Tools of the Trade and Other Resources Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

o matter what the job, proper tools will make it 5.1 Software easier. Restoration in wilderness settings requires a • Biodraw—Autocad drawings for bioengineer- number of specialized tools (figures 5–1a and 5– ing techniques. Geared toward large-scale 1b).N This chapter includes information about sources of tools N applications rather than smaller applications that can make your job easier. used in wilderness and backcountry. Useful for creating technical drawings for contracts. Also includes best management practices and color photos of installations. • Erosiondraw—Similar to Biodraw, but focuses on stabilization techniques that do not rely on living material. Geared toward large-scale applications such as road cutbanks. Salix Applied Earthcare 225 Locust St., Suite 203 Redding, CA 96001 Phone: 800–403–0474 Web site: http://www.biodraw.com/ • Flora ID Northwest—This software is an electronic dichotomous key. Choose between Statewide keys, a Pacific Northwest key, and a Great Plains key. XIDServices, Inc. P.O. Box 272 Pullman, WA 99163 Phone: 800–872–2943 Web site: http://www.xidservices.com

5.2 Government Web Sites • Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Insti- tute—Wilderness research, including restora- tion of small disturbed sites. Web site: http:// www.leopold.wilderness.net Figures 5–1a and 1b—Restoration workers (top) in the Eagle Cap Wilder- Arthur Carhart National Wilderness ness, OR, with the tools and supplies (bottom) they packed into the wilder- • ness. Training Center—Offers courses and other tools for wilderness management. Web site: http://www.carhart.wilderness.net

237 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

• Colorado Natural Areas Program—Down- 5.3 Organizational Web load the Native Plant Revegetation Guide for Sites Colorado. Web site: http://parks.state.co.us/ • Erosion Control—Back issues of journal cnap/revegetation_guide/reveg_index.html articles are available online. Web site: http:// • Conservation Plant Materials Centers— www.forester.net/ec.html These centers, a service of the Natural Resourc- • Native Plant Journal—Excellent online es Conservation Service, develop protocols for database with plant propagation protocols. The large-scale production of native species for journal features various native plant species. conservation. In recent years, they have worked Web site: http://www.nativeplantnetwork.org/ with the National Park Service to produce plant • Native Plant Societies—Many of these Web materials for restoration projects. The special- sites have links to additional resources. Con- ists who respond to inquiries are very helpful. sider joining your State’s native plant society to Web site: http://www.plant-materials.nrcs. learn about native plant communities. usda.gov / (Select site map for a list of the Arizona— http://www.aznps.org / (this site has centers.) links to all States) • Fire Effects Information System—Among its California—http://www.cnps.org/ various features, this database allows a species- Colorado—http://www.conps.org/conps.html specific search. Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/ Idaho— http://www.idahonativeplants.org/ database/feis/ Montana—http://www.umt.edu/mnps/ • National Plants Database—Helpful Web site New Mexico— http://npsnm.unm.edu/ that includes plant life histories (native species Nevada—http://heritage.nv.gov/nnps.htm and introduced weeds), species distribution Oregon— http://www.npsoregon.org/ maps, and the most current scientific names as Utah—http://www.unps.org/ well as previous scientific names. Web site: Washington—http://www.wnps.org/ http://plants.usda.gov/ Wyoming—http://www.rmh.uwyo.edu/wnps. • Soil Quality Institute—This Natural Resources html Conservation Service Web site has helpful • Natural Areas Association—Publishes the publications for assessing and managing Natural Areas Journal, which includes many rangeland soils available online. Web site: articles on restoration. Web site: http://www. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/ naturalarea.org/ • University of Montana Invader Database— • Society for Ecological Restoration (SER)— Noxious weed database for a five-State area. This Web site has lots of useful information Web site: http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/ including the Primer of Ecological Restoration. SER publishes two restoration journals, hosts conferences both internationally and regionally, and is working with Island Press Books to produce a series of books on ecological restoration. Web site: http://www.ser.org/

238 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

5.4 Restoration Tools and • E-Z Digger Oriental Garden Tool (Item 52604) Products Lehman’s One Lehman Circle For a more complete listing of potential restoration tools P.O. Box 321 and supplies see Items To Consider Including in a Restora- Kidron, OH 44636 tion Project Budget in section 4.1.2, Budgeting. Most tools Phone: 888–438–5346 and products mentioned in this guide are available through Web site: http://www.lehmans.com/ forestry, agriculture, greenhouse, or gardening supply • Long-Handled Ho-Mi Digger (Item CB103) distributors. Several mail-order suppliers are listed below, but Lee Valley Tools, Ltd. you may find a supplier in your area who can help you save P.O. Box 1780 on shipping costs. Ogdensburg, NY 13669–6780 • Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Phone: 800–871–8158 P.O. Box 8397 Web site: http://www.leevalley.com/ 205 West Rankin St. • Hoematic Pick and Digger (Item 627050) Jackson, MS 39284-8397 Aubuchon Hardware Phone: 800–752–8460 (customer service); 800– 95 Aubuchon Dr. 430–5566 (technical support) Westminster, MA 01473 Web site: http://www.forestry-suppliers.com/ Phone: 800–431–2712 • IFM (Integrated Fertility Management, an Web site: http://aubuchonhardware.com/ organic growing supplier) • Pick & Hoe (Item G-2107) 1422 N. Miller St., No. 8 Hidatool, Inc. Wenatchee, WA 98801 1333 San Pablo Ave. Phone: 800–332–3179 Berkeley, CA 94702 Web site: http://www.agecology.com/ Phone: 800–443–5512 or 510–524–3700 • Steuber Distributing Co. (greenhouse and Web site: http://www.hidatool.com/ nursery wholesaler) P.O. Box 100

Snohomish, WA 98291–0100 5.4.2 U-Bar Diggers Phone: 800–426–8815 (continental U.S.) This tool (see figure 3–27) breaks up compaction to a Web site: http://www.steuberdistributing.com/ depth of a foot (300 millimeters) or more. It will even pierce a hard plow-pan layer, but doesn’t work well when compac- 5.4.1 Pick Hoes or Miniature tion is at the soil surface. Push the tool’s prongs in the soil, Plowshares step onto the crosspiece, then use the handles to rock the tool back and forth gently (see section 3.2.3a, Scarification). This Fine garden supply companies are the most likely tool saves much backbreaking work that would otherwise sources for these tools. Pick hoes (see figure 3–130) are the require a pick or shovel. If you use stock to transport a U-bar best tools for planting small greenhouse transplants. Unlike digger, cover the tool’s sharp tines with a homemade scab- trowels, they use the power of the arm and shoulder, not just bard (figure 5–2). the hand, and keep the wrist in a more neutral position.

