... 44 Wildlife Species and Habitat ...... 51 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (By Species) ...... 51 Aquatic Resources ...... 108 Affected Environment ...... 108 Environmental Consequences ...... 113 Botanical Resources ...... 141 Affected Environment ...... 141 Environmental Consequences ...... 143 Invasive Plants and Noxious Weeds ...... 146 Financial and Economic Analysis ...... 150 Recreation and Other Social Considerations ...... 153 Affected Environment ...... 153 Environment and Social Consequences ...... 157 Other Disclosures Required by Law, Policy, and Regulation ...... 163 Clean Water Act ...... 163 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 163 Endangered Species Act ...... 164 Environmental Justice ...... 164 Wetlands and Floodplains ...... 164 Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land ...... 164 Potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy ...... 164 Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or other Jurisdictions ...... 164 Consistency with the Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan, as Amended ...... 164

i Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, and Women ...... 165 Other Applicable State and Federal Laws ...... 165 References ...... 166

List of Tables

Table 1. Application of Variable Density Thinning...... 12 Table 2. Stands Proposed for Cutting...... 13 Table 3. Non-vegetation Management Activities and Potential Funding Sources...... 18 Table 4. Swift Planning Area Tree Species...... 20 Table 5. Disturbance History in the Planning Area...... 22 Table 6. Total Stand Volumes Present and at Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI). 32 Table 7. Comparison of Alternatives to the Purpose and Need...... 34 Table 8. Selected Soil Mapping Interpretations...... 35 Table 9. Timber Sales Affecting Units of Swift Project...... 38 Table 10. Approximate Extent of Detrimental Soil Conditions...... 39 Table 11. Slope Stability Project Design Features and Mitigations...... 43 Table 12. Prediction of Detrimental Conditions of Conceptual Road and Landing Construction. 46 Table 13. Magnitude, Duration and Intensity of Losses to Soil Quality and Productivity by Alternative...... 46 Table 14. Cumulative Detrimental Soil Conditions...... 46 Table 15. Actions Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis...... 50 Table 16. Summary of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species. .... 51 Table 17. Spotted Owl Habitat in the Analysis Area...... 55 Table 18. Proposed Units Within Historic Spotted Owl Home Ranges...... 57 Table 19. Spotted Owl Habitat in Critical Habitat in the Eight Subwatersheds Encompassing the Proposed Units...... 64 Table 20. Changes to Spotted Owl Habitat by Unit in Critical Habitat...... 68 Table 21. Proposed Stands That Do NOT Require the Spotted Owl Limited Operating Period. .. 74 Table 22. Management Indicator Species...... 86 Table 23. MIS Cavity Excavator Habitat Descriptions...... 93 Table 24. Threats to Cavity Excavating MIS Species...... 95 Table 25. Conservation Status...... 95 Table 26. Outcome Likelihoods for the Preferred Alternative Under the NWFP...... 96 Table 27. Road Density in the Analysis Area...... 102 Table 28. Birds of Conservation Concern and Preferred Habitats, BCR 5 (Northern Pacific Rain Forest, U.S. portions only)...... 106 Table 29. Focal Bird Species...... 107 Table 30. Watersheds and Subwatersheds in the Swift Thin Planning Area...... 109 Table 31. Water Temperature Monitoring in the Swift Planning Area...... 111 Table 32. Summary of Presence and Effects to Fish Species in Swift...... 112 Table 33. Proposed Activities and their Potential Effects to Water Resources in the Swift Planning Area...... 113 Table 34. Percent of Planning Area Most Likely to Experience Rain on Snow...... 116 Table 35. Drainage Density...... 119 Table 36. Summary of Thinning Intensities by Subwatershed...... 120 Table 37. Sediment Sources...... 126 Table 38. Stream crossings on temporary roads...... 127 Table 39. Riparian Reserves...... 135

ii Table 40. Sensitive and other Rare and Uncommon Botanical Species Occurrences within the Swift Project...... 141 Table 41. Survey and Manage Species Occurrences within Swift Project, within non-Pechman Exempted Treatment Units...... 142 Table 42. Invasive Plant Species within Swift Planning Area...... 147 Table 43. Project Preparation and Administration Costs...... 150 Table 44. Timber Sale Revenue and Costs...... 150 Table 45. Financial Costs of Other Projects...... 152 Table 46. Visual Management Classification for Each Unit...... 156

List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map denoting land allocation...... 4 Figure 2. Projected Change in Average Tree Diameter for Candidate Stands in LSR...... 24 Figure 3. Projected Change in Average Stand Density for Candidate Stands in Matrix...... 26 Figure 4. Previous Retention Regeneration Cuts in the Vicinity of Swift Stands...... 28 Figure 5. Previous Retention Regeneration Cuts in the Vicinity of Swift Stands...... 29 Figure 6. Photo of PH Demo #4. Jerry Franklin discusses complex early seral conditions within an opening of PH Demo #4 that has huckleberry, planted tree, and native conifer regeneration, during a public meeting sponsored by the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative, June 15, 2012...... 30 Figure 7. Spotted Owl Habitat in the Analysis Area...... 56 Figure 8. 2009 Spotted Owl Survey Stations and Detections...... 62 Figure 9. Spotted Owl Critical Habitat...... 65 Figure 10. Spotted Owl Habitat in the Critical Habitat Analysis Area (GPNF vegetation data). . 66 Figure 11. Distribution of Snags ≥ 10" DBH in Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest. .. 97 Figure 12. Distribution of Snags ≥ 20" DBH in Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest. .. 97 Figure 13. Distribution of Snags ≥ 10" DBH in Montane Mixed Conifer Forest...... 98 Figure 14. Distribution of Snags ≥ 20" DBH in Montane Mixed Conifer Forest...... 98 Figure 15. Projected Aggregate Recovery Percentage (ARP) by subwatershed in the Swift Planning Area...... 118

iii

Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Introduction The Gifford Pinchot National Forest is proposing a commercial tree thinning on the Mount St. Helens Ranger District. The general vicinity of the planning area is east and south of Swift Reservoir in the Lewis River and Wind River watersheds. The proposed tree stands are allocated as both Late- Successional Reserve and Matrix according to the Northwest Forest Plan.

The Forest Service is proposing to commercially thin approximately 3,600 acres. Moderate-forest- retention regeneration cuts are proposed on 193 acres within mid-seral forest plantations. Tree planting may occur within regeneration cutting units and created gaps within thinning units. Invasive weeds would be treated within stands and along nearby roads, before and after logging.

The primary goals of the project are to improve the condition of forests relative to their land allocations in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Northwest Forest Plan. For plantations within the Late Successional Reserve allocation this includes creating conditions that will allow stands to develop the characteristics important in old-growth forests, including multi-layered canopies, large down woody debris, and spatial heterogeneity. The moderate retention regeneration harvests seek to create early-seral forest habitat for wildlife within Matrix allocations. In addition, the project purpose is to restore and/or improve the condition of special vegetative habitats for the benefit of dependent plants and wildlife.

The Swift Thin project will complement other ongoing activities in the same watersheds, including pre- commercial thinning and invasive plant control, in-stream habitat restoration work, and road management associated with the Upper Lewis River Pilot Roads project. The Swift Thin project has been developed with the collaborative involvement of local communities through a series of public field trips and information sharing opportunities that occurred over a period of more than two years (2012-2014). The South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative, incorporating members from the local community, and both regional and local advocacy groups, worked cooperatively with the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to facilitate these information-sharing opportunities.

This environmental assessment (EA) was prepared to determine whether implementation of the project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, the Forest is fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

Proposed Project Location The project area is located on National Forest System lands located in Skamania County with the following legal description, Willamette Meridian:  Township 5 North, Range 5 East, Sections 1, 9-12  Township 5 North, Range 6 East, Sections 3-9, 16-18  Township 6 North, Range 6 East, Sections 13, 17-29, 32-36  Township 6 North, Range 7 East, Sections 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22  Township 6 North, Range 7.5 East, Sections 1, 12  Township 6 North, Range 8 East, Sections 6, 7  Township 7 North, Range 7 East, Sections 12, 13, 23-28, 31, 34-36  Township 7 North, Range 7.5 East, Sections 12, 13, 24, 25, 36  Township 7 North, Range 8 East, Sections 19, 21, 28-33

1 Swift Thin

Physical and Biological Setting General Setting The stands comprising the project planning area are spread throughout a number of watersheds, and are spatially organized (roughly) into three separate areas that differ somewhat ecologically.

The northeastern portion of the planning area includes stands within the Upper Lewis River Watershed. Stands in the northeastern portion of the planning area are relatively mildly sloped, and many have northwesterly aspects. Elevations range from 2,119 feet to 3,794 feet. The middle portion of the planning area includes stands located in the northern portions of the Swift Reservoir-Lewis River and Wind River Watersheds. These stands tend to be mildly sloped, and range in elevation from 3,266 to 3,496 feet, with various aspects. The southwestern portion includes stands located in the Yale Reservoir- Lewis River and southwestern portion of the Wind River watersheds. Stands in this area range in elevation from 2,075 to 3,946 feet. In general, stands in this area are more steeply sloped, up to 59 percent.

These moist forests receive between 100-110 inches of precipitation a year, with much of this falling as snow at the higher elevations.

Geology The project is situated within the Southern Washington Cascades Physiographic Province (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). This province is dominated by andesite and basalt flows, and areas near Mount St. Helens typically contain pumice deposits that can reach as deep as three meters (10 ft.). Soils are typically derived from pumice, andesite, and basalt, and often covered by a layer of aeolian volcanic ash and pumice (Franklin and Dyrness 1988:21-22). Geologically the area is characterized by early Miocene dacite and rhyolite tuffs and tuff breccias, largely derived from pyroclastic flows and airfall tephra with minor amounts of lava flows and sedimentary rocks.

Soils Soil depth and soil textures are related to bedrock type, and influenced by topography. Lava flows from Indian Heaven area and its glacial deposits, along with glacial deposits from Mt. Adams, contribute to gentle topography and relatively shallower soils because the relatively young bedrock is less weathered and stronger. Steeper slopes around Lewis River tributaries have deeper soils formed from residual or colluvial weathered bedrock materials of volcanic origin, along with a greater potential for mass failures.

Soils within the project area formed in volcanic ash and pumice from Mount St. Helens, Mount Adams, and other sources, although glacial till is the dominant parent material on some gentler slopes, over residual or colluvial weathered bedrock materials of volcanic origin (Aguilar 2014).

Drainage and Water Sources The project area is within five 5thfield watersheds including the Wind River, Upper Lewis River, Swift- Reservoir-Lewis River, Yale Reservoir-Lewis River, and Merwin Reservoir-Lewis River. The majority of the planning area is upstream of the Merwin Reservoir but portions of the planning area also flow to the Yale and Swift Reservoirs (Coffin 2014). A very small portion of the planning area drains to the Wind River system. The Wind River Watershed and portions of the Lewis River watersheds are identified in the Northwest Forest Plan as Key Watersheds. The Lewis River supports bull trout which are listed on the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, historic steelhead and salmon runs are currently being reestablished in the Lewis River. The Wind River supports a native steelhead run as well as coho salmon, chinook, and other resident species.

2 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Timber Types/Ground Cover The project area is located within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) zone or the Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) zone. Generally, the lower elevation and warmer sites have western hemlock as the climax species. The higher elevation and colder sites have Pacific Silver as the climax species. Overstory vegetation in the project area included western hemlock, western redcedar, Pacific silver fir, Douglas fir, noble fir, western white pine, and Oregon ash, Understory vegetation within the project area includes black huckleberry, oval-leaved huckleberry, Oregon grape, bunchberry, beargrass, queen’s cup, twinflower, trillium, vanilla leaf, evergreen blackberry, fool’s huckleberry, white-veined wintergreen, wild strawberry, lupine, salal, bracken fern, sword fern, baldhip rose, salmonberry, trailing blackberry, snowberry, dwarf bramble, and vine maple.

Environmental History The post-Pleistocene environmental history of the project area has largely been shaped by the eruptive history of Mount St. Helens. Several historic fires occurred within the project area, most notably a northern portion of the 1902 Yacolt Burn, which is the second largest wildfire in Washington, with a total area of 239,000 acres. The other large fire in 1902 was the Lewis River Fire which consumed approximately 67,500 acres. Other fires that occurred in, or near, the project area include the 1910 Twin Buttes Fire, the 1918 Mitchell Peak Fire, the 1927 Squaw Butte Fire, and the 1932 Hungry Peak Fire. Several historic fires occurred in 1920 and 1927 but their names are unknown.

3 Swift Thin

Figure 1. Vicinity map denoting land allocation.

4 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Need for the Proposal The proposed action seeks to move stands from their existing condition towards the desired future condition as dictated by management allocations, and further refined by watershed analyses and the Forest’s Late-Successional Reserve assessment. The proposed management activities were formulated through the collaborative efforts of the interdisciplinary team members with input from regulatory agencies, the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative and other stakeholders who responded to scoping.

The specific purpose and need of the project is: Primary  Improve the condition of forests relative to their land allocations in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Northwest Forest Plan. For plantations within the Late Successional Reserve allocation this includes creating conditions that will allow stands to develop the characteristics important in old-growth forests, including multi-layered canopies, large down woody debris, and spatial heterogeneity.  Restore/improve the condition of special vegetative habitats for the benefit of dependent plants and wildlife. Secondary  Improve the production of huckleberries, in Matrix, or where opportunity allows.  Improve conditions for deer and elk forage in summer range, primarily in the Matrix allocation.  Provide society the benefits of wood products and provide economic benefits to communities and counties.

Existing Condition A history of stand replacing fires and even-aged forest practices has created stands that are more homogenous with distinct edges. Clearcutting began in the 1950s targeting the older, large-tree forests, and created many stands in the 20-80 acre size class. Several significant wind events occurred in the 1970s, which felled big trees over several miles, both north and south of Lone Butte. The subsequent salvage of these trees, linked many of the clearcuts of the 1960s, and created several large patches (500- 1,000 acres) of early seral forest; these stands are now mid-seral.

These stands are now quite uniform, with a single canopy layer, and the potential for stagnation. Stagnated stands are slow to differentiate As a result of high planting plantations in the planning area have higher tree densities, smaller diameter trees, and possibly less structural and species diversity than naturally occurring stands of the same age in this area would have. Existing plantations have narrower age classes of trees, simple canopies and few snags or large wood available.

In interpreting the existing stand structure and composition, the Middle Lewis River Watershed Analysis states that: “Stand structure and composition within the watershed has been altered by past timber harvest activities that left unnatural patterns of early successional stands on the landscape. Stands once structurally and compositionally diverse have been replaced with small, scattered, even-aged, one- coniferous-specied stands. This has changed the habitat within these stands so that: a) light levels have decreased, limiting plants requiring more light; b) fewer host species are available for parasitic, saprophytic, and symbiotic species; and c) fewer host substrates for epiphytic species (those growing on other plants) are available. Consequently, plant, lichen, fungi, and bryophyte diversity has been

5 Swift Thin

decreased in some areas because of the reduction in microhabitats” (Middle Wind River Watershed Analysis, page 101).

The Lower Lewis Watershed Analysis echoes this sentiment, stating that, “The landscape pattern, or distribution, of these structure stages across the watershed has been strongly influenced by timber harvest and is atypical of the pattern created by natural disturbance regimes characteristic of the watershed…Because clear cutting was the primary harvest method implemented within the watershed, there is little structural diversity left within the harvest units” (Lower Lewis River Watershed Analysis, page V-10).

The need for action is greatest in Late-Successional Reserve plantations where uniform size and structure, single species dominance, and lack of disturbance agents can delay the development of old-growth attributes.

For the planning area as whole, 128 plantations covering 10,217 acres were evaluated to determine if thinning was needed to modify stand development and if it was economically viable. Over half were deemed to be developing adequately and needing no intervention. No treatments are proposed there. For dense, uniform stands, commercial thinning is proposed for both the uplands and outer portion of Riparian Reserves.

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest’s Late Successional Reserve Assessment (1997) explains that the regeneration harvesting and related activities that has occurred in recent history in the Lewis River Late- Successional Reserve, “have altered stand structure, composition, and distribution across the landscape by creating numerous openings containing little if any structural diversity” (Forestwide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, page 4-50).

Plantations within matrix allocations have similar ecological needs to be thinned now. Watershed analyses recommendation for mid-seral stand thinning applied to both LSR and matrix allocations. In contrast to LSR, forests in matrix allocations may be manipulated to meet other landscape needs (e.g. early seral habitat). They are also relied on to produce a sustained yield of timber and other forest products. Consequently, the review of matrix stands to determine treatment need, focused not only on density, but also on understory vegetation that is palatable to deer and elk, and desired by people (e.g. huckleberries). The unique objectives of matrix stands would be addressed in adjusting the target leave tree density, species mix, and area of skips and gaps.

Deer and elk forage and the improvement of huckleberry resources comprise two secondary objectives of the District Ranger’s purpose and need. While thinning can improve these resources some (particularly heavy thinning), optimal levels are provided in early seral forest. The need on a landscape basis to create complex early seral forest in the west Cascades has been recently chronicled in several studies (Franklin and Johnson 2010, Swanson et al. 2011). In contrast to conditions created by industrial clearcuts, complex early seral retains more components of the prior mature stand. Such early seral conditions more closely resemble those following wildfire and other disturbance, and provide for a broad range of life forms, including deer and elk (Franklin et al. 2007).

The Swift interdisciplinary team reviewed a Forestwide analysis of condition classes to determine if early seral forests were deficient in the Swift planning area and it was determined they were not. The quantity of early seral forest in the Lewis River Watershed (National Forest System lands only) was within the natural range of variation (Hudec 2013). However, the use of the fire regime condition class model to determine if there is sufficient early seral forest has several limitations. It does not address the spatial distribution of early seral forest or its quality.

6 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

In the Lewis River Watershed below the Swift planning area, much of the abutting ownerships are private industrial forest land in deer and elk winter range (forests below 2,200 feet). Clearcut methods are commonly used here, and would be providing forage. The Swift planning area provides mostly deer and elk summer range. Summer range is critical in providing herds the forage necessary to fatten up prior to entering the lean winter months.

Given this situation, the interdisciplinary team’s focus was to determine where a modest amount of early seral forest could be created in the summer range of deer and elk, to provide forage and huckleberry resources. Opportunities for this treatment focused on plantations to avoid a reduction in late-succession and old-growth forest. Nearly all forest land in the planning areas that is not plantation is late- successional or old-growth. It is also suitable spotted owl habitat in an area designated as critical habitat. Plantations on closed forest roads were preferred for treatment, where there would be no deer and elk disturbance from motor vehicles, so animals could take greater advantage of the forage.

Desired Condition Goals and objectives for stands in the project area are established from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA 1990), as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan, USDA and USDI 1994); the Middle Lewis River Watershed Analysis (1995); the Lower Lewis River Watershed Analysis (1996); and the Gifford Pinchot Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (1997).

This analysis is tiered to the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement that was prepared as part of the Forest Plan. Management Area Categories from the Forest Plan and Land Allocations from the Northwest Forest Plan that overlap with the project units are explained below.

Generally, the desire is to reduce tree density in the proposed stands, leaving the largest, fastest growing trees, with their potential to be become large old-growth trees, or large snags and downed logs. There is a desire to create the disturbance necessary to alter the stand trajectory towards larger trees and more complexity. Trees left in stands would be able to respond to the available growing space by expanding their canopies vertically and horizontally. With greater carbohydrate production from the canopy, the growth rate of the tree trunk would increase or be sustained at high rates for those trees in the co- dominant crown class.

Late-Successional Reserves Approximately 70 percent of the units are within the late-successional reserve land allocation. The objective for Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old growth related species, including the northern spotted owl (NWFP ROD, p. C-9). Desired late-successional and old-growth characteristics that are created as younger stands change through successional development include: 1) multi-species and multi-layered assemblages of trees, 2) moderate to high accumulations of large logs and snags, 3) moderate to high canopy closure, 4) decadence such as accumulations of large cavities, broken tops, and large deformed limbs, and 5) moderate to high accumulations of fungi, lichen, and bryophytes.

The Swift planning areas includes portions of the Lewis and Wind Late-Successional Reserves (LSR). An assessment of all LSRs on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest was completed in 1997. Pertinent comments and specific recommendations follow:

 Wind, Lewis, Nisqually, and Mineral LSRs have relatively large expanses of younger habitat in the middle of the LSRs. Most of this habitat is in the small-tree structural sage and should

7 Swift Thin

develop into late-successional habitat in the next 50 years or longer. Silvicultural treatment that accelerates the development of late-successional habitat would be beneficial in these areas (Gifford Pinchot LSR Assessment, page 4-27).

 Currently, Riparian Reserves are highly fragmented and thus are not providing the connectivity function for which they were designed. Mid-seral (small conifer) habitat comprises between 27 to 40 percent of Riparian Reserves between LSRs. Thus the connectivity function of Riparian Reserves should improve in the next 40 years as the mid-seral stands develop late-seral characteristics (Gifford Pinchot LSR Assessment, page 4-28).

Matrix/Timber Production Approximately 30 percent of the units are in the matrix land allocation. The matrix consists of those federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas from the Northwest Forest Plan (Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands, according to standards and guidelines (NWFP ROD, p. C-39). The underlying Forest Plan management area category for these areas is timber production (TS). The goal is to optimize timber production, the utilization of wood fiber, and other commodities in a manner which assures the future productivity of the land. The desired condition for this allocation is that evidence of land managed intensively for timber production is apparent and all tree sizes and mixtures of native species from seedlings to mature saw timber are well distributed. Because the Matrix allocation from the Northwest Forest Plan overlaps this category and is more restrictive, the timber production management area will not be discussed further in this EA.

Visual Emphasis (VL/VM) The goal of this allocation is to provide a natural or near-natural landscape as viewed from the designated travel route or viewshed. The desired future condition for this allocation is to accommodate a variety of activities, which to the casual observer, are either not evident or are visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Allocations coded VL have an additional goal of providing a visually natural or near-natural landscape as viewed from the designated travel route or use area, meeting a retention visual quality objective. Timber harvest activities may be permitted in compliance with the assigned visual quality objectives. Land coded VM has a partial retention visual quality objective; VL has a retention objective. Swift stands adjacent to the Wind River Road/ Curly Creek Road travel route have a VL designation. Stands in middle ground of that route’s viewshed, or adjacent to the Wind River Road north of the Curly Creek Road, have a VM designation.

Riparian Reserves Riparian reserves are located around all aquatic features within the Swift Thin planning area. Riparian reserves were established in the Northwest Forest Plan to protect and highlight the importance of riparian areas as one of four components comprising the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The main purpose of the riparian reserves is to protect the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species; the reserves also provide incidental benefits to upland species. The reserves help maintain and restore riparian structures and functions, benefit fish and riparian-dependent non-fish species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of late- successional forest habitat (NWFP ROD, p. 7). Silvicultural or other treatments within Riparian Reserves are to ensure that existing habitat in streams and riparian areas is protected in the short term while working to improve habitats over the long term.

8 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Key Watersheds Portions of the Lewis River and the entire Wind River watershed are identified as Key Watersheds in the Northwest Forest Plan. The Lewis River supports Federally-listed bull trout, and historic steelhead and salmon runs are being re-established in the Lewis as part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of the three hydro-electric dams. The Wind River supports a native steelhead run as well as chinook and some coho along with other resident species. Tier-1 Key Watersheds provide habitat for anadromous salmonids and bull trout and are the highest priority for habitat restoration efforts focused on conserving Federally-listed fish.

Watershed analysis for the Middle Lewis River was completed in 1995 and for the Lower Lewis River in 1996. The watershed analyses state that “upland silvicultural treatments accelerate development of large diameter trees and species and structural diversity in stand. The result is quicker development of stand characteristics towards mid and late successional size and structure. Hastening development of young stands gradually helps restore fragmented habitat conditions” (Middle Lewis Watershed Analysis, page 139 and Lower Lewis Watershed Analysis, page VI-5).

Other Management Considerations Over 20,000 acres in the Lewis LSR consists of deer and elk winter biological winter range. As an objective secondary to those of the LSR, treatments should consider opportunities to provide forage for deer and elk (Gifford Pinchot LSR Assessment, page 3-17).

The design of the proposed action incorporated concepts for creating complex early seral habitat, to provide a greater ecological benefit. Key items to foster complexity include:  Retention of 20-30 percent of the prior stand in no-cut aggregates and single trees. A portion of these trees would be available for future snags and down logs.  Creation of openings at least 5 acres in size, with larger opening preferred. This creates a large enough space for variety of soil and topographic conditions that lend themselves to diverse recovery pathways (Swanson 2012). It provides some opening not affected by the timbered edge’s shading and seed rain.  Planting of trees to supplement natural regeneration. The restocking objective would be a minimal level. This would delay tree crown closure, permit a longer period for forb and shrubs to dominate, provide a longer period of fruiting for huckleberry, and as whole, extend the early seral phase.

The National Forest Management Act has certain requirements for regeneration harvest on even-aged stands. Prior to regeneration harvest, stands of trees must have generally reached their Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) of growth (FSH 1909.12, ch. 60; 16 U.S.C. 1604 (m)(1)). “Generally reached culmination” is defined as the age at which the stand achieves at least 95 percent of the cubic foot volume at culmination. A plan may identify exceptions to the culmination of mean annual increment if necessary to meet resource objectives such as wildlife habitat enhancement, visual enhancement, or riparian area improvement. Exceptions to the culmination of mean annual increment requirement may occur as a result of project-level analysis if decision-making includes appropriate public disclosure and opportunity to comment. The stands proposed for moderate-forest-retention regeneration harvest have not reached their CMAI. are for the purposes of providing early seral habitat for early seral species such as deer and elk. Post-harvest reforestation levels would be at the minimum of 125 trees per acre rather than the normal desired standard of 300. Both deviations are being proposed to provide early seral forest over a longer time period primarily for the benefit of wildlife. This is a project-specific exception to the CMAI requirement. These treatments and all other proposed actions are consistent with the silvicultural standards and guidelines set forth in the Forest’s management plan and other regulatory documents.

9 Swift Thin

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation A scoping letter was sent to the Forest’s mailing list on March 21, 2014 to inform the public and partners of the project and to seek any comments. The Forest received four emails/letters from individuals or groups regarding the project. The draft EA was sent to the Forest’s mailing list on March 27, 2015 for a 30-day comment period. The Forest received 14 emails/letters from individuals and organizations. Response to comments received are documented in Appendix A—Response to Comments.

The Forest Service also invited several Federal, State, and tribal entities to engage in informal or formal comment, discussion, and/or consultation on the project. A scoping notice and request for comments on the draft EA were sent to the Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and resource and cultural staff from affected Indian tribes.

In compliance with 36 CFR 800.3(f), initiation of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process included notification to three federally-recognized tribes, including the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Yakama Nation, and the Squaxin Island Tribe. Letters were sent to the Washington State Historic Preservation Office and cultural resource program managers at the above mentioned tribes on April 8, 2013 to the cultural resource program manager inviting them to consult regarding the proposed project. Preliminary project information was presented, along with other projects, at the annual coordination meeting, on April 14, 2014 with the Yakama Nation. A heritage survey report was completed for the project and submitted to the affected tribes and the Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

Per regulations on interagency cooperation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended, the Forest Service submitted a Biological Assessment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on March 17, 2015 and requested formal consultation on the project. The USFWS sent the Forest a Biological Opinion on July 17, 2015. No consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service is required as it was determined that there would be no affect to any listed fish species from the Swift project.

There were several field trips to the planning area with Forest Service representatives and members of the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative (October 18, 2012, September 11, 2013, and August 5, 2014). The field trips were open to the public and advertised in the Skamania County Pioneer. In addition, the collaborative received monthly updates on the project as well as two fuller presentations on the details of the project.

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

Proposed Action The proposed action was created to address the primary and secondary objectives described above. Activities generally include commercial thinning, moderate-forest-retention regeneration harvest, road reconstruction and maintenance needed for timber haul, tree planting, danger tree felling and the replacement or installation of ditch relief culverts where needed. The proposal is described in detail below.

10 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Commercial Thinning The proposed action commercially thins conifers on approximately 3,647 within 4,708 acres of mid-seral forest plantations of a small tree structure class. Integral to variable density thinning, there would be retention areas (no-cut areas) in all stands. Cutting unit acreage in Table 2 reflects adjustments made to account for the larger retention areas protecting at-risk species, unstable slopes, cultural resources, aquatic resources, and meadows.

 Thinning intensity: The overall reduction in tree density will come from commercial thinning from below, leaving the largest trees in the stand. Variable species and spacing are desired and would be incorporated into the designation method. If designation by description (DxD) or other spacing methods are used, variation could be augmented by species limits, diameter limits, and individual tree marking. Two thinning targets were developed.

o Standard Thinning (Curtis relative density of 30-40). This level of thinning follows standard practices that reduce stand density by 40 percent from present levels. This would leave 90 to 140 trees per acre and a canopy cover of 40-60 percent. A follow up entry in 30-50 years may be warranted to continue the desired stand trajectory.

o Heavy Thinning (Curtis relative density of 25): This prescription seeks to create a more open condition than general thinning. This would leave 65 to 100 trees per acre and a canopy cover of 30-40 percent.

 Gaps: Gaps from landings and temporary roads would be augmented by additional gaps, ¼ acre in size. Within gaps, minor conifer species would be retained; otherwise, all other merchantable trees would be removed. A center leave tree may be designated within ¼ acre gaps, which would promote its development into a large, full crowned tree, sometimes referred to as “wolf” trees.

 Heavy Thin Patches: Larger thinned openings up to 2 acres in size would be created in portions of the larger LSR stands that receive standard thinning. Approximately 25 trees/per acre would be left within these very heavy thin patches. These areas may be planted with trees at a low density (150 trees per acre).

 Unthinned Areas: Unthinned areas would be comprised of inner Riparian Reserves and no cut buffers for caves and sensitive species. Additional unthinned areas would be added to meet levels specified for LSR or Matrix. These unthinned areas may be combinations of ¼ acre skips or larger areas. Within LSR heavy thin stands greater than 50 acres, the silvicultural prescription will include unthinned areas to be 2.5 acres or larger (big skips). Biological hotspots, unique habitats, or areas of existing late-successional attributes (e.g. large downed logs) would be incorporated into unthinned areas.

 Downed Logs and Snags: All existing large downed logs (>20 inches large end) and snags (>15 inches diameter at breast height) would be left where safe to do so.

 Slash Treatment: Slash would be redistributed along skid trails to mitigate soil impacts, and redistributed along temporary roads to aid in their rehabilitation. Excess slash would be piled at landings. Landing piles where accessible, may be made available for biomass utilization and removed. Otherwise, landing piles would be burned in the fall or winter.

11 Swift Thin

For each stand/ harvest unit, the variable density thinning methods above will be tailored to better meet LSR or Matrix objectives (see Table 1). Matrix stands with considerable Riparian Reserve to be thinned will have methods tailored to LSR objectives.

Table 1. Application of Variable Density Thinning. Variable Density Thinning LSR Matrix Base Thinning Favor shade tolerant conifers for Favored conifer species to vary by (both Standard and Heavy) leave stand Diameter limit of 20” diameter at breast height Gaps (1/4 acre and 2 acre) 3-10% of stand 3-5% of stand 2 ac gaps in larger stands. Unthinned Patches (1/4 acre and 10% of stand 5% of stand larger)* 20% of stand heavy thin >50 ac Disturbance Elements Ignore – allow to function Minimize through cut species (Insect and disease) preference. *May exceed listed percentage depending on other protection measures

Regeneration Harvest to Create Early Seral Moderate-Retention regeneration cuts are proposed on 193 acres within 357 acres of mid-seral forest plantations. These regeneration cuts seek to create complex early-seral forest habitat for wildlife within Matrix allocations. In these treatments from 20-30 percent of the existing stands will be retained in a mix of large, uncut aggregates and of trees left singly or in small clumps.

 Single Tree or Group Retention: A portion of the total stand retention will be of live trees left singly or in groups of a ¼ acre. These trees will comprise 5 percent of the stand’s area, plus an additional nine trees per acre to supplement future snag and down log levels. These retention trees should be the largest, oldest, most decadent and leaning trees.

 Aggregated Retention: Most of the stand retention will be in areas of aggregated retention (also known as “big skips”) and have no timber cutting. Aggregated retention would comprise 10-20 percent of the stand area. These leave areas should be at least 2.5 acres in size or larger to provide some interior forest conditions, though aggregates down to ½ acre are permissible.

 Riparian Reserves: There would be no tree cutting within Riparian Reserves surrounding aquatic features. Riparian Reserves may be incorporated into the stands’ aggregated retention areas.

 Downed Logs and Snags: All existing large downed logs (>20 inches large end) and snags (>15 inches diameter at breast height) would be left where safe to do so. Live trees, that are left singly or in groups, are to supplement snag and downed logs levels in the future. Trees in these stands are generally less than 15 inches diameter at breat height, so artificial means of creating snags and downed logs (topping, girdling, or felling) would be deferred until these trees are 15-20 inches diameter at breast height. Desired levels are 6.6 snags per acre and 240 linear feet of downed logs per acre.

 Tree Removal: All merchantable sized trees, outside of aggregated retention areas and not designated for single tree retention, would be felled and removed. This will create the space for early seral forest.

12 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

 Slash Treatment: Regeneration cut units with an early seral objective would generate greater slash loads than thinning. Post logging slash loads, for material 4 inches or less, would be limited to 25 tons per acre. This maintains a component of carbon/nutrient recycling while permitting vegetative regrowth. Excess slash would be moved to landings. Landing piles where accessible, may be made available for biomass utilization and removed. Otherwise, landing piles would be burned in the fall or winter.

Table 2. Stands Proposed for Cutting. Logging Methods Temporary Roads Total Acres (acres) (miles) System

Stand Proposed Silvicultural Roads Stand Subunit Ground Acres for Prescription Skyline Existing New (miles) Based Treatment 102693 44 39 Standard 32 7 0.1 102707 20 17 Heavy 7 10 A 31 Standard 25 6 0.6 102720 102 B 34 Heavy 34 0.4 C 13 Heavy 13 0.2 A 52 Standard 52 0.2 102733 96 B 28 Standard 28 0.0 0.1 102739 67 67 Standard 67 102741 85 52 Standard 28 24 0.3 0.3 A 59 Standard 59 102791 97 B 3 Standard 3 A 129 Heavy 114 15 0.2 102841 169 B 2 Heavy 2 A 51 Heavy 51 0.4 102859 118 B 25 Heavy 25 C 1 Heavy 1 0.0 102879 41 22 Regeneration 22 102881 47 25 Regeneration 25 A 45 Standard 45 102887 77 B 32 Heavy 32 102912 76 65 Standard 52 13 0.6 A 16 Standard 8 8 0.1 102918 28 B 8 Regeneration 8 A 26 Standard 14 12 0.1 102920 39 B 5 Standard 5 102933 44 40 Standard 21 19 0.4 102942 92 92 Heavy 19 73 0.1 102951 60 52 Standard 52 0.1 103018 54 42 Heavy 42 0.2 A 24 Standard 24 0.2 103023 62 B 17 Standard 14 3 0.1 103034 29 29 Heavy 29 0.3 A 34 Regeneration 34 0.3 103040 49 B 5 Regeneration 0 5 0.1

13 Swift Thin

103107 97 7 Regeneration 7 103126 49 49 Standard 49 0.5 103128 61 60 Standard 60 0.4 1.0 103130 78 66 Standard 60 6 1.2 0.1 A 34 Standard 34 1.0 103135 66 B 24 Standard 24 0.2 A 32 Standard 32 0.3 103165 108 B 64 Heavy 64 0.9 C 5 Heavy 5 0.2 0.1 A 63 Standard 63 5 2.0 0.1 103168 143 B 77 Heavy 77 0.7 A 22 Standard 4 18 0.2 103189 52 B 22 Standard 6 16 0.4 103195 33 18 Standard 18 0.2 103222 57 50 Regeneration 33 17 0.2 0.1 A 34 Standard 19 15 0.3 103225 68 B 14 Standard 14 103237 78 66 Standard 31 35 0.1 0.5 103271 88 50 Heavy 50 A 34 Heavy 34 B 5 Heavy 5 103272 75 C 3 Heavy 3 D 5 Heavy 5 A 12 Heavy 12 103274 46 B 8 Heavy 8 D 14 Heavy 14 A 32 Standard 2 30 0.2 0.1 103281 46 B 11 Standard 11 0.4 103594 24 22 Standard 4 18 0.2 0.0 103597 43 35 Heavy 27 8 103600 34 34 Standard 28 6 0.4 103602 30 28 Heavy 19 9 0.1 0.1 103605 63 52 Standard 13 39 0.2 0.4 A 15 Heavy 15 103606 33 B 5 Heavy 5 C 5 Heavy 5 103613 78 77 Heavy 16 61 0.3 0.2 A 10 Standard 2 8 0.2 103614 26 B 9 Heavy 1 8 0.1 0.0 A 26 Standard 3 23 0.2 103615 57 B 2 Standard 2 A 31 Heavy 31 0.1 103626 57 B 7 Heavy 7 0.1 0.1 103627 52 50 Heavy 50 0.3 A 16 Heavy 6 10 103629 44 B 19 Standard 2 17 0.2 A 21 Standard 1 20 103630 65 B 18 Standard 6 12 0.3

14 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

C 14 Heavy 3 11 0.1 103635 57 56 Heavy 4 52 0.8 0.1 103636 43 34 Standard 13 21 0.2 0.1 103639 61 61 Heavy 43 18 0.0 0.3 103642 58 52 Standard 45 7 0.2 0.3 103650 40 26 Standard 8 18 0.6 A 28 Heavy 5 23 0.0 0.2 103651 59 B 13 Heavy 6 7 0.1 103652 55 15 Heavy 15 0.4 103664 31 15 Standard 2 13 103667 55 46 Heavy 24 22 0.3 0.0 103680 79 66 Heavy 66 0.1 0.7 103685 46 46 Heavy 31 15 0.1 103689 59 48 Heavy 4 44 0.0 0.2 A 55 Heavy 12 43 0.3 0.1 103700 72 B 9 Heavy 9 103701 48 30 Heavy 26 4 0.3 A 15 Standard 15 103705 54 B 24 Standard 24 C 5 Standard 5 103726 47 35 Heavy 35 0.2 103730 85 6 Heavy 3 3 0.2 103732 41 36 Standard 4 32 0.2 0.2 A 21 Heavy 2 19 0.2 0.3 103737 37 B 9 Heavy 5 4 0.3 103740 61 24 Standard 24 0.0 0.1 A 14 Heavy 10 4 103743 40 B 13 Heavy 13 103744 52 48 Standard 30 18 0.6 0.1 A 20 Heavy 4 16 103746 94 B 36 Heavy 36 0.1 C 8 Heavy 8 A 15 Heavy 15 0.3 0.1 103758 29 B 8 Heavy 8 103759 35 19 Standard 19 0.0 103761 47 6 Heavy 6 0.2 0.1 103774 39 30 Standard 10 20 0.2 0.1 103775 24 5 Heavy 5 0.3 0.1 103782 71 19 Heavy 8 11 0.3 103787 29 20 Heavy 13 7 0.1 103793 40 40 Standard 26 14 0.2 103794 15 15 Heavy 8 7 0.2 103887 68 59 Standard 48 11 0.4 107247 92 91 Heavy 16 75 0.7 0.1 A 41 Regeneration 22 19 0.6 0.1 800414 58 B 2 Regeneration 2

15 Swift Thin

2301 1547 23.1 7.4 Acres 1.0 5065 3842 Acres Miles Miles Ground- Miles Totals Stand Acres Skyline Existing New Based System Acres Treated Logging Temp Temp Logging Roads Method Roads Roads Method

Logging Systems, Temporary Roads, and Landings The majority of the stands will be harvested using ground based equipment (~2,300 acres). Slope and access dictate that the remaining areas use skyline/cable systems (~1,500 acres) to remove cut trees.

To facilitate timber haul and equipment access, temporary roads and log landings would be constructed (Table 2). Within plantations, temporary roads and landings would be constructed where they occurred previously to the extent feasible. Approximately 17.5 miles of temporary road would follow existing routes. Approximately nine miles of temporary road would be constructed in new locations in order to work around streams and wetlands. Several of the proposed temporary roads would follow the route of previously decommissioned roads, in order to minimize impacts.

Most temporary roads would be less than 0.3 miles in length. All but one mile of temporary roads would be closed and rehabilitated following logging activities. Approximately three miles of what was once Forest Road 51 (old Curly Creek road) would be re-constructed for temporary use on this project. Following logging, the first one mile segment of this road would be closed and classified as a Level I road to be available for future logging. The remaining two miles would be rehabilitated.

Skid roads would be used to facilitate the skyline/cable system. All skid roads would be closed and rehabilitated following their use.

Road Reconstruction and Maintenance The project proposes to maintain or reconstruct system roads needed for hauling timber. Reconstruction may include culvert replacement, road surface work, and fill repair. Maintenance may include brushing, blading, drainage, and logging out. Post haul maintenance would also occur as needed after the close of the sale. Major haul routes include the Wind River Highway (FR 30), Curly Creek Road, and Forest Service Roads 31, 32, 54, 57, 58, 64, and 90. Secondary routes include Forest Service roads: 3103, 3105, 3107, 3211, 3220, 5407, 5814, 6406, and 6507.

Over-the-Snow Logging Operations and Winter Haul As part of the proposal, select stands may be available for over-the-snow logging and winter haul, if acceptable conditions exist. Over-the-snow operations would not be required in a timber sale, but would be an option to extend the operating season. All road reconstruction and heavy maintenance needs would have to be done during the dry season, defined as between July 15 through September 30. Other mitigations applicable to over-the-snow operations are discussed in the mitigation section. Restrictions to over-the-snow will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

16 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Other Vegetation Enhancement or Restoration Projects Tree Planting in Gaps and Moderate Forest Retention Cutting Units: The small gaps and heavy thin patches may be planted with trees to enhance natural regeneration if post-thin field surveys indicate it is needed. Planting densities would be low (up to 150 trees per acre) and include a mix of intermediate and shade tolerant conifers and hardwoods if available.

The moderate-retention regeneration cutting units (193 acres) may also be planted with trees if natural tree regeneration is insufficient. If needed, planting with a mix of shade intolerant conifers at low density (up to 150 trees per acre) would occur. Tree stocking objectives are at the minimum allowable (125 trees per acre) in order to delay canopy closure and promote a more diverse and complex vegetative composition for a longer time period.

Invasive Weed Control: Invasive weeds would be treated where they occur on roads and within treatment, before and after logging. No vegetative control of native forbs and shrubs would occur. The effects analysis for the treatment of invasive weeds is covered by the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (Washington Portion) Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Project and Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision.

Danger Tree Felling: Danger trees may be felled along all roads used for timber haul. Depending on location and density, felled danger trees may be left in place or made available to the public for firewood.

Ditch Relief Culvert Improvements: Along the approach to Unit #103195, on Forest Road 31, there are ten 15” ditch relief culverts identified for replacement; they will be replaced with 18” culverts. Similarly, a plugged ditch relief culvert located on an unnamed tributary of Rush Creek along Forest Road 3211, within unit #102741 will be replaced or the debris will be removed so that it is functioning properly.

Woody Debris Augmentation: In Riparian Reserves proposed for thinning pile 5 trees together in a large pile, one pile per acre. In Late-Successional Reserves proposed for heavy thinning pile 5 trees together in a large pile, one pile every 5 acres.

Implementation Activities associated with commercial thinning (e.g. road work, cutting and haul, slash disposal, planting, weed control) are scheduled to begin implementation in 2016. Restoration work, not directly tied to vegetation management may be implemented as soon as 2015. It may take five, or more, years to complete all activities.

The Swift Thin proposal will complement other proposed or current activities in the same subwatersheds, including ongoing pre-commercial thinning and invasive plant control; in-stream habitat restoration work, and road management associated with the Upper Lewis River Pilot Roads project.

It is not known yet if activities associated with Swift Thin will be implemented through a Stewardship Contract (Public Law 108-7) or a traditional Forest Service timber sale contract. Stewardship Contracting authorizing legislation allows the Forest Service to apply the value of timber or other forest products removed as an offset against the cost of services received. Stewardship contracts may be used for treatments to improve, maintain, or restore forest or rangeland health; restore or maintain water quality; improve fish and wildlife habitat; and reduce hazardous fuels that pose risks to communities and ecosystem values. If a traditional timber sale contract is used, the service-related work included as part of this project could be funded by Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) trust funds. The Knutson-Vandenberg Act was passed by Congress on June 9, 1930. It is the authority allowing receipts collected from the sale of

17 Swift Thin

National Forest timber to be retained by the Forest Service and subsequently used to finance reforestation, noncommercial thinnings, and other sale-area improvements. With very few exceptions, KV receipts must be used for projects occurring in the timber sale area only. The KV Act was amended by the National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976, primarily to provide more flexibility to use KV funds for resource projects in addition to reforestation (wildlife habitat, range improvement, watershed improvement, etc.). The service projects are listed in Table 3 and end result language is included for those that may end up in a Stewardship Contract.

Table 3. Non-vegetation Management Activities and Potential Funding Sources.

Funding Tool(s) Activity End Result Language (if Stewardship Contracting) Available

Tree planting in gaps in Stewardship receipts If post-thin field surveys indicate it is needed, planting thinning units or KV trust funds densities would be low (up to 150 trees per acre) and include a mix of intermediate and shade tolerant conifers and hardwoods if available. Tree planting in Moderate Stewardship receipts If natural tree regeneration is insufficient, gaps will be Forest Retention or KV trust funds planted with a mix of shade intolerant conifers at low density Regeneration Units (up to 150 trees per acre). Tree stocking objectives are at the minimum allowable (125 trees per acre) in order to delay canopy closure and promote a more diverse and complex vegetative composition for a longer time period. Invasive weed control Stewardship receipts Existing non-native, invasive weeds located within harvest or KV trust funds units and along roads used for the timber sale would be eradicated before and after logging. Danger tree felling Stewardship or other Danger trees along all roads used for timber haul would be funding (if not felled felled. by timber sale purchaser) Ditch Relief Culvert Stewardship receipts Identified failing ditch relief culverts would be replaced with Improvements or KV trust funds 18” culverts. A plugged ditch relief culvert located on an unnamed tributary of Rush Creek would be functioning properly. Woody Debris Stewardship In Riparian Reserves proposed for thinning pile 5 trees Augmentation together in a large pile, one pile per acre. In Late- Successional Reserves proposed for heavy thinning pile 5 trees together in a large pile, one pile every 5 acres.

No Action Alternative Alternative A is the no action alternative. This alternative is included in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, (CFR 1502.14 (d)) and provides a baseline to evaluate the action alternatives. This alternative assumes that none of the proposed activities would occur, including: commercial thinning, moderate-forest-retention regeneration harvest, road reconstruction and maintenance needed for timber haul, construction and use of temporary roads, slash treatment, tree planting, danger tree felling and the replacement or installation of ditch relief culverts.

The opportunity to restore and accelerate timber growth and yield in even-aged, dense stands in matrix and to promote the development of late-successional structure in stands in Late-Successional Reserves and in Riparian Reserves would be forgone at this time. Stands would be left to develop without any

18 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest direct human manipulation, except for the suppression of wildfires. No road reconstruction or maintenance along haul routes would occur.

Danger trees along haul routes that are open to public motor vehicles may still be felled, but not through the thinning contracts that would result from this proposal.

Other Alternatives Considered No other alternative was developed to address the purpose and need. Instead, the responsible official modified the original proposal to address resource concerns that were raised from both his interdisciplinary specialists and the public. Care was taken in the selection and design of treatment units to avoid or minimize any immediate adverse impacts to Federally-listed and Forest Service sensitive species, unstable slopes, aquatic features, cultural resources, and recreational areas either from cutting intensity or the associated road construction, logging, and timber haul.

19 Swift Thin

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives for each impacted resource. Vegetation Management A complete silvicultural prescription, a detailed description of methodology, and effects to vegetation has been completed and can be found in the Swift Thin project record. A summary is included below.

Affected Environment Stand History, Structure, and Composition All of the Swift stands being proposed for treatment originated following clearcut harvests that occurred in the late 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s. The earliest clearcut occurred in 1956; the most recent was in 1979. These traditional clearcuts removed all of the commercial-sized trees. Cutting extended to the channels of both intermittent and perennial streams. The resulting slash was typically broadcast burned and the area was hand planted with conifers at densities of 450 to 600 seedlings per acre. In the early years, only Douglas-fir was planted. In the 1960s and 1970s other early seral species were planted too, but Douglas- fir remained the primary species. In many units, natural regeneration of shade tolerant species occurred but at low levels Most stands received a pre-commercial thinning near age 25 to reduce density to near 350 trees per acre.

Today, Swift stands are between 32 and 57 years of age. The most prevalent tree species is Douglas-fir comprising 60-95 percent of the trees per acre and basal area. Table 4 lists all tree species that are present.

