Patrick Higgins

Consulting Fisheries Biologist

791 Eighth Street, Suite N

Arcata, CA 95521

(707) 822-9428

phiggins@humboldt1.com

           

                                                                                                December 19, 2004

 

Ms. Leslie Markham, Forest Practice Division Chief

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

135 Ridgeway Avenue

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

 

Re: Response to Comments on Timber Harvest Permit THP 1-04-030 SON, Hansen/Whistler and Timberland Conversion Permit (TCP) #530

 

Dear Ms. Markham,

 

I have just completed review of the response to comments for the Hansen/Whistler Timber Harvest Permit THP 1-04-030 SON, including responses to comments I filed on April 14, 2004. I am once again doing this review for local watershed residents who are concerned about the health of the Gualala River. They also feel that the California Department of Forestry (CDF) is not preventing damage to the river as required under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This conversion and harvest are in the Little Creek watershed, a lower tributary to Buckeye Creek, which is showing advanced signs of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) as established in my previous comments, and new evidence presented by CDF indicates that Little Creek itself has a similar level of impacts.

 

After acknowledging that the stream is barely showing surface flow due to aggradation, CDF has approved the TCP and is now moving to approve the THP. This is a direct violation of CEQA because sediment impacts will occur and other recent and foreseeable activities in the watershed have also contributed to this recognized problem. The repeated statement that all effects from the plan can be fully mitigated and that there will be no impact to Little Creek is not credible (Dunne et al., 2001; Collison et al., 2003).

 

My Qualifications

 

To remind you, my expertise in the Gualala River watershed is a result of my having studied the watershed since 1997. I have recapped (and recaptured) the literature on fisheries and watershed processes for the Gualala River for the Redwood Coast Land Conservancy (Higgins, 1997). I then worked closely with the Gualala River Watershed Council and the California Resources Agency to provide technical assistance for the Gualala River Watershed Assessment (CARA, 2002) as part of the North Coast Watershed Assessment Program (NCWAP). In addition to providing analytical support to the agency staff, I helped assemble all available data, bibliographic resources, photos and electronic maps into the KRIS Gualala database (IFR, 2002), which is part of your record. Despite the fact that the KRIS Gualala project was funded by CDF to provide a tool for cumulative watershed effects analysis, your staff does not appear to be using it, even at this late date.

 

Cumulative Watershed Effects

 

Once again the project proponents and CDF have failed to deal with risk of cumulative watershed effects quantitatively or credibly. For the purpose of these comments, these impacts will be termed cumulative watershed effects and be abbreviated CWE. The definition of CWE from Dunne et al. (2001) was provided in former comments, but it is similar to those described in CEQA:

As I pointed out in my April 14, 2004 memo to your regarding this THP/TCP, until risk is quantified scientifically, CDF and other agencies cannot gauge effects or prevent further damage to the Gualala River and its tributaries as required by CEQA. Response to my comments, and those of others who oppose the project, show that parties preparing these responses are unwilling or unable to understand arguments advanced related to CWE and confirm that they, like CDF staff, do not have capacity to meet CEQA requirements in this regard. The Dunne et al. (2001) report is from the foremost authorities on watershed processes from the University of California system and they point out systematic problems in timber harvest review and problems with dealing with CWE that are exemplified in this THP/TCP. The fact that this project involves a Timberland Conversion raises hydrologic impact questions even further beyond those normally considered for THPs.

 

The statement in responses to comments that CWE from the pending vineyard conversion “have been  mitigated to less than significant” is not credible. Since the response, like the original THP/TCP, fails to reflect the findings of Dunne et al. (2001), I will provide the following quotes from the document which are applicable to attempts at CWE analysis. It is obvious that methods of analysis have not changed since 2001, despite the advice of the U.C. systems foremost watershed science authorities.

Dunne et al. (2001) describe how mitigation such as that offered on this THP/TCP will likely be imperfect and lead to impacts, but because of the lack of effectiveness monitoring that CWE will be untraceable, but none-the-less extant:

 

“However, widespread experience in most types of terrain and land uses (forestry, agriculture, urbanization, mining, etc.) has proven that mitigation by on-site BMPs is usually imperfect, and much of the induced perturbation (say of runoff or sediment) “escapes” or “leaks” from the impoundment device or from the surface protection, and accumulates downstream, though at a reduced level. It is because of the limited effectiveness of on-site mitigation that CWEs have been identified widely by environmental scientists.”