239 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

5.4.4 Systemic Repellants A repellant treatment lasts for about 3 months after planting. There are formulations for deer and rodents (gophers and mice). The repellant is expensive, but not as expensive as replacing plantings. • Repellex Repellex Seedling Protection Systems 1888 Bobblett St. Blaine, WA 98230 Phone: 877–737–3548 Web site: http://www.repellex.com

Figures 5–2—When transporting a U-bar digger using stock, cover the tool’s sharp tines with a homemade scabbard. 5.4.5 Restoration Signs • U-Bar Digger (Item LB101) This Polydura 19 sign (see figure 3–142b) can be Lee Valley Tools, Ltd. attached to a stake or hung from cord to close restoration P.O. Box 1780 sites. Ogdensburg, NY 13669–6780 • Restoration Sign (Item P1479) Phone: 800–871–8158 J.L. Darling Corp. Web site: http://www.leevalley.com/ 2614 Pacific Hwy. East Tacoma, WA 98424 Phone: 253–922–5000 5.4.3 Balanced Watering Cans Web site: http://www.riteintherain.com/ The French watering can refers to a handle design that arches all the way from the base of the watering can up to the top front near the spout (see figure 3–140a). This design is 5.4.6 Erosion-Control Blankets easier on the back and arms because it allows the user to A variety of erosion-control blankets are on the market. balance the can easily as it is tilted back and forth. Workers Each company will probably refer you to a regional distribu- can carry full watering cans in pairs to balance the weight on tor. Prices vary by area. The products included here are all both sides of their body. If you find this style of watering can degradable—a desirable attribute for wilderness and back- at your local garden store, buy a supply, as they are hard to country applications. Nettings are photodegradable over a find in lightweight plastic. period of years; the knots of the net are the last to degrade • French Blue Watering Can (Item 06-341) and can remain for many years. Small animals can become Gardener’s Supply Co. entangled in any netting product. With many products, the 28 Intervale Rd. netting is loose and can be removed when the product is Burlington, VT 05401 installed. Nondegradable geotextile products are also on the Phone: 888–833–1412 market. They may be needed to stabilize the soil in extreme Web site: http://www.gardeners.com/ situations. Straw and excelsior products are very bright when first installed, but they turn gray in a season or two. Compare

240 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources figures 3–138a and 138b (new Curlex and Curlex after one Product: Curlex NetFree winter) with figure 3–147d (Curlex years after installation). Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars American Excelsior Co. 8 (2.4) 90 (27.4) 720 (67) 58 (26) 44 850 Ave. H East

Arlington, TX 76011 Description: Aspen wood shavings with 100-percent

Phone: 800–777–7645 biodegradable stitching. Web site: http://www.curlex.com Advantages: Protects seeds, enhances germination, and Product: Curlex I hastens revegetation. No netting to ensnare animals. Attaches to soil surface with biodegradable plastic staples. Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Disadvantages: Too new to evaluate. 8 (2.4) 101.25 (30.8) 810 (75.25) 66 (30) 40 Contech Construction Products, Inc. 9025 Centre Pointe Drive, Suite 400 Description: Aspen wood shavings with photodegrad- West Chester, OH 45069 able plastic mesh (see figure 3–147b). Natural-colored netting Phone: 800–338–1122 on one side of the blanket. Available with white photodegrad- Web site: http://www.contech-cpi.com able netting that decomposes in 30 to 60 days. Advantages: Easy to install, promotes seedling survival, Product: C-Jute decomposes in 2 to 5 years. Proven to work well in subalpine Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll environments. Netting can be removed. ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Disadvantages: Another blanket application may be 12.5 (3.8) 432 (132) 5,400 (502) 90 (41) 300 needed every 3 to 4 years if the site has not stabilized adequately. Description: Lightweight biodegradable green synthetic Product: Curlex III jute. Advantages: Holds seed and soil in place. Allows Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars unobstructed growth of woody material. Degrades in 12 months. 8 (2.4) 67.5 (20.6) 540 (50.2) 75 (34) 54 Disadvantages: Doesn’t control erosion as well as denser products. Breaks down too quickly to be useful for Description: Aspen wood shavings with black heavy- many restoration projects. Highly flammable. duty plastic netting on both sides. Available with biodegrad- able woven jute thread. Advantages: Effective on steep slopes and areas with high-velocity runoff. Disadvantages: Netting is visible and lasts for many years.

241 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

Product: SFB1 Advantages: Good for slopes as steep as 2:1 and for Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll protecting channels. Degrades in 48 months. ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Disadvantages: Does not work as well as excelsior 7.5 (2.3) 120 (37) 900 (84) 40 (18) 50 products for retaining moisture and preventing soil recom- paction in subalpine settings. Description: Straw blanket with yellow netting on one side. Erosion-Control Systems Advantages: Protects slopes as steep as 3:1. Degrades in 9015 Energy Lane 12 months. North Port, AL 35476 Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. Phone: 205–373–8900

Product: SFB2 Product: Proguard-SS

Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 7.5 (2.3) 120 (37) 900 (84) 40 (18) 60 8 (2.4) 112 (34) 900 (84) 55 (25) 25

Description: Straw blanket with yellow netting on both Description: Agricultural straw with photodegradable sides. plastic netting on one side, sewn on 2-inch (51-millimeter) Advantages: Good for slopes as steep as 3:1. Degrades centers. in 18 months. Advantages: Lightweight, encourages growth for 6 to 8 Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. months. Available in custom widths. Disadvantages: May decompose too quickly. Some risk Product: SCFB2 of introducing weed seed. The 8-foot-wide rolls would have Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll to be cut in half before they could be packed by stock. ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Product: Proguard-DS 7.5 (2.3) 120 (37) 900 (84) 40 (18) 65 Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Description: Straw/coconut blend blanket. Advantages: Good for slopes as steep as 2:1. Degrades 8 (2.4) 112 (34) 900 (84) 60 (27) 28 in 24 months. Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. Description: Agricultural straw with photodegradable plastic netting on both sides, sewn on 2-inch (51-millimeter) Product: CFB2 centers. Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Advantages: Encourages growth for 6 to 8 months in ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars areas with medium runoff and on slopes from 2:1 to 3:1. 7.5 (2.3) 120 (37) 900 (84) 46 (21) 110 Available in custom widths. Disadvantages: May decompose too quickly. Some risk Description: 100-percent coconut blanket with tan of introducing weed seed. The 8-foot-wide rolls would have biodegradable netting. to be cut in half before they could be packed by stock.

