Road Decommissioning Success on the Fremont Winema-Forest Service based on Vegetation Regeneration Brittany Cramer Clair Thomas

M.S March 2009

Lake County Resource Initiative Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew 25 North East Street Lakeview, OR 97636 www.lcri.org

Table of Contents
Title Page………………………………………………………………………………………………….…i Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………ii List of Illustrations……………………………………………………………………………………….iii Glossary………………………………………………………………………………………………………iv Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….……...v Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Decommissioning Roads in Relation to Erosion………………………………………………2 Road Decommissioning Methods…………………………………………………………………..4 Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew……………………………………………………….7 Blocked Sites………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 Scarified Sites ……………………………………………………………………………………………..14 Blocked verse Scarified Sites………………………………………………………………………….16 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….…20 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………21

List of Illustrations
Figures 1. Skidder…………………………………………………………………………………………4 2. Caterpillar (crawler)………………………………………………………………………4 3. Canopy and Ground Layer Map from Road Decommissioning Transect One………………………………………………………………………………………………8 4. Quadrat from Timber Salvage…………………………………………………………10 5. Road Decommissioning Site One, RD-01, Excel Spreadsheet…………….12 6. Canopy and Ground Layer Map from Road Decommissioning Transect One………………………………………………………………………………………………14 Graphs 1. Vegetation Integration on Blocked Roads versus off Blocked Roads in Road Decommissioning Sites……………………………………………………….…13 2. Vegetation Integration of Scarified Roads versus off Scarified Roads in Timber Salvage Sites………………………………………………………………….….15 3. Plant Species Abundance……………………………………………………….………17 4. Number of Plant Species…………………………………………………………….….18 Tables 1. Vegetation Integration on Blocked Roads versus off Blocked Roads in Road Decommissioning Sites………………………………………………………….13 2. Vegetation Integration on Scarified Roads versus off Scarified Roads in Road Decommissioning Sites………………………………………………………….15

Glossary
Blocking – To use large boulders, fallen trees, mounds of dirt or a combination of the three to prevent motorized vehicles from using the road Caterpillar – Heavy piece of logging equipment used to drag logs; also called a crawler Erosion - The group of natural processes, including weathering, dissolution, abrasion, corrosion, and transportation, by which material is worn away from the earth's surface Excavator – Piece of equipment a ripper bar can be attached to in the scarifying or subsoiling process Greenline - The thirty meter tape stretch between the “A” and “B” stakes used for collecting vegetation information; also called line-intercept Interval – A three meter segment on a thirty meter tape Rebar – Reinforcing bars, placed in the ground, that make up the “A” and “B” of the greenline Ripper – Implement attached to a tractor or excavator to scarify or subsoil a road Rhizome - Underground root system which can sprout new above ground sprouts Scarifying – The use of four to six inch teeth to break up and loosen the topsoil Skidder - Heavy piece of logging equipment used to drag logs Subsoil - The layer or bed of earth beneath the topsoil. Subsoiling – The use of twelve to eighteen inch teeth to break up subsoil Topsoil – The top part of the soil Transect – 1/10 acre plot formed by the greenline where data is collected Turbidity - Having sediment or foreign particles stirred up or suspended; usually refers to water quality Quadrat – A sampling plot, usually one square meter, used to study and analyze plant life

Executive Summary
The subject of the technical report is Road Decommissioning Methods on the Fremont-Winema Forest Service; Blocking versus Scarification. The FremontWinema Forest Service is decommissioning roads to reduce the overall road density because the density now exceeds the current stipulations of 2.5 miles of road per square mile of forest. Some areas are over 11 miles of roads per square mile of forest. With new roads being built on the forest for logging, research and various other purposes, the forest service must decommission roads at an equivalent rate. While decommissioning of the roads is certain, the method of decommissioning is not. The three possible ways to decommission a road are blockage, scarification and subsoiling. The general consensus is subsoiling should only be used in highly compacted areas such as main roads. The research done by the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew and interpreted by Jacinda Thomas and Brittany Cramer (technical report author) suggests scarification is the preferred road decommissioning method in the Fremont Winema Forest because it best encourages vegetation regeneration and integration best. Vegetation regeneration is vital to anchor soils and decrease erosion from rain. The decision on how to decommission a road depends on each individual road. However, the data from this report supports scarification to be the primary method used by the Forest-Service to decommission roads because it encourages vegetation regeneration best.