Table 4. Swift Planning Area Tree Species. More Shade Intolerant (typically early seral) More Shade Tolerant (typically late seral) Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Western white pine Pinus monticola Pacific silver fir Abies amabalis Noble fir Abies nobilis Mountain hemlock Tsuga mertensiana Englemann spruce Picea englemannii Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa Red Alder Alnus rubra Western red cedar Thuja plicata Black cottonwood Populus tricocarpa Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum

Due to planting and precommercial thinning, these stands are rather uniform in tree size and spacing. Most of these stands’ basal area is in trees 7-17 inches diameter at breast height, with quadratic means averaging 11 inches (small tree structure class). Trees in the co-dominant crown class are 70-90 feet tall.

The Silvicultural Report—Appendix A contains each stand’s metrics based on stand exams conducted in 2013. This document is in the project file.

Tree density is high in portions of all stands with an average of 250 trees per acre greater than 5 inches diameter at breast height, with some exceeding 400 trees per acre. Swift stands have average relative densities (Curtis 1982) around 55, and some exceed 90. By comparison, adequately stocked stands have relative densities near 35. These stands are best described as having a single canopy story and in the stem

20 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest exclusion phase of development (Oliver and Larson 1990). Trees have fully occupied these sites such, so as to limit biomass in the understory. Inter-tree competition is causing tree crowns to recede from the bottom up, reducing live crown ratio. While overall stand growth is likely to be near the biological maximum, diameter growth of co-dominant trees has begun to level off or decline.

Tree mortality due to the effects of suppression and inter tree competition is apparent, but not extensive. Snags are generally of small diameter (less than 10 inches). Given past clearcutting and broadcast burning, there are no remnant large snags, and there is low coverage of large down logs.

Disturbance Agents Disturbance agents have not had a big influence on plantation stand structure so far. Laminated root rot (Phellinus wierii) is endemic throughout the area and causing some small pockets of Douglas-fir mortality. Suppressed and other trees of poor vigor have succumbed to amillaria root rot (Armillaria mellea). Bear girdling to western white pine and Douglas-fir is locally intense in some stands, but otherwise widely scattered. As trees get larger, bear impacts should decline. Dwarf mistletoes (Arceuthobium sp.) are present in some stands near timbered edges, but it is not severe.

White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), a non-native fungi, affects many western white pine. Western white pine planted in the 1960s and 1970s was of seed from wild collections, as yet untested for blister rust resistance. As a result white pine blister rust is causing chronic mortality to these western white pines. Overall, very few white pines occur within these plantations.

Aboitic influences include windthrow and top breakage from snow. Windthrow has had little to no impact in these stands. Top breakage was apparent in several stands. Trees with height to diameter ratios exceeding 100 are typically at risk to top breakage and were observed.

Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves are in integral component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Plan. Riparian Reserves are managed to protect aquatic and riparian functions, and provide forest connectivity across the landscape. Riparian Reserves extend horizontally at least 150 feet or one site-tree height from the edge of a stream on each side (whichever is greater). On fish-bearing streams, it extends two site-tree heights. For this project it was determined that one site-tree height is equal 160 feet. This correlates to the more productive end of site class IV (see Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan, Amendment 11, page 2-7).

Prior clearcutting, burning, and tree planting occurred throughout what is now the Riparian Reserves, right up to the edge of most intermittent and perennial streams. In current stands, distinct changes in vegetation that would suggest a riparian influence occur only in close proximity (30 feet) to intermittent channels. The widths of riparian vegetation on perennial streams are similarly narrow, though wider on streams of larger flow. Thus the majority of Riparian Reserves have vegetative conditions similar to the rest of the stand. Snags and downed logs are of low density and small size. In the densest stands, understory vegetation much of the Riparian Reserves is as depauperate and sparse as the rest of the uplands.

Fuel Condition and Fire Hazard Fires in the Swift planning area tend to be either small (<10 acres) or very large (>1,000 acres). Increased human use over the past century has likely increased the number of human-caused fire ignitions, but fire suppression and generally moist conditions have minimized fire growth. Duration of fires has decreased from historic lengths of a several days or months to a single burn period for most fires.

21 Swift Thin

Table 5. Disturbance History in the Planning Area. Disturbance Area Affected Year Lewis River Fire ~ 69,000 acres 1902 ~ 39,000 acres in 1902; reburns 1902, 1918, 1919, Siouxon Fire smaller 1931 Trapper Creek Fire ~ 12,000 acres 1850s Large blowdown and salvage around Lone Butte unknown 1970s

Unnatural and hazardous fuel accumulations may exist in individual stands within the Swift planning area, but the general landscape condition does not suggest considerable departure from historic or desired future conditions. Potential fire behavior is only a concern during drought conditions in the relatively wet vegetation types present in the planning area.

Evers et al. (1996) summarized the fire ecology of the mid-Columbia region of Oregon and Washington. The authors assigned plant associations into 12 fire groups based on plant species response to fire and the roles those species play during succession. The goal of the report is to help resource managers understand the role of fire in the ecosystems of the mid-Columbia area. Fire groups present in the Swift planning area include Fire Group 5, 6 and 8; summaries of the characteristics of these groups are in the project file.

Environmental and Social Consequences

No Action Direct Effects / Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, there would be no vegetative manipulation of any stand by commercial thinning, regeneration cuts, tree planting, or invasive weed control. Stands would continue to develop along trajectories largely determined by their tree densities.

The stands being considered for treatment are uniform in size class and have a high tree density. Given disturbance elements are not currently significant, stand changes will mostly be the result of inter-tree competition. Tree crowns would continue to recede from the bottom up, limiting crown size. While dominant trees may continue to do well, other codominant trees will slow in diameter growth. Eventually height growth would be affected. Under high levels of shade, understory vegetation would decline. Shade tolerant trees in the understory may persist, but be suppressed.

Over time disturbance agents would eventually become significant. With high stand density, individual tree vigor would decline making trees more vulnerable to insect and disease. Relatively tall, skinny trees with extreme height to diameter ratios may have their tops break out with heavy wet snow. Such disturbances make more site resources available for the remaining trees and other vegetation; however, suppressed trees and other trees with low levels of crown would be slow to utilize these resources until they developed more crown.

For stands within Late-Successional Reserves, under no action these stands continue on a pathway towards late-successional and old-growth conditions. However, it may take longer to develop many of the structural attributes (large trees, multiple age cohorts, complex canopies) that characterize such forests.

22 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

For stands within Matrix, any opportunity to increase early seral forest conditions to benefit wildlife and promote special forest products would be foregone. No timber harvest or its societal benefits would occur. Overall stand growth would continue near maximum levels; however, opportunities for effective thinning in the future would decrease due to declining tree vigor and increased risk of windthrow and top breakage.

The potential remains for fire and wind to create significant disturbance and create early-seral forests. However, large stand replacing fires in this relatively wet, west Cascades environment are rare.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects. There are ongoing commercial thinning operations in portions of the Lewis and Wind Late Successional Reserves outside of this planning area, but no additional work would occur here.

Proposed Action

Direct Effects / Indirect Effects

Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserves Within Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) and Riparian Reserve, commercial thinning and weed control are proposed. Tree planting may occur in the large gaps within LSR. Thinning reduces stand density by removing a portion of the trees. Typically, 40-60 percent of the trees are removed. In thinning from below, the removed trees are the smaller trees of the stand. This leaves the largest, fastest growing trees, with their potential to be become large old-growth trees, or large snags and downed logs. Thinning creates the disturbance necessary to alter the stand trajectory towards larger trees and more complexity.

The effects of thinning are well documented. The leave trees respond to the available growing space by expanding their canopies vertically and horizontally. Where live crown ratio (crown length to tree length) in dense, mid-seral stands is frequently declining, post thinning, live crown ratios increase. With greater carbohydrate production from the canopy, tree diameter growth increases or can be sustained at high rates for those trees in the co-dominant crown class.

23 Swift Thin

Tree Diameter Change in LSR 30

25 (inches)

20

Diameter 15 Proposed Action

No Action Mean Large Tree Threshold 10 Qaudradi 5

0 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095 2105 2115 Years

Figure 2. Projected Change in Average Tree Diameter for Candidate Stands in LSR.

Figure 2 depicts the change in tree diameter for candidate stand in LSR for the next 100 years. Thinning increases diameter growth such that on average, these stands will attain the large tree structure class (QMD 20 inches) by year 2055. The same stands under no action would take until year 2085, an additional 30 years, to achieve this size.

In addition to increased tree diameters, other elements of late-successional and old-growth (LSOG) forest can be fostered by variable density thinning. Variable density thinning methods attempt to create horizontal and vertical patchiness at several scales, by varying leave tree species and spacing, creating gaps, and leaving unthinned areas. All of these techniques are included in the proposed action.

A key benefit of thinning in single age class plantations is the initiation of second tree cohort. Traditional thinning provides enough space to allow the establishment new trees from natural seeding or tree planting. However, canopy re-closure can suppress the understory before it can develop substantially (Cissel 2006, Harrington et al. 2005). The proposed action includes heavy thin prescriptions that will initially leave canopy cover at 30-40 percent. This would provide the space for second cohort to develop over a longer time, before impacted by the shade of the surrounding large trees. Standard thinning in LSR may require another thinning entry to keep stands on a trajectory towards LSR. Heavy thinning would not. Heavy thinning, in conjunction with standard thinning and areas of no-treatment, diversifies the condition of plantations across the landscape.

Within standard thinning, created gaps that are ¼ acre in size and very heavy thin patches (up to two acres in size) provide the longer lasting, open conditions in a portion of the stand. The overall richness of

24 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest understory vegetation, which increases after thinning, can be increased even more within gaps (Ares et al. 2009). By the time the surrounding stand becomes late-successional (~30-40 years), these gaps might still retain a shrub and hardwood component.

Unthined areas are critical for improving the overall heterogeneity of the stand. This is due to spatial variety they provide in tree distribution, the process of density related tree mortality, and the ability to protect any residual late-seral structures as well as shade dependent or disturbance sensitive species. These benefits are explained further.

Unthinned areas retain the current tight tree spacing and will provide contrast to the more open, thinned areas. The thinned areas will have tree spacing will ranging from 12 to 40 feet and occasionally closer where minor conifers and hardwoods occur. Unthinned areas have tree spacing from 8 to 24 feet. Having both unthinned and thinned areas within the same stand increases spatial heterogeneity.

With the tighter tree spacing in unthinned areas you will have inter-tree competition causing density induced mortality. Generally, the trees that succumb are smaller and in the lower crown classes. These small trees (5-10 inches diameter at breast height) once dead, decay more rapidly than larger dead trees and may not contribute much to later old-growth conditions. However, in the near term (next 20 years), the unthinned areas add snags and down logs. Thinning changes this process by removing suppressed trees and improving the vigor of the trees that are left. Thus keeping some unthinned areas in these stands provides some natural production of snags and downed logs, though of small size and shorter duration.

Elements of the stand that are already providing late-seral structure or diversity can be retained in unthinned areas. This may include remnant old trees, large snags or downed logs, and other unique habitats. Some elements of late-successional forest are shade dependent (e.g. some lichens and bryophytes), requiring interior, closed forest conditions. There other species (e.g. flying squirrels) that react adversely to disturbance, such as that caused by thinning (Manning et al. 2012). Unthinned areas provide for these species’ maintenance, recolonization, and/or dispersal back into these plantations. Thus the distribution and size of unthinned areas are important. This prescription uses both small unthinned areas (skips of ¼ acre) and larger unthinned areas. The small skips permit easy application and distribution across cutting units. However, they do not provide interior forest conditions. Increasing the size of unthinned areas from a half to one acre maintains a semblance of interior forest conditions within thinned forests (Wessel et al.2005). Large unthinned areas (aka big skips) that are 2.4 acres or greater, are prescribed for the more open, heavy thins in LSR stands larger than 50 acres. Heithecker and Halpern (2007) found that 1 hectare (2.4 acres) leave islands are “sufficiently large to contain areas with light, temperature, and soil moisture that are comparable to those in undisturbed forest and suitable, in the short-term, for persistence of forest-dependent species.”

Oliver and Larson (1990) describe stand development as moving sequentially from the stages of stand initiation, stem exclusion, understory re-initiation, to old-growth. Variable density thinning with gaps provides the disturbance that revitalizes the understory (Bailey and Tappener 1998, Chan et al. 2006) moving these plantations from a stem exclusion stage to an understory re-initiation stage. Research in the Pacific Northwest indicates that density management within plantations can indeed accelerate the development of Late-Successional Old Growth attributes (Beggs 2004, Andrews et al. 2005). These attributes include trees of large diameter and crowns, complex stand canopies at multiple heights and tree species, large snags, and large downed logs.

The proposed action thins 3,346 stand acres within the Lewis and Wind LSRs. These treatments advance the attainment of Late-Successional Old Growth attributes within the stand, and improves the future connectivity across the landscape, thereby meeting the desired future condition.

25 Swift Thin

Matrix Thinning Commercial thinning within the matrix allocation reduces tree density to harvest expected tree mortality. Thinning would be from below to remove the smaller trees of the stand. This leaves the largest, fastest growing trees. In general, leave tree density is higher than LSR prescription in order to maintain growth more at the stand level and less so at the individual tree level. This produces an immediate commercial yield of wood and optimization of timber yield through the expected rotation.

Stand Density Change in Matrix 80

70

60 Proposed Action (Curtis)

50 No Action 40 Zone of Density Density

30 Induced Mortality Zone of High Stand 20 Growth Relative 10

0 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 Year

Figure 3. Projected Change in Average Stand Density for Candidate Stands in Matrix.

The commercial thinning treatment in matrix reduce stand densities below the level at which density- induced mortality occurs from severe inter-tree competition (see Figure 3). However, it is generally maintained in the zone of full site occupancy where stand growth is higher.

The general mechanics and stands dynamics of thinning described previously for LSR stands apply here are well. Variable density thinning techniques are also to be applied in matrix stands, though at a lesser extent. Their application in matrix are for the same reasons as in LSR, namely to hasten and improve the quality of late-successional habitat. For a significant portion of their normal rotation period, matrix stands are late-successional. The typical rotation length for stands in this planning area (site class IV) would be 90-110 years. Thus matrix stands can be expected to function as late-successional forest for 10 to 30 years, until regenerated and changed to an early seral condition. Matrix stands are an important contributor to late-successional forests on the landscape as a whole. Thinning matrix plantation improves this contribution.

26 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Matrix Moderate Retention Regeneration Cuts Moderate forest retention regeneration cuts are proposed in the upland portion of matrix stands where early seral conditions are desired for wildlife habitat and huckleberry fruiting. The retention of a portion of the previous forest stand in aggregates and individual trees is an attempt to develop a more complex early-seral condition, more reflective of the conditions following natural disturbance. A minimum of 20 percent of these stands will be maintained in large, leave patches and individual trees. The cut portion of these stands would resemble patchy shelterwoods. Less aggregated retention no-cut areas, the cut opening would range in size from 5 to 40 acres and provide the open conditions necessary for early seral vegetation to flourish. Tree planting would only occur if natural seeding cannot meet the reforestation stocking objective of 125 trees per acre. At this low level, early seral vegetation would be provided a longer time period of persistence. Deer and elk forage production at high levels could occur for 30 years.

There are several examples of this cutting method in the Swift planning area. The PH Demo, Hardtime, Rock, and Skeeter Timber Sales were cut in the late1990s. These treatments incorporated moderate levels of aggregated retention and dispersed retention in single trees and groups. Figure 4 and Figure 5 are overhead aerial images of some these treatments.

Review of the open areas of these treatments affirms that a robust shrub and herb layer response can be expected. High levels of natural conifer regeneration also occurred. The PH Demo project had an identical reforestation stocking objective of 125 trees, and while planted at 150 trees per acres, total stocking now exceed 300 seedlings and saplings per acre. Figure 6. Photo of PH Demo #4. shows current vegetative conditions in PH Demo #4.

The PH Demo Timber Sale implemented one of six replications of the Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options: Green Tree Retention Study (Aubry 1999). Research from this study informed the design and expected benefits of gaps, larger openings, dispersed tree retention, and large aggregated retention for this project.

27 Swift Thin

Figure 4. Previous Retention Regeneration Cuts in the Vicinity of Swift Stands.

28 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Figure 5. Previous Retention Regeneration Cuts in the Vicinity of Swift Stands.

29 Swift Thin

\ Figure 6. Photo of PH Demo #4. Jerry Franklin discusses complex early seral conditions within an opening of PH Demo #4 that has huckleberry, planted tree, and native conifer regeneration, during a public meeting sponsored by the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative, June 15, 2012.

30 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

The overall complexity of these early seral stands is not what it could be, if it were implemented on an older, native stand. These plantations lack a large trees, snags, and downed log component; the kind of high value remnant structures that can be carried through a rotation or created from the current tree stocking if it were bigger. These early seral stands are certainly not as complex is if they followed a natural disturbance, and there was no tree removal at all. What would be retained in cut areas include the following:  All hardwoods trees. Currently there are very few.  All large trees, snags, and downed logs. Little is present now, it’s mostly large stumps, root wads, or cull logs left near prior landings.  Approximately 25 tons/acre of tops and limbs and needles. Slash and below ground roots comprise much of these forests’ stored nitrogen, and would remain on-site for recycling. Half of this volume is carbon and subject to slow release to the atmosphere from decay.  10 percent of the current tree stock, larger trees. It is expected that half of this component would provide large snags and downed logs for this rotation. Target level is 240 linear feet of downed logs, 20 inches or larger on the large end. Target level for large snags is 6.6 snags per acre. The 6.6 snags per acre reflects the 50 percent tolerance level for snags > 20 inches diameter at breast height for the small to medium tree structure stage in the Montane Mixed Conifer habitat type (DecAID Figure MMC_S.inv3, Mellen et al. 2006). This level exceeds the Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan standard of 2.6 snags per acre for cavity nesting birds. It may be necessary to artificially create these snags and downed logs via topping, girdling, or felling. The largest trees from the current stock would attain the desired 20 inches size in 20 years, and their conversion to snags and downed logs then, would enrich the latter half of the early seral phase. All other retained trees would be left to grow. Those trees surviving to next regeneration cut, would likely be retained into the following rotation, along with the large snags and downed logs.

Vegetative Response for Forage and Huckleberries Heavy thinning, gaps within thinning, and early seral conditions created from regeneration cuts will increase forage.

Swift stands currently do not provide much forage due to shading of the forest floor. Forage plants that can still be found in some of the units include vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.), and various forbs. Available forage produced by these species would likely increase with removal of overstory trees. Many of the proposed units have a significant understory cover of species such as beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax), Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium), and salal (Gaultheria shallon) that are not used much for forage by elk and deer. Thinning would likely result in increased cover by these species where they currently exist, so forage production may not improve significantly in these stands.

Commercial thinning to a wide spacing with the heavy thinning prescription and creating heavy thin patches in standard thinning would benefit forage development more than standard thinning alone. This forage production would be heavier and last longer. This increase in forage production would last 15 to 20 years depending on thinning intensity.

The moderate forest retention cuts would result in even better forage production. Stands selected for this treatment had huckleberry, vine maple, and other palatable forbs in the understory. Initially, ground disturbance due to logging may reduce cover, but forage plants should respond rapidly to increased light levels via sprouting and seed reproduction. As there is likely to be no tree planting, this increase in forage production should last 30 years.

31 Swift Thin

For the Swift planning area, high levels of deer and elk forage production occurs on 20 percent of the planning areas, comprised of non-forest (meadows), shrub/seedling, and half of the sapling/pole structure classes. The heavy thin stands and gap component of the standard thins provide improved forage conditions for 1,948 acres. The moderate-retention regeneration cuts create 193 acres of early seral habitat. In total, Swift treatments would improve forage production on 2.3 percent of the planning area.

Huckleberry fruiting should also increase substantially under early seral conditions. Where there is little damage to the above ground plant, an increase in fruiting can occur in three years (Jiminez 2008). When damaged above ground, huckleberry will sprout from undergound rhizomes. It may take several years to build above ground biomass, but once recovered, an improved fruiting response can be expected. Observations in Skeeter Timer Sale units seven years after logging, noted regenerated huckleberry bushes one foot tall with abundant fruiting (Nakae 2009). These bushes are now 2-3 feet tall and still fruited abundantly in 2014. Monitoring of Mowich Thin Timber Sale indicates a similar response time.

While high amounts of shade and competition are detrimental to huckleberries fruiting, some shade may actually be beneficial (Minore 1979). Late frosts can kill huckleberry leaves, new shoots, and flowers. Trees can provide thermal cover to limit frost. This may be more important on flat, frost prone areas where cold air can pool. Shade from trees can delay snowmelt, and retard early season growth when killing frosts are more likely (Minore 1972). Shade may also be a factor in moderating summer moisture stress (Barney 2007). Dispersed retention trees in the Swift stands would provide 5-20 percent cover through the early seral phase.

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment In order to avoid any loss of late-successional forest, old-growth forest, or suitable spotted owl habitat, the moderate forest retention cuts were applied only to plantations. These stands have not reached culminated mean annual increment (CMAI). Regeneration cuts to these stands at this time, reduces the total potential wood yield from these stands for this rotation.

Mean annual increment refers to the average annual productivity of a stand over the life of the stand. The age at which the mean annual increment culminates (reaches its maximum) is the harvest age (rotation) that would maximize volume productivity from the stand over its lifetime. To provide optimal wood production, stands should be regenerated near CMAI age. Table 6 list the projected age of CMAI for each stand based on cubic foot growth, and compares the stand volume (MBF-thousand board feet/acre) at that time with the current volume.

Table 6. Total Stand Volumes Present and at Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI). Stand CMAI Year 2015 Volume (MBF/Acre) Volume (MBF/Acre) at CMAI Year 102881 2055 32 88 102879 2055 30 92 102918 2035 58 81 103040 2055 28 80 103107 2075 15 55 103222 2045 33 80 800414 2045 33 80

Regeneration cuts prior to CMAI, yield less wood volume than could be obtained by waiting. If done on widespread or consistent basis, such action would reduce the Forest’s Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity and Annual Sale Quantity (ASQ). However, this proposal has negligible impact on either, given the limited scope of this proposal (193 acres), the relative paucity of other regeneration cuts on the Forest

32 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest in the past 15 years, and an annual sale output for the past 15 years that is less than the Potential Sale Quantity (PSQ) estimated for the Forest under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Fuels Considerations There may be an increase in surface fuel loading where slash is allowed to remain on site. Increased surface fuel loading increases potential surface fire behavior immediately following treatment. Potential surface fire behavior generally decreases in stands and portions of stands that are piled and burned compared to both existing conditions and post treatment conditions with no slash disposal.

Metrics of crown fire behavior are difficult to quantify, but the proposed action is expected to reduce the potential for crown fire initiation and spread. Crown fire cannot be considered independently of surface fire (Van Wagner, 1977; Alexander, 1988), but predictions can be made about the likelihood of crown fire based on canopy fuel characteristics. A decrease in ladder fuels reduces the likelihood that fires can transition from the surface fuel layer to the canopy and a reduction in the quantity and horizontal continuity of canopy fuels can prevent crown fire spread (Raymond and Peterson, 2005).

Pile burning can result in site sterilization from intense and prolonged soil heating, adjacent tree mortality, minor threats to wildlife, temporary limitation to public access, and an output of greenhouse gases including carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, volatile organic matter, and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 and less than ten microns (PM2.5 and PM10). Level of emissions is related to the intensity and duration of the fire, which is determined by fuel and weather conditions at the time of burning. Emissions from prescribed burning can be detrimental to firefighter and public health and contribute to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Indirect effects of individual or multiple projects on global climate change are difficult to quantify; therefore, the significance of the effects of this proposed project on global climate change cannot be determined at any scale.

None of the other elements of the proposed action (danger tree felling, temporary road and landing construction, and road restoration) are expected to have any effects on vegetation.

Cumulative Effects Late-Successional Reserve There have been no recently completed or planned timber management projects in those portions of the Swift planning area that are allocated LSR. There has been such activity, both the Lewis and Wind LSRs, outside of the planning area.

The Lewis LSR spans 120,738 acres and overlaps the northern portion of the Swift planning area. There are 2,580 acres of commercial thinning, using similar variable density methods, currently underway (Peppercat and Wildcat projects). These projects began cutting in 2010 and will be completed in 2018. The Swift proposed action would add 671 acres of commercial thinning, raising the total treatment area for the decade to 3,251 acres (2.7 percent of the Lewis LSR).

The Wind LSR covers 125,106 acres and overlaps the southern portion of the Swift planning area. There has been 141 acres of commercial thinning and 27 acres of moderate forest retention completed between 2010 and 2014 with the WinThin Timber Sale. The Swift proposed action would add 1,819 acres of commercial thinning, raising the total treatment area for the decade to 1,987 acres (1.6 percent of the Wind LSR).

Precommercial thinning in sapling and pole sized stands of 615 acres are currently under contract within the Lewis LSR. There are none in the Wind LSR. While the Swift proposed action does not include any precommercial thinning, funds from the sale of timber, either by Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) and

33 Swift Thin stewardship authorities, may be used to implement precommercial thinning treatments that already have completed NEPA decisions. There are approximately 2,000 acres of precommercial thinning in the Swift planning area that have completed NEPA decisions.

Summary of Effects Changes to vegetation from Swift Thin are summarized in the following table.

Table 7. Comparison of Alternatives to the Purpose and Need. Purpose and Need Element No Action Proposed Action Commercial Thinning in LSR to accelerate Late 0 acres 2,490 cut acres from Successional /Old Growth (LS/OG) characteristics 3,298 stand acres Commercial Thinning in Riparian Reserves (RR) to 0 acres 477 cut acres from accelerate LS/OG characteristics and connectivity 1,164 RR stand acres Produce commercial yields of wood and optimization of 0 acres 1,351 cut acres timber in Matrix allocations Improve deer and elk forage and production of 0 acres 193 cut acres regeneration huckleberries. 100 cut acres heavy thin patches 1,848 cut acres heavy thin Provide forest products for the social and economic 0 MMBF 48.066 MMBF benefits to local communities MMBF – Million board feet

Soil Resources A complete soils report has been completed and can be found in the Swift Thin project record. A summary is included below.

Affected Environment

Geomorphology and Soil Types Landtype Association mapping (USDAFS GPNF 1999b, gplta) classifies landforms occupied by units of the Swift Timber Sale in four major landforms:  Gently Sloping Glacial Lahar Plains (Gl-D/Q-V); formed by glacial scour of Quaternary lava flows, mantled with soils developed from volcanic tephra  Gently Sloping Upland Benches, Plateaus (Q-V); formed by Quaternary lava flows, mantled with soils developed from volcanic tephra  Steep, Moderately Dissected Mountain Slopes (T-Vm); formed by tectonic uplift and stream dissection, mantled with soils developed from colluvium from marine volcanic rocks and volcanic tephra  Steep, Slightly Dissected Mountain Slopes (T-V); formed by tectonic uplift and stream dissection, mantled with soils developed from colluvium from marine volcanic rock

34 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Soil depth and soil textures are related to bedrock type, and influenced by topography. Lava flows from Indian Heaven area and its glacial deposits, along with glacial deposits from Mt. Adams, contribute to gentle topography and relatively shallower soils because the relatively young bedrock is less weathered and stronger.

Steeper slopes around Lewis River tributaries have deeper soils formed from residual or colluvial weathered bedrock materials of volcanic origin, along with a greater potential for mass failures.

A strong influence on soil formation in the project area has been volcanic ash and pumice from Mount St. Helens, Mount Adams, and other sources, although glacial till is a dominant parent material on gentler slopes.

The area was mapped as part of the Soil Resource Inventory (Wade, et. al., 1992 and USDA FS, 1971). Soils in the units are suitable for timber harvest, in alignment with timberland suitability classification (FSM 2415.2), except in wetlands and wet meadows (Soil Mapping Unit 3). Current soils information for sensitive soils in the project area was collected on a site-specific basis. Soil Mapping Unit (SMU) locations were modified for accuracy at the project scale (Swift Soils Report, Appendix A-Soil Mapping) to reflect 2013 field observations and GIS analysis.

The 87 units of the Swift Timber Sale contain 33 Soil Mapping Units (SMUs), some with 4-digit combinations called complexes (Swift Soils Report, Appendix A-Soil Mapping) across approximately 4600 acres of activity areas (harvest units). Gravelly loams on broad upland plateaus of SMU 17 occupy the most area within the units, but loamy soils on gentle benches and toeslopes of SMU 88 appear in 27 stands (Table 8).

Of the soils rated as permitting ground based logging systems, seven SMUs within the activity areas rate “high" potential for soil compaction, comprising 1000 acres, or about 22% of the activity areas. Except for 590 acres in SMU 29, ground based SMU ratings are either Low or Moderate for soil displacement.

SMUs with a “yes” in the “Potentially Unstable” column denote a component involving potentially unstable soils mapping. Refer to Slope Stability discussion below for conditions and project design features in those units. Surface erosion potential rating applies to topsoil when a disturbance removes all vegetative cover, including litter.

Table 8. Selected Soil Mapping Interpretations. Soil Map Unit Swift Units Surface Compaction Displacement Potentially (SMU) (Activity Areas) Acres Erosion Potential Potential Fertility Unstable 17 102733, 102739, 673.8 Slight Moderate Moderate Low No 102741, 102791, 102841, 102859, 102912, 102918, 102920, 102942, 102951, 103018, 103023, 103034, 103040 18 102741, 102912, 29.0 Moderate Low No 102918, 102920, 102933

35 Swift Thin

Soil Map Unit Swift Units Surface Compaction Displacement Potentially (SMU) (Activity Areas) Acres Erosion Potential Potential Fertility Unstable 21 103271, 103629, 32.4 Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate No 103636, 103680 22 103636, 103680 13.0 Moderate Moderate No 23 102859, 102879, 149.8 Slight High Moderate Low- No 102933, 103018, Moderate 103040, 103107, 103626, 103642, 800414 24 102741, 102887, 115.0 Moderate High Moderate Low- No 102942, 103189, Moderate 103195, 103222, 103237 29 102720, 102747, 538.0 Moderate Moderate High Low- No 103130, 103135, Moderate 103165, 103168, 103222, 103225, 107247 31 103237, 107247 58.6 Moderate Low No 58 103189, 103222, 209.9 Moderate Moderate Moderate Low- No 103237, 103639, Moderate 103642, 103701, 800414 59 102887 28.1 Moderate Moderate- Moderate Moderate Yes High 81 103271, 103274, 351.0 Moderate Low No 103281, 103605, 103615, 103639, 103680, 103732, 103737, 103740, 103743, 103744, 103746, 103758, 103759, 103793, 103794 82 103271, 103272, 76.7 Moderate Low No 103613, 103614, 103615 83 103225, 800414 12.7 Moderate Moderate No 84 103597, 103606, 214.1 Moderate Low No 103613, 103614, 103629, 103630, 103635, 103636, 103650, 103651, 103652, 103664, 103667, 103685, 103887 85 103680, 103758, 7.5 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate No 103759 87 103615, 103667, 7.4 Moderate Moderate Yes 103744

36 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Soil Map Unit Swift Units Surface Compaction Displacement Potentially (SMU) (Activity Areas) Acres Erosion Potential Potential Fertility Unstable 88 103600, 103602, 503.6 Moderate Moderate- Moderate Moderate No 103605, 103606, High 103613, 103614, 103615, 103626, 103629, 103630, 103635, 103650, 103651, 103652, 103685, 103689, 103700, 103726, 103732, 103737, 103743, 103744, 103746, 103793, 103794, 103887, 800414 91 102707 7.0 Moderate Low No 92 102859, 103594, 109.8 Moderate Low No 103597, 103600, 103650, 103651, 103667, 103730, 103746, 103759, 103761, 103774, 103775, 103782, 103787 94 103018, 103107, 242.6 Moderate High Moderate Low No 103126, 103128, 103130, 103602, 103626, 103627 95 103237, 103594, 138.2 Moderate High Moderate Low No 103597, 103650, 103664, 103667, 103730, 103761, 103774, 103782, 103787 1795 102791, 102841 46.3 Moderate High Moderate Low No 1892 102933, 102942 33.6 Moderate Low No 2324 102693, 102879, 77.2 Slight High Moderate Low- No 102881, 102887 Moderate 3157 102693, 102741, 9.3 Moderate Yes 102747 5923 102879 2.9 Moderate Moderate- Moderate Yes High 8184 103594 10.7 Moderate Low No 8284 103650, 103700, 76.2 Moderate Low 103705 8287 103605 7.0 Moderate Yes 8322 103271 7.3 Moderate Moderate No 9284 103602, 103689 52.7 Moderate Low No 3 wet 102733, 102951, 0.4 Slight High Low Moderate No meadows 103107, 103168, 103237

37 Swift Thin

Soil Productivity/Soil Quality Evidence of ground based logging and other forest products harvest and recreational use exist within the Swift Timber Sale Unit boundaries. Non-system roads and landings that are remaining from past timber harvest and which have not been rehabilitated generally still have low to moderate compaction on older, overgrown roads or landings, or moderate to severe soil compaction on heavily used or heavily rocked non system roads and landings. Moderate to severe soil compaction has also been observed on-system roads that currently have unapproved use.

This analysis assumes that areas with extensive detrimental soil conditions have experienced losses in soil productivity in the long term (greater than fifty years). The analysis estimated detrimental conditions were within the 20% Forest Plan Standard for detrimental soil conditions (USDA 1990) in proposed activity areas.

Timber Harvest Non-System Roads and Landings Stands in the activity areas were affected by timber sales recorded in Table 9, beginning with Skook Timber Sale in 1983 and most recently Limbo Timber Sale in 1997. Managed stands were generally clear-cut harvested, followed by planting. Management practices at that time did not restrict machine movement, skid trail density, removal of woody debris or intense burning; therefore detrimental effects to soil were sometimes higher than what Forest Plan standards and guidelines currently recommend. These past detrimental conditions continue to exist on the ground in various stages of natural recovery.

Table 9. Timber Sales Affecting Units of Swift Project. Sale Name Year Limbo Timber Sale 1997 Hardtime Timber Sale 1996 Point and Rush Timber Sales 1991 Drought Timber Sale 1990 Cas Salvage Timber Sale 1989a Brothers Timber Sale 1989 Term Timber Sale 1989 Quartzite Timber Sale 1988 Gabby Timber Sale 1988 Scallop, Oyster, and Kelp Timber Sales 1987 Kamloops, Willie, and Saska Timber Sales 1987 Skook Timber Sale Addendum 1987 Miller Creek Timber Sale 1986 Edge Buy-Back Timber Sale 1986a Atomic Dog Salvage Timber Sale 1986 Partridge II Timber Sale 1986 Redhead Timber Sale 1986 Bojo Salvage Timber Sale 1985 Foehn Salvage Timber Sale 1985 Ivory Salvage Timber Sale 1985 Beth SSTS Sales 1984

38 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Sale Name Year Gone Timber Sale 1984 Joint Timber Sale 1984 Solitaire Timber Sale 1984 Skook Timber Sale 1983

System Roads The analysis considered system roads to have soils in a non-productive condition in the long term (greater than fifty years). Most of the precipitation that falls on a compacted surface becomes surface runoff. The area of system roads was estimated using GIS analysis and includes roads within and adjacent to each unit boundary. Data for the analysis is available in the project file.

National Forest system and non-system roads currently occupy up to approximately 17.5 percent of any units, as shown in the “Existing Disturbance” column of Table 10 which includes system roads, remnant logging roads (skid trails), and landings. Non-system roads with “ghost” skid roads range from 0 to an estimated 8 percent of the units.

Some temporary roads analyzed by resource specialists were not included in calculations of detrimental soil conditions when they were greater than 10 meters outside the unit boundary, approximately 0.6 miles were “new” in the proposed action. Landings proposed greater than 18 meters outside a unit boundary were similarly excluded from these calculations, none were “new” in the proposed action.

Compaction on non-system roads, skid trails, and landings ranged from minimal to severe, with moderate to severe compaction being most prevalent on arterial logging roads, where observed. Three Swift units, 103600, 103730, and 103775, have all of their detrimental soil conditions from non-system roads, skid trails, and landings but not from system roads.

Table 10. Approximate Extent of Detrimental Soil Conditions. Old Logging Unit Roads & Skid Trails Existing Swift Unit Number Acres (%) Disturbance1 (%) 102693 1.2 7.1% 11.1% 102707 1.1 4.0% 12.9% 102720 3.2 7.7% 12.3% 102733 3.0 7.1% 11.3% 102739 1.9 7.0% 10.4% 102741 1.7 6.3% 10.3% 102791 2.1 7.0% 10.9% 102841 3.7 7.0% 10.1% 102859 1.7 7.2% 9.9% 102879 0.7 7.0% 11.8% 102881 0.7 7.0% 11.5% 102887 5.2 7.0% 14.2% 102912 2.0 7.0% 10.6%

1 Includes logging roads and landings, unverified estimates of roads, and National Forest system roads.

39 Swift Thin

Old Logging Unit Roads & Skid Trails Existing Swift Unit Number Acres (%) Disturbance1 (%) 102918 1.6 5.0% 13.3% 102920 1.1 5.0% 9.9% 102933 0.6 5.0% 7.5% 102942 4.7 5.0% 10.6% 102951 1.4 7.1% 10.4% 103018 0.3 7.2% 8.9% 103023 0.7 7.4% 9.9% 103034 0.4 7.4% 10.2% 103040 0.8 7.1% 10.1% 103107 0.3 7.0% 17.5% 103126 0.2 7.5% 8.7% 103128 1.8 7.3% 10.9% 103130 1.7 7.9% 11.1% 103135 1.5 8.1% 11.3% 103165 0.9 7.7% 9.0% 103168 1.6 7.9% 9.4% 103189 0.7 7.6% 10.0% 103195 0.4 7.4% 11.8% 103222 1.5 7.2% 10.8% 103225 2.1 6.3% 11.4% 103237 2.7 6.1% 10.7% 103271 0.8 1.0% 3.4% 103272 1.4 3.8% 103274 1.6 5.8% 103281 1.6 0.6% 5.3% 103594 0.3 3.5% 6.4% 103597 1.0 6.0% 9.8% 103600 6.6% 7.7% 103602 0.4 5.2% 8.1% 103605 1.1 3.1% 5.9% 103606 1.3 6.0% 12.8% 103613 1.1 3.2% 5.0% 103614 0.4 3.1% 7.2% 103615 0.8 1.4% 5.4% 103626 1.1 7.3% 11.1% 103627 0.7 7.3% 9.4% 103629 0.7 3.2% 6.3% 103630 1.1 2.4% 5.1% 103635 0.9 1.7% 4.0%

40 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Old Logging Unit Roads & Skid Trails Existing Swift Unit Number Acres (%) Disturbance1 (%) 103636 1.7 4.2% 10.4% 103639 2.9 6.0% 11.4% 103642 0.4 7.2% 8.6% 103650 0.8 4.2% 8.6% 103651 1.7 5.1% 10.2% 103652 0.3 2.1% 6.6% 103664 0.9 3.0% 11.8% 103667 1.1 4.3% 7.5% 103680 1.2 1.0% 3.5% 103685 1.6 5.1% 9.4% 103689 1.4 3.7% 103700 1.5 4.2% 7.1% 103701 0.8 7.5% 11.6% 103705 1.1 3.4% 103726 0.7 7.3% 10.3% 103730 7.3% 14.0% 103732 0.4 3.3% 5.5% 103737 0.6 2.7% 6.0% 103740 0.5 0.1% 3.7% 103743 0.7 6.0% 10.1% 103744 0.4 5.5% 7.1% 103746 2.9 2.0% 7.2% 103758 0.7 1.6% 6.3% 103759 0.6 5.0% 103761 0.2 2.4% 13.1% 103774 0.5 2.3% 5.3% 103775 2.7% 9.6% 103782 0.5 6.8% 11.3% 103787 0.7 6.0% 11.6% 103793 0.7 5.0% 7.8% 103794 0.3 6.0% 10.7% 103887 1.6 6.3% 9.7% 107247 1.0 3.4% 4.9% 800414 1.0 5.7% 8.8% Maximum 8.1% 17.5%

Slope Stability A Forest Service soil scientist visited units which contained Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) mapping (Wade 1992) of potentially unstable slopes). Land managers conservatively delineated unstable and potentially unstable areas as riparian reserves until field-verification could occur. A qualified earth

41 Swift Thin scientist can update the soil mapping designations with field verified interpretations. The project scale analysis corrected SRI mapping in a few places, and will eventually correct the corporate GIS map data.

Gifford Pinchot National Forest GeoHaz GIS layer identifies active and past-active landslides (USDA 1999) within the Project Area. Field verification indicated isolated, actively moving landslides in or near Swift Units 103667, 103635, 103636 (See soils map, Tiles 9 and 11 in the Swift Soils Report) and 800414 (See soils map, Tiles 27 and 29 in the Swift Soils Report). One area in Swift Unit 103615 was relatively larger (See soils map, Tile 9 in the Swift Soils Report). Actively unstable soils will be buffered to exclude the moving landslide from vegetation management.

The Soil Resource Inventory identifies approximately 120 acres of potentially unstable areas in Swift Units that include SMU 57 (See soils map, Tile 2 in the Swift Soils Report), 87 (See soils map, Tile 20 in the Swift Soils Report) and 8387 (See soils map, Tiles 22-29 in the Swift Soils Report) and a “High Risk” rating for Natural Stability as described below. This analysis shall serve to document changes to the rating of soils within the units listed.

Natural Stability Risk Rating The Forest classified SRI Natural Stability ratings from Low Risk to Very High Risk as defined below. The SRI defines the Natural Stability rating as “based on the relative stability of the mapping units as they occur in the natural state. This includes any movement or loss other than surface erosion, by slumps, slides and all kinds of deep-seated failures” (Wade 1992). a. Very High Risk – Generally, Class IV or V Natural Stability Rating. Sometimes designated as unsuited (for timber management) and removed from timber base via GP FSH 2409.13, Chapter 20 when the SMU is given a suffix "F,” and thus is taken out of the timber base per the “Timber Land Classification.” [This does not apply to any units of the Swift Timber Sale.] b. High Risk – Generally, Class IV or V Natural Stability Rating. May be unsuited - has most of the characteristics of slumps and landslides2; some timber harvest may occur by individual tree selection, small group selection, or very small CC [Clear Cut]; generally, no roads should be built in these areas - involve Geotech Group and Soil Scientist. These specialists may more accurately map the area and help develop the necessary documentation to move the area to the Very High Risk by GP FSH 2409.13. [Applies to 4 units, as listed in Table 11.] c. Moderate Risk – Generally, Class III or IV Natural Stability Rating. Some characteristics of slumps and landslides are evident, careful road location and sale design will allow some timber harvest - involve Soil Scientist. [Applies to 5 units listed in Table 11.] d. Low Risk – Class I, II, and III Natural Stability Rating. Few if any characteristics of slumps and landslides are present, planned timber harvest design to fit the ground situation can take place. Remember to consider other interpretations. [Applies to all remaining units of the proposal.]

Soil Natural Stability in Soil Map Units (SMU) 3157, 59, 5923, 87, 8287, and 8387 Silvicultural prescriptions, as proposed in the action alternative, would mitigate landslides initiation in those units listing a “regular thin” or gap avoidance (Table 11). Some units were field verified by a soil scientist and had few if any existing characteristics of mass wasting. Aquatics technicians and specialists also visited units and noted unstable areas which have been incorporated into this analysis.

Recommendations for management in stands with unstable slopes include a modified thinning prescription (no gaps) and a road construction or reconstruction plan that avoids entering the unstable area. Only Unit 103605 proposes new temporary road construction near potentially unstable soils. Project

2 Characterized by erratically leaning trees, slumping topography with bare headwalls, sag ponds and over-steepened pressure ridges, tension cracks; often with riparian vegetation, seeps, and ponds.

42 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest design will include avoiding harvest on steep slopes along the north unit boundary of Unit 103615, 103667, and 800414 on SMU 87 and 8387.

Table 11. Slope Stability Project Design Features and Mitigations. Field visit to verify active SRI Acres Potentially Tile (Page) landslides Natural Swift mapped Unstable Number on presence or Stability Design feature or Unit unstable SMU Soils Map absence Rating mitigation 102693 6.2 3157 1 Soil Scientist, Moderate Moderate thin prescription Aquatics survey not likely to affect slope stability 102741 15.7 3157 3 Soil Scientist, Moderate Standard thin prescription Aquatics survey not likely to affect slope stability. Most of risky area included in riparian no-cut buffer. 102747 14.4 3157 2 Aquatics survey Moderate Avoid small area, which is included in riparian no-cut buffer 102879 2.9 5923 1 Aquatics survey High Regeneration candidate with full or modified riparian buffer. Avoid steep areas, none likely to exist. 102887 28.4 59 1 Soil Scientist, High Standard thin prescription Aquatics survey not likely to affect slope stability. 103605 10.2 8287 9 Soil Scientist, Moderate Moderate thin prescription Aquatics survey not likely to affect slope stability. 103615 25.3 87 9 Soil Scientist, High Avoid slopes > 45% on Aquatics survey north half of unit. 103667 6.6 87 9 Soil Scientist, High Avoid slopes > 45% on Aquatics survey north edge of unit. 103744 8.3 87 16 Soil Scientist, High Moderate thin prescription Aquatics survey not likely to affect slope stability. 800414 4.5 (acres 8387 12 Soil Scientist, Moderate Judged actively unstable, dropped) Aquatics survey removed the unstable portion of the unit from harvest (generally slopes > 45% on north edge of unit).

Summary of Existing Condition Existing detrimental soil conditions in the project area have reduced soil productivity in the long term (greater than fifty years). Soils within the project area were soils formed in volcanic ash and pumice from Mount St. Helens, Mount Adams, and other sources, although glacial till is the dominant parent material on some gentler slopes, over residual or colluvial weathered bedrock materials of volcanic origin.

Ground-based timber harvest have altered soil properties and potentially decreased soil productivity in the planning area. Damage to soil physical properties on skid trails and landings has recovered over time, but

43 Swift Thin management activities did reduce soil quality where ground-based skidding operations displaced organic surface layers or caused deep compaction.

The analysis estimates existing detrimental conditions within the 20% Forest Plan Standard for detrimental soil conditions (USDA 1990) in the 86 activity areas. Compaction on old logging roads, skid trails, and landings ranges from minimal to severe, with moderate to severe compaction being most prevalent on arterial logging roads.

Field investigations revealed features indicating mass wasting in Swift Units 103615, 103667, 103635, 103636, and 800414 that the Forest “GeoHaz” corporate GIS layer (USDA 1999) did not delineate. Five units contain an SRI Natural Stability Risk Rating of “High,” and 5 other units contain an SRI Natural Stability Risk Rating of “Moderate” (Wade, et. al. 1992b). Risk from recently discovered features and the High rating area would be mitigated with measures such as exclusion from harvest as riparian reserves.

Environmental Consequences

No Action

Direct Effects/ Indirect Effects There are no direct effects of choosing the no action alternative. No further losses or gains in soil productivity in the short term or long term are expected in this alternative, other than from unrelated activities of other forest management such as trail maintenance, or extraction of special forest products. Detrimental conditions in the units would remain, the extent ranges from 0 to 17.5% (Table 10). Existing National Forest system roads and landings would not be restored and would remain in a detrimental condition for the foreseeable future.

Recovery of soil productivity would be slower with no action than the proposed action in those areas that would be subsoiled and amended after their use, and the time needed to reach the desired future condition would take longer without the treatment. Detrimental soil compaction and displacement would remain localized to existing system and non-system roads, trails and landings.

No actions are currently planned to address unauthorized roads in the area, however some decommissioning or restoration of authorized and unauthorized road opportunities exist. Environmental effects of these opportunities would be analyzed in this document under the proposed action, since there are no near term plans to analyze them outside of this proposal.

In the long term, soil quality may continue to improve to allow site productivity to return to levels before disturbance by management actions, but the rate would largely be dependent on vegetation roots’ growth, the resilience of the soil and intensity of the disturbance. Soil displacement and erosion on skid roads would last long term because soil formation is a slow process.

Timber Harvest The No-Action Alternative would involve less ground disturbance than the Action Alternative. No increase in detrimental soil conditions in the units would occur and no change in soil productivity due to logging related compaction and displacement would occur. Existing non-system logging roads and landings would not be used or restored, and would likely remain in a detrimental condition for the foreseeable future.

44 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Slope Stability The risk of management-induced landslides would continue to be low, related only to past, present, or future actions listed in Table 15.

Cumulative Effects of No Action Alternative No cumulative effects to soil productivity would occur because there would be no increase in the amount of detrimental soil conditions in the long term. The no-action would not involve increasing the permanent transportation system. Foreseeable management activities would be similar to the proposed action alternative.

Proposed Action

Direct Effects/ Indirect Effects Direct effects due to soil disturbing activities would occur on site and affect only the immediate areas where soils are compacted, displaced, or severely burned. Potential effects of the proposed activities on soil productivity are due to compaction, puddling, displacement, erosion, severe burning and loss of soil organic matter. The calculations of detrimental conditions related to timber harvest below include the calculations applicable to the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA 1990).

