United States Department of Agriculture South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Consider using a photo of the project area or proposed activities. Remove box and insert graphic. 508 Compliance: Right-click Photo > Format Picture > Alt Text > Type Title and description of photo
Photo goes here
Siuslaw Hebo Forest Service National Forest Ranger District January 2015
Responsible Official: Jeremiah C. Ingersoll, Forest Supervisor Siuslaw National Forest 3200 SW Jefferson Way Corvallis, OR 97331 541-750-7000
For More Information Contact: Lorena Wisehart, NEPA Planner Hebo Ranger District P.O. Box 235 31525 Hwy 22 503-392-5119 [email protected]
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Document Structure
The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The document is organized into the following parts:
Introduction: This section includes a summary of the proposed project, the management framework, the need for the project, and potential issues.
Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the proposed action as well as any alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose.
Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, effects of the No Action Alternative provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and identifies the agencies and governments consulted during preparation of the EA. This EA is the product of an interdisciplinary analysis. Forest Service employees that assisted with preparation of the EA are identified along with their area of expertise.
Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EA.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Hebo Ranger District Office in Hebo, Oregon.
i South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Summary of Proposed Project ...... 1 1.2. Project Area ...... 1 1.3. Management Framework ...... 2 1.3.1. Siuslaw Forest Plan ...... 3 1.3.2. Forest Plan Amendments...... 3 1.3.3. Additional Guidance...... 3 1.3.4. Land Allocations in the Project Area ...... 6 1.4. Need for the Proposal ...... 10 1.4.1. Evidence Used by the District Ranger in Deciding to Address These Needs ..... 11 1.5. Issues ...... 15 1.6. Additional Considerations ...... 16 1.7. Decision Framework ...... 16 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 17 2.1. Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 17 2.1.1. Alternative 1: No Action ...... 17 2.1.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 17 2.1.3. Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2...... 23 2.2. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ...... 23 2.2.1. Treat all of the managed stands within the project area ...... 23 2.2.2. Maximize carbon sequestration ...... 23 2.2.3. No new temporary roads ...... 23 2.2.4. Treat alder dominated stands ...... 24 Chapter 3. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 24 3.1. Forest Stands ...... 25 3.1.1. Introduction ...... 25 3.1.2. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 29 3.2. Wildlife ...... 34 3.2.1. Threatened, endangered or proposed ESA listed species ...... 35 3.2.2. Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species ...... 48 3.2.3. Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 54 3.2.4. Landbird Assessment ...... 58 3.2.5. Deadwood Assessment ...... 66 3.3. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ...... 84 3.3.1. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 85 3.3.2. ESA Effect Determination and Critical Habitat ...... 99 3.3.3. Aggregated Federal Effects ...... 100 3.3.4. Endangered Species Act Cumulative Effects ...... 100 3.3.5. EFH and Special Status Species Assessment ...... 100 3.3.6. Management Indicator Species and Other Fish Species ...... 101 3.3.7. Cumulative Effects ...... 101 3.4. Botanical Resources ...... 101 3.4.1. Botanical Species ...... 101 3.4.2. Invasive Plants ...... 110 3.5. Hydrology ...... 112 3.5.1. Introduction and Description of Existing Condition ...... 112 3.5.2. Desired Future Condition ...... 115 3.5.3. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 116
ii
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.5.4. Cumulative Effects ...... 118 3.6. Soils & Geology ...... 118 3.6.1. Introduction ...... 119 3.6.2. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 119 3.6.3. Cumulative Effects ...... 125 3.6.4. Identification of Irreversible or Irretrievable Resources ...... 125 3.7. Heritage Resources ...... 126 3.7.1. Introduction ...... 126 3.7.2. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 126 3.7.3. Cumulative Effects ...... 127 3.8. Recreation and Special Uses ...... 127 3.8.1. Introduction and Existing Condition ...... 127 3.8.2. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 128 3.8.3. Cumulative Effects ...... 130 3.9. Scenic Quality ...... 130 3.9.1. Introduction ...... 130 3.9.2. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 132 3.9.3. Cumulative effects ...... 135 3.10. Public and Management Access ...... 135 3.10.1. Introduction ...... 135 3.10.2. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 135 3.10.3. Cumulative Effects ...... 137 3.11. Fire and Fuels ...... 138 3.11.1. Introduction ...... 138 3.11.3. Cumulative Effects ...... 140 3.12. Unroaded Areas ...... 141 3.12.1. Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 142 3.12.2. Cumulative Effects ...... 142 3.13. Environmental Justice ...... 143 3.14. Climate Change ...... 143 3.15. Additional Disclosures ...... 145 Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 146 4.1. Public Scoping ...... 146 4.2. Tribal Consultation ...... 146 4.2.1. Agencies, Governments, and Organizations Consulted ...... 146 4.3. List of Preparers ...... 148 Chapter 5. Acronyms ...... 149 Chapter 6. References ...... 150 Tables
Table 1. Land ownership in the project area...... 2 Table 2. Historic abundance of forest habitat-seral condition and current estimates for the project area...... 11 Table 3. Alternative 2 vegetation treatments...... 18 Table 4. Approximate acreage for each logging system type in both off-site and young managed stands...... 18 Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives...... 23 Table 6. Current vegetation cover types for Forest Service ownership in the project area (Hebo Ranger District Unpublished Vegetation Data)...... 26
iii South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Table 7. Forest Service Plantations...... 27 Table 8. Summary of the effects to sensitive species and survey and manage species...... 50 Table 9. Summary of the results of red tree vole surveys...... 53 Table 10. Siuslaw National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS)...... 57 Table 11. Birds Identified as High Conservation Priorities in Northern Pacific Forests (U.S. portions only)...... 59 Table 12. Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 5 – Northern Pacific Rainforest USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Fish and Wildlife Service and Partners in Flight bird species of concern or conservation focal species associated with forest habitats in the Siuslaw National Forest...... 63 Table 13. Summary of Appendix E in Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest (Altman and Hager 2007). 64 Table 14. Down wood diameter required to provide for all species evaluated by tolerance level. 78 Table 15. Federally listed species, Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat in the Planning Area...... 84 Table 16. South Nestucca Restoration Project Watersheds...... 84 Table 17. Effects worksheet for the South Nestucca Restoration Project.* ...... 99 Table 18. Project effects determination key for species and critical habitat...... 100 Table 19. Management Category A and C species surveyed for in plantations greater than 80 years...... 110 Table 20. Noxious weeds found at the project site...... 111 Table 21. Watershed condition indicators for the project area...... 113 Table 22. Project area water bodies and associated water quality concerns...... 114 Table 23. National Forest System haul road summary...... 136 Table 24. Season of haul road summary...... 136 Table 25. Alternative 2 road maintenance and reconstruction cost estimates for main haul roads...... 137 Figures
Figure 1. The South Nestucca project area is located within the 5th Field Nestucca Watershed. ... 4 Figure 2. Land ownership in the vicinity of the project area...... 5 Figure 3. Land Allocations within the project area...... 8 Figure 4. Location of the Mt. Hebo Special Interest Area and recreation sites within the South Nestucca project area...... 9 Figure 5. Logging systems for units proposed for commercial thinning and locations of huckleberry enhancement treatments...... 21 Figure 6. Proposed haul routes for the South Nestucca Restoration Project...... 22 Figure 7. Units proposed for harvest within off-site plantations stands in the South Nestucca project area. (S. Nestucca All Offsite Stands layer represents 7,843 acres originally planted with off-site stock, although remaining off-site stands comprise closer to 4,677 acres.) ...... 28 Figure 8. Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat in the South Nestucca project area...... 38 Figure 9. Marbled murrelet suitable habitat and designated Critical Habitat within the Project Area...... 42 Figure 10. Northern spotted owl core areas, home range, and critical habitat within the project area...... 47 Figure 11. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for nesting or denning in relation to snag size for 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer- Hardwood Forest (Oregon Coast), Small/medium Trees Structural Condition Class...... 68
iv
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Figure 12. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for nesting or denning in relation to snag size for 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer- Hardwood Forest (Oregon Coast), Larger Trees Structural Condition Class...... 68 Figure 13. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for resting and roosting in relation to snag size for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type (Oregon Coast), Small/Medium Tree and Larger Trees Structural Condition Classes...... 69 Figure 14. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for foraging in relation to snag size for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type (Oregon Coast), Small/Medium Tree Structural Condition Class...... 69 Figure 15. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for foraging in relation to snag size for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type (Oregon Coast), Larger Tree Structural Condition Class...... 70 Figure 16. Cumulative species curves for density (#/ac) of snags ≥ 10 in dbh: species use of areas for nesting, roosting and occurrence with documented snag densities for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type for the Small/medium and Larger Structural condition Classes...... 70 Figure 17. Cumulative species curves for density (#/ac) of snags ≥ 20 in dbh: species use of areas for nesting, roosting and occurrence with documented snag densities for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type for the Small/medium and Larger Structural condition Class...... 71 Figure 18. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥10 in...... 72 Figure 19. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥20 in...... 73 Figure 20. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Larger Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥10 in...... 74 Figure 21. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Larger Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥20 in...... 75 Figure 22. Cumulative species curves for down wood diameter (in) used at foraging sites and occupied sites in relation to average down wood size for 30%, 50%, 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium and Large tree Structural Condition Class...... 77 Figure 23. Cumulative species curves for down wood diameter (in) used at foraging sites and occupied sites in relation to individual down wood size for 30%, 50%, 80%, tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium and Large trees Structural Condition Class...... 77 Figure 24. Cumulative species curves for percent cover of down wood (≥4 in diameter) in areas used for foraging or at occupied sites for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-hardwood forest wildlife Habitat Type and Small/Medium trees Structural Condition Class...... 78 Figure 25. Cumulative species curve for percent cover of down wood (≥4 in diameter) in areas used for foraging or at occupied sites for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Larger Trees Structural Condition Class...... 79
v South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 26. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥5 in...... 80 Figure 27. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Large Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥5 in...... 81 Figure 28. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥20 in...... 82 Figure 29. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Large Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥20 in...... 82 Figure 30. South Nestucca stream buffers...... 86 Figure 31. South Nestucca viewshed map showing areas in view from highways and the town of Hebo (Carol Boyd, Geographic Information Specialist, Feb. 2014)...... 134 Appendices
Appendix A – Project Design Criteria
Appendix B – Deadwood
Appendix C – Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Assessment
Appendix D – Responses to Comments on the Draft EA
vi
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Chapter 1. Introduction The Siuslaw National Forest Hebo District Ranger proposed the South Nestucca Restoration Project, a landscape-scale restoration project in the Nestucca watershed, to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The Hebo Ranger District prepared this environmental assessment (EA), in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to determine whether implementation of the South Nestucca Restoration Project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. 1.1. Summary of Proposed Project The South Nestucca Restoration Project is being proposed to accelerate the development of late- successional forest habitat by enhancing growth, health, stand structure, and diversity of forest stands in the Nestucca watershed. To meet this objective, the project, tiered to the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“Siuslaw Forest Plan”; USDA Forest Service 1990a), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA 1994), proposes to commercially thin about 848 acres of 18 to 80 year old plantations (13 stands) and approximately 920 acres of 80 to 103 year old plantations (25 stands) composed of off-site genetic stock.
This project proposes additional connected actions that would increase habitat quality and diversity and support traditional cultural gathering practices. In cooperation with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, the District also identified 9 acres within two off-site stands to be commercially thinned to enhance huckleberry populations.
In order to access the stands during the commercial thinning, the project would require that approximately 8 miles of existing non-key system roads be repaired and temporarily reopened, about 4.7 miles of temporary road be constructed on existing road templates, and 3.9 miles of new temporary road be built. These existing non-key roads would all be waterbarred and closed or decommissioned and all the temporary roads would be decommissioned at the end of the project. The project also proposes actions to maintain and resurface roads used for log haul to improve road safety and avoid adverse environmental effects.
The proposed action would affect the forest environment due to the removal harvest of some plantation trees and the associated infrastructure necessary to accomplish this harvest. In the long term the proposed project is expected to accelerate development of late successional habitat and benefit those species associated with this habitat type. The project is also expected to increase habitat quality and availability for elegant fawn lily and Vaccinium species. Revenue collected from commercial timber harvest in the treated stands would be used to improve the road system in the project area and to conduct additional habitat restoration activities including snag and coarse woody debris creation.
In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also fully evaluated the No Action Alternative. After consideration of each of the alternatives and their effects, the responsible official will decide whether to proceed with the proposed harvest of timber and associated restoration activities. 1.2. Project Area The 27,543-acre project area is located in the Nestucca watershed basin, approximately 18 miles south of Tillamook, Oregon (Figure 1).
1 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
The project area is located in portions of Township 3 South, Ranges 9 and 10 West; Township 4 South, Ranges 8, 9, and 10 West; and Township 5 South, Range 10 West; Willamette Meridian; Tillamook and Yamhill Counties, Oregon (Figure 2). The headwaters of the Nestucca River originate in the Coast Range and the river flows west and south to the Nestucca Bay (USDA USDI 1994b). Climate in the watershed is characterized by mild wet winters and cool, relatively dry summers (USDA USDI 1994b). Mount Hebo, the highest point in the Nestucca watershed, is located within the project area. Land ownership in the watershed is mostly federal and includes both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, although private industrial timberlands are abundant, and the Oregon Department of Forestry also manages some land within the watershed (USDA USDI 1994b). The remaining ownership largely consists of dairy farms, small woodlots, and rural residential properties (USDA USDI 1994b). Within the South Nestucca project area, ownership is predominantly US Forest Service (Table 1, Figure 2).
Table 1. Land ownership in the project area.
% of Project Owner Acres Area
US Forest Service 22,673 82 Private 4,757 17 US Bureau of Land Management 77 <1 State of Oregon 27 <1 Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 9 <1 Total 27,543
1.3. Management Framework The South Nestucca Restoration project is proposed at this time to respond to goals and objectives of the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended (USDA Forest Service 1990a). This EA has been completed in accordance with direction contained in the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.
The proposed South Nestucca Restoration Project is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“Siuslaw Forest Plan,” USFS 1990a), as amended by the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (“Northwest Forest Plan,” USDA USDI 1994a). The Siuslaw Forest Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan), established the management direction, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines under which National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the Siuslaw National Forest are managed. This EA is tiered to the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 1990b) and Record of Decision (USDA 1990c), and incorporates by reference the Siuslaw Forest Plan (USDA 1990a). All relevant aspects of the Forest Plan, as amended, including management area standards and guidelines and land allocations apply to this project. The Region 6 Invasive Plants FEIS also amended the Siuslaw Forest Plan and applies to this project (see below 1.3.2).
2
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
1.3.1. Siuslaw Forest Plan The Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the Forest. The Forest Plan also provides goals, objectives, and desired future conditions of management areas and describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management. The intent of the amended Siuslaw Forest Plan is to provide healthy ecosystems that protect riparian areas and water quality, and provide adequate habitat to maintain viable populations of terrestrial and aquatic species.
1.3.2. Forest Plan Amendments The following Forest Plan amendments also provide management direction for the project area:
Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) - Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA USDI 1994c), establishes the management direction, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines under which late-successional reserves, adaptive management areas and riparian reserves are managed. The Northwest Forest Plan provides the opportunity to produce timber as a by-product of treating stands located in late-successional reserves, adaptive management areas, and riparian reserves.
Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS - The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA 2005a), provides direction including invasive plant prevention and treatment/restoration standards intended to help achieve stated desired future conditions, goals and objectives. (Note: the proposed action involves manual and mechanical removal methods only, no herbicide application is proposed).
1.3.3. Additional Guidance Additional guidance for the project area is provided by the Assessment Report for Federal Lands in and Adjacent to Oregon Coast Province (USDA USDI 1995), the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (USDA USDI 1998), the Oregon Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (AMA) Guide (USDA USDI 1997a), and the Nestucca Watershed Analysis (USDA USDI 1994b). These documents provide guidance and recommendations for determining more specific desired conditions for attaining agency goals.
3 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 1. The South Nestucca project area is located within the 5th Field Nestucca Watershed.
4
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Figure 2. Land ownership in the vicinity of the project area.
5 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
1.3.4. Land Allocations in the Project Area
1.3.4.1. Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations
1.3.4.1.1. Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (AMA) All National Forest System lands in the project area are included within the Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area. The purpose of the AMA is to provide opportunities for development, demonstration, and testing of techniques that range from restoration of late-successional forest conditions and riparian zones to integration of commercial timber harvest with ecological objectives (USDA USDI 1994a). The objectives for managing federal lands in the Northern Coast Range AMA are to restore and maintain late-successional forest habitat while providing more flexibility to explore innovative methods; develop strategies for conserving biodiversity; and provide social and economic benefits to local communities (USDA USDI 1997a). All AMAs are expected to produce timber as part of their program of activities consistent with Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines.
In portions of the AMA that are not designated as LSR (9,686 acres; 43% of Forest Service ownership in the project area), there is no upper age limit for timber stand management (USDA USDI 1997).
1.3.4.1.2. Late Successional Reserve (LSR) Late Successional Reserves cover 12,991 acres (57%) of the Forest Service ownership in the project area (Figure 3). The purpose of Late Successional Reserves is to maintain and enhance late-successional forest as a network of existing old-growth forest ecosystems: “In Late-Successional Reserves, standards and guidelines are designed to maintain late-successional forest ecosystems and protect them from loss due to large-scale fire, insect and disease epidemics, and major human impacts. The intent is to maintain natural ecosystem processes such as gap dynamics, natural regeneration, pathogenic fungal activity, insect herbivory, and low-intensity fire. These standards and guidelines encourage the use of silvicultural practices to accelerate the development of overstocked young stands into stands with late-successional and old-growth forest characteristics. Four major structural attributes of old-growth Douglas-fir forests include live old-growth trees, standing dead trees (snags), fallen trees or logs on the forest floor, and logs in streams. Additional important elements typically include multiple canopy layers, smaller understory trees, canopy gaps, and patchy understory” (USDA USDI 1994a).
Standards and Guidelines that apply to Late Successional Reserves include:
• Thinning or other silvicultural treatments may occur in stands up to 110 years of age in LSR portions of the Northern Coast Range AMA if the treatments are beneficial to the creation and maintenance of late-successional forest conditions (USDA USDI 1994, USDA USDI 1997).
• Thinning (precommercial and commercial) may occur in stands regardless of their origin (e.g., plantations planted after logging or stands naturally regenerated after fire or blowdown) (ROD C- 12 & D-15).
• The purpose of all silvicultural treatments within the LSRs is to benefit the creation and maintenance of late-successional forest conditions (ROD C-12).
1.3.4.1.3. Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves include lands along streams and unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and guidelines apply (USDA USDI 1994c). Riparian Reserves span approximately 15,587 acres (71 %) of lands under Forest Service ownership within the project area.
6
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Under the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, Riparian Reserves are used to maintain and restore riparian structures and functions of intermittent streams, confer benefits to riparian-depended and associated species other than fish, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for many terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of the watershed and among LSRs (USDA USDI 1994a).
Standards and Guidelines that apply to Riparian Reserves include:
• Apply silvicultural practices in Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (ROD C-32).
• The Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (ROD, B-11) indicate within Riparian Reserves management activities will be designed to maintain and restore habitats and ecological processes. The emphasis in Riparian Reserves will be to thin overstocked Douglas-fir plantations.
• Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (ROD C-32).
1.3.4.2. Mt. Hebo Special Interest Area Portions of Mt. Hebo are designated as a Scenic-Biological Special Interest Area because of their role as Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat and because of high scenic and recreational quality. The Siuslaw Forest Plan directs that the SIA’s special features be managed “substantially in their natural condition, and where appropriate and compatible, to foster public use and enjoyment of these characteristics” (USDA 1990a, USDA 1996). The SIA spans 1,033 acres of the project area (Figure 4), with some areas managed for early seral habitat to support populations of the Oregon silverspot butterfly. Objectives of the SIA include: • Maintain early-seral plant communities and other special resources necessary to sustain viable populations of rare plant and animal communities.
• Assist the recovery of the Oregon silverspot butterfly and its removal from the federal list of T&E species through activities which increase suitable habitat.
• Allow public access to Mt. Hebo’s outstanding scenic and biological features by car and by foot.
• Prohibit unauthorized activities that are ground or vegetation disturbing. Monitor meadows and other sensitive areas for over-use and other resource damage (USDA Forest Service 1996).
1.3.4.3. Mount Hebo Inventoried Roadless Area The US Forest Service limits road construction and reconstruction and timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands to avoid altering and fragmenting landscapes, resulting in immediate, long-term loss of roadless area values and characteristics. Although a relatively small portion of the Mount Hebo IRA overlaps with the project area (Figure 4), no project actions are proposed within the Inventoried Roadless Area.
7 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 3. Land Allocations within the project area.
8
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Figure 4. Location of the Mt. Hebo Special Interest Area and recreation sites within the South Nestucca project area.
9 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
1.4. Need for the Proposal The existing condition of the project area is not the desired condition intended by the Northwest Forest Plan, or portrayed in landscape-scale analyses,1 or scientific literature. The primary objective of the South Nestucca Restoration Project is to attain the desired conditions in the project area. The proposed actions were determined based primarily on known historic and existing conditions, completed projects of a similar nature, and scientific studies (completed and on-going).
The Northwest Forest Plan identifies two underlying needs:
• “The need for forest habitat is the need for a healthy forest ecosystem with habitat that would support populations of native species (particularity those associated with late-successional and old growth forests) and includes protection for riparian areas and waters.” (USDA USDI 1994). • “The need for forest products from forest ecosystems is the need for a sustainable supply of timber and other forest products that would help maintain the stability of local and regional economies, and contribute valuable resources to the national economy on a predictable and long- term basis.” (USDA USDI 1994). Information from various sources, such as the Siuslaw Forest Plan (USDA 1990a), landscape-scale assessments including the Nestucca Watershed Analysis (USDA USDI 1994), best available science, and analysis data collected by the Interdisciplinary Team were used to identify the following additional needs:
• Need to accelerate the development of late-successional and old-growth forest habitat in young managed stands and off-site stands. There is limited availability of old-growth forest habitat in the Pacific Northwest, including the project area, which in turn limits populations of associated species, such as the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. • Need to improve habitat diversity in plantations and to maintain or improve meadow, hardwood-tree, and grass, forb, and shrub habitats. There is a shortage of habitat diversity in plantations and the declining amount of hardwood-tree, grass, forb, and shrub habitats in the project area limits the ability of these habitats to support a diversity of plant and animal species. • Need to increase availability of huckleberry shrubs utilized as part of native culture. • Need to ensure resiliency of elegant fawn lily (Erythronium elegans) populations on Mount Hebo and throughout the range of the species by increasing availability and diversity of suitable habitat. • Need to sell timber from plantations proposed for commercial thinning to help fund restoration actions that include snag and coarse woody debris creation. The shortage of funds to implement actions designed to enhance or restore ecosystem function limits the ability of the Forest to restore the ecosystem and achieve the desired conditions. • Need to use timber sale revenue to maintain or repair key forest roads. The shortage of funds to implement road maintenance actions contributes to a deteriorating transportation infrastructure, affecting road safety and increasing risk to the environment from failed roads.
1 Landscape-scale analyses applicable to this project include the Assessment Report for Federal Lands in and Adjacent to Oregon Coast Province (USDA USDI 1995), the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (USDA USDI 1998), the Nestucca Watershed Analysis (USDA USDI 1994), and the Oregon Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (AMA) Guide (USDA USDI 1997).
10
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
1.4.1. Evidence Used by the District Ranger in Deciding to Address These Needs The Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan, based on physical, biological, and societal evidence provided in the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report (USDA et al. 1993) and described in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Northwest Forest Plan, intended to provide for:
• healthy forest ecosystems, including protecting riparian areas and waters; and
• a suitable supply of forest products and amenities to help maintain local and regional economies predictably over the long term.
Estimates of the historical range of abundance for different habitats in the Oregon Coast Province demonstrate the need to increase habitat diversity. Wimberly (2002) showed the need to restore certain habitat conditions necessary for healthy, native plant and animal populations, and thus healthy ecosystems, by simulating historical landscape patterns for the Oregon Coast Range (Table 2). Within the Oregon Coast Province, historic abundance of mature (80-200 years) and old growth (>200 years) forest ranged from 41 to 80 percent (Table 2). Today, plantations comprise 41% of the South Nestucca Project Area and no old growth forest habitat remains in the project area or the Nestucca Watershed.
Table 2. Historic abundance of forest habitat-seral condition and current estimates for the project area. Range of Abundance Current Estimate for National Forest Seral Stage (Historic % of Oregon Coast Forest System lands in the South Province) (Wimberly 2002) Nestucca Project Area Early – grass, forb, shrub, sapling, 12-29% 3,224 (14%) pole (<30 years old)
Young 15-31% 1,631 (7%) (30-80 years old) Mature 12-28% 17,825 (79%) (80-200 years old) Old Growth 29-52% 0 (>200 years old)
Additional evidence demonstrating the need for the Project is described below:
1.4.1.1. Accelerating development of old-growth forest habitat. The following evidence documents that the quantity of old-growth forest needs to be increased and important attributes of mature or old-growth forest need to be created or maintained, where possible.
The Northwest Forest Plan recognizes the need to maintain and restore late-successional and old-growth forest habitats by committing the majority of federal land in the Oregon Coast Province to management for these habitats (“Late-Successional Reserve” (LSR) areas). However, lands managed by the Siuslaw National Forest in the project area are well below historic abundance for old-growth forest, grass, forb, and shrub habitats (Wimberly 2002). The Assessment Report for Federal Lands in and adjacent to the Oregon Coast identified the Nestucca River watershed as one of the 10 best opportunities to restore late-seral conifer communities on federal lands in the Oregon Coast Range (USDA USDI 1995). The Report recommended managing to accelerate
11 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
abundance of late-successional and old growth forest and to aggregate small patches of these habitats into larger ones throughout the Province (USDA USDI 1995). In an Oregon Coast Range study, Tappeiner et al. (1997) found that large trees in old-growth stands had little competition from one another because of the low numbers of large trees per acre; also, self- or natural-thinning was uncommon during the development of the older stands studied. Poage et al. (2009) determined that the majority of old growth stands in western Oregon had three or four disturbances that caused enough over-story mortality for new vegetation to establish. These disturbances maintained or increased the amount of diversity within these stands by increasing amounts of dead wood, hardwoods, shrubs, grasses, and forbs (Poage et al. 2009). The northern spotted owl population of the Oregon Coast Range continues to decline at an average rate of 2.9% range wide each year, with a loss of 20 to 30 percent of the population between 1994 and 2003 (USDA 2005b; USDI 2014a). Forsman and Giese (1997) determined that over 90 percent of northern spotted owl nests were in cavities, typically in the crown of very large (>50 inch DBH) live trees and in large holes in the side of the trunk or in the broken top of the trunk. These large cavities are rare on the Siuslaw National Forest, probably due to the age of late-successional forest (about 160 years of age) and lack of old-growth forest (greater than 200 years of age).
1.4.1.2. Improving forest habitat quality and diversity. The quality and diversity of forest habitat is limited, especially within plantations. Current abundance of young forest habitat exceeds historic levels, while old-growth and early seral forest habitats are below historic levels (Table 2). Young plantations (18-80 years) occupy about 20 percent of NFS land administered in the project area. Off-site stands (77 to 101 years) occupy about 21 percent of NFS land administered in the project area (See Forest Stands, Section 3.1.1).
Young stands lack the diversity of habitat needed to establish late-successional and old-growth forest conditions and to maintain biological diversity associated with native species. Structural components (e.g., snags, down wood, sub-canopy layers, and tree species diversity) are deficient in young forest stands throughout the watershed (USDA USDI 1998). Restoring landscape-level ecosystem functions would require function be restored in managed stands (Carey 2003a, b). Biological complexity within managed forests and across the landscape is more important than individual habitat elements in maintaining the diversity of forest ecosystems and supporting landscape function (Carey 2003a). Variable densities of forest canopies increase bio- complexity, which supports various biotic communities, including soil organisms, vascular plants, fungi, birds, small mammals, and vertebrate predators (Carey 2003a). Moreover, promoting deciduous trees, protecting fungal mats, and managing for dead wood are important to forest bio-complexity. Lichens and bryophytes are very important components of Northwest Forests. They function in nutrient cycling (including cyanolichens that fix nitrogen), provide nesting material for birds and mammals, habitat for arthropods, food for mollusks, and contribute to biodiversity (Maser et al. 1985; Pike 1978; Pike et al. 1972; Pypker et al. 2006). Petterson et al. (1995) found that forest bird diversity was related to epiphytic lichen diversity in older forests, due to the variety of food insects living in the lichens. Because even-aged stands lack the complex structure of old-growth forests, lichen and bryophyte diversity is low (Lesica et al.1991; McCune 1993). Creating gaps to promote forest diversity in young, even-aged stands benefits lichen and bryophyte diversity, as well as the diversity of many other forest organisms (Root et al. 2010; Muir et al. 2002). Chan et al. (2006) determined that availability of natural light is a major factor in many of the processes that foster the development of stand diversity and complexity. Thinning, especially to low densities (30 to 60 trees per acre), increased understory plant diversity. Chan et al. concluded that thinning to low
12
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
densities and under-planting has the potential to accelerate development of multi-layered stands characteristic of old-growth Douglas-fir forests and that stands originally thinned to 60 trees per acre likely would need thinning again to maintain high understory plant diversity and to maintain rapid growth of understory trees.