Introduction
New roads are built on the forest at a rapid pace for logging, research and various other purposes. During a phone interview Nina Hardin (2009), Assistant Centre Manager for the Lakeview Fire District, stated, “The Fremont-Winema Forest Service is decommissioning roads to reduce the overall road density because the density now exceeds the current stipulations of 1.5 miles of road per square mile of forest.” Jolene Albertson (2009), Road Engineer for the FremontWinema Forest added, “Some areas are over 11 miles of roads per square mile of forest.” As new roads are being built on the forest the Forest Service must decommission roads at an equivalent rate. While decommissioning of the roads is certain, the method of decommissioning is not. According to Ryan Schaffer (2003), an intern with Wildlands CPR, “Road decommissioning has been defined as the physical treatment of a roadbed to restore the integrity of associated hillslopes, channels, and flood plains and their related hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes and properties.” This report will look at road decommissioning only in the Fremont-Winema Forest Service. Specific examples of blockage and scarification will be from the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring website. Greenline and Quadrat surveys done by the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew will measure vegetation regeneration. Subsoiling and subsoiling techniques are discussed under road decommissioning methods but specific examples are not given.

Decommissioning Roads in Relation to Erosion
Jacinda Thomas (2007) wrote in her article, Determining the best method of road decommissioning based on vegetation succession, “Secondary logging roads were never built to last. They were built along steep slopes that were prone to landslides or near waterways. These roads may cause more erosion and

sediment delivery to streams compared to primary, managed roads.” These decaying logging roads are a large reason Forest Service road stipulations are exceeded. According to Chapter 3D: Road Management is National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry, “Proper closure, decommissioning, and obliteration are essential to preventing erosion and sedimentation on roads and skid trails that are no longer needed or that have been abandoned” (Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). According to the report, Erosion and channel adjustments following forest road decommissioning, by Carolyn Cook and Adam Dresser, Erosion should be avoided to reduce: • • • • • • soil loss embankment washout mass wasting sedimentation turbidity damage to fish habitat

The most efficient way to prevent erosion is to encourage vegetative regeneration. Vegetation protects soil from erosion due to the soil binding capacity of the rhizome and the reduction of raindrop splatter on the soil. Rhizomes, underground stem systems, can sprout new above ground shoots, with accompanying roots which anchor soil in place. Leaf surface area intercepts raindrops that would otherwise land on the soil, knocking loose clay and silt particles that fill pore spaces reducing the soils ability to absorb and hold water. Therefore, the best way to determine if a road is successfully decommissioned, and will not increase erosion, is to measure vegetative regeneration.

Road Decommissioning Methods
The three most common ways to decommission roads are blocking, scarification and subsoiling. The intent behind decommissioning a road through the blockage method is to obstruct the road so no motorized vehicles can get through. The blocking method involves using large boulders, fallen trees, mounds of dirt or a combination of the three to prevent motorized vehicles from using the road. However, large pickup trucks can often climb over the obstructions using four-wheel drive. Therefore, instead of physically blocking the road, a large

trench may be dug out so no vehicles can access the decommissioned road. Scarification and Subsoiling both use teeth to break up and loosen the soil to allow vegetation access to additional minerals and nutrients for increased plant growth by providing better aeration of the roots. This aeration is especially needed in skid trails made during logging operations. During logging heavy equipment such as skidders (figure 1) and caterpillars (figure 2) weighing anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 pounds continuously compress the terrain (VanNatta, 2005).