242 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

Product: Everhold XL1 (Excelsior blanket) Disadvantages: Doesn’t work as well as excelsior Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll products for retaining soil moisture and preventing soil ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars recompaction in subalpine settings. The 8-foot-wide rolls 8 (2.4) 112 (34) 900 (84) 85 (39) 35 would have to be cut in half before they could be packed by stock.

Description: Excelsior fiber mat covered with photode- Product: DuraBlend SC1 (Straw/coconut blanket) gradable plastic netting, sewn on 2-inch (51-millimeter) Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll centers. ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Advantages: Provides erosion maintenance for 6 to 12 8 (2.4) 112 (34) 900 (84) 65 (29) 54 months. Promotes seedling survival. May be easier to install than Curlex. Description: Straw and coconut fibers that will degrade Disadvantages: The 8-foot-wide rolls would have to be more slowly, sewn with photodegradable plastic netting on cut in half before they could be packed by stock. both sides. Product: Everhold XL3 (High-impact excelsior Advantages: Erosion control for up to 3 years. Good for blanket) slopes as steep as 2:1 and areas with medium runoff.

Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. The ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 8-foot-wide rolls would have to be cut in half before they 8 (2.4) 112 (34) 900 (84) 120 (54) 45 could be packed by stock.

Description: Wood excelsior with photodegradable North American Green plastic netting, sewn on both sides. 14649 Hwy. 41 North

Advantages: Erosion control for 12 to 24 months. Good Evansville, IN 47725 for areas with high erosion potential. Phone: 800–772–2040 Disadvantages: Heavy. The 8-foot-wide rolls would Web site: http://www.nagreen.com have to be cut in half before they could be packed by stock. Product: DS150 (Straw blanket)

Product: DuraGuard C1 (Coconut blanket) Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 6.7 (2) 108 (33) 720 (67) 40 (18) 50 8 (2.4) 112 (34) 900 (84) 95 (43) 62 Description: Straw fiber blanket with photodegradable Description: Durable coconut fibers encased in heavy- netting on both sides. weight UV-stabilized nets on both sides. Advantages: Erosion control for up to 2 months. Advantages: Erosion control for up to 3 years. Good for Lightweight. Stitched every 1 1/2 inches (38 millimeters). slopes as steep as 1:1 and areas with high runoff. Dark brown Disadvantages: Netting may decompose too quickly. color blends in faster on dark soils (see figure 3–139a). Other Some risk of importing weed seed. products need a couple years to weather before blending in. Easy to install.

243 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

Product: S150 (Straw blanket) Product: C125BN (Coconut blanket)

Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 6.7 (2) 108 (33) 720 (67) 40 (18) 50 6.7 (2) 108 (33) 720 (67) 52 (24) 70

Description: Straw blanket with photodegradable Description: 100-percent coconut fiber blanket with netting on both sides. biodegradable natural netting on both sides. Advantages: Erosion control for up to 12 months on 2:1 Advantages: Erosion control for up to 24 months. to 3:1 slopes and in areas with drainage channels carrying Provides long-term erosion control and allows vegetation to moderate flows. become established on slopes steeper than 1:1 and in areas Disadvantages: Decomposes rapidly. Some risk of with drainage channels carrying high flows. importing weed seed. Disadvantages: Does not work as well as excelsior products for retaining soil moisture and preventing recom- Product: S75 (Straw blanket) paction in subalpine settings. S75BN 100-percent biodegradable natural netting Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Mirafi Construction Products ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 365 South Holland Dr.

6.7 (2) 108 (33) 720 (67) 40 (18) 40 Pendergrass, GA 30567 Phone: 706–693–2226 Description: Straw blanket with photodegradable Web Site: http://www.mirafi.com netting on one side. Advantages: Erosion control for up to 12 months. Product: Miramat TM8 blanket Promotes seedling survival on 3:1 to 4:1 slopes. Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 12 (3.7) 100 (30) 1,197 (111) 100 (45) Call for Product: SC150 (Straw/coconut blanket) estimate

Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Description: An ultraviolet-stabilized polypropylene ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars rolled mat created for revegetation and to reinforce turf. 6.7 (2) 108 (33) 720 (67) 44 (20) 70 Advantages: Highly porous, very flexible. Enhances vegetative growth. Description: 70-percent straw/30-percent coconut fiber Disadvantages: Heavy, takes a long time to degrade. blanket with netting on both sides. Would need to be cut before it could be packed by stock. Advantages: Erosion control for up to 24 months. Provides long-term erosion control and allows vegetation to Propex Fabrics, Inc. become established on slopes as steep as 1:1 and in areas 6025 Lee Hwy. with drainage channels carrying moderate flows. Chattanooga, TN 37421 Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. Phone: 800–445–7732 Web site: http://www.geotextile.com

244 Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

Product: Landlok SuperGro Product: Landlok S1

Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 7.5 (2.2) 1,200 (366) 9,000 (836) 44 (20) 450 8 (2.45) 112.5 (34.3) 900 (84) 53 (24) Call for estimate