1.4.1.3. Thinning dense plantation forest stands. Managed timber stands, including young plantations and commercially thinned stands 40-100 years old exist over much of the Nestucca watershed (USDA USDI 1994b). In the absence of continued management, even-aged stands in the watershed may be delayed in their progression toward late- successional forest habitat (USDA USDI 1994b). The Nestucca Watershed Analysis recognized that variable spaced thinnings can accelerate development of late-successional forest conditions by encouraging development of large diameter trees with full crowns and large limbs, providing openings for the development of multilayered stands by natural regeneration or by planting, and by creating snags and down wood. The Nestucca Watershed Analysis also called for thinning and other silvicultural treatments in the off-site plantations on Mount Hebo in order to facilitate development of late-successional forest (USDA USDI 1994b). The Assessment Report for Federal Lands in and Adjacent to Oregon Coast Province (USDA USDI 1995) further recognized that managed stands, including those in Late-Successional and Riparian reserves, are too densely stocked to represent the full range of natural conditions for the Coast Range and that commercial or precommercial thinning is needed to reduce stocking and accelerate development of late- successional forest characteristics. There is strong scientific support for active management of dense plantations. For example, in their notes to the Regional Ecosystem Office as a result of their meeting on January 18, 2001, the Science Findings Evaluation Group indicated “very strong support for active management (thinning, selective thinning, and possible under-planting) in young, dense forest stands” (Franklin 2001). Jerry Franklin, professor at the University of Washington, who specializes in old-growth forest ecology, supports thinning at different densities so that variable pathways can be established (Franklin pers. Comm. 2001). Forest management can promote biocomplexity (Carey et al. 1999a, b). Thinning influences all forest structuring processes, including decadence and development of spatial heterogeneity.Thinning with underplanting can restore tree species diversity and accelerate canopy stratification and understory development (Carey 2003a). To restore degraded ecosystems, including establishment of biologically diverse and complex forests, active management, including thinning, is needed (Carey and Curtis 1996; Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002, Carey 2003b). Thinning to low densities and underplanting in Oregon Coast Range forests may accelerate development of multilayered stand conditions characteristic of old-growth forest habitat (Chan et al. 2006). Chan et al. (2006) concluded that in areas such as the west slope of the central and northern Oregon Coast Range, light availability is a principal driver in many of the processes that lead to increasing stand diversity and complexity. Bailey and Tappeiner (1998) concluded that thinning young Douglas-fir stands appears to set young stands on a trajectory towards achieving overstory and understory attributes similar to those in old- growth stands by promoting the development of understory tree species and tall- and low-shrub species. Bailey and Tappeiner (1998) concluded that thinning young Douglas-fir stands appears to set young stands on a trajectory towards achieving overstory and understory attributes similar to those in old-growth stands by promoting the development of understory tree species and tall- and low-shrub species. Anderson et al. (2005) also confirmed that without silvicultural intervention or natural disturbances, young dense stands (170–247 trees/ac) would be unlikely to develop habitat features supporting spotted owl nesting within 160-year total stand age. Anderson et al. (2005) suggested that heavy thinning at ages
13 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
50 and 80 years, followed by tree-planting and additional thinning, would aid in development of forest patches structurally similar to habitat utilized by spotted owl for nest sites.
On October 14, 2006, Andrew Carey (Emeritus Scientist, Ecosystem Processes Research Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, US Forest Service) and Tom Spies (Research Ecologist and Team Leader, Landscape and Ecosystems Team, Pacific Northwest Research Station, US Forest Service) reviewed some plantations that were commercially thinned on the Siuslaw National Forest. Both scientists supported the Forest’s approach to managing stands, including variable spacing of residual trees, maintaining or improving species diversity (especially hardwoods), creating snags and down wood, managing riparian areas, managing skips/clumps (no-cut areas), and creating gaps in the canopy (increases the early seral habitat component). Winters (2000) conducted a study in the Washington Cascades that suggests that old-growth stands were developed from high conifer densities. However, this study is based on a single stand with no replications and contradicts the findings of all other studies conducted in coastal forests. No bird species endemic to the Oregon Coast Range is unique to closed-canopy stands with limited understory development (Hayes et al. 1997). In a study exploring the effects of thinning on wildlife in the Oregon Cascades, Hagar and Howlin (2001) concluded that songbird species richness and diversity is increased after thinning relative to controls, and no species were “lost” after treatment. The preponderance of the best available scientific evidence demonstrates the need for thinning dense managed stands in order to achieve conditions favorable for developing old growth upland and riparian forest characteristics and increasing habitat diversity. The District Ranger, supported by the best science available, therefore concludes that reduction of stand density is the most prudent approach to follow for managing over-stocked plantation stands in the Oregon Coast Range province.
1.4.1.4. Maintaining and restoring grass, forb, and shrub habitats. The shortage of habitat diversity in plantations and the declining amount of hardwood-tree, grass, forb, and shrub habitats in the project area limits the ability of these habitats to support a diversity of plant and animal species. Thus, there is a need to maintain and restore grass, forb, and shrub habitats in the project area.
Although more wildlife species are associated with early-seral habitats than any other seral stage, many moist forest landscapes currently lack sufficient representation of high-quality early sera habitat. Moreover, the quality of early seral forest on industrial forest lands is very low due to reforestation practices, such as conifer planting at high densities and herbicide spraying to control competing vegetation (Franklin 2007).
The Northwest Forest Plan ROD recognized that forest habitats—especially mature and old-growth forest habitats—need small patches (canopy gaps) of early-seral habitats (grass, forb, and shrub habitats) (USDA USDI 1994a). Plantations 29 to 101 years in age comprise about 41 percent of NFS lands in the project area. These plantations provide little habitat diversity, especially for hardwoods, shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Recent observations by the Team, members of the Siuslaw Stewardship Working Group, and others indicate early-seral habitat is continuing to decline on federal lands. Most existing meadows are heavily encroached by blackberry, alder, and other vegetation that eliminates grasses or forbs.
Historically, fire was the primary disturbance agent that created or maintained grass, forb, or open shrub habitats in the central interior of the Oregon Coast Range (Impara 1997). The natural fire regime in the central interior, prior to European settlement, had a natural fire return (NFR), ranging between 92 and 271 years (Impara 1997), with high intensity, stand-replacing fire episodes occurring about every 300 years. Fire severity was mixed within and between these fire episodes, and old-growth forest was more abundant
14
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
on lower slope positions, due to the frequency and intensity of fires on upper slope positions (Impara 1997). Meadows were maintained with frequent low intensity burning implemented by Native peoples prior to about 1850, followed by early settlers, until about 1930 (Zybach 2003). Low-to-moderate intensity fires now play a diminished role, compared to the past (Impara 1997), reducing the potential for maintaining and creating grass, forb, and shrub habitats. Low-intensity burning by people and uncontrolled wildland fire ended between 1920 and 1950. Most large grass and forb habitats observed on 1940-era aerial photos no longer exist on federal land (USDA 2011).
1.4.1.5. Enhancing huckleberry populations in the Mount Hebo area. The purpose of this action is to restore conditions that promote the continued production of native red and Alaskan huckleberries (Vaccinium parvifolium and Vaccinium alaskense) in the Mt. Hebo area to benefit traditional food gathering and use by members of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Indians and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians.
The huckleberry shrubs and fruit production are in fair condition, but shade from the overstory trees are reducing the fruit production of huckleberries. Without treatment, shade from the overstory trees would increase and further impact huckleberry plants and fruit production in the proposed treatment units.
1.4.1.6. Improving elegant fawn lily habitat in the Mt. Hebo area. Mount Hebo supports the only population of elegant fawn lily on the Siuslaw National Forest. Elegant fawn lily is best-adapted to grow and reproduce in non-forest or open-canopy forest habitats. Where the forest canopy has closed, allowing little light to reach the ground, plants persist but do not flower or produce seed. Cushman et al. (2009) emphasized the importance of recognizing opportunities to improve habitat for this species through forest thinning. Commercial thinning in two units where elegant fawn lily occurs would result in increased seed production and improve an important habitat type for the species. The availability of cooler, moister, open-canopy forest habitat for this species is especially important considering the potential threat of climate change, which could result in currently occupied open habitats becoming unsuitable in the future (see Cushman et al. 2009).
1.4.1.7. Maintaining forest roads. The Siuslaw Forest Plan directs that roads be maintained to “the minimum standard required for the safety of users, for current and future intended uses, and to meet all resource objectives for an area.” (USDA 1990a). The 2014 Siuslaw National Forest Travel Analysis Report (USDA 2014b) recommends prioritizing road maintenance work to ensure user safety and resource protection within current and anticipated Forest budgets and to seek additional funding sources for road maintenance and repair. Key forest roads have the highest priority for funding (USDA 2014b), although funding for all road maintenance and repair work is generally limited. Funds have not been sufficient to maintain the existing forest road system and there is a backlog of road maintenance projects in the project area. As a result, some roads in the project area are currently not suitable for use (either commercial or non-commercial) and the capital investment associated with building and maintaining the roads is at risk of being lost. 1.5. Issues Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the Responsible Official and public to understand. In this EA, issues are defined as points of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of the proposed action. Those issues outside the scope of the EA; already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decisions; not clearly relevant to the decision to be made; or conjectural and not supported by evidence, were eliminated from
15 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
detailed study. Instead, analysis focused on key issues directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7). Using the comments from the public and other agencies, as well as knowledge of the local area and past and current management actions, the interdisciplinary team identified two potential issues associated with this project:
• Construction of new roads.
• The impacts of commercial thinning on the recruitment of snags and Coarse Woody Debris (CWD). 1.6. Additional Considerations For several years, Forest Service and fisheries biologists from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have discussed in great detail the effects of thinning plantations in riparian areas, with a particular focus on wood recruitment to streams. Among fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists, and ecologists, there are different opinions, different models of wood recruitment, and unresolved questions needing further scientific study. Therefore, the Forest Supervisor has asked scientists with the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station to evaluate the short and long-term effects of thinning plantations on wood recruitment in Coast Range streams. In the meantime, in order to avoid any effects to coho salmon while the scientific questions are being resolved, the Forest Supervisor asked the fisheries biologists to develop design criteria that would ensure that the Project would have no effect on coho salmon and its habitat.
A Fisheries Biological Evaluation (Fish BE) for the Project has been completed (USDA 2014c). The Fish BE prescribes design criteria that would have no effect on coho salmon, occupied coho habitat and designated critical coho habitat. The Fish BE effects analysis is summarized in Chapter 3.3. 1.7. Decision Framework The Responsible Official for this project is the Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor. The environmental assessment (EA) for the project discloses the potential environmental effects of implementing the alternatives. In consideration of the purpose of and need for the project and upon reviewing the proposed action, alternatives and their environmental impacts, the Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor would issue a Decision Notice that addresses the following questions:
• To what extent, if any, would actions called for in the proposed project or alternatives be implemented? • What management requirements and mitigation measures (project design criteria) would be applied to these actions? • Would the project require a Forest Plan amendment? • Is there is a significant effect on the human environment that would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement? The Decision Notice would document the Forest Supervisor’s decision and describe what actions would be implemented to address the issues. The decision would be consistent with the Siuslaw Forest Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan.
16
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.1. Alternatives Considered in Detail Two alternatives, Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), were fully developed and are described in this section. The analyses of their environmental consequences are disclosed in chapter 3. Actions included for Alternative 2 are designed to address the issues identified by the District Ranger and incorporate the standards and guidelines established by the Siuslaw Forest Plan (USDA 1990), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA USDI 1994a). All quantities provided for the alternatives in the Project EA and appendices are best estimates.
2.1.1. Alternative 1: No Action The No Action alternative forms the basis for a comparison between meeting the project needs and not meeting the project needs. This alternative provides baseline information for understanding changes associated with the action alternative and expected environmental responses as a result of past management actions.
Under the No Action Alternative, the densely stocked plantation stands would not be thinned and no actions would be taken to enhance habitat diversity or to create additional habitat elements such as snags and course woody debris. Huckleberry gathering in the project area would remain at current levels based on the limited availability of accessible huckleberry shrubs. Elegant fawn lily populations on Mt. Hebo would not benefit from increased habitat diversity.
2.1.2. Alternative 2: Proposed Action The South Nestucca Restoration Project includes terrestrial restoration actions that are designed to benefit natural resources in the long term while minimizing short-term adverse effects (see Chapter 3 and Appendix A-Project Design Criteria). The primary goal of the proposed action is to treat uniform young managed plantations and off-site plantations to maintain or increase growth of the largest trees, maintain or increase tree species diversity, encourage development of a multi-layered canopy, and enhance growth, diversity, and cover of herbaceous material on the forest floor. The proposed action is also intended to enhance habitat for huckleberry shrubs in select areas to support cultural use,and support elegant fawn lily populations on Mount Hebo. All actions are connected because they help meet the restoration objectives, or they would be funded by revenue from the sale of timber.
2.1.2.1. Summary of Proposed Actions To meet the Project goals, the following management actions are proposed (estimated quantities):
2.1.2.1.1. Commercial Thinning
Thinning and Gap Creation • Young Plantations: Commercially thin approximately 848 acres in 13 stands 18 to 80 years old, diversifying stand species and structure, creating dead wood, and creating transitory gaps (openings) in these stands (Table 3; section 3.1.2.2.4).
o One-acre gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand and half-acre gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand. • Off-site Plantations: Commercially thin approximately 920 acres in 25 stands 80 to 103 years old of off-site stock, diversifying stand species and structure, creating dead wood, and creating transitory gaps (openings) in these stands (see Table 3; 3.1.2.2.3).
17 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
o One-acre gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand and one half- acre gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand.
Table 3. Alternative 2 vegetation treatments. Estimated Treatment Acres Off-site plantations commercial thin to: 50 TPA* 920 Young plantations commercial thin to: 50 TPA 78 90 TPA 770 *TPA: trees per acre, before selection of trees for down wood and snag creation.
Logging Systems
Table 4. Approximate acreage for each logging system type in both off-site and young managed stands. Plantation type Helicopter yarding Ground based Skyline yarding yarding Off-site 142 192 586 Young 0 217 632 Total 142 (8%) 409 (23%) 1218 (69%)
Harvest Timber Volume (total million board feet, MBF): 36
2.1.2.1.2. Planting • Plant transitory gaps within young plantations:
o Approximately half of the one-acre created gaps would be under-planted with Douglas- fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock;
o Remaining one-acre gaps would be left unplanted to allow early-seral understory plant development and natural regeneration over a longer period of time. • Plant transitory gaps within off-site plantations:
o Approximately half of the one-acre created gaps would be planted with western red cedar and native seed source Douglas fir;
o Remaining one-acre gaps would not be planted to encourage early-seral understory plant development. • Underplant commercially thinned young and off-site plantations: 998 acres.
2.1.2.1.3. Woody Debris • Fall and leave up to 5 trees per acre within the commercially thinned stands to create coarse woody debris (CWD). • Top live trees to create snags in commercially-thinned plantations, up to 5 snags per acre. • Top live trees to create snags in mature natural stands adjacent to the treated stands.
2.1.2.1.4. Other Habitat Enhancement • Commercially thin approximately 9 acres in unit O27A and 2 acres in unit O58 to enhance habitat for huckleberries.
18
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
o This action would thin the overstory stand to permit more light to reach the existing berry bushes, which would lead to increased berry production. Competing vegetation would also be removed to allow huckleberry bushes to expand and occupy more growing space.
2.1.2.1.5. Roads
National Forest System Roads: Timber purchasers would be required to perform road repair and maintenance work as a condition of timber-sale contracts prior to using the roads. Road maintenance and repair would include rock re- surfacing, blading and shaping road surfaces, roadside brushing and cleaning drainage structures. Reconstruction may include fill repairs, culvert replacements, asphalt repair, road re-surfacing and bridge repairs but only minor fill repairs such as rock-surfacing and routine drainage improvements are anticipated.
The project proposes routine maintenance and rock re-surfacing on 74 miles of haul roads at an estimated combined cost of $700,000 for the longer roads. 71 miles of haul roads are designated for wet weather haul and 3 miles restricted to dry season haul.
• Temporarily open approximately 8 miles of closed non-key system roads which would be waterbarred and closed through the timber sale contract after harvesting activities.
Temporary Roads: • Construct approximately 3.9 miles (20,527 feet) of temporary roads on existing templates which would be waterbarred and closed through the timber sale contract at the end of each operating season. • Construct approximately 4.7 miles (24,918 feet) of new temporary road which would be waterbarred and closed at the end of each operating season. • All temporary roads would be decommissioned following harvest activities.
Road Materials: • Rock would be used for re-surfacing prior to and during log haul may be sourced from the following (in addition to other sources outside of the project area) :
• Stock pile of existing crushed rock at T5S R9W, SW quarter of section 11 along road 2234 at approximate mile post 5.5.
• Three existing rock pits in the project area (use in the existing pit development sites although development may require some blasting and crushing). Locations:
o T5S R9W SW quarter of section 11 along road 2234 at approximate mile post 5.5.
o T4S R9W SW quarter of section 22 along NFS road 1431 at approximate mile post 1.1
o T5S R9W SW quarter of section 6 along NFS road 1500 at approximately mile post 7.1 2.1.2.1.6. Public Use and Safety: • Portions of Forest Service Road 14 would be closed or subject to traffic control during thinning and related activities in some units. Other key and non-key roads, including FSR 2210 and FSR 1428 may also be closed to ensure public safety during timber sale operations.
19 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
• South Lake Campground may be closed temporarily during thinning in units surrounding the campground.
• Pioneer Indian Trail #1300 may be closed temporarily during thinning in units adjacent to the trail.
• The location and duration of closures would be determined prior to implementation. Closures would be limited to the extent necessary to ensure public safety but are difficult to predict with certainty because the timing of operations would depend on the timing of timber sales, seasonal wildlife and aquatic protection measures, weather conditions, and other factors.
2.1.2.2. Timing of Project Activities Most activities would be completed within the next 15 years. Some actions related to timber sale preparation could begin at the earliest possible implementation date. Other actions, such as under-planting seedlings and protecting them through their early growth, would not begin until after thinning is completed. Until the seedlings become well established, they may need to be protected from competing vegetation and animal damage, requiring treatment 10 or more years after planting. Commercial thinning activities would occur over the course of several years. Most snag and down wood creation would occur within 15 years after thinning. Road maintenance activities would also occur intermittently, as funding becomes available through timber sales.
2.1.2.3. Management requirements, mitigation measures, and monitoring Project Design Criteria (Appendix A) outline the practices to be used and the timing and duration of those practices with implementation of Alternative 2. Mitigation measures, designed to avoid or minimize impacts associated with implementing the alternatives, are also included in the design criteria. Appendix A identifies implementation monitoring (determines if actions are implemented as designed) requirements and effectiveness monitoring (determines if the project activities are leading to the desired conditions being met) requirements associated with the action alternatives.
The Proposed Action Alternative proposes commercial tree harvest and removal that would be accomplished by private contractors. Contracts for commercial harvest operations would require mitigation measures to be incorporated as contract requirements. Forest Service contract officers are responsible for enforcing the implementation of contract provisions.
Proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects (or implement positive effects) for the Action Alternative are identified by resource topic area. These measured are specific to implementation of actions considered within this EA. Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan are incorporated by reference as required measures.
20
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Figure 5. Logging systems for units proposed for commercial thinning and locations of huckleberry enhancement treatments.
21 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 6. Proposed haul routes for the South Nestucca Restoration Project.
22
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
2.1.3. Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives.
Issue, Objective, and Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Outcome Increase late- Plantation stands would be unlikely to Treated plantation stands would be successional habitat develop into late-successional habitat expected to develop some late- within the foreseeable future due to the successional habitat characteristics high density of trees. within 50 years following treatment. Aquatic conservation Watershed conditions would continue to Moves watershed closer to historical objectives deviate from historical conditions and all conditions and meets all objectives. ACS objectives would not be met. Repair and maintain key Routine maintenance would continue at Routine maintenance would continue at and non-key forest roads current levels. Some deferred current levels and some deferred maintenance would not be maintenance would be implemented. implemented.
2.2. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis The following alternatives, which were considered to address comments raised during public scoping, were eliminated from detailed study:
2.2.1. Treat all of the managed stands within the project area This alternative was rejected because many of the managed stands in the project area are not mature enough to make commercial thinning a viable option, yet they are beyond the period suitable for pre- commercial thinning.
2.2.2. Maximize carbon sequestration Silvicultural treatments to maximize carbon sequestration focus on maximizing total stand growth and stocking. This alternative was rejected because the silvicultural treatments would be inconsistent with management direction in the Northwest Forest Plan.
2.2.3. No new temporary roads Under the Proposed Action, any proposed new temporary road would have to comply with the project design criteria for temporary road construction (Appendix A). The Team evaluated the potential effects of building new temporary roads using the temporary road criteria and concluded:
• Proposed new temporary roads to access landing sites would be needed to feasibly thin and harvest stands; for example, the shorter tower heights associated with small yarders often require extensions of existing roads to reach the slope break; • Proposed new temporary roads would not connect with streams; no effects to hydrology would occur; • New temporary road impacts would be localized and minimized through application of the project design criteria listed above and in Appendix A; • New temporary roads would reduce the amount of sidehill and downhill yarding. Adverse impacts associated with sidehill and downhill yarding include soil disturbance and damage to residual trees; and
23 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
• New temporary roads would minimize the need for yarding through riparian buffers. Based on the design criteria and effects evaluation, the Team has determined that new temporary roads proposed by Alternative 2 are necessary for implementing the project and would not result in substantial adverse impacts—individually or collectively—that would require the need to fully develop a no-new- temporary-roads alternative.
2.2.4. Treat alder dominated stands The team considered treatment of alder dominated stands where the alder was reaching senescence. Due to concerns raised by the public and the desire to have a more focused analysis, treatment of alder dominated stands was deferred at this time.
Chapter 3. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This chapter discloses the potential environmental consequences (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects) of the proposed action and the no action alternative, which serves as a reference to the baseline existing condition. This EA incorporates by reference the project record (40 CFR 1502.21). The project record contains specialist reports, biological evaluations, and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. Specialist reports were completed for vegetation resources, transportation resources, geology, soils, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, botany, invasive plants, recreation, visual quality, fuels, and heritage resources. Separate biological evaluations were completed for botanical species, aquatic species, and terrestrial wildlife species. Specialist reports are available in the project record, located at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, Oregon.
“Direct effects” are effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and “indirect effects” are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and … related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR 1508.8)
“Cumulative effects” is defined in the White House Council of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations as the “impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions…” 40 CFR 1508.7. The CEQ interprets this regulation as referring only to the cumulative impact of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and its alternatives when added to the aggregate effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on all land ownerships across an area that is deemed appropriate for the impacts being analyzed. The analysis conducted for this project follows the “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” issued by CEQ Chairman on June 24, 2005. The guidance states the expectation that agencies determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects and further notes that CEQ regulations do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions.
For purposes of analyzing cumulative effects, the geographic area potentially affected by the alternatives is the project area within the South Nestucca watershed. However, each specific resource area determined their area of analysis to fit the specific requirements of their resource. The Team considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of federal, State, and private landowners. Where specific effects are not described for a particular resource, cumulative effects are not expected to be measurably different from those under baseline conditions. Many components of the ecosystem that cannot be precisely quantified are described in relative terms or estimated values.
24
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.1. Forest Stands (District Silviculturist, USDA 2014d)
3.1.1. Introduction There are approximately 22,680 acres of National Forest lands in the project area. Native conifer tree species include Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and noble fir (Abies procera). Native hardwood tree species include red alder (Alnus rubra), cascara buckthorn (Rhamnus purshiana), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Understory vegetation in the project area includes salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Vaccinium species, and salal (Gaultheria shallon). Due to the dense vegetation in the Oregon Coast Range, people have used fire for centuries to improve wildlife habitat, maintain shrubs and smaller plants that are important food sources, or to clear land for agricultural crops, timber regeneration, and grazing. At times these fires escaped to burn large areas of the coast range. Most of the Nestucca watershed burned in 1845 and again in 1890. In 1910 most of the project area burned yet again as part of the Mount Hebo Fire. Current natural stands within the project area developed after these fires. Due to the three fires within such a short period, conifer regeneration was greatly reduced or eliminated over much of the project area. Between 1912 and 1940 approximately 7,843 acres of the project area were planted or seeded. Seedlings were not available from the local area, so Douglas-fir and Sitka spruce from the Olympic Peninsula and Washington Cascades’ Douglas-fir were planted. A wide variety of other species were also planted – predominately Norway spruce, black and English walnut, shell-bark hickory, red oak, American chestnut, and various pines. Few of these trees still survive.
Many of the stands in the project area were harvested by clear-cutting beginning in the late 1950’s and continuing up to the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. After harvest they were generally planted with Douglas-fir. Many of these plantations are now dense, single storied stands with few other tree species in them.
Swiss needle cast (Phaeocryptopus gäumannii) currently infects much of the Douglas-fir in the project area. This native pathogen infects foliage and slows growth on diseased trees. The current infestation became more predominant in the early 1990’s in the Oregon coast range. Phellinus weirii (laminated root rot) and Armillaria root disease are common throughout the project area.
The project area contains a minor amount of non-forested cover types. Non-forest cover types currently occupy less than one percent of the National Forest System lands within the project area. These areas are primarily meadows maintained by the Forest Service to provide big game forage and Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat.
3.1.1.1. Silviculture Field Surveys South Nestucca Stand Exam, an intensive tree inventory, was conducted in summer 2012 within young managed stands (plantations). Three off-site stands received stand exams in summer 2013. The remaining off-site stands received walk-though exams in winter 2013/2014.
A field review of the project area started in the spring of 2012 by Michael Reichenberg and was completed in 2014 by Wayne Patterson.
3.1.1.2. Existing Condition The majority of the project area is comprised of mature natural stands that regenerated following stand- replacement wildfire events from 1845 through 1910. Table 6 summarizes the current distribution of
25 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
forest vegetation within the project area based on Geographic Information System (GIS) data and photo interpretation.
Table 6. Current vegetation cover types for Forest Service ownership in the project area (Hebo Ranger District Unpublished Vegetation Data). Percent of Cover Type Age Range Acres Project Area Natural Mature Conifer > 80 years 3,620 16 Natural Mature Conifer/Hardwood Mix > 80 years 2,320 10 Mature Hardwood > 80 years 7,320 32 Off-site Plantations 80-103 years 4,677 21 Young Plantations 18-80 years 4,527 20 Non-forested N/A 216 <1 Total 22,680
3.1.1.2.1. Natural Mature Conifer and Conifer/Hardwood Mixed Stands Approximately 16 percent of the project area consists of mature conifer or mixed conifer and hardwood stands that predominately regenerated naturally following stand-replacement wildfires during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. About one third of these stands were originally planted or seeded with off-site stock that generally failed to survive, though some of the trees are still evident in the stand. The majority of these mature stands are on a trajectory to create late-successional habitat consistent with the NWFP objectives. These stands contain large-diameter overstory trees with large, irregular crowns. Shade tolerant tree species (western hemlock, western redcedar) are often present to form a multi-story canopy. The spacing of these trees is variable and understory vegetation is present. Snag and course woody debris levels are currently low in these stands, due to the history of multiple fires in the project area (USDA USDI 1998).
3.1.1.2.2. Mature Hardwood Stands Mature stands of hardwoods that predominately regenerated naturally following stand-replacement wildfires of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century comprise roughly a quarter of the Forest Service ownership. 3,166 acres of these stands were originally planted or seeded with off-site stock that generally failed to survive and are now dominated by naturally regenerated alder. These stands consist of primarily red alder with a few large-diameter conifers scattered within the stands. It is likely that the almost pure red alder found in upland stands (comprising 70 to 80 percent of the natural mature hardwood stand in the project area) was established due to a lack of conifer seed source following multiple wildfires starting in 1845 (USDA USDI 1998). The red alder in these stands is reaching the end of its typical 100-year lifespan (Burns and Honkula 1990). These stands have a dense understory of salmonberry that precludes the development of either hardwood or conifer regeneration. Some of these stands contain enough large conifers to provide the large tree component of late-successional habitat. However, dense salmonberry is likely to prohibit the development of a multistoried tree canopy in these stands in the absence of some disturbance event that can provide the conditions needed for tree regeneration (Hibbs and Giordano 1996). Theses stands are severely deficient in amounts of conifer snags and coarse woody debris (USDA USDI 1998) and are not likely to develop adequate levels of dead wood within the next 100 years.