 

Once again, the responders and CDF remains use an artificially defined boundary for CWE analysis for this project and ignore substantial evidence of previous disturbance and aquatic stress at the scale of Little Creek, the Little Creek Calwater Planning Watershed, Buckeye Creek and the Gualala River. Dunne et al. (2001) characterized this approach to CWE assessment:

 

“The resulting ‘postage-stamp’, or ‘parcel-by-parcel’, approach, in which only the immediate project area of a single, small timber harvest is ever reviewed. –-- as all other reviewers have said --- does not capture the cumulative influence of multiple harvests over a long period of time in a large, complex watershed.”

 

Dunne et al. (2001) noted a significant impediment to proper characterization of CWE in the THP review process is CDF’s “unquestioning and unverified reliance on mitigation.”

 

“While there are clear benefits of, say, removing unstable, eroding roads, the notion that such practices coupled with new land-use activities will avoid CWE is unsubstantiated. There has also been a reliance on untested mitigation measures rather than an effort to documenting CWE processes. The resulting belief that BMPs mitigate or prevent potential problems accounts for the proclivity among many THP applicants to assert that no cumulative effects will occur because they will be mitigated out of existence.”

 

This is exactly the approach taken with THP 1-04-030 SON and response to comments and it lacks scientific credibility or a basis in data collected at the appropriate scales. This includes a complete lack of quantitative aquatic data from Little Creek, the water body most likely impacted by this project.

 

The responders say that the THP will cause the loss of some forest and have some watershed impacts, but such impacts are insignificant because they affect only 2.5% of the Little Creek Calwater Planning Watershed (CPW) and “approximately 95% of the planning watershed remains forested.” This statement does not reflect that tree size in the basin indicates very early seral conditions, as shown by CDF and U.S. Forest Service (Warbingtron et al., 1999). Figure 1 shows the size of trees in the Little River CPW as of

 

Figure 1. Tree size and vegetation types of the Little Creek Calwater Planning Watershed derived from a 1994 Landsat image shows that the forest is in early seral stages. Data from the USFS Spatial Analysis Lab and CDF Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP).

 

1994 according to Landsat data. Because site potential in old growth redwood forests on the Gualala can be in excess of ten feet (IFR, 2002), the fact that there are almost no trees greater than 3 feet in diameter at breast height (dbh) shows that the entire area is in early seral conditions. The fact that 30% of the watershed is in trees smaller than 12 inches shows that there has been disturbance at that level in the 15 years prior to 1994. Recent timber harvests are likely to continue to cause erosion problems for at least 15 years after logging. Effects from roads related to projects may have a much more long lasting hydrologic impact (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

 

Reeves et al. (1993) point out that timber harvest in greater than 25% of Oregon coastal watersheds in less than 30 years caused a loss of Pacific salmon species diversity. That pattern of disturbance and response is extant in the Gualala River watershed as established in KRIS Gualala (IFR, 2002), where coho salmon have disappeared and attempts to re-establish them as recently as 1995-1998 through direct planting have failed as a result of CWE in the North Fork Gualala River and its tributaries.

 

While CDF quantifies agricultural conversions in Sonoma County as part of CWE analysis, their database queries for CWE analysis do not even include timber harvests, presumably because they think they have been fully mitigated. The timber harvest map

Figure 2. Timber harvests permitted in the Little Creek CPW by CDF between 1991 and 2001. Data from CDF Santa Rosa.

 

Figure 3. Summary chart of timber harvest levels by CPW in the Buckeye Creek sub-basin showing most have harvests over the recognized 25% harvest level CWE threshold demonstrated by Reeves et al. (1993). Chart from KRIS Gualala and data from CDF.
what was inferred above from tree diameters, that 34% of the CWP has been logged in a ten year period. The addition of the 4.5% of the area of the Little Creek CPW developed in vineyards must be considered in conjunction with this level of pre-existing disturbance, which is well over recognized CWE thresholds (Reeves et al., 1993). As indicated in my previous comments, there is photographic evidence of additional, unpermitted timber harvest and conversion in this CPW and CDF and responders are failing to quantify or fully recognize this as well.