Figure 1 – Skidder Source: VanNatta, 2005

Figure 2 – Caterpillar (crawler) Source: VanNatta, 2005

An excavator or tractor and ripper bar are required to scarify a road. The ripper bar is an implement attached to the excavator or tractor. According to a Fremont-Winema Road Engineer, Jolene Albertson (2009), “the blades are twelve to eighteen inches long to scarify a road.” However, Clair Thomas (2009), Biophysical Monitoring Crew Supervisor, delineates between scarification and subsoiling by “limiting scarification to topsoil disturbance (rhizome depth of 4 – 6”) and subsoiling to the mixing of other soil horizons with the topsoil, thereby destroying topsoil structure and porosity”. For the sake of this paper, because the data is taken from the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew’s information, scarification will be referring to the use of blades four to six inches long. If the road is not scarified deep enough time and money are wasted for minimal results. If the road is scarified too deeply existing rhizomes are destroyed and soil peds are broken down while heavy silt and clay from lower soil horizons fill pore spaces. Herbs and grasses are difficult to sustain in these coarse soils, though shrubs and trees are only slightly affected. A scarified road may need to be blocked to prevent access to the road. Subsoiling a road is similar to scarification. Again there is a discrepancy on the exact depth of subsoiling. For the purpose of this report subsoiling will refer to using blades on the ripper that extend twelve inches or more. Subsoiling turns up the subsoil between the topsoil and bedrock. According to Archuleta and Baxter (2008, p. 119) in the article, Subsoiling promotes native plant establishment on compacted forest sites, “Subsoiling is the recommended treatment for highly compacted soils.” Soils can become highly compacted with repeated long term use or even short term use with heavy logging machinery in

road such as skid trails. Road blockage may not be necessary after subsoiling because the road would be highly unpleasant and difficult to navigate. Richard Hart project lead of the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team (CBMT) from 2002 - 2004 published a report discouraging subsoiling. He states, “Subsoiled areas, while initially releasing compaction, ultimately become more compacted than their immediate surroundings. The furls formed by the rippers become beds for invasive plants…loss of effective ground cover are also dramatic.” The CBMT found that many subsoiled areas over 25 years old were not recovering well.

Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team
According the Lake County Resource Initiative website (2007), “The Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Project, a program of the Lake County Resources Initiative, examines the relationships within the Chewaucan watershed and observes trends over time.” The Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team chooses a general area to examine, locates sites within the area and completes detailed evaluations of the vegetation, canopy and soils. Depending on the purpose, sites are chosen by the following methods according to the Lake County Resource Initiative’s website: • Dynamic: A base area or individual transect which possesses ecological factors or elements that are unique in combination and/or rapidity of change. • Representative: A base area or transect which contains ecological factors or elements which represent a significantly larger area than the particular vicinity of a certain base area. • Unique: A base area or transect which contains one or more ecological factors or elements that are one-of-a-kind or at least extremely rare in occurrence for the watershed. • Managed: A base area or transect which has been, is being, or will be managed in some way (e.g. - restoration, treatment, and/or logging).

Once a site is selected in an area, a thirty meter tape (transect) is stretched between an “A” and “B” rebar stake to create a 1/10 acre plot. Study sites along a road are randomly selected to ensure a non-biased sampling. The transect tape is stretched across the road so data could be collected both on and off the road for

comparison. To give a general overview of the areas characteristics, a canopy and ground layer survey (figure 3) is conducted and a map drawn. This map is vital to understanding the relationship of data and for relocating areas for follow-up surveys.

Figure 3 – Canopy and Ground Layer Map from Road Decommissioning Transect One Source: Lake County Resource Initiative, 2007

The Quadrat Method and Line Intercept method also known as the Greenline are used for gathering vegetation data. The thirty meter tape stretched between the “A” and “B” stakes make up the Greenline. The “A” and “B” stakes are pieces of rebar permanently placed in the ground so sites can be revisited. According to the Lake County Resource Initiative website (2007), The 30 meter transect is divided into 10 subsections three meters long. The species, number of plants, and medium width of each species is recorded for each subsection. Vegetation measurements of density, cover, frequency, importance and diversity are then calculated. All plants are