20 to 30 percent of the red alder dominated stands in the project area are found in riparian areas. These stands were established and are maintained by the continual disturbances of water, soil, and wind. They also have a dense understory of salmonberry. However, high water flows and saturated soils that allow for
26
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
increased slumping, sliding, and windthrow serve to open areas up for natural hardwood and conifer regeneration. Theses stands are also severely deficient in amounts of conifer snags and coarse woody debris, primarily as a result of past fires. However, unlike the upland alder dominated stands they are likely to naturally develop adequate dead wood levels over time.
3.1.1.2.3. Plantations Plantations account for approximately 9,204 acres (41%) of the Forest Service ownership within the project area. Table 7 displays the distribution of these plantations by year of origin.
Table 7. Forest Service Plantations.
Year of Origin Percent of Plantations 1910-1919 45 1920-1929 4 1930-1939 1 1940-1949 0 1950-1959 1 1960-1969 3 1970-1979 3 1980-1989 25 1990-1999 18
3.1.1.2.4. Off-site Plantations Off-site plantations currently make up approximately 4,677 acres of the project area. The Forest Service established these plantations following the Mount Hebo Fire of 1910. Forest Service records indicate that approximately 6,514 acres were originally planted or seeded and later planted. An additional 1,329 acres were seeded. However, many of these plantations failed and reforested naturally, predominately to red alder. Field reconnaissance and photo interpretation indicates that approximately 4,677 acres of the original 7,843 acres of off-site plantations remain. Many of the failed plantations were planted or sown with exotic species (e.g., European spruce species, black walnut, American chestnut various pine species) unable to survive in the local climate. The Forest Service planted much of the currently surviving plantations with Douglas-fir seedlings. Our records indicate that these seedlings were from the Puget Sound area of Washington and the Washington Cascades. These trees are not well adapted to the climate of the Oregon Coast Range and are exhibiting slower growth rates than native stock. Field observations indicate that these off-site trees display a higher susceptibility to Swiss needle cast, further slowing the development of late-successional characteristics. There appears to be limited number of native stock present within these plantations that seeded in naturally from surrounding natural stands or seeds that survived the fire. These trees exhibit larger diameters and heights, persistent limbs, deeper crowns, and greater resistance to Swiss needle cast compared to the planted off-site stock. Some of these stands have road access, which indicates that they were commercially thinned or salvage logged in the past.
859 acres of these off-site plantations in the project area were thinned between 1992 and 2000. These treatments generally thinned the stands down to between 70 and 160 trees per acre in an effort to improve their wind-firmness, so they could be further thinned and then under-planted with native seed source stock in a later entry. Most of these stands were also under-planted with 40 to 70 western hemlock, western red cedar, and Sitka spruce per acre. The seedlings were heavily browsed and now that the survivors are one to two inches in diameter they are being heavily rubbed. On average, about one-third of the seedlings have survived.
27 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 7. Units proposed for harvest within off-site plantations stands in the South Nestucca project area. (S. Nestucca All Offsite Stands layer represents 7,843 acres originally planted with off-site stock, although remaining off-site stands comprise closer to 4,677 acres.)
28
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.1.1.2.5. Young Plantations Young managed stands comprise approximately 4,527 acres within the project area. These plantations were established after clearcutting that started in 1958 and ended in 1995. The majority of these plantations contain a monoculture of Douglas-fir with a tree density of 200 trees per acre or higher.
The plantations are not currently on a trajectory to meet the NWFP objectives of restoring and maintaining late-successional forest habitat. They were established at much higher tree densities than the natural mature stands in the Oregon Coast Range. These stands were established and formerly managed to maximize timber yield and currently average between 200 and 500 trees per acre. The natural mature stands in the Oregon Coast Range originated following stand-replacement wildfires at a much lower initial density of trees. It is likely that the plantations will develop on a different successional pathway than the mature natural stands in the project area (Tappeiner et al. 1997).
3.1.1.3. Desired Future Condition for the Project Area The desired future condition for the South Nestucca project area is a contiguous landscape of habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. Desired long-term stand characteristics include:
• approximately 6 to 9 trees per acre with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of at least 40 inches;
• presence of shade tolerant tree species such as Sitka spruce, western hemlock, western red cedar, and noble fir (at higher elevations);
• uneven-aged with multiple canopy layers;
• trees with a variety of decadent characteristics, including large limbs, broken tops and cavities;
• presence of understory shrubs and forbs;
• approximately 4 to 6 snags per acre at least 16 feet tall with a DBH of at least 20 inches; and
• approximately 3,100 to 4,600 cubic feet per acre of down wood (Spies and Franklin 1991).
3.1.2. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.1.2.1. Alternative 1 – No Action No mechanical treatment of forest vegetation would take place under this alternative. However, forest vegetation in the project area would still undergo changes.
3.1.2.1.1. Natural Mature Conifer and Conifer/Hardwood Mixed Stands These stands would likely continue to develop into late-successional habitat. Most of the large trees in these stands would increase in bole size and produce large limbs with deep crowns. Some of the large trees would die and provide high-quality snags and downed wood. Cohorts of shade-tolerant conifers would continue to develop, enhancing the multi-storied canopy. Small scale disturbances, including wind throw, root rot and fire, would likely produce canopy gaps. Shrubs and red alder would likely establish themselves within the increased light of the canopy gaps and eventually give way to another cohort of conifer regeneration, adding to the multi-storied structure. Openings within the stand that are regularly subjected to disturbances, such as flood plains and shallow soil/high wind areas, would become hardwood dominated.
29 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.1.2.1.2. Natural Mature Hardwood Stands The existing overstory of red alder will continue to mature and die. These trees will provide snags for a few years, then fall and provide downed wood. This benefit would likely be short lived due to the fast decay rate of red alder. The existing salmonberry-dominated understory lacks down conifer trees to provide nurse logs for shade tolerant species like western hemlock. This will likely prohibit any successful tree regeneration for the foreseeable future. These stands would be expected to remain in a shrub-dominated condition until an intense disturbance would allow tree regeneration (Hibbs and Giordano 1996).
Some of the hardwood stands in the project area contain a widely scattered overstory of large conifer trees. It is expected that these trees would persist in the overstory and increase in bole size and produce large limbs with deep crowns. Some of the large trees would die and provide large-diameter snags and downed wood. The red alder in these stands will continue to mature and die. As in the hardwood dominated stands described above, salmonberry constitutes the majority of the understory in these stands and will likely prohibit any conifer regeneration in these stands without a disturbance to allow regeneration.
3.1.2.1.3. Off-site Plantations The off-site plantations in the project area would be expected to develop on a trajectory differing from the natural mature conifer stands. Some of these stands were commercially thinned in the past to a density consistent with timber management objectives. These stands are still too dense to likely develop late- successional characteristics despite the past reduction in density. Tappeiner et al. (1997) found in simulations that stands with densities as low as approximately 100 trees per acre will develop on a trajectory different than natural stands. These stands would continue to develop as single-storied, uniform Douglas-fir stands. Trees will have less opportunity to express late-successional characteristics due to the high density and uniform spacing resulting from past planting and commercial thinning for timber production. Swiss needle cast would be expected to hinder the development of late-successional characteristics in these more susceptible off-site trees. The slow development of the off-site Douglas-fir allowed scattered native Douglas-fir to develop greater diameter and height growth. For example, in stands O58 and O60 three Douglas fir trees (scattered over a 15-acre area within these two stands) were found that likely grew from native seed. They are now 42 to 45 inches in diameter (as compared to the adjacent off-site trees that are 9 to 24 inches diameter) and 10 to 18 feet taller than the off-site Douglas fir that surround them. Coring indicates that these three trees started as seedlings after the 1910 Mount Hebo Burn. They are out-growing the off-site trees. However, the crowns on these trees are not as deep as those found in natural mature conifer stands due to the high density of off-site trees that surround them, causing self-pruning. Currently these stands have numerous snags that are 9 to 12 inches in diameter, but few snags larger than that. No snags 20 inches in diameter or larger were recorded in two stands that received stand examination plots. Mortality will increase as the intermediate and suppressed trees lose their ability to compete and die. These dead trees will increase snags and coarse woody debris, but the majority will be of smaller diameter and are expected to decay rapidly. Overall, these stands would be expected to produce more total cubic feet of snags and downed wood than stands of lower densities, but this would be comprised of more total pieces with a smaller volume per piece. It is likely that this high number of small volume snags and downed wood never existed during the development of natural conifer stands (Tappeiner et al. 1997). Additional effects to deadwood can be found in Appendix B. It is unlikely that the off-site Douglas-fir will ever obtain the size and physical characteristics associated with late-successional stands because they are native to a seed zone with different climatic characteristics and are so heavily affected by Swiss needle cast. Natural disturbance events including windthrow and root disease would be expected to eventually create openings in stands. These openings would allow shade-tolerant species to become established in the understory, creating additional structure and diversity. The lack of sufficient
30
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
shade-tolerant conifer seed sources (from existing western hemlock and western red cedar within the stand) would be likely to preclude or greatly slow establishment and development of diverse mixed conifer stands in this area. This alternative provides no opportunity to encourage the development of late- successional forest conditions within these stands. Forest Plan objectives will not likely be achieved within these stands until a natural disturbance event re-establishes these stands at a lower tree density that would allow the stands to develop along a trajectory similar to the natural mature conifer stands in the project area.
3.1.2.1.4. Young Plantations Young plantations (currently uniform, single-storied Douglas-fir stands) would be expected to develop along a trajectory that is very different from that of the mature natural conifer stands. These plantations will continue to grow over time, but they will develop differently from existing stands that have achieved late-successional characteristics. It is unlikely that the natural mature conifer stands ever contained tree densities as high as the young plantations (Tappeiner et al. 1997). Trees will have less opportunity to express late-successional characteristics due to the high tree density and uniform spacing resulting from past planting and pre-commercial thinning. Competition will continue to increase between individual trees for sunlight. Trees will put most of their carbon into height growth to obtain sufficient sunlight. Diameter growth will slow and self-pruning of individual tree crowns will occur. It would be unlikely that these stands will develop into large-diameter trees with well-developed crowns. The dense canopy of overstory trees would be expected to limit understory vegetation and the establishment of another canopy layer of trees (Chan et al., 2006). The stressed trees will become more susceptible to insects, disease, and wind throw. Mortality will increase as the intermediate and suppressed trees lose their ability to compete and die. These dead trees will increase snags and coarse woody debris, but they will be of small diameter and are expected to decay rapidly. Overall, these stands would be expected to produce more total cubic feet of snags and downed wood than stands of lower densities, but this would be comprised of more total pieces with a smaller volume per piece. Additional effects to deadwood can be found in Appendix B. It is likely that this high number of small volume snags and downed wood never existed during the development of natural conifer stands. Growth studies on mature natural conifer stands found that the initial tree density was 20-25 percent of the density in these young plantations (Tappeiner et al. 1997). Natural disturbance events including windthrow and root disease would be expected to eventually create openings in stands. These openings would allow shade-tolerant species to become established in the understory, creating additional structure and diversity. The lack of sufficient shade-tolerant conifer seed sources (from existing western hemlock, western red cedar and Sitka spruce) within the plantation stands would be expected to preclude establishment and development of diverse mixed conifer stands in this watershed. This alternative provides no opportunity to encourage the development of late-successional forest conditions within these stands. Forest Plan objectives will not likely be achieved within these stands until a natural disturbance event re-establishes these stands at a lower tree density that would allow the stands to develop along a trajectory similar to the natural mature conifer stands in the project area.
3.1.2.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The proposed action would mechanically treat approximately 920 acres of mature off-site plantations and approximately 848 acres of young plantations to alter stand development in order to produce late- successional characteristics that are unlikely to develop without mechanical treatments. Treatments to create snags and down logs would follow the mechanical treatments to produce additional late- successional characteristics. This alternative would provide approximately 36 million board feet to the local wood products economy. Table 3 summarizes the proposed vegetation treatments in this alternative.
31 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.1.2.2.1. Natural Mature Conifer and Conifer/Hardwood Mixed Stands Creating snags by topping live trees within natural mature conifer stands adjacent to plantations would provide additional snags compared to Alternative 1. These stands lack sufficient snags and course woody debris due to the area’s fire history. Creating these snags would provide additional late-successional habitat characteristics within these stands. The created snags would eventually fall and provide coarse woody debris in these stands. Other effects to these stands would likely be similar to the effects in Alternative 1.
3.1.2.2.2. Natural Mature Hardwood Stands No treatments are proposed in these stands, so effects would be the same as in Alternative 1.
3.1.2.2.3. Off-site Plantations This alternative would commercially thin 920 acres out of the 4,677 acres (20%) of the off-site plantations in the project area to promote the development of late-successional characteristics. 314 acres of the proposed treatment area were thinned ten to fifteen years ago. The density of residual trees would vary within the stands but still achieve average residual densities of approximately 40 trees per acre. Thinning to 40 trees per acre in a single entry is prescribed for stands that have a relatively low chance of experiencing wind throw. Thinning to 40 trees per acre in stands that lie higher on the ridges exposed to winter gale-force winds would require two entries that are at least three years apart. The initial thinning to 80 or 90 trees per acre is expected to lessen the chance of severe wind throw while allowing root systems to rapidly expand for three years, further stabilizing the residual trees for a final thinning to 40 trees per acre. The prescribed 40-trees-per-acre residual density would be achieved following commercial thinning and all snag and down wood creation treatments.
Stands would generally be thinned from below. This would retain the most natural seed source trees and off-site stock that is best adapted to local conditions. Canopy gaps would be scattered throughout each stand to increase within stand structural diversity. One-acre canopy gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand. Additional one half-acre canopy gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand. The gaps would not retain any live trees and, wherever possible, would be placed to the south of trees with existing live limbs that are lower in the canopy. This would encourage further development of large limbs lower in the canopy. Approximately half of the one-acre created gaps would be planted with western red cedar and native seed source Douglas fir. The remaining one-acre gaps would not be planted to encourage early-seral understory plant development. It is expected that this early seral habitat would be temporary due to crown expansion and natural regeneration of trees and large shrubs. However, the high susceptibility of these stands to Swiss needle cast may slow canopy growth and prolong gap persistence. Outside of the one-acre gaps, stands would be under-planted with a mix of western hemlock, western red cedar, and native seed source Douglas fir after thinning treatments to improve species diversity. Snag and down wood creation would follow thinning treatments to improve on-site soil moisture retention and provide habitat for a wide variety of plant, invertebrate, fungal, and animal species.
Thinning treatments would be expected to redirect the developmental trajectory of the treated stands in a way that would better meet the objective of producing late successional habitat under the Northwest Forest Plan. The residual stand density would be expected to allow individual trees to better develop characteristics associated with late-successional habitat (Chan et al. 2006). These characteristics include large diameter boles, deep crowns, and large diameter limbs (Poage and Tappeiner 2002). Thinning would also allow more light to the forest floor. This additional light would be expected to facilitate the development of a multi-species, multi-storied structure by allowing natural and artificial regeneration to develop (Dodson et al. 2012). Thinning and gap creation would also provide the light conditions needed
32
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
to establish a more diverse assortment of shrubs, forbs and grasses within the stand. The thinning treatments are expected to decrease the amount of suppression mortality and small deadwood in the treated stands (Dodson et al. 2012). However, managing exclusively for small deadwood is not an objective of this project. Mechanical creation of snags and down wood would provide a small deadwood component to the stands that is currently missing. Reducing the canopy density by thinning increases light to the forest floor and would be expected to regenerate a new cohort of small trees (Dodson et al. 2012). Thinning in off-site stands 15 years ago (some within this project area) resulted in little to no natural regeneration as there are few shade-tolerant species in the overstory, so these stands would be underplanted with western hemlock and native seed source Douglas fir. This new cohort of trees would provide small deadwood in the future. The older, native seed source trees that are scattered through the overstory in these stands would be expected to respond with increased growth rate to the thinning treatments (Latham and Tappeiner 2002). The off-site tree are less likely to respond, however, thinning in similar stands has maintained or slightly increased growth, so we can expect similar results in these off- site stands. All of the residual trees would be expected to eventually die and produce large-diameter snags and downwood characteristic of late-successional stands. Additional effects to deadwood can be found in Appendix B. Commercial thinning in the off-site stands would be planned for completion by the time that the stands become 110 years old.
The Mt. Hebo Inventoried Roadless Area contains approximately 374 acres of off-site plantations that will not be treated under this alternative. Additionally we could only afford to survey 1,310 acres for red tree voles, so the remaining 3,367 acres could not be considered for treatment. Of the 1,310 acres surveyed for red tree voles, 250 acres are not proposed for treatment to protect known sites. Effects to these off-site plantations will likely be similar to Alternative 1.
3.1.2.2.4. Young Plantations The 30 to 56 year old plantations in the project area were reviewed by the interdisciplinary team to determine the feasibility of restoration treatments. The original stand boundary was used as a starting point for proposed restoration treatments. Stream buffers, unstable areas, wildlife leave areas, and logging feasibility result in smaller treatment areas than the original stand boundary that was proposed for restoration work. No plantations in the Mt. Hebo Inventoried Roadless Area are proposed for treatment due to current Forest Service policy.
This alternative would commercially thin 998 acres out of the 4,527 acres (22%) of young plantations in the project area to promote development of late-successional characteristics. The density of residual trees would vary within the stands but still achieve a residual density of approximately 40 to 90 trees per acre depending on the stand. Thinning to 40 trees per acre is prescribed in Stand 346 that was thinned in 2006 as part of the Hornet Thin Timber Sale. The rest of the stands would be thinned to approximately 90 trees per acre to increase windfirmness. The prescribed residual density would be achieved following all snag and down wood creation treatments. These stands would generally be thinned from below with canopy gaps placed throughout each stand. Commercial thinning treatments will include canopy gap creation to increase the structural diversity of the stands. One-acre canopy gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand. Additional half-acre canopy gaps would be created in approximately five percent of each stand. These gaps would retain few to no live overstory trees. The canopy gaps would be placed to emphasize trees that exhibit deep crowns and large, persistent limbs. Approximately half of the one-acre created gaps would be under-planted with Douglas-fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. The remaining half of the one-acre gaps would be left unplanted to allow early-seral understory plant development and natural regeneration over a longer period of time. It is expected that the early seral habitat would be temporary due to rapid crown expansion from Douglas-fir following thinning treatments (Chan et al. 2006). However, the presence of Swiss needle cast in these stands may slow canopy growth and prolong gap persistence. The more intensively thinned stands would be under-planted with shade
33 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
tolerant species outside of the one-acre gaps. Creating snags and down wood would follow thinning treatments to improve forest structure.
The thinning treatments would be expected to redirect the developmental trajectory of the treated stands in a way that would better meet the objective of producing late successional habitat under the Northwest Forest Plan. The residual stand density would be expected to allow individual trees to better develop characteristics associated with late-successional habitat (Chan et al. 2006). These characteristics include large diameter boles, deep crowns and large diameter limbs (Poage and Tappeiner 2002). Thinning will also allow more light to the forest floor. This additional light would be expected to facilitate the development of a multi-species, multi-storied structure by allowing natural and artificial regeneration to develop (Dodson et al. 2012). Thinning and gap creation would also provide the light conditions needed to establish a more diverse assortment of shrubs, forbs and grasses within the stand. The thinning treatments are expected to decrease the amount of suppression mortality and small deadwood in the treated stands (Dodson et al. 2012). However, managing exclusively for small deadwood is not an objective of this project. Mechanical creation of snags and down wood would provide a small deadwood component to the stands that is currently missing. Reducing the canopy density by thinning increases light to the forest floor and would be expected to regenerate a new cohort of small trees (Dodson et al. 2012). This new cohort of trees could provide small deadwood in the future. Thinning would be expected to increase diameter in residual trees (Marshall et al. 1992). These residual trees would be expected to eventually die and produce large-diameter snags and downwood characteristic of late-successional stands. Additional effects to deadwood can be found in Appendix B. Vegetation treatments would likely not be completed until approximately 2025 due to the young age and size of several of these stands.
No young plantations are within the Mount Hebo Inventoried Roadless Area. The additional 3,529 acres of young plantations outside of the Inventoried Roadless Area will not be treated under this alternative because they are not developed enough to justify a commercial thinning. Effects to these young plantations will likely be similar to Alternative 1.
3.1.2.2.5. Summary No stands would be treated to help achieve Northwest Forest Plan objectives in Alternative 1. Approximately 22 percent of the young plantations and 35 percent of the mature off-site plantations in the project area would be treated to help achieve Northwest Forest Plan objectives in Alternative 2. The majority of plantations left untreated in Alternative 2 are either not large enough for a commercial treatment and/or within the Mount Hebo Inventoried Roadless Area.
3.1.2.2.6. Cumulative Effects The temporal boundary considered for this cumulative effects analysis is from 1970 to 2030. Most vegetation management resulting in recent changes occurred after 1970. The vegetation management activities resulting from this analysis should be completed by 2030. The project area is the spatial boundary for this cumulative effects analysis. There are no cumulative effects because there are no vegetation effects from other actions that overlap in time or space. 3.2. Wildlife (District Wildlife Biologist, USDA 2014e)
The wildlife species and/or habitats analyzed in this section are those that could potentially be affected by the proposed action based on known or potential presence in the project analysis area. This includes three species, the Oregon silverspot butterfly, the marbled murrelet and the northern spotted owl that are federally listed as “threatened” under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. No other federally listed
34
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
threatened, endangered, or proposed terrestrial species would be affected by the proposed action as no other federally listed species occurs within or near the proposed project area. The wildlife analysis describes the effects of the proposed South Nestucca Restoration Project on threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, management indicator species, migratory birds, and survey and manage species.
Wildlife habitat in the project area encompasses several forest and riparian habitats that provide cover and forage for many species of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mollusks. Habitat currently available reflects the various plant associations characteristic of low elevation Oregon Coast Range forest and the effects of past human activity, primarily logging and road construction, fire and reforestation.
3.2.1. Threatened, endangered or proposed ESA listed species
3.2.1.1. Oregon Silverspot Butterfly
3.2.1.1.1. Background Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, life history and behavior of the Oregon silverspot butterfly can be found in the final rule designating the species as threatened (USDI 1980), in the revised recovery plan for this species (USDI 2001), and in the Siuslaw National Forest implementation plan for the Oregon silverspot butterfly (Siuslaw National Forest undated).
On July 2, 1980, the FWS issued a final notice listing the Oregon silverspot butterfly as threatened and designating its critical habitat (USDI 1980). This decision conferred full protection of the Endangered Species Act within the entire range of this species. Within the area covered by this listing, this species is known to occur in California, Oregon, and Washington. A recovery plan was completed for this species in 1982 (USDI 1982). A revised recovery plan was finalized on November 30, 2001, and details specific tasks needed to recovery this species (USDI 2001).
3.2.1.1.2. Existing Conditions The Oregon silverspot butterfly occupies three types of grassland habitats across its range. One type consists of marine terrace and coastal headland “salt spray” meadows. The second consists of stabilized dunes. The third habitat type consists of montane grasslands found on Mount Hebo (Hammond 1991). Conditions at these sites include colder temperatures, frequent orographic cloud cover, significant snow accumulations, less coastal fog, and no salt spray.
Habitat must provide two key resources—caterpillar host plants and adult nectar sources—as well as other suitable environmental conditions. Each habitat patch has a unique combination of these resources, a situation that reduces risk of regional extinction of the subspecies.
Caterpillars of the Oregon silverspot butterfly feed primarily on early blue violets. Stands of early blue violets sufficient to provide enough food for Oregon silverspot butterfly caterpillars on the Oregon Coast occur only in relatively open and low-growing grasslands, where violets may be an abundant component of the plant community (Hammond and McCorkle 1984). Small stands of violets found in small forest clearings isolated from open grasslands are not adequate to support the butterfly. Although early blue violets are the primary food source, caterpillars are known to feed on a few other species of the genus Viola as well. On Mt. Hebo, both oviposition and caterpillar feeding have been observed on yellow stream violets (V. glabella).
A 1991 Oregon silverspot habitat study of Mount Hebo, Cascade Head, Bray Point, and Rock Creek habitats revealed that butterflies oviposited in areas that had a mean of 20 to 100 violets per square meter
35 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
(McIver et al. 1991). Early blue violet abundance has declined at all Oregon silverspot habitat areas in Oregon, likely due to competition from nonnative vegetation.
Oregon silverspot butterflies may travel relatively long distances for nectar, and movements of up to hundreds of meters between open meadows and forest fringes may be in response to differences in nectar availability. Observations suggest that distribution, abundance, and temporal availability of nectar sources may affect stability of Oregon silverspot butterfly populations. Populations in habitats lacking broad availability of nectar throughout the entire flight period may have greater risks of extinction. Oregon silverspot butterflies were found to use nectar species in direct relation to the proximity to violets. Morlan (1987) suggested that development of habitat mosaics which provide nectar sources in close proximity to violets were important to enable Oregon silverspot butterflies to obtain energetic requirements in the harsh, coastal environments.
Nectar plants most frequently used by the Oregon silverspot adults are members of the aster (Composite) family, including goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), dune goldenrod (Solidago spathulata), California aster (Aster chilensis), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), and yarrow (Achillea millefolium).
There are 83 acres of meadows which are occupied suitable habitat for Silverspot butterfly on the top of Mt. Hebo, a 2 1/2-mile long ridge running east-west and attaining an elevation of 3,100 feet which are currently actively managed for Silverspot butterfly. The management is primarily to maintain vegetation suitable for food and thermal cover and suppress spread of competing vegetation through the use of weedeaters and mowers. Of these, 45 acres of meadow are within the project area, but are outside of areas proposed for any treatment (Figure 8).
There are approximately 245 acres within the Mt. Hebo Special Interest Area proposed for thinning to enhance late successional characteristics. The stands are dominated by densely stocked conifers, and do not contain any early blue violets or nectar plants, and are not considered habitat for the silverspot butterfly.
3.2.1.1.3. Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, no commercial thinning, log haul, or other project activities would occur. As a result, Alternative 1 would have no effect on Oregon silverspot butterfly.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Suitable Habitat Alternative 2 would have no effect on Oregon silverspot butterfly or its habitat. The plantations proposed for thinning to accelerate the development of late successional characteristics do not contain suitable habitat for Oregon silverspot butterflies. All temporary roads and landings would be located outside of suitable habitat, no helicopter flights over the meadows are proposed, and project design criteria would ensure that there would be no impact to suitable habitat from commercial thinning, temporary road construction, snag or downed wood creation, or other project activities. Log haul is planned along FS Road 1400, portions of which run adjacent to the meadows on Mt. Hebo. Additional traffic on this road could increase the potential for butterfly mortality due to direct impacts from vehicles. These impacts will be avoided through implementation of project design criteria that include restricting log haul along the road segments adjacent to and between the meadows during the butterfly flight season and closing the road to public use, when necessary, to ensure vehicle traffic does not rise above existing “ambient” levels (Appendix A). Alternative 2 would have no effect on Oregon silverspot butterfly or its habitat because
36
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
none of the project activities will be conducted in occupied habitat and project design criteria will ensure impacts to butterflies from use of the road are avoided.
Critical Habitat There is no mapped critical habitat for the Oregon silverspot butterfly within the project area. Therefore there would be no effect to critical habitat.
3.2.1.1.4. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects to Oregon silverspot butterfly because there are no direct or indirect effects to suitable habitat or designated critical habitat.
37 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 8. Oregon silverspot butterfly habitat in the South Nestucca project area.
38
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.2.1.2. Marbled Murrelet
3.2.1.2.1. Background An account of the taxonomy, ecology and reproductive characteristics of the murrelet is found in the final rule designating the species as threatened (USDI 1992a), the final rule designating critical habitat for the species (USDI 1996), the Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for Alternative 9 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Spotted Owl (USDA USDI 1994a), the Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet (USFWS 1997), and the marbled murrelet 2009 five year review (USDI 2009); as well as the 2013 Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities (ARBO II) (USDI 2013a) and Letter of Concurrence and Conference Concurrence Regarding the Effects of Habitat Modification Activities within the North Coast Province, FY 2013 and 2014 (USDI 2013b).
3.2.1.2.2. Existing Condition Marbled murrelets, robin sized seabirds that nest in the coast range, are closely associated with late- successional and old growth habitat. The species was listed as threatened due to the “loss and modification of nesting habitat (older forests) primarily due to commercial timber harvesting.” Mortality associated with gill netting off the coast of Washington and from oil spills were also identified as threats to the species.