It is conceivable that additional sediment from units would reach Rush, Drift, Calamity, or West creeks because of their proximity and slope position above the creek from a mass wasting event. This includes Swift units 103615, 103744, 103271, 103272, and 102741. The likelihood of mass wasting is still low or moderate, but sediment from mass wasting events would be more likely to reach a major stream here than from other units of the planning area. Effects to water quality and aquatic species are addressed in the Fisheries and Hydrology sections of this analysis. Restoration projects such as culvert replacements that are limited to the road prism would not affect soil productivity because soil conditions would not change. Projects identified during the planning process are:

 Along the approach to Unit #103195, on Forest Road 31, there are ten 15” ditch relief culverts identified for replacement; they will be replaced with 18” culverts;  A plugged ditch relief culvert located on an unnamed tributary of Rush Creek along Forest Road 3211, within unit #102741 will be replaced or the debris will be removed so that it is functioning properly; and,  Road reconstruction and maintenance along haul routes on system roads.

Timber Harvest No additional losses in soil productivity due to ground-based equipment travel are predicted in any of the units. Unit 103761 would have the highest amount of new disturbance from the proposed action, up to approximately 19.4 percent soil disturbance due to non-system roads, skid trails, and landings from ground based logging systems ( Table 12). Limited danger tree removal along haul routes shouldn’t have any effect to soil productivity.

Project design criteria and mitigation measures would minimize and restore soil compaction and displacement so that detrimental conditions would not remain long-term.

Between 2.9 and 19.4 percent of the unit areas would be temporarily compacted or displaced by system and non-system roads and landings. Existing landings and non-system roads that are not used for Swift would not be restored, and would likely remain in a detrimental condition for the foreseeable future.

45 Swift Thin

Table 12. Prediction of Detrimental Conditions of Conceptual Road and Landing Construction. No Action, Alternative Action Alternative B, Disturbance Type A, (%) (%) Estimated Unit disturbance - Potential Cumulative Effects Same as existing 2.9 to 19.4, (without mitigations) condition (2.9 to 15.5 with restoration) Percent Increase in Unit disturbance Same as existing 0 to 7 condition (0%)

Generally, the duration and intensity of effects from skid trails is less than temporary roads and landings, but the extent is greater. Measures such as subsoiling and re-vegetation are intended to restore productivity, further reducing the extent of effects. Skid trails would not create detrimental soil conditions greater than 8 percent in units and are not expected to result in losses in soil productivity (Table 10).

In general, the intensity of losses in soil quality would be relatively low in skid roads, temporary roads and landings compared to the existing conditions. The losses in soil quality would be decreased by the mitigation measures and design features that subsoil and restore those areas. This would translate to similar effects on soil productivity.

Table 13. Magnitude, Duration and Intensity of Losses to Soil Quality and Productivity by Alternative. Duration Intensity of Soil Productivity Loss Magnitude (Extent) Short term, No Action Alternative None None Short term soil quality, Proposed Skid roads: Low to Moderate Skid roads: Unknown, likely less Action increases than 7% in any unit.

Temporary Roads and Landings: Temp Roads and Landings: Low Low increase post-logging due to increase post-logging due to mitigation measures mitigation measure Long term, (more than 50 years), No None None Action Alternative Long term soil productivity, (more Skid roads: Low increases that have Skid roads: Likely low, less than than 50 years), Proposed Action lessened with time. short-term extent.

Temporary Roads and Landings: Temporary Roads and Landings: Low increase post-logging due to Low increase post-logging due to mitigation measures mitigation measure, less than short- term extent.

Locally concentrated losses in soil quality would occur in the short term due to additional compaction and displacement caused by ground-based equipment on skid trails, roads and landings. Forty nine of the Swift stands include new temporary road or landing construction from the proposed action, estimated at less than 7 percent of any unit with the prescribed logging system design.

Table 14. Cumulative Detrimental Soil Conditions. Cumulative Effects, Reconstruction of Construction Disturbance Including Existing Roads, Unit Non-system Roads from New Temp Roads and Landings, Construction and Swift Unit Acres (Acres) Landings (%) Reconstruction (%) 102693 44.5 0.06 11.0

46 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Cumulative Effects, Reconstruction of Construction Disturbance Including Existing Roads, Unit Non-system Roads from New Temp Roads and Landings, Construction and Swift Unit Acres (Acres) Landings (%) Reconstruction (%) 102707 17.2 13.1 102720 82.8 0.06 0.8 12.1 102733 95.9 0.10 0.4 11.4 102739 66.6 10.9 102741 85.3 0.16 2.4 11.0 102747 15.3 0.00 7.0 17.7 102791 68.8 10.7 102841 157.1 0.5 10.4 102859 110.2 0.12 9.9 102879 25.0 11.4 102881 44.9 0.05 9.9 102887 77.3 12.4 102912 72.4 3.6 14.6 102918 26.2 3.3 13.7 102920 33.8 0.7 10.8 102933 42.0 2.6 10.2 102942 91.6 0.03 10.7 102951 60.2 0.06 10.5 103018 53.5 0.16 9.4 103023 48.1 0.14 9.6 103034 28.6 0.13 10.4 103040 49.4 0.06 2.4 12.5 103107 96.6 0.4 9.9 103126 49.4 0.16 8.4 103128 61.4 0.06 12.3 103130 78.0 0.15 0.5 12.4 103135 65.6 10.8 103165 107.9 0.23 8.3 103168 143.0 0.38 0.2 9.3 103189 52.3 0.27 9.6 103195 18.0 0.04 12.1 103222 56.8 0.08 1.0 11.3 103225 65.0 0.17 10.3 103237 76.4 0.07 2.3 13.8 103271 88.1 0.16 3.0 103272 74.6 0.09 2.9 103274 46.0 5.6 103281 45.8 0.04 1.1 6.7 103594 23.6 0.09 0.8 7.4 103597 36.6 9.8 103600 33.7 0.13 7.5 103602 29.5 0.07 2.3 10.3 103605 63.0 0.09 3.1 9.5 103606 33.4 11.4 103613 77.7 0.13 0.5 5.6 103614 25.5 0.02 4.2 11.3 103615 57.4 0.10 1.5 4.7 103626 49.2 0.06 1.3 11.5 103627 49.5 0.14 11.2 103629 43.6 0.08 1.4 7.2

47 Swift Thin

Cumulative Effects, Reconstruction of Construction Disturbance Including Existing Roads, Unit Non-system Roads from New Temp Roads and Landings, Construction and Swift Unit Acres (Acres) Landings (%) Reconstruction (%) 103630 64.7 0.23 0.2 5.6 103635 56.9 0.40 0.7 4.9 103636 43.3 0.08 0.5 10.0 103639 60.6 0.01 2.2 14.5 103642 57.6 0.13 1.0 10.9 103650 26.2 0.16 11.6 103651 45.7 0.04 1.2 11.7 103652 18.6 0.21 7.6 103664 20.4 12.8 103667 54.5 0.02 0.3 7.2 103680 79.1 0.03 3.8 7.0 103685 46.4 0.04 11.2 103689 53.8 2.3 6.0 103700 71.9 0.09 1.3 8.8 103701 48.0 0.15 12.3 103705 53.7 3.4 103726 47.3 0.11 0.5 10.1 103730 5.8 0.07 13.6 103732 41.2 0.13 0.5 5.8 103737 37.4 0.20 3.2 8.8 103740 29.8 0.02 2.3 5.5 103743 34.5 9.6 103744 52.3 0.22 1.8 8.7 103746 91.1 0.6 6.9 103758 24.8 0.17 1.4 7.8 103759 23.1 5.2 103761 8.5 0.06 3.9 19.4 103774 32.1 0.07 1.1 7.1 103775 5.4 0.04 6.5 14.0 103782 18.8 0.11 11.3 103787 19.9 4.2 16.6 103793 39.6 2.7 10.8 103794 15.3 6.6 17.5 103887 68.2 0.12 9.3 107247 92.1 0.01 1.5 6.6 800414 58.1 0.26 1.2 9.7 Number of 87 47 49 units affected Max % 7% 19.4%

Mechanical Processing on Steep Slopes The proposed action proposes ground-based equipment travel with mechanical cutting and harvesting machines on slopes mapped by the SRI that are not rated as permitting ground based logging without site- specific review or appropriate mitigation (Wade, et. al., 1992). Direct effects to soils due to mechanical processors on slopes up to 45 percent are expected to be similar to those on 30 percent slopes, judging by the amount of area affected and intensity of soil displacement and compaction. Soils that are potentially affected by this activity are located in 22 units listed in Table 10.

48 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Minor amounts of area within affected units would have the potential for minor displacement of topsoil along the travelled routes. Use of mechanical cutting and harvesting machines on steep slopes can increase the risk of erosion losses due to soil displacement, however the probability of its occurring is low because of design features and the following mitigation measures.

These measures would:  specify that equipment operate on a slash mat of tree limbs and tops where possible to limit soil compaction and displacement, to protect the topsoil for vegetative growth, and provide water infiltration;  require erosion treatment where gouging or soil displacement occurs from logging systems, in order to prevent rill and gully erosion and potential sediment delivery;  require sale administrators to monitor equipment activity on steep slopes in order to prevent and rectify potential resource damage; and  limit ground-based equipment logging with mechanical cutting and harvesting machines to slopes less than 45 percent on steep slopes.

Professional judgment and peer opinion suggest that the mitigation measures would be sufficient to protect the soils resource.

Effects of Management Activity on Slope Stability Based on professional judgment, the risk of triggering a management-induced landslide is low in all units of Swift because of the inherent relatively low to moderate risk (Table 11) combined with avoidance of vegetation management and temporary road construction in high risk unstable soils.

The ratings discussed in the Existing Condition section “Gifford Pinchot National Forest GeoHaz GIS layer identifies active and past-active landslides (USDA 1999) within the Project Area. Field verification indicated isolated, actively moving landslides in or near Swift Units 103667, 103635, 103636 (See soils map, Tiles 9 and 11 in the Swift Soils Report) and 800414 (See soils map, Tiles 27 and 29 in the Swift Soils Report). One area in Swift Unit 103615 was relatively larger (See soils map, Tile 9 in the Swift Soils Report). Actively unstable soils will be buffered to exclude the moving landslide from vegetation management.

The Soil Resource Inventory identifies approximately 120 acres of potentially unstable areas in Swift Units that include SMU 57 (See soils map, Tile 2 in the Swift Soils Report), 87 (See soils map, Tile 20 in the Swift Soils Report) and 8387 (See soils map, Tiles 22-29 in the Swift Soils Report) and a “High Risk” rating for Natural Stability as described below. This analysis shall serve to document changes to the rating of soils within the units listed.

Natural Stability Risk Rating” relate to Natural Stability, based on the relative stability of the mapping units as they occur in the natural state, whereas the rating discussed in the Environmental Effects section is related to an expected mass movement due to management activities.

Management recommendations include a thinning prescription that retains a living, tree root structure across the unit, which is included as a design feature of proposed action, and a road construction or reconstruction plan that avoids entering the slump area (see Appendix A).

The risk of triggering a mass wasting event is low, based on professional judgment because no new temporary roads are proposed on these soils and the silviculture prescription of the proposed project is a standard or moderate thin whereas the SRI risk ratings presumed clear cutting as the silviculture prescription, thus overestimating the risk. One factor in judging slope stability is previous response to

49 Swift Thin regeneration harvest. Marginally stable soils that remained stable after regeneration harvests are likely to remain stable after thinning by the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects The proposed activities (with incorporated mitigation measures and design features), in combination with past or reasonably foreseeable future actions on nearby federal land and adjacent private land, would not likely increase the amount of detrimental soil conditions in the long term. Cumulative losses in soil productivity due to management activities in the watershed are limited to permanent features, including National Forest system roads, non-system roads, landings and skid trails that are not subsoiled. The proposed action would not involve increasing the permanent transportation system.

Swift Thin proposal will complement other proposed or current activities in the same subwatersheds, including ongoing precommercial thinning and invasive plant control; in-stream habitat restoration work, and road management associated with the Upper Lewis River Pilot Roads project. Locations of other activities do not overlap with the units of the proposed action and therefore do not have cumulative effects.

Table 15. Actions Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Action Description Date Past Recent large fires Fire regeneration of stands from Smokey Creek and Twin Buttes fires Early 1900s may have reduced levels of organic matter on severely burned areas Timber harvest within and Table 9 lists managed stands that were clear-cut harvest, followed by 1983-1997 adjacent to the units planting. Present and Ongoing Special forest products Commercial harvest, sale and free use of forest products create soil Seasonal harvest disturbances away from system roads and may introduce contaminants and invasive species. Relatively low extent and effect in these watersheds. Dispersed recreation User-created trails and dispersed recreation disturb soils and reduce Ongoing soil quality. Minimal extent and effect in these watersheds. Future Road Decommissioning Upper Lewis Roads Pilot Project - restoration of roads. There is a 2015 and potential for improvement of soil productivity in the long term over a later relatively small extent. Global climate change Significant changes to atmospheric conditions that could affect Ongoing, effects vegetation, soil temperature and moisture regimes, increased more temperatures, and heavy precipitation events. expected

Summary of Effects Measurable losses in soil productivity are not expected. Thus, the proposed action would not cumulatively change soil productivity or the soil resource with proper implementation of mitigation measures and design features. Up to approximately 3.6 acres of any unit would have temporary roads and landings reconstructed or reused, and up to 3 acres of new temporary roads and landings constructed. The proposed activities are not likely to increase the frequency or magnitude of mass wasting events.

50 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Wildlife Species and Habitat

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (By Species)

A complete wildlife biological evaluation has been completed and can be found in the Swift Thin project record. The purpose of a biological evaluation is to determine the effects of the project on federally listed species and their critical habitats, and to determine the need for consultation or conferencing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This examination also includes analysis of and impacts to the Region 6 Sensitive species and wildlife species as directed under the Forest Plan.

Table 16 lists the Threatened, Endangered and Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive species (TES) considered in this evaluation, and summarizes the effect to each with the action alternative. The most current Sensitive species list that was updated as of 12/1/2011 was used.

The analysis area used for the effects analysis is the analysis area for spotted owls, which consists of all National Forest system lands within a 1.8 mile radius of the proposed Swift units. This analysis area would encompass the likely home ranges of spotted owls that would use habitat in any of the proposed units, and consists of about 105,378 acres, of which about 100,279 acres are National Forest system lands. The spotted owls’ home range is large enough to encompass the potential effects to the other species addressed in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation.

Table 16. Summary of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species.

SPECIES Species STATUS habitat present Forest-wide within or Species adjacent to the documented in Effect/Impact SPECIES NAME D: analysis area? analysis area? summary Documented S: suspected Mammals Gray Wolf Threatened No No No Effect Canis lupus (D) Grizzly Bear Threatened No No No Effect Ursus arctos (S) Townsend’s Big-eared USFS Yes No MIIH Bat Sensitive Corynorhinus townsendii (D) California Wolverine USFS No No No Impact Gulo gulo Sensitive (D) Keen’s Myotis USFS No No No Impact Myotis keenii Sensitive (S) Mountain Goat USFS No No No Impact Oreamnos americanus Sensitive, MIS (D) Birds Marbled Murrelet Threatened No No No Effect Brachyramphus (D) marmoratus Critical Habitat for the Designated No No No Effect

51 Swift Thin

Marbled Murrelet Northern Spotted Owl Threatened Yes Yes NLAA Strix occidentalis MIS caurina (D) Critical Habitat for the Designated Yes Yes LAA Northern Spotted Owl American Peregrine USFS No No No Impact Falcon Sensitive Falco peregrinus anatum MIS (D) Common Loon USFS No No No Impact Gavia immer Sensitive (D) Bald Eagle USFS Yes Yes No Impact Haliaeetus Sensitive Lewis River leucocephalus MIS (D) Harlequin Duck USFS Yes Yes No Impact Histrionicus histrionicus Sensitive Lewis River (D) Great Gray Owl S&M USFS No No No Impact Strix nebulosi Sensitive (S) Mountain Quail USFS Yes No No Impact Oreortyx pictus Sensitive (S) Amphibians Larch Mountain S&M USFS No No No Impact Salamander Sensitive Plethodon larselli (D) VanDyke’s Salamander S&M USFS Yes No MIIH Plethodon vandykei Sensitive (D) Oregon Spotted Frog USFS No No No Impact Rana pretiosa Sensitive (D) Cascade Torrent USFS Yes Yes MIIH Salamander Sensitive(D) Rhyacotriton cascadae Butterflies & Dragonflies Barry’s Hairstreak USFS No No No Impact Callophrys gryneus Sensitive barryi (S) Johnson’s hairstreak USFS Yes No No Impact Callophrys johnsoni Sensitive (D) Golden Hairstreak USFS No No No Impact Habrodais grunus Sensitive (D) Mardon Skipper USFS No No No Impact Polites mardon Sensitive (D) Great Basin Fritillary USFS No No No Impact Speyeria egleis Sensitive (S)

52 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Zig Zag Darner USFS Yes No No Impact Aeshna sitchensis Sensitive (D) Subarctic Darner USFS No No No Impact Aeshna subarctica Sensitive (D) Mollusks Puget Oregonian S&M USFS No No No Impact Cryptomastix devia Sensitive (D) Columbia Gorge S&M USFS No No No Impact Oregonian Sensitive Cryptomastix hendersoni (S) Evening Fieldslug S&M Yes No No Impact Deroceras hesperium (S) Western Ridged Mussel USFS No No No Impact Gonidea angulata Sensitive (S) Warty Jumping Slug S&M USFS Yes Yes MIIH Hemphillia glandulosa Sensitive (D) Malone's Jumping Slug S&M USFS Yes Yes MIIH Hemphillia malonei Sensitive (D) Keeled Jumping Slug S&M USFS Yes Yes MIIH Hemphillia burringtoni Sensitive (D) Panther Jumping Slug S&M Yes* Yes No Impact Hemphillia pantherina (S) Columbia Dusky Snail S&M No No No Impact Lyogyrus n. sp. 1 (S) Barren Juga USFS No No No Impact Juga hemphilli hemphilli Sensitive (S) Dalles Sideband S&M No No No Impact Monadenia fidelis minor (S) Shiny Tightcoil USFS No No No Impact Pristiloma wascoense Sensitive (D) Broadwhorl Tightcoil USFS Yes No No Impact Pristiloma johnsonii Sensitive (S) Blue-gray Taildropper S&M USFS Yes No No Impact Prophysaon coeruleum Sensitive (D) *The panther jumping slug type specimen was documented from a site near FR 90 at Miller Creek in 1975. That area has been researched several times, and it has not been relocated at that site, or anywhere else since.

 LAA – Likely to adversely affect.  NLAA – May Affect, Not likely to adversely affect.  MIIH - May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

53 Swift Thin

Only those species that were identified in the table above as having a potential to be affected by this project will be discussed further.

Northern Spotted Owl Affected Environment The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) was listed as a threatened species throughout its range in Washington, Oregon and northern California effective July 23, 1990 (USDI, 1990a). Loss of late-successional forest habitat from timber harvest was the primary reason for the listing.

The status review for the northern spotted owl completed in 2004 found that the major threats at this time include effects of past and current timber harvest, loss of habitat from fire, and competition with barred owls. Of the threats identified at the time of listing, only one, predation linked to forest fragmentation, does not now appear well supported (Courtney et al. 2004).

Disturbance History Historically, spotted owl habitat in the analysis area was affected by large fires that killed all or a portion of the trees in the affected stands. In 1902 the Lewis River Fire burned in the northern part of the analysis area, and in the same year the Siouxon Fire burned the southern part of the analysis area. In addition, a large area in the northern part of the analysis area was impacted by wind events in the 1960s. The resulting blowdown and subsequent salvage logging likely removed suitable habitat.

Suitable habitat in the analysis area has also been removed by timber harvest on private and National Forest system lands. The National Forest system lands were extensively harvested with clear-cut logging beginning about in the 1950s and continued into the 1990s.

All the stands proposed for thinning or regeneration harvest are the result of clear-cut logging between the late 1950s and the early 1980s. None of the current stands was regenerated following a wildfire. As such, they are generally dense even-aged stands that lack remnant large snags, and contain minimal remnant large down wood.

Current Habitat Condition Spotted owl habitat spatial data developed for the 15-year monitoring report for the Northwest Forest Plan was not used for this analysis to identify suitable spotted owl habitat in the vicinity of the proposed thinning units. The habitat data that was generated for the monitoring report was meant to display habitat at the range-wide scale for the northern spotted owl. The accuracy of the data produced is sufficient at that scale, but often is not accurate enough to be used at the project scale. Based on satellite image analysis, it is apparent that the monitoring report data is not very accurate in this project area, and appears to overestimate the amount of nesting habitat as it designates stands that are clearly younger single-story stands as nesting/roosting habitat. The GIS vegetation layer for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest appears to be more accurate in identifying suitable spotted owl habitat in this area, so that data was used for this analysis. Since there is no data available for other ownerships, these areas, totaling 5,099 acres were removed from the analysis area and not considered in this analysis.

The amount of suitable spotted owl habitat in the analysis area is shown in Table 17. The GIS vegetation database was updated for this analysis using the stand exams done for this project, and obvious habitat typing errors were corrected using recent satellite photography. Table 17 reflects these updates. Approximately 39 percent of the analysis area contains suitable nesting or foraging habitat.

54 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

In order to provide for spotted owl dispersal, a landscape should have at least 50 percent of its area in conifer stands that are at least 11 inches diameter at breast height and that have at least 40 percent canopy cover. An additional analysis of potential dispersal habitat was done for the proposed units using the definition developed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WAC 222-16. 2001). In that definition, in addition to minimum tree size and canopy cover, dispersal habitat has a total tree density of fewer than 300 trees per acre. It is assumed that stands with more than 300 trees per acre would be too dense for spotted owls to easily fly through, and that these stands would be avoided.

Table 17 shows the total number of acres of suitable nesting habitat, foraging habitat, and acres assumed to meet the minimum conditions necessary for dispersal in the analysis area. The total number of acres through which spotted owls could disperse, including suitable nesting and foraging habitat, is shown. The acres of habitat on other ownerships, and acres of rock and open water were not considered in the analysis. With 65 percent of the analysis area comprised of habitat that spotted owls could use for dispersal, it is assumed that spotted owls would be able to move/disperse through the analysis area. However, in general, habitat in the analysis area is fairly fragmented by past timber harvest. There are relatively large patches of unsuitable habitat in the northeast and southern parts of the analysis area that are the result of past timber harvest and natural disturbance (wind storms).

Table 17. Spotted Owl Habitat in the Analysis Area. Habitat Class Acres Percent Total Analysis Area (National 100,279 acres Forest land Only) Nesting/Roosting Habitat 14,613 acres 15% Foraging Habitat 24,110 acres 24% Dispersal Habitat 26,809 acres 27% Non-habitat 34,747 acres 35%

Acres available for Dispersal 65,532 acres 65%

The stands proposed for harvest are either mapped as non-habitat, or dispersal habitat depending on the average diameter of the stand and the density of the trees. None are suitable nesting or foraging habitat.

55 Swift Thin

Figure 7. Spotted Owl Habitat in the Analysis Area.

Historic Activity Centers There are twenty-seven historic spotted owl activity centers located within the analysis area, and four more that are outside the analysis area, but close enough that the 0.7-mile home range circle overlaps a part of the analysis area. In addition, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) activity

56 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest center data shows another activity center in the upper Siouxon Creek drainage. The historic activity centers, including the one from the WDFW database, were established during spotted owl surveys in the 1980s and 1990s, and although there is very little current survey data, historic activity centers can be indicators of current or future spotted owl occupancy.

Spotted owl monitoring has indicated that established spotted owl territories are fairly stable, and that some territories may be occupied by different pairs of spotted owls over many years (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 19). The actual nest-tree used within a territory may change from year to year, but alternate nest trees are usually located within the same general core area (equal to a 0.7-mile radius around an established activity center) (Forsman et al. 1984, p. 32).

The historic activity centers represent core areas around nest sites, and it’s likely that if there are still spotted owls nesting in the analysis area, they would be within 0.5 to 0.7 mile of an historic nest site. However, there is also a significant amount of nesting habitat in the analysis outside of the core areas where spotted owls may be nesting.

Twenty-seven of the activity centers, including the WDFW activity center have proposed Upper Swift units within their 0.7 and/or within the 1.8 mile home ranges. Table 18 displays the proposed units that are within historic spotted owl home ranges. A given unit may exist within more than one home range, so the acres shown are not cumulative. For comparison, there are a total of 6,514 acres within a 1.8 mile radius home range, and 985 acres with a 0.7 mile radius home range.

Table 18. Proposed Units Within Historic Spotted Owl Home Ranges.

Owl Site Within 0.7 mi. Acres Between 0.7 and 1.8 mi. Acres

M: Moderate Thin M: Moderate Thin H: Heavy Thin H: Heavy Thin R: Regeneration R: Regeneration 107 NONE 0 103168a M 63 103168b H 48 TOTAL 0 AC. 111 ac. 308 102693 M 39 102887a M 9 102887a M 36 102887b H 26 102887b H 7 102881 R 25 102879 R 22 102707 H 17 TOTAL 82 ac. 99 ac. 309 102720a M 31 102720b&c H 45 102720c H 2 102707 H 17 102918a M 16 102918b R 8 102733a&b M 80 102739 M 67 102741 M 52 103135a&b M 58 103165a M 32 103165b&c H 69 103168b H 64 103130 M 64 102951 M 29

57 Swift Thin

102942 H 46 TOTAL 33 ac. 647 ac. 330 102741 M 52 103165a M 32 103135a&b M 57 103165b&c H 69 103130 M 45 103135 M 1 102739 M 58 103130 M 21 102739 M 9 103237 M 66 103126 M 49 103128 M 60 102951 M 52 102720a M 31 102720b&c H 47 103018 H 21 102942 H 47 103168a M 22 103168b H 66 TOTAL 228 ac. 591 ac. 803 103600 M 6 103600 M 28 103594 M 22 103597 H 35 103602 H 28 103606a H 6 103887 M 38 103605 M 36 103615a M 18 TOTAL 6 ac. 211 ac. 809 103732 M 35 103732 M 1 103793 M 33 103793 M 7 103685 H 46 103794 H 15 103726 H 35 103730 H 6 103737a&b H 30 103744 M 48 103743a&b H 27 103740 M 24 103746abc H 64 103758a&b H 23 103759 M 19 103761 H 5 103782 H 11 103744 M 19 TOTAL 68 ac. 380 813 103168a M 23 103168a M 40 103168b H 13 103168b H 64 103165a M 30 103165a M 2 103156b H 5 103165b&c H 64 103237 M 66 103130 M 27 103135a&b M 58 102720a M 14 102720b&c H 41

58 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

TOTAL 71 ac. 376 ac. 814 NONE 0 107247 H 91 103225a&b M 48 800414a&b E 43 103222 E 35 TOTAL 0 ac. 217 ac. 815 103602 H 2 103602 H 26 103606 H 6 103606abc H 21 103887 M 56 103887 M 3 103605 M 52 103613 H 62 103615a&b M 28 103600 M 34 103614a M 10 103597 H 35 103614b H 9 103664 M 15 103613 H 15 103652 H 15 103651a&b H 41 103650 M 26 103630a&b M 39 103630c H 14 103629a H 16 103629b M 19 103635 H 56 103636 M 30 103626a H 7 103689 H 4 103667 H 35 TOTAL 178 ac. 498 ac. 820 103271 H 50 103272abcd H 47 103680 H 66 103740 M 24 103743a&b H 27 103744 M 13 103746a&b H 46 103274b&c H 12 TOTAL 61.8 ac. 235 ac. 833 NONE 0 103594 M 22 103600 M 34 103597 H 35 103667 H 2 103602 H 2 TOTAL 0 ac. 95 ac. 834 NONE 0 103642 M 11 103701 H 30 103700a&b H 35 103705abc M 16 TOTAL 0 ac. 92 ac. 836 NONE 0 103195 M 18 103189a&b M 44 103237 M 42 TOTAL 0 ac. 104 ac. 838 103168a M 56 103168a M 7 103168b H 4 103168b H 73 103165a M 32 103165b&c H 69

59 Swift Thin

103135a&b M 3 102720b H 33 TOTAL 60 ac. 217 ac. 839 NONE 0 103222 E 50 103626a&b H 6 103225a&b M 7 TOTAL 0 ac. 63 ac. 840 NONE 0 103594 M 22 103600 M 34 103602 H 28 103597 H 22 103606abc H 25 103887 M 59 103605 M 52 103615a&b M 28 103614a M 10 103614b H 9 103613 H 77 TOTAL 0 ac. 366 ac. 841 NONE 0 103705abc M 44 103700a&b H 64 103701 H 30 103642 M 52 103639 H 61 103627 H 35 103636 M 8 103635 H 12 103650 M 15 TOTAL 0 ac. 321 ac. 842 NONE 0 103642 M 52 103639 H 61 103627 H 44 103701 H 23 TOTAL 0 ac. 180 ac. 847 NONE 0 800414 E 6 TOTAL 0 ac. 4 ac. 1010 NONE 0 102693 M 39 102887 M 13 TOTAL 0 ac. 52 ac. 1208 NONE 0 103168a M 63 103168b H 77 102720b H 26 103165a M 14 103165b H 15 TOTAL 0 ac. 195 ac. 3001 NONE 0 102693 M 39 102887a M 45 102887b H 32 102881 E 6 102707 H 17 102918a M 10 102720a M 31 102720b&c H 33

60 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

TOTAL 0 ac. 213 ac. 3002 NONE 0 102879 E 22 102881 E 15 TOTAL 0 ac. 37 ac. 8201 NONE 0 103281a&b M 32 TOTAL 0 ac. 32 ac. 8202 NONE 0 103775 H 5 103787 H 10 103774 M 2 TOTAL 0 ac. 17 ac. 8208 NONE 0 103189a&b M 32 TOTAL 0 ac. 32 ac.

Competition with Barred Owls Based on other areas of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, it was assumed that barred owls inhabit significant portions of the analysis area, including many of the historic spotted owl activity centers. Competition with barred owls is thought to be a major factor in the continued decline in the number of spotted owls.

Plausible explanations for the spotted owl decline following the barred owl invasion is that the barred owls exclude spotted owls, either directly through aggression by barred owls causing spotted owls to leave an area, or indirectly through depletion of local prey populations (Courtney et al. 2004).

It has been documented on the Cowlitz Valley District that barred owls nest more commonly on lower elevation flatter areas associated with valley bottoms, while spotted owls are nesting on higher elevation areas with steeper slopes (Pearson and Livezey 2003). The elevation of much of the analysis area is generally relatively low, and the topography is relatively gentle. Both are indicators of habitat that tends to be occupied by barred owls on the Cowlitz Valley District.

In the same study on Cowlitz Valley District, nest sites for both spotted owls and barred owls contained more forest at least 180 years old, and less forest between 50 and 79 years old than random. Both species are known to nest in second growth conifer stands, but only where there are remnant large trees and snags that provide nest sites. The data indicate however, that barred owls will persist in areas with less old forest than spotted owls (Herter et al. 2000).

2009 Spotted Owl Surveys Spot surveys were done in a portion of the analysis area in the vicinity of many of the historic spotted owl nest sites in 2009 by Robert Pearson (Figure 8). He detected spotted owls within the 0.7 mile home range circles of five historic activity centers (809, 814, 815, 840, and 842). In addition, he detected one spotted owl within the 1.8 mile home range circle of activity center 841, and one within the 1.8 mile home range circle of the WDFW activity center (which was the same owl that was detected near 809). He detected barred owls within the 0.7 mile home range circle of seven historic spotted owl activity centers (107, 3002, 309, 813, 838, 839, and 842). He detected several additional barred owls outside of the 0.7 mile home range circles.

These surveys were not done to protocol in that six survey visits were not performed. It has been shown that spotted owls are less inclined to respond to survey calling when there are barred owls in the area. There may have been spotted owls in the area that did not respond during these visits that may have been detected if the full number of visits were performed. However, based on the apparent density of barred owls detected, it appears that much of the habitat is occupied by barred owls, but spotted owls are still present in the analysis area.

61 Swift Thin

Figure 8. 2009 Spotted Owl Survey Stations and Detections.

62 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Spotted Owl Prey Base Spotted owls are perch-and-dive predators and over fifty percent of their prey items are arboreal or semi- arboreal species. Spotted owls subsist on a variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects, with small mammals such as flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) and dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) making up the bulk of the food items throughout the range of the species (S.P. Courtney et al. 2004). These species are associated with snags and down wood cover, and a lack of these structures on the landscape would affect the prey availability for spotted owls. Flying squirrels, Douglas squirrels (Tamiasciurus douglasii), and other small rodents, such as mice are assumed to be the major spotted owl prey species in the analysis area.

A DecAID Wildlife Tolerance Analysis was done for the sixth-field sub-watersheds that contain the proposed Upper Swift units. This analysis compared the reference conditions for large snag density (> 20 inches diameter at breast height), small snag density (> 10 inches diameter at breast height), and down wood cover (> 5 inches diameter), with the estimated current condition in these watersheds. This analysis used information summarized in DecAID: Decayed Wood Advisor for Managing Snags, Partially Dead Trees, and Down Wood for Biodiversity in Forests of Washington and Oregon (version 2.10) from current literature and data sources. The analysis summary and data tables are stored in the analysis folder for this project. See the section for cavity excavators for further discussion.

In general, the analysis showed that the distribution of small snag density and the percent down wood cover across the landscape are somewhat similar to reference conditions. Generally there is more area currently with no to very low snag densities, and conversely there is more area currently with relatively high snag densities. This condition may reflect the clear-cut harvest that occurred over the past 50 years, as well as the remaining old-growth stands becoming more decadent since the reference date (1930). For down wood cover, there is generally less area with very low cover currently, and the area with relatively high densities is either similar or slightly higher than the reference condition.

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat In 2012 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released revised Critical Habitat Units that are designed to better reflect the need to account for the presence of barred owls, the uncertainties of the effects of climate change, and wildfire disturbance risk. Timber harvest that is consistent with “ecological forestry principles” is encouraged within the Critical Habitat to restore forest health, increase resilience, and foster diversity.

The effects analysis for spotted owl critical habitat will evaluate how a proposed action will affect the capability of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of habitat to provide for spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal at a scale that is relevant to the spotted owls’ life history needs (77 FR 71939). The PCEs identified in the revised spotted owl critical habitat rule include (1) forest types in early-, mid-, or late-seral stages that support the spotted owl across its geographic range; (2) nesting and roosting habitat; (3) foraging habitat; and (4) dispersal habitat (77 FR 72051-72052).

Dispersal habitat provides a life history need that functions at a landscape scale and potential effects should be analyzed at a larger scale than other primary constituent elements (77 FR 71939). Potential scales of analysis include fifth-field or sixth-field watershed. The Critical Habitat rule published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2012 states that silvicultural prescriptions, (e.g. heavy thinning) that promote development of multi-story structure and nest trees may result in short-term impacts to the habitat’s current ability to support owl dispersal and foraging, but have long-term benefits by creating higher quality habitat (77 FR 71940). In addition, the USFWS anticipates that where there is a range of land management goals, such as in Matrix, not all forest management in Critical Habitat will be focused on the development or conservation of spotted owl habitat. Ideally, such actions would occur on

63 Swift Thin relatively small patches of younger mid-seral stands that do not cause reductions in higher quality owl habitat (77 FR 71941).

The analysis of effects to Critical Habitat will be done at two scales: an analysis area scale, and the Critical Habitat subunit scale. There are eight sixth-field sub-watersheds that encompass the proposed units totaling 101,233 acres. Of this, 57,474 acres (57%) is designated Critical Habitat. This area is the analysis area used to analyze the effects of this project to Critical Habitat (Figure 9). Table 19 below shows the breakdown of the spotted owl habitat in Critical Habitat in the analysis area. Approximately 68 percent of the Critical Habitat analysis area contains nesting, foraging, or dispersal habitat using the habitat data from the GPNF vegetation database. Using the REO habitat model data, about 82 percent of the analysis area contains Nesting/Roosting/Foraging or dispersal habitat.

Table 19. Spotted Owl Habitat in Critical Habitat in the Eight Subwatersheds Encompassing the Proposed Units. Habitat Class GP Vegetation Data REO Habitat Model Data Nesting/Roosting 8,638 ac. 15% 30,348 ac. 53% Foraging 15,283 ac. 27% N/A Dispersal 15,059 ac. 26% 16,864 ac. 29% Non-Habitat 18,482 ac. 32% 10,263 ac. 18%

The Critical Habitat subunit that encompasses the analysis area is West Cascades Central 3 (WCC-3). This subunit totals 394,462 acres, of which 202,923 acres (51%) are nesting/roosting habitat, 124,705 acres (32%) are dispersal habitat, and 60,303 acres (15%) are forested but not dispersal habitat. A total of 83 percent of the subunit provides habitat through which spotted owls could disperse (USFWS. Reinitiation of Consultation for 2012 Northern Spotted Owl Revised Critical Habitat. February 2013).

The REO habitat model data is the spotted owl habitat spatial data developed for the 15-year monitoring report for the Northwest Forest Plan. As stated earlier, it appears to overstate the amount of nesting/roosting habitat on this part of the Forest, but it’s shown here to give context with the CHU subunit habitat data. The REO habitat class breakdown at this smaller scale is very similar to the class breakdown at the WCC-3 subunit scale.

64 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Figure 9. Spotted Owl Critical Habitat.

65 Swift Thin

Figure 10. Spotted Owl Habitat in the Critical Habitat Analysis Area (GPNF vegetation data).

66 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Methodology and Analysis Points Potential effects to spotted owls are determined by the potential for loss of suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat, and by the potential to reduce dispersal habitat below the 50 percent threshold level at the landscape scale.

Disturbance or harassment effects are determined by the potential for noise generating activities occurring adjacent to unsurveyed suitable spotted owl nesting habitat during the nesting season.

The potential effects to Critical Habitat are determined by the potential for activities to adversely affect the primary constituent elements of habitat. These activities may include actions that would remove suitable nesting or foraging habitat, reduce the canopy closure of a timber stand, reduce the average diameter of the trees in a stand, appreciably modify the multi-layered stand structure, reduce the availability of nesting structures, reduce the suitability of the landscape to provide for safe movement, or reduce the abundance or availability of prey species.

Short-term beneficial impacts can result from converting nonhabitat to dispersal habitat by thinning stands that are currently too dense for owls to fly through, or by effectively increasing the average diameter of the stand while maintain at least 40 percent canopy cover. Long-term beneficial impacts would result if the actions accelerate the development of late-successional habitat, including development of a second conifer canopy layer, increased cover of large down wood and number of large snags, and increased structural heterogeneity within stands.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

With this alternative there would be no short-term loss of dispersal habitat, and no logging-related noise disturbance adjacent to suitable habitat. However, the opportunity to accelerate the development of suitable habitat in young dense conifer stands would be forgone at this time. In time, these stands would likely self-thin due to mortality caused by inter-tree competition, which would result in a higher density of small snags and small logs within these stands. However, it would take longer to achieve habitat conditions that spotted owls are likely to use, especially development of a secondary conifer layer.

This alternative would have no effect to spotted owls or Critical Habitat.

Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects

The potential to effect spotted owls can result from changes in habitat structure (positive and negative), and from potential harassment due to noise disturbance near active nests.

Changes in Habitat None of the proposed harvest units is suitable spotted owl habitat, so thinning and regeneration harvest as proposed would not result in any loss of suitable nesting or foraging habitat. In addition, the proposed units range in age from 26 to 58 years old, and contain none of the structural characteristics found in older stands, including many large remnant snags and logs. As such, they are not likely to be used by spotted owls for foraging.

67 Swift Thin

Fifty of the proposed units currently minimally meet the definition of spotted owl dispersal habitat. According to the stand exams that were done for this project, these stands have an average diameter at breast height of at least 11 inches, fewer than 300 trees per acre, and a canopy closure of more than 40 percent. Small tree size, retained dead branches on the lower boles of most of the trees, simple stand structure, and lack of large remnant live or dead trees that would support a prey base, are some factors that make many of these stands minimally suitable for dispersal.

Table 20 below depicts the habitat condition in each of the proposed units before and after proposed harvest. Changes to habitat condition that would be expected with implementation of this alternative are bolded. Units shown as non-habitat either currently have trees that are either too small in diameter or too dense to be dispersal habitat. Stands that are currently non-habitat can become dispersal habitat when the density of trees is reduced to below 300 per acre, and a canopy cover of at least 40 percent is retained, and/or by increasing the average stand diameter at breast height to at least 11 inches while retaining at least 40 percent canopy cover. It is assumed that a stand that has an average diameter at breast height of 10.5 inches before thinning would have an average diameter at breast height of at least 11 inches after thinning since most of the trees that would be removed are the smaller trees in the stand, and the larger trees would be left. Dispersal habitat is converted to non-habitat when the canopy cover is reduced below 40 percent.

Table 20. Changes to Spotted Owl Habitat by Unit in Critical Habitat. Unit Number Total Habitat Before Target Habitat After Unit Thinning Canopy Thinning Acres Cover After Thinning 102693* 39 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 102707* 17 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 102720a* 31 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 102720bc* 47 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 102733ab 80 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Non-Habitat 102739 67 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 102741* 52 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 102791ab 62 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 102841ab 131 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 102859abc 77 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 102879 22 Dispersal 20%-30% Non-Habitat 102881 25 Non-Habitat 20%-30% Non-Habitat 102887a* 45 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 102887b* 32 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 102912 65 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 102918a 16 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 102918b 8 Non-Habitat 20%-30% Non-Habitat 102920ab 31 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 102933 40 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 102942 92 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 102951 52 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103018 42 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103023ab 41 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 103034 29 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103040ab 39 Dispersal 20%-30% Non-Habitat 103107* 7 Dispersal 20%-30% Non-Habitat 103126* 49 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 103128* 60 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal

68 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

103130* 66 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 103135ab* 58 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103165a* 32 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103165bc* 69 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103168a* 63 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103168b* 77 Dispersal 30%-50% Non-Habitat 103189ab* 44 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Non-Habitat 103195* 18 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103222* 50 Non-Habitat 20%-30% Non-Habitat 103225ab* 48 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103237* 66 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103271* 50 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103272abcd* 47 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103274abc* 34 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103281ab* 43 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103594* 22 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 103597* 35 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103600* 34 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Non-Habitat 103602* 28 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103605* 52 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Non-Habitat 103606abc* 25 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103613* 77 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103614a* 10 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103614b* 9 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103615ab* 28 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103626ab* 38 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103627* 50 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103629a* 16 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103629b* 19 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103630ab* 39 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Non-Habitat 103630c* 14 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103635* 56 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103636* 34 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103639* 61 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103642* 52 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103650* 26 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 103651ab* 41 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103652* 15 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103664* 15 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103667* 46 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103680* 66 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103685* 46 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103689* 48 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103700ab* 64 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103701* 30 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103705abc* 44 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103726* 35 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103730* 6 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103732* 36 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103737ab* 30 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103740* 24 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103743ab* 27 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103744* 48 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal

69 Swift Thin

103746abc* 64 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103758ab* 23 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103759* 19 Dispersal 40%-50% Dispersal 103761* 6 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103774* 30 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 103775* 5 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103782* 19 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103787* 20 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103793* 40 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 103794* 15 Non-Habitat 30%-40% Non-Habitat 103887* 59 Non-Habitat 40%-50% Dispersal 107247* 91 Dispersal 30%-40% Non-Habitat 800414ab* 43 Dispersal 20%-30% Non-Habitat Total Thinned 3,842 Acres Total dispersal habitat that would be degraded, but remain dispersal habitat – 870 acres Total dispersal habitat that would be downgraded to non-habitat – 1,379 acres Total non-habitat that would be upgraded to dispersal habitat – 628 acres Total non-habitat that would remain non-habitat – 966 acres (* located in Critical Habitat)

Effects to Dispersal Habitat Overall, 2,249 acres of existing dispersal habitat would be treated, which is about 8 percent of the existing dispersal habitat in the analysis area and about 2 percent of the entire analysis area. A total of 870 acres (3.2%) of existing dispersal habitat would be degraded somewhat due to the reduction of canopy cover, but would continue to meet the definition of dispersal habitat after thinning. However many of these stands are fairly dense, and the trees have dead branches on the lower boles that extend to near the ground. Thinning these stands with a moderate thinning prescription may actually improve the ability of spotted owls to fly through these stands. The effect of reducing canopy cover would be relatively short- term.

A total of 1,379 acres (5.1%) that currently provide dispersal habitat would be thinned to a residual canopy cover of 30 to 40 percent with heavy thinning, or 20 to 30 percent with regeneration harvest. These acres represent about 1 percent of the analysis area. Reducing canopy cover to less than 40 percent means that spotted owls are not likely to be able to use these stands for dispersal or movement within their home range until the canopies fill in again (likely 15 to 20 years).

A total of 628 acres that are currently non-habitat due to high tree density or an average diameter at breast height of less than 11 inches, would be converted to dispersal habitat after thinning. After these units are thinned as proposed, they would have a residual canopy cover of 40 to 60 percent, and an average diameter at breast height of at least 11 inches. They would then meet the definition for spotted owl dispersal.

The proposed thinning would result in a net decrease in dispersal habitat of 751 acres in the analysis area, but the effect would be relatively short-term, likely 15 to 20 years for the heavily thinned stands. These acres represent only about 1 percent of the acres available for dispersal in the analysis area (including suitable nesting and foraging habitat), and about 5 percent of the existing dispersal habitat.

Long-term beneficial impacts are expected as the development of late-successional habitat is accelerated, including the development of a second conifer canopy layer, increased cover of large down wood and number of large snags, and increased structural heterogeneity within stands.

70 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

The thinning prescriptions would accelerate the development of late-seral conditions to different degrees depending on thinning intensity. While heavy thinning results in short-term (about 20 years) loss of dispersal habitat by reducing the canopy cover below 40 percent, in the long-term heavy thinning would be more likely than moderate thinning or no action to promote the development of large overstory trees and a mid-story conifer layer. These features are important for spotted owls as well as for flying squirrels.

A total of about 871 landings within the units will be created, and a total of about 7.4 miles of new temporary roads and 23.1 miles of existing temporary will be cleared to facilitate logging. Individually, these openings would not be large enough to create dispersal barriers within the stands, and would be replanted, or would likely seed in naturally over time. An additional 1 mile of new system road will be created on the upper mile of the old decommissioned Curly Creek Road. This mile of road does not intersect any suitable spotted owl habitat.

The total amount of habitat in the analysis area that would be available for spotted owl dispersal (including nesting and foraging habitat) would decline in the short-term from 65.3 percent to 64.6 percent.

There would be no harvest done within a 300 meter buffer around the historic spotted owl activity centers. The majority of thinning proposed within the 0.7-mile home range circles would be moderate thinning, which would maintain dispersal habitat. There are seven historic activity centers where heavy thinning is proposed within the 0.7 mile home range circle, including the WDFW activity center (Table 18). The total amount of heavy thinning within 0.7 mile home range circles is 168 acres with about one-third being in stand 103271. Stand 103271 is proposed for heavy thinning because the access road could then be stabilized and closed. Heavy thinning is proposed in the other stands for silvicultural reasons, primarily so that an entire stand would be harvested using the same prescription. Most of these other stands are at the outer edges of the home range circles, so the expected impacts would be less.

Slash treatment would likely involve burning piles at landings and possibly within the units. Burning would done in late fall and would not affect spotted owls.

The proposed thinning would improve spotted owl habitat and the improve habitat for the owls’ prey base in the long-term by accelerating the growth of the retained trees; increasing both habitat structural diversity and tree species diversity within each unit as well as within the analysis area; increasing the shrub and forb layer in the thinned stands; and encouraging the development of a second conifer layer, especially in the heavy-thin units.

Barred Owls Since barred owls appear no more likely to use pole and small tree sized stands without remnant structures than do spotted owls, the proposed Upper Swift units are probably not important for barred owls either. It is possible that barred owls could forage in the stands after thinning since they utilize a more diverse prey base than do spotted owls, but there is no scientific data that suggests the thinning would favor barred owls over spotted owls.

The proposed thinning would improve spotted owl habitat in the long-term. It would accelerate growth of the retained trees, promote deeper crowns on overstory trees, and increase the structural diversity within the stands. Heavy thinning would accelerate the development of a second overstory canopy layer, which is an important feature for flying squirrel habitat. Leaving unthinned patches in the units, as proposed, would maintain islands where normal stand dynamics, including suppression mortality would continue. These patches would be sources of small diameter snags and logs in the relative short-term.

71 Swift Thin

In summary, the thinning would accelerate development of existing dispersal habitat into foraging habitat (2,249 acres), create dispersal habitat in stands that are currently too dense or too small (628 acres), and accelerate development of dispersal habitat in the stands that are currently non-habitat (966 acres).