 

CDF did respond to questions I raised about unpermitted land use activities in the Little Creek CPW with useful information. In fact CDF acknowledges illegal, unpermitted timber harvests and unpermitted vineyard conversions had taken place as well as legal conversions of parcels less than 3 acres that did not require permits. The response states that one illegal timber harvester paid a “substantial fine.” Payment of fines to the State does not abate environmental problems caused by the illegal activities. It is likely that less care was taken by illegal operators than by those working with State agencies and CDF and that sediment contributions from their activities has been considerable.

 

Although CDF and those providing comments say they are responding to my CWE concerns with regard to fisheries and aquatic habitat, indeed the additional information they have supplied prove problems already exist. The CDF or private consultant habitat “survey” as part of Response to Comments really only represents a quick reconnaissance, but confirms my assertions of advanced CWE:

 

 

The same report documents a “load of silt not yet flushed through the system.” CDF states that it acknowledges Buckeye Creek impairment but cites NCWAP (CARA, 2002) as indicating “apparent recovery in watershed conditions.” The Gualala River WA (CARA, 2002) found compromised habitat conditions in Buckeye Creek in 2001 and, without more recently collected channel data to confirm this “apparent recovery”, such claims lack credibility.

 

For Little Creek to classify as an unimpaired water body, it would have to meet the following criteria:

 

 

This would indicate that Little Creek were a healthy freshwater ecosystem within its former range of variability and not suffering from CWE.

 

Fisheries Issues: Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout and ESA Requirements

 

Fish discussions in the THP/TCP and Response to Comments are generic, in that coho life history information is not specific to the Gualala River basin and no discussions of the status of Gualala River coho are to be found. CDF avoids fundamental requirements to protect coho salmon since they are listed as Threatened in the Gualala River basin under both the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. Similarly, steelhead are listed as Threatened in the Gualala River basin under Federal law, but no discussions of population status in the Gualala Basin or regionally is offered. The response to comments and CDF are still not citing the Status Review of California Coho Salmon North of San Francisco (CDFG, 2002) after my repeated requests that the document be recognized, and that credible discussions regarding both coho and steelhead be included in your reviews.

 

The field memo from Little Creek provided with the Response to Comments indicates that “coho salmon habitat in the assessment area is marginal due to the small number of deep pools and inconsistent flow levels” and that coho were not found. No methods, such as electrofishing or direct observation (Adams et al., 1999), were discussed in the memo and or the extent of the reach surveyed. In order to ascertain that coho do not occur in some years, surveys would have to be conducted for three years because coho are even age spawners and develop strong and weak years classes as a result.

 

There is no indication that there are older age steelhead in Little Creek, and compromised pool depth would likely limit carrying capacity for yearlings and two year old fish. This means that Little Creek has similar CWE to most Gualala River basin tributaries, which lack older age steelhead juveniles (CARA, 2002). Electrofishing at dozens of sites in the Gualala River Basin in 2001 caught very few large steelhead juveniles. This is important because steelhead must spend one or two years in freshwater before entering the ocean in order to survive as adults (Barnhart, 1986).

 

As I have pointed out in past comments, Buckeye Creek and Little Creek are both of sufficiently low gradients that coho salmon would have been at least a co-dominant salmonid species in both streams. The lack of attention to population viability under ESA also shows negligence in terms of CWA requirements. No land use activities should be allowed to further degrade either Little Creek or Buckeye Creek until they are supporting a cold water fishery, including both coho salmon and steelhead juveniles, CWA “beneficial uses.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roads and Cumulative Watershed Effects and THP 1-04-030 SON

 

Road discussions again show the incapacity of responders to grasp yet another critical CWE issue. The road densities in the Little Creek CPW are 8 miles per square mile of watershed area (Figure 4), which is very high with regard to CWE risk as defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (1996). They recommended that densities be limited to less than 2.5 mi./sq.mi. with no streamside roads.