identified by a six letter code consisting of the first three letters of the genus followed by the first three letters of the specie. For example, taraxacum is the genus and officinale is the specie of the plant commonly called a dandelion. Therefore the dandelion’s code name is TAROFF. This information can be recorded using a specialized palm pilot program or hard copy form made for the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew. The Quadrat sampling method uses the same six letter vegetation code system. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary (2009), “A Quadrat is a sampling plot, usually one square meter, used to study and analyze plant life.” The Lake Country Resource Initiative (2007) states, “Quadrats are used to sample unique vegetation found in one-tenth acre plots that are not necessarily on the line intercept as well as to sample areas in transition within the plot.” A photograph of each quadrat (Figure 4 on page 10) is taken with a whiteboard that identifies the site, date, and quadrat number because there may be several for each site. Since a quadrat can gather information about vegetation not directly on the line it is combined with the intercept data to calculate species richness (Lake County Resource Initiative, 2007). According to the Lake County Resource Initiative website, “Quadrats from different years can be compared in trend studies to identify changes that are occurring within the quadrat. These can be combined with line intercept data to extrapolate changes occurring within the plot.”

Figure 4 – Quadrat from Timber Salvage. Source: Lake Country Resource Initiative, 2007.

Blocked Sites
The Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew examined fourteen road decommissioning sites using the blockage method. To analyze plant regeneration on the decommissioned road, plant cover is assessed off either side of the road (control group) and on the road (experimental group). The plant species numbers and diversity on the decommissioned road versus the plant species numbers and diversity off both sides of the road measure plant integration and therefore can tell the success of the road decommissioning method. The blocked roads started at approximately the twelve meter mark on the transect and ended at the eighteen meter mark. Therefore, intervals one through four are off of the road, five and six are on the road, and seven through ten are off of the road. Refer back to canopy and ground layer map (Figure 3 on page 5) for clarification. To get the percent cover per interval off the road, individual vegetation covers from intervals one through four are combined. In RD-01, Road Decommissioning Site One, there was an average 93.5% cover in each of the four intervals before the road comprising half of the control group. On the road, our experimental group, there was an average of 67.5% cover in the two intervals, five and six, that crossed. Intervals seven through ten, the other half of the control, had an average interval cover of 63.3%. Since the first four intervals and the last four intervals were both off the decommissioned road the numbers are combined and become the combined control. Therefore, the average cover per interval off the road was 78.4% and the average cover per interval on the road is 67.5%. Table one (see page 12) shows this process through an Excel worksheet. Average cover

per interval on and off the decommissioned road was done for fourteen road decommissioning sites.
Table 1 – Road Decommissioning Site One, RD-01, Excel Spreadsheet

RD-01 Excel Spreadsheet Determining Plant Cover On and Off the Road
Interval 1 Plant Code LINHAR MIMBRY LICHEN PLASCO SIDORE STIOCC UNKSPP BROCAR LINHAR MIMBRY MONLIN MOSS PLASCO UNKSPP BROCAR LINHAR MIMBRY MONLIN MOSS PLASCO SIDORE UNKSPP BROCAR LINHAR MIMBRY LICHEN PLASCO SIDORE UNKSPP Percent Cover 0.4 0.4 5.5 1.2 1 1.7 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 4.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 0.3 0.5 0.1 2.7 1.5 0.8 0.8 3.7 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.2 1 1.4 Interval 5 Plant Code BROCAR LINHAR MIMBRY LICHEN PLASCO SIDORE UNKSPP ARTTRI MIMBRY PLASCO STIOCC UNKSPP Percent Cover 3.7 0.4 0.7 1.3 1.3 1 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.6 1.4 0.3 Interval 7 Plant Code ARTTRI COLPAR MONLIN SIDORE STIOCC ARTTRI LINHAR SIDORE ARTTRI BROCAR LINHAR MIMBRY SIDORE WYLAMP ARTTRI LINHAR POTGLA SIDORE Percent Cover 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 5 0.2 0.7 6 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.5 2.4 3.4 0.1 1.5 1.1

8

2

6

9

3

10

4

Average Cover Per Interval Before Average Cover on Road 9.35 the Road Total Average Cover Per Interval Before and After the Road is 6.75%

Average Cover 6.75 After Road 6.33 Total Average Cover Per Interval On the Road is 7.84%