Spotted Owl Prey Base A paper published in 2002 summarized the results of a study to determine the short-term effects of thinning on two arboreal rodents that are spotted owl prey species: northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) and Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) (Ransome et al. 2002). The study failed to detect significant differences in the densities of these species between thinned and unthinned stands. The authors postulated that the density of flying squirrels in a given stand is more closely tied to the amount of dead wood on the ground rather that overstory tree density, because a higher coverage of dead wood increases the amount of hypogeous fungi available for foraging flying squirrels.

However, a more recent study specific to flying squirrels found that flying squirrel densities dropped in young thinned stands relative to thinning intensity for at least 11-12 years after treatment (Manning et al. 2011). They found that flying squirrel density was significantly greater in unthinned control stands (mean 2.02 squirrels/ha.) than in thinned stands (0.39/ha.), and significantly greater in the light thin and gap treatments (0.5/ha.), than in heavy thin treatments (0.17/ha.). The standard thinning treatment as proposed in this alternative (90-140 trees per acre retained) is similar to the light thin treatment in this study (101-111 tpa), and the heavy thin treatments are not as heavy in this alternative (65-100 tpa) than the heavy thin in the study (51-55 tpa).

The results for Douglas squirrels and other small mammals that eat conifer seeds showed that these species can benefit from thinning. Thinning removes the small less productive trees, and it was found that the larger conifers left in the stands will produce more cones when they are growing in a more open condition. They also found that thinning would not affect the ability of these prey species to utilize the stands.

Suitable spotted owl nesting, foraging habitat, and dispersal habitat can be used as an indicator of habitat likely to support flying squirrels. Currently, 66 percent of the analysis area (65,632 acres) is comprised of nesting, foraging, or dispersal habitat. Assuming flying squirrels inhabit the stands proposed for thinning as part of their home ranges, there will be a reduction in flying squirrel density in the thinned stands. Heavy thinning proposed for 1,849 acres would likely nearly exclude flying squirrels from these stands for more than 12 years and maybe decades. Standard (moderate) thinning on 1,799 acres would reduce density, but based on the study by Manning et al., flying squirrels would likely still be able to use these stands at some level. However, it could also be decades before the density of squirrels will return to pre- thinning levels. Regeneration harvest on 193 acres would exclude flying squirrels from these stands for decades.

The paper by Manning et al. points out that the heavy thin treatment would develop large live trees and large snags, and a mid-canopy conifer layer more quickly than light thinning or no treatment. For this reason, the unthinned stands in the analysis area could become less suitable for flying squirrels than thinned stands a few decades after thinning, and management of young forests represents a tradeoff between providing short-term habitat in dense unthinned stands and thinning to promote the development of more complex habitat in the long-term.

They recommend that, due to this tradeoff, a conservative approach would be to maintain adequate area and connectivity of dense, closed-canopy forest within managed landscapes to maintain flying squirrel populations.

72 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

This alternative would treat a total of 2,249 acres that are currently mapped as dispersal habitat, which is about 3.4 percent of the habitat in the analysis area that is likely to support flying squirrels (spotted owl nesting. foraging or dispersal habitat). Since there would be only a minor amount of the total habitat treated, the short-term landscape level impacts to the flying squirrel population would be minor. At the same time, the thinned stands may become more productive for other small rodents, such as Douglas squirrel and smaller rodents, providing alternative prey species for owls.

In the long-term, flying squirrel habitat on the thinned acres would be improved more quickly that the unthinned young stands. The stands that are in Late-Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves would provide habitat and connectivity for flying squirrels within the analysis area in the long-term.

Danger Trees Outside of plantations, danger tree felling along timber haul routes will reduce snag density in existing old-growth stands. Danger trees include dead trees, along with live trees with specific defects (e.g. stem/root decay), that have the potential to fall into the roadway. Where old-growth forest abuts the haul route, an estimated five snags (>16 inches diameter at breast height) per one side of road mile may be rated as a danger and felled.

Danger trees are typically hand felled back into the stand and left to function as large woody debris. Trees falling into the road prism may be removed by the public as firewood; otherwise, they are pushed off the roadway. Felled danger trees adjacent to roads, may also be designated and removed as firewood, but only if the concentration of downed trees exceeds management area guidelines.

For all roads open to public vehicle travel, the Forest Service is required to abate danger trees. For active timber sales, the Forest Service can require the timber purchaser to fall new danger trees along the haul route. A total of 16.3 miles of Level 1 and 2 roads that will be used as haul routes pass through suitable spotted owl nesting habitat, where it can be expected that snags are relatively common. These are roads where regular danger tree abatement is not likely to occur. Where nesting habitat abuts the haul route, an estimated five snags (>16 inches diameter at breast height) per one side of road/ mile may be rated as a danger and felled. A total of 163 snags may be felled as danger trees from 395 acres of old-growth along these haul routes.

However, the maintenance of safe travel routes remains a Forest Service obligation, so some reduction in snag habitat may occur even if this project is not implemented.

Noise Disturbance Spotted owls may be susceptible to noise disturbance from adjacent logging activities during the early breeding season. The use of chainsaws, feller/bunchers, large trucks, and other heavy equipment will introduce noise above normal ambient levels into the project area. Spotted owl nesting behaviors may be disrupted by loud noise and activity that occurs in close proximity to an active nest during the early portion of the nesting season. The spotted owl early nesting season on the Forest is March 1 to July 15. Early nesting season behavior includes nest site selection, egg laying, incubation, and brooding of nestlings to the point of fledging (Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 32-38). Because the area has not been surveyed for spotted owls, it is possible that an active spotted owl nest site could be located where suitable nesting habitat exists along the edge of a proposed thinning unit. No timber harvesting or yarding activities will be conducted during the spotted owl early breeding season (March 1 to July 15) in stands adjacent to larger blocks of nesting and foraging habitat, or within the 0.7-mile home range circle of an historic activity center. These restrictions will not apply to the harvest units shown in Table 21. Because the project description includes a seasonal operating restriction, the effects of noise disturbance to spotted owls are considered to be insignificant.

73 Swift Thin

Table 21. Proposed Stands That Do NOT Require the Spotted Owl Limited Operating Period. 102733 B 102942 103222 103730 102791 A and B 103023 A and B 103274 B 103758 A and B 102841 A and B 103034 103281 B 103761 102859 A and B 103040 103650 103774 102912 103189 A and B 103651 A and B 103775 102920 A and B 103195 103652 103787

Danger Tree Felling It is likely that any danger trees that need to be felled would be cut in the late spring after snowmelt to minimize potential hazards to the general public. This activity would occur along roads that are open to the public, and where some level of noise generating activity normally occurs.

Culvert and other stream restoration work would occur during the time of the year when stream flows are low, and would be after the early nesting season.

Determination This alternative was designed to eliminate any thinning within 300 meters of the historic activity centers, and to minimize heavy thinning within the 0.7 mile home range circle around the historic activity centers. These are areas that may be used by spotted owls if they still nest in the analysis area. Since the total amount of habitat available for spotted owl dispersal would remain above 50 percent, and with the limited operating period that will minimize noise disturbance during the early nesting season, and since the effects to the owl’s prey species would be minor, this alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls.

The proposed thinning, especially heavy thinning in Late-Successional Reserves would benefit spotted owls in the long-term by accelerating the development of large trees, and the development of a mid-story conifer layer. The long-term benefits to spotted owl habitat would also benefit barred owls, and since the analysis area appears to be currently occupied by barred owls, it is uncertain if spotted owls will be able to take advantage of the changes.

Effects to Critical Habitat The changes that would result in the CHU from implementing this alternative would be that about 787 acres of existing dispersal habitat would be degraded, but remain dispersal habitat; 897 acres of existing dispersal habitat would be downgraded to non-habitat for 15 to 20 years (about 2 percent of the habitat available for dispersal in the CHU); 337 acres of existing non-habitat would be upgraded to dispersal habitat; and 853 acres of non-habitat would remain non-habitat. There would be a net short-term loss of 560 acres of dispersal habitat. This represents about 1.4 percent of the habitat that is currently available for dispersal in the CHU. Development of suitable spotted owl habitat would be accelerated on all these acres. An additional 50 acres of dispersal habitat in the CHU would be regenerated. Habitat would be largely unsuitable on these acres for forty to fifty years. The amount of habitat available for dispersal in the CHU analysis area would decline from about 68 percent to about 67 percent for 15 to 20 years.

Determination The Upper Swift timber sale would result in relatively short-term detrimental as well as longer-term beneficial effects to Critical Habitat. As shown in Table 20, some existing dispersal habitat in the Critical Habitat Unit would be downgraded to non-habitat, and some existing dispersal habitat would be somewhat degraded due to reduced canopy cover. Some stands that are currently not dispersal habitat due to high tree density would become marginally suitable, and there would be long-term benefit to habitat as tree growth is accelerated and stand diversity is increased.

74 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Danger tee removal has the potential to impact older trees and snags that may contain nest platforms in a relatively narrow corridor along haul routes. However, these trees could be felled with or without the project.

Thinning and other treatments in plantations that are specifically designed to accelerate the development of owl habitat, and either are in areas that do not provide dispersal habitat or where the effects to dispersal capability would be insignificant or discountable, such as with the moderate thinning prescription, would fall into the not likely to adversely affect category (77 FR 71939).

Heavy thinning and the regeneration prescription would cause a relatively short-term loss of dispersal habitat on 897 acres, and a long-term loss of dispersal habitat on 50 acres. Even though the heavy thinning prescription would have long-term beneficial effects, the short-term result is that Critical Habitat would be adversely affected. Regeneration harvest would benefit early-seral species by providing complex early-seral habitat, but would regrow into dispersal habitat in the long-term.

At the landscape scale, the relatively short-term reduction of habitat available for dispersal from 68 to 67 percent in the analysis area is insignificant. At the CHU subunit scale the reduction in dispersal habitat would be about 0.1 percent, from 83 percent to 82.9 percent.

The Upper Swift project would not result in the loss of any suitable nesting or foraging habitat. The short-term downgrading of dispersal habitat to non-habitat on a net of 610 acres would be insignificant at the analysis area scale, while having adverse effects at the stand scale. The loss of large snags due to danger tree felling would be minor and dispersed. For these reasons the Upper Swift project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Critical Habitat.

Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest in the analysis area converted an unknown amount of suitable nesting and foraging habitat in the analysis area into dispersal and non-suitable habitat. The results of that harvest are reflected in the amount of suitable habitat remaining in the analysis area today. There is no new regeneration harvest of suitable habitat planned or anticipated on National Forest system lands within the analysis area.

All of the thinning units analyzed in the Pepper Cat EA (2009) are in Critical Habitat, and the total amount of heavy thinning approved from that analysis is 456 acres, 1,326 acres are moderate thinning, and 88 acres are light thinning. There was a net short-term reduction in dispersal habitat on about 222 acres. Many of the Pepper Cat EA units are located inside the Critical Habitat analysis area for Upper Swift, as well as the analysis area used for effects to the owl. Within the Critical Habitat analysis area a total of 382 acres were heavy thinning, 950 acres moderate thinning, and 30 acres light thinning. Within the analysis area used to determine effects to owls there are 207 acres from Peppercat that are heavy thinning, 293 acres that are moderate thinning, and 6 acres that are light thinning.

The net short-term loss of an additional 751 acres of dispersal habitat with Upper Swift is cumulative to past timber harvest that removed habitat. The amount of habitat available for spotted owl dispersal would remain well above 50 percent in the analysis area (67%), so the cumulative effects would be minor.

This project, as well as the other timber sale projects on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. According to the Biological Opinion for the Northwest Forest Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that “adoption of Alternative 9, as modified, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat for those listed species.”

75 Swift Thin

Mountain Quail Affected Environment Mountain quail are resident in mountain ranges in far western North America typically occupying brushy slopes at elevations ranging from about 2,300 feet up to about 10,000 feet (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu). Habitat in the Cascades consists of mixed evergreen-hardwood and mixed conifer forests that have a significant shrub component. In occupied habitats in California the maximum shrub height (2.4 meters) and percent shrub cover (45.8 percent) are significantly greater than random. They are almost always found on steep slopes, but that is not a requirement for good habitat.

Plant materials make up the majority of the mountain quail diet in all seasons, including fruits and seeds of trees, seeds of shrubs, seeds and leaves of forbs, mushrooms, and subterranean bulbs. Invertebrates make up about 20 percent of the diet of young birds for the first two months.

There are no mountain quail detections recorded in the NRIS Wildlife database for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. If they existed in the analysis area they would likely be found in shrubby clear-cuts and other shrubby openings, and possibly open forest stands that have a shrubby understory. None of the proposed units are likely to be important habitat since most don’t have a well-developed shrub layer due to overstory shading.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

With this alternative there would be no change in the amount of habitat in the analysis area, and the opportunity to potentially improve habitat by thinning would be foregone.

There would be no cumulative effects.

Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Thinning and regeneration harvest as proposed would likely improve habitat for mountain quail if they exist in the analysis area. Both types of harvest would open the overstory canopy and increase the cover of shrubs such as vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry (Vacinium spp.), Oregon grape (Mahonia spp.), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). The increased shrub cover would improve hiding cover for quail, while increasing food resources.

Negative impacts could occur if quail inhabited stands while harvest was ongoing. There is no indication that the stands are important habitat, and this species has not been documented in the analysis area. There would be no impacts to mountain quail from this alternative, and habitat for the quail in the proposed units, which make up about 3.8 percent of the analysis area, would likely be improved by thinning.

In addition to the acres thinned or regenerated with this alternative, an additional 509 acres have been or will be thinned in the analysis area with the sales from the Pepper Cat EA. The total number of acres improved by timber harvest constitutes about 4.3 percent of the analysis area.

76 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Affected Environment Roosts Townsend’s big-eared bats are dependent on caves and cave-like structures for hibernation, maternity sites, and temporary day and night roosts during the time of the year when they are active. Bats have different energy requirements at different times of the year. Big-eared bats can occur in at least five types of roost situations, each likely associated with different roost requirements. Maternity roosts are found in warm caves where the configuration of the cave traps warm air, while hibernacula caves are consistently cold through the winter (32 to 54 degrees). Night roosts used during the active time of the year tend to be warm sites where bats can go for intermittent rest and digestion periods, and day roosts used by non- reproductive bats tend to be cooler sites, allowing bats to go into a state of torpor to conserve energy. Since not all caves meet one or more of these requirements, bats have a high degree of fidelity to the caves that do.

The analysis area contains a few cave or cave-like structures, some of which may be used by this species or other bats. One such cave was known at one time to be maternity cave for little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). None of these sites are located inside a proposed unit.

The Northwest Forest Plan contains provisions to protect bats by protecting structures that provide sites for roosting, maternity, or hibernation (ROD C-43). The stated intention of the provisions is to apply them in Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas, and that they should also be considered for other land allocations. The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Forest also contains standards and guidelines for protecting caves under the National Cave Resources Protection Act. These provisions would protect important Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat, as well as habitat for other bats and other cave adapted species.

Management activities that would result in a change in the microclimate inside a cave used by bats (i.e. temperature, humidity, or air flow) would potentially change the suitability of the cave for bats. To ensure that caves are protected from changes to interior conditions, a 250-foot no-cut buffer around each cave opening was established.

Foraging Townsend’s big-eared bats are primarily gleaners, meaning they pick insect prey off of vegetation, however they are also known to capture flying insects on the wing. Moths make up the majority of the big-eared bats’ diet, and they also take small beetles and soft-bodied prey like caterpillars. They commonly forage along corridors provided by stream courses and roads, and along forest edges. One study found that bats that glean insects off of vegetation, such as Townsend’s big-eared bat, may benefit by having high canopy cover along streams, which provides more foraging substrate (Ober et al. 2008)

Forest bats spend a majority of their foraging time feeding over streams and ponds where the density of insects is the greatest. One study found only brief foraging activity in forest stands away from water, and most of those detections were in old-growth stands where the bats were likely roosting during the day. The short duration of the foraging activity indicated that the bats were leaving or returning to their roost sites, and that generally, forest stands are not important foraging sites for bats (Thomas. 1988).

Many of the proposed units contain or are adjacent to small ponds, wetlands, and stream channels that provide good foraging opportunities for bats.

In terms of impacts to bat populations, it appears that timber harvest activities that remove large diameter trees and snags may have the greatest influence by reducing the number of potential roost structures at the

77 Swift Thin stand level (Erickson et al. 2002). Young stand thinning can benefit bats by opening the canopy, providing additional flight space for foraging, while accelerating development of large trees and snags.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With this alternative there would be no potential to impact cave openings or to alter microclimate inside caves due to management actions.

The opportunity to accelerate the development of large trees and snags that would provide roosting habitat in the future would be forgone with this alternative.

There would be no cumulative effects.

Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects None of the harvest units is within 250 feet of a cave entrance, so there would be no alteration of the interior conditions of any cave.

Since Townsend’s big-eared bats prefer to forage along forest edges, corridors and in riparian areas, and not in dense young forest stands, thinning or regenerating the proposed units as designed would have minimal impacts to foraging habitat for bats. Maintaining a no-cut riparian buffer would maintain foraging habitat near open water, as well as creating an edge at the boundary of the thinned and unthinned portions of the stands. Thinning or regenerating the upland portions of the stands, resulting in a more open overstory canopy, would increase the ability of forest bats to fly through and forage within the stands.

In the long-term, the proposed thinning would accelerate the development of large trees and eventually large snags, which would provide roosting habitat for bats in general.

Since Townsend’s big-eared bats are not known to roost on trees (Christy and West 1993), they would not be impacted by removal of danger trees in older stands along haul routes. This activity may impact forest-dwelling bats that do use these structures by removing potential roost sites. Due to the small area affected, these impacts would be minor.

Since the interior cave conditions would be maintained, and since foraging habitat would be maintained or improved, the potential to impact Townsend’s big-eared bats is minimal. Bats could be disturbed by noise disturbance during harvest activities. Due to this minimal potential for impacts this alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of the population or species.

Cumulative Effects In the past, timber was harvested in the analysis area without regard to the effects to cave ecosystems, including the bats that use caves. In addition, roads that were constructed to access timber also provided easy public access to caves, increasing human disturbance to these sites. Past impacts likely included alterations to microclimate conditions inside caves due to loss of surrounding trees, and excessive human

78 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest disturbance at some caves that cause bats to abandon the site. Since passage of the National Cave Resources Protection Act in 1988, the Federal government is required to protect significant caves that are found on Federal land. This project is designed with buffers to protect the known cave. No new roads would be constructed that would improve access to caves. For these reasons, this project would have no, or negligible cumulative effects.

Van Dyke’s Salamander and Cascade Torrent Salamander Affected Environment Van Dyke’s salamanders are often associated with rocky, steep-walled stream valleys. In the Cascade Range, they are usually found under cobble and sometimes wood within a few meters of a stream. They are most often in loose rock piles, seeps in the valley wall with loose rock or gravel, splash zones at the base of waterfalls, or adjacent to chutes and cascades. Van Dyke’s salamanders have persisted at numerous locations that were severely disturbed by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens (Jones et al. 2005). In addition, this species can be found in upland talus sites similar to Larch Mountain salamander.

Both larvae and metamorphosed Cascade torrent salamanders occur along high-gradient, cold, rock- dominated stream courses and near seeps. The aquatic larvae are associated with valley and headwall seeps and spray zones at the base of waterfalls and cascades, where gravel and cobble are present with shallow (<1 cm), low-velocity flows. Adults are often interspersed among the larvae or on stream banks under rocks or wood. They are usually within 3 to 4 feet of the water, but during prolonged rain they may be found more than 30 feet away. This species has persisted in streams impacted by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, suggesting that forest cover may not be a critical habitat feature at higher elevations (Jones et al. 2005).

There have been no amphibian surveys done for this project, however surveys were done in the analysis area in the late 1990s and early 2000s for previous timber sale projects. During these surveys Cascade torrent salamanders were found at more than a dozen stream sites in the central part of the analysis area. Van Dykes’ salamanders were not detected in these surveys, and there are no known Van Dyke’s salamander sites in the analysis area. None of the units contain talus that appears to be suitable upland habitat for Van Dyke’s salamander.

Many of the small high-gradient streams in the analysis area appear to be suitable for these species, and based on the number of detections from previous surveys, Cascade torrent salamanders are assumed to be present and widespread.

Methodology and Analysis Points Constructing roads across suitable perennial streams, and well as replacing existing culverts have the potential to directly impact this species by fragmenting habitat, generating sediment, and by mechanical crushing. Removing overstory canopy cover in riparian areas along suitable perennial streams can cause warming and drying of the habitat.

Beneficial impacts would result if the actions accelerated the development of late-successional habitat in Riparian Reserves, including increased levels of large down wood.

79 Swift Thin

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The No Action alternative would have no impacts to these salamanders because no suitable habitat would be impacted. Over time the Riparian Reserves inside the proposed units would accumulate more down wood as some trees become overtopped and die. Additional down wood would improve habitat, but the trees that would fall would be generally small diameter, and would not last long. The opportunity to increase stand diversity and accelerate the growth of large trees would be forgone at this time.

There would be no cumulative effects.

Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects The proposed units do not contain upland habitat that would be suitable for Van Dyke’s salamander. Since the units don’t contain suitable upland habitat, undocumented upland sites for this species would not be impacted. Riparian Reserve thinning would occur with this alternative, however there would be a minimum no-cut buffer of 100 feet along perennial fish-bearing streams, and 60-100 feet on other perennial streams and intermittent streams.

The no-cut buffers would protect the habitat that is most likely to be occupied from disturbance, and the residual canopy cover in the remainder of the riparian reserves would help to maintain microclimatic conditions near the stream edges. Thinning in the outer portion of the Riparian Reserves would add stand diversity and accelerate the growth of the retained trees. This would improve habitat in the long-term by creating large trees that would eventually become large logs in the riparian area.

Implementation of this alternative would require replacing a total about 17 culverts. Most of the culverts are on intermittent or small perennial streams, or they are ditch relief culverts, and so are not likely to be in suitable habitat. The potential to impact salamanders would primarily be from increased sediment downstream from the culvert site. Best Management Practices that are designed to retain sediment at the site would mitigate possible impacts downstream.

There are no known occurrences of this species near any of the proposed units, or in any of the streams where culvert work would occur. Streamside habitat would be buffered from thinning, and best management practices would minimize sedimentation in any of the affected streams. Since there is a minimal potential for short-term impacts to these salamanders by replacing culverts in perennial streams, this alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of the population or species.

Cumulative Effects The impacts of this project would be cumulative to the effects of past riparian timber harvest, and road construction in riparian areas, especially construction of stream crossings. The sales from the Pepper Cat EA all had no-cut buffers and best management practices similar to the Upper Swift project, and the impacts were similar. The Pepper cat sales constructed no new stream crossings over perennial streams

Since this project and its connected actions would have minimal new impacts, the cumulative impacts would be minimal. There is a potential in the future that additional culvert upgrades would be done, as

80 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest well as additional road decommissioning. These types of projects would have short-term negative effects, usually a year or two, due to increased sedimentation, but would have long-term benefits of reconnecting habitat.

Zigzag Darner Affected Environment (Unless otherwise noted, the information summarized for this species is from the Species Fact Sheet found on the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program website for Region 6 www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/) This dragonfly species has been documented on the Mt. Adams District at South Prairie and at Forlorn Lakes. These sites are more than 6 miles southeast of the analysis area, however the analysis area contains numerous small ponds, as well as large and small seasonally wet sedge meadows that appear to be suitable habitat.

The Species Fact Sheet reports that habitat is found in wet sedge meadows, fens, bogs, and very shallow peaty ponds. Information from the Wisconsin Odonate Survey website, which has been summarized in the Species Fact Sheet, reports that it prefers bog pools, ten square yards or less, usually without emergent plants, including pools that dry in summer. It can also be found in shallow, evenly vegetated sedge/moss fens with puddles.

The flight period for this species in Washington is during mid to late summer, and adult specimens have been collected between July 21st and September 11th. Females have been observed ovipositing in wet moss near the edges of small puddles, algal mats, into mud at the edges of open water, or into vegetation at water level (Kerst and Gordon 2011). On the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, the flight period appears to last longer into the fall. In 2014, this species was observed on September 21st and October 6th at South Prairie.

The adult zigzag darners feed on flying insects, while the larvae feed on aquatic animals, including invertebrates and small fish.

Drought caused by global climate change is considered the primary threat to this species. However, on a local scale, habitat alteration and degradation may threaten the species at some sites. In addition to activities that might alter fen habitat (peat mining, wetland grazing, manipulation of water levels, recreation development, and management of aquatic vegetation), the loss of trees through timber harvest poses a threat since trees provide shade that maintains lower water temperature for larvae, and foraging and nighttime roost areas for adults.

Environmental Consequences

No Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative would have no potential to alter habitat for this species since no trees would be cut. There would be no impacts to this species or to its habitat.

This alternative would have no cumulative effects to this species.

81 Swift Thin

Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative would have no impacts to the known populations at South Prairie and Forlorn Lakes. No- cut buffers of 60 feet or more have been established around all of the larger wetland sites with potentially suitable habitat that are adjacent to, or within proposed units. The no-cut buffers would protect habitat at these sites by continuing to provide shade to the water, and sites for adults to perch. There would be no temporary road construction within these buffers.

Since the habitat that is most likely to be suitable for this species would be protected by no-cut buffers, and the known sites would not be affected, this alternative would have no impacts to this species.

The existing recreational development at Forlorn Lakes has probably had an impact to this species. Activities that would add impacts this species, such as new recreational developments next to suitable habitat, or water diversions are not anticipated at this time. Since this alternative would add no new impacts, there would be no cumulative effects.

Mollusks Affected Environment Under the 2001 Survey and Manage Species list, the following species are Category A (pre-disturbance surveys, manage known sites): Cryptomastix devia, Cryptomastix hendersoni, Hemphillia burringtoni, Lyogyrus n. sp. 1, Monadenia fidelis minor, and Prophysaon coeruleum. The following species is Category C (pre-disturbance surveys, manage high-priority sites): Hemphillia glandulosa, Hemphillia malonei. The following species is Category B (manage known site, strategic surveys): Deroceras hesperium, Hemphillia pantherina. In addition to these species, additional mollusk species have been added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (2011) These recently added Sensitive species are: Pristoloma johnsonii Pristiloma wascoense, and two aquatic mollusk species: Gonidea angulata, and Juga hemphilli hemphilli.

Blue-gray taildropper (Prophysaon coeruleum) is only known on the Forest from four sites, all are in late- successional habitat on the Cowlitz Valley District. Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia) is closely associated with mature big-leaf maple trees (Acer macrophyllum) and will only occur where these trees are present. There is no big-leaf maple in any of the proposed units. Columbia Gorge Oregonian snail (Cryptomastix hendersoni) is known from both sides of the Columbia River from The Dalles east to Rufus, and more recently from the Clackamas River, and Hood River Ranger Districts on the Mount Hood National Forest. Management recommendations for this species report that there is no reason to expect this species on the Gifford Pinchot N.F., but that surveyors should be able to recognize it. Dalles sideband (Monadenia fidelis minor) is known from the central and eastern Columbia Gorge and up the Deschutes River. It is associated with talus habitat and moist rocky areas in steppe or dry forest plant communities. Shiny tightcoil (Pristiloma wascoense) is known from sites that are east of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and are generally in Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir plant associations at moderate to high elevations. This plant association does not occur in the analysis area.

It is unlikely that these five species exist within any of the proposed units and unlikely that they would be affected by any of the alternatives.

Terrestrial Species Since all of the proposed thinning units in this project are plantations under 80 years old, pre-disturbance surveys, and protection of known sites are not required for these stands. Even though the stands that are proposed for regeneration harvest (193 acres) are plantations less than 80 years old, they are not exempted

82 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest from the need to do pre-disturbance surveys. These stands are poor mollusk habitat due to the general lack of old large down woody debris (although there are still scattered old logs), and a well-developed litter layer. Old large logs are sites where mollusks can seek refuge during dry times of the year, and without these structures, it’s unlikely that these mollusks would survive in the stands in large numbers.

Mollusk surveys were conducted in the seven units proposed for regeneration harvest according to the two-visit protocol beginning on May 12, 2015, and they were completed on June 8, 2015. Malone’s jumping slugs (HEMA) and warty jumping slugs (HEGL) were found in low numbers during the surveys, but no other Survey and Manage species.

Unit Sites Found - Visit 1 Sites Found - Visit 2 103107 0 1 HEGL 103040 2 HEMA, 1 HEGL 1 HEMA 102918B 4 HEMA 2 HEMA, 1 HEGL 102881 2 HEMA 1 HEGL 102879 0 1 HEGL 808414 1 HEGL 3 HEGL, 1 HEMA 103222 1 HEGL 3 HEGL

All of the sites found in these surveys were associated with well-decayed remnant large logs that were left by the previous clear-cut harvest.

With a regeneration harvest prescription, a 150-foot buffer will be implemented around these sites to maintain the microclimatic conditions at the site. If these stands are thinned, the mollusk sites could be protected within the skips that are part of the harvest prescription.

In addition to the surveys done in the proposed regeneration units, surveys were conducted elsewhere in the analysis area in the late 1990s and early 2000s for other proposed timber sale projects. The stands that were surveyed at that time were mid-seral fire-regenerated stands and plantations that were older than the proposed thinning stands in this project. Most of these timber sale proposals were dropped, and most the stands where mollusks were found were not harvested. Where harvest did occur, the sites where mollusks were found were buffered to protect the sites.

Based on these earlier surveys, the surveys done in the proposed regeneration units, and other surveys in similar stands, there are likely low numbers of Malone’s and warty jumping slugs occurring in the proposed harvest units.

Species that have been found in the analysis area are: Malone’s jumping slug (Hemphillia malonei), warty jumping slug (H. glandulosa), and Burrington’s jumping slug (H. burringtoni). Malone’s jumping slug and warty jumping slug appear to be fairly common in this area where habitat conditions are suitable. The jumping slug species found in the analysis area, and other terrestrial species are generally found in moist microsites under logs or other woody debris, leaf litter, moss, and rocks. In general, stands that are in the Large Tree, Closed Small Tree or Closed Sapling/Pole structure stages are likely to be at least minimally suitable habitat for most of the terrestrial mollusks that could occur in the analysis area. These structure stages comprise a total of about 65 percent of the analysis area (65,362 acres).

Evening fieldslugs are associated with wet meadows in forested habitats, usually within about 100 feet of perennial wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas. Nearly all of these types of habitat would be protected within the no-cut Riparian Reserve buffers. Since this species has not been found in earlier surveys, it is unlikely to be impacted by this project.

83 Swift Thin

The proposed units are generally poor mollusk habitat currently. Many of the proposed units have a dense beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) understory. Beargrass is indicative of cool dry sites, which is poor habitat for mollusks. All of the units were clear-cut and burned in the late 1950s through early 1980s, and contain few large remnant logs that would support mollusks. The last stand-replacement harvest and slash burning probably directly or indirectly killed any mollusks that would have inhabited the stands at that time. Most of the proposed units are adjacent to older timber stands from which mollusks could disperse into the units as the habitat becomes suitable, but the general lack of remnant down logs, and shrub and forb cover, and the slow dispersal rate probably make it unlikely that mollusks have repopulated the units in significant numbers. This is borne out by the surveys in the proposed regeneration units where Malone’s and warty jumping slugs were found in low numbers, and many of the sites that were found are near an edge with older timber stands.

Aquatic Species Barren juga (Juga hemphilli hemphilli) is unlikely to occur in the analysis area. It is known from near the Columbia Gorge in Clark and Skamania Counties in Washington, and Multnomah County in Oregon. There are no known sites on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It is found in small to medium-sized, moderate velocity streams at low elevations. Where it is found, the streams have a level bottom with a stable gravel substrate and highly-oxygenated cold water.

Western ridged mussel (Gonidia angulata) is known entirely from within Pacific drainages from southern California to British Columbia, east to Idaho and Nevada. It has limited distribution west of the Cascades in Washington and Oregon, but include sites in the Rogue, Umpqua, and Willamette Rivers. It seems to be most common in large tributaries of the Snake and Columbia Rivers in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon (http://web.or.blm.gov/mollusks/).

They are found in streams of all sizes in low to mid-elevation watersheds. They inhabit mud, sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. They can withstand moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from streams with highly unstable or very soft substrates. The life cycle of mussels includes a juvenile stage when they parasitize fish. Fish such as native or non-native trout need to be present in a stream for this species to occur. The Lewis River and its larger tributaries are places where suitable habitat occurs. It is unknown if this species exists on the Forest.

Columbia duskysnail (Lyogyrus n. sp. 1) occurs in cold, well-oxygenated springs, spring outflows and spring-influenced streams on soft substrates in shallow, slow flowing areas. It prefers areas with no macrophytes, but may occur in areas with Rorippa and Cicuta. This species occurs very sporadically in the central and eastern Columbia Gorge of Washington and Oregon. Approximately 60 sites are currently known from private lands and from the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area, the portion of the Gifford Pinchot NF managed by the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area, and Mt. Hood National Forest, in Klickitat and Skamania counties, Washington, and Multnomah and Hood River counties, Oregon. Some sites are in State parks (Beacon Rock, Benson, Wahkeena Falls). This species is unlikely to occur in the analysis area.

Methodology and Analysis Points Actions that would impact terrestrial mollusk species include disturbance to existing large logs, soil compaction, loss of herbaceous and shrub vegetation, and removal of overstory trees if these actions occur in suitable habitat.

Beneficial impacts would result if the actions resulted in an increase cover of down woody debris, or accelerated the development of late-successional habitat, including increased levels of large down wood.

84 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Aquatic mollusks would be impacted by activities that resulted in increased sedimentation to streams, disturbance to perennial springs, or elevated water temperatures in these features.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With this alternative there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the mollusks that may occur in the proposed units. Smaller logs would be recruited in the stands over time, benefiting mollusks, as trees become over-topped and die. Without the thinning treatment though, it will take longer to develop large logs to replace the few well-decayed remnants. Over time, as the habitat improves, mollusks will likely repopulate the stands due to dispersal from adjacent mature and late-successional timber habitat.

There would be no cumulative effects.

Proposed Action

Direct/Indirect Effects Terrestrial Mollusks Commercial thinning and regeneration harvest, construction/reconstruction of temporary roads, and slash treatment have the potential to impact these species. Due to the disturbance history and current condition of the proposed units, and due to the relatively young age of the stands, they are not likely to support many of the Sensitive and Survey and Manage mollusks.

In the short-term, the proposed harvest treatments would probably result in an increase in down wood cover through general accumulations of slash material, felling of small snags for safety reasons, knocking over trees that are not commercial in size, and minor blowdown of retained trees following thinning.

However, the proposed thinning would reduce habitat quality in the proposed units in the short-term by reducing overstory shading, resulting in warming and drying at the surface. In the long-term though, the treatment would improve habitat by increasing the cover and diversity of shrubs and herbaceous understory plants, which is often an indicator of good mollusk habitat in other parts of the Forest, and by accelerating the development of large trees and late-successional habitat.

The proposed regeneration harvest would have a larger potential impact because more of the overstory would be removed, and it would take a longer time before the harvested area becomes minimally suitable again for mollusks. The sites found during the surveys would be protected by buffering the site to maintain the microclimatic conditions at the site (about 150 feet). This could be done by incorporating the sites in the larger aggregate leave patches that are required in the regeneration units. These would provide sites where mollusks could survive until the surrounding harvest area recovers.

It’s possible that some individual mollusks, especially jumping slugs, have dispersed into the units from adjacent late-successional habitat. These individuals would be impacted by the proposed harvest, and possibly be lost from the stands. However, the adjacent suitable habitat would not be affected and populations would likely persist in those areas. As the units become more suitable for mollusks over time, they would again disperse into the available habitat.

The stands in the analysis area that are in the Large Tree, Closed Small Tree, and Sapling/Pole structure stages are the stands most likely to be at least marginally suitable for the terrestrial mollusks, especially

85 Swift Thin the jumping slugs (the Sapling/Pole structure stages have likely developed into the Small Tree structure stage since the current mapping was done). These structure stages combined make up about 65 percent of the analysis area.

With this alternative, a total of about 3,648 acres would be commercially thinned, 193 acres regenerated, and temporary roads would be constructed or reconstructed to access many of these stands. This represents about 5.8 percent of the total habitat in the analysis area that is at least marginally suitable, but no high quality habitat would be impacted. Mollusks that may exist within the units may be impacted, but the majority of suitable habitat, including the best habitat in the analysis area (the Large Tree structure stages) would be unaffected.

It’s possible that a small number of mollusks, if they exist in the stands after thinning could inhabit slash piles and be killed when the piles are burned.

The impacts of thinning the overstory would be relatively short-term, and mitigation to protect existing large down wood to the extent possible means that some or all of these mollusks could recolonize the thinned units from adjacent suitable habitat. Assuming that these mollusks occupy the suitable habitat in the analysis area this alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population of species.

Aquatic Mollusks Based on where these species have been found, it is very unlikely that they occur in the analysis area. For this reason, there would be no impacts to these aquatic species.

Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest in the analysis area has probably impacted terrestrial mollusks, and the amount of suitable habitat currently reflects those management actions. The new impacts that would occur on about 5.8 percent of the existing suitable habitat would be cumulative to these past impacts. In the meantime, older harvested stands are becoming suitable again as the trees mature. The timber sales from the Peppercat EA thinned about 506 acres in the analysis area, which is about 0.5 percent of the analysis area

The impacts of the thinning as proposed would be relatively short-term, and in the long-term, habitat in these stands would be improved as tree growth would be accelerated, and diversity of vegetation species and structures would increase. Since a small percentage of the current habitat would be treated, and since the habitat that would be treated is generally poor habitat currently, the cumulative effects of this alternative would be minor.

Management Indicator Species Table 22 below lists the Forest Plan Management Indicator Species, the habitats that they represent, and whether or not the species has been documented in the analysis area.

Table 22. Management Indicator Species. MIS Species and Habitat Description Habitat Present in Species Documented Rank and Status* the Analysis Area? or Suspected in the Analysis Area? Spotted Owl Represents species Yes Documented requiring large areas G3, S1, E, LT (2,200 ac.) of mature and old-growth forest.

86 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Pileated Woodpecker Represents species Yes Documented requiring moderate- G5, S4, C, -- sized areas (300 ac.) of mature and old-growth forest. American Marten Represents species Yes Documented requiring smaller areas G5, S4, -- -- (160 ac.) of mature and old-growth forest. Cavity Excavators Represents species Yes Documented which use or require dead tree and down log habitat. Roosevelt elk A species with a high Yes Documented level of demand for G5T4, SNR, -- -- viewing or hunting.

Black-tailed deer A species with a high Yes Documented level of demand for G5, S5, -- -- viewing or hunting. Mountain Goat Popular species for Yes Documented viewing or hunting. G5, S2S3, -- -- Populations are small and were thought to be decreasing. Sensitive to timber and fire management, and disturbance from roads, recreation, and illegal hunting. Wood Duck Indicator of mature Yes Not Documented riparian hardwood G5, S3N S4B, -- -- habitat. Goldeneye Duck Indicator of mature and Yes Not Documented old-growth coniferous G5, S5N, -- -- riparian habitat Bald Eagle Federally-listed Yes Documented Threatened and G5, S4B S4N, S, SC Endangered species at the time of the Plan. Sensitive to management activities near nests or roost sites. Peregrine Falcon Federally-listed No Not Documented Threatened and G4, S2B S3N, S, SC Endangered species at the time of the Plan. Sensitive to management activities near nest cliffs. *Global Rank (GRank) Global Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment of the element world-wide. Two codes (e.g. G1G2) represent an intermediate rank. G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (21 to 100 occurrences). G4 = Apparently secure globally. G5 = Demonstrably secure globally. Tn = Rarity of an infraspecific taxon. Numbers similar to those for Gn ranks above.

87 Swift Thin

State Rank (SRank) State Rank characterizes the relative rarity or endangerment within the state of Washington. Two codes (e.g. S1S2) represents an intermediate rank. S1 = Critically imperiled (5 or fewer occurrences). S2 = Imperiled (6 to 20 occurrences), very vulnerable to extirpation. S3 = Rare or uncommon (21 to 100 occurrences). S4 = Apparently secure, with many occurrences. S5 = Demonstrably secure in state. SNR = Not yet ranked. "B" and "N" qualifiers are used to indicate breeding and nonbreeding status, respectively, of migrant species whose nonbreeding status (rank) may be quite different from their breeding status in the state (e.g. S1B,S4N for a very rare breeder that is a common winter resident).

State Status (StStat) State Status of the species is determined by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Factors considered include abundance, occurrence patterns, vulnerability, threats, existing protection, and taxonomic distinctness. Values include: E = Endangered. In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington. T = Threatened. Likely to become Endangered in Washington. S = Sensitive. Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state. C = Candidate Animal. Under review for listing.

Federal Status (USESA) Federal Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA) as published in the Federal Register: LT = Listed Threatened. Likely to become endangered. SC = Species of Concern. An unofficial status, the species appears to be in jeopardy, but insufficient information to support listing.

Spotted Owl The spotted owl represents species that require large areas of mature and old-growth forest. The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to spotted owls from the alternatives is discussed earlier in this environmental analysis.

Pileated Woodpecker Affected Environment Pileated woodpeckers use mature and older, closed canopy stands for nesting and roosting, but may use younger (40-70 years), closed-canopy stands for foraging if large snags are available; large snags and decadent trees are critical habitat components for pileated woodpeckers; down logs do not appear to be an important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers on the west side of Oregon and Washington (Hartwig et al. 2004, Mellen et al. 1992, Raley and Aubry 2006).

Data in DecAID show that 50 percent of the nesting, roosting or foraging by pileated woodpeckers occurred on snags and trees that were up to 32.3 inches diameter at breast height for nesting, 36 inches for roosting, and 26.4 inches for foraging (50 percent tolerance level). Data also shows that 50 percent of the nesting/roosting, and foraging sites occurred in stands with up to 7 snags per acre larger than 20 inches for nesting/roosting, and at least 12.1 snags per acre larger than 20 inches for foraging.

Based on this data, the stands proposed for thinning and regeneration harvest do not provide important nesting, roosting or foraging habitat due to lack of trees and snags that are over 20 inches diameter at breast height.

The DecAID analysis done for this project shows generally that the density of large snags is just slightly below reference condition, probably reflecting past clear-cut timber harvest.

At the Forest scale, the stands that are mapped as spotted owl nesting habitat probably provide nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers, and habitat mapped as spotted owl foraging habitat are likely also foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Currently, according to the GIS

88 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest vegetation database, approximately 43 percent of the Forest is mapped as spotted owl nesting or foraging habitat. About 39 percent of the analysis area is mapped as either nesting or foraging habitat.

There are nine sightings of pileated woodpeckers recorded for the analysis area in the NRIS Wildlife database. Pileated woodpeckers are likely relatively common in the area due to the amount of old growth and late-successional habitat available.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With this alternative there would be no short-term loss of habitat that may provide cover for pileated woodpeckers to fly within their home ranges. However, the opportunity to accelerate the development of suitable habitat in young dense conifer stands would be forgone at this time. In time, these stands would likely self-thin due to mortality caused by inter-tree competition, which would result in a higher density of small snags and small logs within these stands. However, it would take longer to achieve habitat conditions that pileated woodpeckers are likely to use for nesting and foraging, especially large trees and snags, and development of a secondary conifer layer.

There would be no cumulative effects.

Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects The stands proposed for harvest treatments are plantations regenerated from the late 1950s to the early 1980s and are largely unsuitable habitat for sustaining this species due to the lack of large trees, tall hard snags, abundant down wood, and a multi-story tree canopy. Many of the proposed units are adjacent to suitable habitat however, and the units may provide sufficient cover for pileated woodpeckers moving between patches of suitable habitat.

The proposed thinning and regeneration harvest would not harvest any suitable nesting habitat or likely foraging habitat. It would cause a reduction in the overstory cover and the density of small snags and logs in the proposed units compared to what would have occurred if the stands were left to self-thin, reducing small snags that may provide some foraging opportunity, and possibly reducing the ability of pileated woodpeckers to move through these stands to access suitable habitat.

Self-thinning would still occur in the skips within the units, and in stands not proposed for thinning. In general though, fewer snags would be created, and the effect is relatively long-term on these acres. However, the small snags that would have developed would have been poor foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers, and too small for nest trees. The reduction in overstory cover may make it more likely pileated woodpeckers would avoid flying through the stands. About 65 percent of the analysis area consists of stands that contain sufficient cover for pileated woodpeckers to move through, including the 39 percent of the area that has good nesting and foraging habitat. By treating 3,842 of marginal habitat, this alternative would reduce the poorest habitat acreage available for movement and minimal foraging in the analysis area by about 14 percent

89 Swift Thin

In the long-term development of larger trees, and structural diversity would be accelerated by thinning, improving habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Thinning as proposed, especially heavy thinning, is more likely to result in stands that have multiple conifer canopy layers, and large snags and logs.

Cumulative Effects No new regeneration harvest of suitable large tree habitat on National Forest is planned at this time in the analysis area, however past regeneration timber harvest on National Forest as well as private land removed suitable habitat and fragmented what was left.

The proposed action would treat habitat that is currently unsuitable, or is very low quality, and the long- term effect would be beneficial. The short-term effect to the ability of pileated woodpeckers to move within the landscape would be cumulative to the management that has occurred previously.

Viability analysis The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (USDA and USDI 1994a).

The pileated woodpecker was one of 36 birds determined to be closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forests, with occurrence of large snags necessary for optimal habitat (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-177). A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993). The viability outcome for the pileated woodpecker was 100 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands” (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-179). This outcome determination was based on provisions of: 1) a large system of late-successional reserves, 2) standards and guidelines for riparian reserves, and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris within the matrix.

The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states “…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old-growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.”

As a result, projects consistent with the NWFP should be expected to maintain viability of late- successional associated species such as the pileated woodpecker.

Both alternatives of this project are consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan.

This project would not treat habitat that is suitable nesting/roosting or foraging habitat, so there would be no reduction is what is currently available. Although it’s possible that pileated woodpeckers occasionally forage in some to the stands proposed for thinning, and they probably move through the stands as they move within their home ranges, the stands do not comprise important habitat.

In the long-term development of larger trees, and structural diversity would be accelerated, improving habitat for pileated woodpeckers.

This project will improve conditions in the long-term and have negligible short-term impacts. Therefore the Upper Swift project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for pileated woodpeckers.

90 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

American Marten Affected Environment Thomas et al. (1993) and FEMAT (1993) list marten as “closely associated” with late-successional and old-growth forests and the old-growth elements of large snags and down logs. The reports also indicate a strong relationship of marten with riparian areas.

In the Washington Cascades, martens used old-growth forests more frequently than expected based on availability within the home range (Jones and Raphael 1991). In this study, martens used areas near streams heavily; most telemetry locations were within 150 m (492 ft.) of a perennial stream (Raphael and Jones 1997, Jones and Raphael 1991).

Marten use a variety of structures for rest and den sites. Resting and denning sites offer protection from predation and thermal stress; thus, availability of quality denning sites likely increases the rates of survival and fecundity in marten (Raphael and Jones 1997).

In the Washington Cascades, Jones and Raphael (1991) found martens resting in live trees (42 percent), snags (23 percent), and slash piles (11 percent). Large diameter trees were used more often than smaller trees with an average diameter at breast height of live trees of 100 cm (39 inches) and 81 cm (32 inches) for snags. They also located 5 natal dens in large diameter live trees or snags near water. The predominant species of den tree was western hemlock.

Data in DecAID shows that up to 50 percent of the snags selected by martens for denning and resting were about 31 inches diameter at breast height.

At the Forest scale, the stands that are mapped as spotted owl nesting habitat probably provide denning, resting and foraging habitat for martens, and habitat mapped as spotted owl foraging habitat are likely also foraging habitat for martens. Currently, according to the GIS vegetation database, approximately 43 percent of the Forest is mapped as spotted owl nesting or foraging habitat.

There are two sightings of American marten recorded for the analysis area in the NRIS Wildlife database. Martens are likely relatively common in the area due to the amount of old growth and late-successional habitat available, but since they are largely nocturnal, they are not often seen.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With this alternative there would be no short-term loss of habitat that may provide cover for American martens to move within their home ranges. However, the opportunity to accelerate the development of suitable habitat in young dense conifer stands would be forgone at this time. In time, these stands would likely self-thin due to mortality caused by inter-tree competition, which would result in a higher density of small snags and small logs within these stands. However, it would take longer to achieve habitat conditions that martens are likely to use for denning and foraging, especially large trees and snags, and development of a secondary conifer layer.

There would be no cumulative effects.

91 Swift Thin

Proposed Action Direct Indirect and Cumulative Effects The stands proposed for harvest treatments are plantations regenerated in the late 1950s to the early 1980s and are largely unsuitable habitat for sustaining this species due to the lack of large trees, tall hard snags, abundant down wood, and a multi-story tree canopy. Many of the proposed units are adjacent to suitable habitat however, and the units provide sufficient cover to enable martens to move between patches of suitable habitat.