Description: Flexible, scrim composite blanket of Description: 100-percent wheat straw with photodegrad- polypropylene fibers reinforced with polypropylene netting. able netting on one side, stitched on 2-inch (51-millimeter) Good for slopes up to 1.5:1 and for areas with heavy rainfall. centers. Advantages: Lightweight, conforms to the surface of the Advantages: Degrades in 12 months. ground, and promotes absorption of water by the soil. Fibers Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. The mimic root structure. Applying water on the product’s stitched netting cannot be removed. surface helps it adhere to the soil. Product: Landlok CS2 Disadvantages: Netting degrades in about 2 months, which may be too soon for some restoration sites. Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Product: Landlok S2 8 (2.45) 112.5 (34.3) 900 (84) 55 (25) Call for estimate Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars Description: 70-percent wheat straw/30-percent coconut 8 (2.45) 112.5 (34.3) 900 (84) 53 (24) Call for estimate fiber. The top netting is UV-stabilized polypropylene. The bottom netting is photodegradable polypropylene. Mesh Description: Wheat straw blanket with photodegradable openings are 3/8 by 3/8 inch (9.5 by 9.5 millimeters). netting on both sides, stitched on 2-inch (51-millimeter) Advantages: Degrades in 24 months. centers. Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. Advantages: Degrades in 12 months. Disadvantages: Some risk of importing weed seed. The stitched netting cannot be removed.

Product: Landlok C2

Width Length Area covered Weight Cost per roll ft (m) ft (m) sq ft (sq m) lb (kg) dollars 8 (2.45) 112.5 (34.3) 900 (84) 55 (25) Call for estimate

Description: 100-percent coconut fiber blanket with photodegradable netting on both sides, stitched on 2-inch (51- millimeter) centers. Advantages: Degrades in 36 months. Disadvantages: Does not work as well as excelsior products for retaining soil moisture and preventing soil recompaction in subalpine settings. The stitched netting cannot be removed. 245 References Chapter 5: Tools of the Trade and Other Resources

246 References

Albright, M. 1994. Seed collecting and processing. Port Bainbridge, D.A.; Sorensen, N.; Virginia, R.A. 1992. Angeles, WA: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park In: Landis, Thomas D., tech. coord. 1993. Proceedings: Service, Olympic National Park. Unpublished report. 3 p. Western Forest Nursery Association; 1992 September 14–18; Allen, E.B. 1993. Restoration ecology: limits and Fallen Leaf Lake, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM–221. Fort possibilities in arid and semiarid lands. In: Randy, Bruce A.; Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and others, comps. 1995. Proceedings: wildland shrub and Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 21– arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19–21; Las 25. Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT–GTR–315. Ogden, UT: U.S. Bainbridge, D.A; Virginia, R.A. 1990. Restoration in Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain the Sonoran Desert of California: a progress report on the Research Station. development of techniques for restoration in this challenging Amaranthus, M.P.; Cázares, E.; Perry, D.A. 1999. ecosystem. Restoration and Management Notes. (8)7: 3–14. The role of soil organisms in restoration. In: Proceedings: Barbour, M.G.; Burke, J.H.; Pitts, W.D. 1987. Pacific Northwest Forest and Rangeland Soil Organism Terrestial plant ecology. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing. Symposium; June 1999. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW–GTR–461. Merhlo Park, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Belnap J. 2003. Biological soil crusts in deserts: a short Northwest Research Station: 179–189. review of their role in soil fertility, stabilization, and water Amaranthus, M.P.; Trappe, J.M.; Perry, D.A. 1993. relations. Algological Studies. 109: 113–126. Soil moisture, native revegetation, and Pinus lambertiana Belnap, J.; Furman, C. 1997. Revegetation workbook: seedling survival, growth, and mycorrhizae formation guidelines for implementing revegetation projects. Unpub- following wildfire and grass seeding. Restoration Ecology. lished report. Moab, UT: U.S. Department of the Interior 1(3): 188–195. National Park Service, Canyonlands National Park. 82 p. Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Belnap, J.; Sharpe, S. 1995. Reestablishing cold-desert Center. 2004. Minimum requirements decision guide. grasslands: a seeding experiment in Canyonlands National Missoula, MT: Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Park, Utah. In: Roundy, Bruce A.; McArthur, E. Durant; Center. 11 p. Available at http://www.wilderness.net Haley, Jennifer S.; Mann, David K., comps. 1995. Proceed- Aubry, C.; Shoal, R.; Erickson, V. 2005. Grass culti- ings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; vars; their origins, development, and use on national forests 1993 October 19–21; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT– and grasslands in the Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: U.S. GTR–315. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 46–51. Region. 44 p. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/ Berger, J. 1993. Ecological restoration and nonindig- publications/cultivars_maindoc_040405_appendices.pdf enous plant species: a review. Restoration Ecology. 1(2): 74– Bainbridge, D.A. 1990. Soil solarization for restoration- 82. ists. Restoration and Management Notes. 8(2): 96–98. Bliss, Lawrence C. 1985. Alpine. In: Chabot, B.F.; Bainbridge, D.A. 1996. Vertical mulch for soil improve- Mooney, H.A., eds. Physiological ecology of North American ment. Restoration and Management Notes. 14(1): 72. plant communities. New York: Chapman and Hall: 41–65. Bainbridge, D.A.; Raymond, F.; Williams, A.C.; [and Blom, C.W. 1976. Effects of trampling and soil compac- others]. 1995. A beginner’s guide to desert restoration. tion on the occurrence of some Plantago species in coastal Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park sand dunes. Oecologia Plantarum. 11: 225–241. Service, Denver Service Center. Bradshaw, A.D. 1993. Restoration ecology as a science. Restoration Ecology. 1: 71–73. 247 References