There are currently 6,642 acres of mapped suitable habitat in National Forest ownership within the project area. There is one known occupied murrelet stand resulting from surveys conducted in the early 1990’s that is over ¼ mile from the nearest unit proposed for treatment. Since that time no additional surveys have been conducted, and therefore, all unsurveyed suitable habitat is assumed to be occupied. There are 12,904 acres of designated critical habitat within the project area, of which, 892 acres overlap 23 units proposed for commercial thinning (Figure 9).
3.2.1.2.3. Direct and Indirect Effects The Siuslaw National Forest is part of the North Coast Planning Province. In conjunction with the Salem and Eugene BLM Districts the Forest consults on project activities that may affect marbled murrelets. The most recent biological assessment concerning habitat modification evaluated the effects from activities planned in fiscal years 2013-2014 (USDA USDI 2012) included the South Nestucca Restoration Project. The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the conclusions of the biological assessment (USDI 2013b) when the design criteria disclosed in the assessments were incorporated into the project. The documents concluded:
• Light to moderate thinning activities outside of critical habitat in forest that is not yet suitable or that contain no potential nesting structure may affects murrelets if this habitat is functioning to buffer suitable habitat or potential nesting structure in younger stands. Since canopy cover would be maintained at 40 percent or greater in all treated stands and may contain small openings (less than 1 acre) adjacent to habitat, and done in compliance with the Level 2 policy for the management of potential nesting structure this activity may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect murrelets.
• Light to moderate thinning in stands with potential nesting structure, or unsurveyed suitable habitat that are implemented in accordance with options 2 or 3 of the Level 2 policy for the management of potential nesting structure may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the species because all potential nesting structure and buffer habitat would be maintained and canopy cover would be maintained at 40 percent or greater in all treated stands.
39 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
• Terrestrial habitat enhancement activities may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect murrelets because habitat including all nest trees, and forest stands buffering habitat would maintain their functional value for murrelet nesting. Although individual trees or small groups of trees in suitable habitat or within 300 feet of suitable habitat or potential nesting structure within younger stands may be treated, when within 300 feet of occupied murrelet, or unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat or murrelet nest structure, no gaps would be created within one potential tree height surrounding potential nest structure and the remaining area would have no gaps greater than ¼ acre and no nest trees would be selected.
• Activities that generate noise, smoke or human presence above ambient levels of the project site may disturb murrelets and effect essential nesting behavior. When conditions and design criteria described in the consultation documents are followed, disturbance associated with commercial thinning may affect but is not likely to adversely affect murrelets.
• Light to moderate thinning and terrestrial habitat enhancement activities in critical habitat in stands containing potential nesting structure may affect but is not likely to adversely affect murrelet critical habitat because while thinning prescriptions may vary, potential nesting structure would be maintained and protected by designing prescriptions for forest stands around them (within 0.5 mile) that: (1) provide protection from potential windthrow; (2) require no openings within one tree length surrounding a potential nest tree; (3) ensure no damage to any potential nest tree limbs; and (4) comply with the Level 2 policy for the management of younger stands with potential nesting structure.
• Light to moderate thinning and terrestrial habitat enhancement activities in critical habitat in stands containing no potential nesting structure may affect but is not likely to adversely affect murrelet critical habitat because canopy cover would be maintained at 40 percent or greater in all treated stands and if within 0.5 miles of nesting structure the prescription would also: (1) provide protection from potential windthrow; (2) require no openings within one tree length surrounding a potential nest tree; and (3) ensure no damage to any potential nest tree limbs. Forested stands should still function as buffer habitat by providing wind firmness, microclimate and keep down corvid predation which are attracted to berry growth and insects that thrive in openings of sufficient size. Stands would also still function to maintain a contiguous forest within 0.5 miles of nesting structure.
Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative, no commercial thinning, gap creation, snag creation, or other activity would take place. Therefore, selection of Alternative 1 would have no direct effects. Considering the silvicultural analysis for this project, the indirect effects of the no action alternative include delayed attainment of late successional characteristics and suitable nesting structure for murrelets in young and off-site plantations proposed for thinning. Associated activities to create deadwood (i.e. snags and downed wood), as well as under story development of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and small trees would have no effect on murrelets since these are not habitat components used by nesting murrelets.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Habitat Considering the available information the young plantations evaluated do not contain suitable habitat or potential nesting structure for marbled murrelets within areas planned for treatments. Thus under Alternative 2, commercial thinning, building new temporary roads, creating snags and downed wood in these stands would have no effect on marbled murrelet habitat. The off-site plantations may contain individual trees within the stand with potential nesting structure for marbled murrelets. These trees would
40
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
be identified and the stand treated following the Level 2 Policy for the Management of Potential Nesting Structure within Younger Stands. Considering the design criteria, no suitable habitat or potential nest trees would be removed, buffer habitat would be protected and the function of the stand would be maintained. Thus commercial thinning in the offsite plantations may affect but is not likely to adversely affect murrelet habitat.
Considering the silvicultural analysis for this project, in the long term Alternative 2 would indirectly affect the development of young plantations and offsite plantations resulting in accelerated growth with tree sizes and densities similar to natural stands of a similar age. As a result of reduced inter-tree competition, thinned plantations are expected to have more trees with larger limbs than those that are not thinned, but less than natural stands. When young plantations that have been thinned are of an age that is considered mature, it is expected that the structural composition of the stands would have more suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelets than stands not treated but less than natural stands of a similar age. Creating snags in natural stands alters the snag composition of the stand to enhance cavity nesting habitat for species associated with mature stands. Although individual trees or small groups of trees may be treated within murrelet suitable habitat or habitat with potential nesting structure, considering the design criteria, no suitable habitat or potential nest trees would be selected, less than 10% of the planning area would be affected, and the function of the stand would be maintained. Thus creating snags in mature stands may affect but is not likely to adversely affect murrelet habitat.
Disturbance 6 of the 38 units proposed for treatment are greater than 100 yards from suitable habitat. Activities associated with these units are outside the disruption distance that may affect murrelets. Thus noise associated with commercial thinning operations, building new temporary roads, creating snags and downed wood in these six units would have no effect on essential nesting behavior.
41 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 9. Marbled murrelet suitable habitat and designated Critical Habitat within the Project Area.
42
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Portions of 32 units are within 100 yards of unsurveyed suitable habitat. One stand (Unit O9) is within 100 yards of a known occupied murrelet stand. Commercial thinning, building new temporary roads, creating snags and down wood within 100 yards of known occupied stands or unsurveyed suitable habitat may occur outside the critical nesting season (April 1-August 5) and require hourly operating restrictions during the entire nesting season (April 1-September 15). Considering the above information, the season of operation along with the use of hourly timing restrictions, the noise associated with commercial thinning operations (including building new temporary roads and creating snags and downed wood in these 32 units) may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the breeding activity of nesting marbled murrelets.
Critical Habitat Twenty three units are completely or partially within designated critical habitat for marbled murrelets. Seven units are young plantations that do not contain individual trees with potential nesting platforms and they do not average one-half the site potential tree height, thus they do not contain the primary constituent elements for marbled murrelets. Since commercial thinning and associated activities in these units would not change the primary constituent elements, commercial thinning these seven units would have no effect on marbled murrelet critical habitat. Sixteen units are off-site plantations that may contain individual trees with potential nesting platforms. Considering the design criteria, no suitable nest trees would be selected, suitable nest trees would be protected against incidental damage, buffer habitat would be protected and the function of the stands would be maintained. Therefore commercial thinning in critical habitat may affect but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat. Natural stands where mature tree topping is proposed are in designated critical habitat that contains primary constituent elements. Considering the design criteria, no suitable nest trees would be selected, suitable nest trees would protected against incidental damage, buffer habitat would be protected, and the function of the stands would be maintained. Therefore, mature tree topping in critical habitat may affect but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat.
3.2.1.2.4. Cumulative Effects There are no measurable direct or indirect effects to marbled murrelet or its habitat or designated critical habitat. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects.
3.2.1.3. Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
3.2.1.3.1. Background Detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the northern spotted owl are found in the 1989 and 1990 Fish and Wildlife Service proposed and final rule to list the northern spotted owl (NSO) as threatened (USDI 1989; USDI 1990), the Interagency Scientific Committee Report (Thomas et al. 1990), the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report (USDA USDI 1993), the 1992 final rule designating critical habitat (USDI 1992b), the 2008 and 2012 final rule designating critical habitat (USDI 2008a, 2012) and the Final and Revised Recovery Plans for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 2008b, 2011).
3.2.1.3.2. Existing Condition Northern spotted owls are closely associated with late-successional and old growth habitat. The species was listed as threatened primarily “due to the loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting, and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption and windstorms” (USDI 1990).
The project area includes 6,642 acres (29%) of National Forest land currently mapped as suitable nesting, roosting and foraging for the NSO. There are 10 potential NSO home ranges which overlap the project area. Over half of the project area (18,377 acres) falls within 2012 critical habitat, North Coast Ranges
43 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
and Olympic Peninsula sub unit NCO5, of which 1,664 acres overlap units proposed for commercial thinning (Figure 10).
There are no current surveys for owls within the project area. Due to the lack of recent survey data, spotted owl activity centers and home ranges within the action area have been estimated using the method identified by USDI-USDA (2008). That analysis resulted in an estimate of 4 potential spotted owl nest patches within the project area and a total of 10 potential spotted owl nest patches whose home ranges/territories overlap the project area. There are no known historic locations of owl sites, core areas or home ranges within the project area. All of the projected owl sites within the project area are located in the adaptive management reserve land allocation (adaptive management area managed as late successional reserve) and are within designated critical habitat. The stands proposed for thinning currently do not contain suitable habitat (nesting, roosting, and foraging) for owls. All stands are considered dispersal only habitat based on the stand conditions as detailed in the silviculture report.
For this project, the analysis of spotted owl home range/territory condition was conducted using the 1.5 mile provincial home range radius (for the Oregon Coast province) around each Potential NSO nest patch overlapping the project area. There are a total of 12 acres proposed for thinning in stands O45B and O55 which are greater than 55 years of age that are within ½ mile of projected owl sites (352, 393).
3.2.1.3.3. Critical Habitat The US Fish and Wildlife Service designated portions of the planning area as critical habitat for northern spotted owls in 1992 (USDI 1992b). They revised the designated critical habitat in 2008 (USFWS 2008). In December of 2012, the USFWS released a final rule designating critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (USDI 2012). The action area for South Nestucca Restoration Project contains 18,377 acres of revised critical habitat, all of which falls within the North Coast Ranges and Olympic Peninsula sub unit NCO5. There are 1,664 acres of Critical Habitat overlapping units within NCO5 (Figure 10).
3.2.1.3.4. Direct and Indirect Effects The Siuslaw National Forest is part of the Coast Planning Province. In conjunction with the Salem and Eugene BLM Districts the Forest consults on project activities that may affect northern spotted owls. The most recent biological assessment concerning habitat modification evaluated the effects from activities planned in fiscal years 2013-2014 (USDA USDI 2012) included the South Nestucca project. The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the conclusions of the biological assessment (USFWS 2013b) when the design criteria disclosed in the assessments were incorporated into the project. The documents concluded:
• Light to moderate thinning of spotted owl dispersal habitat would modify stands, but forest canopy cover would remain above 40 percent within each treatment unit, occur outside of nest patches, and coarse woody debris, understory structure, and snags would be sufficient in the unit to support spotted owl dispersal. Therefore, light to moderate thinning of spotted owl habitat is not likely to adversely affect territorial or dispersing spotted owls.
• Although snags and down wood may be created from individual trees or small groups of trees in suitable or dispersal habitat, no suitable nest trees would be selected and all treated trees would remain on site or moved to improve habitat at other project areas. The effect of this treatment would be entirely beneficial over the long term and insignificant or immediately beneficial in the short term. Therefore, terrestrial habitat enhancement would not adversely affect the ability of territorial or dispersing spotted owls to use impacted habitat.
44
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• Disturbances from proposed actions conducted beyond the disruption distance but within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat between March 1 and July 7, may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, nesting northern spotted owls.
• Disturbances associated with the use of Type I helicopters and blasting are considered to have a greater impact than other activities, due to the intensity of the noise. Thus, these activities would require fledglings to move over greater distances and potentially increasing their risk of predation or harm. Therefore, these disturbance types may still adversely affect spotted owls during the entire nesting breeding period (March 1 – September 30).
• Log-hauling on open roads is not expected to have adverse effects during anytime of the year since spotted owls rarely nest at or immediately adjacent to a road or edge. Additionally open roads have a baseline of disturbance from the public and other private timber operators, further diluting the disruption noise from hauling trucks.
• Light to moderate thinning of dispersal only habitat may affect spotted owl critical habitat because this type of activity would modify the stands, but forest canopy cover would remain above 40 percent within each treatment unit, occur outside of nest patches, and coarse woody debris, understory structure, and snags would be sufficient in the unit to maintain spotted owl dispersal habitat. Therefore, light to moderate thinning is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat to provide for the PCEs needed for conservation of the spotted owls.
• Although snags and down wood may be created from individual trees or small groups of trees in suitable or dispersal habitat that may be treated, no suitable nest trees would be selected and all treated trees would remain on site or moved to improve habitat at other project areas. The effect of this treatment would be entirely beneficial over the long term and insignificant or immediately beneficial in the short term. Therefore, terrestrial habitat enhancement would not adversely affect the ability of critical habitat to provide for the PCEs needed for conservation of the spotted owls.
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on existing suitable northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in the planning area. The Nestucca River Watershed Analysis (USDA USDI 1994b) concluded that second growth managed stands are frequently deficient in snags and down wood. The managed stands evaluated in the project area are considered dispersal habitat for spotted owls. The silvicultural analysis for this project disclosed that in the long term the no action alternative would in- directly affect the development of managed stands resulting in slower growth with smaller tree sizes at higher tree densities than natural stands of a similar age. As a result of inter-tree competition, managed stands are expected to have fewer trees exhibiting larger limbs, and less species complexity than natural stands. Thus when managed stands are of an age that is considered mature, it is uncertain that the structural composition of the stands would provide the same level of suitable nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for spotted owls as a natural stand of a similar age. Based on the information provided in the watershed analysis, about 66,696 acres of federal land within the 163,119 acre watershed (105,598 acres of federal land) are considered dispersal habitat (stands greater than 11” DBH and greater than 40% canopy cover) for spotted owls. The amount of dispersal habitat under the no action alternative would increase through time as more managed stands increase in average size to over 11” DBH (occurs at about 30 years of age) with 40% canopy cover. Considering the above information, the No Action alternative would have no effect on suitable or dispersal habitat of northern spotted owls; their breeding behavior or designated critical habit.
45 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Suitable Habitat Considering the available silvicultural information, the 37 stands evaluated for commercial thinning do not contain suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat for northern spotted owls. Thus under Alternative 2, commercial thinning and associated activities in plantations, would have no effect on suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat. Considering the silvicultural analysis for this project, in the long term Alternative 2 would indirectly affect the development of managed stands resulting in growth with tree sizes and densities similar to natural stands of a similar age. As a result of reduced inter-tree competition, thinned managed stands are expected to have more trees with larger limbs than managed stands that are not thinned, but less than natural stands. When managed stands are of an age that is considered mature, it is expected that the structural composition of the stands would have more suitable nesting roosting and foraging habitat for spotted owls than stands not treated but less than natural stand of a similar age. Creating snags in natural stands would increase the complexity of the stands, thus accelerating the development of forest conditions needed by owls. Because no nest trees would be removed, all trees would remain on site and the suitability of the treatment area for spotted owls would be maintained, creating snags in natural stands may affect but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls.
Dispersal Habitat Considering the design criteria, along with the unit prescriptions, the number of trees per acre left after commercial thinning and coarse wood creation in treated plantations would maintain sufficient canopy cover (greater than 40% canopy cover) to facilitate owl dispersal. Under Alternative 2, the total amount of dispersal habitat would not change in the short term. In the long term the amount of dispersal habitat would increase as more stands increase in average size to over 11” DBH. Thus, commercial thinning and dead wood creation in plantations may affect but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls because dispersal habitat may be modified, but would not be removed from its function as dispersal habitat.
Disturbance There are no stands within 1.5 miles of known owl sites and portions of 32 stands are within 1.5 miles of a projected owl site. There are no stands within 0.5 miles or 0.25 miles of known owl pairs. There are portions of 5 stands within 0.5 miles of a projected owl pair. There are no stands within 0.25 miles of known or projected owl pairs. Road maintenance and reconstruction activities associated with commercial thinning may occur within 0.25 miles of known or projected owl sites. Considering the design criteria to limit activities within 65 yards of known or projected owl sites during the critical nesting season that may disrupt nesting owls and the fact that most proposed activities are greater than 0.25 miles from known or projected owl sites, implementation of actions under Alternative 2 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the breeding activity of spotted owls.
Critical Habitat Thirty five of the stands proposed for treatment are partially or entirely within designated critical habitat (1,664 acres). Since no suitable habitat would be removed, there would be no effect to the primary constituent elements associated with nesting, roosting or foraging habitat. Since the proposed commercial thinning, including the creation of gaps up to one acre, snags and downed wood in managed stands would maintain greater than 40% canopy cover, the function of the dispersal habitat would be maintained, thus commercial thinning of the 23 units including the creation of gaps, snags and down wood, may affect but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owl critical habitat. Creating snags from mature trees in natural stands increases the complexity associated with forest conditions needed by spotted owls. The consultation documents concluded that while creating snags in critical habitat may alter the primary constituent elements, these actions would facilitate the development of late-successional habitat characteristics and promote recovery. Therefore these actions may affect but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat.
46
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Figure 10. Northern spotted owl core areas, home range, and critical habitat within the project area.
47 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Cumulative Effects There are no measurable direct or indirect effects to suitable habitat or designated critical habitat for NSO. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects.
3.2.2. Regional Forester’s Sensitive and Survey and Manage Species
3.2.2.1. Sensitive Species For Region 6 of the Forest Service, Sensitive Species are defined as those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density and habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). Management of sensitive species “must not result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends toward federal listing” (FSM 2670.32). The Regional Forester is responsible for identifying sensitive species and shall coordinate with federal and state agencies and other sources, as appropriate, in order to focus conservation management strategies and to avert the need for Federal or State listing as a result of National Forest management activities. The species suspected or documented to be found on the Hebo Ranger District were analyzed to determine if habitat for them was present in the proposed project area and if the project would have any impact on the population on the Forest (Table 8). Where no suitable habitat was determined to be present, there would be no impact and no further analysis was conducted.
3.2.2.1.1. Oregon Red Tree Vole Red tree voles are arboreal and closely associated with late-successional and old growth habitat. The current conditions associated with suitable habitat in the planning area for red tree voles are similar to those discussed for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls. Red tree voles are a species for which pre-disturbance surveys are required in stands over 80 years of age which contain elements of suitable habitat. Red tree voles have been documented in younger stands, but it is thought that these stands may be acting as population sinks (Carey1991). Active nests have also been found in remnant older trees in younger stands indicating the importance of legacy structural characteristics (Biswell, unpublished data). See Survey and Manage section (3.2.2.2) for additional details on surveys conducted for the Project.
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative, no commercial thinning, gap creation, snag creation, or other activity would take place. Therefore, selection of Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action No commercial thinning is proposed in late-successional and old growth habitat under Alternative 2. The 13 young plantations proposed for thinning do not contain suitable habitat for red tree voles, and while tree voles have been documented in younger stands, as mentioned above, these are thought to be population sinks. Therefore, thinning and temporary road construction in these stands may impact individuals but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species.
Pre-disturbance surveys were conducted in 26 offsite stands which are over 80 years of age as required by the Northwest Forest Plan (see 3.2.2.2 Survey and Manage Species). While these stands are of an age that is generally considered the point in which stands are beginning to develop into suitable habitat for species such as tree voles, spotted owls, and marbled murrelets, these stands are generally lacking the characteristics of high quality habitat such as deep crowns, large limbs, and evidence of mistletoe or broom type formations, due to the management history. Based on the results of the surveys, Habitat Areas
48
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
were delineated according to the methodology outlined in the Management Recommendations for the Oregon Red Tree Vole Version 2.0 (USDI 2000). There would be no thinning, road construction, yarding corridors or landings within the Habitat Areas, and they have been removed from the areas considered for harvest under this project. There are a total of 340 acres in the project area are within Habitat Areas, and of these, 217 acres are within deferral areas inside of the units proposed for treatment. Therefore, thinning and temporary road construction under Alternative 2 may impact individuals but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species.
Tree topping has the potential to impact tree voles if a nest tree or tree adjacent to a nest tree is treated. Project Design Criteria would require that all topped trees be inspected for nest structures prior to treatment. If a tree vole nest is found, the tree would not be treated and would be managed according to the management recommendations. The function of the habitat would not be changed. Considering the design criteria for tree selection and treatment, snag creation under Alternative 2 may impact individuals but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species.
Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects because there are no measurable direct or indirect effects.
3.2.2.1.2. Roth’s Blind Ground Beetle This species appears to be restricted to cool, moist, closed-canopy coniferous forests with relatively steep, well drained, deep, coarse-crumb structure soils Individuals of this species can be found under rocks and logs that are deeply embedded into the soil where they build a network of tunnels (Applegarth 1995).
The species has been collected at four localities in Oregon and is thought to be restricted to the northern Oregon coast. Only one of the known locations is within the Hebo Ranger District and is located on private land ownership in the Schooner Creek area in Lincoln County. Surveys were conducted in 1993 and included the Mt. Hebo area (LaBonte 1993) and resulted in no detections. The area surveyed overlaps units O10A, O10B, O79 and portions of O37B, O37C, and O58.
Late-successional forests that have been thinned 16-41 years prior to surveying show no difference in total number of Carabid beetles or Carabid species diversity when compared to unthinned forests (Peck and Niwa 2004). For Roth’s blind ground beetles, it would be important when thinning forests to leave coarse woody debris of sufficient size as habitat. Prescribed burning may deplete the amount of logs and litter, reducing available habitat. The presence of large coarse woody debris also may serve as refugia for the species, especially during times of severe drought.
This species is apparently tolerant of fire and intensive logging. The high elevation stands on Marys Peak burned in the late 1840’s. The fire destroyed much of the existing noble fir there. However, they occur in the regenerated forests that are about 125 years old. Stands at the Schooner Creek study site have been clear-cut yet the species has survived there as well. These types of disturbance probably have a smaller impact when they occur in the summer months, the season during which the beetles have burrowed deep below rocks and logs seeking moist soil.
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative, no commercial thinning, gap creation, snag creation, or other activity would take place. Therefore, selection of Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects.
49 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Alternative 1 – Proposed Action As described above, no difference has been observed in thinned versus unthinned forests in terms of beetle numbers of species diversity. Existing down wood within the areas proposed for treatment would not be removed. Snag and down wood creation would increase the amount of logs within the stands from what is currently available. Therefore, thinning, temporary road construction, and snag and down wood creation under Alternative 2 may impact individuals but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species.
Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects because there are no measurable direct or indirect effects.
3.2.2.1.3. Johnson’s Hairstreak This species primarily feeds on dwarf mistletoe of the genus Arceuthobium, which is closely associated with mature to old-growth conifer forests. The Johnson’s hairstreak is considered to be an old-growth obligate butterfly. The species lays its eggs on mistletoe and the larvae feed on all exposed parts of the host plant. Adults feed on flower nectar (including Oregon grape, Pacific dogwood, Ceanothus sp., pussy paws, and Rubus spp.) and nectar of the mistletoe. This species is believed to spend most of its time high in the canopy, only occasionally coming down to the forest floor. Range is local and scarce throughout Pacific Northwest.
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative, no commercial thinning, gap creation, snag creation, or other activity would take place. Therefore, selection of Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects.
Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Activities in plantations including commercial thinning, creation of deadwood, building temporary roads or repairing existing roads would not affect suitable habitat. Mature tree topping in natural stands may impact individual trees, but the function of the stand and suitability of the habitat would not be removed. Considering no habitat would be removed, Alternative 2 would have no effect on habitat associated with this species. However, Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects because there are no measurable direct or indirect effects. Table 8. Summary of the effects to sensitive species and survey and manage species.
Suitable Impact of Species Habitat Habitat Proposed Present Action Aleutian Winters on pastures and grain fields, roosts on inland lakes and No No Impact Canada Goose coastal islands American Peregrine Nests and feeds along coast near cliffs and headlands No No Impact Falcon Bald eagle Nests and roosts in mature forests near lakes, coast, rivers No No Impact California Lakes, estuaries, coastlines, and bays No No Impact Brown Pelican Variety of terrestrial habitats, preferably near open water with Purple Martin access to natural or artificial cavities (snags, bird houses, No No Impact pilings etc.)
50
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Suitable Impact of Species Habitat Habitat Proposed Present Action Foothill Known distribution does not occur on SNF, but species is Yellow-legged suspected on eastern foothills. Highly aquatic and found in No No Impact frog vicinity of permanent streams with open cobble gravel bars Pacific pond Ponds, slow moving water mostly in Willamette Valley No No Impact turtle
Oregon red Mature and overmature/old growth conifer dominated stands, a Yes MIIH tree vole and some younger stands containing suitable nesting structure North American Subalpine, remote forest areas. Extirpated in Coast Range No No Impact wolverine Not known to occur on the Fisher Mature and over mature/old growth conifer dominated stands No Impact Hebo Ranger District Utilize caves, mines, and buildings for hibernation, maternity, Fringed and solitary roosts. Feed predominately on moths along forest No No Impact myotis edges, roads, or open areas within the forest. Utilizes, but not dependent upon snags or down material. Mature to old growth, moist forest and riparian habitats, under Not known to Puget logs, in leaf litter, around seeps and springs, and often occur on the No Impact Oregonian associated with coarse woody debris and leaf litter and/or talus. Hebo Ranger Almost always associated with bigleaf maple. District The Evening Fieldslug has been reported to be associated with wet meadows in forested habitats in a variety of low vegetation Yes, but not Evening litter and debris; rocks may also be used. Little is known about in areas No Impact Fieldslug this species or its habitat. Surveys may be limited to moist proposed for surface vegetation and cover objects within 30 m. (98ft.) of treatment perennial wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas. Newcomb’s Inter-tidal habitat on glasswort/pickleweed salt marshes at the No No Impact Littorine Snail edges of bays and estuaries. Semiaquatic; characteristically found among wet leaf litter and vegetation beside flowing or standing water in shaded Pacific Walker No No Impact situations where humidity remains high. Range limited to coastline, inland up to 0.5 miles. Siuslaw Sand The immediate sandy edge of river mouths on beaches along No No Impact tiger beetle the Pacific Ocean. Restricted to cool, moist, closed-canopy coniferous forests with Roth’s Blind well drained, deep, coarse-crumb structure soils that have a Yes MIIH Ground Beetle developed in place, not alluvial soils on floodplains. Associated with deeply embedded rocks and logs on slopes 20-50%. Host-specific and lives on Ambrosia chamissonis (Beach-bur) a Oregon Plant composite associated with open sand adjacent to tidal No No Impact bug influence. Wide variety of natural, agricultural, urban, and rural habitats, Western although species richness tends to peak in flower-rich No No Impact Bumblebee meadows of forests and subalpine zones - now largely confined to high elevation sites and areas east of the Cascade Crest. Old-growth and late successional second growth coniferous Johnson’s forests that contain mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium. The a Yes MIIH Hairstreak mistletoes occur mainly on western hemlock and occasionally true fir. Hoary Elfin All life stages are closely associated with kinnikinnick. Oregon No No Impact
51 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Suitable Impact of Species Habitat Habitat Proposed Present Action populations occupy sites on coastal bluffs and ancient sand dunes Insular blue Coastal terrace meadows. The species overwinters as early No No Impact butterfly instar caterpillar in flower head of host clover Not A Caddisfly Small, cool, densely forested streams in old-growth documented (Namamyia on the Hebo No Impact plutonis) or mature forest watersheds. Ranger District Haddock’s rhyacophilan Cool mountain streams in the Mary’s Peak area. No No Impact caddisflys a MIIH - May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species
3.2.2.2. Survey and Manage Species The South Nestucca Restoration Project is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Survey and Manage pre-disturbance survey were initiated (defined as at least one occurrence of actual in-the-field surveying undertaken according to applicable protocol) in reliance upon the 2011 Consent Decree species list on or before April 25, 2013. As such, the project utilizes the December 2003 species list. This list incorporates species changes and removals made as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews with the exception of the Oregon red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus.