The proposed harvest treatments would reduce overstory canopy cover, cause a reduction in the density of small snags and logs in the proposed units compared to what would have occurred if the stands were left to self-thin. Self-thinning would still occur in the skips within units, and in stands not proposed for thinning. However, fewer snags would be created, and the effect is relatively long-term on these acres. A higher percent cover of down wood would probably have improved habitat somewhat for the martens’ prey base in these stands, however these smaller snags and logs would not last long compared to larger structure.

According to the habitat suitability index model for marten (Allen. 1982), they are still likely to use stands with a canopy cover of 35 to 40 percent if there is food available. The proposed thinning would likely increase the understory plant diversity as well as increasing the amount of down wood, which would likely result in increased prey abundance.

In the long-term development of larger trees, and structural diversity would be accelerated, improving habitat for martens. Thinning as proposed, especially heavy thinning, is more likely to result in stands that have multiple conifer canopy layers, and large snags and logs. The units where regeneration harvest occurs would be unsuitable for marten in the short-term, except they would likely be able to forage around the created edges between the opening and adjacent older stands.

The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (USDA and USDI 1994a).

The American marten was one of 15 mammals determined to be closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forests (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-182). A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993). The viability outcome for the American marten was:

 Sixty-seven percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands”  Twenty-seven percent likelihood of Outcome B – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, but with significant gaps in the historic species distribution on federal land. These gaps can cause some limitation in interactions among local populations.  Three percent likelihood of Outcome C – Habitat only allows continued species existence in refugia, with strong limitations on interactions among local populations.  Three percent likelihood of Outcome D – Habitat is inadequate to maintain the species and would result in species extirpation from federal land within the range of the northern spotted owl.

Additional mitigation measures were implemented to increase the likelihood of Outcome A for the preferred alternative to be similar to 83 percent likelihood of Option 1 (most restrictive alternative). The mitigation measures were to increase the amount of “coarse woody debris” in the matrix and to

92 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest implement wider riparian reserves. Implementation of these mitigation measures “would be sufficient to support a stable, well-distributed population throughout most of its range. However, marten populations are low in the Olympic Peninsula and the Oregon Coast Range, and there is some chance that populations may not recover in those provinces” (USDA and USDI 1994b; J2-473).

The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states “…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old-growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.”

As a result, projects consistent with the NWFP should be expected to maintain viability of late- successional associated species such as the marten. This assumption will need to be supported with additional analysis on the Siuslaw and Olympic National Forests. Projects designed to enhance late- successional forest should result in a call of improving habitat conditions.

Both alternatives of this project are consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan

This project would not treat important habitat for marten, so there would be no reduction is what is currently available. Although it’s possible that marten occasionally forage in some to the stands proposed for treatment, and they probably move through the stands as they move within their home ranges, the stands do not comprise important habitat.

This project will improve conditions in the long-term and have negligible short-term impacts. Therefore the Upper Swift project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for American marten.

Cavity Excavators Affected Environment Cavity excavators represent species requiring snags and down logs. On the Gifford Pinchot National Forest these species include: red-breasted sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, northern flicker, and red-breasted nuthatch. For the purposes of calculating habitat capability, the hairy woodpecker was selected in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Gifford Pinchot NF as a representative cavity excavator (Forest Plan, page III-4). Its habitat requirements also meet the requirements of the other species in the group (the pileated woodpecker is provided for separately).

Table 23. MIS Cavity Excavator Habitat Descriptions. Species Habitat description Black-backed General: Source habitat is old-forest stages of subalpine, montane, lodgepole, lower woodpecker montane, and riparian forests. Snags are an important habitat component, though these birds select smaller snags for nesting and foraging. BBWO are positively associated with the higher densities of small (9-15” diameter at breast height) trees and snags. BBWO require conditions that produce bark and wood-boring beetle sources.

Post-fire: BBWO reach their highest densities in un-salvaged, recent (1-5 years) post-fire habitat with high densities of snags. Older burns do not support the high levels of wood- boring beetles that attract them to the recent burns.

93 Swift Thin

Green Forest: BBWO use managed and unmanaged forests with high levels of insect- infested trees. Nesting habitat includes mature and old trees infested with disease or heart- rot, or dead trees in the early stages of decay. Downy woodpecker General: Deciduous riparian woodlands and lowland deciduous forest (alder, cottonwood, willow, aspen, oaks). Also found in urban parks and orchards. Low and mid-elevations. Nest primarily in dead trees. Hairy woodpecker General: Dry and wet coniferous forests at low to mid-elevations. Also use deciduous forest and riparian areas, especially if adjacent to coniferous forest. Use all ages of forest stands, though some authors report preference for older stands for nesting. Nest primarily in moderately decayed snags.

Occur in higher densities in mature and old-growth stands on the west side of the Cascades.

Post-fire: These woodpeckers reach their highest densities in un-salvaged, recent (1-5 years) post-fire habitat with moderate to high densities of snags. Older burns do not support the high levels of wood-boring beetles that attract them to the recent burns.

Nest densities were 2.5 times lower in partially salvaged burns than in unsalvaged burns; nest survival was significantly reduced in partially salvaged burns

Nest survival was negatively impacted by partial-salvage logging; nest survival could be improved by locating unlogged reserves distant from unburned habitats to reduce a source of nest predators Northern flicker General: Habitat generalists, though most abundant in open forests or forest edges. Use coniferous and deciduous forest, riparian woodlands, and urban areas. Nests are in large snags.

Post-fire: Northern flickers are most abundant in areas with medium snag density.

Northern flicker densities are significantly higher in unsalvaged areas and 5 or more years post-fire Red-breasted General: Breeding habitat is conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forest. West of the nuthatch Cascades the species may be more abundant in older forests. East of the Cascades they are absent from very young stands. During non-breeding season they may occur in deciduous woods and urban areas. Nest in snags or dead limbs. Red-breasted General: Wet and moist coniferous forests and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests. sapsucker Abundance increases with stand age. Nests are typically in large snags or trees with decay.

Occur in higher densities in mature and old-growth stands on the west side of the Cascades. Williamson’s General: Source habitat is open, late-seral stages of montane and lower montane forest sapsucker (Douglas-fir, western larch, grand fir and white fir, and ponderosa pine) and aspen and cottonwood stands.

In NE Oregon found exclusively in grand fir and Douglas-fir forest types with high densities of snags.

In south central British Columbia preferred nest tree was live western larch.

Threats and Risk Factors Declines in densities of large snags (>21 inches diameter at breast height) is a common threat to the cavity nesting group of MIS (Wisdom et al. 2000). Specific threats are listed in Table 24.

94 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Table 24. Threats to Cavity Excavating MIS Species. Species Threats Citations Black-backed Removal of fire-killed or insect-infested trees, altered Wisdom et al. 2000, NatureServe woodpecker frequency of stand-replacing fire, decline in availability 2010 of medium to large snags infected with heart rot. Downy woodpecker Replacement of hardwood habitat with coniferous Marshall et al. 2003 habitats. Hairy woodpecker House sparrows usurping nests NatureServe 2010 Northern flicker Loss of large soft to moderate snags. Marshall et al. 2003 Red-breasted Loss of snags and structural diversity. Marshall et al. 2003 nuthatch Red-breasted Loss of larger snags and old forest. Marshall et al. 2003 sapsucker Red-naped sapsucker Loss of large aspen snags and trees. Marshall et al. 2003 Williamson’s Reduction in late-seral forest habitat, reduction in Wisdom et al. 2000 sapsucker numbers of large snags

Table 25. Conservation Status. NatureServe Ranks1 USFWS Birds of Species Global OR WA Conservation Concern2 WDW3 Black-backed G5 S3 S3 Priority, Candidate woodpecker Downy woodpecker G5 S4 S4S5 Hairy woodpecker G5 S4 S5 Northern flicker G5 S5 S5 Red-breasted G5 S5 S5 nuthatch Red-naped G5 S4 S4S5 sapsucker Williamson’s G5 S4B S3N S3 S4B BCR 9, BCR 10 sapsucker 1 NatureServe Ranks: (NatureServe 2010)  G5 or S5 – Widespread, abundant, secure  G4 or S4 – Apparently secure  G3 or S3 – Vulnerable  G2 or S2 – Imperiled 2 Species of Concern in any BCR (Bird Conservation Region) Listed (USFWS 2008) 3 Washington Department of Wildlife (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-sept_woodpeckers.pdf )

Viability Analysis The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was determined to meet the NFMA requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (USDA and USDI 1994a).

Ten cavity-nesting MIS were determined to be closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forests, with occurrence of large snags necessary for optimal habitat (USDA and USDI 1994b; 3&4-177). A viability assessment was completed by the Scientific Analysis Team (SAT) (Thomas et al. 1993). The viability outcome for all but the black-backed woodpecker was 100 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands” (USDA and USDI 1994b). This outcome determination was based

95 Swift Thin on provisions of: 1) a large system of late-successional reserves, 2) standards and guidelines for riparian reserves, and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris within the matrix.

Table 26. Outcome Likelihoods for the Preferred Alternative Under the NWFP. Outcome likelihood Species A B C D Hairy woodpecker 100 0 0 0 White-headed woodpecker 100 0 0 0 Black-backed woodpecker 73 27 0 0 Three-toed woodpecker 100 0 0 0 Red-breasted sapsucker 100 0 0 0 Williamson’s sapsucker 100 0 0 0 Northern flicker 100 0 0 0 Red-breasted nuthatch 100 0 0 0 White-breasted nuthatch 100 0 0 0 Pygmy nuthatch 100 0 0 0

Additional mitigation measures were implemented because the outcome likelihood for the black-backed woodpecker was less than 80. Mitigation measures involved modified salvage logging guidelines that considered foraging needs of this species (USDA and USDI 1994a; C-45&46), which was expected to raise the likelihood of outcome A to greater than 80 percent (USDA and USDI 1994b; J2-453).

The Forest Service has been implementing the NWFP and monitoring late-successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states “…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional and old-growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.”

As a result projects consistent with the NWFP should be expected to maintain viability of the 10 late- successional associated MIS.

DecAID data for the six-field watersheds that contain the analysis area show that the density of snags > 10 inches diameter at breast height and > 20 inches diameter at breast height across the landscape currently is fairly similar to reference conditions. The differences between current condition and reference condition appear to be that there is a larger proportion of the landscape with few or no snags currently, but also a larger proportion of the landscape with high density snags. The former condition likely reflects past clear-cut timber harvest, and the latter condition may reflect old-growth stands becoming more decadent since the reference date (1930). Figure 11 through Figure 14 below display the distribution of snags > 10 inches diameter at breast height and snags > 20 inches by habitat type from the DecAID analysis done for this project.

96 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Distribution of Snags ≥ 10" dbh Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest Upper Swift Project Area Comparison of Reference Condition from DecAID to Existing Condition from GNN 2006 data

25 Existing Condition

20 Reference Condition

15 Landscape 10 of

% 5

0

Snags/acre

Figure 11. Distribution of Snags ≥ 10" DBH in Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest.

Distribution of Snags ≥ 20" dbh Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest Upper Swift Project Area Comparison of Reference Condition from DecAID to Existing Condition from GNN 2006 data

25 Existing Condition 20 Reference Condition 15 Landscape

10 of

% 5 0

Snags/acre

Figure 12. Distribution of Snags ≥ 20" DBH in Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood Forest.

97 Swift Thin

Distribution of Snags ≥ 10" dbh Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (WEST) Upper Swift Project Area Comparison of Reference Condition from DecAID to Existing Condition from GNN 2006 data

25 Existing Condition

20 Reference Condition

15 Landscape 10 of

% 5

0

Snags/acre

Figure 13. Distribution of Snags ≥ 10" DBH in Montane Mixed Conifer Forest.

Distribution of Snags ≥ 20" dbh Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (WEST) Upper Swift Project Area Comparison of Reference Condition from DecAID to Existing Condition from GNN 2006 data

30 Existing Condition 25 Reference Condition 20 15 Landscape

of

10 % 5 0

Snags/acre

Figure 14. Distribution of Snags ≥ 20" DBH in Montane Mixed Conifer Forest.

Natural snag and down wood development occurring within the analysis area is typical of other areas on the Forest. The majority of snags being created in the proposed units are predominately the result of inter- tree competition, root rots, white pine blister rust, and black bear damage. The snags created by these

98 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest means tend to be relatively small. Root rot mortality generally is creating small diameter snags and down wood by killing trees within plantations that are between 10 and 25 years old. Bears tend to girdle trees that are 15 to 40 years old, so mortality is occurring in trees with a diameter of 8 to 14 inches.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With this alternative there would be no effects to existing snags and down wood, and suppression mortality would continue to occur in the proposed units. The density of small snags and logs, and thereby the tolerance level from DecAID, in the analysis area and in the watersheds would gradually rise as the smaller trees die. However, since this mortality would primarily consist of small diameter trees, the overall benefit to most cavity excavators would be questionable. These trees would be too small to be nest trees for many of the species, and they likely would not remain standing for long. They would become small logs that would provide a short-term benefit, but would decay relatively quickly.

The opportunity to more quickly develop large trees by thinning within the analysis area with this project would be forgone. Danger trees along the major roads in the analysis area would continue to be felled as the hazards are identified.

There would be no cumulative effects

Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects With this alternative a total of 3,842 acres in the small tree structure stage would be thinned or regenerated, which is about 3.8 percent of the analysis area, and about 7 percent of the conifer habitat in the analysis area that is in the small tree and sapling/pole structure stage. At the Forest scale, the project would thin a negligible amount of the conifer stands in these structure stages.

The thinning treatment would affect some of the existing small snags in the proposed units, as some may need to be felled for safety reasons or be knocked over during the logging. These snags are small diameter, and likely would not stand for very long if left alone. Since most of proposed units would be logged with ground-based equipment, it is also likely that many of the existing small snags would be left standing.

Any felled snags, as well as small amounts of blowdown that may occur following thinning, would be added to the percent down wood cover in the stands. For these reasons, the amount of down wood cover will likely be greater a few years after harvest than what currently exists.

Unthinned patches would be left in all units, including in Riparian Reserves and in the “skips” that are part of the silvicultural prescription. These are areas where small snags would likely continue to be created through natural processes.

The thinning and regeneration harvest treatment would reduce the number of small diameter snags in the units that would be expected to develop over the next few decades because it would reduce natural mortality resulting from suppression of the smaller trees, and reduce the potential for insect and disease mortality. At a watershed scale, the condition would be within the natural range of variability, with the Upper Swift units representing the portion of the habitat type that has 0 to 6 snags per acre. Suppression

99 Swift Thin mortality would continue to occur in the majority of the habitat type in the analysis area that is not managed, so the tolerance level at the watershed scale would gradually increase.

The thinning would accelerate the development of large trees in the units, and in the long-term these stands would be a source of large snags and logs.

Danger Trees Outside of plantations, danger tree felling along timber haul routes will reduce snag density in existing old-growth stands. Timber haul would occur on an estimated 16.3 miles of Forest Service Level 1 and 2 roads that pass through old-growth habitat. These are roads where regular danger tree abatement is not likely to occur. Danger trees include dead trees, along with live trees with specific defects (e.g. stem/root decay), that have the potential to fall into the roadway. Where old-growth forest abuts the haul route, an estimated five snags (>16 inches diameter at breast height) per one side of road/ mile may be rated as a danger and felled. A total of 163 snags may be felled as danger trees from 395 acres of old-growth.

Danger trees are typically hand felled back into the stand and left to function as large woody debris. Trees falling into the road prism may be removed by the public as firewood; otherwise, they are pushed off the roadway. Felled danger trees adjacent to roads, may also be designated and removed as firewood, but only if the concentration of downed trees exceeds management area guidelines.

For all roads open to public vehicle travel, the Forest Service is required to abate danger trees. For active timber sales, the Forest Service can require the timber purchaser to fall new danger trees along the haul route. However, the maintenance of safe travel routes remains a Forest Service obligation, so some reduction in snag habitat may occur even if this project is not implemented.

Cumulative Effects Loss of current and future small snags in the proposed units due to thinning, and larger snags due to danger tree removal would be cumulative to past harvest that has taken place, and to future danger tree removal along roads and around improvements.

At the Forest scale less than one percent of the small tree and sapling/pole habitat would be thinned with this project. Since snags would continue to exist and be created in the unthinned portions of the units, the cumulative effect would be minor.

Because this project would impact less than 1 percent of similar habitat (closed small tree and sapling/pole) across the Forest the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a negligible, short-term negative trend of habitat. The Upper Swift project is consistent with the Forest Plan and thus continued viability of cavity excavators is expected on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Deer and Elk Affected Environment Historically, elk and deer numbers in the western Cascades probably increased in response to large disturbance events, such as stand-replacing fires, because they resulted in increased forage availability. In the absence of new disturbance, these populations likely declined again as conifers grew and eventually shaded out the forage plants in the disturbed areas. In general on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and especially in winter range areas, the reduction in regeneration timber harvest since the mid-1990s has reduced the amount of high quality forage available to the elk and deer herds, and populations are thought to be declining. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife considers the lack of forage to be a

100 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest more limiting factor to the Mount St. Helens elk herd, which inhabits the entire south half of the Gifford Pinchot national Forest, than thermal cover.

Forage and Cover Conditions in the analysis area for large ungulates reflect what is happening on the Forest in general. Clear-cut timber harvest in the 1950s through 1980s created dispersed forage patches, and unharvested late-successional conifer stands provided optimal thermal cover. Today, most of the clear-cut patches have regenerated into stands that provide thermal and hiding cover, but very little forage.

The analysis area contains many wet to dry meadows, some of which are very large, such as the meadow complexes north and west of Lone Butte (Cayuse, Lone Butte, and Skookum Meadows). These meadows provide forage in the spring through early fall, and some are calving or fawning areas. Some of the proposed units are adjacent to larger meadows, and some units have small meadows and hardwood stands within the unit boundaries that provide forage. The shrubs in some units have been heavily browsed.

The proposed Upper Swift units currently provide thermal cover and hiding cover for elk and deer, but do not provide much forage due to shading of the forest floor. Forage plants that can still be found in some of the units include vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.), and various forbs. Available forage produced by these species would likely increase with removal of overstory trees. However, many of the proposed units have a significant understory cover of species such as beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax), Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium), and salal (Gaultheria shallon) that are not used much for forage by elk and deer. Overstory thinning would likely result in increased cover by these species where they currently exist, so forage production may not improve significantly in these stands.

A GIS analysis of the analysis area was done to estimate the percentage of the area that provides forage for elk and deer. It was assumed that the following structure stages in the vegetation database provide forage: Grass/Forb, Shrub/Seedling, Hardwood Shrub/Seedling, Dry Meadow/Shrub, Wet/Mesic, and Open Sapling/Pole. Many of these polygons are in early-seral stages that will eventually develop into mature conifer stands and no longer provide forage. Currently, however, an estimated 31 percent (17,950 acres) is in these structure stages in the analysis area.

An analysis of the planning area using the 2012 GNN data showed much less habitat that is likely providing significant forage. Only about 4 percent of the sixth-field watersheds that make up the planning area are either non-forest or shrub-seedling. Another 32 percent is in the sapling/pole structure stage, and probably half of this area provides significant forage.

If managing for deer and elk only on a landscape, optimal habitat would have 50 to 60 percent of the area producing significant forage, so deer and elk would benefit by creation of additional forage in the analysis area.

At the Forest scale, these structure stages make up about 18 percent of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Commercial thinning would result in increased growth of shrubby and herbaceous vegetation. Commercial thinning to a wide spacing with the heavy thinning prescription, and creating small openings would benefit elk and deer by increased forage production that would last longer than with moderate thinning prescriptions. The increase in forage production would be temporary, but would probably last 15 to 20 years depending on thinning intensity.

Regeneration harvest would occur on 193 acres. The criteria for selecting stands for this treatment included stands that have a relatively high amount of palatable forage plants in the understory, and are

101 Swift Thin not located on heavily travelled roads, or that are located along roads that are already closed or planned for closure. In addition, no stands that are in Late-Successional Reserves, or in the Rush Creek subwatershed were considered for regeneration harvest. This treatment would provide forage areas that would last longer than with thinning, probably lasting 20 to 30 years.

Road Density The availability of habitat for elk and deer is affected by its proximity to open roads. As the open road density increases, the usability of the habitat in the vicinity of the roads decreases. While deer and elk can often be seen foraging near roads, often it’s because the opening created for the road increases sunlight, thereby increasing forage along roads. However, because of traffic, the animals are not able to make maximum use of the resources. Table 27. Road Density in the Analysis Area. displays the density of the different road categories in the analysis area.

Table 27. Road Density in the Analysis Area. Road Description Total Miles Density Major Roads + Level 3 Roads (highest traffic) 75.69 mi. 0.48 mi./sq.mi. Level 2 “Existing” Roads (low to moderate traffic) 234.61 mi. 1.49 mi./sq.mi. Level 1 “Existing” Roads (minimal traffic – FS 72.16 mi. 0.46 mi./sq.mi. administrative use or illegal use behind gates or other closure devices.) Decommissioned Roads (no traffic) 36.39 mi. NA

At this current road density, the habitat capability for elk and deer is only about 45 to 50 percent of what it would be with no roads (Wisdom et al. 1986).

Winter Range There about 20,022 acres of biological winter range in the analysis area, located in the lower elevations. Six of the proposed units are totally or partially in winter range, all in the Curly Creek area (102739, 102741, 103130, 103135a&b, 103165ab&c, and 103168a&b).

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects None of the proposed units would be treated with this alternative. The existing forage, if any exists, in the proposed units would continue to be shaded. Forage production on National Forest in the analysis area will decline until openings are created by natural mortality of the overstory trees, as well as other potential natural disturbances such as fire or future timber harvest.

The road decommissions and closures that are proposed under Alternative B may still occur, but the work would have to be funded by means other than the stewardship or KV funds that would have been generated by this project, and so are more uncertain to occur.

There would be no cumulative effects.

102 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects Proposed thinning on about 3,842 acres would result in a moderate increase in forage production in the areas that are thinned. In particular, heavy thinning on 1,849 acres, regeneration harvest on 193 acres, and creating large gaps in some thinning units would create the greatest increase in forage production.

Creating small or large gaps as part of the variable density thinning would increase the diversity and significantly increase cover of browse and herbaceous forage plants in these areas. Increased forage production resulting from overstory thinning in the proposed units should last for 15 years or more in moderate thinning units. The units that are thinned heavily would sustain an increase in forage production for 5 to 10 years longer. Forage production in the gaps should last longer than in the thinned areas.

There would be about 1 mile system road constructed, but temporary roads used for logging would be reclosed following their use. Due to the addition of about 1 mile of system road, there would be a negligible reduction in habitat capability related to road density until additional level 2 roads are closed.

Winter Range The Forest Plan requires that at least 44 percent of winter range areas be composed of optimal thermal cover, which is found in multi-story late-successional conifer stands. The thinning as proposed would accelerate the development of larger trees in the long-term, while creating more forage in the short-term. Heavy thinning in stands 103165b&c and 103168b is most likely to accelerate the development of a multi-story canopy. Mitigation to restrict harvest activity in these stands during the winter when there is significant snowfall will minimize disturbance to deer and elk during winter months.

In the short-term, this alternative would impact elk and deer by increasing noise disturbance and human activity during the harvest process. This activity would likely cause animals to move away from the activity. In the longer-term the alternative would benefit elk and deer by increasing forage production, while accelerating development of optimal thermal cover.

In the long-term, growth on the residual trees in the thinning units in would be accelerated, and the stands in LSR and Riparian Reserves would become optimal thermal cover in the future. This would probably take 100 years or more.

At the Forest scale, less than 0.3 percent of the land base would be thinned with this project. Forage for elk and deer is lacking at the Forest scale as well as at the analysis area scale. Creation of more forage as a result of thinning these stands will benefit elk at both scales.

Although there would be a short-term impact related to disturbance during logging, this project would result in improved conditions for elk and deer in the project area. Therefore, the Upper Swift project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Gifford Pinchot N.F.

Cumulative Effects The harvest done under the Peppercat EA is similar to what is proposed for this project, and the impacts are similar. The timber sales from that EA will thin about 1,850 acres, including about 450 acres of heavy thinning. The increased forage production resulting from that would be cumulative to this project, totaling almost 5,700 acres thinned including almost 2,300 acres of heavy thinning and 193 acres of regeneration harvest.

103 Swift Thin

In the future, the Upper Swift Pilot Roads project will likely propose to close and stabilize up to about 12 miles of existing roads. This would result in minor increase in habitat effectiveness for elk and deer in the analysis area. Taken with the thinning and road closures in the Peppercat EA, this project would have beneficial cumulative effects.

Mountain Goat Affected Environment Three observations of single mountain goats on Calamity Peak have been reported. The most recent was in the fall of 2013. A few additional sightings have been made on Observation Peak at the north end of Trapper Creek Wilderness, and on Rocky Point, which is on the watershed boundary between Dry Creek and Paradise Creek. These three sites are all in the southern part of the analysis area. Additionally, mountain goats have been occasionally reported on Mitchell Peak, which is north of these three sites on state land outside of the analysis area.

Based on the small amount of available habitat in these areas, it is assumed that the goats are not resident animals, but likely individuals moving between larger habitat blocks. The closest proposed thinning units are less than one-half mile away from the area used by the goats on Calamity Peak, and 1.3 miles from the other two sites.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative has no potential to impact mountain goats or their habitat. There would be no cumulative effects.

Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There would be no logging activity near the areas that receive occasional use by the mountain goats. There are no haul routes that pass through this area either. For these reasons, there would be no impacts to mountain goats or their habitat, and therefore, the Upper Swift project will not contribute to a negative trend is viability on the Gifford Pinchot N.F. for mountain goats.

There would be no cumulative effects.

Wood Duck and Barrows Goldeneye Duck Affected Environment Wood ducks represent species that require mature and old-growth deciduous riparian habitat. Goldeneye ducks represent species that require mature and old-growth coniferous riparian habitat.

Wood ducks are primarily herbivorous, although recent studies have indicated that invertebrates make up a significant part of the annual diet. Suitable ponds are relatively shallow with emergent vegetation and overhead shrub and tree cover, or flooded woody vegetation. Acceptable nest trees are usually 24 to 36 inches diameter and have cavities at least 6 feet above the ground (Sousa and Farmer. 1983).

104 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Goldeneye ducks commonly nest in cavities in trees, in nest boxes, and, more rarely, in holes in the ground. They have been reported nesting in crows nests in British Columbia. They often resort to pileated woodpecker or flicker nest cavities that have been enlarged by weathering. Broods have been observed at alpine lakes in British Columbia where no tree cavities existed, so they must have nested on the ground (Bellrose 1980).

Nest sites are usually located near relatively shallow lakes and ponds that have extensive beds of submerged aquatic and marsh vegetation. Nest sites are usually within 100 feet of the water.

There have been no sightings of these species documented in the NRIS Wildlife database in the analysis area. There are a few small beaver ponds near proposed thinning units that could be suitable for either species (e.g. 103107)

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative would have no effects to either of these species. There would be no cumulative effects.

Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Because of the no-cut buffers prescribed around wetlands and streams, the action alternative would not affect habitat that is likely to be used by these species. No deciduous or conifer habitat close to suitable water bodies is proposed for harvest. There would be no impacts, therefore the Upper Swift project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Gifford Pinchot N.F for these species.

There would be no cumulative effects.

Neotropical Migratory Birds Affected Environment USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The Birds of Conservation Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that represent highest conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions.

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) were developed based on similar geographic parameters. One BCR encompasses the Upper Swift project area, BCR 5. Table 28 displays the BCC species for this area that could occur in the Upper Swift project area.

105 Swift Thin

Table 28. Birds of Conservation Concern and Preferred Habitats, BCR 5 (Northern Pacific Rain Forest, U.S. portions only). Bird Species Preferred Habitat

Rufous Hummingbird Found in a variety of habitats, most likely in brushy areas with flowers and forests with a well-developed understory. Olive-sided Flycatcher Open conifer forests (< 40 % canopy cover) and edge habitats where standing snags and scattered tall trees remain after a disturbance. Willow Flycatcher Associated with riparian shrub dominated habitats, especially brushy/willow thickets. In SE WA also found in xeric (c) non-listed subspecies or brushy uplands. population of T or E species. Bald Eagle Associated with large bodies of water, forested areas near the ocean, along rivers, and at estuaries, lakes and reservoirs. (b) ESA delisted Northern Goshawk A habitat generalist that prefers to nest in mature forests with large (laingi ssp.) trees on moderate slopes with open understories.

Solitary Sandpiper Small and partly wooded patches of water, and high altitude bogs and wet meadows. (nb) non-breeding in this BCR (a) ESA candidate, (b) ESA delisted, (c) non-listed subspecies or population of Tor E species, (d) MBTA protection uncertain or lacking, (nb) non-breeding in this BCR.

Partners in Flight A conservation strategy for land birds in coniferous forests in western Oregon and Washington was prepared in 1999 by Bob Altman of American Bird Conservancy for the Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. The strategy is designed to achieve functioning ecosystems for land birds by addressing the habitat requirements of 20 “focal species”. By managing for a group of species representative of

106 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest important components of a functioning coniferous forest ecosystem, it is assumed that many other species and elements of biodiversity will be maintained.

Table 29displays the focal species potentially positively or negatively affected changes in habitat, and the forest conditions and habitat attributes they represent.

Table 29. Focal Bird Species. Forest Conditions Habitat Attribute Focal Species Old-growth Large snags Vaux’s swift * Old-growth/Mature Large trees Brown creeper * Old-growth/Mature Conifer cones Red crossbill Mature Large snags Pileated woodpecker Mature Mid-story tree layers Varied thrush * Mature/Young Closed canopy Hermit warbler Mature/Young Deciduous canopy trees Pacific-slope flycatcher Mature/Young Open mid-story Hammond’s flycatcher Mature/Young Deciduous understory Wilson’s warbler Mature/Young Forest floor complexity Winter wren Young/Pole Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated gray warbler Pole Deciduous subcanopy/understory Hutton’s vireo Early-seral Residual canopy trees Olive-sided flycatcher * Early-seral Snags Western bluebird Early-seral Deciduous vegetation Orange-crowned warbler Early-seral Nectar-producing plants Rufous hummingbird * * Significantly declining population trends in the Cascade Mountains physiographic areas.

The proposed Upper Swift thinning units are in the Pole or the Mature/Young forest habitat types. Most of the units have very simplified understories that generally lack a diverse shrub layer or deciduous understory trees, although most of the units have large vine maple shrubs. Closed Pole and Mature/Young forest constitute about 42 percent of the analysis area, and the amount of that habitat is expected to increase in the analysis area as younger stands mature. These habitat types are not limiting. Increasing the diversity of the understory vegetation would improve habitat for species that are represented by winter wren, Wilson’s warbler, and Hutton’s vireo. Maintaining or increasing mature deciduous trees would benefit black-throated gray warbler, and Pacific-slope flycatcher. Increasing the area in the large tree structure stages in the long-term would increase habitat for species that require mature and old-growth conifer habitat.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative would result in no new impacts to neotropical migratory birds. However, since no thinning would occur with this alternative, the opportunity to increase habitat diversity would be forgone. There would be no long-term benefit to bird species that depend on mature and old-growth habitat and that are thought to be declining.

There would be no cumulative effects.

107 Swift Thin

Proposed Action Direct/Indirect Effects The proposed thinning would open the stands enough to encourage growth of understory deciduous shrubs such as vine maple, and huckleberry. Opening the mid-story, and increasing the deciduous understory and forest floor complexity would improve habitat conditions for Hammond’s flycatcher, Wilson’s warbler and winter wren. Project design criteria that would retain mature deciduous trees would maintain or increase habitat for black-throated gray warbler, and Pacific-slope flycatcher.

In the short-term, the proposed thinning, especially regeneration harvest, heavy thinning and creating gaps would create habitat that could be used by early-seral bird species. Heavy thinning would occur on about 1,849 acres, and benefits to these species would last about 20 years. Regeneration harvest would occur on 193 acres, and the benefits to early-seral species would last much longer. In the long-term, thinning these stands would accelerate development of mature and late-successional habitat in the treated stands, and eventually they will provide suitable habitat for species represented by brown creeper and Vaux’s swift, which are thought to be declining. The proposed units that are in LSR and Riparian Reserves would provide habitat for these late-successional species over time.

This alternative would treat habitat that is common in the analysis area and across the Forest, and improve conditions in the short-term by adding complexity and structural diversity. For these reasons, this alternative would not result in significant impacts to neotropical migratory bird populations

If any of the danger trees that are felled are large hollow snags, Vaux’s swift could be impacted. Hollow trees that have entrances through woodpecker holes or broken tops are nesting habitat. It is unknown how many of the estimated 163 danger trees that may be felled along haul routes that would be cut would meet these criteria. However it is unlikely that many would, and most would be smaller trees that are not hollow.

Cumulative Effects Short-term creation of early-seral habitat though thinning and gap creation would be cumulative to the effects of the timber sales under the Peppercat EA project. The harvest done under the Peppercat EA is similar to what is proposed for this project, and the impacts are similar. The timber sales from that EA will thin about 1,850 acres, including about 450 acres of heavy thinning. The increased stand diversity resulting from that would be cumulative to this project, totaling almost 5,700 acres thinned including almost 2,300 acres of heavy thinning and 193 acres of regeneration harvest.

Aquatic Resources A complete hydrology report has been completed and can be found in the Swift Thin project record. A summary of findings is included below. Forest Service Manual (USDA 2015) requires that a Biological Evaluation be conducted for forest management activities that may alter the aquatic habitat for proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish species to determine their potential effects on these species. A Biological Evaluation was completed for the Swift Thin project and can be found in the project file; a summary of effects to Federally-listed and sensitive species is included below.

Affected Environment The planning area primarily drains to the Lewis River, but some stands proposed for thinning extend slightly over the topographically-defined watershed boundaries of the Lewis River drainage and into the Wind River watershed. As a result, this hydrologic assessment will focus on assessment of conditions

108 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest and effects in Lewis River tributaries, but will include some discussion and data for drainages to the Wind River to account for effects of those small portions of thinning stands that lay across the watershed divide. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) are nationally recognized datasets used to portray surface streams and a hierarchical network of nested drainage areas across the country. The Forest Service uses these datasets as corporate data layers to describe streams and watershed boundaries across the national forest. Streams in the NHD are coded as either “perennial” or “intermittent”, reflecting the persistence (or lack of persistence) of surface flow throughout the year. Watersheds are described in the WBD by Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), with each successively smaller hydrologic drainage area receiving an additional two digits in its code. Since there are six levels in this hierarchy, drainage areas at the smallest end of the hierarchy are referred to as either 6th field subwatersheds or HUC-12 subwatersheds. HUC-12 subwatersheds range in size from 10,000 to 40,000 acres. Subwatersheds that contribute flow to a common outlet are collectively identified as watersheds, and in the WBD are referred to as HUC-10 watersheds. HUC-10 watersheds range in size from 40,000 to 250,000 acres.

There are 14 HUC-12 subwatersheds in the Swift Planning Area as shown in Table 30. These subwatersheds are nested within five HUC-10 watersheds (5th field watersheds) as indicated in the table.

Table 30. Watersheds and Subwatersheds in the Swift Thin Planning Area. HUC-10 HUC-10 HUC-12 HUC-12 Watershed Name Watershed Subwatershed Name Subwatershed Number Number Wind River 1707010510 Headwaters Wind 170701051001 Wind River 1707010510 Dry Creek 170701051003 Wind River 1707010510 Trapper Cr--Wind River 170701051004 Upper Lewis River 1708000201 Big Creek 170800020107 Upper Lewis River 1708000201 Cussed Hollow--Lewis R 170800020108 Upper Lewis River 1708000201 Rush Creek 170800020109 Upper Lewis River 1708000201 Curly Creek 170800020110 Upper Lewis River 1708000201 Little Creek-Lewis R 170800020111 Swift Reservoir-Lewis River 1708000203 Upper Swift Reservoir 170800020302 Swift Reservoir-Lewis River 1708000203 Drift Creek 170800020303 Yale Reservoir-Lewis River 1708000204 Upper Siouxon Cr 170800020402 Yale Reservoir-Lewis River 1708000204 Lower Siouxon Cr 170800020404 Merwin Reservoir-Lewis River 1708000206 Upper Canyon Cr 170800020601 Merwin Reservoir-Lewis River 1708000206 Lower Canyon Cr 170800020603

With very minor exceptions, the planning area is entirely upstream of, and contributes flow to Merwin Reservoir, the lowest of a series of three reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams on the Lewis River. Some parts of the planning area are also upstream of Yale Reservoir, the second in the series of reservoirs, and the northern portions of the planning area are also above Swift Reservoir, the uppermost of the three reservoirs on the Lewis River. Small parts of the planning area drain to the Wind River system so do not contribute flow to the Lewis River reservoirs.

Portions of the Lewis River and the entire Wind River watershed are identified as Key Watersheds in the Northwest Forest Plan. The Lewis River supports ESA-listed bull trout, and historic steelhead and

109 Swift Thin salmon runs are being re-established in the Lewis as part of FERC relicensing of the three hydro dams. The Wind River supports a native steelhead run as well as chinook and some coho along with other resident species.

The Lewis River has headwaters on the west and northwest slopes of Mt Adams and generally flows to the west-southwest before entering a series of three reservoirs at the west end of the planning area (Swift, Yale, and Merwin). The Swift Thin planning area consists primarily of tributaries draining lands to the south and east of the mainstem Lewis River as it makes its way from Mt Adams through the series of three reservoirs. Many of these drainages originate along the boundary of the Lewis and Wind Rivers, and in the vicinity of Indian Heaven. The Wind River lies immediately to the south of the Lewis River drainage, and because small portions of the Swift Thin project lie astride the watershed boundary, the planning area includes three subwatersheds that are actually in the Wind River watershed, as shown above in Table 30.

Climatic Characterization Climate in the Swift Thin planning area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The planning area is on the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains, and as such is dominated by marine air masses from the Pacific Ocean that deliver copious amounts of precipitation through the winter months. Annual precipitation in this area ranges from 80 to over 120 inches. Because elevations in the planning area range from less than 1,000 feet to nearly 6,000 feet, precipitation comes as a mix of rain and snow, with higher elevations developing significant snowpacks that persist through the winter, and lower elevations dominated by rain, but that also receive snow infrequently over the course of the winter. At the middle elevations it is not uncommon for snowpacks to develop and then completely or partially melt out several times in response to warm, wet frontal systems that occur during the fall through spring period.

Geomorphic Characterization Lying between two large volcanoes, the planning area has been formed and shaped by a combination of volcanic and glacial processes, and has been modified by three large dams in recent times. The eastern portion of the planning area is dominated by gently sloping terrain of Indian Heaven and Lone Butte areas, formed by a mix of shield volcanoes and interrupted by steep cinder cones, all of which have been modified by glaciation. These gently sloping uplands form the watershed divide between the Lewis, Wind, and White Salmon River watersheds. North and west of this, the stable landscape is replaced by steep slopes and areas of instability, including large deep-seated landslides that form the south slopes of the Lewis River drainage. To the west, the planning area is older and more incised, and is dominated by the three large reservoirs that are located at the perimeter of the Swift planning area.

Hydrologic Characterization Streams in the planning area reflect typical western Cascades hydrology. Peak streamflows occur in fall and winter, and are commonly driven by runoff from rain-on-snow, when rainfall amounts are augmented by a melting snowpack. Average flow levels remain high through spring as higher elevation snowpacks melt out, and warm, dry summers leave many streams with very limited surface flow in late summer months. During the late summer, stream water temperatures reach annual peaks.

Three hydroelectric projects are located downstream of the planning area: Merwin, Yale and Swift. Most of the planning area ultimately drains through these three reservoirs, but because the reservoirs and dams are downstream of the project area, streamflows within this analysis are not affected by operations of the hydro facilities.

110 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Water Quality Various streams in the planning area have been monitored for water temperature over the years, but no consistently measured water quality data are available for most streams in the planning area. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest has maintained the most widespread if not consistent water temperature monitoring, particularly on the Lewis River but including some tributary streams. Table 31 summarizes water temperature monitoring that has been conducted and reported to the State of Washington.

Table 31. Water Temperature Monitoring in the Swift Planning Area. Stream Sites Listing ID Number of Yrs Water Water Quality Monitoring Data Monitored for (WA Dept Temperature Std Assessment Source Water of Ecology) Exceeded / Number of Category (WA Temperature in years in which Dept of Ecology the Swift monitoring occurred 305(b)) Planning Area Lewis River below 37843 8/9 5 Gifford Pinchot Cussed Hollow National Forest Lewis River above 37833 5/5 5 Gifford Pinchot Big Creek National Forest Lewis River above 37818 8/10 5 Gifford Pinchot Curly Creek National Forest Lewis River at Swift 6549 0/1 1 Cowlitz PUD #1 Tailrace Rush Creek ~ 0/14 ~ Gifford Pinchot National Forest Siouxon Creek ~ 10/13 ~ Gifford Pinchot National Forest Canyon Creek above ~ 1/11 ~ Gifford Pinchot Big Rock Creek National Forest Wind River near ~ 0/5 Gifford Pinchot headwaters National Forest ~ indicates data are not included explicitly in WA Dept of Ecology Water Quality Assessment reporting. Streams listed as Category 5 are 303(d) listed streams. These are identified because they have not met state water quality standards for water temperature. The Wind River does not show a category listing in this assessment because the entire Wind River watershed has been evaluated and is operating under a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in recognition of a number of tributaries that did not meet state standards for water temperature in that watershed.

Riparian Areas A description of the riparian vegetation is included in the Vegetation Management section above. As an additional descriptor, past logging of these stands left a legacy of abandoned and poorly drained roads, stream crossings, and places where streams were diverted out of their native channels.

Disturbance History As described above, volcanoes and glaciers are the most significant disturbance elements that have shaped the landscape. More recently, hydroelectric projects, fire, grazing and logging have been the dominant disturbance processes affecting the current forest conditions. Because the dams and reservoirs are downslope of all project activities considered in this report, they do not impact physical processes in the portions of the planning area we will be working in, and they will not be discussed in detail in this EA.

Logging and replanting of these stands occurred 40 to 80 years ago in the planning area, and since then wildfire has been suppressed and has not played a meaningful role in development of the forest. Natural

111 Swift Thin disturbance processes instead have been more localized to include wind and ice storm damage, flooding, and localized insect and disease pockets. As a result of the recent disturbance history, the stands considered for treatment in this project tend to be densely stocked with planted conifers and may have less structural and species diversity than forests exposed to a more natural sequence of disturbance processes.

Aquatic Species The Gifford Pinchot National Forest has a total of 11 fish species of local interest (including Federally- listed and Forest Service sensitive fish species). Four of these 11 fish species of local interest are on the January 2013 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA, USDI 2011) and the remainder are federally-designated as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (USDC 2005, USDI 1997). As of the writing of this BE (January 2015), there are no additional fish species on the forest proposed for federal listing. There are also five Critical Habitat designations3 (USDI 2010), one proposed Critical Habitat designation (USDC 2013), and Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook and coho (USDC 2015), as designated in the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Finally, there are two Management Indicator Species Groups on the Forest: (1) steelhead trout/cutthroat trout and (2) bull trout. See Table 32 below for further detail regarding these fish and fish habitat designations.

Table 32. Summary of Presence and Effects to Fish Species in Swift. Species Field Review Effects Species Name Status Habitat Species Present? Proposed Action Present? Columbia River bull trout Threatened Yes Yes (downstream) No Effect Salvelinus confluentus Coastal Puget Sound bull trout Threatened No No No Effect Salvelinus confluentus Yes Critical Habitat for bull trout Designated N/A No Effect (downstream) Lower Columbia River steelhead trout Threatened Yes Yes (downstream) No Effect Oncorhynchus mykiss Critical Habitat for Lower Yes Designated N/A No Effect Columbia River steelhead trout (downstream) Middle Columbia River Threatened No No No Effect steelhead trout Critical Habitat for Middle Designated No N/A No Effect Columbia River steelhead trout Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon Threatened Yes Yes (downstream) No Effect Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Chinook Designated No N/A No Effect salmon Lower Columbia River coho salmon Threatened Yes Yes (downstream) No Effect Oncorhynchus kisutch Critical Habitat for Lower Proposed Yes No Effect

3 Definition of “critical habitat”, from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Section 7 Consultation Technical Assistance webpage (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/s7glossary.html): Specific geographic areas, whether occupied or not, that are determined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that have been formally described in the Federal Register.

112 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Species Field Review Effects Species Name Status Habitat Species Present? Proposed Action Present? Columbia River coho salmon (downstream) N/A Pacific eulachon (Southern DPS) Threatened No No No Effect Thaleichthys pacificus inland redband trout USFS No No No Impact Oncorhynchus mykiss Sensitive pygmy whitefish USFS No No No Impact Prosopium coulteri Sensitive Puget Sound coastal cutthroat USFS trout No No No Impact Sensitive Oncorhynchus clarki clarki Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia USFS coho salmon No No No Impact Sensitive Oncorhynchus kisutch Will Not Adversely EFH for coho and Chinook N/A Yes N/A Affect Management Indicator 1 Yes N/A N/A No Effect (steelhead/cutthroat trout) (downstream) Management Indicator 2 Yes N/A N/A No Effect (bull trout) (downstream)

Environmental Consequences In this section, environmental effects will be described for all actions that would potentially affect water resources. The following table identifies each of the activities included in the proposed action, and each of the water resource parameters to be evaluated in this analysis. Checkmarks indicate the activities with either no effect on aquatic resources, or a potential effect on the parameter identified in column headings. For those activities with a potential effect, the effects are described in the following sections of the report. For those activities anticipated to have no effect on aquatic resources, they will not be addressed further in this report.

Table 33. Proposed Activities and their Potential Effects to Water Resources in the Swift Planning Area. Proposed Activity Potential Effects to Water Resources No Peak Water Sediment / Riparian Effect Flows Temperature Turbidity Reserves Commercial Thinning and Regeneration Harvest √ √ √ √ Skidding and Log Haul √ Road Reconstruction and Maintenance √ Temporary Road, Skid Trail and Landing √ √ Construction, Reconstruction and Decommissioning Culvert Replacement √ Handwork in Swift units √ Planting/seeding in gaps √ Danger tree removal along haul routes √ Piling and burning of slash √

113 Swift Thin

As indicated in Table 33, commercial thinning is the one activity that has the potential to affect all four water resource parameters of concern. Sediment is the parameter that is potentially affected by the widest range of proposed activities. Application of Best Management Practices, both in the design of the Swift Thin project and in its execution, are intended to prevent or minimize potential effects to aquatic resources on the national forest.

Effects to four aquatic-related parameters are described below: peak streamflows, water temperature, sediment/turbidity, and Riparian Reserves. The discussion on each parameter begins with some background information. For each of the two alternatives being evaluated, relevant activities from the proposed action are listed that could affect that parameter. If an activity is not listed, it is because that activity does not have an effect in either direction on the parameter under consideration.

Peak Streamflows

Background Peak and base streamflows are important characteristics of the stream hydrograph that can be influenced by forest practices. Peak streamflows in this discussion refer to high flows that result from direct precipitation runoff, snowmelt, or a combination of the two, and range from those peak flows occurring every 1 to 2 years, to those that occur every 100 years or less frequently. Peak flows are important to streams and fish habitat because they do significant work on stream channels in terms of channel maintenance, scour, routing and sorting of sediments, and recruiting and repositioning large wood in the system. Base flows are the low flows that occur with or without runoff-induced peaks. During summer months, base flows are particularly important because these are the only flows in the stream, and represent the only habitat available to fish and other stream-dwelling organisms.

The timing and magnitude of both peak and low flows can be affected by forest practices including those proposed under this project. The relevant potential changes in hydrologic function incurred by forest practices include: changes occurring at the stand level, where changes in forest canopy cover or canopy density can affect microclimate and the disposition of precipitation reaching the ground surface, and where changes in the amount of water uptake from the soil by forest vegetation can be affected by removal of forest cover; changes at the subwatershed scale, where the routing of water from hillslopes to surface stream channels can be affected by road systems, and where the effect of downstream accumulation of flow in surface channels can influence flood hydrograph shape, size and timing; and changes at the watershed scale, which are similar to those described at the subwatershed scale, but which may or may not be detectable at the larger scale due to a wider range of conditions contributing to streamflows. Each of these effects can and do operate at multiple scales, and can influence processes and conditions at both larger and smaller scales. For purposes of this analysis, they are described under the scale at which they seem to be most important.

Stand-Scale Influences

Interception and Snow Accumulation Removal of forest vegetation can affect the form of precipitation by reducing the ability of the forest canopy to intercept and retain snow. As canopy cover is reduced, falling snow is more likely to fall through the canopy and accumulate on the forest floor. In this way, snowpacks under a forest canopy are typically smaller and in many cases more variable in depth and water content than snowpacks developing in an area that is not influenced by a forest canopy. Studies done in Oregon found two-to-three times more snow accumulated in clearcuts or forest openings than in nearby forested sites (Berris and Harr 1987).