Brady, N.; Weil, R. 2002. The nature and properties of Chapin, D.M. 1992. Ecological approaches to restora- soils. 13th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 960 p. tion of disturbed wilderness sites. Missoula, MT: U.S. Brown, R.W.; Johnston, R.S. 1979. Revegetation of Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain disturbed alpine rangelands. In: Johnson, D.A., ed. Special Research Station. management needs of alpine ecosystems. Range Sci. Ser. No. Claassen, V. 2002. Soil characteristics, analysis, and 5. Denver, CO: Society of Range Management: 76–94. assessment. Speech presented at: Subalpine, small site restoration in wilderness training course; 2002 November Brown, R.W.; Johnston, R.S. 1980. An assessment of 20; Eatonville, WA. revegetation techniques for alpine disturbances. In: Jackson, Claassen, V.P.; Carey, J.L. 2004. Regeneration of Charles l.; Schuster, Mark A., eds. Proceedings: high-altitude nitrogen fertility in disturbed soils using composts. Compost revegetation workshop No. 4; 1980 February 26–27; Golden, Science and Utilization. 12(2): 145–152. CO. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Water Claassen, V.P.; Hogan, M.; 1998. Generation of water- Resources Institute: 126–146. stable soil aggregates for improved erosion control and reveg- Browse, P.M. 1979. The Royal Horticultural Society’s etation success. Final Report. Research Technical Agreement encyclopedia of practical gardening: plant propagation. New 53X461. California Department of Transportation. York: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 96 p. Claassen, V.P.; Hogan, M.P.; 2002. Soil nitrogen pools Burke, P. 1998. [Personal communication]. Corvallis, associated with revegetation of disturbed sites in the Lake MT: Bitterroot Native Growers. Tahoe area. Restoration Ecology. 10(2): 195-203. Campbell, S.E.; Scotter, G.W. 1975. Subalpine Clary, R.F.; Slayback, R.D. 1984. Revegetation in the revegetation and disturbance studies, Mount Revelstoke Mojave Desert using native woody plants. In: Rieger, John P.; National Park. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Wildlife Steele, Bobbie A. 1984. Proceedings: Native plant revegeta- Service. 99 p. tion symposium; 1984 November 15; San Diego, CA: Cázares, E. 1992. Mycorrhizal fungi and their relation- California Native Plant Society. ship to plant succession in subalpine habitats. Corvallis, OR: Clewell, A.; Rieger, J.; Munro, J. 2000. Guidelines for Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State developing and managing ecological restoration projects. Society of Ecological Restoration. 12 p. Available at http:// University. Dissertation: 174 p. www.ser.org/content/guidelines_ecological_restoration.asp Cázares, E. 2002. Mycorrhizal fungi. Speech presented Cole, David N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in at: Subalpine, small-site restoration in wilderness training wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, Robert course; 2002 November 19; Eatonville, WA. C. comp. Proceedings, national wilderness research confer- Cázares, E.; Trappe, J.M.; Jumpponen, A. 2005. ence: issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions; 1985 July Mycorrhiza-plant colonization patterns on a subalpine glacier 23–26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT–220. Fort forefront: a model system of primary succession. Mycorrhiza. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 15(6): 405–416. Rocky Mountain Research Station: 135–177. Chambers, J.C.; Brown, R.W.; Johnston, R.S. 1984. Cole, David N. 1994. Backcountry impact management: Examination of plant successional stages in disturbed alpine lessons from research. Trends. 31(3): 10–14. ecosystems: a method of selecting revegetation species. In: Cole, David N. 1995a. Experimental trampling of Colbert, T.A.; Cuany, R.L., eds. 1984. Proceedings: High alti- vegetation. I. Relationship between trampling intensity and tude revegetation workshop No. 6. Inf. Series 53. Fort vegetation response. Journal of Applied Ecology. 32: 203– Collins, CO: Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado 214. State University: 215–224.

248 References

Cole, David N. 1995b. Experimental trampling of Culliney J.; Koebele, B.P. 1999. A native Hawaiian vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. Journal garden: how to grow and care for island plants. Honolulu, HI: of Applied Ecology. 32: 215–224. University of Hawaii Press. Cole, David N.; Dalle-Molle, John. 1982. Managing Curtis, Matthew J.; Claassen, Victor P. 2005. Com- campfire impacts in the backcountry. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT– post incorporation increases plant available water in a 135. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest drastically disturbed serpentine soil. Soil Science. 170 (12): Service, Intermountain Research Station. 16 p. 939–953. Cole, David N.; Petersen, Margaret E.; Lucas, Dalle-Molle, John. 1977. Resource restoration. Unpub- Robert C. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation use: lished report on file at: U.S. Department of the Interior common problems and potential solutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. National Park Service, Mt. Rainier National Park, Longmire, INT–230. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest WA. 19 p. Service, Intermountain Research Station. 60 p. Dalpiaz, Mark. 1994. Unpublished correspondence. Cole, D.N.; Petersen, M.E.; Lucas, R.C. 1987. Salida, CO: Western Native Seed. 12 p. Managing wilderness recreation use. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT– del Moral, R. 1978. High elevation vegetation of the 230. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Enchantment Lakes Basin, Washington. Seattle, WA: Service, Intermountain Research Station. 60 p. University of Washington. Cole, D.N.; Spildie, D.R. 2000. Soil amendments and Densmore, R.V.; Dalle–Molle, L.; Holmes, K.E. 1990. planting techniques: campsite restoration in the Eagle Cap Restoration of alpine and subalpine plant communities in Wilderness, Oregon. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, USA. In: Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Hughes, Glenn H.; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. 1990. Wilderness Science in a Time Of Change Conference. Proceedings: Restoration ’89: the new management chal- Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; lenge. First annual meeting of the Society for Ecological 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS–P–15– Restoration; 1989 January 16–20; Oakland, CA. Madison, VOL–5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest WI: Society for Ecological Restoration. Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 181–187. Densmore, R.V.; Vander Meer, M.E. 1998. Native Cole, D.N.; Watson, A.E.; Hall, T.E.; Spildie, D.R. plant revegetation in Denali National Park and Preserve. 1997. High-use destinations in wilderness; social and Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior Geological biophysical impacts, visitor responses, and management Survey, Division of Biological Resources. options. Res. Pap. INT–RP–496. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- DePuit, Edward J.; Redente, Edward F. 1988. ment of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Research Manipulation of ecosystem dynamics on reconstructed Station. 30 p. semiarid lands. In: Allen, Edith F., ed. The reconstruction of Connor, J. 2002. Active vs. natural revegetation: disturbed arid lands: an ecological approach. American analysis and decision making. Speech presented at: Subal- Association for the Advancement of Science Selected pine, small-site restoration in wilderness training course; Symposium 109. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 162–204. 2002 November 18–22, 2002; Eatonville, WA. Missoula, Doerr, T.B.; Redente, E.F.; Sievers, T.E. 1983. Effect MT: Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. of cultural practices on seeded plant communities on Coulloudon, B.; [and others]. 1999. Sampling vegeta- intensively disturbed soils. Journal of Range Management. tion attributes. Tech. Ref. 1734–4. Denver, CO: U.S. Depart- 36(4): 423–428. ment of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. 163 p.