The South Nestucca Project EA applies a Pechman exemption for thinning in stands under 80 years of age, therefore survey and manage does not apply to the 13 stands under 80 years of age proposed for treatment. 26 stands were originally proposed for thinning that are over 80 years old. Three new temporary roads were proposed to access units that are outside of units but within stands over 80 years old. These areas were analyzed to determine if habitat was available for any of the species on the December 2003 list for which pre-disturbance surveys were required, and to determine if there were conditions requiring the pre-disturbance surveys for red tree voles. As a result of this analysis pre- disturbance surveys for red tree voles were completed on all 26 stands over 80 years of age, and within the areas proposed for temporary road construction outside of harvest units. All surveys were completed according to the Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole Version 3.0 utilizing the modified line transect methodology.
Modified Line transect surveys were completed on 26 stands and areas surrounding 3 proposed temporary road segments (Table 9). A total of 1,364 acres were surveyed resulting in the identification of 45 active nests, 76 inactive nests (of which 53 are within resulting habitat areas) and 130 nests which are assumed to be active since the trees were not climbed. 95 of the assumed active nest trees are within units O7 and O8, which have been dropped from consideration for thinning under this project. 29 of the assumed active nest trees were located in unit O9, and are in a portion of the unit which was dropped from consideration for thinning, and therefore not climbed. The remaining trees (2 in unit O45A and 4 in unit O60) are within habitat areas delineated, but outside of the harvest unit or close enough to the known active tree that no additional climbing was deemed necessary.
Habitat Areas were delineated according to the methodology outlined in the Management Recommendations for the Oregon Red Tree Vole Version 2.0 (USDI 2000). Habitat Areas are a minimum
52
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest of 10 acres in size. All active nests and inactive nests within 100 meters of active nests are included in the Habitat Areas, Habitat Areas were designed to incorporate the best habitat surrounding the nests, and in some cases additional inactive nests that are greater than 100 meters from active nests. There would be no thinning, road construction, yarding corridors, or landings within the Habitat Areas, and they have been removed from the areas considered for harvest under this project. Three hundred forty acres in the project area are within Habitat Areas, and of these, 221 acres are within deferral areas inside of the units proposed for treatment.
Table 9. Summary of the results of red tree vole surveys.
# Inactive # Inactive Nests Acres # Active # Assumed Total Trees Unit Nests within Outside of Surveyed Nests Active Nests Climbed Habitat Areas Habitat Areas
O6 7 0 0 0 0 1 O71 97 6 94 8 N/A 26 O81 10 2 1 12 N/A 24 O92 69 7 29 10 3 36 O10A 28 0 0 0 0 5 O10B 38 0 0 0 0 2 O27A 38 1 0 2 0 5 O27B 47 0 0 0 0 4 O29 6 0 0 0 0 3 O30 41 1 0 1 0 10 O32 42 1 0 1 0 12 O33 13 0 0 0 1 1 O37A 36 0 0 0 0 0 O37B 59 4 0 1 0 13 O37C 32 1 0 1 0 12 O39 74 0 0 0 0 1 O43 37 0 0 0 0 5 O45A 50 1 2 0 3 15 O45B 75 4 0 0 0 5 O55 107 4 0 4 4 31 O57 14 1 0 0 0 1 O58 175 1 0 0 1 22 O60 160 8 4 13 9 64 O74 26 0 0 0 0 1 O79 18 0 0 0 0 2 O96 11 1 0 0 0 3 Temp Rds 54 23 0 0 2 12 TOTALS 1364 45 130 53 23 316 1Unit dropped from consideration for thinning under this project 2A portion of the unit dropped from consideration for thinning under this project 3One of the inactive nests identified was adjacent to a temporary road that has been dropped from the proposed action.
53 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.2.3. Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) The Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 1990) identified 11 terrestrial and one aquatic management indicator species. The EIS stated the following: “Management indicator species were selected because a change in their population, in response to management activities, is believed to represent changes in a larger group of species. Selection of management indicator species was based on the following categories as specified in 36 CFR 219.19:”
1. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on state and federal lists for the planning area.
2. Species with special habitat requirements that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs.
3. Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped.
4. Non-game species of special interest.
5. Additional species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality.
Table 10 summarizes the information on the 11 terrestrial management indicator species identified in the FEIS. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement did not change the management indicator species list and there have been no subsequent forest plan amendments that changed the list. On the date the Record of Decision was signed (March 7, 1990), there were five species listed on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA) including four species that were previously identified as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Since 1990, four of the listed species are considered fully recovered and have been removed from the endangered species list. Two management indicator species were added to the endangered species list after the ROD was signed. Thus the table reflects both the basis for why the species was included as a management indicator species at the time of the final EIS as well as its current legal status under the Endangered Species Act.
Four of the management indicator species on the Siuslaw are primarily associated with coastal habitats (deflation plain wetlands, beach/estuary environments, costal bluffs/cliffs). Three of the four (Aleutian Canada goose, brown pelican and peregrine falcon) are considered fully recovered and have been removed from the endangered species list. Their primary habitats, and thus the basis for their decline, recovery objectives, and ultimate recovery were associated with habitats and populations not associated with lands administered by the Siuslaw National Forest. Management for the Aleutian Goose (nests in the Aleutian’s) and brown pelican (nests in southern California-northern Mexico) was primarily to insure protection of potential habitat that may be used in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area during the non-breeding season for these two species.
The management objectives, standards and guidelines, and associated monitoring questions associated with management indicator species were based on the land allocations and anticipated management actions associated with the 1990 Forest Plan. The majority of the forest was identified as being in MA 15 Timber/Wildlife/Fish with the primary emphasis on producing timber while maintaining and or enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. The 467,361 acres in this allocation included about 340,344 acres considered suitable for timber harvest and about 127,000 that were considered unsuitable for timber harvest. Additional harvest was planned from MA 14 (33,666 acres) which was equally split between suitable and
54
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
unsuitable for timber harvest. At the time about 193,400 acres of the 357,200 acres considered suitable were over 80 years of age. Planned harvest included about 5,200 acres of regeneration harvest and about 600 acres of commercial thinning per year. Between 1990 and 1994 about 9,100 acres have been regeneration harvested and planted, with all sales being planned and sold prior to the Siuslaw Forest Plan being fully implemented. Between 1995 and 1997 about 800 acres were planted after regeneration harvest activities were completed. These last sales were primarily regeneration of alder stands.
The Northwest Forest Plan significantly changed the land allocations and management objectives of the Forest but did not change the management indicator species to reflect the amended forest plan. Considering the land allocations currently in place, less than 5% of the Siuslaw land base is in an allocation that would allow for regeneration harvest activities. No timber sales sold since 1991 on the Siuslaw have included regeneration harvest of mature conifer habitat. Thus the amount of mature habitat for northern spotted owl, pileated wood peckers, and marten on the Siuslaw National Forest, has not significantly changed since the Northwest Forest Plan was adopted. The loss of snags due to regeneration harvest activities has also been reduced. Overall as stands mature, an increase in snags is anticipated in natural stands. Early seral habitat conditions (preferred by elk for forage) from past regeneration harvest have been lost due to the maturation of plantations past 15 years of age. The vast majority of plantations are over 20 years of age.
3.2.3.1. Indirect and Direct Effects The potential effects from the proposed project to the spotted owl and Oregon silverspot butterfly, were disclosed in earlier sections. The closest bald eagle habitat management area is several miles south of the project area and there are no known nest sites within the project area. There is no habitat within the project area for brown pelicans, peregrine falcons, western snowy plovers or Aleutian Canada geese, therefore the proposed treatments would have no impact to any of these species.
3.2.3.1.1. Pileated Woodpeckers, Marten, and Primary Cavity Nesters Mature conifer habitat along with deadwood in the form of snags and downed wood are important habitat components for pileated woodpeckers, martens and primary cavity nesters. The late-successional reserve assessment for this planning area (USDA USDI 1998) documents the stand structure and composition of mature natural stands. The Northwest Forest Plan EIS (Appendix H of the EIS) included a viability assessment for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests. Based on the amount of remaining suitable habitat associated with late successional and riparian reserves in the Oregon coast range, the assessment concluded that populations of pileated wood peckers, marten and primary cavity nesters would remain viable in the coast range.
Alternative 1 – No Action Except for snags considered danger trees along key forest roads, there would be no change in the amount of habitat associated with pileated woodpecker, martens or primary cavity nesters.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action In addition to danger trees along key forest roads, some danger trees along non-key roads that access commercial thinning units, or that are adjacent to the units may be felled. Except for danger trees, no mature conifer habitat is proposed for removal. The proposed silvicultural treatment, commercial thinning (including temporary road construction), would leave stocking levels that exceed the small tree levels found in natural stands. The creation of deadwood in plantations and mature stands would increase the amount of deadwood in treated areas above existing levels but below measured levels in natural stands. Considering the information above along with the project design criteria, there would be a short term increase in deadwood (≤20” dbh) in commercially thinned while retaining sufficient trees for future
55 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
recruitment of deadwood over time. Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but the effects would not contribute to a loss of mature conifer habitat or snags ≥ 20” dbh associated with these species. Considering the above information including the current habitat conditions in late successional and riparian reserves across the forest, and the deadwood analysis discussed in Section E, Alternative 2 would not lead towards a federal listing or cause a loss of viability to pileated woodpecker, Humboldt marten, or primary cavity nester populations or species.
3.2.3.1.2. Roosevelt Elk Roosevelt Elk are found throughout the project area and use all seral habitats. Larger herds tend to associate with large open meadows and fields typically associated with agricultural lands that are adjacent to forest land. Smaller herds tend to be associated with more forested areas with smaller forest gaps and meadows. Regeneration harvest provides transitory early seral habitat for elk, which lasts about 10-15 years. With the reduction of regeneration harvests on federal lands in the planning area, the amount of transitory early seral habitat is in decline.
Alternative 1 – No Action Under Alternative 1, the amount of transitory early seral habitat associated with plantations on federal lands would continue to decline and dependence on more open stands would increase. As plantations mature more open plantations would eventually occur, allowing for development of more complex herbaceous and shrub layers to form. Alternative 1 may impact individuals but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under Alternative 2 commercially thinning plantations would open up the understory allowing for more complex herbaceous and shrub layers to form sooner. Building temporary roads and creating deadwood would not change the amount or suitability of elk habitat. Alternative 2 may impact individuals but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
3.2.3.2. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from the proposed project to the spotted owl and Oregon silverspot butterfly were disclosed in earlier sections. Alternative 2 would not result in any direct or indirect effects to bald eagles, brown pelicans, peregrine falcons, western snowy plovers or Aleutian Canada geese, therefore the proposed action would not result in cumulative effects to these species. There would be no measurable direct or indirect effects on pileated woodpeckers, martens, primary cavity excavators or elk so there are no cumulative effects to these species from Alternative 2.
56
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Table 10. Siuslaw National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS).
Forest Plan EIS Specific Habitat in Nature Serve Species (Table III-15, pg III-68) State Status Federal Status Ranking Habitat Feature Siuslaw National Forest
Inland lakes and large expanses of flooded Listed Endangered 3/11/1967 deflation plain on the Oregon Dunes NRA Aleutian Canada goose T&E habitat G5T4S2N for potential migratory/transitory habitat-little Reclassified Threatened if any suitable feeding habitat. 1/11/1991 Delisted 3/20/2001
Multi-storied stands with old-growth Listed Endangered 3/11/1967 components near water bodies which Reclassified Threatened Bald eagle T&E habitat support an adequate food supply. Includes G5S4BS4N Threatened 8/11/1995 large conifer trees or snags (50-90 inches in diameter). Delisted 8/8/2007 Resting/roosting in estuaries and along Listed Endangered 6/2/1970 Brown pelican T&E habitat G4T3S2N Endangered beaches on the Oregon Dunes NRA. Delisted 12/17/2009 Mature conifer Sensitive/ Humboldt marten Mature and older age stands of timber. G5S3S4 USFWS species of concern (down logs) Vulnerable
Old growth & Old growth and mature conifer habitat (large Northern spotted owl trees, multi-storied, large snags, down G3T3S3 Threatened Listed Threatened 6/26/1990 mature conifer logs). Oregon silverspot Open coastal grasslands, including ocean T&E habitat G5T1S1 Listed Threatened 7/2/1980 butterfly spray meadows. Rocky cliffs with ledges for nesting near Sensitive/ Listed Endangered 6/2/1970 Peregrine falcon T&E habitat G4T4S2B foraging areas Vulnerable Delisted 2/25/1999 Mature conifer Large snags, defective trees, down Sensitive/ Pileated woodpecker (large snags, G5S4 material. Vulnerable down logs) Primary cavity Snags Dead and defective trees throughout the excavators (≥20” dbh) forest types. Mix of forage and Mosaic of foraging areas close to thermal Roosevelt elk G5 cover areas and hiding cover. Open sand near Sandy areas virtually devoid of vegetation, Sensitive/ Western snowy plover G4T3S3B Listed Threatened 3/5/1993 estuaries driftwood. Critical
57 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.2.4. Landbird Assessment
3.2.4.1. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) Implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird except as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-704). The regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds, including nests and eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (Director's Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States; however, under Executive Order (EO) 13186 all other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and the habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the Forest Service has implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be addressed in the NEPA process when actions have the potential to negatively or positively affect migratory bird species of concern.
3.2.4.2. Executive Order 13186 “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” This Executive Order (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001) directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. This Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) with the FWS to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. The BLM and FS have both completed, and are currently implementing, their respective MOU’s with the FWS.
3.2.4.3. Forest Service & FWS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) –extended until 12-08-2015 The purpose of this MOU is, “to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration between the Parties, in coordination with State, Tribal, and local governments.”
Under the MOU the Forest Service Shall:
Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands, consistent with NFMA, ESA, and other authorities listed above. When developing the list of species to be considered in the planning process, consult the current (updated every 5 years) FWS Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008 (BCC), State lists, and comprehensive planning efforts for migratory birds. Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.
58
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.2.4.4. The Birds of Conservation Concern 2008- (extended until 12-8-2015) In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The Birds of Conservation Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that represent highest conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions. Tables 11, 12, and 13 provide further information.
While the bird species included in BCC 2008 are priorities for conservation action, this list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions. It is recommended that these lists be consulted in accordance with Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.”
This report should also be used to develop research, monitoring, and management initiatives. BCC 2008 is intended to stimulate coordinated and collaborative proactive conservation actions among Federal, State, Tribal, and private partners. The hope is that, by focusing attention on these highest-priority species, this report would promote greater study and protection of the habitats and ecological communities upon which these species depend, thereby contributing to healthy avian populations and communities.
Table 11. Birds Identified as High Conservation Priorities in Northern Pacific Forests (U.S. portions only).
Species and Status: Yellow-billed Loon (nb) Marbled Godwit (nb) Western Grebe (nb) Red Knot (roselaari ssp.) (nb) Laysan Albatross (nb) Short-billed Dowitcher (nb) Black-footed Albatross (nb) Aleutian Tern Pink-footed Shearwater (nb) Caspian Tern Red-faced Cormorant Arctic Tern Pelagic Cormorant (pelagicus ssp.) Marbled Murrelet (c) Bald Eagle (b) Kittlitz's Murrelet (a) Northern Goshawk (laingi ssp.) Black Swift Peregrine Falcon (b) Rufous Hummingbird Black Oystercatcher Allen's Hummingbird Solitary Sandpiper (nb) Olive-sided Flycatcher Lesser Yellowlegs (nb) Wouldow Flycatcher (c) Whimbrel (nb) Horned Lark (strigata ssp.) (a) Long-billed Curlew (nb) Oregon Vesper Sparrow (affinis ssp.) Hudsonian Godwit (nb) Purple Finch (a) ESA candidate, (b) ESA delisted, (c) non-listed subspecies or population of Threatened or Endangered species
3.2.4.5. Avian Conservation Planning (Migratory and Resident Birds) Migratory birds are those that breed in the U.S. and winter south of the border in Central and South America. Many of our well known passerine songbirds, flycatchers, vireos, swallows, thrushes, warblers, and hummingbirds, fall in this category. Most others are included in the resident category. Birds are a vital element of every terrestrial habitat in North America. Conserving habitat for birds would therefore contribute to meeting the needs of other wildlife and entire ecosystems (Partners In Flight Continental
59 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Plan). Continent wide declines in population trends for many avian species has developed into an international concern and led to the creation of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Under this initiative, plans have been developed for the conservation of waterbirds, shorebirds, seabirds and landbirds. The landbird initiative known as Partners-In-Flight (PIF) has developed a series of bird conservation plans for every state. PIF has gained wide recognition as a leader in the landbird conservation arena.
The Oregon and Washington Chapter of PIF was formed in 1992 and has since developed a series of publications aimed at assisting private, state, tribal and federal agencies in managing for landbird populations. The most recent and applicable publications for the two state area have been Conservation Plans for landbirds.
3.2.4.6. PIF Bird Conservation Plans Five conservation plans have been developed by PIF covering the various geographic regions found in Oregon and Washington. These documents have been prepared to stimulate and support a proactive approach to the conservation of landbirds throughout Oregon and Washington. They represent the collective efforts of multiple agencies and organizations within Oregon and Washington. Participants included biologists from federal and state agencies, industry, private consulting firms, environmental organizations, and academia in order to ensure a full range of ideas and practicalities were addressed by the plans. The plan that is applicable to the South Nestucca project area is the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon and Washington and can be found on the OR-WA PIF web site at www.orwapif.org.
Recommendations included in the documents are intended to inform planning efforts and actions of land managers, and stimulate monitoring and research to support landbird conservation. The recommendations are also expected to serve as a foundation for developing detailed conservation strategies at multiple geographic scales.
The overall goal of PIF Bird Conservation Planning is to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. These documents are intended to facilitate that goal by identifying conditions and habitat attributes important to the landbird community, describing the desired landscape based on habitat relationships of a select group of species, providing interim management targets (i.e., biological objectives) to achieve desired conditions, and recommending management actions (i.e., conservation options) that can be implemented by various entities at multiple scales to achieve the biological objectives.
Implementation of parts or all of the strategy should help prevent reactionary approaches typically needed to address listed species issues. When these ecosystem-driven conservation strategies are fully implemented at large geographic scales, the aggregated effect will be the creation of landscapes that should function to conserve landbird communities.
The strategy for achieving functioning ecosystems for landbirds is described through the habitat requirements of "focal species." By managing for a group of species representative of important components in a functioning coniferous forest ecosystem, many other species and elements of biodiversity also would be conserved. E.O. 13186 and the MOUs signed by the FS and BLM with the FWS require agencies to incorporate migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever practicable. The PIF plans assist federal agencies in achieving this direction.
The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon and Washington and Birds of Conservation Concern List species list for the project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the project area are incorporated and effects disclosed in this analysis. Table 12
60
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
displays a list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and conservation focal species that are known or likely to be present in the South Nestucca project area and could be affected by the proposed actions.
Bird Conservations Regions (BCRs) were developed based on similar geographic parameters. One BCR encompasses the project area (BCR 5, Northern Pacific Forest).
The overall goal of these BCR lists are to accurately identify the migratory and resident bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities. BCR lists are updated every five years by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
3.2.4.7. Siuslaw National Forest Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (Maps) Data In conjunction with the Institute for Bird Populations (the Institute), the Siuslaw NF has participated in the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program since 1992. The Institute developed websites and publications disclosing the species found and the productivity on the forest (Michel et. al. 2006). The habitats landbirds occupy in the planning area range from early seral openings to late-successional old growth. Table 12 represents the species of concern identified in the conservation plans documented at the monitoring stations operated by the Institute.
Based on the MAPS data for the Siuslaw National Forest, Knott et. al. (2005) evaluated adult population trends for 12 species. They concluded that six species were showing measurable changes in the adult population, One neotropical migrant (western flycatcher), and two short-distance migrants (chestnut- backed chickadee and winter wren) were declining. Two neotropical migrants (swainson thrush and Wilson’s warbler) and one short-distance migrant (song sparrow) were increasing in populations. Considering the stability of habitat conditions on the forest, Knott (personal communication) has indicated that weather conditions along migration routes and winter grounds in Mexico and Central America currently have a greater influence on population trends for neotropical migrants, than conditions on the breeding grounds here.
3.2.4.8. Effects of Thinning Young Conifer Forests Altman and Hager (2007) evaluated the findings of nine studies that evaluated the effects of thinning in young conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest, including four studies conducted in the Oregon Coast Range. Based on those findings Appendix E of their paper displays the relationships between thinning and breeding bird species in young conifer forests. Table 13 summarizes the information for the species of concern listed in Table 12. In general they concluded:
• Thinning does not change habitat so dramatically that some species are no longer able to occupy the treated habitat. • Species that nest in closed forest canopies generally decline in abundance, and species associated with open forest canopies generally increase. • Although the abundance of some priority and/or declining species is often reduced in thinned stands in the short-term, most of these species show similar or increased abundance in the longer term (10-20 years). • Some species consistently show a pattern of initial change in abundance in the first few years after thinning followed by a return to their pre-thinning abundance. • Some species show no consistent pattern of response to thinning. Most are understory associated indicating the importance and variability of local conditions both pre and post-thinning. • Species that generally respond positively to thinning represent a broad range of successional stage associations from early- (for example Dark eyed Junco, MacGillivray’s Warbler) , to mid- (for
61 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
example Western Tanager) and even late-successional species (for example Hammond’s flycatcher).
3.2.4.9. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.2.4.9.1. Alternative 1 – No Action The no action alternative would have no direct effects on the early-, mid-, or late-successional habitats in the planning area. Considering the available information there is no measurable effect under the no action alternative to existing habitat or landbird populations in the short (1-5 years) and long term (10-20 years).
3.2.4.9.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Commercial thinning (including building temporary roads) in young plantations and off-site stands would modify the existing conditions of those stands. Considering the available information, we would expect similar mixed effects on landbird habitat and population responses as those described above by Altman and Hagar (2007) as displayed in Table 13. Since some units are expected to be harvested during the nesting season, individual nests could be lost. Thus commercial thinning may impact individuals, but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Creating deadwood in plantations and topping mature trees to create snags would alter individual trees in plantations and mature stands; however the function of the stands would not be altered. Considering the design criteria for tree harvest selection, the current function of existing plantations, the retention of no-thin areas, late-successional and old growth habitat would be maintained, and the design criteria for deadwood creation; Alternative 2 may impact individuals but the effects would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
3.2.4.10. Cumulative Effects There are no measurable direct or indirect effects to landbird species and their habitat. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects.
62
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Table 12. Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 5 – Northern Pacific Rainforest USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Fish and Wildlife Service and Partners in Flight bird species of concern or conservation focal species associated with forest habitats in the Siuslaw National Forest.
Fish and Wildlife Partners In Flight High Partners in Flight Focal 4 Species Species of Concern in Priority Focal Species in 3 MAPS Site Breeding Status 1 2 Species in Oregon BCR 5 Oregon Band-tailed Pigeon X X 5-U, 1-O Black-throated Gray Warbler X X 1-B, 3-U, 1-O, 1-T Brown Creeper X 3-B, 3-O Hammonds Flycatcher X 3-U, 2-O, 1-T Hermit Warbler X X 3-B, 2-U, 1-O Hutton Vireo X 2-U, 3-O, 1-NL Olive-sided Flycatcher X X X 1-B, 1-O, 1-T, 3-NL Pacific-slope Flycatcher X X 6-B Pileated Woodpecker X 5-U, 1-O Rufus Hummingbird X X X 1-B, 3-U, 2-O Varied Thrush X X 4-B, 2-U Wouldow Flycatcher X 1-U, 4-T, 1-NL Wilson’s Warbler X 6-B Winter Wren X 6-B 1Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USDI 2008c). 2Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forest in the Pacific Northwest (Altman and Hagar 2007). 3Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington (Altman 1999). 4Cumulative breeding status at six sampling stations on the Siuslaw National Forest from 1992-2003: B- Regular breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident during all years the station was operated. U- Usual breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for more than ½ of the years stations were operated. O- Occasional breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for ½ or fewer of the years stations were operated. T- Transient. The station lies in the species breeding range, but no individual of the species was a summer resident during any year. NL- Not listed. The station did not have a record of the species for any year the station was operated.
63 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Table 13. Summary of Appendix E in Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest (Altman and Hager 2007). Similar Higher Lower Abundance Species Abundance Abundance Comments Thinned and In Thinned in Thinned Unthinned Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid- Band-tailed Pigeon X term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported. Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance or no change in Black-throated Gray X X abundance in the short and mid to long-term (1-15 years); thus local effects Warbler and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response. Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance in the short-term (1- 5 years) and no change in abundance in the mid and long-term (5-20 years) or Brown Creeper X X X higher abundance in the mid to long term (5-15 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response. Thinning usually results in higher abundance in the short, mid and long-terms Hammonds Flycatcher X X (1-20 years). Thinning intensity does not appear to make a difference. Mixed results suggest thinning usually results in lower abundance in the short to mid-term (1-10 years), with local effects resulting in no change in Hermit Warbler X X X abundance or higher abundance in the mid to long-term (5-20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced abundance than lighter intensity thinning. Mixed results suggest thinning results in lower abundance or no change in abundance in the short, mid and long-terms (1-20) years) or higher abundance Hutton Vireo X X X in the mid-term (5-10 years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result invariability in response. Olive-sided Flycatcher Not reported in studies Mixed results suggest thinning results in no change in abundance in the short term (1-5 years) or lower abundance in the short, mid and long-term (1-20 Pacific-slope Flycatcher X X years); thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result in variability in response. Limited data suggests thinning results in no change in abundance in the mid- Pileated Woodpecker X term (5-10 years); short and long-term effects on abundance not reported. Limited data suggest thinning results in no change in abundance in the short- Rufus Hummingbird X term (1-5) years; mid and long-term effects on abundance not reported. Thinning usually results in lower abundance in the short-term (1-5 years) and Varied Thrush X X no change in abundance in the mid-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-20 years). Heavier intensity thinning appears more likely to result in reduced
64
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Similar Higher Lower Abundance Species Abundance Abundance Comments Thinned and In Thinned in Thinned Unthinned abundance than lighter intensity thinning. Wouldow Flycatcher Not reported in studies. Mixed results suggest thinning most often results in no change in abundance in the short and mid to long-term (1-15 years); although local effects and /or Wilson’s Warbler X X X thinning intensity may result in lower abundance in the short-term (1-5 years) and higher abundance in the mid and long-terms (5-20 years). Mixed results in studies; thus local effects and/or thinning intensity may result Winter Wren X X X in variability in response.
65 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.2.5. Deadwood Assessment Deadwood, or coarse woody debris (CWD) in the form of snags and downed wood are important habitat components for a variety of species. The recovery plans for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2008b, 2011) and the marbled murrelet (USFWS 1997) recommended changing the trajectory of managed stands from wood fiber production to a condition that more closely replicates natural stand conditions.
The Late-Successional Reserve Assessment for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (LSRA) covers the South Nestucca planning area (USDA USDI 1998). Table 14 of the LSRA documents the stand structure and composition of mature natural stands, while Tables 19 and 20 of the report disclose the range of snags or down wood volumes per acre found in natural stands of different age classes in the Oregon Coast Range (USDA USDI 1998). The objective of the late successional reserves is to protect and restore habitat related to late successional species. Levels of deadwood in the project area are considered to be at the low end of the natural range due to a combination of factors including fire history, the salvage of large logs and snags created by wildfires in the early 1900’s, the past harvest of many of the natural stands 80-120 years old in which much of the suppression mortality (which would have provided deadwood through mortality) and down wood was removed and snags felled for safety during harvest operations. The assessment recommended that silvicultural treatments in these CWD deficient “lost legacy” areas should focus on developing large trees and the creation of CWD balanced with the need to accelerate the development of other late-successional habitat characteristics and risks from insects and fire. The LSRA concluded the loss of the large deadwood component is long-term and there is very limited opportunity to create CWD >20" in diameter in the 25-50 year old plantations (USDA USDI 1998). Recent analysis of several vegetation growth models developed for this region were compared with data from the Siuslaw Thinning and Underplanting Density Study (STUDS) to model suppression mortality in unthinned stands. In the majority of the simulations, mortality occurred in the smaller diameter classes of less than 20 inches. The analysis concluded that it is unlikely that much suppression-created deadwood greater than 20 inches in diameter would develop in the unthinned plantation stands prior to age 101 years (Appendix B). The LSRA assessment recommended prescriptions that would set managed stands on a trajectory to meet the snag and downed wood levels found in mature and old-growth stands while still providing for an acceptable level of CWD in young managed stands and late seral offsite stands.
Wildlife use and distribution of deadwood in Oregon coastal conifer and hardwood landscapes are documented by Mellen et Al. (2009) through the decayed wood advisor and management aid (DecAID). DecAID is an advisory tool to help managers evaluate effects of forest conditions and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use snags and down wood. DecAID was developed as a tool to replace the biological potential models which were used to develop the standards and guidelines for the Northwest Forest Plan. Since that time, it has been determined that the biological potential models are flawed (Rose et al. 2001) and are no longer used in determining deadwood management strategies across planning areas. The guidelines associated with the use of DecAID indicate the fifth-field watershed is the appropriate scale to conduct the analysis of snags and downed wood. A full description on DecAID as well as a tutorial, cautions, glossary and references can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml.