114 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

In addition, because snow held in forest canopies is exposed to agents of melt (heat, wind, condensation) on all sides, it can be preferentially melted and delivered to the forest floor as liquid water, even while snowpacks on the ground continue to hold their water in the form of snow, and increase in size by accumulation. By reducing the amount of snow intercepted and held in the forest canopy, timber harvest can allow increased snow accumulation and retention on the ground. During subsequent rain-on-snow conditions, harvested sites and areas with reduced-density forest canopy essentially have a larger reservoir of stored water in the form of a snowpack than stands with fully intact forest canopies.

Research conducted under the Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) project on the Umpqua National Forest compared snow accumulation among three levels of forest canopy: an uncut forest, a clearcut, and a previously harvested shelterwood cut that had a canopy closure of approximately 15 percent. Findings from this work indicate that both the clearcut and shelterwood accumulate more snow than is accumulated in the uncut forest (Storck et al. 2002). The rates of accumulation in the shelterwood and clearcut are essentially the same because snow intercepted in the canopies of trees in the shelterwood is often removed by wind action on the canopy before the snow can be melted (ibid). Although the DEMO project did not include a thinned stand in its study design that would be similar to what is proposed in the Swift Thin project, we assume a thinned stand would interact with snow in a way that reflects its structure as being somewhere between an uncut forest and a shelterwood.

Microclimate and Snowmelt Removal or thinning of forest canopies removes or reduces the buffer that forest cover provides between the ground surface and local atmospheric conditions. A fully mature forest functions much the same as a layer of mulch does to the ground surface in a backyard garden, though at a different scale. Incoming shortwave radiation is intercepted, filtered down, and reflected up, and outgoing (longwave) radiation from the ground surface is intercepted, filtered and re-emitted down. Air movement across the ground surface is reduced because it is physically obstructed by the cover. Removal or reduction of forest canopy cover can allow for increased radiation fluxes in both directions, and increased air movement across the ground surface, both of which would tend to cause wider swings in air temperature and humidity at the ground surface. Changes in air temperature, winds and humidity under a modified forest canopy can increase rates of snowmelt during rain-on-snow, since a large part of the melt occurring under these conditions is due to the transfer of sensible and latent heat from the air to the snowpack.

The level of forest canopy removal that begins to materially effect changes in air temperature, windspeed and humidity are not well known at this time, in part because of a lack of past research in this area, but also because of the naturally occurring variability in these conditions at the site scale. It’s reasonable to believe that removal of a few trees from a fully mature forest stand would have little if any effect on snow accumulation at the stand scale, or on the factors that cause snowmelt. However, removal of most of the trees from a stand would clearly reduce the effectiveness of the forest canopy in intercepting falling snow, and on modifying the microclimate beneath the forest canopy. The position of the stand within a watershed relative to prevailing wind patterns and storm tracks, as well as the elevation of the stand, and the relative density of its canopy in its current condition also influence the function of the forest canopy, and the potential effects of its removal.

Research associated with the DEMO project compared snow accumulation and snowmelt in uncut forests with snowmelt in nearby clearcut and shelterwoods. Findings from this study indicated that the remaining canopy in the shelterwood did not significantly change snow accumulation rates from levels found in the clearcut sites, but that both the clearcut and shelterwood had increased rates of snowmelt during rain-on-snow, due in large part to the increased windspeeds and turbulent heat transfer in those stands (ibid).

115 Swift Thin

In summary, although DEMO did not include typical thinned forest stands in its design, the shelterwood is in essence an extremely heavy thin. DEMO provided a look at the processes at work in snow accumulation and snowmelt in forest settings. Based on DEMO findings, we conclude that thinned stands probably function similar to uncut forests if the thinning is extremely light, and similar to clearcuts if very heavy. Between those two endpoints is likely a continuum of changing function with increasing thinning intensity.

Subwatershed-Scale Influences Stand scale processes described above can be cumulative at the scale of the subwatershed and larger. Changes to rates of snow interception, accumulation, snowmelt and evapotranspiration in a drainage can affect the volume and timing of streamflows that come from that drainage. Roads and other features that affect water routing can contribute to these subwatershed and watershed-scale effects.

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to peak or base streamflows in the planning area or downstream. There would be no immediate change to existing canopy cover, canopy density or road networks in the planning area, except the changes that occur as a result of natural or other ongoing processes. Over the course of years, existing forest cover throughout the planning area would continue to develop. Young stands would mature, and stand densities would remain high. Successional processes, natural disturbances and competition between trees would contribute to changes in forest density and forest openings over long time periods.

Analysis Rain on Snow Elevations The rain-on-snow (ROS) zone is an elevation band that experiences rain-on-snow more commonly than elevations either above or below this band. Within these elevations, snowpacks may accumulate and then partially or completely melt out numerous times during a year. Because of the importance of rain-on- snow runoff to generating flood flows in the western Cascades, and the effect forest cover removal can have on snowpack development and subsequent melt during rain-on-snow, harvest activities occurring within this elevation band may have a greater potential to affect on peak flows than harvest occurring at either higher elevations (i.e. snow-dominated) or lower elevations (i.e. rain-dominated).

The proportion of a watershed lying within the high probability rain-on-snow zone provides an indication of the potential responsiveness of the watershed in terms of changes in peak flows caused by timber harvest or other disturbance that causes changes in forest cover. The following table shows the proportion of each subwatershed in the Swift Thin planning area that is within the rain-on-snow elevation zone.

Table 34. Percent of Planning Area Most Likely to Experience Rain on Snow.

Percent of Subwatershed in Subwatershed Subwatershed Subwatershed Name High Probability Rain-on- Number Acres Snow Elevations

Upper Wind River 170701051201 20,075 86% Dry Creek-Wind River 170701051203 17,382 79%

116 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Cussed Hollow Creek 170800020109 15,290 77% Big Creek 170800020110 10,142 33% Rush Creek 170800020111 16,884 32% Curly Creek 170800020112 12,331 71% Little Creek 170800020113 12,811 74% Upper Swift Reservoir 170800020303 10,959 65% Drift Creek 170800020304 12,149 87% Upper Siouxon Creek 170800020401 14,595 85% Lower Siouxon Creek 170800020402 11,361 75% Upper Canyon Creek 170800020601 12,341 75% Lower Canyon Creek 170800020602 30,233 77% Sum for Planning Area: 196,554 72%

Nearly 75 percent of the entire planning area is in the rain-on-snow precipitation zone. Higher elevation drainages in the planning area including Rush and Big Creeks, have less than one third of their drainage areas in the ROS zone. These subwatersheds would be less sensitive to changes in rain-on-snow runoff as a result of changes in forest cover. Subwatersheds including Drift Creek, Upper Siouxon and Upper Wind River have an average of 86 percent of their lands within the rain-on-snow zone, and these drainages would be most sensitive to changes in forest cover.

Aggregate Recovery Percentage The Aggregate Recovery Percentage (ARP), is an index of the proportion of a watershed in a "hydrologically mature" condition. Hydrologic maturity is defined for this purpose in terms of the ability of a forest stand to intercept snow and reduce winds across a snowpack --similar to the uncut forest in the DEMO study described above. As timber harvest occurs in a subwatershed, the ARP for that drainage is reduced from 100 percent, reflecting the loss in hydrologically mature forest cover. Studies have shown that in forest openings, or areas that have had forest cover removed, snow accumulation is increased due to the loss of canopy interception (Berris and Harr 1987). Furthermore, rates of snowmelt can be higher in the openings, particularly during rain-on-snow conditions, because of the turbulent transfer of sensible and latent heat from warm, moist air masses to the snowpack (Harr 1981, Berris and Harr 1987). With higher levels of snow accumulation and increased rates of snowmelt, these openings in the forest generate more water during rain-on-snow events, which can contribute to increased peak streamflows. As an increasing portion of a watershed is put into an open or hydrologically immature condition, the potential for peak flows to be increased becomes greater (Christner and Harr 1982).

The effect of timber harvest on onsite hydrologic function and on peak streamflows is considered cumulative and long-term. Recovery of harvest areas to full hydrologic maturity (in terms of response to snow accumulation and subsequent snowmelt during rain-on-snow) requires from 30 to 60 years, depending on the quality of the growing site, species of trees being regenerated, and actual growth rates of the trees (USDA 1988). Site-specific hydrologic effects will vary depending on elevations of the treatment area, its landscape position, the current and post-harvest vegetation conditions, and weather conditions surrounding any given meteorological event. Translation of onsite effects to changes in streamflows are similarly variable and dependent upon conditions such as watershed elevation, orientation and morphology, geology, soils, slope and drainage density.

On the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Aggregate Recovery Percentages above 70-75 have generally been considered to indicate a relatively moderate or low risk of negative impacts from increased peak flows (USDA 1988). Figure 15 shows the projected ARP values for each subwatershed in the planning area.

117 Swift Thin

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 15. Projected Aggregate Recovery Percentage (ARP) by subwatershed in the Swift Planning Area.

Projected ARP values range from a low of 81 in Lower Canyon Creek to high values of near 100 in several other subwatersheds including Dry Creek, Trapper Creek, Cussed Hollow, Little Creek, and Upper and Lower Siouxon Creek. In spite of containing many clearcuts from the 1950s through 1980s, the planning area is dominated by trees that are well over 8 inches in diameter, and as such is at relatively low risk of having current peak flows elevated as a result of forest cover conditions on national forest lands.

Roads and Drainage Density Because roads impede surface water infiltration and provide a direct surface linkage for delivering water to stream channels, the road network can substantially increase the natural drainage density of a watershed. In addition, roadcuts often intercept subsurface flows, and then route that water through roadside ditches to nearby streams, dramatically shortening the travel time that would otherwise occur through subsurface pathways. The combination of these road-related effects can accelerate the rate at which water moves from hillslopes into stream channels, potentially affecting both the timing and magnitude of peak streamflows (Wemple et al. 1996; King and Tennyson, 1984; Harr et al. 1975).

As in other parts of the managed forest, natural drainage densities in the planning area have been artificially increased by the road network. Drainage density is important to the analysis of peak streamflows, because as the drainage density increases, water is moved more rapidly from hillslopes to stream channels, and this can influence the timing and magnitude of peak flows. The specific degree of increased drainage density in this planning area is unknown, but a coarse estimate can be made by assuming that 57 percent of the road network has surface channels associated with the road (i.e. roadside ditches) that deliver water to streams during runoff events (following Wemple 1994). Although the 57 percent factor is an extremely rough estimate that averages differences relating to surface slope, soils, geology, natural drainage density, storm/runoff conditions and other factors, it is used here as the best available information. Table 35 shows how the “natural” (pre-road system) drainage density is increased by roads in this watershed.

118 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Table 35. Drainage Density. Natural Drainage Drainage Density Increase in Drainage Subwatershed Name Density (stream Including Roads Density Caused by miles/square mile) (miles/square mile) Existing Roads (%) Headwaters Wind 4.9 6.3 26% Dry Creek 6.5 7.2 11% Trapper Cr--Wind River 6.5 7.2 11% Big Creek 2.9 4.3 50% Cussed Hollow--Lewis R 3.8 5.0 29% Rush Creek 3.4 4.6 33% Curly Creek 3.6 5.0 39% Little Creek-Lewis R 2.6 4.2 63% Upper Swift Reservoir 6.2 6.6 7% Drift Creek 5.6 6.7 19% Upper Siouxon Cr 5.7 6.8 19% Lower Siouxon Cr 5.7 6.1 8% Upper Canyon Cr 6.1 8.2 35% Lower Canyon Cr 3.3 4.3 32% Sum / Average 4.5 5.7 25%

There are approximately 1,400 miles of stream in the planning area, and 600 miles of road. On average, drainage densities have been increased by 25 percent across the planning area by the existence of the road network. This indicates there are approximately 25 percent more drainage pathways available to route water downslope in this area. The result is that these subwatersheds have become more efficient in delivering precipitation to downstream reaches, which can contribute to a more rapid accumulation of flow in those downstream areas, which can contribute to increased peak streamflows. Drainage density increases in the planning area range from a high of 63 percent in Little Creek-Lewis River, to just 7 percent in Drift and Lower Siouxon Creek subwatersheds. Drift and Lower Siouxon drainage figures may be skewed because of issues with private and state lands in those drainages, and the reservoirs that are at the base of those subwatersheds. It is likely that the hydrologic function of Little Creek has been affected by a road system that has increased the drainage network density by 63 percent.

With no proposed change in the existing road network, current drainage network increases caused by the existing road system would continue to affect the hydrology of the watershed over time. Implementation of this alternative would have no effect on drainage network densities.

Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

This alternative would have direct and indirect effects on snow accumulation and melt at the stand scale, but there would be no changes to peak streamflows based on cumulative area thinned/harvested in this project or over time when considered in context with past harvest in these subwatersheds.

Peak flows in streams draining the planning area could be affected by both the thinning and the road construction proposed under this alternative. Thinning of the forest canopy would tend to increase the magnitude of peak flows by allowing increased rates of snow accumulation and melt in the thinned stands, particularly those proposed for heavy thinning. Construction of one mile of road would tend to

119 Swift Thin increase the rate of travel of water from hillslopes to stream channels, and in that way would tend to contribute to increased peak streamflows. However, the combination of a very small amount of permanent road to be constructed (one mile), and the small proportional areas of each subwatershed thinned (0 to 7 percent), and the high projected ARP values across the planning area (81-99) suggest there would be no detectable change to peak flows in either direction resulting from implementation of this alternative.

Analysis Thinning of 3,648 acres of forest in 14 subwatersheds would reduce canopy density in the treated stands to 30-60 percent canopy cover, and regeneration harvest of an additional 193 acres would reduce canopy cover on those stands to approximately 10 percent canopy closure. Forest cover effects at the subwatershed scale are shown in Table 36.

Table 36. Summary of Thinning Intensities by Subwatershed. Acres of Acres of Sub- Percent Percent of Standard Heavy water- of Sub- Acres of Sub- Thinning Thinning Subwatershed Name shed water- Regeneration watershed (40-60%) (30-40%) Area shed Harvest Early Canopy Canopy (acres) Thinned Seral Cover Cover Headwaters Wind 20,105 1 0 0% 26 0% Dry Creek 9,938 42 38 1% 0 0% Trapper Cr--Wind River 24,683 0 7 0% 0 0% Big Creek 10,271 92 49 2% 49 0% Cussed Hollow--Lewis 15,316 8 0 0% 0 0% Rush Creek 17,201 637 479 7% 6 0% Curly Creek 12,245 247 14 3% 46 0% Little Creek-Lewis R 12,511 93 103 2% 0 0% Upper Swift Reservoir 10,800 2 58 1% 0 0% Drift Creek 12,233 251 319 4% 67 1% Upper Siouxon Cr 14,564 352 583 6% 0 0% Lower Siouxon Cr 14,946 65 198 2% 0 0% Upper Canyon Cr 14,839 8 1 0% 0 0% Lower Canyon Cr 15,637 2 0 0% 0 0% Sum / Average 205,287 1,799 1,848 2% 193 0%

Thinned and regeneration cut stands would be expected to have increased snow accumulation on the ground because there would be less forest canopy to intercept and retain falling snow. Snowpacks in regenerated stands and under the thinned forest canopy would also be exposed to higher rates of melt during rain-on-snow because of higher windspeeds and higher rates of energy transfer from the air to the snowpack. The effect would be greater for the more heavily thinned stands (30-40 percent canopy cover remaining), and largest for those stands that would be converted to early seral conditions.

Following treatment, thinned and regeneration cut stands would produce more water for runoff during rain-on-snow conditions. The increase in water available for runoff from these treated stands would be greater in the stands that are more heavily thinned, and would be highest in the regeneration cut stands, particularly those located at middle elevations where rain-on-snow is the more dominant runoff- generating process and where snowpacks are less deep.

120 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

The effects on snow accumulation and melt would be reduced over time as the forest responds to thinning or regeneration cuts. As individual tree canopies in thinned stands grow into the spaces created around them, the stand canopy becomes more contiguous, can intercept and retain greater snowmasses, and can more effectively buffer the ground from winds. Microclimate and rates of snowmelt during rain-on-snow within thinned stands would be likely to return toward pre-treatment conditions over a period of one to two decades. In regenerated stands, recovery would follow a similar trajectory, but would occur over a longer timeframe estimated at three to four decades for full recovery.

The increased water available for runoff from individual thinned and regeneration cut stands could contribute to higher peak streamflows at the subwatershed and smaller drainage scales. The cumulative area to be thinned or regenerated under this alternative is less than 1 percent in several subwatersheds, and ranges up to a max of 7 percent in the Rush Creek subwatershed and 6 percent in Upper Siouxon. Because very little of the Rush Creek drainage is in the rain-on-snow precipitation zone, there is less concern about changes in forest cover affecting peak streamflows in that subwatershed. In Upper Siouxon, where 6 percent would be thinned under this alternative, the projected ARPs are in the upper 90s, so there is little risk of this project causing increased peak streamflows there. In Drift Creek, where 4 percent of the subwatershed would be thinned, and 1 percent would be converted to early seral, the subwatershed is nearly entirely within the rain-on-snow elevations, so it is sensitive to forest cover changes. But because that subwatershed is largely recovered from past harvest and has a relatively high ARP value of near 90 on national forest lands, it is not likely to experience changes in peak flows resulting from implementation of this project. Other drainages in the planning area have even smaller proportional impacts from thinning and would similarly not be expected to show any response in terms of peak streamflows.

Water Temperature

Background Stream water temperatures vary throughout the day and over the course of a year based on characteristics of the stream, temperature of source waters, volume of surface flow in the channel, and the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface of the water. Solar radiation is the most important source of radiant energy affecting stream temperature (Brown 1969), so shade from riparian forest canopies can be an important factor in stream temperatures. Peak water temperatures typically occur during summer months when the sun is high in the sky for long periods, and when streams are at their lowest flow of the year.

The shade influence of any particular tree or stand of trees can be highly variable, based on the height, location, and density of the tree canopy, on the width and orientation of the stream, and on the steepness of adjacent slopes. Stream temperature analysis conducted by the USDA and USDI (2010) evaluated the effects of riparian canopies of various height and distance from waters edge, and identified primary and secondary shade zones in the riparian areas along streams. The primary shade zone includes those trees that provide stream shade throughout the entire day, and are the only vegetation that provides shade between 1000 and 1400 hours (ibid). In low density stands, there is a secondary shade zone that is made up of trees outside the primary shade zone that would provide shade during the morning and evening hours.

Streams without surface flow during the summer months are referred to in this report as intermittent streams. Since these channels have no surface flow during what are usually the warmest times of year, they are of less concern for solar heating in those months when the streams are dry and air temperatures are high.

121 Swift Thin

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to water temperatures resulting from implementation of this alternative. Existing shade levels on streams and other water bodies in the planning area would not be changed, except for changes that occur as a result of natural or other ongoing processes. Over long time periods, water temperatures may decline in streams draining the planning area, as streamside trees get taller and canopies develop over currently exposed stream segments.

Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Because this project retains all existing shade within the primary shade zone along the margins of perennial surface water features, there are no anticipated effects to water temperature that would occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively from this proposed action.

Analysis Under this alternative, unthinned buffers of 60 to 100 feet wide or greater would be left on all perennial streams. The unthinned buffers are intended to provide for retention of all trees comprising the primary shade zone on perennial streams in or adjacent to stands proposed for thinning. Intermittent streams typically don’t have flow during the warmest months of the year, and these streams would not be at risk of temperature increases.

Sediment / Turbidity

Background Erosion and sediment delivery to streams occurs in all watersheds, regardless of the extent to which the watershed is managed for timber production or other products. In the absence of forestry or other land use activities, erosion and sediment delivery to streams typically occurs through a combination of mass wasting, gully formation, surface and channel erosion. Mass wasting processes can deliver significant quantities of soil, rock and trees to streams in episodic events that are typically associated with periods of high runoff or soil saturation. Undisturbed forest soils typically experience little surface soil erosion because mineral soils in the forest are protected from direct rainfall impact by thick layers of forest duff, and vegetative cover. In addition, these soils have infiltration capacities that far exceed the rainfall intensities they receive. Incoming precipitation and snowmelt are quickly absorbed into the ground and there is little or no accumulation of surface runoff to erode the soil (Harr 1976).

The Swift Thin planning area has a varied topography including relatively gentle slopes in the central and east end of the planning area, and more steeply incised drainages along the Lewis River valley and in the west and southwest portions of the planning area (USDA 1995, 1996). Mass wasting is more common in the steeper areas, particularly to the north, along the Lewis River valley, and also to the west. Elsewhere in this planning area, mass wasting is a less frequent contributor of sediments to streams. Similarly, surface erosion potential is greater in steep portions of the planning area, and is greatest in those areas where forest and groundcover have been removed, exposing mineral soils to precipitation and overland flow. In the absence of land management activities, sediment delivery to streams would be greatest from both mass wasting and surface erosion following natural disturbances such as wildfire that remove vegetative cover from the land (USDA 1997).

122 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Logging activities remove and reduce forest cover, and require operation of heavy equipment on the land. Typically, they also require construction and use of roads to remove logs from the forest. The combination of these activities can increase both the erosion of soil, and delivery of sediment to streams. Removal or reduction in vegetative cover and forest duff exposes soils to direct erosion from rainfall. Gouging or disturbance of the ground surface breaks up the soil into more easily erodible particles, and compaction of the ground by heavy equipment or road construction promotes overland flow of water, which increases the erosive power and transport capability of precipitation runoff.

Harvest units themselves represent the largest areas of anthropogenic ground disturbance in the forest, and erosion rates in harvested areas have been measured at one to five times greater than comparative undisturbed areas (Motha et al., 2003). However, use of appropriate Best Management Practices can significantly reduce erosion and sediment delivery to streams from harvest areas (Litschert and MacDonald 2009). Practices found to be effective at reducing erosion include: minimizing the area used for skid trails, appropriately locating skid trails, operating heavy equipment over a bed of slash, and completing followup erosion control measures on skid surfaces. Also, maintaining an undisturbed forest buffer between harvest areas and streams is an effective way to minimize travel distance of eroded soils. The undisturbed vegetated strip slows movement of surface water flow, allowing particulate matter to fall out of suspension and water to infiltrate the ground--in effect filtering out sediment laden runoff (Kreutzweiser and Capell 2001; Hairsine et al. 2002).

Road networks are the most important source of accelerated delivery of sediment to anadromous fish habitats in forested watersheds of the Pacific Northwest (Ice 1985; Swanson et al. 1987). Construction and use of roads is the dominant cause of excess runoff and sediment in managed forests, with increases in sediment yields ranging from two to 50 times the background levels for undisturbed forests (Reid 1993). Sediment from the road system can be delivered to streams by direct erosion of cut and fillslopes associated with stream crossings, or by surface runoff from roads and ditches that carries sediment-laden water directly or indirectly to streams. Not all sediment production from roadways reaches the aquatic system, because surface runoff from road surfaces and ditches is often directed to unchanneled slopes below the road where runoff has the potential to infiltrate the ground surface or to be filtered by forest debris before entering streams.

In general, research has shown that winter haul can cause much higher levels of sediment production and transport compared to summer haul. Variables including road surfacing, precipitation, and traffic levels can influence the actual levels of sediment production realized during winter haul. Researchers in Washington state found that paved roads produced less than one percent of the sediment that was produced from graveled roads during winter haul on the Olympic Peninsula (Reid and Dunne 1984). The quality and depth of rock surfacing on a road can also significantly affect sediment production. Roads with an inadequate depth and competency of rock can generate significantly more sediment than roads that are constructed and maintained to a higher standard (Burroughs and King 1989). In addition, increased road traffic—and particularly heavy truck traffic—has a large effect on levels of sediment in road drainage during wet conditions. Studies in western Washington reported that sediment production from heavily trafficked roads was two orders of magnitude greater than that from lightly trafficked forest roads during periods of runoff (Reid and Dunne 1984, Bilby et al. 1989). These studies also found that when traffic levels remained heavy during a runoff event, sediment concentrations in road drainage waters remained at a relatively high level throughout the storm.

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sediment or turbidity in the planning area or downstream. With this alternative, there would be no new ground disturbance, log truck

123 Swift Thin traffic, or roadwork, and no changes to erosion processes except for that occurring as a result of natural or other ongoing processes. Existing sources of sediment would continue to function as they have, with some sources decreasing over time in response to natural recovery processes, and others increasing in response to natural disturbance processes and the probable and continued deterioration of the existing road network.

Analysis Surface erosion, sediment movement, and the delivery of sediment to streams and other aquatic features would continue at current rates. Young stands in the project area are fully stocked and well-established. Surface erosion from these environments is minimal in general, because rainfall and snowmelt runoff infiltrates the ground surface and drainage of hillslopes occurs primarily through subsurface paths. Existing forest roads and particularly the level 2 roads would continue to receive minimal maintenance, and as such would continue to slowly deteriorate and produce fine sediment. During periods of runoff, this material would continue to make its way to nearby streams, typically through roadside ditches or direct runoff into streams.

Old temporary roads that were not adequately decommissioned years ago would continue to be subject to erosion until fully revegetated and until road surfaces become less compact through freeze-thaw activity, root development and accumulation of duff. Sediment from temporary roads may be more or less likely to reach stream channels depending on the orientation of the roads relative to surface water bodies. Those roads that follow contours of the land would be less apt to deliver sediment to streams because these roads often don’t have a ditch that would provide a direct pathway to nearby streams, and sediment generated from the surface erosion of these roads has a higher potential for being deposited on the forest floor immediately downslope of the road, instead of reaching the aquatic environment. Roads that travel up and down the slope are more likely to accumulate flow that is sufficient to erode the road surface, and to develop adequate velocity to entrain and maintain fine particles in suspension for longer distances. These roads may be more likely to actually deliver fine sediment to streams.

Over time, some level of road maintenance and repair would occur in the project area as part of annual road maintenance efforts. This work would likely improve some of the road-related drainage issues that are currently causing direct erosion of road surfaces and that contribute to the formation and continued development of gullies on existing roads. However, because many roads in the planning area are maintenance level 1 and 2 roads, or are abandoned temporary roads, they are not likely to receive an effective level of maintenance because Forest Service budgets currently do not provide adequate funding for those types of roads. Without active maintenance and repair, the maintenance level 1, 2, and abandoned temporary roads would be expected to continue to experience erosion and in some locations these effects would increase. Over time, culverts would corrode, become plugged, and/or fail in other ways, continuing to cause inputs of fine sediments to the stream network through both chronic and episodic events.

Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The range of actions included in this alternative would be likely to both increase and decrease current erosion processes and sediment delivery to the Lewis and Wind River systems. Sediment would be generated from each of the ground disturbing activities that leave mineral soils exposed to direct impact of rain and subsequent erosion and transport by surface runoff, and also by activities occurring directly in or adjacent to streams. The largest sources of sediment from project activities are expected to be the placement and removal of culverts for temporary road crossings or culvert upgrades, and from log haul that occurs during periods of summer rain. Ongoing erosion and sediment delivery from poorly

124 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest maintained roads, ineffective road drainage and mis-aligned streams in the project area would be reduced as a result of road improvements, drainage repair and stream realignment taken under this alternative.

Analysis Vegetation treatment would occur on over 3,800 acres of land under this alternative, approximately 480 acres of which are in Riparian Reserves. By itself, the thinning is not expected to have an effect on sediment or erosion processes because cutting of trees does not involve substantive ground disturbance. This activity would not expose surface soils to erosion or create any pathways for transport of sediments.

Yarding trees to landings would disturb the ground and expose mineral soils along skid trails and yarding paths. Approximately 60 percent of the thinning stands (2,300 acres) would be logged using ground- based logging equipment, and another 40 percent (1540 acres) would use skyline systems to pull trees to landings. Areas disturbed by yarding under either method would be subject to erosion from direct rainfall impact and surface flow along yarding corridors. The amount of erosion from skid trails would be minimized by application of best management practices including those that would: minimize the footprint of skid trails; require equipment to operate over a bed of slash; maintain adequate equipment setbacks from streams; and providing for followup erosion control on skid trails after they have been used.

Under this alternative, an undisturbed forest buffer of 30 feet or more would be retained along all intermittent and perennial streams for the purpose of reducing the risk of sediment delivery to streams from log yarding activities. Undisturbed forest buffers would provide a more torturous path for any surface flows to follow before reaching streams, slowing the downslope movement of those flows, and creating opportunities for infiltration of water and interception and retention of fine sediments from logging unit runoff. Research on forestlands in Washington State has shown that a buffer of this size would typically prevent sediment delivery to streams from about 95 percent of harvest-related erosion features (Rashin et al. 2006). As a result, there would be very minimal amounts of sediment reaching the streams from yarding as proposed in this alternative

Activities involving roads and landings have the greatest potential to deliver sediment over an extended period for a number of reasons: 1) the amount of area they occupy; 2) the heavy use they receive; 3) the fact that they often persist on the landscape for extended periods of time and are intentionally left devoid of vegetative cover; and 4) because they are often connected to streams directly or via roadside ditches. This project will construct, reconstruct, maintain and decommission roads and landings, and will also use roads and landings for log storage, handling and haul. These activities are the most important parts of the project in terms of their potential to affect turbidity or suspended sediment in planning area streams.

Road maintenance and reconstruction would occur pre- and post-project under this alternative, on just over 100 miles of existing Forest Service road including paved and graveled sections of the Wind River Highway (FR 30), Curly Creek Road, and Forest Service Roads 31, 32, 54, 57, 58, 64, and 90. Secondary routes include Forest Service roads: 3103, 3105, 3107, 3211, 3220, 5407, 5814, 6406, and 6507. Maintenance and reconstruction covers a wide range of activities including: brushing, ditch cleaning, placing aggregate, grading the road surface, road widening, culvert installation and drainage repair. These activities would occur to a greater or lesser extent on each of the roads identified for haul, based on specific conditions of the road. Plans for maintenance and reconstruction of roads in the planning area are detailed in the Swift Thin Road Package, developed by Mt Adams District Engineering, and are part of the project record. Road maintenance and reconstruction would occur during summer months, and would result in ground disturbance that would create conditions for erosion and potential delivery of sediment to streams.

125 Swift Thin

Because this work would be done in the dry summer months, little actual sediment delivery would occur during the work period, except from dust created by use of equipment. Most of the sediment delivery from reconstruction and maintenance would occur during the fall as precipitation mobilizes the loose soil particles in roadside ditches and on the road surface. During the first significant runoff event of the fall, there would be substantial flushing of sediments from road surfaces and roadside ditches into streams and ditch relief culverts. Based on research conducted elsewhere in the state of Washington, turbidity and suspended sediment levels would climb rapidly as ditchflow begins to occur during the first fall freshet, but would then rapidly decline as roads and ditches are essentially cleaned by the precipitation and runoff (Reid 1981, Reid and Dunne 1984, Bilby 1985).

Each successively larger runoff event through the winter would move additional fine material generated from the roadwork into the stream. After the first wet season following construction activities, turbidity increases stemming from the road maintenance and reconstruction work would return to background levels.

Temporary roads and landings would be constructed or reconstructed, and later rehabilitated under this alternative. Approximately 31 miles of temporary road and 870 landings would together occupy some 183 acres of land that would be compacted or recompacted as part of the construction / reconstruction process ( Table 37). Erosion from these construction activities would be similar to what was described in the previous section for road maintenance and reconstruction. However, temporary roads and landings are typically not constructed with ditches, and as such are less likely to be connected to streams through surface channels. As a result, eroded materials from these features would be less likely to get delivered to streams and more likely to run into the forest through undeveloped paths.

Table 37. Sediment Sources. Existing Temp New Total Roads to System New Temp Ground- Acres in be Road Skyline Road Based Temp Subwatershed Name Recon- Construc- Landings Construc- Landings Roads structed tion (no.) tion (miles) (no.) and and/or (miles) Landings Re-used (miles) Headwaters Wind 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 7 2 Dry Creek 0.3 0.5 0.0 6 12 4 Trapper Cr--Wind River 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2 0 Big Creek 0.1 0.1 0.0 17 16 7 Cussed Hollow--Lewis River 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Rush Creek 1.7 5.6 0.1 88 61 40 Curly Creek 0.8 2.7 0.9 23 25 15 Little Creek-Lewis River 0.0 3.4 0.0 15 10 10 Upper Swift Reservoir 0.0 0.5 0.0 0 14 3 Drift Creek 1.3 3.8 0.0 32 126 31 Upper Siouxon Cr 2.1 5.2 0.0 47 261 55 Lower Siouxon Cr 0.8 0.4 0.0 0 97 14 Upper Canyon Cr 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 2 1

126 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Lower Canyon Cr 0.1 0.2 0.0 0 5 1 Totals 7.4 23.2 1.0 231 638 183

Rehabilitation of temporary roads and landings would include removal of culverts that serve live streams, and decompaction of the road and landing surfaces. Culvert removal would be done to eliminate the potential for culvert plugging and subsequent failure, and in recognition of the fact that these roads would not receive any maintenance or field review after their use for this project. Decompaction of the road or landing surface would be done using an excavator or other means of breaking through the compacted surface without creating linear features as is done with typical pull-behind rippers. Decompaction would be focused on the upper 18” of the earth surface, with the intent of facilitating water infiltration to the ground, and discouraging overland water flow which can cause gully formation and increased surface soil erosion.

Approximately 183 acres of land used for temporary roads and landings would be decompacted after use on this project. Decompaction of the road or landing surface exposes the loosened earth material to erosion by raindrop impact and surface flow. Mulch or forest debris would be applied to the decompacted surfaces to limit the amount of erosion from direct rainfall impact, and contract requirements would ensure that linear features are not created during decompaction, that would potentially channel surface water and lead to development of gullies. As decompaction is completed, water is more likely to infiltrate the ground instead of running over the hardened road surface. As a result, the persistent transport of eroded sediments from temporary road and landing surfaces would be decreased by the rehabilitation efforts.

Removal of culverts is more likely to cause direct sediment introduction to the stream, because this activity involves substantial ground disturbance in close proximity to the stream. On culverts serving perennial streams, sediment delivery would occur both at the time the work is conducted, and again in the fall and winter months when the site receives its first series of precipitation and runoff events. For intermittent streams that are dry during construction activities, sediment would be generated during project work, but would not be delivered downstream until the site is rewatered during fall or winter periods of precipitation and runoff.

These effects, occurring either during construction (for perennial streams) or in subsequent periods of storm runoff, would be relatively short term pulses of high turbidity and sediment movement in the impacted streams. Past experience with culvert removals on road decommissions has shown that turbidity levels increase rapidly as culverts are removed and material from around the culverts is eroded. As transportable material is removed from the site, the turbidity levels decrease rapidly to near pre-project levels.

Stream crossings would be reconstructed and later decommissioned on temporary roads accessing previously harvested land. This alternative would re-use old logging roads wherever possible instead of building new road. Where necessary, stream crossings on these abandoned roads would be re-used, and in some cases this would require reconstruction of the crossing. Following use for this project, the stream crossings and the rest of these temporary roads would be decommissioned. Crossings will be re-used and may require some level of reconstruction in stands listed in Table 38.

Table 38. Stream crossings on temporary roads. Number of Stream Stand Number Crossings on Temp Roads

127 Swift Thin

102720 1 102733 2 102741 1 103023 1 103274 1 103274 2 103626 1 103743 1 103758 1 Total for Planning Area: 10

Reconstruction of temporary stream crossings may entail anything from clearing an existing road of vegetation where a culvert or other crossing structure already exists, to requiring installation of a culvert or other crossing structure where the old crossing has been removed or is not salvageable for use. Decommissioning would involve removing non-native materials from the crossing including culverts and any fill that was used around them, and shaping streambanks back to approximate the natural channel. Work occurring at stream crossings provides one of the most direct opportunities for sediment to be introduced to streams because the pathway for delivery to the stream is short and directly aided by gravity. Because temporary road crossings are not designed, engineered, or overseen by an engineer, and because specifications regarding construction of these crossings are limited within the timber sale contract, there is a wider range of end results from these activities than from crossings built under a designed road construction contract. As a result there is less certainty about the outcomes of this work. For crossings that need only to have vegetation removed from the road surface before the crossing can be re-used, there would be little ground disturbance, and little risk of sediment production from reconstruction of the crossing. For those crossings that require installation of a culvert or other structure, the stream bed, banks and approaches to the crossing would be disturbed both during installation and during removal. Sediment delivery would occur during each of these events (i.e. during summer months), and again in fall and winter when precipitation begins and streamflows increase. Sediment delivery from reconstructing and decommissioning temporary road crossings may persist for extended periods if the crossing remains in place longer than intended or if the channel is damaged during removal.

Log haul would occur on approximately 120 miles of FS system roads, including both paved and unpaved roads under this alternative. Log haul requiring travel on unpaved roads would be limited to the dry season to minimize sediment production and delivery to streams. On paved roads, wet season haul would have little effect on sediment production because the road surface is a solid mass that helps disperse the load of log truck traffic and that separates vehicle traffic from the ground, limiting movement of fine sediments from the road subgrade up to the road surface. Wet season haul on unpaved roads would cause much higher rates of sediment delivery than dry season haul, because of the availability of water for transporting sediments, and because once road subgrades have been wetted, they can produce fine particulates that migrate to the road surface where they get flushed into adjacent ditches and streams. In a sediment modeling analysis conducted for the Tee Timber Sale, year-round haul was estimated to generate twice the sediment that would come from summer-only haul (USDA 2006).

Because haul will be restricted to dry seasons (July – September—with some exceptions), sediment from log haul will be minimized under this alternative. Dry season haul would generate minor amounts of sediment delivery during haul activities, but would create dust that would fall in and around haul roads and streams they cross. During subsequent precipitation events, this material would be subject to entrainment in surface wash off roads and roadside ditches, and transported to streams.

128 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Roadside ditches form the avenue of conveyance for turbid water to reach streams. Ditches are drained at some spacing along roads either by ditch relief culverts or live streams. Some ditch relief culverts do not deliver sediment to streams because they discharge to unchanneled and forested slopes where water can infiltrate the ground surface and/or sediment can be filtered and dropped out of suspension. Various studies have been done to assess the relative connectedness of relief culverts and streams with respect to sediment delivery, and the results have been wide ranging. In addition to differences based on the land slope and frequency of ditch relief culverts on a road, the degree of connectivity of road drainage to streams at any given location changes based on the intensity and duration of the runoff event, and the size of sediments entrained in the culvert discharge. Data are not available for this planning are to characterize the specific connectivity of roadside ditches to streams, but it is likely that roads in the more steeply incised portions of the planning area are more likely connected to streams more frequently as a result of the higher drainage density and shorter distance between streams.

Cumulative Effects Sediment effects described above can be additive and cumulative with sediments produced and delivered from similar activities occurring in the past in these watersheds, as well as those activities occurring concurrent with this project. Roads in the planning area have been, and are likely to continue being the largest persistent source of anthropogenically-influenced sediment delivery to streams draining this area. Numerous roads in these watersheds are in poor and deteriorating condition, and poorly maintained roads can be some of the largest sources of sediment because drainage issues do not get corrected or improved in a timely manner.

Implementation of this project will result in both positive and negative effects to road-related sediment generation and delivery from haul roads in the planning area. Haul roads represent about 20 percent of the total mileage of roads in the planning area. Improvements (reductions) in sediment delivery will result from the overdue maintenance that would be completed on those roads under this project, along with the drainage repair, and culvert upgrades that are proposed. Each of these activities may result in small amounts of sediment delivery during construction activities, but over the long term would be expected to reduce the annual sediment production from treated roads.

Conversely, implementation of the project would substantially increase heavy truck traffic on planning area roads, and in this way would be expected to increase surface erosion and sediment delivery from haul roads during and shortly after periods of haul. With appropriate pre- and post-haul road maintenance as required in the timber sale contract, the net cumulative effect of this project will be a short term increase in sediment production coincident with logging activities and subsequent precipitation. This would be followed by a long term decrease in sediment delivery from existing levels on haul roads, as they are returned to an improved condition.

Riparian and Aquatic Habitats

Background Riparian areas represent some of the most diverse and dynamic habitats in the planning area due to the influence of streams and other aquatic features on soil moisture, humidity, and transfers of energy, forest and stream materials. Riparian Reserves are located around all aquatic features within the Swift Thin planning area. Riparian Reserves were established in the Northwest Forest Plan to protect and highlight the importance of riparian areas as one of four components comprising the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

129 Swift Thin

Optimal forest conditions in Riparian Reserves would include a range of tree sizes, densities and species to provide rich and diverse inputs to the aquatic system in terms of leaf litter and wood. Stand diversity would be high to provide resilience to changing climate. Riparian areas would have deep and multi-level canopies to provide shade to streams throughout the day and across seasons, and to help maintain microclimate within the riparian area. Deeper forest canopies would provide a range of habitats for epiphytes and would allow for development of large branches in the lower canopy which would be used for nesting platforms. Large and small wood would be abundant on the forest floor and in streams, lakes and wetlands to form and diversify microsites and provide habitat for aquatic and riparian dependent species. The forest floor in these riparian areas would be layered with organic material and would have infiltration rates well above the rate of precipitation and snowmelt inputs, so overland flow of runoff would not be apparent.

Riparian Reserves are those areas where riparian dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where the protection and enhancement of those resources guides the scope and intensity of management activities. Under the Northwest Forest Plan, activities conducted in Riparian Reserves must maintain or improve conditions there for aquatic and riparian dependent species. The challenge for conducting silvicultural or other treatments within Riparian Reserves is to ensure that existing habitat in streams and riparian areas is protected in the short term while working to improve habitats throughout the Reserve over the long term.

Shade Shade is important in all riparian areas to help maintain the temperature, humidity and soil moisture levels that are intrinsic to functional riparian communities. Shade is particularly important to perennial streams or other year-round surface water, where water temperatures can be influenced by the amount of direct solar radiation incident on the water surface. Trout and other fish native to streams in the planning area require cold water for survival. Washington State Department of Ecology has developed water quality standards specific to maximum water temperatures to protect fish that use those streams. Riparian areas proposed for thinning as part of this project were clearcut several decades ago, leaving streams and other aquatic features with little or no shade for some period of time. Plantations have since grown to where they now provide substantial shade over many of the streams and other aquatic features. Water temperatures have been measured at various locations in the planning area, and have identified some streams as meeting state water quality standards, and others not. Rush Creek is notable for its cold temperatures throughout the year, as a result of a substantial contribution of groundwater to that system. Higher water temperatures are found in the Lewis River, and Siouxon Creek in particular during late summer months. Although the source of those high temperatures has not been identified definitively, it is likely due to a mix of factors including exposure of the stream surface to solar radiation in later summer, some of which may be a result of riparian forests that have not yet returned to a condition in which they can provide full shade to the streams.

Thinning does not benefit shade or water temperature except where it acts to deepen the forest canopy and provide multiple canopies, which is a relatively minor positive effect. The more substantive effect of thinning is to open the forest canopy with potential to increase solar radiation reaching the stream, and thereby increase water temperatures. The intent of this project with respect to shade is to protect all trees in the primary shade zone of perennial aquatic features, and to thin trees in areas outside of that to encourage accelerated growth and development of canopy cover. The primary shade zone as described in the Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy (USDA and USDI 2010) provides shade throughout the day to the stream, and is the only vegetation providing shade from 1000- 1400 hrs, the peak solar loading hours of the day.

Based on the range of slope angles, tree densities and tree size conditions in the planning area, the primary shade zone is considered to be 60 feet wide for this project. Therefore, all perennial water bodies

130 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest have a minimum 60-foot no-cut buffer along their margins, where no thinning would occur. On intermittent streams, no buffer would be required specifically for shade because these features have no surface water during the warmest and driest times of the year when water temperature is of concern.

Down wood (instream and riparian) Down wood in riparian areas and streams is a critical component of high quality habitat for fish and riparian dependent species. Wood on the ground in riparian areas provides microhabitats and substrate for riparian plants and animals including those that would become food for fish. Wood in streams provides physical integrity to the streambed and banks, modifies flow hydraulics to create pools and sort sediments, and provides habitat and cover for fish and other aquatic organisms. Wood of all sizes can be important to instream processes and habitat. Larger streams generally need larger wood to provide the same function that smaller wood provides to small streams. Larger diameter wood typically provides more stable and long term function due to its mass, but can also bridge over smaller streams for longer time periods, and in that way not interact with the stream as quickly as smaller wood. Stream surveys completed in this planning area have consistently found instream wood levels to be less than desired. Down wood deficits result largely from past logging and--in the case of instream wood levels-- associated stream cleanout projects.

Most streams in or adjacent to Swift Thin treatment units are too small to be able to transport appreciable size or quantity of woody debris from upstream sources via fluvial processes, so replenishment of instream wood has not occurred by that process. The planning area is also relatively stable with the exception of large deep-seated movement toward the Lewis River, and smaller areas of surface instability on the western portion of the planning area, so accumulation of trees and woody materials that might otherwise be expected to enter streams through mass wasting processes has also not occurred to any large extent. As a result, the overwhelming majority of wood delivered to these systems must come from stream-adjacent riparian areas. Yet since the time these riparian areas were logged and streams were cleared of wood, there has been little or no availability of wood to the stream because source material no longer existed onsite. Only more recently have these stands developed to include tree densities and sizes that they can begin contributing wood to the streams and riparian areas to restore this critical habitat component.

Thinning of riparian forests can be beneficial to restoring down and instream wood characteristics in riparian areas by increasing the rate of diameter growth of remaining trees, and in that way producing larger material available to the stream and riparian area when those trees fall. Diameter of wood in streams and riparian areas is important because larger diameter material is more persistent and durable in the environment, and can provide longer lasting and more robust habitat features. However, smaller diameter wood is also beneficial, and if replenished at some frequency can serve many of the same purposes, and--particularly in smaller streams--can be equally effective at sediment storage, modifying flow hydraulics, sorting substrate, and providing cover.

Although forest thinning can incrementally increase diameter growth of remaining trees, it also reduces the number of trees in the stand, and the number that would be available to come into the stream or to fall on the ground in the riparian area. The reduction in number of trees available comes about from the direct removal of trees during thinning, but also as an indirect effect of reducing competition for resources in the stand, and thereby reducing mortality.

Modeling of stand development processes with and without thinning was done on the Peppercat Timber Sale (USDA 2010). Results indicate that there would be no immediate change on woody debris levels between a thinned and unthinned stand. But over the course of the next several decades there could be 30-50 percent less down wood in the thinned stand as compared to the unthinned stand.

131 Swift Thin

Based on existing tree diameters within Swift Thin treatment units and the relatively small size of streams found in or adjacent to many of these stands, it is clear that the existing tree sizes in these stands are capable of providing short term functionality in the small streams that run through them. While there is still a need to produce larger material over time, the marginal increase in diameter growth from thinning must be weighed against the need to retain an adequate number of trees onsite to provide a continuous supply of wood to the riparian area and streams.

The intent in this project with respect to down and instream wood is two-fold. First to retain a higher density of trees along streams and other aquatic features that will ensure a continuous supply of wood to the stream and inner riparian area. This high density core needs to contain enough trees beyond the minimum stocking level to make up for the existing shortage of down wood, and to continue providing wood to the stream and inner riparian area for the next several decades. The second part of this strategy is to thin riparian areas outside of these inner cores but within a tree height of the stream, to promote increased diameter growth there and to provide a supply of larger trees for future recruitment to the riparian and stream areas.

To that end, the project would leave an untreated forest buffer along all streams, and that buffer would be expected to be the primary source of wood inputs to the stream over the next several decades. Minimum no-cut buffers of 100 feet would be left on all fishbearing and major perennial streams. For smaller perennials and intermittent streams, no-cut strips of 60 feet would be left to provide source wood for the next several decades.

Canopy Litter Productivity in stream channels is driven largely by inputs of organic matter from adjacent forest vegetation. Healthy and robust habitats include a wide array of materials coming in at different times of year, and with different textures, mobility and nutrient makeup. Fish and other aquatic organisms rely— directly or indirectly—on these rich and diverse inputs of forest litter. Riparian Reserves should be managed to provide a complex and varied source of vegetative inputs to streams and other aquatic features to provide the foundation for a strong and resilient food base.

Litter inputs to streams in the planning area come from a somewhat simplified range of sources, due to the single species planting that often occurred on past harvest units, and the single canopy layer, which may limit the actual volume of material as well as the diversity of it.

Water Quality and Sediment Delivery Sediment is one of the most important water quality parameters in forest streams because of its potential effect on fish and other forms of aquatic life. Streams draining the Swift Thin planning area support resident and anadromous fish, and other aquatic life and contribute flow to the Lewis and Wind Rivers. State water quality standards establish required levels of protection for water quality, and generally these are met in logging operations through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s). Most of the stands scheduled for treatment in this project were logged 40-60 years ago using ground- based logging equipment. Based on the equipment and logging methods of the time, there would have been substantial disturbance of the ground surface, and subsequent erosion during periods of rain and snowmelt runoff. Since that time, these stands have had several decades to re-establish ground cover from live and dead organic matter which protects the soil from direct impact erosion and from surface wash. Other than specific erosional problems within these stands related to access roads, stream crossings or locations where streams were diverted out of their channels, there is little evidence of erosion occurring today. Locations where there are site specific erosional features have been identified and may be treated by this or related projects to restore proper drainage and reduce sediment production and delivery to the aquatic network.