 

Cederholm et al. (1981) showed that major damage was done to watersheds when road densities exceeded 4.7 mi./sq.mi. and that sediment yield to streams was on the order of 2.6 to 4.2 times the natural rate of sedimentation. CDF does not provide a quantitative assessment of sediment from roads anywhere in the THP/TCP nor does the Response to Comments. This ignores well founded science provided as part of the Gualala River Technical TMDL (CA SWRCB, 2001) indicating elevated, man-caused erosion from roads. Those responding to comments should recognize these pre-existing impacts and CDF should consequently deny further development requests until results from monitoring of stream channels indicate recovery.

 

Figure 4. This chart shows the density of roads in miles per square mile for Buckeye Creek watershed with a reference line of 2.5 mi./sq. mi., which is slightly above NMFS (1996) properly functioning watershed condition level for Pacific salmon. Little Creek has one of the highest road densities in the Gualala River basin. Data from U.C. Davis ICE and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS, 1996) considered road densities greater than 4.7 mi./sq. mi. "Extremely High" in terms of potential aquatic impacts in the Interior Columbia River Basin (Figure 5). Their reference was derived by comparing data for bull trout and other salmonid species with road densities over 3,000 watersheds. They concluded that "the higher the road density, the lower the proportion of sub-watersheds that support strong populations of key salmonids" and that bull trout were absent from watersheds with more than 1.7 mi./sq. mi. of watershed area. They also found a relationship between fine sediment in streams and road density. Quigley and Arbelbide (1997), also in the Interior Columbia Basin, found "increasing road densities (combined with the activities associated with roads) and their attendant effects are associated with declines in the status of four non-anadromous salmonid species." Jones and Grant (1996) noted that road cuts disrupted subsurface flows and routed them to streams, which increases flood frequency.

 

Figure 5. Road density classifications, in miles of road per square mile (mi./sq. mi.), are from USFS (1996) Figure 9 and represent risk to sensitive aquatic species. Note also that they categorize as Extremely High road densities of  4.7 mi./sq. mi. and greater and that the Little Creek CPW has nearly double that.

In response to my comment that the THP and TCP had failed to deal effectively with CWE related to roads, responders acknowledged that there were significant problems with the Little Creek-Flournoy Road, but they were being fixed. This shows a patent misunderstanding that similar problems exist on virtually all roads and there are dozens of miles of roads in just the Little Creek CPW alone. As I pointed out before, the road densities are conservative estimators of disturbance with potential for surface erosion because they do not reflect temporary roads, skid trails or landings.

At other places in the THP/TCP and in Response to Comments it is noted that the road that parallels Little Creek has been abandoned because of stream side landslides. CDF and those responding to comments seem to think that just walking away from such a road prism means that sediment will no longer be contributed to streams. It is likely, however,  that this old road bed will continue to erode unless it is recontoured and planted with trees. It also represents a major pre-existing sediment source only recognized by CDF late in the review process. There is discussion of getting grant money for fixing the Little Creek-Flournoy Road and this is taken as mitigating road problems off site. It is inappropriate to be using public money to fix a private land road and then count it as mitigation that allows further development.

Water Temperature

 

Those responding to comments, like CDF before them, continue to miss the connection between sediment and water temperature. As Dunne et al. (2001) point out, there is almost always “leakage” from mitigation measures, so sediment from the THP/TCP area is likely to reach Little Creek. CDF has established that Little Creek is suffering from advanced CWE, with silt-filled, shallow pools and loss of surface flows due to massive aggradation. Filling of streams with sediment changes the width to depth ratio and increases heat exchange, which results in stream warming (Poole and Berman, 2000). The continued reiteration by CDF and the responders that streams do not cross the property, that there is no riparian removal associated with this project and, therefore, the THP/TCP cannot warm the stream is incorrect.

 

The responders and CDF are also missing a second well recognized mechanism for stream warming. Brosofske et al. (1997) found that soils warmed in response to vegetation removal and that ground water temperatures also warmed. Changes in ground water temperatures in turn warmed spring flows and adjacent stream reaches. These mechanisms are also likely to cause additional warming to Little Creek for which no actual temperature data are available.