Details on deadwood descriptions, assessment methods and current conditions on are found in Appendix B of the South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Assessment. To utilize DecAid, the deadwood analysis is limited to the Nestucca River watershed.
The following is a summary of the DecAID and current stand condition data information associated with the Western Lowland Conifer-Hardwood NW Oregon Coast wildlife habitat type, in the Small/medium
66
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
structural class (>10”- <20” dbh) and the Larger structural class (≥20” dbh). Landscape distribution conditions described for the watershed are limited to those acres administered by the Siuslaw National Forest and not the entire watershed.
3.2.5.1. Snag Size Summarizing the available literature on species use of snags by diameter class, DecAID’s cumulative species curves (Figure 11-Figure 15) identifies seven species (northern pygmy owl, Northern flying squirrel, brown creeper, red breasted nut hatch, long eared myotis, pileated woodpecker, and hairy woodpecker) that use snags smaller than 20” dbh for nesting, denning, resting, roosting or foraging, in both the small/medium as well as the larger tree structural classes. None of these species are closely associated with young stands containing snags ≤ 20”dbh. All either require or prefer large (≥20”) snags in the managed stands or stands of mature to late successional forest that are in close proximity to the young stands (Johnson et al. 2001). Stands containing snags up to 20” could provide habitat for these seven species with a low level of assurance (30% tolerance level) of potential use. None of the other species plotted on the 30% curve would be provided for and no species plotted on the 50% (moderate level of assurance) and 80% (high level of assurance) curves would be provided for when a stand only contains snags ≤ 20” dbh. There are no species known to be associated only with snags < 20” dbh.
3.2.5.1.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1 – No Action Considering the information discussed in the Deadwood Assessment (Appendix B, South Nestucca EA); along with the above information, there would be no change in the contribution of snags ≥20” dbh in the young managed stands in the near or long term. There would also be no change in the contribution of snags ≥20” dbh in natural stands. Suppression mortality in managed stands would develop snags ≥10” dbh. Thus managed stands would be expected to contain snags of a size that provides for 7 species at the 30% tolerance level at age 125. There is a low likelihood that other species would be provided for in plantations because the snags would be too small. Since there is no planned change in the amount of natural stands, they would continue to be the primary source for small and large size snags in the watershed and provide for all the species evaluated across all tolerance intervals.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Considering the information discussed in the Deadwood Assessment (Appendix B, South Nestucca EA); along with the above information, residual trees in thinned stands would grow to a size ≥20” dbh. While suppression mortality would not provide snags in thinned stands, non-suppression mortality (i.e. insects, disease, wind events snapping tree tops) would develop snags. Thus thinned stands would develop snags of a size that provides for all the species evaluated at the 30% tolerance level and three of the species at the 50% tolerance level. Since there is no planned change in the amount of natural stands, they would continue to be the primary source for small and large size snags in the watershed and provide for all the species evaluated across all tolerance intervals.
Figure 11-Figure 17 are similar to the cumulative species curves in DecAID. Measurements are in inches and acres rather than centimeters and hectares.
67 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
14
12 CBCH CBCH SCNB RBSA SCNB CBCH 10 PIWO RBSA PCE SCNB PCE BRCR 8 CNB CNB RBSA NOFL PIWO RBNU 6 PCE RBNU CNB HAWO NOFL PIWO 4 RBNU BRCR NOFL 30% tolerance level BRCR HAWO NFSQ 50% tolerance level 2 NFSQ NFSQ HAWO NPOW NPOW NPOW 80% tolerance level Cumulative species or groups 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Snag dbh (in)
Figure 11. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for nesting or denning in relation to snag size for 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest (Oregon Coast), Small/medium Trees Structural Condition Class.
14
12 CBCH CBCH SCNB RBSA SCNB CBCH 10 PIWO RBSA PCE SCNB PCE BRCR 8 CNB CNB RBSA NOFL PIWO RBNU 6 PCE RBNU CNB NFSQ BRCR NFSQ 4 HAWO NOFL PIWO 30% tolerance level RBNU NFSQ NOFL 50% tolerance level 2 BRCR HAWO HAWO NPOW NPOW NPOW 80% tolerance level Cumulative species or groups species Cumulative 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Snag dbh (in)
Figure 12. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for nesting or denning in relation to snag size for 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest (Oregon Coast), Larger Trees Structural Condition Class.
68
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
5 30% tolerance level 4 50% tolerance PIWO level PIWO PIWO 80% tolerance level 3 BBBA BBBA BBBA
2 LLMY LLMY LLMY
1 LEMY LEMY LEMY
Cumulative species or groups species Cumulative 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Snag dbh (in)
Figure 13. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for resting and roosting in relation to snag size for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type (Oregon Coast), Small/Medium Tree and Larger Trees Structural Condition Classes.
3
2 PIWO HAWO HAWO
30% tolerance level 1 HAWO PIWO PIWO 50% tolerance level
80% tolerance level
Cumulative species or groups species Cumulative 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Snag dbh (in)
Figure 14. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for foraging in relation to snag size for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type (Oregon Coast), Small/Medium Tree Structural Condition Class.
69 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
4
3 NOFL 30% tolerance level 50% tolerance 2 level PIWO 80% tolerance level PIWO PIWO 1 HAWO
Cumulative species or groups species Cumulative 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Snag dbh (in)
Figure 15. Cumulative species curves for snag/tree dbh (in) used for foraging in relation to snag size for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type (Oregon Coast), Larger Tree Structural Condition Class.
3.2.5.2. Snag Density Based on the available information on species use of snags relative to snag density, DecAID’s cumulative species curves documents four species use of snags ≥10” dbh for nesting, roosting or occurrence, and five species use of snags ≥20” dbh at the 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels (Figure 16 and Figure 17).
5
CNB 4 CNB CNB
3 BTWR BTWR BTWR
2 30% tolerance NFSQ NFSQ NFSQ level 50% tolerance level 1 DOSQ DOSQ DOSQ 80% tolerance level
Cumulative species or groups species Cumulative 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Snag Density (#/ac); snags ≥ 10 in dbh
Figure 16. Cumulative species curves for density (#/ac) of snags ≥ 10 in dbh: species use of areas for nesting, roosting and occurrence with documented snag densities for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type for the Small/medium and Larger Structural condition Classes.
70
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
7
6 PIWO* PIWO* PIWO* 5 PIWO CNB LLMY 4 CNB * PIWO from CNB PIWO foragingsites 3 BBBA LLMY BBBA 30% tolerance level 2 LLMY BBBA LEMY 50% tolerance level 1 LEMY 80% tolerance LEMY PIWO level
Cumulative species or groups species Cumulative 0 0 5 10 15 20 Snag Density (#/ac); ≥ 20 in dbh
Figure 17. Cumulative species curves for density (#/ac) of snags ≥ 20 in dbh: species use of areas for nesting, roosting and occurrence with documented snag densities for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type for the Small/medium and Larger Structural condition Class.
In the Small/medium structural class for snags ≥10” dbh (Figure 18), the percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that has no measurable snag density is 12% or 9% less than reference conditions (21%). The percentage of the watershed that provides for the 0-30% tolerance interval is 17 (DecAID Reference 9%). The percentage of the watershed that provides for the 30-50% tolerance interval is 31 (DecAID Reference 20%). The percentage of the landscape that provides for the 50-80% tolerance interval is less than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 30%-Current 25%). The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provides for the species at the 80% tolerance level is less than reference (DecAID Reference 20%-Current 15%), reflecting a lack of large snags due to harvest.
Integrating wildlife utilization data with the availability of snags relative to density in the Small/medium structural class, about 31% of the Nestucca River watershed has snags (≥10” dbh) with a density that could provide for all four species at the 30% tolerance interval (Figure 16, Figure 18). Three of the four species are provided for at the 50% tolerance interval on about 25% of the landscape. About 15% of the landscape could provide for the four species at the 80% tolerance intervals.
71 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
35 DecAID 31 30 30 Reference Nestucca River 25
25 21 20 20 20 17 15 15 12 Percent of Area 10 9
5
0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0 Snags/Acre 0-2 Snags/Acre 2-6.5 Snags/Acre 6.5-16.7 Snags/Acre >16.7 Snags/Acre Tolerance Interval
Figure 18. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥10 in.
In the Small/medium structural class for snags ≥20” dbh (Figure 19), the percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that has no measurable snag density is less than the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 29%-Current 21%). The percentage of the watershed that has 0-1.1 snags per acre (0-30% tolerance interval) is 18%; the DecAID Reference is 1%. The percentage of the landscape that currently provides for the 30-50% tolerance interval is less than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20%- Current 14%). The percentage of the watershed that has 2.1- 9.7 snags per acre is 38% (DecAID Reference 30%). The percentage of the Salmon watershed that provides for the species at ≥80% tolerance intervals is less than the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20%-Current 9%), reflecting a lack of large snags in managed stands.
Integrating wildlife utilization data with the availability of snags ≥20” dbh relative to density in the Small/medium structural class, about 14% of the Nestucca River watershed has snags with a density that provides for 2 of the five species at the 30% tolerance intervals (Figure 17, Figure 19). On about 38% of the Nestucca River watershed, three species from the 30% tolerance interval are provided for and all five species are provided for at the 50% tolerance interval. Approximately 9% of the Nestucca River watershed could provide for one species at the 50% tolerance interval and all five species at the 80% tolerance interval.
72
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
38 40 DecAID Reference 35 Nestucca River 29 30 30
25 21 20 20 20 18 14 15
Percent of Percent of Area 9 10 5 1 0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0 Snags/Acre 0-1.1 Snags/Acre 1.1-2.1 Snags/Acre 2.1-9.7 Snags/Acre >9.7 Snags/Acre Tolerance Interval
Figure 19. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥20 in.
In the Large structural class (natural stands) for snags ≥10” dbh (Figure 20), the percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that has no measurable snag density is 2% of the landscape or 2% more than reference conditions. There is a higher percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provides less than 8 snags per acre than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 30%-Current 34%). Currently there is a smaller percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provides snag densities at the 30 to 50% tolerance interval than found in the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20%- Current 15%). The percentage of the watershed that provides for the 50-80% tolerance interval currently is higher than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 30%-Current 37%). The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provides for the species at the 80% tolerance level is lower than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20%-Current 11%).
Integrating wildlife utilization data with the availability of snags relative to density in the Large structural class, about 15% of the Nestucca River watershed has snags (≥10” dbh) with a density that could provide for all of the four species at the 30% tolerance level and three of the four species at the 50% tolerance level (Figure 16, Figure 20). One of the four species at the 50% tolerance level and three of the four species at the 80% tolerance level are provided for on about 37% of the Nestucca River watershed. About 11% of the Nestucca River watershed could provide for all four species at the 80% tolerance level.
73 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
40 37 DecAID 34 35 Reference 30 30 30
25 20 20 20 15 15
Percent of Percent of Area 11 10
5 2 0 0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0 Snags/Acre 0-8 Snags/Acre 8-13.3 Snags/Acre 13.3-29 Snags/Acre >29 Snags/Acre Tolerance Interval
Figure 20. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Larger Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥10 in.
In the Large structural class, the percentage of the Nestucca River River watershed that has no measurable snag density for snags ≥20” dbh, slightly less than the reference conditions (Figure 21, DecAID Reference 4%-Current 3%). The percentage of the watershed that currently provides for the 0-30% tolerance interval is higher than the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 26%-Current 37%). The percentage of the watershed that provides for the 30-50% tolerance interval is less than the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20%-Current 15%). The percentage of the landscape that provides for the species at the 50-80% tolerance interval equal to the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 30%- Current 30%). The percentage of the watershed that provides for the 80% tolerance level is less than the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20%-Current 15%).
Integrating wildlife utilization data with the availability of snags relative to density in the Large structural class, about 15% of the Nestucca River watershed has snags (≥20” dbh) with a density that could provide for all five species at the 30% tolerance interval and three of the five species at the 50% tolerance interval (Figure 17, Figure 21). One species at the 30% tolerance interval, all five species at the 50% tolerance interval and three of the five species at the 80% tolerance interval are provided for on about 30% of the Nestucca River watershed. About 15% of the Nestucca River watershed could provide for the five species at the 80% tolerance intervals.
74
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
40 37 DecAID Reference 35 30 30 Nestucca River 30
26 25 20 20 20 15 15 15 Percent of Percent of Area 10 4 5 3
0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0 Snags/Acre 0-4 Snags/Acre 4-6.8 Snags/Acre 6.8-11.9 Snags/Acre >11.9 Snags/Acre Tolerance Interval
Figure 21. Distribution of snag density in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Larger Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for snags ≥20 in.
3.2.5.3. Effects on Snag Size and Density
3.2.5.3.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1 – No Action Considering the information discussed in the Deadwood Assessment (Appendix B, South Nestucca EA); except for snags considered danger trees along key forest roads, there would be no change in the current amount or recruitment rate (about 1 every 2 years at 200 trees per acre) of snags greater than 10” dbh in managed stands. Thus the average number of snags per acre greater than 10” dbh would be about 7 per acre in 16 years with no snags greater than 20” dbh expected.
At the expected snag size in managed stands this would provide for 7 of the 12 species identified at the 30% tolerance level for snag size (Figure 11, Figure 13, Figure 14) in the short term or at age 125. None of the other species plotted on the 30% curve would be provided for and no species plotted on the 50% (moderate level of assurance) and 80% (high level of assurance) curves would be provided for when a stand only contains snags ≤ 20” dbh (Figure 11, Figure 13, Figure 14).
There would be no change in the current amount or recruitment rate of snags, ≥10” dbh or ≥20” dbh in natural stands, except for snags considered danger trees along key forest roads. Based on the current natural stand condition data (Appendix B, South Nestucca EA), the natural stands contain a range of snag sizes ≥20” dbh to provide for all the species at the 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels (Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 15). Thus natural stands would continue to be the primary source for small and large size snags in the watershed and provide for all the species evaluated across all tolerance intervals.
Considering that few, if any trees, ≥20” dbh were retained in regeneration units and that trees ≥20” dbh from the current cohort of trees would be the most dominant in the stand and therefore least likely to succumb from suppression mortality, the recruitment of snags ≥20” dbh is not likely to occur at a level
75 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
that would change the current distribution of snags ≥20” dbh in the small/medium structural class until the structural class has grown to an average size that would classify it in the large structural class.
Until a larger scale event such as a major wind storm, insect outbreak or large scale fire occurs; snag densities in natural stands across the Nestucca River watershed are not expected to change from the existing conditions. Thus the distributions of snag densities across the landscape by tolerance levels are not expected to change the Large structural class (Figure 20, Figure 21).
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Snag Size Considering the information discussed in the Deadwood Assessment (Appendix B, South Nestucca EA); along with the above information, and the current size of trees in managed stands there would be no change in the number of snags in managed stands greater than 20” dbh in the short term (16 years). The majority of the residual trees are expected be ≥20” dbh by age 80.
Thus snags created in managed stands as part of this project would provide for 7 of the 15 species identified at the 30% tolerance level for snag size (Figure 11, Figure 13, Figure 14). The remaining 8 species would not be provided for at the 30% tolerance level and none of the species would be provided for at the 50% or 80% tolerance levels in managed stands. In the longer term (80-125 years), suppression mortality would not provide snags in thinned stands, however non-suppression mortality (i.e. insects, disease, wind events snapping tree tops) would develop snags. Thus thinned stands would develop snags of a size that provides for all the species evaluated at the 30% tolerance level and three of the species at the 50% tolerance level.
Since there is no planned change in the amount of natural stands, they would continue to be the primary source for small and large size snags in the watershed and provide for all the species evaluated across all tolerance intervals. Based on the design criteria to select trees in natural stands that are 30-50” dbh to mitigate for the loss of large snags in plantations, creating some snags in natural stands adjacent to young thinned stands would provide for all species nesting, denning and foraging at the 30% and 50% tolerance levels (Figure 12, Figure 15). This size range would provide snags for potential resting and roosting for all four species at the 30% tolerance level and three of four species at the 50% tolerance level (Figure 13). These sizes would provide potential nesting for 8 of 12 species at the 80% tolerance level; potential resting and roosting for 1 of 4 species at the 80% tolerance level; and potential foraging for the one species reported at the 80% tolerance level (Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 15).
The managed stands evaluated for commercial thinning in the South Nestucca project represent less than 25% of the small/medium structure class administered by the Siuslaw National Forest in the Nestucca River watershed. The creation of snags post thinning would add to the 7 snags expected to develop naturally in thinned stands over the next 16 years. Due to the small percentage of managed stands considered for treatment in the watershed, the addition of snags in these stands above what would be created naturally is not expected to appreciably change the distribution of snag density in the Nestucca River watershed across the tolerance intervals.
Snag Density Though some large snags would be created in adjacent unmanaged stands, the scale is too small to influence snag density in the Large structural class in the Nestucca River watershed. Thus distributions of snag densities across the landscape by tolerance levels are not expected to measurably change (Figure 20, Figure 21) in Large structural classes until a larger scale event such as a major wind storm, insect outbreak or large scale fire occurs
76
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.2.5.3.2. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects because the proposed action would not measurably affect snag size or density in the project area.
3.2.5.4. Downed Wood Summarizing the available literature on species use of downed wood by size, DecAID’s cumulative species curves (Figure 22, Figure 24) identifies 17 species that use downed wood ≥4” for foraging and occupancy at the 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels. The cumulative species curves for the Small/medium and Large structural condition class are the same. Table 14 displays the average or individual piece size required to provide for all 17 species at each tolerance level.
16 PWSH PGSA PGSA 14 PGSA BTWR BTWR 30% tolerance BTWR ERMI level PWSH 12 CLSA TOVO PJMO 50% tolerance TOVO CLSA TOVO 10 level WSSK WWSK CLSA NFSQ PJMO 80% tolerance PWSH 8 WRSA WRSA NFSQ level SHMO FDSQ SHMO 6 NWSA SHMO ENSA VASH ENSA VASH 4 EMSA NWSA NWSA PJMO VASH WSSK 2 DOSQ ERMI WRSA Cumulative species or species or Cumulative groups ERMI DOSQ DOSQ 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Average down wood diameter (in)
Figure 22. Cumulative species curves for down wood diameter (in) used at foraging sites and occupied sites in relation to average down wood size for 30%, 50%, 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer- hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium and Large tree Structural Condition Class.
8
30% tolerance level 6 WIWR WIWR WIWR ENSA HAWO HAWO 4 CLSA CLSA CLSA WRSA WRSA WRSA HAWO ENSA 2 PIWO PIWO PIWO ENSA Cumulative species or species or Cumulative groups 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Individual down wood diameter (in)
Figure 23. Cumulative species curves for down wood diameter (in) used at foraging sites and occupied sites in relation to individual down wood size for 30%, 50%, 80%, tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer-hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type; Small/medium and Large trees Structural Condition Class.
77 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Table 14. Down wood diameter required to provide for all species evaluated by tolerance level. 30% Tolerance 50% Tolerance 80% Tolerance Unit Level Level Level Average Size ≥9.3” ≥12.6” ≥17.3” Single Piece ≥22.2” ≥34.4” ≥51.7”
Based on the available silvicultural information, the majority of the stands evaluated for commercial thinning have average tree sizes that potentially could meet the documented down wood sizes used by species at the 30 and 50% tolerance levels. The majority of these stands could potentially meet the sizes documented for 8 of the 15 species at the 80% tolerance level. The stands likely contain individual trees of a size that meet the needs for 4 of the 6 species at the 30% and 3 of the 6 at the 50%. None are likely to meet the documented sizes at the 80% tolerance level. Recruitment of downed wood through suppression mortality is most likely going to result in the smaller trees (≤10”) in the stand, which would only provide for species at the 30% tolerance level. Recruitment of downed wood through windthrow or disease (i.e. laminated root rot) may occur at any size class in the stand. The natural stands provide the full range of down wood sizes used by wildlife. Primary recruitment is the result either of snag decay, windthrow or disease (i.e. laminated root rot) causing root failure.
Summarizing the available literature on species use of downed wood by percent cover, DecAID’s cumulative species curves (Figure 24 and Figure 25) identify 23 species that use downed wood ≥4” for foraging and occupancy at the 30%, 50% and 80% tolerance levels.
24 CLSA NFSQ NFSQ 22 ENSA WRSA WRSA PWSH PGSA PGSA 20 NFSQ TOCH TOCH WSSK PWSH PJMO 18 WRSA PJMO BTWR PJMO WSSK PWSH 16 NWSA BTWR WSSK TOCH ENSA SEMI 14 DOSQ ENSA * Class 4 and 5 SHMO CLSA CLSA down wood only ERMI 12 PGSA ** minimum size SHMO SHMO WRBV WRBV VASH measured = 7 in 10 TRSH VASH WRBV vs 4 in for other Cumulative species species Cumulative PIWO** PASH species 8 PASH TRSH FOSH PASH FOSH DEMO FOSH 6 DEMO VASH TRSH DEMO NWSA DOSQ 4 TOVO 30% tolerance level SPOW* DOSQ NSWA 50% tolerance level ERMI TOVO TOVO 2 PIWO** 80% tolerance level PIWO** BTWR SPOW* SPOW* 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Down wood percent cover
Figure 24. Cumulative species curves for percent cover of down wood (≥4 in diameter) in areas used for foraging or at occupied sites for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland Conifer- hardwood forest wildlife Habitat Type and Small/Medium trees Structural Condition Class.
78
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
24 WRBV*** WRBV*** WRSA 22 CLSA WRSA PGSA PWSH PGSA WRBV*** 20 NFSQ PWSH PJMO WSSK PJMO BTWR 18 WRSA WSSK PWSH PJMO BTWR WSSK 16 NWSA CLSA ERMI DOSQ ERMI NFSQ * Class 4 and 5 14 SHMO CLSA NFSQ wood only PGSA SHMO SHMO ** minimum size 12 PGSA ENSA VASH measured = 7 in WRBV WRBV ENSA 10 TRSH vs 4 in for other
Cumulative species species Cumulative VASH WRBV species PIWO* PASH 8 PASH TRSH *** Class 3-5 FOSH PASH FOSH DEMO FOSH 6 DEMO VASH TRSH DEMO NWSA DOSQ 30% tolerance level 4 TOVO SPOW* DOSQ NSWA 50% tolerance level ERMI TOVO TOVO 2 PIWO** 80% tolerance level BTWR PIWO** SPOW* SPOW* 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Down wood percent cover
Figure 25. Cumulative species curve for percent cover of down wood (≥4 in diameter) in areas used for foraging or at occupied sites for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels in the Westside Lowland conifer- Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Larger Trees Structural Condition Class.
In the Small/medium structural class for down wood ≥5” (Figure 26), the percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that has no measurable down wood is similar to reference conditions (DecAid Reference 5%-Nestucca River 4%). Current conditions reflect a greater percentage of the watershed in the 0-30% (DecAID Reference 25% Nestucca River 38%) and 30-50% tolerance intervals (DecAID Reference 20% Nestucca River 23%) than the DecAID Reference. The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provided for species at the 50-80% tolerance level is less than the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 30% Nestucca River 26%). The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provided for species at the 80% tolerance level is less than the reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20%-Nestucca River 9%). The largest amount of downed wood measured in the watershed is 14.6% ground cover.
79 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
50 DecAid 45 Ref 40 38
35 30 30 25 26 23 25 20 20 20
Percent of Percent of Area 15 9 10 5 4 5 0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0% Ground Cover 0-2.9 % Ground 2.9-5% Ground 5-9.4% Ground >9.4% Ground Cover Cover Cover Cover Tolerance Interval
Figure 26. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥5 in.
Integrating wildlife utilization data with the percent cover of down wood in the Small/medium structural class, about 23% of the Nestucca River watershed has down wood (≥5”) that could provide for all 23 species at the 30% tolerance level and 3 of 23 species at the 50% tolerance level (Figure 24, Figure 26). About 26% of the landscape provides for 21 of the 23 species at the 50% tolerance level and 4 of the 23 species at the 80% tolerance level. About 9% of the landscape could provide for 19 of the 23 species at the 80% tolerance level when there is more than 9.4% ground cover.
In the Large structural class for down wood ≥5” (Figure 27), the percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that has no measurable down wood is less than reference conditions (DecAid Reference 2%- Nestucca River 0%). Current conditions reflect a greater percentage of the watershed in the 0-30% tolerance interval than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 28%-Nestucca River 38%). The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provides for species at the 30-50% tolerance interval is higher than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20% Nestucca River 27%). The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provides for species at the 50-80% tolerance interval is slightly lower than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 30% Nestucca River 29%). The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provided for species at the 80% tolerance level is less than reference conditions (DecAID Reference 20% Nestucca River 6%). The largest amount of downed wood measured in the watershed is 16.6% ground cover.
80
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Decaid Ref 50 Nestucca River 38 40
30 29 30 28 27 20 20 20 Percent of Percent of Area
10 6 2 0 0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0% Ground Cover 0-2.9 % Ground 2.9-4.9% Ground 4.9-10% Ground >10% Ground Cover Cover Cover Cover Tolerance Interval
Figure 27. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Large Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥5 in.
Integrating wildlife utilization data with the percent cover of down wood in the Large structural class, about 27% of the Nestucca River watershed has down wood (≥5”) that could provide for 22 of 23 species at the 30% tolerance level and 3 of 23 species at the 50% tolerance level (Figure 25, Figure 27). About 27% of the landscape provides for 1 species at the 30% tolerance level, 22 of the 23 species at the 50% tolerance level and 5 of the 23 species at the 80% tolerance level. About 6% of the landscape could provide for 17 of the 23 species at the 80% tolerance level when there is more than 10% ground cover.
In the Small/medium structural class for down wood ≥20” (Figure 28), the percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that has no measurable down wood is less than the reference conditions (DecAid Reference 24%-Nestucca River 17%). Current conditions reflect a greater percentage of the watershed in the 0-30% (DecAID Reference 6% Nestucca River 23%) and 30-50% tolerance intervals (DecAID Reference 20% Nestucca River 25%) than the DecAID Reference. The percentage of the Nestucca River watershed that provided for species is less than the reference conditions at the 50-80% tolerance level (DecAID Reference 30% Nestucca River 27%) and at the 80% tolerance level (DecAID Reference 20%- Nestucca River 8%).
81 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
35 Decaid Ref 30 30 27 Nestucca river 25 24 25 23 20 20 20 17
15
Percent of Percent of Area 10 8 6 5
0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0 Snags/Acre 0-1.3 % Ground 1.3-3.1% Ground 3.1-7.3% Ground >7.3% Ground Cover Cover Cover Cover Tolerance Interval
Figure 28. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Small/medium Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥20 in.
35 32 Decaid Ref 30 30 Nestucca River 25 25 21 20 20 20 20 14 15 12
Percent of Percent of Area 10 5 5
0 0 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% >80% 0 Snags/Acre 0-1.1 % Ground 1.1-2.0% Ground 2.0-5.3% Ground >5.3% Ground Cover Cover Cover Cover Tolerance Interval
Figure 29. Distribution of down wood in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Wildlife Habitat Type and Large Structural Condition Class for the Nestucca River Watershed within tolerance intervals for down wood ≥20 in.
3.2.5.4.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1 – No Action There would be no change in the current amount or recruitment rate of down wood greater than 5” diameter in plantations. Considering the diameter of the trees in plantations, even though suppressed trees
82
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
would most likely be recruited they would be of a size that would provide for all the species at the 30% tolerance level and most of the species at the 50% tolerance level.
The recruitment of about 7 trees per acre over the next 16 years would add about 0.5% ground cover (based on percent of an acre covered by a fallen 10”dbh Douglas fir) in plantations. Considering the existing distribution of down wood, a 0.5% increase in down wood has little influence on changing the current distribution of down wood ≥5” across the landscape (Figure 26).
Considering there are few if any trees > 20’ diameter in plantations, the current distribution of down wood >20” is not expected to change in the short term (16 years). Even though suppression mortality is expected to occur in unthinned stands, modeling conducted as detailed in Appendix B indicates that even at 125 years of age no snags were greater than 19 inches DBH that could be recruited as down wood.