132 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Thinning riparian forests does not provide any substantive benefits to water quality or sediment processes, so the intent of this project with respect to water quality and sediment is simply to protect water quality from the effects of thinning operations. One of the more effective BMP’s for protecting water quality from the effects of logging-generated sediment is to provide a no-cut forested buffer between the areas of active timber cutting and yarding and any aquatic feature. Research in the Pacific Northwest has shown that on landforms similar to those found in the Swift Thin project area, a no-cut buffer and logging setback of 30 feet can prevent sediment delivery to streams from about 95 percent of harvest-related erosion features, assuming the presence of an undisturbed no-cut buffer between the logging activities and stream. (Rashin et al 2006). The Swift Thin project will maintain and improve water quality by avoiding disturbance of soils in the immediate vicinity of aquatic features and retaining a no-cut buffer between ground disturbing activities and aquatic features.

No-cut buffer widths to protect water quality are best determined on a site-by-site basis, and are dependent on ground slope and drainage of soils in the riparian area. In lieu of site-by-site analysis, a minimum no-cut buffer of 30 feet from all aquatic features would minimally protect aquatic resources from sediment delivery from logging activities. These buffers may be increased where necessary to account for local conditions and in consideration of soil water content during the expected season of logging.

Soils Riparian areas are typically found at the lowest point on the slope, so tend to accumulate colluvium through creep, saltation or landslide activity on slopes above them. At the lowest point on the landscape, they also are a collection point for organic litter and the combination of these processes can develop deep, productive soils along streams and other aquatic features. Activities occurring in the riparian area can compact or displace these soils such that they end up in streams, ponds or wetlands where they can degrade water quality and fish habitat. While episodic release of soils, along with rock, boulders, and trees is an important disturbance process in riparian areas that helps build and replenish stream habitat components, chronic input of just the fine material is not beneficial to the aquatic network, and reduces the quality of remaining soil layers.

The planning area includes a wide range of soil depths and levels of development. Because of the relatively gentle slopes in much of this planning area, there are numerous areas where water is at least temporarily held on the surface of the ground in wetlands or ponds. Soil moisture in the vicinity of these features is often higher than surrounding areas. Water content in the soil typically declines moving away from the aquatic feature, but the rate of attenuation is highly variable and our ability to identify the “edge” of wetter soils and to mark it on the ground is limited. Because of higher soil moisture in the vicinity of features containing surface water, soils in those areas are sensitive to compaction, displacement, channelization and subsequent erosion if artificially disturbed.

Forest thinning does little to benefit soil development or retention, but the operation of heavy equipment and yarding of trees can be detrimental to soils and nearby waters if there is erosion. The objective of this project within riparian areas is to protect soils, particularly those in proximity to wetlands, vernal pools and ponds. Over the long term, retain and build soils in place and at their highest productivity to provide growing medium for riparian vegetation and to protect water quality from chronic erosion inputs of soil materials. In that way, future releases caused by landslides, debris flows or other forms of mass wasting can include a complex array of inputs to the stream.

For soil retention and development there would be no setback off aquatic features because the thinning itself is not detrimental to soils. For logging equipment there would be a 60-foot minimum setback from perennial and fishbearing streams to protect soils near those aquatic features.

133 Swift Thin

Microclimate Microclimate of riparian areas is responsible in large part for the vegetative character of these areas, and for creating conditions that support riparian-dependent plant and animal communities. Changes in air temperature regimes, relative humidity, solar radiation or soil moisture in riparian areas can influence what plants and animals are able to survive there. Forest cover, canopy and tree bole density are important for maintaining microclimate due to their effects on limiting air exchange and direct exposure to the sky in riparian areas. Because there is an edge effect associated with this element, microclimate at any given location is influenced by canopy density overhead but also at some horizontal distance away. No-cut buffers applied to water bodies in the planning area are intended to protect microclimate in the inner riparian areas, and vary on a site-by-site basis.

No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects This alternative would take no actions in Riparian Reserves and would have no direct effects to riparian forests or Riparian Reserves. Without thinning, riparian forests would continue to develop along the same trajectory they are currently on. Tree growth would continue at current rates in the near term, continuing to emphasize increased height over girth as they compete for sunlight.

In the absence of thinning, natural forest growth, succession and disturbance processes would ultimately reduce the density of trees and create increasingly patchy stands within Riparian Reserves. As this occurred, more sunlight would penetrate the forest canopy, stand differentiation would increase, and understory would develop and diversify. Because these are stochastic processes, the length of time required for this to occur is undetermined and likely to be highly variable across the planning area and among stands. Development of old growth characteristics in these stands could be protracted in some cases and facilitated in others, depending on the sequence and severity of disturbances, weather patterns, and succession processes.

In the meanwhile and until such time as these stands went through processes of self-thinning, live crown ratios would decline as tree heights increase and as lower branches die off due to the lack of light under the upper canopy. Understory trees and shrubs would be increasingly impacted by the lack of light coming through an increasingly dense overstory canopy. Development of large old branches along the tree bole that are important for wildlife and botanical species would be limited as a result of the self- pruning.

Under this alternative, the indirect effects described above would be additive and cumulative with riparian forests elsewhere in the planning area that have similar logging history.

Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Thinning of Riparian Reserves under this alternative will have a mix of direct, indirect and cumulative effects. By thinning Riparian Reserves, this alternative would open riparian forests to increased solar radiation, would reduce competition amongst overstocked stands dominated by douglas fir trees, and as a result would enhance the growth rate of remaining trees, and in particular would develop additional girth on remaining trees. Thinning would also encourage development of understory trees, shrubs and ground cover, and by targeted thinning would promote diversification of overstory species within treated Riparian Reserves. These enhancements to the Riparian Reserves may come about in the absence of active management, but the timing would be unpredictable, variable, and possibly would not occur for long periods.

134 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Removal of trees from the riparian area will also directly reduce the number of trees that might otherwise become available as sources of instream wood, snags or down wood in riparian areas in the future, and would remove existing sources of leaf litter to streams. Removal of forest canopy and biomass would indirectly permit changes in microclimate where treatments occur and along the forested edges of those treatments, particularly in those stands where heavy thinning is proposed. In anticipation of those effects, no-cut buffers have been prescribed for each aquatic feature to minimize the negative effects of thinning on riparian conditions.

As this project treats just 1 percent of the Riparian Reserves in the planning area, the geographic scope of the effects described is limited. However, similar treatments in similar riparian areas within and outside of the planning area would allow for an accumulation of effects of this type. At this time, there have not been treatment of riparian areas in this vicinity on a scale that would suggest detectable negative or positive cumulative effects are occurring.

Analysis Table 39 summarizes the amount of treatment proposed for Riparian Reserves. Following the table are discussion of various parameters served by Riparian Reserves, and how they would be affected by thinning.

Table 39. Riparian Reserves. Riparian Riparian Total Reserves Reserves Proportion of Riparian Proposed for Proposed for Subwatershed Name Riparian Reserves Reserves Normal Heavy Affected (%) (Acres) Thinning Thinning (Acres) (Acres) Headwaters Wind 7920 0 0 0.0% Dry Creek 4006 7 3 0.3% Trapper Cr--Wind River 10539 0 0 0.0% Big Creek 4734 12 0 0.3% Cussed Hollow--Lewis R 8418 0 0 0.0% Rush Creek 4421 66 75 3.2% Curly Creek 4037 40 0 1.0% Little Creek-Lewis R 6665 1 4 0.1% Upper Swift Reservoir 2502 0 0 0.0% Drift Creek 4911 54 21 1.6% Upper Siouxon Cr 4579 60 84 3.1% Lower Siouxon Cr 3263 16 33 1.5% Upper Canyon Cr 4260 0 0 0.0% Lower Canyon Cr 3255 0 0 0.0% Total 73511 257 220 0.7%

Shade Because no thinning would occur in proximity to perennial surface streams or water bodies, there would be no change to shade on those features (see Water Temperature section of this report). Shade levels elsewhere within Riparian Reserves would be reduced by thinning of the forest canopy as proposed under this alternative. The proposed action would thin a total of 483 acres of Riparian Reserve, with

135 Swift Thin approximately 53 percent of that thinning resulting in canopy cover of between 40 and 60 percent. The balance of riparian thinning would result in canopy cover in the range of 30-40 percent.

The reduction in shade within Riparian Reserves would be greatest in the stands treated with the heavy thinning prescription (30-40 percent canopy cover) and less for those stands thinned to 40-60 percent canopy cover. The reduced shade in treated stands would persist until such time as the canopies of remaining trees grow into and occupy the canopy openings created by thinning. Assuming a recovery rate of 2 percent canopy cover per year after thinning, stands thinned to regular density would require 15 to 20 years to return to the same canopy cover density that exists today, and heavily thinned stands would require 25 years. Shade would increase incrementally on the site each year during that recovery period. Reductions in shade within Riparian Reserves would increase growth of understory vegetation by allowing increased solar radiation, but may also allow some drying of the soil during summer months. Soils closest to water bodies are likely to have the greatest water content, to support more hydrophytic vegetation and to be most vulnerable to changes in shade. Thinning setbacks required on all aquatic features should help protect these moister soils from drying as a result of shade loss.

Water Quality Effects of the project on water quality are described elsewhere in this report.

Down Wood Large wood that currently exists within stream channels would not be directly affected by this project unless it is increased by intentional or inadvertent placement or felling of trees to the stream. There is no other work intended to occur within stream channels that would modify levels of instream woody debris levels. Down wood on the ground outside of stream channels would not be directly affected by the project except that existing down wood may be crushed or damaged during yarding activities.

Over time, the number of trees and logs recruited to the stream and riparian forest floor would increase as higher density stands in the unthinned core of Riparian Reserves experience competition-related mortality and windthrow. At the same time, recruitment of trees from the outer (thinned) portion of the Reserves would decrease because there would be fewer trees in that area, and because the remaining trees would likely be more robust due to the decreased competition.

Modeling of stand development done for the Peppercat Thin project on the GPNF suggested that thinning would have no effect on down wood levels in the first 20 yrs following treatment, but that 100 years after thinning, a thinned stand could have 30-50 percent less down wood than an unthinned stand in the absence of disturbance. Because disturbance is anticipated in the next century, down wood levels are expected to decline by a lesser amount in thinned parts of the Riparian Reserves. The decrease in numbers of down logs would be partially offset by an increase in the quality (diameter) of the recruited logs. Also, the denser core of the Riparian Reserve that is left unthinned, would be expected to produce higher quantities of (smaller diameter) down wood during this same time period, as competition there continues to influence health and vigor of the trees.

Soils Effects of the project on soils are described in a separate section.

Forest Litter Thinning setbacks of 60 to 100 feet along all streams would ensure that litter from forest immediately adjacent to those streams would continue unimpeded by this project. Outside of the unthinned setbacks, thinned portions of the Riparian Reserve would be expected to produce less litter in the short term due to the loss of vegetative mass in those areas. Over longer time frames, thinning would promote increased understory vegetation, increased plant diversity, development of a secondary canopy, and would lead to

136 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest increased depth in the remaining forest canopy. As this occurs, the amount, quality and diversity of organic litter available from thinned portions of the Riparian Reserves would increase.

Microclimate Thinning would reduce the amount of shade and the density of tree boles in Riparian Reserves, making the Reserves more easily penetrated by solar radiation, and facilitating changes in air temperature and relative humidity. Riparian Reserves in the planning area would be affected by implementation of this alternative, but unthinned buffers left along all aquatic features are intended to limit the extent to which microclimate near the riparian core is affected by thinning.

Research in various forest environments on the Pacific Northwest has shown that air temperature, soil temperature and relative humidity in riparian areas typically differs from that found in upland forest, and differs significantly from conditions found in forest openings. A study in western Washington found that buffer widths of at least 140 feet were necessary to maintain natural riparian microclimate along the edge of a clearcut (Brosofske et al. 1997). Research in western Oregon indicates that there is significant influence of the stream extending about 75 ft outward from stream center, and that microclimate gradients get steeper the closer you get to the stream (Chan et al. 2004).

In the DEMO study located on the Gifford Pinchot and Umpqua National Forests, canopy retention of 15 percent was not found to be significantly better than a clearcut in terms of protecting microclimate (Heithecker and Halpern 2006). This study indicated that 40 percent canopy retention would provide similar levels of shade as the uncut forest, and that air temperatures in a stand with 40 percent canopy retention were significantly different from those in a forest opening. The same study found that 40 percent canopy retention did not provide significant protection for changes in soil temperature. Other studies in western Oregon found that among stands thinned to various densities, microclimates on average were not significantly different (Anderson et al. 2007).

Thinning setbacks proposed under this alternative are intended to retain a dense inner forest core within Riparian Reserves to protect the microclimate in the vicinity nearest the stream. Thinning would occur outside of that area at a level that minimizes intrusion of upland air masses and microclimate conditions into the core riparian area. On those stands proposed for heavy thinning under this alternative, thinning setbacks were increased to provide a larger buffer against changes to microclimate that might otherwise come with the more open conditions expected in the heavily thinned stands.

Over the long term, thinning under this alternative may improve microclimate in Riparian Reserves by increasing overstory canopy depth and initiating a secondary canopy. As a thicker and more diverse canopy is developed and more of the vertical space within Riparian Reserves is occupied by vegetative biomass, air exchange with areas outside the Reserves would be impeded and the stream-influenced microclimate would be further protected. In the short term, mid-day air and soil temperatures within thinned portions of the Riparian Reserves would rise, relative humidities would decline, and shade would decrease under this alternative. The changes would be of relatively small magnitude on those stands thinned to average 50 percent canopy cover, and would be greater for those stands thinned to average 35 percent canopy. Microclimate changes at the inner core of Riparian Reserves would be minimized by maintenance of all vegetation within the unthined buffers. There would be some intrusion of upland conditions along the edge where the unthinned portion of the Reserve abuts the thinned portion.

Aquatic Species It is expected that the Swift project will have no effect on:  Federally-listed (threatened) fish species, namely: Columbia River bull trout, Lower Columbia River steelhead trout, Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River coho salmon;

137 Swift Thin

 Critical Habitat for bull trout;  Proposed Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River coho salmon;  Management Indicator Species Group 1 (steelhead trout/cutthroat trout) and Group 2 (bull trout);  Essential Fish Habitat for coho and Chinook;  Any federal- or state-designated sensitive fish species (see Table 32).

For the Wind River watershed, there are no effects expected to ESA-listed fish, Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, or Management Indicator Species because there are only portions of five small thinning units within the Wind River watershed and these are located in ridge-top, headwater areas. The proposed project activities associated with these Wind River watershed units (i.e. timber thinning, landing creation/usage/restoration, log haul on unpaved roads, road-related work) would be occurring at least one mile upstream of any of ESA-listed fish, MIS fish, proposed and designated Critical Habitat, or EFH. Likewise, there are no effects expected to these fish species of concern or fish habitat designations in the Yale Reservoir-Lewis River and Merwin Reservoir-Lewis River watersheds because the nearest project activities that have any causal mechanism to affect fish or fish habitat would be occurring at least one mile upstream. Lastly, there are no fish species designated as sensitive in any of the watersheds that are part of the Swift Thin Sale action area.

This project is not expected to have any direct effects to listed fish (eg. injury or mortality from human handling or from contact with felled trees or heavy equipment) and the potential indirect effects are expected to be discountable4 and insignificant5 to fish species of concern and fish habitat designations both adjacent to and downstream of the activities associated with the Swift Thin project. This is due to two factors. The primary factor is the location of the timber units and their associated landings and temporary roads, the road surfacing on the haul routes, the location of the roadwork associated with these haul routes, and the type and locations of the additional proposed restoration actions in relation to fish species of concern and fish habitat designations within the Swift Thin project area. The secondary factor for the no effect determinations are the mitigation measures and design features that will be implemented throughout the sale area, but particularly in and near timber units and haul routes that are within one mile of ESA-listed fish, MIS fish, proposed and designated Critical Habitat, and EFH.

Effects determinations for the project elements associated with the Swift Thin Sale were based largely using the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Level 1 Team’s “Supplemental Guidance for Evaluating the Effects of Commercial Thinning and Timber Haul-Road Activities to Federally-Listed Salmon, Steelhead, and bull Trout” (See Appendix C) (USDA, USDC, USDI 2010) and using NOAA’s “Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale” (USDC 1996).

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective Compliance

No Action Under this alternative there would be no action, no change to riparian areas or aquatic features, and no effect on Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.

4 Definition of “discountable” from USFWS Section 7 Consultation Technical Assistance webpage: Discountable means extremely unlikely to occur. 5 Definition of “insignificant” from USFWS Section 7 Consultation Technical Assistance webpage: Insignificant effects are responses that are incapable of being detected, measured, or evaluated. This analysis related to the amount or extent of the impact. If the impact will likely be negative but the consequences are so minute that a person could not measure or detect such responses, then it is appropriate to conclude insignificant effects.

138 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Proposed Action Objective 1: Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted.

The proposed action is expected to maintain the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed scale features. It accelerates development of late seral conditions in forest plantations by enhancing growth of tree diameters and live crowns in previously harvested stands. Moderate-retention regeneration harvests represent less than one tenth of one percent of the planning area, and less than one percent of the area in any given subwatershed. As noted in the Hydrology report, forest stands in the planning area are in aggregate considered 90% hydrologically recovered from past timber harvest. The effect of the current proposal for regeneration harvest would be so small as to be discountable to forest cover function at the landscape or subwatershed scale. The distribution of forest cover following this treatment would be consistent with the range of forest cover conditions occurring in this area prior to timber harvest, due to natural disturbances such as wildfire, disease pockets, mass wasting and/or blowdown events. At the subwatershed and watershed scales, these regeneration treatments would maintain the distribution, diversity and complexity of watershed and landscape scale features.

Objective 2: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

The proposed action maintains spatial connectivity in the short term by retaining unthinned buffers along all streams, and may enhance connectivity in the long term by creating increased structural and species diversity in treated portions of Riparian Reserves. Regeneration harvest is not proposed for any Riparian Reserves, so those corridors would not be affected by early seral proposals. As described in Objective 1, the scale of early seral treatments across the planning area is small enough that there would be no effect to landscape or drainage scale connectivity.

Objective 3: Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

The physical integrity of the aquatic system is maintained under this alternative by maintaining equipment setbacks from streams, retaining an unthinned buffer along streams and other water bodies, and limiting stream crossings.

Objective 4: Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

No harvest buffer widths would protect trees that produce shade and maintain instream temperatures of creeks within and adjacent to timber units. Therefore, the water quality would remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the aquatic system, which would benefit the survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing the aquatic and riparian communities.

139 Swift Thin

Objective 5: Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

Best management practices have been incorporated in the project design to minimize soil erosion and delivery of sediment to streams. Actions taken to improve existing drainage problems and to decommission existing roads would improve water quality and reduce production of fine sediments in planning area streams.

Objective 6: Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

The project is not expected to change peak or base flows in planning area streams because of the advanced recovery of previously harvested stands in the planning area, and because thinning prescriptions on the bulk of stands leave 40-60 percent canopy cover after treatment. Timing, magnitude duration and spatial distribution of current flow levels would be maintained.

Objective 7: Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

The project does not affect the hydrology of floodplains, wetlands or meadows, so would maintain the timing, variability and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation.

Objective 8: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Riparian thinning would promote the development of late seral characteristics within the timber stands. These late seral characteristics would provide thermal regulation. The untreated buffers on aquatic features provide an adequate area for sediment transport interception, diverse riparian plant community protection, and increased tree growth. The increased tree growth would provide future course wood for the riparian forest floor and stream. The project requires untreated buffers along all riparian stream corridors and wetlands. These buffers encompass diverse plant communities, protect current shading levels for thermal regulation, protect stream banks from operational disturbances, and ensure that soil disturbance does not get routed to streams or wetlands.

Objective 9: Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Establishing an untreated riparian buffer would protect areas adjacent to streams from disturbance and would maintain populations of native plants, invertebrates, and riparian-dependent vertebrate species. The untreated riparian buffers maintain the microclimate, an important habitat parameter for species that are sensitive to temperature and humidity changes. These species include amphibians and certain types of vegetation, as well as many avian and mammal species that use the riparian areas adjacent to streams as travel corridors.

140 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

This alternative provides for the development of habitat conditions within the riparian areas and across the landscape to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian- dependent species at the project and watershed scales.

Botanical Resources A complete botanical resource report has been completed and can be found in the Swift project record.

Affected Environment

Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Plant Species No botanical species that are federally listed as Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed were detected during surveys of the project area.

Sensitive Plant Species No Sensitive botanical species were detected during surveys of the project area. Coptis aspleniifolia was reported from Unit 103700, but was determined to be a mis-notation by the botanical survey contractor (Daphne Stone, personal communication, 12/16/2014).

Rare and Uncommon Botanical Species Occurrences of other rare and uncommon botanical species detected during surveys are listed in Table 40. Occurrences are also mapped, and stored in the electronic project file on the Forest Service Corporate O Drive at: O:\NFS\GiffordPinchot\Project\szSwift2013\Workspace\aruchty\botanical_survey_reports\Survey_results

Table 40. Sensitive and other Rare and Uncommon Botanical Species Occurrences within the Swift Project. Sensitive (S) Location (Unit) Other Rare and Uncommon Occurrences (number of sites) (RU)* 102733 RU Calicium adequatum (1) 102741 RU Calicium adequatum (3) 103700 S Coptis aspleniifolia (reported in error) 102747 RU Chaenotheca subroscida (1) 102791 RU Leptogium rivale 102841 RU Leptogium rivale 102859 RU Leptogium rivale 102881 RU Chaenotheca subroscida (1) Leptogium rivale (1) 102951 RU Cladonia norvegica (1) Leptogium rivale (1) 103018 RU Calicium adequatum (1) Leptogium rivale (1) 103128 RU Calicium adequatum (1) 103165 RU Cladonia norvegica (1) Calicium adequatum (1) 103237 RU Calicium adequatum (1) Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis (1) 103271 RU Usnea longissima (1) 103272 RU Usnea longissima (1)

141 Swift Thin

Sensitive (S) Location (Unit) Other Rare and Uncommon Occurrences (number of sites) (RU)* 103602 RU Leptogium rivale (1) 103615 RU Leptogium rivale (1) 103628 RU Leptogium rivale (1) 103630 RU Calicium adequatum (1) 103636 RU Leptogium rivale (1) 103637 and RU Phylliscum demangeonii (1) 103627 – border of stands 103652 RU Cladonia norvegica (1) 103758 RU Cladonia norvegica (1) 103783 RU Cladonia norvegica (1) Most species listed in this table are also Regional Forester’s Strategic Species (2011). Strategic Species are not considered “Sensitive” under Forest Service Manual 2760. Many Strategic species are poorly known (i.e. distribution, habitat, threats, or taxonomy). Management direction for strategic species requires field units to record survey and location information in the agency’s corporate Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) databases.

Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage Mitigation Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines (2001) and associated January 2001 species list apply to all stands proposed for regeneration harvest (this includes stands 102879, 102881, 102918, 103040, 103107, 103222, and 800414). All other stands are proposed for commercial thinning, and are under 80 years of age, and thereby exempted from the Survey and Manage mitigation (Pechman 2006). At the time of pre-field analysis (and subsequent survey), this treatment had not yet been proposed, and thus the Survey and Manage mitigation was not initially triggered. However, because all botanical surveys conducted for the Swift project included the compilation of complete botanical species lists for each stand, the requirement to survey for Survey and Manage species was met. In addition, because most Survey and Manage species are also considered ‘other rare and uncommon’ species, and some are Regional Forester’s Strategic species, site-specific information was collected for these species when detected during surveys. Within stands proposed for regeneration harvest, an occurrence of Chaenotheca subroscida, a category E Survey and Manage species was found, as well as an occurrence for Leptogium rivale, a category B survey and Manage species (see Table 41).

Note: Coptis aspleniifolia, a Survey and Manage Strategy A species (and Sensitive specie) was reported as present on the complete species list compiled for stand 103700, but no site report was completed, and the species was not mentioned in the summary report for the stand. The surveyor of this unit later reported that she believed inclusion of this name on the complete species list for the stand was an error, and the species present was Coptis laciniata (Daphne Stone, personal communication 12/16/2014). This error is reported within this Botanical Resource Report for the purpose of correction and tracking.

Table 41. Survey and Manage Species Occurrences within Swift Project, within non-Pechman Exempted Treatment Units. Location Occurrences (number of sites) Survey and Manage Category (Unit) (USDA & USDI 2001)

102881 Chaenotheca subroscida (1) E (requires management of all known sites) 102881 Leptogium rivale (1) B (requires management of all known sites)

142 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Special Habitats Special habitats, including wetlands, rocky outcrops, meadows, and hardwood gaps were located in a number of units. Protection of these features has been incorporated into the project design during the planning process for this project.

Wetland/riparian habitat (Riparian Reserves) Riparian zones and wetlands (wet or seasonally wet) provide important habitat for many botanical and wildlife species, and often support the majority of the botanical diversity present within stands. Protection of Riparian Reserves has been incorporated into the project design through implementation of no-cut buffers.

Talus and Rocky Outcrops There are a number of rocky outcrops within the Swift planning area. These areas provide habitat for a host of unusual botanical species, including Phylliscum demangeonii.

Hardwood Trees and Shrubs Hardwood trees and shrubs, including alder (Alnus rubra), cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), vine maple and bigleaf maple (Acer circinatum and A. macrophylla), dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), hazel (Corylus cornuta), oak (Quercus garryi), and Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) add substrate diversity for epiphytic lichens and bryophytes, and provide structural and habitat diversity that encourages understory plant diversity, as well as bird and wildlife diversity. Silvicultural prescriptions within stands proposed for commercial thinning do not target hardwood trees and shrubs; as a result, these elements are retained during harvest.

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action and No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Species At this time there are no federally listed (threatened, endangered, proposed - TEP) plant species known to occur on the Forest, however one federally threatened species (Howellia aquatilis) is suspected. Howellia aquatilis has an extremely narrow habitat tolerance, generally confined to wetlands with seasonal drawdown. Wetlands to be impacted by this project were surveyed and no TEP species were located. In addition, all wetlands within the project boundaries will receive a no-cut buffer. Thus, project alternatives will have no effect on federally listed botanical species under either the proposed action or no action alternatives.

Sensitive Species Surveys performed within and immediately surrounding the Swift project area revealed no confirmed* occurrences of Sensitive species. *One Regional Forester’s Sensitive species - Coptis aspleniifolia (Spleenwort-leaved Goldthread), was reported on the species list for stand 103700 by the botanical survey contractor; the contractor who recorded this occurrence since reports, however, that usage of that name was a transcription error on that list, and was meant to be Coptis laciniata, a closely related, common species (Daphne Stone, personal communication, 12/16/14).

No Regional Forester’s Sensitive species were located within the Swift Timber Sale project area, and for this reason the Action alternative will have no impact on Sensitive botanical species. The no action alternative will also have no impact on Sensitive botanical species.

143 Swift Thin

Rare and Uncommon Botanical Species of Concern Botanical species considered rare or uncommon but not listed by the Regional Forester are considered as additional botanical species of concern. This includes a number of non-vascular species removed from the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list in the 2011 update. This list was updated in December, 2011; at this time, all (with the exception of one bryophyte) non-vascular botanical species, including lichens, bryophytes, and fungi were removed from the Sensitive species list in Washington State. The reason for the wholesale removal of these taxa groups from the Sensitive list is because the Washington Natural Heritage Program has not yet ranked these species according to NatureServe protocol: the State (S) and Global (G) rarity rankings are used as criteria in the development of the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list; lacking S and G ranks, they cannot be evaluated for Sensitive status. In contrast, in Oregon, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) has ranked this suite of species, therefore allowing them to be evaluated for Sensitive species status in that state. The fact that many of these species are considered Sensitive on Forest Service lands in Oregon (including the Mt. Hood National Forest, within very similar habitat) implies that these species likely deserve Sensitive status, and associated conservation, in Washington State. Surveys performed within and immediately surrounding the Swift project area located seven rare and uncommon botanical species of concern (all lichens), including Calicium adequatum, Leptogium rivale, Chaenotheca subroscida, Cladonia norvegica, Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis, Usnea longissima, and Phylliscum demangeonii; all of these species with the exception of Phylliscum are also Survey and Manage species (USDA and USDI 2001).

The sites for these species within Swift project area are, in some cases, among few known to occur across the forest; numbers of known sites on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest range from Phylliscum demangeonii at 1 site, Chaenotheca subroscida at 11 sites, to Calicium adequatum known from 13 sites – these species are all small, cryptic species, difficult to find and identify. In other cases, easily identifiable and showy species are known from more sites, but patchily distributed, in some cases because of dispersal limitations or habitat specificity. Such species include the epiphytic lichen Usnea longissima, a slow- growing and dispersal-limited species known from 18 sites, Leptogium rivale, an aquatic lichen species known from 28 sites, and Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis (also known as “old growth specklebelly”), a dispersal-limited epiphytic lichen often associated with old-growth forests or legacy elements remaining in younger forests, known from 74 sites across the forest. In order to ensure well-distributed populations of native species, and because many of the ‘other rare and uncommon species’ are also ranked as Strategic* and may deserve Sensitive status and associated protection in Washington State, mitigations are recommended in order to conserve sites and habitat for these species. * Strategic species are those species for which more information is needed in order to determine whether they meet the criteria for Sensitive Species status.

Survey and Manage Species Single occurrences of two separate Survey and Manage species (Chaenotheca subroscida and Leptogium rivale) were found within Unit 102881, which is a unit subject to the Survey and Manage mitigation based on proposed silivicultural treatment (creating of early-seral habitat through moderate retention regeneration harvest).

In compliance with Survey and Manage requirements, the occurrences for these species will be protected through buffers designed to protect sites from mechanical damage, and maintain supporting substrate and microclimate. The site for Chaenotheca subroscida will be protected with a no-entry circular buffer of 186 ft. in diameter, centered on the occurrence. Information about the attributes and habitat needs of this species was available in a Species Fact Sheet and was used to help guide the development of this mitigation (Helliwell, R. 2007). Leptogium rivale, an aquatic lichen species, will be protected through implementation of a no-cut riparian buffer. With implementation of project design features, it is expected that sites for both species will persist over time within the treated stand.

144 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Diversity of Native Species Large leave islands located in Late-Successional Reserve will facilitate the development of old-growth structure and function within treated stands. First, they will function as “stepping stones” for dispersal of species from adjacent forested habitat (including adjacent late-successional stands), and will continue to provide interior forest conditions for upland species dependent on the moist, temperature-moderated microclimate currently present within the un-thinned stands, and that is also present in the diverse mosaic of conditions found within late-successional/old-growth stands. Second, these leave islands will provide increased structural heterogeneity as thinned plantations age and progress towards old-growth conditions over time. The un-thinned large leave islands will provide canopy complexity, and a rich source of down- woody debris over time, as self-thinning of the dense trees occur. Importantly, the spatial patterns and structure of trees and other vegetation resulting from this natural selection and self-thinning process will differ from the spatial patterns and structure that develop in the surrounding mechanically-thinned forest, where trees are more evenly-spaced and conditions are more homogeneous. Large leave islands will provide greater habitat heterogeneity, more habitat niches, and host a greater diversity of species as a result.

Cumulative Effects Synthesis Past, current, and potential future projects and activities considered in the analysis of cumulative effects on botanical resources include: pre-commercial thinning activities in young stands (on-going for decades); commercial thinning and other timber harvest on nearby federal, state and private lands, annual road maintenance; annual invasive species treatment, and riparian restoration.

Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Botanical Species Proposed Action: There are no cumulative effects upon Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed Botanical Species, because there are no direct or indirect effects.

No Action Alternative: There are no cumulative effects upon Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed Botanical Species, because there are no direct or indirect effects.

Sensitive Botanical Species Proposed Action: There are no cumulative effects upon confirmed occurrences for Sensitive Botanical Species, because there are no direct or indirect effects.

No Action Alternative: There are no cumulative effects upon Sensitive Botanical Species, because there are no direct or indirect effects.

Diversity of Native Species Proposed Action: Cumulative effects of timber harvest and other ground disturbing activities upon undetected botanical species (in particular fungi) are unknown. Project design attempts to minimize impacts upon these species. It is assumed, by practicing variable density thinning, incorporating “skips” and “stepping stones” in the harvested landscape, buffering riparian zones, retaining a high degree of species diversity within stands, maintaining woody debris substrate (for sabrobes), and live trees (for mycorrhizal species), that this project, while impacting many native species, will not impact entire populations, or entire mycelial networks and colonies (in the case of fungi). Though project level mitigations attempt to preserve potential habitat or analyze risk associated with particular projects upon these species, a true understanding of the impacts of these projects will require more complete understanding of habitat associations, distribution, and abundance of these species across their ranges. Currently, there are multiple efforts proceeding across Region 6 of the Forest Service to gain more information about the habitat associations, distribution and abundance of many of these species, particularly fungi (compilation of the results and statistical inferences based on the Current Vegetation

145 Swift Thin

Surveys (CVS) random grid study is one example). Additional information gained through these surveys and studies will help us better identify potential habitat, judge risk, and mitigate for impacts in the future.

No Action Alternative: There are no cumulative effects upon the distribution of native species across the Gifford Pinchot National Forest under the No Action Alternative.

Special Habitats Proposed Action: The special habitats identified within the Swift Timber Sale planning area include wetlands, riparian zones, rocky outcrops, large old trees, large woody debris, standing snags within a ‘matrix’ of younger growth, and well developed hardwood patches. These habitats were considered during stand-by-stand project planning, and in many cases have been conserved through project design, recommended mitigations, and best management practices.

No Action Alternative: There are no cumulative effects upon special habitats, because there are no direct or indirect effects.

In summary, no botanical species, including Regional Forester’s Sensitive, other rare and uncommon botanical species, or Survey and Manage species, that were either located within the project area or have potential habitat within the project area, are either so limited in distribution, habitat, or number that project activities (with incorporated design features), in combination with past or reasonably forseeable future actions on nearby federal land and adjacent private land, are likely to lead to a trend towards federal listing for these species, or threaten the viability of entire populations or species as a whole. Project impacts upon special habitats range from having a short-term negative impact but with anticipated long-term beneficial impact (as with thinning in a riparian zone), to neutral (avoidance of rocky outcrop areas) to beneficial (thinning of conifers adjacent to hardwood patches); as a result, there are no recognized persistent cumulative impacts upon special habitats resulting from the Swift project.

Invasive Plants and Noxious Weeds In the proposed action there will be ground disturbance, and opening of the canopy during the course of timber harvest activities. Ground disturbance exposes available habitat for noxious weeds, while timber harvest exposes newly created disturbed areas to increased solar radiation, ideal conditions for early seral, weedy species. Areas experiencing ground disturbance within the timber sale will, therefore, be highly susceptible to noxious weed and invasive plant colonization, particularly since there are already invasive species growing along access roads to the units (see list below). In order to control noxious weed colonization and spread under the Action Alternative, weed-spread prevention and weed treatment activities should be implemented before, during and after project activities.

Of the three types of weed classifications in Washington State, Class A species are limited in distribution in Washington State, and State law requires that these weeds be eradicated. Class B weeds are either absent from or limited in distribution in some portions of the state but very abundant in other areas. The goals are to contain the plants where they are already widespread and prevent their spread into new areas. Class C weeds are known to be widespread in Washington State; counties can choose to enforce control, or they can educate residents about controlling these noxious weeds.

Note: Forest lands are pristine relative to more developed urban and suburban areas within Washington State. As a result, in certain cases, treatment of some class C weeds, and currently unlisted invasive species, may be prioritized, in order to limit or prevent their expansion within the boundaries of the National Forest.

146 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Noxious weeds (shown with approximated occurrence level of low, medium, high) that are known to occur within the project area are documented, below. Determination of priority for treatment is based on EDRR (Early Detection Rapid Response) principles, as well as knowledge of life history characteristics of individual species, and their potential for long term ecological impact if left untreated. Species with high or moderate treatment priorities are mapped and are included in the Botanical Resource Report, Appendix E.

Table 42. Invasive Plant Species within Swift Planning Area. Level of Priority for Scientific Name Class Common Name Occurrence Treatment Centaurea diffusa B Tyrol knapweed (syn. Low: three occurrences High C. debeauxii, C. total, in unit 103272 janus x nigra - (large) meadow knapweed) Centaurea stoebe ssp. B Spotted knapweed Low: three occurrences High micranthos total, in units 103135, 103705, and 102741 Centaurea nigrescens B Meadow knapweed, Low: 7 occurrences High Syn: C. debeauxii, C. pratensis, Tyrol knapweed total; large occurrence C. jacea x nigra (many synonyms) in unit 103281; smaller occurrences in units 103189, 103689, 103700, 103740, 103746 Cirsium arvense C Canada thistle Moderate: 55 Moderate (site occurrences, scattered specific throughout planning treatment area recommended) Cirsium vulgare C Bull thistle Low: 8 occurrences, in Moderate – units 103130 (2), High 103135, 103195, 103281, 103635, 103667, and 107247 Cytisus scoparius B Scotch Broom Low: 5 occurrences, in High units 102739, 102741, 103128, 103281, and 103667 Hieracium aurantiacum B Orange hawkweed Low: 1, in unit 102841 High Hieracium cynoglossoides C Houndstongue Low: 9 occurrences, in High hawkweed units 102791(2), 103130, 103664 (5), 103667 Hieracium lachenalii C Common hawkweed High: 173, spread Low (site throughout the specific) planning area Hieracium pilosella B Mouse ear hawkweed Low: 4 occurrences in High units 102841 (3), and 103652 Lathyrus latifolius Perennial pea Low: 6 occurrences, 5 High in unit 103274, and one in 103281 Linaria vulgaris C Butter and eggs Low: 1 occurrence, in unit 103887

147 Swift Thin

Level of Priority for Scientific Name Class Common Name Occurrence Treatment Phalaris arundinacea C Reed canary grass Low: 8 occurrences in High units 103639, 103738 (2), 103740, 103746(4) Rubus laciniatus C Cut-leaf blackberry Low: 1 occurrence in High unit 103887 Senecio jacobaea B Tansy ragwort High: 28 occurrences, Low spread throughout planning area

Note: Cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) and oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) are species known to be widespread and abundant throughout the planning area. Data on distribution and abundance were not collected for these species as a part of this project because eradication or containment of these species is not a practical goal in this area; instead, we focus on prevention of spread, including enforcement of standards for use of weed free gravel and mulch on National Forest System lands (for specifics, see Project Design Feature Standards for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants later in this section).

Species ranked as low priority for treatment are species that are common and well-distributed throughout the planning area; for these species, active treatment is not pursued on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, except in special habitats where invasive species threaten resources at risk, and in gravel pits (as part of preventing future spread).

Risk Assessment Non-native plants include those species introduced intentionally or unintentionally to areas where they do not naturally occur. Invasive non-native plants in the Pacific Northwest most often originate from Europe and Asia. Problems can arise when the associated natural predators and diseases that controlled these species in their native habitats are not present in the habitat where they are introduced. If a species is unchecked by predators, it may become invasive, dominating the site and altering ecosystem balance. The results may include changes in biodiversity, fire frequency, soil erosion and hydrology of a site. Other effects include poisoning of livestock and reducing the quality of recreational experiences.

Forest Service Manual direction requires that Noxious Weed Risk Assessments be prepared for all projects involving ground-disturbing activities. For projects that have a moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, recent Forest Service policy requires that decision documents must identify noxious weed control measures that will be undertaken during project implementation (FSM 2081.03, 11/29/95). In addition, the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA 2005) provides invasive plant prevention and treatment/restoration standards and direction on all National Forest System lands within The Pacific Northwest Region.

The Swift project has a high risk rating. Factors considered include: known noxious weeds in close proximity to project area that may foreseeably invade project; project operation within noxious weed population, and; multiple vectors including: heavy equipment (implied ground disturbance including compaction or loss of soil “A” horizon); importation of soil/cinders/gravel/straw or hay mulch; and, Forest Service or other project vehicles in the project area. Mitigation and prevention measures are included in Appendix A: Mitigation Measures and Design Features to ameliorate the introduction and spread of invasive plant species.

148 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Background There are 21 invasive species that were found within Swift Timber Sale units, or along adjacent roads within approximately one-quarter mile of units. Of these species, a number of species are widely distributed – some (arguably) naturalized – and they are not considered a priority for treatment on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest except in specific habitats including Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, and gravel pits. These include: Digitalis purpurea (foxglove), Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s wort), Hypochaeris radicata (flat cat), Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye daisy), and Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion). The overall effectiveness of controlling these species to prevent further spread into areas that will experience ground disturbance as a result of this project is limited; we anticipate that seed sources will be available for colonization of these areas despite our best efforts at controlling the species at documented sites. Therefore, no specific actions are recommended for the containment or control of these species in relation to this project.

In contrast, there are a number of invasive species of concern that are considered a high priority for treatment on the southern half of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Of these, a number are found within or adjacent to Swift Timber Sale units or along access roads. Some of these species rank high in priority for treatment because there are few sites known from the Forest and preventing further spread through pro-active treatment is especially important and beneficial; these species include mouse-eared hawkweed (Hieracium pilosellum), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), all species of knapweed (Centaurea spp), and butter and eggs (Linaria vulgaris). Other species are known to occur across the Forest and on adjacent lands, but are important to control because they can change the course of natural forested plant community succession if they become established and are left untreated; these include scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), cut-leaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and in some cases, perennial peavine (Lathyrus latifolius).

Another group of species is found at moderate - high levels within the project area, and treatment is recommended in specific habitats, but not at every occurrence. These include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Circium vulgare), and common hawkweed (Hieracium lachenalii). Control of these species is recommended only in cases when they occur adjacent to sensitive habitats such as wetlands and meadows.

149 Swift Thin

Financial and Economic Analysis A financial and economic analysis of the proposed action and no action for Swift Thin was prepared to display anticipated costs and revenues. In response to comment received during the comment period, an additional section on employment and timber receipts to Skamania County was added to this analysis.

Most of the project is assumed to be implemented within a five year time span. No inflationary rate, discount rates, or changes in real value were used for implementation costs and benefits. These rates and changes are assumed to be offsetting within this relatively short time span. All values displayed below are in present dollars.

Project Preparation and Administration The project preparation and administration costs are considered first. These are up-front costs, typically not subject to any reimbursement from project revenue. Environmental survey and analysis (NEPA) costs are considered spent and not displayed.

Table 43. Project Preparation and Administration Costs. Activity $/Unit No Action Proposed Action Units Value Units Value Timber Sale Preparation ($204)/ac 0 $0 3,840 ($783,360) Timber Sale Administration ($161)/ac 0 $0 3,840 ($618,240) Pre Timber Sale Weed ($112)/acre 0 $0 59 ($6,608) Control Total Costs $0 ($1,408,208)

Timber Sale(s) All of the timber harvest treatments were considered together as if they were a single project, though the project will be broken into several traditional timber sales or stewardship contracts. Most elements of the timber sale would be completed by the purchaser, but some would be completed by the Forest Service. The Forest Service elements are typically funded through deposits from sale revenue.

Table 44. Timber Sale Revenue and Costs. Purchaser Elements $/Unit No Action Proposed Action Units Value Units Value Temporary Road ($20,000)/mile 0 $0 7.4 ($148,000) Construction (new) Temporary Road ($10,000)/mile 0 $0 23.1 ($231,000) Construction (re-use) Temporary Road ($2,000)/each 0 $0 10 ($20,000) Construction Stream Crossing Road Reconstruction (cost ($150,000)/each 0 $0 7 ($1,050,000) per sale) Road Maintenance (zone ($24)/mbf 0 $0 48,066 ($1,153,584) average) Fell and Buck (not in logging ($30)/mbf 0 $0 19,542 ($586,260) cost) Logging – Ground Based ($80)/mbf 0 $0 28,524 ($2,281,920)

150 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Logging – Skyline ($200)/mbf 0 $0 19,542 ($3,908,400) Log Haul (zone average) ($56)/mbf 0 $0 48,066 ($2,691,696) Slash Piling – Machine ($439)/acre 0 $0 138 ($60,582) Cover Slash Piles ($62)/acres 0 $0 138 ($8,501) Erosion Control (landings & ($400)/acre 175 ($70,000) 0$0 temp roads) Timber Value – Douglas-fir $411/mbf 0 $0 38,453 $15,804,183 Timber Value – Hemlock / $350/mbf 9,613 $3,364,550 0$0 true fir Subtotal Sale Revenue $0 $6,958,790 Purchaser Competition ($2,783,516) $0 Factor (40%) Subtotal Sale Revenue $0 $4,175,274 Forest Service Elements Minimum Deposit to National ($0.50)/mbf 0 $0 48,066 ($24,033) Forest Fund Road Maintenance Deposits ($4)/mbf 0 $0 48,066 ($192,264) (Rds 54, 64, ) Brush Disposal Deposits – ($871)/acre 0 $0 138 ($120,198) Burn Piles Required K-V Tree Planting ($840)/acre 0 $0 193 ($162,120) Total FS Required Deposits $0 ($498,615) Total Sale Net Value $0 $3,676,659 Total Sale Net Value per $0 $76 MBF

The timber sale portion of the project appears to be profitable to the sale purchaser and would yield revenue in excess of that needed to cover Forest Service required deposits.

Historically, timber values have increased in real dollars over time. They are currently below historical highs, but have rebounded quite a bit since the Great Recession of 2008. Fuel prices are another important variable, and they can rise rapidly. Fuel prices affect nearly all logging costs. These two elements, timber value and fuel costs, will have a strong influence on the revenue generated by this sale. The 2011-2014 five year average for similar projects across the forest was about $107/MBF. Considering this project is recommending a considerable amount of road reconstruction, the estimated gross receipt value of $76/MBF is a reasonable expectation for this project area. If the road reconstruction value is added back into the sale value, the new estimated gross receipt value would be $101/MBF.

Congress has authorized and sometimes requires the dispersal of timber receipts into several funds; e.g. National Forest Fund, Roads to Trails, Timber Salvage Sale, Retained Receipts, Knutson Vandenberg, Brush Disposal, Road Maintenance, Pipeline Fund, erosion control, and others. Receipts in excess of what the Forest Service is authorized to retain are returned annually to the US treasury.

Other Projects The following table lists the costs of other projects that are part of the proposed action, but not the timber harvest activities. These meet the criteria for funding under other authorities and would be implemented as funding allows. .

151 Swift Thin

Table 45. Financial Costs of Other Projects. Activity $/Unit No Action Proposed Action Units Value Units Value Invasive Weed Control Post ($201)/ac 0 $0 192 ($38,529) Sale (years 1, 2, and 3) Wildlife Enhancement Tree ($840)/ac 0 $0 100 ($84,000) Planting (gaps) Road 30 Ditch/Erosion ($10,000)/each 0 $0 1 ($10,000) Control Rush Cr Bridge Road 31 Culvert Upgrades ($4,000)/each 0 $0 10 ($40,000) Road 32 Culvert Upgrades ($5,000)/each 0 $0 1 ($5,000) Total Costs $0 ($177,529)

Economic Measures The timber benefit, less competition factor, is $11,501,240. Costs total $8,349,484. Thus, the present net value is $3,151,756. The benefit to cost ratio is $1.38:1.

Employment A majority (81.8%) of Skamania County is in federal ownership. Decisions on land management, especially projects that involve forest products, can have a major impact on the economy of the County. There is the potential for job creation as well as direct payments to counties from timber receipts.

In 2013, approximately 10.6% of the total private employment in Skamania County was in timber. The majority of jobs in 2013 were in travel and tourism (approx. 45.3%). By comparison, in 1998 timber represented 21.81 percent of total employment; from 1998 to 2013, timber employment shrank from 251 to 150 jobs, a 40 percent decrease. During that same time, non-timber employment grew by 40 percent (from 900 to 1,264 jobs) (http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system, Timber Report for Skamania County, 7/24/2015). [Note: Employment data from the Economic Profile System begins in 1998 because that is the year the Census Bureau (and County Business Patterns) shifted to using the new North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS).]

A detailed assessment of job creation was not completed for Swift Thin. However, there are other resources to draw from for estimates. Integrated Resource Management, consultants who prepared stewardship monitoring reports for the Siuslaw National Forest used estimates established by Gary Lettman, a forest economist with the Oregon Department of Forestry. Lettman determined that “11.4 direct6, indirect7 and induced8 FTE [full time equivalent] jobs are created for every million board feet (MMBF) of timber harvested9. Of these, there is one logging job for every 5.1 mill jobs (Siuslaw National

6 Direct jobs were defined as all industry, industry-contracted and government employees involved in: protection of the commercial forest resource, harvesting, reforestation and tending, mill processing/manufacturing, administration, etc. 7 Indirect jobs are those involved in the provision of goods and services necessary to support the ongoing operations of the industry, and its direct employees as defined above, such as: equipment and part suppliers, electrical power, fuel and chemical suppliers, equipment maintenance shops, etc. 8 Induced jobs are those involved in the provision of goods and services purchased by those directly and indirectly employed and contracted by the industry. 9 Full time equivalent jobs assumes that there are 2,016 work hours in a year (8 hours a day, 21 work days a month, 12 months a year).