249 References

Eubanks, C.E.; Meadows, D. 2002. A soil bioengineer- ness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; ing guide for streambank and lakeshore stabilization. Tech. Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: Rep. FS–683. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agricul- U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky ture Forest Service. 187 p. Mountain Research Station. Flood, J.P.; McAvoy, L.H. 2000. The influence of Hartmann, H.T.; Kester, D.E.; Davies, F.T., Jr. 1990. wilderness restoration programs on visitor experience and Plant propagation: principles and practices. Englewood visitor opinions of managers. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 647 p. Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Harvey, A.E.; Meurisse, R.T.; Geist J.M.; [and 2000. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. others]. 1989. Maintaining productivity processes in the Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; Inland Northwest—mixed conifers and pines. In: Perry, D.A.; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS–P–15– Meurisse R.; Thomas B.; [and others]. Maintaining the long- VOL–5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 193–198. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 164–184. Guinon, M. 1992. Promoting gene conservation through Haydon, R.J. 1991. Restoration Tid-bits!! Unpublished seed and plant procurement. In: Landis, Thomas D., tech. report on file at Wenatchee, WA: U.S. Department of coord. 1993. Proceedings: Western Forest Nursery Associa- Agriculture Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest. 5 p. tion; 1992 September 14–18; Fallen Leaf Lake, CA. Gen. Hendee, John C.; Dawson, Chad P. 2002. Wilderness Tech. Rep. RM–221. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of management: stewardship and protection of resources and Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and values. 3d ed. Golden, CO: North American Press: 637 p. Range Experiment Station: 38–46. Hendee, J.C.; Stankey, G.H.; Lucas, R.C. 1990. Hammitt, William E.; Cole, David N. 1998. 2d ed. Wilderness management. Golden, CO: North American Wildland recreation: ecology and management. Clemson, Press. SC: Clemson University, Department of Forest Resources Hickman, J., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher and Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Manage- plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California ment. 361 p. Press. 1,099 p. Hanbey, R. 1992. Onsite restoration methods for Hingston, S.G. 1982. Revegetation of subalpine mountainous areas of the West. Missoula, MT: U.S. Depart- backcountry campgrounds: principles and guidelines. ment of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Research Resource Management Report Series KR–3. Alberta, Station. 40 p. Canada: Alberta Recreation and Parks, Kananaskis Region. Harding, M.V. 1990. Erosion control effectiveness: Hitchcock, C.L.; Cronquist, A. 1976. Flora of the comparative studies of alternative mulching techniques. In: Pacific Northwest: an illustrated manual. Illustrations by Berger, John J., ed. Environmental restoration: science and Jeanne R. Janish. Seattle, WA: University of Washington strategies for restoring the earth. Covelo, CA: Island Press: Press. 149–157. Hoag, J. Chris; Simonson, Boyd; Cornforth, Brent; Hartley, E. 2000. Thirty-year monitoring of subalpine St. John, Loren. 2001. Waterjet stinger: a tool to plant meadow vegetation following a 1967 trampling experiment at dormant unrooted cuttings of willows, cottonwoods, dog- Logan Pass, Glacier National Part, Montana, In: Cole, David woods, and other species. Riparian/Wetland Project Informa- N.; [and others]. comps. 2000. Proceedings: Wilderness tion Series No. 17. Aberdeen, ID: U.S. Department of science in a time of change conference–Volume 5: Wilder- Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service,

250 References

Aberdeen Plant Materials Center. Available at http://Plant- new management challenge. Madison, WI: Society for Materials.nrcs.usda.gov/idpmc Ecological Restoration: 261–270. Huber, L.S.; Brooks, B.J. 1993. Native seed collection Lewis, L.; Ogg, L. 1996. Watershed restoration training guide for ecosystem restoration. Baker City, OR: U.S. manual, upland slope protection. Unpublished report. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Wallowa-Whit- Quilcene, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest man National Forest. 65 p. Service, Olympic National Forest, Hood Canal Ranger IFM. 1995. Catalog. Wenatchee, WA: Integrated District. Fertility Management. Liddle, Michael J. 1975. A selective review of the Jackson, L.E.; Strauss, R.B.; Firestone, M.K.; [and ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems. others]. 1988. Plant and soil dynamics in California annual Biological Conservation. 7: 17–36. grassland. Plant and Soil. 110: 9–17. Liddle, Michael J. 1997. Recreation ecology. London: Jenny, Hans. 1965. Derivation of state factor equations Chapman & Hall. 639 p. of soils and ecosystems. Proceedings of the Soil Science Linhart, Y. 1995. Genetic variability and revegetation. Society of America. 25: 385–388. Unpublished report. Boulder, CO: Department of Environ- Jollif, Gary D. 1969. Campground site-vegetation mental, Population, and Organismic Biology, University of relationships. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. Colorado. 2 p. 139 p. Dissertation. Link, E. 1993. Native plant propagation techniques for Jones, D.P.; Graham, R.C.; 1993. Water-holding national parks. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conser- characteristics of weathered granitic rock in chaparral and vation Service and U. S. Department of the Interior National forest ecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. Park Service. 240 p. 57: 256–261. Ludwig, J.; Reynolds, J. 1988. Statistical ecology: a Juelson, J.L. 2001. Restoring subalpine vegetation in primer on methods and computing. New York: John Wiley & the Enchantment Lakes Basin: evaluating restoration treat- Sons. ments on the seedling emergence of Juncus parryi, Carex Manning, Robert E. 1979. Impacts of recreation on nigricans, and Luetkea pectinata. Ellensburg, WA: Central riparian soils and vegetation. Water Resources Bulletin. 15: Washington University. 101 p. Thesis. 30–43. Keigley, R.B. 1988. Developing methods of restoring Martin, D.L.; Gershuny, G., eds. 1992. The Rodale vegetation communities while preserving genetic integrity. book of composting. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press: 114–120. In: Keammerer, Warren R.; Brown, Larry F., eds. Proceed- May, Dianne E.; Webber, Patrick J.; May, Terry A. ings: high altitude revegetation workshop No. 8; 1988 March 1982. Success of transplanted alpine tundra plants on Niwot 3–4; Colorado State University; Fort Collins, CO. Inf. Series Ridge, Colorado. Journal of Applied Ecology. 19: 965–976. 59. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University: 129–137. McNabb, D.H.; Geist, J.M.; Youngberg, C.T. 1979. Kratz, A.; Ciapusci, T.A.; Jeffers, R. 1994. Plant Nitrogen fixation by Ceanothus velutinus in northern materials and revegetation. Unpublished report. Golden, CO: Oregon. In: Gordon, J.C.; Wheeler, C.T.; Perry, D.A. Symbi- U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky otic nitrogen fixation in the management of temperature Mountain Region. 9 p. forests. Corvallis OR: Oregon State University, Forest Lester, William L. 1989. Revegetation efforts at North Research Laboratory: 481–482. Cascades National Park Service Complex. In: Hughes, H. Meuller-Dombois, D.; Ellenberg, H. 2003. Aims and Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration ‘89: the methods of vegetation ecology. Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn Press. 251 References