Table one and Graph one show the difference in the percent vegetation cover per interval on and off the road ranges from -2.5% (the road has 2.5% more cover that surrounding areas) to 20.5% (the road has 20.5% less cover and surrounding areas).
Off Road 78.4 20.8 22.7 52.5 24.8 76.8 83.1 45.9 9.3 45.1 73.2 56.2 69.1 49.3 On Road 67.5 18.5 21.5 55.0 21.1 43.6 36.1 36.8 3.4 37.4 52.8 49.3 58.5 43.4

RD-01 RD-02 RD-03 RD-04 RD-06 RD-07 RD-08 RD-09 RD-10 RD-11 RD-14 RD-16 RD-17 RD-18

Difference 10.90 2.30 1.2 -2.50 3.70 33.2 47.0 9.10 5.9 7.70 20.4 6.9 10.6 5.90

Table 1 – Vegetation Integration on Blocked Roads versus off Blocked Roads in Road Decommissioning Sites. There is an average of 11.61% more cover off road than on road.

Vegetation Integration on Blocked Roads versus off Blocked Roads in Road Decommissioning Sites
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Percent Average Cover Per Interval

Off Road On Road

RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RDRoads in Road Decommissioning Sites 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 09 10 11 14 16 17 18 Percent Average Cover Per Interval

Vegetation Integration on Blocked Roads versus off Blocked

Site 9.00 8.00 7.00 Graph 1 – Vegetation Integration on Blocked Roads versus off Blocked Roads in Road 6.00 Decommissioning Sites 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD- RD01 02 03 04 06 07 08 09 10 11 14 16 17 18 Site

Off Road On Road

Scarified Sites
While the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew surveyed Timber Salvage sites they came across eight scarified roads. Many of these scarified roads were skid trails. Similar to blocked roads, plant regeneration on scarified roads was analyzed on and off either side of the road. However, the scarified roads are not necessarily from the twelve to eighteen meter mark because the sites were chosen at random in the timber salvage unit and only came across scarified roads by coincidence. Timber Salvage site number 36’s (TS-36) Canopy and Ground Layer map (Figure 7) shows approximately the last ten meters of the transect on the scarified road.

Figure 7 – Canopy and Ground Layer Map from Road Decommissioning Transect One Source: Lake County Resource Initiative, 2007

Table two and Graph two show the difference in the percent vegetation cover per interval on and off the road in scarified roads and skid trails ranges from -0.4 (the road has -0.4% more cover that surrounding areas) to 9.7% (the road has 9.7% less cover and surrounding areas).
Off Road 14.5 15.8 5.9 16.3 11.7 5.1 5.2 7.9 On Road 12.9 13.6 5.2 6.6 7.2 5.5 1.9 4.8

TS-36 TS-39 TS-42 TS-51 TS-54 TS-57 TS-62 TS-63

Difference 1.6 2.2 0.7 9.7 4.5 -0.4 3.3 3.1

Table 2 – Vegetation Integration on Scarified Roads versus off Scarified Roads in Road Decommissioning Sites. There are 3.09% more plants off road than on road.

Vegetation Integration on Scarified Roads versus off Scarified Roads in Timber Salvage Sites
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 TS-36 TS-39 TS-42 TS-51 TS-54 TS-57 TS-62 TS-63 Site Percent Average Cover per Interval

Off Road On Road

Graph 2 - Vegetation Integration on Scarified Roads versus off Scarified Roads in Timber Salvage Sites

Blocked Versus Scarified Sites

There is 12.3% more vegetation cover off blocked roads than on them. Comparatively, there is only a 3.1% difference in vegetation cover on scarified roads. This does not mean off the road vegetation is necessarily more numerous than on the road. It could mean vegetation off the road is larger in size than vegetation off the road. Considering most of the roads are around twenty-five years old, this would make sense because vegetation off the road has had more time to grow. According to Mike Neville (2009), Botanist and Range Manager for the Paisley Forest Service, “As a general rule for vegetation, excluding trees, the older and larger the plant, the greater the rhizome is.” This is significant because more rhizomes equal less erosion. Therefore, twenty-five years later scarified roads have a similar rhizome to the surrounding area with a 3.1% difference than blocked roads with a 12.3 percent difference. J. Thomas, using the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew’s data, evaluated the difference in species number and diversity. In Thomas’ (2007) evaluation she stated, “In scarified road areas, 31% of the plant species (pioneer species) were on the road exclusively and 23% of all plants were greater in number on the road. Combining these values indicates that 54% of the plant species found in scarified areas are actively rehabilitating roads and only 46% are still found exclusively off road. The off road plants are rapidly initiating growth on the road. Comparatively, in blocked road areas, only 3% of the plant species were found exclusively on the road and 33% of all plant types were greater in abundance on the roads. The combined value of 36% of plant species in the road indicate a slower recovery since 64% of the plants off road were not yet establishing themselves in the road”. When cover (Tables 1, 2) and exclusivity