152 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Forest Stewardship Contracting Multiparty Monitoring Report-Fiscal Year 2012, February 2014, page 11)10.

Following Lettman’s calculation, if all of the timber value from Swift Thin, about 48 million board feet (MMBF) were be harvested, a total of 547 direct, indirect and induced FTEs would be created. It is not known how many of these would be local jobs. This estimate does not include employment benefits doing the non-harvest related restoration activities. Restoration work also creates a range of jobs outside the forestry industry, such as hiring crews to construct fish passage structures, maintaining and decommissioning roads, treating noxious weed infestations, and reforesting with native trees and plants. In fact, one study shows that every $1 million spent on restoration activities generates 15.7 to 23.8 local jobs (see http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/downloads/BP23.pdf, page 1). Assuming no other timber receipts will be made available for restoration activities, using these figures, the proposed restoration work associated with Swift Thin could create 5.3 to 8.0 additional jobs.

Recreation and Other Social Considerations

Affected Environment

Wild and Scenic Rivers The project area does not include any Congressionally Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers nor does it include any rivers recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic designation. However, portions of the project area are within the watersheds of several rivers recommended for or identified as potentially eligible for Wild and Scenic River Designation (Forest Plan 1990). Specifically, portions of the project area are within the Lewis River Watershed which has been recommended for designation due to its wild, scenic and recreational “outstanding and remarkable value”, and the Siouxon Creek watershed, which has been determined to be eligible for further study based on its possible wild “outstanding and remarkable value” (NWFP 2-51).

Wilderness None of the proposed actions would occur within congressionally designated Wilderness; however unit 103787 shares a boundary with Trapper Creek Wilderness on its northwest side. Trapper Creek is a 5,969 acre wilderness designated by Congress in 1984. There are no current proposals to add any area to Trapper Creek Wilderness, and current management direction for unit 103787 is Late Successional Reserve (LSR). The nearby area around this stand that is classified as LSR is a patchwork of previously harvested stands in various stages of regeneration. There are a number of roads within this area including the 311 spur of forest road 58 which runs through the stand 103787. This road is designated as maintenance level 2 – high clearance vehicles. There are several other roads in the immediate vicinity, including Forest Road 58.

10 The Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition contracted Headwaters Economics in 2007 to publish a study (http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/restoration-forestry-wilderness-washington/) on the role of timber, restoration forestry and wilderness in the economies of rural northeastern Washington. Similar to Gary Lettman’s estimate, Headwaters assumed a ration of 11 jobs/mmbf.

153 Swift Thin

Developed Recreation Sites and Trails There are several locations where the proposed activity coincides with developed recreation sites and trails

Unit 800414 The Paradise Hills Trail #153 runs through the center of proposed unit 800414. There are no visitor use estimates for the Paradise Hills Trail #153, but local manager experience and expertise suggests that it is a minimally used trail. The northern trailhead for the Paradise Hills Trail #153 is on the northern boundary of unit 800414 at the junction of Forest Service Road 3107 and its 115 spur, there is also a southern trailhead several miles to the south on Forest Service Road 6401.

The northern half of the trail within unit 800414 follows an old roadbed, and midway through the unit the trail departs the old roadbed. The condition of the tread indicates that it is minimally used and the tread can be hard to follow in places. Just to the south of proposed unit 800414, the trail enters a timber unit which was treated within the past 30 years; in this unit the tread becomes very hard to follow. Professional judgment suggests that low visitor use of the trail combined with disturbance to the trail tread as a result of timber harvest activities have resulted in the tread being hard to follow.

Trail #153 is classified as trail class 3 (developed), which means that VQO’s and Timber Management for the trail are the same as the MAC for the unit. The designed use for the trail is motorcycle. The unit is in a management area category of (MAC TS - Timbersale), and the desired future condition for MAC TS is: “Evidence of land managed for timber production and other commodities is apparent. All tree sizes and mixtures of native species from seedlings to mature sawtimber are well distributed. Recreational opportunities are available for hunters, anglers, off-road vehicle operators, and other motorist.” Trail Management Level 3 also states that “permanent road crossings should be minimized,” and that “temporary roads should be obliterated after the activity is complete.”

Unit 103700 Unit 103700 is immediately adjacent to the Observation Peak Trailhead. The Observation Peak Trailhead is a widened area of roadway along Forest Road 58. Alder and other shrubs growing at the margins have begun to encroach on the parking area. The opposite side of Forest Road 58 constitutes a portion of the boundary for unit 103700. The Observation Peak Trailhead is a relatively low use trailhead. In 2012 approximately 350 visitors registered at the trailhead with self-issuing wilderness permits. Experience has shown that not every visitor completes the self-issuing permit, so the actual number of visitors is likely somewhat higher. The primary season of use for the trailhead is May through the end of October.

Unit 102859 Unit 102859 overlays with Lone Butte Sno-Park. The sno-park consists of two separate parking areas, two outhouses, and a winter warming shelter. The Sno-Park is primarily utilized by snowmobilers, but nordic skiers and snowshoers still occasionally use it. The winter season of use is generally December through April depending on snow conditions; it is also occasionally used for special use events.

Winter Recreation Trails During the winter, Forest Road 32 and Forest Road 30 become groomed winter snowmobile trails which pass through or adjoin stands: 102791, 102920, 102933, 102859, and 102841.

Dispersed Recreation The following standard is applicable to units in management category TS and LS. “Where appropriate, recreational activities compatible with commodity management may be encouraged. Driving for pleasure,

154 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest hunting, dispersed camping, wildlife viewing, berrypicking, cross-country skiing, the use of off-road vehicles (on designated routes), and interpretation of cultural or other features of interest are examples of appropriate activities (Gifford Pinchot Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 11, pages 6- 25, 5-31). Roads in the project area may be used for these activities or to access opportunities for these activities. Roads in the project area are generally only open to road legal vehicles and are not open to off- highway vehicles. Specific information regarding allowable uses on Forest Roads can be found in the Gifford Pinchot Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

Dispersed camping occurs on the Forest outside of developed recreation sites. This type of camping is typically allowed in many locations, but not promoted by the Forest Service. The Forest Service does not provide any amenities for dispersed camping. There are no toilets, picnic tables, etc., but there may be visitor created developments such as vehicle pullouts and fire rings. Dispersed campsites are typically associated with roads and travel corridors. Disturbed areas such as timber landings are often converted to dispersed campsites by visitors. There are locations with long histories of dispersed camping occurring, but other locations may only be used infrequently, or even just one time. Visitors occupy sites on a first come first serve basis and across the Forest there are large numbers of existing or potential sites which allow for dispersed camping. There are certainly dispersed campsites which fall within the project area, however the Forest Service does not have a complete inventory of dispersed sites because dispersed camping can happen virtually anywhere. At this time there sixty dispersed campsites have been mapped in the broader project area. However, there has been very limited survey of dispersed campsites completed, so it is very likely that there are additional unmapped dispersed campsites which fall within the project area. The Forest Service does not have a complete inventory of dispersed sites because dispersed camping can happen virtually anywhere, and dispersed campsites are not purposefully created or maintained by the Forest Service.

Visual Emphasis The Forest Plan assigns each management area a Visual Quality Objective (VQO). The following visual quality objectives are applicable to the project area (Forest Plan 1990, IV-22):

Retention – Human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor. These are landscapes with high scenic integrity.

Partial Retention – Human activities may be evident, but remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. These are landscapes with medium scenic integrity.

Modification – Human activities may dominate the characteristic landscape, but must at the same time utilize natural form, line, color, and texture. These are landscapes with low scenic integrity.

Determination of the visual quality objectives for a unit centers on designated travel routes within viewshed corridors identified by the Forest Plan (Forest Plan 1990). One viewshed corridor is the Lewis River, which emphasizes views from the 90 Road and Lewis River Trail #31 travel routes. The second viewshed corridor is the Wind River, which emphasizes views from the USFS Road 30 and, USFS Road 51 travel routes. The relation of the view from a visual corridor travel route to a proposed unit is based on the following classifications.  Immediate foreground – 0 feet to 300 feet  Foreground – 300 feet to ½ Mile  Middle ground – ½ Mile to 4 Miles  Background – 4 Miles to Horizon

155 Swift Thin

The Forest Plan identifies two management area categories (MACs VL & VM) which focus on visuals. Any stands within these management area categories have a visual quality objective (VQO) of retention or partial retention depending on the distance from the nearest designated viewshed corridor travel route. Project area stands located in other management area categories have a visual quality objective of modification (Gifford Pinchot Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 11, pages 5-47, 6-42).

Table 46. Visual Management Classification for Each Unit. Relation to VQO visual Unit MAC Notes corridor travel route 102720 VL Partial Middleground The unit is approximately 2,300’ uphill from the Lewis Retention River viewshed corridor and the majority of the unit is classified as VL. It is not visible in the foreground from 90 Road travelway due to slope, topography, and vegetation. It is occasionally visible as middle ground from the Lewis River Trail #31 travelway. 103237 VL Retention Immediate FSR 51 (Curly Creek Road) within the Wind River Foreground viewshed corridor passes directly through the unit. 103126 VL Retention Foreground The edge of the unit is over 900’ from the 51 Road (Curly Creek Road) route within the Wind River viewshed corridor. It is not currently visible from the road as it is screened by thick vegetation. 107247 VL Partial Middleground Approximately 30 acres on the NE side of the unit are & Retention classified as VL. A small 0.5 acre portion of the unit on VM the eastern edge is classified as VM. The edge of the unit is over a mile from the Road 51 Road (Curly Creek Road) route within the Wind River viewshed corridor. Due to the distance to the viewshed route, the visual quality objective (VQO) for both classifications is partial retention. 103107 VL Retention Foreground Approximately 7 acres on the western portion of the and unit have a VL classification; the remainder of the unit and and Middleground is primarily classified as VM. The unit is approximately 1,250 feet from FSR 30 within the Wind VM Partial River viewshed corridor and is currently screened from Retention view by heavy vegetation. 103135 VL Partial Middleground Approximately 10 acres in the southeast quarter of the Retention unit have a VL designation. The unit is approximately 3000’ away from FSR 51 (Curly Creek Road) within the Wind River viewshed corridor. It is visible from FSR 51 at McClellan Viewpoint. The view of the unit is across a small valley and the unit is on the flattened top of a ridgeline. The view from McClellan Viewpoint looks into the unit at eye level as the unit and the view point are at the same elevation. 103130 VL Partial Middleground Approximately 1.5 acres on the southern edge of the Retention unit have a VM designation. FSR 51 (Curly Creek Road) within the Wind River viewshed corridor is approximately 3000’ away and is the nearest viewshed corridor. The unit is currently screened from this route by vegetation.

156 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

103128 VM Partial Foreground FSR 30 within the Wind River viewshed corridor is Retention approximately 1500’ away and is the nearest viewshed corridor. The unit is currently completely screened from this route by vegetation. 102791 VM Partial Foreground FSR 30 within the Wind River viewshed corridor Retention travels through the unit. 102841 VM Partial Foreground FSR 30 within the Wind River viewshed corridor Retention travels through the unit. 102859 VM Partial Foreground FSR 30 within the Wind River viewshed corridor Retention travels through the unit.

103018 VM Partial Foreground The western border of the unit is FSR 30 within the Retention Wind River viewshed corridor.

103189 VM Partial Foreground FSR 30 within the Wind River viewshed corridor is Retention approximately 1500’ away. The unit is currently completely screened from this route by vegetation. All Other Varies Modification Middleground Units to background

Environment and Social Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers

No Action Direct Effects, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With the no action alternative, there would be no indirect or direct disturbance in the project area, and thus no potential to affect any designated, recommended or potentially suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Wilderness

No Action Direct Effects, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With the no action alternative, there would be no indirect disturbance to wilderness, thus there would be no potential for any inadvertent effect to wilderness.

Developed Recreation Sites and Trails

No Action Direct Effects, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With the no action alternative, there would be no disturbance in the project area, thus there would be no potential for effects to any developed recreation sites and trails.

157 Swift Thin

Dispersed Recreation

No Action Direct Effects, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With the no action alternative, there would be no disturbance in the project area, thus there would be no potential for effects to dispersed recreation sites.

Visual Emphasis

No Action Direct Effects, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With the no action alternative, there would be no disturbance in the project area. Many of the stands proposed for timber treatments are young stands which are even aged and are densely stocked with tree. As a result of this lack of diversity, these stands lack visual appeal and have higher potential for unit health issues further decreasing their visual appeal in the long term.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The Lewis River and Siouxon Creek are not within the project area, but several tributaries to these waterways are within the project area. The standard for evaluating effects on tributaries outside of a potential Wild and Scenic corridor is based on the question of whether or not project activities would invade or diminish the scenic, recreation or fish and wildlife values of the potential Wild and Scenic River. The proposed project activities are not expected to divert or otherwise influence the volume of water which naturally flows in these tributaries. Likewise buffers within the project area to protect fisheries, soils, and wildlife resources would also protect the natural and free flowing characteristics of these tributaries. The tributaries in question are also not considered navigable rivers with recreation use. Thus, the proposed activities are not expected to have downstream effects which would invade or diminish the scenic, recreation or fish and wildlife values which would potentially make these rivers eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation.

Cumulative Effects The proposed activities are well beyond the ¼ mile that is typically managed for Wild and Scenic Character under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. There are not any other recent, current or proposed projects within the project area that would affect this rivers eligibility for Wild and Scenic River Designation. For this reason there are no anticipated cumulative effects resulting from this project which would affect the eligibility, classification, or “outstanding remarkable values” of the Lewis River.

158 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Wilderness

Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed activities would not impact wilderness as long as the activities do not cross the wilderness boundary. Given that unit 103787 shares a boundary with the Wilderness, there is reason to be concerned that proposed activities could inadvertently cross the Wilderness Boundary. It would be a significant impact to wilderness if any of the proposed activities inadvertently occurred within the congressionally designated Trapper Creek Wilderness. Of particular concern is the potential for motorized equipment to cross the boundary, or if trees fell across the boundary and were subsequently yarded out.

A short-term indirect effect of the proposed activities is that stand 103787 would be less suitable as a potential future wilderness addition after activities associated with the proposed heavy thinning. For the foreseeable future, this area is already unlikely to meet criteria for wilderness recommendation under Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70, due to the presence of a maintenance level 2 road in stand 103787 and other roads in the vicinity, as well as the noticeable effects of past vegetative treatments. In the very long term the proposed heavy thin has the potential to lead to old growth conditions in the area of unit 103787 which could increase its natural characteristics and subsequently its suitability for future wilderness designation.

Cumulative Effects No related projects have occurred within Trapper Creek Wilderness and all of the project activities associated with the proposed action would also occur outside of this congressionally designated wilderness, thus there is no potential for cumulative effects to Trapper Creek Wilderness as a result of the proposed alternative.

Developed Recreation Sites and Trails

Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Paradise Hills Trail In unit 800414 the proposed action calls for moderate-retention regeneration harvest on 20 acres, and standard thin on the rest of the unit (after removing the slope portion in the north east corner). The proposed activities would affect the Paradise Hills Trail #153 which runs through the center of unit 800414. The northern half of the Paradise Hills Trail #153 within unit 800414 follows an old roadbed, and midway through the unit to the south the trail tread departs the old roadbed. A concern is the potential disturbance of the trail tread, as a result of timber harvest equipment or skidding. Another effect would be the short-term effect of timber harvest to experiential and visual component of the recreationist’s experience. These effects are normally considered under visual emphasis analysis and the Paradise Hills Trail #153 is not identified as a visual emphasis corridor. A 50-foot buffer along the southern portion of the trail corridor would be implemented where the tread does not follow the old road bed. This buffer would protect the tread from thinning operations. The section of the trail that was formerly road bed would be used as a temporary road for timber activities. Once timber operations are complete the temporary road would be reconverted to a motorized, single-track trail and the entrance blocked in a manner that prevents automobile access. In the long term, stand treatments could lead to improved stand health and old growth conditions which would improve the recreation experience.

159 Swift Thin

Active timber harvest activities would not be compatible with unrestricted public use and mitigations would likely be needed to provide for public safety. Given the low visitor use of the trail, temporary closure would be the likely course of action. If closures were to occur, it would impact recreationist who desired to utilize the trail. Professional experience suggests that it is particularly undesirable, to have recreationist discover that a trail is closed as they arrive at the trailhead.

Observation Peak Trailhead The proposed activities in unit 103700 could affect the Observation Peak Trailhead if the trailhead was used by any harvesting equipment or utilized as a landing.

Winter Recreation Trails The proposed activities in unit 103700 could affect the Lone Butte Sno-Park if it was used by any harvesting equipment or utilized as a landing.

Forest Road 32 and Forest Road 30 from Lone Butter Sno-park north serve as snowmobile trails during the winter. These trails would be affected should any winter hauling or plowing related to project implementation occur.

Lone butte Sno-Park Lone Butte Sno-Park is the primary access point for snowmobilers on the westside of the District – during the winter Forest Road 30 and Forest Road 24 are used as snowmobile trails. Many snowmobilers drive considerable distances to use Lone Butte, which highlights that it is one of the few locations for this type of recreation in Southwestern Washington. The sno-park is typically used as long as the snowpack allows, and generally speaking the season is December through the end of March. During low snow years the sno-park might have a much reduced season of operation, and during high snow years, use might extend well into April.

Ski Trails It appears unlikely that there would be any overlap between winter haul in and ski trails in the Swift Planning area. Any overlap with a ski trail would need to be evaluated to see if alternate routes existed.

Access Road Plowing Winter haul which did not overlap or affect snowmobile or ski trails could be beneficial as it would potentially increase the need and frequency of plowing on the Wind River Highway (something the Skamania County has limited budget for). Trucks carrying large snowmobile trailers and logging trucks sharing the road could be a safety concern – particularly in wintery conditions.

Providing Public Notice There have been yearly winter recreation meetings, where one of the annual topics discussed is any likely winter haul or plowing which would affect winter recreation. This would be the most appropriate time to bring up anticipated winter haul as would it would give the public and other partners notice of effects to their winter recreation opportunities well in advance. Providing the public plenty of notice regarding any changes to winter recreation facilities, trails, or access roads is an important consideration.

Other Considerations Partial plowing of the road to allow for ‘dual’ use of the road by logging trucks and snowmobiles is occasionally proposed. This practice is not ideal for two reasons. 1. It exposes pavement or gravel which absorbs heat from the sun and melts adjoining snow much quicker – ultimately reducing the season of use.

160 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

2. Snow plows typically push snow into the half of the road intended for snowmobile use which creates a surface which is challenging or undesirable to ride on.

Another possible scenario is that there is an unusually warm winter and the roads are snow free. In that scenario, winter haul would not have an effect to winter recreation as long as winter haul stopped if snow was received.

Cumulative Effects Based on past, current and foreseeable projects within the project area, there is no potential for cumulative effects to developed recreation sites or trails as a result of the proposed alternative.

Dispersed Recreation

Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects It is likely that the proposed activities would affect dispersed camping locations within the project area. Visitor use of dispersed campsites would not be safe or feasible during implementation of the proposed action. Ten of the sixty mapped sites within the project area fall within stands proposed for treatment. It is also likely that there are additional unmapped sites which could be affected. In the short term the primary effect would be that visitor use of dispersed campsites would not be safe or feasible during implementation of the proposed action. In the longer term the proposed action is unlikely to affect dispersed camping opportunities overall. Post implementation, dispersed campsites might continue to be utilized or they may no longer be desirable for use as a result of implementation of the proposed action. Implementation of the proposed action may also create new locations which would be desirable for use as dispersed campsites. Temporary roads and landing decks are examples of the types of locations which visitors occasionally convert to dispersed campsites after conclusion of timber harvest activities. Any temporary roads that were created as a result of the proposed alternative would be closed and obliterated. This would limit creation of dispersed sites which resulted in driving of closed roads. There are a large number of dispersed campsites on the forest and many opportunities would continue to be available for recreationist seeking this type of opportunity both inside and outside the project area. Dispersed campsites are not created, maintained, or promoted by the agency, so there is no obligation for the agency to maintain any specific dispersed campsite. Thus, there may be localized effects to dispersed campsites as a result of the proposed action, but the proposed action should not result in any significant net effect to opportunities for dispersed camping.

Dispersed recreation activities that occur within the project area also have the potential to be affected by the proposed action. These types of recreation are not closely monitored by the Forest Service which makes it challenging to definitively know exactly which activities are taking place and exactly where these activities are taking place. Effects to dispersed recreation activities are also challenging to quantify because of the wide range of activities that might use the same area. For example, the proposed actions might improve hunting opportunities within a specific stand while conversely diminishing opportunities for harvesting special forest products such as mushrooms. Any effects would likely be localized in nature and not significant because many opportunities would continue to be available within the wider area for dispersed recreation activities. A likely short-term effect is that dispersed recreationists would avoid using areas where logging is occurring due to noise and equipment. However dispersed recreation activities are also very adaptive to these effects and changes in the landscape as they are generally not dependent on specific sites at the scale of this project.

161 Swift Thin

Cumulative Effects The Upper Lewis Roads Pilot is a current planning project which overlaps with portions of the project area. This project is currently analyzing 16 miles of road and actions being considered include closing and stabilizing, decommissioning, changing maintenance levels, and reopening. Any actions taken as a result of the Upper Lewis Roads Pilot planning project will only occur after completion of environmental planning and public review. The proposed alternative might have a connected and cumulative effect with the Upper Lewis Roads Pilot. However, this would not be a significant effect as dispersed recreation is very adaptive to changes over time and significant opportunities for these activities would continue to be available at both the local and the larger scale.

Visual Emphasis

Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed activities have a range of potential visual effects. Many of these effects are associated with the proposed activities themselves although some may be negative in the short term but beneficial in the long term

Silviculture Treatments A variety of silviculture treatments are proposed for the project area. Danger tree removal along haul routes is also proposed. Treatments would change the visual appearance in the foreground, midground and background as viewed from viewshed corridor travel routes by reducing canopy cover and tree density in the short term. In the long term these treatments would speed up the development of late successional stand structure which has increased visual diversity. Treatments could also result in stumps which would be visually apparent in the foreground.

Temporary Roads and Landings To facilitate timber haul and equipment access, temporary roads and log landings would be constructed. Within plantations, temporary roads and landings would be constructed where they occurred previously. Approximately 17.5 miles of temporary road would follow existing locations, and approximately nine miles of temporary road would be constructed in new locations in order to work around streams and wetlands. Several of the proposed temporary roads would follow the route of previously decommissioned roads. Approximately one mile of new road construction is proposed. If visually apparent from travel routes, these roads and landings would negatively affect the visual quality of designated visual management corridors.

Timber Slash Logging slash would be piled at landings. Additional slash piling might occur along system roads to reduce potential for fire ignitions. Decks and slash piles that remain after sales close might be made available for firewood collection or biomass utilization. Other remaining slash piles would be burned under conditions specified in an approved burn plan. Research has shown that visible timber slash and woody debris negatively affects public perceptions of scenic integrity and significantly detracts from the aesthetics properties of natural landscapes (Ryan 2005).

Tree Planting Conifer and hardwood tree seedlings would be planted in a portion of the created gaps and heavily thinned areas. Where natural regeneration is limited (numbers and species) tree planting can be used to increase complexity, providing long-term resiliency and canopy structure. These actions would have a

162 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest long term beneficial impact to visual quality by maintaining the natural appearance and visual diversity of the areas they were planted.

Cumulative Effects Through the mid-1990s many stands within the project area were clear cut. Those stands have begun to regenerate and the current condition in many locations is dense even aged stands with very little visual appeal or diversity. The proposed action would thin these stands to emphasize late-successional structure. Late successional structure has more vegetative diversity and older age class trees are present. Thus the long term, cumulative impact of the proposed action would be beneficial to the visual quality of the project area, because it would result in more visual diversity and older growth trees which have more visual interest.

Summary of Effects There are no anticipated direct, indirect or cumulative effects which would affect the eligibility, classification, or “outstanding remarkable values” of the Lewis River or Siouxon Creek. Likewise, there are no anticipated direct, indirect or cumulative effects to congressionally designated wilderness. If the proposed action were implemented, there could be short term effects to the experience of dispersed recreationist utilizing the area as implementation occurred. These effects would likely be minor in magnitude, and the long term effect of the proposed action would improve the areas recreational value as it would enhance the natural function of the area. If the proposed action were implemented there is the potential to affect Paradise Hill Trail #153, Observation Peak Trailhead and Lone Butte Sno-Park. There is also the potential for negative effects to the Lewis River and Wind River visual corridors if no mitigating actions are taken.

Other Disclosures Required by Law, Policy, and Regulation

Clean Water Act The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) is responsible for enforcing the Clean Water Act of 1972. A Memorandum of Understanding prepared and agreed to by the Forest Service and DOE states that Best Management Practices, used by the Forest Service to control or prevent non-point sources of water pollution, would meet or exceed State water quality standards and other requirements, as outlined in the Washington State Forest Practices Rules. The design of the project, together with mitigation measures detailed in Appendix A, ensures compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding and the Clean Water Act.

National Historic Preservation Act All steps in the cultural resource process are coordinated with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office. Cultural Resource Site Reports are filed with and approved by the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer. A Forest Service archeologist completed a cultural resource report and concluded that there would be no historic properties affected. Consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer is occurring.

Several previously recorded archaeological sites, as well as one newly identified and recorded site, are located within proposed cutting units. The recommendation for each is complete avoidance of the site boundary plus a 50 meter buffered area of the site boundary.

163 Swift Thin

Endangered Species Act The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species. The United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the protection and recovery of Threatened and Endangered anadromous fish species.

Per regulations on interagency cooperation pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended, the Forest Service will submit a Biological Assessment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in February 2015 and request formal consultation. Based on prescribed design features that included stream buffers on streams with Federally-listed fish, no consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service is required.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs federal agencies to focus attention on the human health and environmental condition in minority and low-income communities. The purpose of the Executive Order is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. The principle behind Environmental Justice is that people should not suffer disproportionately because of their ethnicity or income level. Activities associated with Swift would not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income populations.

Wetlands and Floodplains There would be no adverse effects to wetlands or floodplains due to the implementation of mitigation measures included with the action alternative.

Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land There are no prime farm lands or prime range lands within the project footprint. Prime forest land is a term used only for non-public lands and does not apply to any land within the planning area.

Potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy There would be no potential or Unusual Expenditures of Energy with this project. The proposed action does not involve any forms of energy expenditure.

Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or other Jurisdictions There would be no conflicts with plans, policies or other jurisdictions with the proposed action. All overlapping plans and policies have been evaluated for consistency. The Forest works with regulatory agencies in development of the proposal including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Department of Ecology and the State Historic Preservation Officer.

Consistency with the Gifford Pinchot Forest Plan, as Amended The proposed action was designed to be consistent with all Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and stipulations from the Northwest Forest Plan. The Management Direction section lists the management area categories for the Forest Plan and land allocations from the Northwest Forest Plan and how the research project and special use permit fit within those allocations. Individual specialist reports were completed for this project and incorporated by reference throughout the EA. These reports also detail specific Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines that apply to this project.

164 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups, and Women The activities in the proposed action do not appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on consumers, minorities or women. The project would not have any effect on the civil rights of any human being.

Other Applicable State and Federal Laws The activities associated with the proposed action are designed to be consistent with all other applicable state and federal laws. Applicable laws are listed in the Management Direction section and throughout the individual Forest Service specialist reports.

165 Swift Thin

References Aguilar, Aldo. 2014. Swift Thin Soils Report. On file at Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver. WA.

Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Marten. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.11. 9 pp.

Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 83 pp.

Anderson, P.D., Larson, D.J., and Chan, S.S. 2007. Riparian buffer and density management influences on microclimate of young headwater forests of western Oregon. Forest Science, 53(2):254-269.

Andrews, L. S., et al. 2005. Silvicultural Approaches to Develop Northern Spotted Owl Nesting Sites, Central Coast Ranges, Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 20: 13-27.

Ares, A, S.D. Berryman, and KJ Puetmann. 2009. Understory Vegetation Response to Thinning Disturbance of Varying Complexity in Coniferous Stands. Applied Vegetation Science 12:472- 487

Arora, D. 1986. Mushrooms Demystified. A Comprehensive Guide to the Fleshy Fungi. Second Edition. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley.

Aubry, Keith B., et al. 1999. Evaluating the Effects of Varying Levels and Patterns of Green-Tree Retention: Experimental Design of the DEMO Study. Northwest Science 73, 12–26 (special issue).

Bailey, J.D., and J.C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of Thinning on Structural development in 40- to 100-year- old Douglas-fir Stands in Western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 108:99-113.

Barney, Danny L. 2007. Huckleberries and Bilberries: Management Strategies for Western Foresters. Presentation at Mt. Adams Ranger District, Trout Lake, WA.

Beggs, L. R. 2004. Vegetation Response Following Thinning in Young Douglas-fir Forests of Western Oregon: Can Thinning Accelerate Development of Late-Successional Structure and Composition? Department of Forest Science. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Bellrose, Frank C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North America (third edition). Stackpole Books.540 pp.

Berris, S.N., and Harr, R.D., 1987. Comparative snow accumulation and melt during rainfall in forested and clear-cut plots in the western Cascades of Oregon. Water Resour. Res. 23: 135-142.

Berryman S. D., et al. 2005. Characterizing Understory Vegetation Response to Variable-Density Thinnings in Young Douglas-fir Forests of western Oregon. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Bilby, R.E. 1985. Contributions of road surface sediment to a western Washington stream. Forest Science 31(4):827-838.

166 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Bilby, R.E., Sullivan, K.O. and S.H. Duncan 1989. The generation and fate of road surface sediment in forested watersheds in Southwestern Washington. Forest Science 35(2):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.

Brockway, Dale et. al. 1983. Plant Association and Management Guide for the Pacific Silver Fir Zone, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-ECOL-130A-1983. Pacific Northwest Region, USDA-FS. Vancouver, WA.

Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman, and J.F. Franklin, 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimate gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7:1188- 1200.

Brown, G.W. 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams. Water Resour. Res. 5(1):68-75.

Burles, Douglas W., and David W. Nagorsen. 2003. COSEWIC Assessment and update status report on the Keen’s Long-eared Bat (Myotis keeni) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 34 pp.

Burroughs, E.R., and King, J.G. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- 264. U.S.D.A. Intermountain Research Station.

Carey, A. B. 2007. AIMing for Healthy Forests: Active, Intentioanl Management for Multiple Values. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-721.

Chan, S. S. et al. 2004. Variable Density Management in Riparian Reserves: Lessons Learned from an Operational Study in Managed Forests of Western Oregon, USA. Forest Snow and Landscape Research. 78: 151-172.

Chan, S.S., et a. 2006. Overstory and Understory Development in Thinned and Underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:2696-2711.

Chen, J., T. Spies, and J. Franklin. 1990. Microclimatic and Biological Pattern at Edges of Douglas-fir Stands: A Preliminary Report to USDA Forest Service and University of Washington, April 4, 1990.

Chen, J., J.F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation Responses to Edge Environments in Old- Growth Douglas-fir Forests. Ecological Applications 2(4): 387-396.

Chen, J., J. F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1993. Contrasting Microclimates Among Clearcut, Edge, and Interior of Old-growth Douglas-fir Forest. Agricultural and Forest Meterology 63: 219-237.

Chen, J., J. F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1995. Growing-Season Microclimatic Gradients from Clearcut Edges into Old-Growth Douglas-fir Forests. Ecological Applications 5(1): 74- 86.

Chen, J., T. Spies, and J. Franklin. 1990. Microclimatic and Biological Pattern at Edges of Douglas-fir Stands: A Preliminary Report to USDA Forest Service and University of

167 Swift Thin

Washington, April 4, 1990.

Chen, J., J.F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1992. Vegetation Responses to Edge Environments in Old- Growth Douglas-fir Forests. Ecological Applications 2(4): 387-396.

Chen, J., J. F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1993. Contrasting Microclimates Among Clearcut, Edge, and Interior of Old-growth Douglas-fir Forest. Agricultural and Forest Meterology 63: 219-237.

Chen, J., J. F. Franklin and T. A. Spies. 1995. Growing-Season Microclimatic Gradients from Clearcut Edges into Old-Growth Douglas-fir Forests. Ecological Applications 5(1): 74- 86.

Christner J., and R. D. Harr, 1982. Peak streamflows from the transient snow zone, Western Cascades, Oregon, paper presented at Western Snow Conference, Reno, Nev., April 19-23, 1982.

Cissel, John H., et al. 2006. BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan. US Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5087.

Christy, Robin E. and Stephen D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-308, February 1993.

Corkran, Charlotte C., and Chris Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing.

Corkran, Charlotte C., and Christina R. Thoms. 2007. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine. 176 pp.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR. September 2004.

Curtis, Robert O. et al. 1974. Height growth and site index for Douglas-fir in high elevation forests of the Oregon-Washington Cascades. Forest Science 20: 307-316.

Curtis, Robert O. 1982. A Simple Index of Stand Density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp 92-94.

Dalrymple, Byron W. North American Game Animals. 1978. Book Division, Times Mirror Magazines, New York. 516 pp.

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.

Emmerson, Kendel, PacifiCorp. Personal communication 1/29/2010

Erickson, Janet L., Stephen D. West. 2002. Associations of bats with local structure and landscape features of forested stands in western Oregon and Washington. Biological Conservation 109 (2003) 95-102.

168 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Evers, L. et al. 1994. Fire ecology of the mid-Columbia Region. Barlow Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest, USDA-FS, Portland, OR.

Ewer, Justin. 2014. Natural Resources Specialist, Mt. Adams District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

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., R.J. Mitchell, and B.J. Palik. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. General Technical Report NRS-19. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

Franklin, J.F., and K.N. Johnson. 2010. Applying restoration principles on the BLM O&C forests in southwest Oregon. Report to the Bureau of Land Management.

Hairsine, P.B., Croke, J.C., Mathews, H., Fogarty, P., Mockler, S. P., 2002. Modelling plumes of overland flow from logging tracks. Hydrological Processes 16(12), 2311-2327.

Hallock, L.A. and McAllister, K.R. 2005. Sharptail Snake. Washington Herp Atlas. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/

Harr, R.D. 1976. Hydrology of small forest streams in western Oregon, 1976. Gen. Tech. Rept., Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Or.

Harr, R. D., 1981. Some characteristics and consequences of snowmelt during rainfall in western Oregon, J. Hydrol., 53, 277-304.

Harr, R. D., W. C. Harper, J. T. Krygier, and F. S. Hsieh 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after road building and clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range, Water Resour. Res., 11(3), 436-444.

Harrington, C. A. et al. 2005. Tree and understory responses to variable density thinning in western Washington. In C. E. Peterson and D. A. Maguire, eds. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry: Proceedings of a conference. General Technical Report PNW-GTR_635. USDA-FS. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland. OR.

Hartwig, C.L., D.S. Eastman, and A.S. Harestad. 2004. Characteristics of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) cavity trees and their patches on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 187:225-234.

Haynes, Richard W.; Bormann, Bernard T.; Lee, Danny C.; Martin, Jon R., tech. eds. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 292 p.

Heithecker , T.D. and Halpern, C.B., 2006. Variation in microclimate associated with dispersed-retention harvests in coniferous forests of western Washington. For. Ecol. Manage. 226: 60-71.

169 Swift Thin

Heithecker, Troy D. and Charles B. Halpern. 2007. Edge-Related Gradients in Microclimate in Forest Aggregates Following Structural Retention Harvests in Western Washington. Forest Ecology and Management, 248: 163-173.

Helliwell, R. 2007. Species Fact Sheet for Chaenotheca subroscida. Posted on the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program website. Accessible at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/isssp/documents/planning-docs/species-guides.shtml

Herter, Dale R., Lorin L. Hicks. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research. 34(4):279-286.

Hitchcock, C.L., Cronquist, A., Ownbey, M., and Thompson, J.W. 1969. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest. (5 Vols). University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA.

Howell, Donna J. Dr., Lew Becker, David Ek, James Nieland, Jim Villegas. Management guidelines for known sites of the big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii within the range of the northern spotted owl (draft). Undated

Hudec, Jessica. 2014. FSwift Thin Fire and Fuels Report. On file at Mt. Adams Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Trout Lake. WA.

Hudec, Jessica. 2013. Condition Class Assessment, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. On file at Mt. Adams Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Trout Lake. WA.

Hunter, Mark A., Timothy Quinn, Marc P. Hayes 2005. Low flow spatial characteristics in forested headwater channels of southwest Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, June 2005. Pp 503-516.

Ice, George C. 1985. Catalog of landslide inventories for the Northwest. Tech. Bull. 456. New York: National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. 78 p.

Jacobson, John E., Jeffery C. Lewis, and Michelle C. Snyder. 2003. Assessment of Fisher Habitat in Washington State. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Jensen, W.F., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Robinson. 1986. Wolf, Canis lupus, distribution on the Ontario- Michigan border near Sault St. Marie. Can. Field-Nat. 100(3):363-366.

Jimenez, Mathew. 2008. Warm Springs Indian Reservation Huckleberry Enhancement Project. Presentation at conference: Enhancing and Restoring Huckleberry Management Areas in a Healthy Watershed Approach to Management. Kah-Nee-Ta Resort, Warm Springs, OR.

Jones, J. A., and G. E. Grant 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon, Water Resour. Res., 32(4), 959-974.

Jones, Lawrence L.C., William P. Leonard, and Deanna H. Olson (editors). 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society.

Jones, L.L.C., and Martin G. Raphael. 1991. Ecology and management of marten in fragmented habitats of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, Progress Report: Fiscal year 1991. Olympia, WA. 26 p.

170 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Jones, Lawrence L.C., and Martin G. Raphael. 1993. Inexpensive camera systems for detecting martens, fishers, and other animals: guidelines for use and standardization. PNW-GTR-306, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 22 p.

Kerst, Cary and Steve Gordon. 2011. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Oregon, a Field Guide. Oregon State University Press. 304 pp.

King, J. G., and L. C. Tennyson 1984. Alteration of streamflow characteristics following road construction in north central Idaho, Water Resour. Res., 20(8), 1159-1163.

Kreutzweiser, D.P., Capell, S.S., 2001. Fine sediment deposition in streams after selective forest harvesting without riparian buffers. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(12), 2134-2142.

Larsen, E. M., J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, eds. 2004. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 268pp

Lawton, Elva. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Botanical Laboratory, May 1971.

Leonard, William P., Herbert A. Brown, Lawrence L.C. Jones, Kelly R. McAllister, Robert M. Storm. Amphibians of Oregon and Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. 1993. 168 pp.

Lindh, B. C., and P. S. Muir. 2004. Understory vegetation in young Dougas-fir forests: does thinning help restore old-growth composition? Forest Ecology and Management 192: 285-296.

Litschert, S.E. and MacDonald, L.H. 2009. Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 143-150.

Mack, Cheryl A. 2001. A Burning Issue: Native Use of Fire in the Mount Rainier Forest Reserve. Paper presentation. Society of Ethnobiology Meeting march 7-9, 2001. Available from Mt. Adams Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Manning, Tom, et al. Thinning of Young Douglas-fir Forests Decreases Density of Northern Flying Squirrels in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. Volume 264.

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR 768 pp.

Martin, PAE. 1979. Productivity and Taxonomy of the Vaccinium globulare, Vaccinium membranaceum Complex in Western Montana. Master’s Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 136p.

McAllister K.R. and Leonard W.P. 1997. Status of the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

McCune, B. & L. Geiser. 2009 (Second Edition). Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 464 p.

171 Swift Thin

Mech, L.D. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87.

Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:96-103.

Mellen, Kim, Mark Huff, and Rich Hagestedt. 1995. Interpreting landscape patterns: a vertebrate habitat relationships approach.

Mellen, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2006. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon.

Minore, Don, et al. 1972. The Wild Huckleberries of Oregon and Washington – A Dwindling Resource. USDA-FS Research Paper PNW-143. Pacific Northwest Forest Range Experimental Station, Portland, OR. 20p.

Minore, Don, et al. 1979. Huckleberry Ecology and Management Research in the Pacific Northwest. USDA-FS General Technical Report PNW-93. Pacific Northwest forest and Range Experimental Station, Portland, OR. 50p.

Motha, J.A., Wallbrink, P.J., Hairsine, P.B., Grayson, R.B., 2003. Determining the sources of suspended sediment in a forested catchment in southeastern Australia. Water Resources Research 39(3) 1056, doi:10.1029/2001WR000794.

Nakae, Jon. 2009. Sawtooth Restoration Project Silvicultural Report. On file at Mt. Adams Ranger District, Trout Lake, WA.

Nakae, Jon. 2014. Swift Thin Silvicultural Report. On file at Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver. WA.

National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1. The visual Management System issued April 1974.

Natural Resources Information System (NRIS)-TES and -IS Database. 2013.

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http:www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: February 20, 2008)

Neary, D.G.; Ryan, K.C.; DeBano, L.F. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p. Vol. 4.

Neitlich, P., and B. McCune. 1997. Hotspots of epiphytic lichen diversity in two young managed stands. Conservation Biology 11: 172-182.

Ober, Holly K. and John P. Hayes. 2008. Influence of vegetation on bat use of riparian areas at multiple scales. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(2):396-404.

172 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Omernik, James. 2010. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. Corvallis, OR.

Oliver, Chad and Bruce Larson. 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw-Hill Inc. NY, NY.

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.

Pechman, 2006. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006).

Pojar, J. and MacKinnon, A. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests and Lone Pine Publishing.

Pyle, Robert Michael. The Butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society. 2002. 420 pp.

Quintana-Coyer, Deborah L., Richard P. Gerhardt, Matthew D. Broyles, Jeffrey A. Dillon, Cheryl A. Friesen, Steven A. Godwin, and Shane D. Kamrath. Survey protocol for the great gray owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan, version 3.0, January 12, 2004.

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. John; Hunt, George L. Jr.; Raphael, Martin G.; Piatt, John F., Technical Editors. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 420 pp.

Ransome, Douglas B. and Thomas P. Sullivan. 2002. Short-term population dynamics of Glaucomys sabrinus and Tamiasciurus douglasii in commercially thinned and unthinned stands of coastal coniferous forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 32: 2043-2050.

Rashin, Edward B., Casey J. Clishe, Andrew T. Loch, and Johanna M. Bell, 2006. Effectiveness of Timber Harvest Practices for Controlling Sediment Related Water Quality Impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 42(5):1307-1327.

Reid L.M. 1981. Sediment production from gravel-surfaced roads, Clearwater Basin, Washington. Publication FRI-UW-8108. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute.

Reid LM. 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. USDA Forest Services GT Report, PSW- GTR-141, Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA; 118.

Reid, L.M., and T. Dunne, 1984. Sediment production from road surfaces. Water Resources Research. Vol. 20: pp 1753-1761.

Richardson, S., D. Hays, R. Spencer, and J. Stofel. 2000. Washington State status report for the common loon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 53 pp.

Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Byron Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Garry Patton, Tony Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger, and

173 Swift Thin

Al Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Ryan, Robert L. 2005 Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuels management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 58 p.

Schroeder, R.L. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Pileated woodpecker. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.39. 15 pp.

Sousa, P.J., and A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Wood duck. U.S. Dept. Int. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.43. 27 pp.

Stone, Daphne. Personal Communication. 2014. E-mail exchange, 12/16/2014.

Storck, P., Lettnemaier, D.P., and Bolton, S.M. 2002. Measurement of snow interception and canopy effects on snow accumulation and melt in a mountainous maritime climate, Oregon, United States. Water Resour. Res., 38(11), 1223

Storck, P., T. Kern, and S. Bolton. 1998. Measurement of differences in snow accumulation, melt, and micrometeorology between clearcut and mature forest stands. Proceedings of the Western Snow Conference.

Storm, Robert M., William P. Leonard, Herbert A. Brown, R. Bruce Bury, David M. Darda, Lowell V. Diller, and Charles R. Peterson. Reptiles of Oregon and Washington. 1995. Seattle Audubon Society. 176 pp.

Swanson, F.J., R.J. Janda, T.Dunne, and D.N. Swanston (editors) 1982. Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage basins. U.S. Dept of Agric. For. Serv., Pac. N.W. For. Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-141.

Swanson, F.J.; Benda, L.E.; Duncan, S.H. and others. 1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest forest landscapes. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W. (eds.). Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57. 9-38. 471 p.

Swanson, M.E., et al. 2011. The Forgotten Stage of Forest Succession: Early-Successional Ecosystems on Forest Sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(2):117-125.

Swanson, M.E. 2012. Early Seral Forest in the Pacific Northwest: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Current Science. Willamette National Forest, Central Cascades Adaptive Management Partnership. McKenzie Bridge, OR.

Tilton, D. and D.M. Becker. 1993. The Use of the Canopy Cover and Structure Continuum in Ecosystem Management on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver, WA. On file at the Mt. Adams Ranger District. Trout Lake, WA.

Topik, C., N. M. Halverson, and D.G. Brockway. 1986. Plant Association and Management Guide for the Western Hemlock Zone, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-Ecol-230A-1986. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

174 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. 113(2):404-407.

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. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Government Printing Office. 530 p.

Thomas, Jack Ward, and Dale E. Toweill. Elk of North America, ecology and management. 1982. U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Stackpole Books. 698 pp.

Thomas, Donald W. 1988. The distribution of bats in different ages of Douglas-fir forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 52(4): 619-626

USDA Forest Service 2011. Regional Forester’s Sensitive/Special Status Species List. December 2011. Accessible at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

USDA Forest Service 2008. Regional Forester’s Sensitive/Special Status Species List. January 2008. Accessible at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

USDA Forest Service 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. USDA Forest Service 2004c. Likelihood of Occurrence Key. http://www.or.blm.gov/ISSSP/

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001. Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Measures. Forest Service National Forests in Regions 5 and 6 and the Bureau of Land Management Districts in California, Oregon, and Washington Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. January 2001.

USDA Forest Service, 1988. Cumulative Effects Assessment Process, Final Report, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Interim Definitions for Old-Growth Douglas-Fir and Mixed-Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. Pacific Northwest Resarch Station. Research Note PNW-447. Portland, OR.

USDA-Forest Service. 1988. Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation, Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

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

175 Swift Thin

USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 11, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver, WA.

USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Middle Lewis River Watershed Analysis, Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver, WA.

USDA-Forest Service. 1996. Lower Lewis River Watershed Analysis, Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Vancouver, WA.

USDA-Forest Service. 1997. Gifford Pinchot National Forest Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Vancouver, WA.

USDA Forest Service, 2006. Tee Timber Sale Environmental Assessment, Mt Adams Ranger District, Trout Lake, WA.

USDA Forest Service, 2010. Peppercat Timber Sale Environmental Assessment, Mt Adams Ranger District, Trout Lake, WA.

USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2010. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy: Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards.

USDA Forest Service; USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volume 1. [Place of publication unknown].

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. 1994. General Technical Report RM-254.

USDA Forest Service and USDI - Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service Threatened, Endangered, and Species Proposed for Listing and the Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Special Status and Sensitive Species. Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigating Measures Standards and Guidelines.

USDA Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Forest Service Handbook Number 701. December 1995.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the Peregrine Falcon. 1982.

USDI. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.

USDI. 1990a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Fed. Reg. Vol. 55, No. 23: 26114-26194. June 26, 1990.

176 Mount St. Helens Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

USFWS. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp.

Wade, John, et. al. 1992. Soil Resource Inventory, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region. USDA-FS. Vancouver, WA.

Wallmo, Olof C. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. 1981. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Univ. of Nebraska Press. 605 pp.

Washington Department of Natural Resources, 2001. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 222-16.

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia.

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept Wildl., Olympia.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Herp Atlas. www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/speciesmain.html

Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones, and G. E. Grant 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon, Water Resour. Res., 32(6), 1195-1207.

Wemple, B.C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Masters thesis, Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Wessell, S.J., D.H. Olson, and R.A. Schmitz. 2005. Effects of Thinning on Microclimate, Plants, and Low-Mobility Animals in Managed Oregon Forests. Northwestern Naturalist 86: 122

Wessel, S. J. 2005. Biodiversity in Managed Forests of Western Oregon: Species Assemblages in Leave Islands, Thinned, and Unthinned Forests. Master of Science Thesis, 17 June 2005, Department of Wildlife Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Wisdom, Michael J., Richard S. Holthausen, Barbara C. Wales, Christina D. Hargis, Victoria A. Saab, Danny C. Lee, Wendel J. Hann, Terrell D. Rich, Mary M. Rowland, Wally J. Murphy, and Michelle R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, Portland, OR.

Wisdom, M.J., L.R. Bright, C.G. Carey, W.W. Hines, R.J. Pederson, D.A. Smithy, J.W. Thomas, and G.W. Witmer. 1986. A model to evaluate elk habitat in western Oregon. Publication No. R6- F&WL-216-1986. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 36p.

177