Until an event such as a windstorm, disease epidemic or large fire occurs, no change in the current amount or recruitment rate of down wood greater than 5” or 20” diameter in natural stands is expected. Thus the current distribution of down wood is not expected to change in natural stands.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The proposed silvicultural treatment, commercial thinning (including temporary road construction) would leave residual stocking levels that exceed the small tree levels found in natural stands and average greater than 12” dbh. Considering the size of the trees in the managed stands and that the proposed activities do not involve removing any existing down wood, there would be no change in the amount of down wood greater than 20” diameter in the short term. Prescriptions for treatments in stands include the creation of snags and down wood post thinning. The trees selected for down wood creation range between 12” and 20” dbh. Selecting trees in these size classes provides for all the species at the 30% tolerance level including individual down pieces; all the species at the 50% tolerance level for stand average, and five of the seven species identified with individual pieces; all the species at the 80% tolerance level for stand average, and one of the seven species identified with individual pieces.
In addition to the existing percentage of down wood ground cover in managed stands, about 0.6% (based on percent of an acre covered by a felled 15”dbh Douglas fir) would be created along with the natural development of 0.5% ground cover through natural mortality over the next 16 years. Considering the existing distribution of down wood, a 1.1% increase in down wood has a slightly greater, but still small influence on changing the current distribution of down wood ≥5” across the landscape.
Considering that trees greater than 20” inches in plantations are few in number, and typically are the most dominant trees on site, barring mortality associated with windthrow or disease, few if any trees > than 20” are expected to be recruited as down wood in plantations. Thus the distribution of down wood ≥20” is not expected to change in managed stands in the short term. In the long term (80-125 years) tree mortality at lower stand densities is a result of other causes such as disease, insects, or wind effects. Increased diameter growth through thinning provides the opportunity for mortality in the 20 inch and greater diameter which would result in an increase in down wood ≥20” over time (Appendix B).
Until an event such as a windstorm, disease epidemic, or large fire occurs, and because there is no proposal to fell trees in natural stands, no change in the current amount or recruitment rate of down wood greater than 5” or 20” diameter in natural stands is expected. Thus the current distribution of down wood is not expected to change in natural stands.
83 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.2.5.4.2. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects because there are no measurable direct or indirect effects to down wood distribution in natural stands and the proposed action is not expected to measurably alter the current distribution of down wood in managed and natural stands. 3.3. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (District Fish Biologist, USDA 2014c)
The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to fish species and their habitats are summarized in this section. Additional information is contained in the Fisheries Biological Evaluation (BE) for the project (USDA 2014c). The project area is located in watersheds currently providing habitat for the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch); a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Table 15) and considered a Management Indicator Species (MIS) by the US Forest Service. This analysis evaluates the effects that the project alternatives may have on these fish and their designated critical habitat, and also evaluates the effect of the alternatives on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as designated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and upon coastal Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), listed by the US Forest Service as Sensitive on the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (2011) and as a Species of Concern by NMFS (2004).
The Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) and the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) is ESA-listed as a Threatened, and the Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) is listed on the 2011 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List as Sensitive. None of these three species occur in the project area, and therefore project activities would have no effect on these species.
Table 15. Federally listed species, Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat in the Planning Area. Effect Listed Species or Habitat Status Determination
OR Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) ESA Listing Threatened No Effect Critical Habitat Designated No Effect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) n/a No Effect OR Coast Steelhead ESU mixed w/other Steelhead populations ESA Listing Concern No Effect Critical Habitat n/a No Effect EFH n/a No Effect
Table 16. South Nestucca Restoration Project Watersheds. USGS HUC NWFP Key HUC NAME Drainages CODE Watershed 4th Wilson/Trask/ 17100203 n/a Field Nestucca 5th Nestucca River 1710020302 Yes Field 6th Lower Nestucca 171002030209 George No Field River/Farmer Creek
84
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
USGS HUC NWFP Key HUC NAME Drainages CODE Watershed 6th Lower Nestucca 171002030210 Clear No Field River Cedar, Dorothy,Pollard, 6th Three Rivers 171002030208 Lawrence, No Field Woods, Crazy, Alder/Buck
3.3.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.3.1.1. Alternative 1 – No Action No action would maintain existing conditions, avoiding short-term adverse effects to aquatic species. No actions would be implemented to improve habitat conditions in the long term.
3.3.1.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Actions proposed by the South Nestucca Project have been designed to avoid short-term, adverse effects to aquatic species. Improved road drainage would occur immediately after project implementation, and thinning would accelerate future recruitment of large woody debris (LWD) to some non-coho bearing stream channels, providing additional or higher quality spawning and rearing habitat in the long term. Project design criteria (Appendix A) have been established to have no effect on ESA-listed threatened Oregon coast coho salmon and their critical habitat. The no effect design criteria are specific to the South Nestucca Project proposed actions and existing conditions and may not be appropriate in other locations.
No harvest buffers will be applied as described Appendix A: Project Design Criteria. A no harvest buffer of at least 15 feet and retention of at least one row of conifer along intermittent streams, and at least 30 feet and retention of at least two rows of conifer along perennial streams will be maintained when conifers are present (see Figure 30). Actual buffer widths will be determined by site conditions including vegetation, slope and soil stability, logging systems feasibility, and will frequently exceed the minimum distances (see Design Criteria in Appendix A). Openings 1/2 to one-acre in size would be created within the units to promote development of diverse stand characteristics and diverse under-story tree species. All openings will be at least 90 feet from any perennial stream channel and at least 150 feet from coho Listed Fish Habitat (LFH). None of the units proposed for thinning overlap coho salmon critical habitat.
3.3.1.2.1. Temperature
Environmental Baseline Perennial streams in the project area are typically densely shaded by shrubs and hardwood trees. Dense conifer stands adjacent to perennial streams are uncommon in this area. Pabst and Spies (1999) found that hardwoods make up 73% of basal area on floodplains, 80.5% on riparian terraces, and 41.7 % on the lower hill-slopes of riparian areas in natural stands. Hibbs and Bower (2001) demonstrate that in managed and unmanaged forests in the Oregon Coast Range that riparian conifers rarely grow on the flat surfaces of riparian terraces or floodplains; topography that instead is dominated by alders and shrubs. Nierenberg and Hibbs (2000) not only show an increasing abundance of hardwoods relative to conifers with decreasing distance to the stream, but also suggest a continual regeneration of alders in riparian areas following disturbances such as debris flows, landslides, hydraulic scouring and deposition, and floods.
85 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 30. South Nestucca stream buffers.
86
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
On the Oregon Coast, longitudinal patterns of stream temperature (~500 m reaches) in small streams are highly variable (Dent et al. 2008). They documented longitudinal patterns in maximum stream temperatures and found that some streams increased, some decreased, and some remained the same. Streams reaches can be cooled by conduction (Brown 1988), sediment deposits that allow cooling by hyporheic exchange, shade, and from colder inputs from groundwater and tributaries (Story et al. 2003; Johnson 2004).
None of the Lower Nestucca River and tributaries segment in the project area is currently listed as water quality impaired on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 303d list. However the mainstem Nestucca River, outside of the project area, is the only river segment currently listed as water quality impaired on the Oregon DEQ’s 303d list for dissolved oxygen.
Effects No riparian buffer thinning would occur in the project area. Yarding corridors and timber haul would have no potential to remove trees that provide shade to perennial streams and would not affect the stream temperature, and therefore would have no effect on this indicator.
Proximity – All skyline corridors would be outside of coho habitat and riparian buffers, and there would be no skyline corridors through LFH riparian areas.
Probability – Because the project would occur outside of coho habitat, it is expected to have no effect on stream temperature in the project area.
Summary Timber haul, thinning, road maintenance, and yarding corridors are expected to have No Effect on the stream temperature indicator.
3.3.1.3. Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, Stream Substrate
3.3.1.3.1. Environmental Baseline The primary mechanism for delivering sediment to stream channels on the Oregon coast involves mass wasting of hillsides (debris flows, landslides, soil creep), while surface erosion is relatively minor due to the dense vegetative cover (Hassan et al. 2005). Once sediment is delivered to stream channels, coarse- grained sediments typically deposit in the channel while fine-grained (clay, silts, and fine sands) sediment are often transported downstream as suspended sediment, depending on flow (Bilby 1985). Coarse- grained sediments are transported downstream as bedload during high flows. Channel characteristics, such as the amount of wood and floodplain connectivity, have a major influence on where introduced sediment is deposited.
Suspended sediment and turbidity are naturally occurring features of coho habitat in the South Nestucca area and the variability in annual suspended sediment yield is very high. In Oregon coastal streams, the highest turbidities usually occur during the first high flows in fall (Beschta 1980). Noggle (1978, as cited in Everest et al. 1987) demonstrated that coho salmon tolerance for suspended sediment was highest in fall when increased suspended sediment concentrations usually occur. Juvenile coho salmon acclimated to clear water (<0.3 NTU) and turbid water (2-15 NTU) did not exhibit significant sediment avoidance until turbidity reached 70 and 100 NTU, respectively (Bisson and Bilby 1982). A gradual increase in suspended sediment to produce a turbidity of 20 NTU did not alter behavior of coho salmon juveniles in laboratory streams (Berg and Northcote 1985).
87 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
The Alsea Watershed Study documented the effects of different logging methods on physical and biological characteristics of small Oregon coastal streams. They found that sediment yield increased significantly where road construction caused landslides and where clearcut logging, yarding and slash burning occurred without a stream channel buffer (Beschta & Jackson 2008). The initial increase in annual sediment yield was the greatest and then it slowly declined toward pretreatment levels during the next five years.
Road maintenance (ditch cleaning, culvert inlet cleaning, rock durability, etc.), road use and poor drainage design have all contributed to increase fine sediment inputs into coho habitat. Luce and Black (1999 and 2001) found that most road segments in the Oregon Coast Range produce very little sediment, but a few segments produced a large amount. They found that ditch cleaning created the largest increase in erosion from roads. They also found that sediment production from roads was proportional to the product of road segment length and the square of the slope. Aggregate quality (durability, % fines) has a major influence on the amount of fine sediment eroded from roads (Luce and Black 1999; Luce and Black 2001), as does the frequency of use (Bilby et al. 1989).
Sediment eroded from roads is delivered to one of several storage areas adjacent to the road, including the ditch, near the outlet of ditch relief culverts, on the shoulder of the road, in erosion control devices and in stream channels or floodplains when delivered to streams. Bilby et al. (1989) found that settling ponds can capture and store fine sediment transported in the ditch, specifically the larger particle sizes (>0.063 mm). Road maintenance every few years periodically removes sediment from the ditch, shoulder deposits and erosion control devices, and places it a stable location away from streams.
Most sediment inputs from roads are delivered to small, non-fish bearing streams (Bilby et al. 1989). Duncan et al. (1987) found that about half of the fine sediment (<2 mm) input into small streams was not transported more than about 400 feet downstream during high flows, but retained within the small streams particularly those with abundant wood. They found that transport distance was inversely related to particle size. Retention and sorting of sediment inputs from roads in small streams plays an important role in determining effects to fish and their habitat downstream.
The effect of sediment inputs from roads on spawning gravel composition in fish bearing channels in Washington was studied by Bilby (1985). He estimated that 21% of the annual suspended sediment load carried by the study stream was contributed from the road. Over 80% of the road sediment delivered to the stream, by weight, had a very small particle size (<0.004 mm). In contrast, more than 80% of the fine particle sizes in the spawning gravel ranged from 0.25 – 2.0 mm. Freeze core samples of streambed gravel upstream and downstream of the sediment inputs from the road found no significant difference (P<0.05) in the proportion of fine sediment, by weight, in the gravel. Bilby (1985) concluded that, in this case, road surface sediment was not making an appreciable contribution to the amount of sediment stored in the channel due to the small particle size of sediment inputs from the road. He noted that under different conditions, such as a steeper road segment, unvegetated ditch, or higher flow, larger particle sizes may be delivered to streams.
There is considerable variation in the proportion of fine sediments (<0.1mm) comprising streambeds within streams and between streams undisturbed by logging. Adams and Beschta (1980) found that the proportion of fines averaged 19% and ranged from 11-29%.
The proportion of fine sediment in spawning gravel beds is often reduced during periods of bedload movement (Adams & Beschta 1980) and when fish construct redds (Peterson & Quinn 1996).
The Nestucca Watershed Analysis, stream surveys and field reviews indicate that sand and silt may be slightly elevated from historic conditions in most sub-watersheds. No quantitative data exist on turbidity
88
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
for streams in the project area. The primary risk for sedimentation identified in the Watershed Analysis was the existing road system. All sub-watersheds are rated At Risk.
Effects Yarding, road construction and maintenance, and timber haul have causal mechanisms that may affect sediment delivery rates to streams within the planning area.
Yarding All units are at least 1,500 feet away from coho habitat and as a result, would have no effect on sediment delivery to Coho streams in the project area.
Skyline yarding would have one-end suspension of trees brought to landings. Under-story vegetation and tops and limbs that break during yarding from the harvested trees would remain in the units and buffer soil from impact. Thinning would remove the smallest trees in the units. Due to small tree size, existing vegetation, duff layer, and remaining limbs and tree tops, soil is protected from yarding impacts. In addition, due to the small tree size, generally whole trees are yarded to the landing. The limbs that remain on the trees tend to protect the ground from disturbance. Cable yarding corridors are narrow (10-15 feet wide), and soil is rarely disturbed if at all by the falling and removal of trees for thinning projects of this nature. No rutting occurs from yarding trees to the landings due to the small size of the timber, thick duff layer, under-story vegetation, and limbs and tops of trees yarded remaining on the ground in corridors.
Full suspension above all streams throughout the no harvest buffers is required and would prevent ground disturbance within these buffers. Corridors are narrow 10-15 feet wide areas. This corridor width is a common spacing found between conifer trees of this age in a natural stand.
Road Construction and Road Maintenance These activities require the exposure and compaction of soil, blasting and excavation of rock, and maintenance such as ditch cleaning, culvert cleaning, blading, and application of new aggregate surfacing, all possibly leading to increased delivery to streams.
The design criteria associated with culvert cleaning, new temporary roads, and reopening existing roads and rock pits would minimize the potential to increase soil erosion. New roads are contained within the units and the remainder of the stand, along with the no cut buffer, would serve as a filter area for any soil disturbed by construction activity. The reopening of existing roads would be done with the same criteria as the new construction. This would primarily involve brushing and scraping of accumulated organic duff and spot rocking. Where feasible, road and rock pit surface runoff would be disconnected from directly entering streams and ditch and perimeter vegetation would be left intact to act as a filter strip for road and pit-derived sediment. The new roads proposed are either short segments branching off of existing roads or short extensions of the existing road system along stable low gradient ridgetops. No culverts are needed for the new temporary roads as no drainages would be crossed. Re-opened rock pits are located on stable low gradient sites that are not hydrologically connected overland.
Ditch cleaning would occur where needed along all haul routes. Design criteria require retention of as much vegetation in the ditch as possible to ensure adequate sediment storage (filtration) in the ditch and prevent sediment from being delivered to stream channels. Additional erosion control devices would be installed where needed to prevent sediment from reaching stream channels.
Timber Haul The transport of logs from the project area has the potential to increase the movement of soil from road surfaces to streams.
89 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Proximity –The all-season aggregate haul route does not cross coho occupied or critical habitat (Figure 30). All haul routes are located further from coho habitat or are on asphalt paved roads or would be used in the dry season only (Figure 30).
Probability – The haul crossings are on a mixture of intermittent and perennial streams that have a moderate probability of being at a very low flow rate or dry during haul thus limiting sediment inputs that could reach coho habitat. Most crossings have at least a 100-foot wide vegetated filter strip between the road and stream channels that reduces the potential for haul sediment from reaching streams during winter haul. The aggregate haul route segments with close proximity to occupied Coho habitat (Alternative 2 Map) would receive priority maintenance of surfacing and would be subject to suspension of haul at the authorized discretion of Forest Service sale administrators in coordination with agency hydrologists, fish biologists, and road engineers. Pre-haul road maintenance would bring roads up to standards and minimize the off road transport of surfacing material. Monitoring during haul would ensure the cessation of activity if any erosion of road surfacing occurs, and ensure the installation of mitigation measures to quickly reduce erosion at these sites. The perennial and intermittent streams along the haul route are small streams with most containing abundant wood. Most streams also flow through the forest in a step pool fashion that is likely to store sediment before it reaches coho habitat. BMPs require utilization of measures to mitigate for any foreseeable impacts to water quality as a result of our actions. Sale administration personnel applying design criteria would stop haul when road conditions have the potential to input sediment into stream channels, especially in areas near LFH. With implementation of the PDCs, any sediment produced by these activities is expected to settle on the road shoulder or ditchline, or be entrained by woody material and vegetation on the forest floor prior to entering coho habitat. Considering the small drainage size of streams that have the potential to input sediment into coho habitat, combined with design criteria, contract administration, and the retentiveness of small streams (Duncan et al. 1987), inputs into Coho habitat are expected to have no effect upon LFH.
Summary Vegetated filter strips between yarding corridors and streams would prevent sediment inputs into stream channels, thus yarding would have No Effect on this indicator. Timber haul is expected to have No Effect on the suspended sediment, turbidity, and stream substrate indicator. Considering protective design criteria, road maintenance (ditch cleaning, blading, etc.) is an ongoing activity that is part of the environmental background, and the location of temporary roads and reopened roads, road maintenance would have No Effect on this indicator.
3.3.1.3.2. Chemical Contamination / Nutrients
Environmental Baseline There is agricultural and rural residential use in the lower part of these watersheds. The headwater areas within the action area are categorized as Properly Functioning, while the watershed as a whole would best be categorized as At Risk due to agricultural activities along the lower mainstem.
Effects Thinning, yarding, road activities, and haul utilize fuel-powered machinery and have a potential to cause negative effects if a fuel spill were to occur. There is the potential of contamination from these products.
Proximity – Hand power equipment would be used to fall, limb and buck trees selected for thinning, or for creation of yarding corridors. Dust abatement chemicals are not utilized with this project, but transport vehicles and support vehicles use diesel or gasoline. Project design criteria are provided for locating staging sites for refueling that would avoid contamination of streams or waterways.
90
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Probability – Road maintenance equipment also uses petroleum products, and these typically are refueled at service locations, away from streams. USFS timber administration personnel monitor equipment activity to ensure that BMP’s are properly implemented. Design criteria would prevent thinning, yarding, road activities, and haul from having an effect on this indicator.
Summary The likelihood that a fuel spill would occur is very low. Considering the design criteria that limits where refueling can occur, the likelihood of having a fuel spill affect coho or their habitat is much lower, thus the project would have No Effect on this indicator.
3.3.1.3.3. Physical Barriers
Environmental Baseline Barriers to fish passage at a range of flows exist within the watersheds as a whole and in LFH, and therefore would best be categorized as Not Properly Functioning due to fish passage barriers in the watersheds.
Effects Barriers to fish passage at a range of flows exist within the watersheds as a whole and in LFH, and therefore would best be categorized as Not Properly Functioning due to fish passage barriers in the watersheds. Road maintenance, Thinning, Yarding, and Haul have no casual mechanism to affect this indicator, thus the project would have No Effect on this indicator.
3.3.1.3.4. Large Woody Debris
Environmental Baseline Below is a summary of the environmental baseline describing how large wood affects coho habitat, the processes that recruit large wood to streams, and the effects that logging and other activities have on large wood recruitment to coho habitat.
The effect that wood has on coho habitat is related to the size of the piece of wood relative to the channel size and gradient. For example, a large piece of wood often forms and maintains pool and floodplain habitats for coho that persist for several years, while a small piece of wood in the same stream may not form any coho habitat. Rosenfeld and Huato (2003) studied the effects of wood in small coastal streams (4-37 ft. bank full width; 0.5-10.4% gradient) in British Columbia and found that large wood with a diameter of at least 24 inches formed pools 43% of the time, while pieces with a diameter of 6-12 inches only formed pools about 6% of the time.
Literature suggests that large pieces of wood affect coho habitat much more than small pieces. Large pieces form and maintain larger pools (Bilby and Ward 1989), store more sediment (Bilby and Ward 1989, Montgomery et al. 1996, May and Gresswell 2003), decay slower (Melillo et al. 1983, Naiman et al. 2002), and are more resistant to breakage and movement during high flows (Siuslaw NF wood movement data) than small pieces. Pieces that are large enough to resist movement and breakage on a scale of years to decades eventually accumulate several years of organic and inorganic material during high stream flows, creating some of the highest quality coho habitat on the Oregon Coast.
Field observations from the South Nestucca area are consistent with the literature that indicates that bank erosion, wind throw and landslides contribute most of the wood volume to streams with mortality being a relatively minor component. May and Gresswell (2003) documented that wind throw and landslides contributed 83-89% of wood recruited to NF Cherry Creek on the southern Oregon coast while natural
91 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
mortality contributed only 5%. Murphy and Koski (1989) found that 73% of wood inputs came from bank erosion and wind throw while only 23% came from natural mortality in Alaska. Lutz and Halpern (2006) found in Oregon Cascade plantations, similar in age to many South Nestucca stands, that although suppression mortality killed 2.5 times as many trees as mechanical processes (wind and snow), biomass lost to mechanical processes was nearly 4 times that lost to suppression. Suppression mortality typically kills the shortest, smallest diameter stems in the stand (Lutz and Halpern 2006; ORGANON model results) and they typically decompose as standing dead trees with periodic bole breakage migrating from the top down. Wind throw trees are much larger, and therefore, much more likely to reach and affect stream channels than suppression trees (Lutz and Halpern 2006); and field observation indicates wind throw trees are typically uprooted with most of their entire length available to be recruited to streams.
Tree height determines the distance from which wood is recruited into stream channels, excluding landslide areas. The probability of a tree being recruited into a stream channel decreases from approximately 50% at the channel edge to 0% when the distance from the stream is equal to tree height (Robinson and Beschta 1990). The majority of wood volume, pieces, and large pieces capable of forming high quality fish habitat originate disproportionately from the area closest to streams (McDade 1988). A 100 ft. tall by 15 inch diameter tree within 10 ft. of a stream could provide a 38 ft. by 8 inch top diameter piece of wood if it fell directly toward the creek, while that same tree 50 ft. from the stream could not provide any 8 inch diameter piece of wood but could provide a 28 ft. by 4 inch piece (Robinson and Beschta 1990).
In Alaska, 82% of the wood recruitment from old growth stands to streams was within 33 ft. of the channel, and 99% within 98 ft. (Murphy and Koski 1989). In western Oregon and Washington, McDade (1988) and McDade et al. (1990) documented that 61% of the wood recruitment from mature stands (mean tree height = 157 ft.) to streams originated within 33 ft. of the channel edge, and 97% within 98 ft. Considering average tree height of conifers in stands proposed for thinning in the South Nestucca Project is about 85 feet for the young managed stands, wood recruitment in this area would originate from much closer distances than described above. Average tree height of the offsite stands is larger, though these stands are at least 1,500 feet upstream of LFH and therefore are extremely unlikely to contribute wood to these streams.
A substantial proportion of the wood in the upper reaches of coho habitat originates from steep, debris flow prone tributaries that episodically deliver large volumes of wood, sediment and boulders to coho habitat (Reeves et al. 2003; May 2001; May & Gresswell 2003). Benda and Cundy (1990) found that debris flows can entrain 8 cubic meters of material (wood and sediment) per meter of headwater stream length they scour. Lancaster et al. (2003) found that debris flows have a smaller run out (they deposit sooner) if they contain abundant wood. May (1998) documented that the diameter distribution of wood in 53 debris flow deposits in the Siuslaw Basin was similar regardless of the age of the present day forest (i.e. clear-cut, young, mature). In addition, May (1998) found that wood diameters in debris flow deposits were typically much larger than the present day forest from where the debris flow originated, indicating that the wood in the debris flow deposits was recruited from a previous forest not the present day forest. May and Gresswell (2004) estimated debris flow recurrence intervals of 98-357 years in the Oregon Coast Range.
Wood plays a key role in trapping and storing sediment in debris flow channels. May and Gresswell (2003) investigated sediment storage in debris flow prone channels in the Oregon Coast Range and found that 73% of the sediment stored in the channels was stored directly upstream of wood. Large wood stored 59% of the sediment and small wood (pieces <8 inches in diameter by <6 ft. in length) stored 14%. May and Gresswell (2003) found that 37% of the wood pieces stored sediment. They also found that longer
92
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
pieces (>49 ft.) were only 22% of the total pieces of wood but they accounted for 78% of the total volume of wood.
A proportion of wood in coho habitat is also recruited by fluvial transport of wood during high flows from tributaries that do not contain coho. The probability of wood being transported downstream increases as channel size increases or wood piece size decreases. Fluvial transport of wood pieces downstream is uncommon in channels where piece length is greater than bank full channel width (Lienkaemper and Swanson 1987; Nakamura and Swanson 1993). In southeast Alaska, Martin and Benda (2001) estimated that in 10-16 ft. wide channel, there was a 90% probability that wood would be transported at least 164 ft. and a 10% probability that transport could exceed 984 ft. The majority of wood pieces transported downstream were shorter than bank full channel width.
In the project area a significant proportion of wood in coho habitat comes from hardwoods due to natural vegetation patterns on the Oregon Coast (Pabst and Spies 1999). Heimann (1988) looked at wood recruitment in the Oregon Coast Range and found that the majority of instream wood for 94 years following a major disturbance event (wildfire, clear-cut) came from hardwoods. Others have shown that red alder was a significant source of instream wood in second growth stands (Bilby and Ward 1991). Nierenberg and Hibbs (2000) not only show an increasing abundance of hardwoods relative to conifers with decreasing distance to the stream, but also suggest a continual regeneration of alders in riparian areas following disturbances such as debris flows, landslides, hydraulic scouring and deposition, and floods.
The substantial loss of large conifers in riparian areas over the last several decades is well documented in the South Nestucca area (Nestucca Watershed Analysis 1996) and throughout the Oregon Coast Range (IMST 1999; Kennedy and Spies 2004). The Nestucca Watershed Analysis, air photos, and field verification indicate that the abundance of small trees, like those proposed for thinning, within and adjacent to stands in the project area have increased in the last several decades as clear-cut logging has removed large diameter trees. Prior to conversion, riparian areas in these stands averaged about 34 conifer trees per acre >21 inch diameter at breast height (dbh) (Table 14-Hemlock Wet Sub-Series in USDA USDI 1998). These natural stands generally had more diverse tree species assemblages with more heterogeneous overstory, sub-canopy and under-story vegetation (Spies and Franklin 1991). Plantations were planted following clear-cut logging with the primary management goal at the time to maximize timber production. The clear cuts were usually planted with 300 to 700 Douglas-fir seedlings per acre, and were managed through a series of treatments to maximize timber production. The stands proposed for thinning are crowded, ranging from 111 to 371 (mean 239) conifer trees per acre. They are even-aged and single canopied. The trees have relatively small branches and crowns. The stands have little or no under- story vegetation. This conversion has substantially reduced the availability of large diameter trees and increased the availability of small diameter trees adjacent to stream channels. Removal of large diameter trees has increased the abundance of alder adjacent to streams that also function as a source of future small woody debris for streams.
Mid- and lower-slope roads reduce wood recruitment to coho habitat over large areas and for long periods of time (decades to centuries). Debris flows have been documented to deposit on valley bottom roads preventing the deposit from contributing wood to coho habitat. Most culverts are too small to allow large wood to be transported through them during high flows preventing recruitment into coho habitat.
The Oregon Coast Coho Assessment (ODFW 2005) documents that pool habitats are not significantly different than reference conditions throughout the ESU, although deep pools and large wood are significantly lower than reference conditions. The significant loss of large, deep pools in Pacific Northwest streams is well documented (McIntosh et al. 2000; FEMAT 1993). ODFW (2005) documents that winter habitat is the most limiting factor influencing coho production. On the Oregon coast, Nickelson et al. (1992) documented that dammed pools and alcoves had significantly higher densities of
93 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
juvenile coho than all other pool types in winter. Furthermore, they found that beaver ponds were significantly larger and deeper, and contained more coho at a higher density than the other dammed pools. Dammed pools and alcoves are formed by large channel obstructions, such as large wood (Nickelson 1992). Overwinter surveys on the Siuslaw National Forest have found that coho move into relatively large and deep pools to overwinter and are rarely found in small, shallow pools during winter (Chris Lorion, ODFW Research Biologist, personal communication).
The loss of large diameter trees in coho riparian areas are widely recognized as a major cause of salmonid habitat degradation (FEMAT 1993; PFMC 1999; IMST 1999; IMST 2002). Burnett and others (2007) identified that less than 10% of high intrinsic potential coho habitat contains large (20-30 inches Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD)) or very large trees (>30 inches QMD) in riparian areas. These large and very large trees are often responsible for creating the most complex stream habitat conditions (Abbe and Montgomery 1996). The NMFS Biological Review Team for Oregon Coast coho salmon (Stout et. al 2010) recognizes large wood as a key component to instream habitat complexity.