Meyer, S.E.; Monsen, S.B. 1992. Genetic consider- Owen, W.R. [no date]. Restlessness among the natives; ations in propagating native shrubs, forbs, and grasses from an essay on the appropriate uses of native plants. Unpub- seed. In: Landis, Thomas D., tech. coord. 1993. Proceedings: lished report. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture Western Forest Nursery Association; 1992 September 14–18; Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 7 p. Fallen Leaf Lake, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM–221. Fort Pacific Northwest Extension. 2001. Propagating Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, herbaceous plants from cuttings. Tech. Rep. PNW 151. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 47– Pullman, WA: Washington State University Cooperative 54. Extension. Millar, C. 1992. Genetic guidelines for grasses in Patterson, D.R. 1997. Shadow Mountains desert habitat Region 5. Unpublished report. Vellejo, CA: U.S. Department restoration project. Unpublished report. San Diego, CA: of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 3 p. Round River Ecological Services. 3 p. Miller, Joseph W.; Miller, Margaret M. 1979. Propa- Perry, David; Amaranthus, Michael. 1990. The plant- gation of plant material for subalpine revegetation. In: Ittner, soil bootstrap: microorganisms and reclamation of degraded R. [and others], eds. Recreational impact on wildlands, ecosystems. In: Berger, John J., ed. Environmental restora- conference proceedings. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of tion: science and strategies for restoring the earth. Washing- Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region: 304– ton, DC: Island Press: 94–102. 311. Potash, L.L.; Aubry, C.A. 1997. Mt. Baker-Snoqualm- Miller, R.E.; Stein, W.I.; Heninger, R.L.; [and ie National Forest native plant notebook. Mountlake Terrace, others]. 1989. Maintaining and improving site productivity WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Mt. in the Douglas-fir region. In: Perry, D.A.; Meurisse, R.; Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. 412 p. Thomas, B.; [and others]. Maintaining the long-term produc- Powers, R.F. 1989. Maintaining long-term forest tivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. Portland, OR: productivity in the Pacific Northwest: defining the issues. In: Timber Press: 98–136. Perry, D.A.; Meurisse, R.; Thomas, B.; [and others]. Main- Moldenke, A.R.; Baumeister, N.; Estrada-Venegas, taining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest E.; Wernz, J. 1994. Linkages between soil biodiversity and ecosystems. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 3–16. above-ground plant performance. In: Proceedings: Transac- Prunuske, Liza. 1987. Groundwork: a handbook for tions of the 15th World Congress of Soil Science; Acapulco, erosion control in northern coastal California. Point Reyes Mexico: 186–204. Station, CA: Marin County Resource Conservation District. Monsen, S.B. 1975. Selecting plants to rehabilitate Randall, W.R.; [and others]. 1978. Manual of Oregon disturbed areas. In: Campbell, Robert S.; Herbel, Carlton H., trees and shrubs. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State College eds. Proceedings: range symposium series 1; improved range Cooperative Association. 234 p. plants; 1975; Denver, CO. Wheatridge, CO: Society for Redente, E.F. 1993. Revegetation and reclamation Range Management: 76–90. training workshop. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Ogle, D.; St. John, L.; Stannard, M.; Hozworth, L. Interior National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 34 p. 2003. Grass, grass-like, forb, legume, and woody species for Roach, Deborah A.; Marchand, Peter J. 1984. the Intermountain West. Idaho Plant Materials Tech. Note 24. Recovery of alpine disturbances: early growth and survival in Aberdeen, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural populations of the native species, Arenaria groenlandica, Resources Conservation Service, Aberdeen Plant Materials Juncus trifidus, and Potentilla tridentata. Arctic and Alpine Center. Research. 16: 37–43.