(Graph 4) are combined the speed of recovery for scarified roads is about 1.8 times that of blocked roads. Graphs 3 summarizes the abundance of shared plants on and off road and graph 4 (see page 18) summarizes the number of exclusive plant species on and off the road in blocked and scarified areas. • • “I” refers to intermediate (the road) “B/A” refers to before and after the road.

Therefore, in blocked areas abundance and number of plant species on the road (I) are less than (<) abundance and number of plant species off the road (B/A).

Abudance of Plant Species On (I) and Off (B/A) Decommissioned Roads
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% I >B/A I=B/A I<B/A

Blocked Areas Scarified Areas

Graph 3 – Plant Species Abundance Source: Jacinda Thomas, 2007

Number of Plant Species On (I) and Off (B/A) Decommissioned Roads
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 I >B/A I=B/A I<B/A

Blocked Areas Scarified Areas

Graph 4 – Number of Plant Species Source: Jacinda Thomas, 2007

Conclusion

The Forest Service has been assigned the large task of decommissioning old, unsafe and/or unused roads until the districts is in compliance with the current road stipulations of 1.5 miles of road per square mile of forest. These stipulations are set in place for a number of reasons including aesthetic and environmental. One of the most important reasons to decommission roads is to stop erosion that can ruin watersheds, increase turbidity and ruin fish habitat. The three possible ways to decommission a road are blockage, scarification and subsoiling. The research done by the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Crew and interpreted by Jacinda Thomas and Brittany Cramer (technical report author) suggests scarification is the preferred road decommissioning method in the Fremont Winema Forest because it best encourages vegetative regeneration and integration. Vegetative regeneration is vital to anchor soils and decrease erosion.

References

Albertson, J. (2009, February 3). Road Engineer. Telephone Interview. Archuleta, J. and Baxter, E. Subsoiling promotes native plant establishment on compacted forest sites. Native Plants Journal - Volume 9, Number 2, Summer 2008, p. 119. Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring . 2007. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.lcri.org/monitoring/. Cook, C. and Dresser, A. (n.d.). Erosion and channel adjustments following forest road decommissioning, Six Rivers National Forest. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from www.stream.fs.fed.us/afsc/pdfs/Cook.pdf Environmental Protection Agency. (2005, May 1). 3D: Road management. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from www.epa.gov/owow/nps/forestrymgmt/pdf/ch3d.pdf. Fremont-Winema National Forests - Welcome. (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/. Hardin, N. (2009, January 27). Assistant Center Manager for the Lakeview Fire District. Phone Interview Harmon, T. (2009, January 27). Owner and Operator of Tom Harmon Logging. Phone Interview. Neville, M. (2009, February 13). Botanist and Range Manager. Telephone Interview.

Schaffer, R. (2003, December 11). National Forest Service road

decommissioning: An attempt to read through the numbers (Field Notes) | Wildlands CPR. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.wildlandscpr.org/field-notes/national-forest-service-roaddecommissioning-attempt-read-through-numbers. Thomas, C. (2009, February 1). Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Supervisor. Telephone Interview. Thomas, J. “Determining the best method of road decommissioning based on Vegetation Succession.” Attachment E-mailed to the Brittany Cramer. 16 Jan. 2007. Quadrat. (20009). In Webster's New World College Dictionary. Retrieved February 10th, 2009, from www.yourdictionary.com/quadrat. VanNatta, R. (2005, November 13). VanNatta forestry and logging machinery. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.vannattabros.com/