 

Flows Issues

 

While substantial quantities of information have been filed by the proponents of THP 1-04-030 SON and TCP-530, there are still fundamental flaws in arguments regarding likely effects on surface flows from this project. I am not a hydrologist so I will restrict my remarks to the mechanism that I know will operate to reduce surface flow.

 

I have described in previous comments how the Gualala River and its tributaries have lost surface flow because aggradation of the stream bed is so severe that flows now percolate through the gravel bars in late summer and fall. The Response to Comments notes that Little Creek loses surface flow, which is consistent with substantial, pre-existing sediment pollution. Additional sediment from this THP/TCP will continue the pattern of sediment yield over background, and thus further degrade Little Creek and cause it to lose surface flow earlier in the season and ultimately to lose all function as fish habitat. This is a text book case for CWE and, as an issue on its own, should cause CDF to turn down this project and ones similar until Little Creek has recovered.

 

Agency Incapacity

 

In my previous comments, I have supplied a scientific basis for CWE assessment, including water temperatures required by coho salmon (Welsh et al., 2001), for fine sediment in spawning gravels (McHenry et al., 1994) and for pool frequencies (CDFG, 1998). In my response here I have acquainted CDF staff with new literature from the Columbia Basin on CWE thresholds and roads (USFS, 1996; Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997) and how sediment affects temperature (Poole and Berman, 2000).

I have provided data to show the compromised quality of Buckeye Creek and CDF or project proponents have now demonstrated advanced CWE in Little Creek. Unfortunately, as Dunne et al. (2001) pointed out, CDF, other agencies overseeing and those responding to comments on this THP/TCP lack the professional capacity to deal with the issues I have raised.

 

CDF and the plan proponents have failed to supply data that show functional aquatic habitat conditions in Buckeye Creek or Little Cree or support of beneficial uses, to prove that CWE are not extant. Dunne et al. (2001) point out that regionally recognized CWE standards should be acknowledged and applied:

 

 “If there are specific scientific limits (such as a lethal stream temperature for fish or a threshold fine-sediment concentration for spawning beds), RPFs are expected to know this and to apply it in the context of the rules and in protecting beneficial uses of water. If the RPF doesn’t know or apply existing knowledge, reviewing agencies have the duty to require additional mitigation.”

 

The appropriate mitigation in the case of the THP 1-04-030 SON, especially in light of the widespread adjacent illegal activity in the plan area, is that the permit should be denied until the Little Creek and Buckeye Creek watersheds have been allowed to recover their watershed health and they are meeting CWA requirements, such as supporting coho salmon and steelhead juveniles of multiple age classes.

 

Dunne et al. (2001) argue for assessment of CWE risk to be removed from the hands of CDF staff. The lack of capacity of CDF staff, despite having data tools such as the preceding NCWAP report (CARA, 2002) and the KRIS Gualala database, demonstrates that CDF and other agencies may need to acquire additional staff with advanced degrees in watershed science and conversant in the us of cutting edge analysis tools as recommended by Dunne et al. (2001).

 

Unfortunately, CDF staff and those responding to comments do not appear to be reading literature cited in my comments and those of others and, thus, refusing to recognize advancements in understanding of CWE regionally. Contrary to the following statement by Dunne et al. (2001), CDF is not faced with decisions where scientific literature is not available to support decisions:

 

“CWE analysis, like all other human endeavors, will have to be conducted rationally in the face of these uncertainties. Some people will be skillful at this, and will remain well informed as the technology evolves; others will remain confused and be unable to proceed because the scientific literature does not contain the answer to their specific question.”

 

CDF staff could study recent scientific literature on cold water fisheries and forestry interactions and make more informed decisions on this THP/TCP. Their failure to do so and, therefore, to properly assess risk of CWE is insufficient to meet the standards of CEQA..

 

Conclusion

 

CDF is now largely defending positions espoused by consultants for project proponents, even though experts with credentials far exceeding those of these consultants, such as Dr. Don Erman and Dr. Michael Johnson, are pointing out major flaws in logic and science. CDF and CDFG have not collected or presented data on the fisheries or water quality of Little Creek to show that it is in a non-degraded condition, not suffering from cumulative watershed effects problems, and, therefore, able to sustain additional impacts.