252 References

Rochefort, R.M. 1990. Mount Rainier National Park Scott, Ruth L. 1977. Revegetation studies of a disturbed restoration handbook. Ashford Woods, WA: U.S. Department subalpine community in Olympic National Park, Washington. of the Interior National Park Service, Mount Rainier National Unpublished report on file at: Seattle Pacific University, Park. Seattle, WA. 62 p. Rochefort, Regina M. 2002. [Personal communication]. Shelby, B.; Goodwin, J.; Brunson, M.; Anderson, D. Subalpine, small-site restoration in wilderness training [No date]. Impacts of recreation use limits in the Alpine course; 2002 November 19; Eatonville, WA. Lakes Wilderness. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Rochefort, Regina M.; Gibbons, Steven T. 1992. Department of Forest Resources. 105 p. Mending the meadow: high-altitude meadow restoration in Smith, D. 1994. Iowa ecotype project. Land and Water. Mount Rainier National Park. Restoration & Management March/April 1994: 43–47. Notes. 10(2): 120–126. Smith, R.L. 1980. Ecology and field biology. 3d ed. Rodale, J.I. 1961. How to grow vegetables and fruits by New York: Harper and Row: 624–643. the organic method. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press: 133–166. Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy Rose, R.; Chachulski, C.E.C.; Haase, D. 1998. Working Group. 2002. The SER primer on ecological Propagation of Pacific Northwest native plants. Corvallis, restoration. Tucson, AZ: Society for Ecological Restoration OR: Oregon State University Press. 256 p. International (http://www.ser.org). St. John, T. 1995. Habitat restoration: the regulator’s Sound Native Plants. 1994. Cone collection and perspective. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Tree of Life Nursery. processing guidelines. Unpublished report. Olympia, WA: 38 p. Sound Native Plants. 1 p. Available: http://www.soundnative- Salisbury, F.B.; Ross, C.W. 1978. Plant physiology. 3d plants.com. ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.: 192–197. Stankey, G.H.; Cole, D.N.; Lucas, R.C.; Peterson, Schmidt, M.G. 1980. Growing California native plants. M.E.; Frissell, S.S. 1985. The limits of acceptable change Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT– Schoennagel, T. 1997. Native plant response to high- 176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest intensity fire and seeding of non-native grasses in an Abies Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment grandis forest on the Leavenworth District of the Wenatchee Station. 37 p. National Forest. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 68 p. Theisen, M.S. 1992. The expanding role of geosynthet- Thesis. ics in erosion and sediment control. Land and Water. Novem- Scott, R.L. 1998. Wilderness management and restora- ber/December 1992: 16–25. tion in high use areas of Olympic National Park, Washington, Thornburgh, Dale A. 1962. An ecological study of the U.S.A. In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., effect of man’s recreational use at two subalpine sites in comps. 1998. Personal, societal, and ecological values of western Washington. Berkeley, CA: University of California. wilderness; Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceedings 50 p. Thesis. on research, management, and allocation, volume I; 1997 Thornburgh, Dale A. 1970. Survey of recreational October; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS–P–4. Ogden, UT; impact and management recommendations for the subalpine U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky vegetation communities at Cascade Pass, North Cascades Mountain Research Station. National Park. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Depart- Scott, R. 2002. Site protection and planting. Speech ment of the Interior National Park Service, North Cascades presented at: Supalpine, small-site restoration in wilderness National Park, Sedro Wooley, WA. 42 p. training course; 2002 November 20; Eatonville, WA. 253 References

Trappe, J.M. 1977. Selection of fungi for ectomycorrhi- U.S. Department of the Interior National Park zal inoculation in nurseries. Annual Review of Phytopathol- Service. 1993. VERP: a process for addressing visitor ogy. 15: 203–222. carrying capacity in the National Park System. Denver, CO: Urbanska, K.M. 1986. Behavior of alpine plants and U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, high altitude revegetation research. In: Schuster, Mark A.; Denver Service Center. 20 p. Zuck, Ronald H., eds. Proceedings: high altitude revegetation U.S. Department of the Interior National Park workshop No. 7; 1986 March 6–7. Inf. Series 58. Fort Service. 2002. Go-No-go checklist for deciding passive Collins, CO: Colorado State University: 214–226. versus active vegetation restoration. Estes Park, CO: Rocky U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Mountain National Park. 2 p. Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Introduction to microbiotic crusts. 15 p. Available: http:// Service, Rocky Mountain National Park. 2006. Rocky soils.usda.gov/sqi. Mountain National Park vegetation restoration management U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources plan: version 2. Estes Park, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 1999. Soil National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park. 66 p. quality test kit guide. 15 p. Available: http://soils.usda.gov/ Vachowski, Brian. 1995. Gravel bags for packstock. sqi. Tech. Rep. 9523–2840–MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Depart- U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources ment of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 2001a. Development Center. 10 p. Guidelines for soil quality assessment in conservation Vankus, V. 1997. The tetrazolium estimated viability planning. 42 p. Available: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi. test for seeds of native plants. In: Landis, T.D.; Thompson, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources J.R., tech. coords. National proceedings, Forest and Conser- Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 2001b. vation Nursery Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW–GTR– Rangeland soil quality—physical and biological crusts. 2 p. 419. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Available: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi. Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 57–62. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Vankus, V. 2004. Personal communication. Dry Branch, Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 2001c. GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, National Rangeland soil quality—water erosion. 2p. Available: http:// Tree Seed Laboratory. soils.usda.gov/sqi. Wagar, J. Alan. 1965. Cultural treatment of vegetation U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources on recreation sites. Proceedings of the Society of American Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 2001d. Foresters. 61: 37–39. Rangeland soil quality—wind erosion. 2 p. Available: http:// Walker, S. 2002. Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness restora- soils.usda.gov/sqi. tion case study. Speech presented at: Subalpine, small-site U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources restoration in wilderness training course; 2002 November Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 2001e. 18–22, Eatonville, WA. Missoula, MT: Arthur Carhart Rangeland soil quality—compaction. 2 p. Available: http:// National Wilderness Training Center. soils.usda.gov/sqi. Weisberg, S. 1993. Revegetation handbook. Unpub- U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources lished report. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Conservation Service, Soil Quality Institute. 2001f. Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Rangeland soil quality—infiltration. 2 p. Available: http:// Whitney, N.; Zabowski, D. 2004. Total soil nitrogen in soils.usda.gov/sqi. the coarse fraction and at depth. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 68: 612–619. 254 References

Windell, Keith; Haywood, J.D. 1996. Mulch mat Zabinski, C.; Cole, D. 2000. Understanding the factors materials for improved tree establishment. Tech. Rep. 9624– that limit restoration success on a recreation-impacted 2811–MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture subalpine site. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Center. 124 p. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. volume Young, J.A.; Young, Cheryl G. 1986. Collecting, 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 processing, and germinating seeds of wildland plants. May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS–P–15–VOL– Portland, OR: Timber Press. 236 p. 5. Ogden, UT; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Young, J.A.; Young, Cheryl G. 1992. Seeds of woody Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 216–221. plants in North America. Portland, OR: Dioscoridies Press. 407 p.

Photo courtesy of the Steve Slocomb.

255 Appendixes References

256