 

In fact, additional information provided late in the process of review of  THP 1-04-030 SON and TCP-530 establish that Little Creek is similar to other Gualala River tributaries and showing advanced signs of CWE, such as loss of surface flow. This is exactly the response that would be expected given the high degree of legal and illegal development and land alteration that has taken place in the watershed.

 

Four years after the publication of the Dunne et al. (2001) report, where the best University of California watershed scientists pointed out deficiencies in CDF’s approach to cumulative watershed effects analysis, the agency and process are still showing the same flaws. I believe that CDF and the other agencies involved in review are wasting a huge amount of money in defending projects that benefit private parties, but threaten to drive fish stocks in the Gualala River to extinction, and that patently violate CEQA and the Clean Water Act. It may be time to contract with the University of California for field studies in this basin to define CWE thresholds, existing levels of impacts, and recommendations for limits to disturbance, instead of just continuing to fund agencies that lack the capacity to deal with the issues at hand.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Patrick Higgins

 

 

CC: Allen Robertson, Deputy Chief

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

P.O. Box 944246

Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

 

 

 

References

 

Adams, P.B. , M.J. Bowers, H.E. Fish, T.E. Laidig, and K.R. Silberberg. Historical and Current Presence-Absence of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Southwest Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, CA. 28 p.

Barnhart, R. A. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest)--steelhead. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.60). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 26 pp.

Brosofske, K. B., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman, and J. F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7(4):1188-1200.

Ca. Department of Fish and Game. 1998. California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual. Third Edition. Inland Fisheries Division. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 495 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Status Review of California Coho  Salmon North of San Francisco . Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento , CA. 336pp.

California Resources Agency. 2002. Gualala River Watershed Synthesis. CA Dept. of Fish and Game, State Water Res. Control Bd., CA Dept. of Water Resources, CA Div. on Mines and Geology and CA Dept. of Forestry. Sacramento, CA.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2001. Technical Support Document for the Gualala River Watershed Water Quality Attainment Action Plan for Sediment. CRWQCB, Region 1. Santa Rosa, CA. 147 pp. 

 

Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid and E.O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment on salmonid populations of the Clearwater River , Jefferson County, Washington. Pages 38-74 in Proceedings of Conference on Salmon Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest? Report 19. Wash. State University, Water Research Center, Pullman,WA.

 

Institute for Fisheries Resources. 2003. KRIS Gualala Database and Map Project Two CD Set. Funded by the California Department of Forestry FRAP, Sacramento, CA. (Also on the Internet at www.krisweb.com).

 

Jones, J.A. and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow response to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, April 1996. Vol. 32, No. 4, Pages 959-974.

 

McHenry, M.L., D.C. Morrill and E. Currence. 1994 . Spawning Gravel Quality, Watershed Characteristics and Early Life History Survival of Coho Salmon and Steelhead in Five North Olympic Peninsula Watersheds. Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. and Makah Tribe, Neah Bay, WA. Funded by Washington State Dept. of Ecology (205J grant).

 

Poole, G.C., and C.H. Berman. 2000. Pathways of Human Influence on Water Temperature Dynamics in Stream Channels. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Seattle, WA. 20 p.

 

Quigley, T.M. and S.J. Arbelbide (Eds). 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume I. U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management with assistance from the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. PNW-GTR-405. Pages 1-351.

 

Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest and J.R. Sedell. 1993 . Diversity of Juvenile Anadromous Salmonid Assemblages in Coastal Oregon Basins with Different Levels of Timber Harvest. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol 122, No. 3. May 1993.

 

Warbington, R., B. Schwind, C. Curlis and S. Daniel. 1998. Creating a Consistent and Standardized Vegetation Database for Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring in California. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing Lab. Sacramento, CA.

 

Welsh, H.H., G.R. Hodgson, M.F. Roche, B.C. Harvey. (2001). Distribution of Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Relation to Water Temperature in Tributaries of a Northern California Watershed Determining Management Thresholds for an Impaired Cold-water Adapted Fauna. In review for publication in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 21:464-470, 2001.

 

U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Status of the interior Columbia basin: summary of scientific findings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-385. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of  Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 144 p.