Four of the six primary constituent elements of coho critical habitat list large wood as a habitat feature that is essential to the conservation of Oregon Coast coho salmon. The lateral extent of designated critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon is the width of the stream channel defined by the ordinary high- water line, or bankfull elevation (73 FR 7816; February 11, 2008). The Analytical Process for Development of Biological Assessments for Consultation on Federal Actions Affecting Fish Proposed or Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (USDA et al. 2004), defines large wood as pieces >24” diameter and >50 ft. in length. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Anlauf et al. 2009) defines key pieces of large wood to be at least 24” in diameter and greater than 40 feet in length.
The Nestucca Watershed Analysis (1996) documents that the substantial reduction in large trees in the Project riparian areas was due to past logging and settlement activities and has had an adverse effect on salmonid habitat. The Nestucca Watershed Analysis recommends manipulating young vegetation to produce large trees for eventual recruitment into stream channels (p. 112).
Based on the Nestucca Watershed Analysis, stream survey data and field surveys, LWD is “Not Properly Functioning” for all watersheds. This is primarily due to past and present timber harvest, stream cleaning and agricultural activity. Stream surveys found that pieces of large wood (>24 inches in diameter) per stream mile ranged from none in Clarence and Smith Creeks to an average of 12 in Andy and Horn Creeks, which is far below the 80 pieces per mile required to be considered “Properly Functioning”. The condition is classified as Not Properly Functioning.
Effects Thinning and yarding may reduce the number of trees that can be recruited to stream channels. Timber haul and road maintenance have no causal mechanism to affect this indicator, therefore haul would have no effect on this indicator.
Proximity – Thinning would not occur within 1,000 feet from coho critical habitat, for this project (most units are much farther than 1,000 feet). Thinning would not occur within 75 feet of debris flow channels that have a moderate to high probability of delivering wood to coho habitat. Thinning would not occur within 75 feet of channels that have a high probability of transporting wood to coho habitat during high flows.
Probability – Thinning would occur where the probability of wood recruitment to coho habitat is very low. All skyline corridors are outside of coho habitat and thus would have No Effect on the indicator.
94
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Since there would be no loss of large wood to coho habitat in the short or long term, thinning would have no effect on this indicator.
The probability of wood pieces falling directly toward the creek from more than 100 feet is extremely unlikely, particularly suppression killed trees through a dense no thin buffer. Furthermore, recruitment of wood pieces from more than 100 feet from coho habitat having an effect on coho habitat is not expected considering <1% of the coho wood recruitment area would be affected; the area thinned has the lowest probability of recruiting wood to coho habitat; the high abundance of small pieces in the environmental baseline; the 100 foot no thin buffer for coho critical habitat; the relatively limited effect that small wood has on coho habitat in the project area; and thinning would maintain more residual TPA than natural stands that would provide a source of future large wood from beyond the 100 foot no thin buffer; thus thinning would have no effect on small wood pieces in coho habitat, pieces smaller than the indicator.
Reduction of wood recruitment to debris flow channels and fluvial transport channels as a result of thinning is not expected based on the rationale above. Furthermore, the probability of wood being transported from these channels into coho habitat and it having an effect on coho habitat is extremely low considering the environmental baseline. Thinning would have no effect on wood recruitment to coho habitat from debris flow prone channels and channels large enough to transport wood.
Summary Considering the proposed action, design criteria, and environmental baseline, thinning, yarding and road maintenance would have no effect on the indicator, and no effect on all wood recruitment that has the potential to affect coho salmon or their critical habitat.
3.3.1.3.5. Pools, Off Channel Habitat, Width to Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity
Environmental Baseline Pools Oregon Coast Coho Assessment (ODFW 2005) documents that overall pool habitat frequency in the South Nestucca subbasins is not significantly different than reference conditions throughout the ESU, although deep pools and large wood are significantly lower in number than reference conditions. This assessment documents that winter habitat is the most limiting factor influencing coho salmon production. On the Oregon coast, Nickelson et al. (1992) documented that dammed pools and alcoves had significantly higher densities of coho juveniles than all other pool types in winter. Furthermore, they found that beaver ponds were significantly larger and deeper, and contained more coho at a higher density than the other dammed pools. Dammed pools and alcoves are formed by large channel obstructions, such as large wood (Nickelson 1992). The Nestucca WA and stream surveys indicate that pool frequency and large pools are At Risk. The lack of large pools is primarily due to the lack of large wood that creates and maintains these habitats.
Off Channel Habitat and Refugia Stream surveys indicate that off channel habitat areas are At Risk. LWD serves a major role in the formation of off-channel habitat and refugia so the low abundance of LWD is probably one causative agent for the shortage.
W/D Ratio, Streambank Condition, and Floodplain Connectivity Stream surveys indicate that streambanks in the upper forested areas are vegetatively stabilized with little active erosion. The lower reaches are much less stable due to human impacts. The lack of LWD contributes to poor floodplain connectivity, especially in the lower reaches. The lack of LWD also impacts
95 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
the Width/Depth ratio, simplifying the stream system. All of these factors contribute to these indicators being At Risk for all sub-watersheds in the project area, especially in the lower reaches.
Effects The analysis of effects to Sediment/Substrate, and Woody Material indicators, above, shows that there would be no effects to these indicators. The analysis of effects to watershed indicators resulted in a conclusion that effects to these indicators would also not affect instream conditions. Since the condition of these aggregated indicators is largely dependent on effects to wood and sediment delivery rates, the project elements would have No Effect on this group of indicators in the short and long term.
Summary The project elements would have No Effect on these indicators.
3.3.1.3.6. Change in Peak Base / Flows
Environmental Baseline The analysis area is typical of the Oregon Coast Range in both climatic and hydrologic features. Temperatures are mild; winters are wet and the summers cool and mostly dry. Annual precipitation falls mostly between November and March and averages about 80 inches, increasing with elevation. There is little natural water storage, consequently stream flow responds quickly to rainfall and is notably higher in winter than summer. Most peak flows are produced from large, moderately intense winter storms that last several days. Subsurface flow is the dominant storm runoff mechanism from undisturbed forests. Overland flow rarely occurs on the undisturbed forest floor due to the high soil infiltration and permeability rates (Harr 1977).
Peak stream flow changes due to thinning are not well documented. Peak stream flow has been documented to increase in rain dominated areas when approximately 29-40% of the watershed area has been clearcut harvested (Grant et al. 2008). These changes in peak flows are most evident during peak flows with a recurrence interval of less than 1 year and in small watersheds (<2500 acres). Percent change in peak flow generally decreases with time after harvest (Jones 2000, Jones and Grant 1996, Thomas and Megahan 1998). Thinning should result in peak flow changes that are lower than those observed in response to clearcutting, and may be undetectable in some watersheds (Grant et al. 2008).
The action area has hydrologic characteristics that are likely altered, in comparison to natural, undisturbed conditions, and are considered to be At Risk.
Effects Tree cutting and road construction are the only project elements that have a causal mechanism that might affect flows, through changes in evapotranspiration as trees are cut, or through increased runoff due to new road construction and the associated compacted road surface. Haul would not affect vegetation or road drainage and thus would have No Effect on this indicator.
All the proposed treatment areas are within the rain-dominated zone with only transient snow accumulations. Thinning in the Project would be outside of riparian buffers for coho fish habitat. Thinning would have No Effect on this indicator.
Cable yarding corridors for thinnings of this nature do not result in disturbed soil. Compaction and/or rutting are not found in corridors used for the removal of small timber with one end suspension. As a result overland flow is not expected in these areas and impacts on peak flows are not anticipated as a result of cable yarding, thus it would have No Effect on this indicator.
96
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Temporary road construction consists of short, temporary pieces of new road and/or short extensions of existing roads on ridge tops. The new segments would not cross streams or drainages; thus, no drainage structures would be needed for any of these new segments of road and there would be no cutbanks. All new roads are located on ridge tops and have no hydrologic surface connection to stream channels, thus road construction would have No Effect on this indicator. Construction of the temporary road in Unit 302363 would utilize a culvert to avoid impacts to a wet area of ground, but the road would not cross a stream channel.
Summary Thinning, yarding and road construction would have No Effect on this indicator, individually and cumulatively.
3.3.1.3.7. Increase in Drainage Network
Environmental Baseline The action area is rated as At Risk due to past and current forest management activities, the existing road network and development in the lower reaches.
Effects Yarding and road activities are the only project elements that have a causal mechanism that might affect drainage network, through increased surface runoff due to the potential for compaction from yarding and new road construction. Thinning and haul would not affect the drainage network and thus would have No Effect on this indicator.
Temporary roads would increase total road mileage temporarily over the estimated 15-year implementation period. The reopened roads were already part of the baseline condition, and no change in the drainage network would be realized with opening the roads because all associated temporary culvert installations would maintain the existing drainage processes. New roads do not have any hydrologic surface connection, and are not located near streams, so the temporary increase in the drainage network should have no effect to the indicator. Yarding has the potential to increase compaction and change runoff characteristics, however, the small size of trees yarded, small amount of area impacted, its spatial and temporal dispersion, and distance from stream channels would result in no significant change in compaction and can therefore be determined to have no effect on the indicator. Reopened roads are already in place and would not affect this indicator. Temporary roads would be closed at the end of the project so the duration of any effect would be short lived.
Summary Both yarding and road construction were determined to have No Effect on this indicator.
3.3.1.3.8. Road Density & Location
Environmental Baseline The Nestucca WA indicates that most subwatersheds are Not Properly Functioning due to road density and/or stream adjacent roads. Road densities average less than 5 miles of road per square mile of US Forest Service land. With the Mt. Hebo Inventoried Roadless Area, road densities are relatively low in the Powder and Niagara Creek subwatersheds, though presence of some valley bottom roads poses a risk to streams in this area. Therefore, these subwatersheds are best characterized as At Risk for this indicator.
97 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Effects The temporary roads constructed for this project would temporarily increase the total miles of road in the watershed, however the change in road density is minor. The reopened roads were already part of the baseline condition and no change in road density would be realized with reopening the roads. Temporary roads would be decommissioned at the end of the project.
3.3.1.3.9. Disturbance History and Regime
Environmental Baseline All sub-watersheds have been impacted by past timber harvest and settlement activities. Due to the extensive forestry and settlement impacts along the Nestucca River mainstem and the forest related activities in the lower watershed areas, these indicators are At Risk.
Effects The extensive forest management has created large areas of early seral classes mixed among some remnant mature stands. Thinning of overcrowded plantations has the potential to accelerate the development of late-successional forest characteristics and create larger blocks of mature timber. Environmental disturbance would occur during this action, however it would be localized and short term. The project would create some temporary roads in the area that would have an impact during the implementation phase of the project, but would be removed when the project is completed. The effects would be predictable and should not initiate any catastrophic events or changes. All activities are designed by soils and hydrology specialists to avoid areas of slope instability. Changes to this indicator are expected to have No Effect on habitat indicators.
3.3.1.3.10. Riparian Reserves
Environmental Baseline The Nestucca WA, professional judgment, and stream survey data indicates that riparian reserves are At Risk. Agriculture and past timber harvest have substantially altered riparian reserves.
Effects The criteria for this indicator concern shade, LWD, habitat protection and connectivity, buffers or refugia for aquatic species, rangeland buffers, and species composition. The proposed action would not affect rangeland. Relevant to this proposed action, the following non-watershed condition indicators (non-WCI) are associated with the Riparian Reserve indicator criteria: Temperature, LWD, Off-channel Habitat, Floodplain Connectivity, and Refugia. A review of the individual indicator summaries for these non-WCI found that the proposed action would have No Effect to those indicators. While none of the non-WCI would address the percent natural vegetation, the proposed thinning would strive to develop a more natural mix of Douglas-fir, hemlock, cedar, and alder within the riparian reserve, although coho riparian areas would not be affected.
3.3.1.3.11. Primary Constituent Elements All aspects of Primary Constituent Elements for coho salmon critical habitat have been addressed in the preceding discussion except forage. Timber falling, yarding, road construction and haul all have the potential to affect coho forage primarily through increases in riparian solar insolation and sediment inputs to streams. However, timber falling and yarding would be at least 1,500 ft. from coho habitat and since there is no causal mechanism to affect forage, these elements would have No Effect on this indicator. Further, because road construction and maintenance and haul would have No Effect on the sediment indicator, these elements are expected to have no effect on the forage indicator.
98
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Summary Thinning, yarding, road construction and maintenance, and haul are expected to have No Effect on the forage indicator.
3.3.1.4. Direct Effects to ESA Listed Fish – Non Habitat Project Elements Thinning, yarding, road construction and maintenance, and haul would not have direct effects on coho individuals and thus these elements would have No Effect on this indicator.
3.3.2. ESA Effect Determination and Critical Habitat The analysis of potential effects to coho salmon using a habitat approach was discussed in detail in the previous sections. All indicators had a summary determination of No Effect (Table 17).
Table 17. Effects worksheet for the South Nestucca Restoration Project.* Temperature Turbidity-DO Chemical Barriers Substrate LWD Freq. Pool Pools Large Off-Channel Refugia Width/Depth Streambank Floodplain Flows Net. Drainage Road Density Disturbance Riparian Regime PCE - Forage Direct Effects Baseline
Wilson/Trask/ Nestucca R R R N R N R R R R R R R R R P R R R - -
Nestucca River R R R N R N R R R R R R R R R P R R R - - Lower Nestucca R R P N R N R R R R R R R R R N R R R - - River/Farmer Creek
Lower Nestucca River R R P N R N R R R R R R R R R R R R R - -
Three Rivers R R R N R N R R R R R R R R R R R R R - -
Ele me nt Summary
Thinning NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE ------
Yarding NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE ------
Haul NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE ------
Road Construction & NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE ------Maintenance Indicator Summary
Effect on Coho/CH NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
*P = Properly Functioning; N = Not Properly Functioning; R = At Risk; NE = No Effect.
99 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
The following dichotomous key was utilized to reach the appropriate ESA effect determination. Utilizing the indicator summaries from Table 17, the key provided an effect determination of No Effect to coho individuals and critical habitat, as shown in Table 18.
Table 18. Project effects determination key for species and critical habitat. 1) Do any of the indicators summaries have a positive or negative conclusion?
Yes - Go to 2 X No – No Effect 2) Are the indicator summary results only positive?
Yes – NLAA No – Go to 3 3) If any of the indicator summary results are negative, are the effects insignificant or discountable? Yes – NLAA No – LAA, fill out Adverse Effects Form
3.3.3. Aggregated Federal Effects The Siuslaw National Forest is planning culvert replacements on or in the vicinity of LFH within the South Nestucca Planning Area under separate NEPA analyses that would have effects on coho salmon and their habitat. Consultation for these activities would utilize the Fish Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington, ARBO II CY2013 Biological Opinion (NMFS Consultation Number: NWR-2013-9664, 2013).
We are not aware of any other proposed federal actions for which a Biological Assessment has been submitted contemporaneously with this BE for ESA consultation, which would affect the ESA action area for this project. All ongoing actions with potential adverse effects (where ESA consultation has been concluded), and effects of completed federal actions, are included in the environmental baseline for each indicator and have been considered in this analysis.
3.3.4. Endangered Species Act Cumulative Effects Endangered Species Act cumulative effects are the future effects of state, tribal, local, and private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area associated with the federal action. The private land in the South Nestucca area is primarily located downstream from the action area. It is expected that development and land use within and outside the project area by the state and private property owners would continue in the future in a manner similar to that of recent years. It is also expected that activities on these lands would comply with county, state, and federal laws and regulations.
3.3.5. EFH and Special Status Species Assessment When the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 was re-authorized in 1996, it directed Regional Fishery Management Councils to identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for commercial fish species of concern. The Forest Service updated the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List in 2008, documenting vertebrate and non-vertebrate species of concern found on Forest Service or Bureau
100
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
of Land Management land in Oregon or Washington. Effects analysis contained in the BE addresses potential effects to EFH and Special Status Species.
Regional Forester's Special Status Species Oregon Coast Steelhead of all life history stages can be found in the project area at various times. Steelhead utilize these watersheds for both spawning and juvenile rearing. In freshwater, steelhead need clean gravel for spawning, and cool temperatures. Ideal conditions are similar to those for coho, including off channel rearing habitat, and pools with complex LWD and the analysis conducted for coho salmon is sufficient for steelhead for those areas where the distributions of the two species overlap. Steelhead distribution extends upstream beyond coho distribution in several subwatersheds in the project area. Thinning associated with the Project would accelerate the development of large diameter trees in riparian areas and may result in a minor reduction in small wood recruitment to Steelhead habitat upstream of coho considering the larger no thin buffers. Project activities would not contribute to a loss of viability, or cause a significant trend toward listing under the ESA for either of these species.
Two species with EFH may be impacted by this project, coho salmon and Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon are distributed primarily in mainstem Nestucca River and its mainstem low gradient perennial tributaries (i.e. Three Rivers). Chinook use these reaches for spawning and early rearing. Juvenile Chinook generally migrate out of fresh water by June, and continue rearing in estuary areas over the summer. There is some overlap in freshwater areas and the analysis conducted for coho is sufficient for Chinook. The project would not adversely affect EFH for Chinook or coho salmon.
3.3.6. Management Indicator Species and Other Fish Species Management indicator species were selected because a change in their population, in response to management activities, is believed to represent changes in a larger group of species. Coho salmon were selected as a Management Indicator Species to be an ecological indicator, an indicator for fished species, and represent pool and low gradient stream habitat for the Siuslaw National Forest (FEIS 1990 pp III-67-68). The discussion above documents existing coho habitat conditions in the project area and any effects of the project on coho and their habitat. The documentation concluded that the Project would have “No Effect” on coho salmon or their critical habitat. Considering this, the proposed action would have No Effect on the Forest-wide viability of coho salmon in the Siuslaw National Forest. Other fish species, including resident and coastal cutthroat trout, chum salmon, Pacific and brook lamprey, and sculpin reside in project area streams. Project activities would not contribute to a loss of viability, or cause a significant trend toward listing under the ESA for any of these species.
3.3.7. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects on coho salmon or critical habitat since there are no direct or indirect effects form the proposed action. There are no cumulative effects on management indicator species or other fish species because there are no measurable direct or indirect effects from the proposed action. 3.4. Botanical Resources
3.4.1. Botanical Species (Forest Botanist; USDA 2014f)
101
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.4.1.1. Federally Listed Species No documented sites or suitable habitat exists in the project area for Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii), western lily (Lilium occidentalis) or Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana).
3.4.1.2. Sensitive Species The project area and proposed activities were evaluated regarding effects to proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species. At project initiation, there were three documented sensitive species in the project area. Elegant fawn lily (Erythronium elegans) was known to occur at 21 sites, and horsehair lichen (Bryoria subcana) and slender tube lichen (Hypogymnia duplicata) at one site each.
A pre-field review of the project determined that there is potential habitat for an additional sensitive vascular plant, Saddle Mt. bittercress (Cardamine pattersonii), 6 sensitive mosses (Andreaea schofieldiana, Bryum calobryoides, Encalypta brevicollis, E.brevipes, Iwatsukiella leucotricha, Tetraphis geniculata), 4 sensitive lichens (Leptogium cyanescens, Lobaria linita, Pseudocyphellaria mallota, Tholurna dissimilis), and 9 sensitive fungi species (Arcangeliella camphorata, Bridgeoporus nobillisimus, Cortinarius barlowensis, Phaeocollybia californica, Phaeocollybia gregaria, Phaeocollybia oregonensis, Pseudorhizina californica, Ramaria rubella var. blanda, Rhizopogon exiguous).
A field survey, designed to detect the presence of these species, with the exception of eight fungi, was conducted in forest plantation stands during November and December, 2012, May 2013, and March, April, and May, 2014. The survey did not include the fungi because positive identification requires fruiting bodies (mushrooms) that may not reliably appear each year, or fruit below- ground in the case of truffle species. A one-time survey cannot reliably determine species presence or absence for fungi that fruit above-ground, and searching for truffle species would involve removing soil, duff, and litter by raking the ground, creating large areas of unacceptable soil disturbance. Habitat was found within the project area for all eight, therefore they are assumed to be present.
The survey did not relocate the documented site for horsehair lichen. Elegant fawn lily was confirmed to occur in the documented locations, and an additional site for slender tube lichen was located. A list of all vascular plant, bryophyte, and lichen species inventoried from the project area can be found in the botanical report (USDA 2014f).
3.4.1.2.1. Elegant fawn lily (Erythronium elegans) Elegant fawn lily is known from a total of six population areas in the northern Oregon Coast Range in Lincoln, Tillamook, Yamhill and Polk Counties. Habitat occurs between 2,600 and 3,400 feet in elevation, occupying an estimated 235 acres (USDA USDI 2009). Of the six known populations, one occurs within the project area from 2,600 feet in elevation to the summit of Mt. Hebo at 3,100 feet. Plants are found in open and closed canopy forest habitats and meadow areas.
With few populations, a spotty distribution, and small geographic range, the lily is judged to be susceptible to a number of range-wide threats. The following were identified in the Conservation Assessment for the species (USDA USDI 2009).
Climate change could adversely affect the lily due to increasing temperature and a decreasing winter snowpack. Climate scenarios for the Pacific Northwest predict an average warming rate during the next century in the range of 0.2º -1.1º F. per decade (Mote et al. 2005). Predictions for
102
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
change in total precipitation and seasonality are less certain, although warmer winter and spring temperatures are expected to reduce winter snowpack accumulations, shift the lower snowline to higher elevations and result in an earlier snow melt in the spring (Stewart et al. 2004, Mote et al. 2003). It is not known to what degree these changes will affect elegant fawn lily; however a reduced snowpack in combination with a longer summer drought period could result in soil moisture deficits that affect the plant’s ability to produce seed and the suitability of its present habitat.
Genetic studies of the fawn lily and related species in the genus Erythronium (Allen 2001, Allen, Soltis and Soltis 2003, Allen 2007, Allen 2008) have found that individual population areas are genetically distinct. Because genetic inbreeding can be a problem in small, isolated population areas, the importance of maintaining every population is stressed to preserve the genetic variability of the species.
Vegetative competition from shrub and tree species resulting from succession could be a long- term threat to the fawn lily. While it does persist under a forest canopy, a large percentage of those plants do not flower and produce seed compared with those in more open habitat. A six year demographic study (Guerrant 1999) found that sub-populations under a closed canopy declined in number, while sub-populations with increasing or stable numbers were in more open habitat that received more light.
Soil disturbance and compaction may impact plants by damaging or destroying the underground bulbs, leading to a loss of plants.
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 does not propose commercial thinning or temporary road construction for two plantation stands where elegant fawn lily occurs. Plants within these stands would likely persist for the next 10-15 years, however light reaching the forest floor would not be enough for most plants to flower and produce seed. Selection of Alternative 1 would forgo the opportunity to improve habitat conditions in these two stands for fawn lily.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under Alternative 2, commercial thinning, temporary road construction, and skid trail and landing placement would take place within fawn lily populations in Units 037A and 039. This area includes a relatively small proportion of the total Mt. Hebo population; however these plants may provide a valuable contribution to the overall population because they are adapted to growing under a forest canopy. Thinning to reduce tree density would allow more light to reach the ground until the canopy closes in about 10 to 15 years. Because a higher proportion of reproductive plants have been observed in open canopy forest habitat compared to closed canopy (Guerrant 1996), it is likely that thinning would result in greater fawn lily seed production leading to an increase of individual plants. The increase in reproduction could mitigate potential adverse effects of climate change as non-forested sites become less suitable habitat for fawn lily due to reductions in winter snowpack resulting in a longer summer drought period in the summer.
Temporary road construction, skid trail placement, and landings are proposed to occur within areas of fawn lily. The resulting soil disturbance and compaction could mechanically remove plants or result in conditions that would not allow for their persistence in the affected area. Fuel treatment would have either a neutral or adverse effect depending on the burn prescription used. A relatively cool broadcast burn during the dormant period for the plant, October-March, would not
103
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
likely have an adverse effect. Pile burning in the vicinity of plants at any time of year would heat the soil to a depth that would kill the plants.
Project design criteria that locate landings, temporary roads, and skid trails away from plants and uses broadcast burning during the plant’s dormant period to reduce fuels would ensure only a relatively small number of individual plants are adversely affected. This loss would be offset by the anticipated increase in plant number that would result from a reduction in tree canopy. Overall, implementing Alternative 2 would result in No Impact to elegant fawn lily
Cumulative Effects Other activities within population areas of elegant fawn lily include routine trail maintenance and meadow maintenance (e.g. mowing). Trail clearing and brushing has resulted in the loss of the above-ground portion of some plants but this impact is relatively minor and short-term. Because there are no measurable direct or indirect impacts from the proposed action, there are no cumulative effects.
3.4.1.2.2. Horsehair lichen (Bryoria subcana) Horsehair lichen ranges from coastal Alaska to Santa Cruz, California and Great Britain. In the Pacific Northwest there are less than 30 sites. Within the Siuslaw National Forest it is documented from three sites (ISSSSP 2012), one of which occurs in the project area. The species grows on the boles of conifers and occurrences would most likely be in mature forest habitat. Threats to individuals or populations would be any action that results in the removal or death of the host tree or stand modification that would alter light, moisture, or temperature regimes.
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative, no commercial thinning, temporary road construction, gap creation, snag creation, or other activity would take place. Threats to the persistence of the tube lichen include removal of trees that it is growing on or modifying the surrounding forest stand so that conditions become hotter and drier. Because neither of these actions would be expected under the No Action Alternative, this alternative would have No Effect to the one known site of horsehair lichen.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Commercial thinning would take place within about 130 feet of the documented site for the horsehair lichen. Stand modification would alter light, moisture, and temperature regimes, however, these changes would be moderated by the distance of the lichen site from activities. It is possible that the adjacent thinned unit may not provide future suitable habitat for lichen dispersal for 10-15 years until the canopy begins to close and stand conditions are more conducive to establishment, but this is a short-term condition. As a result, implementation of Alternative 2 would have No Effect on horsehair lichen individuals or habitat.
Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects since there are no effects from past, present or foreseeable future actions that overlap in time and space.
3.4.1.2.3. Slender tube lichen (Hypogymnia duplicata) Slender tube lichen ranges from Prince William Sound, Alaska to northwest Oregon. In the Pacific Northwest, it is most frequent in mature conifer forest between 1,100 and 5,450 feet in the West Cascades, Coast Range, and Olympic Mountains (ISSSSP 2012). The species is most
104
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
abundant in the northern portion of the range, becoming uncommon to the south in Oregon. There are three documented sites for the Siuslaw NF, two of which occur within the project area. One occurrence is about one-half mile from any proposed project activity. The second occurrence is restricted to the bole of one Douglas-fir tree in the vicinity of Units 10A and 10B. Identified threats for the species include climate change, air pollution, and stand treatments that change the microclimate or stand structure (ISSSSP 2012).
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative, no commercial thinning, temporary road construction, gap creation, snag creation, or other activity that would take place. Threats to the persistence of the tube lichen include removal of tree that it is growing on or modifying the surrounding forest stand so that conditions become hotter and drier. Because none of these would occur, selection of Alternative 1 would have no impact to the one known site of slender tube lichen site on the boundary of Unit 10 A.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The slender tube lichen host tree occurs in the vicinity of Units 10A and 10B but is outside of the units. No temporary road construction would occur adjacent to or in close proximity to the tree (the nearest temporary roads proposed under this Alternative would be more than 1,300 feet away). The tree is also buffered from Units 10A and 10B by a minimum buffer of 900 feet of untreated forest stands, so increases in light infiltration and wind and reductions in daytime relative humidity that could result from thinning those units are unlikely to affect the tube lichen host tree. Alternative 1 would therefore have No Effect on the known location of slender tube lichen.
Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects since there are no direct or indirect effects.
3.4.1.2.4. Mycorrhizal Fungi Species (Arcangeliella camphorata, Bridgeoporus nobillisimus, Cortinarius barlowensis, Phaeocollybia californica, Phaeocollybia gregaria, Phaeocollybia oregonensis, Pseudorhizina californica, Rhizopogon exiguous)
Arcangeliella camphorata is endemic to the Pacific Northwest. It is known from 15 sites in the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon Coast Range and Olympic Mountains. There are two known sites on the Siuslaw National Forest (NRM TESP 2013). The species is mycorrhizal with conifers, especially Douglas-fir and western hemlock. Threats to the persistence of a population would include activities that remove host trees.
Bridgeoporus nobillisimus is endemic to the western Cascades in Washington and Oregon, the Washington Olympic Mountains, and the Oregon Coast Range (ISSSSP 2007). The one known site at Marys Peak in the Siuslaw National Forest is also the only known location for the species in the Coast Range. The fungus produces a shelf-like conk that may reach up to 3 feet across. Fruiting bodies are typically found on large diameter live or dead noble fire (Abies procera) or Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis). Because of its host tree preference, habitat in the Oregon Coast Range is restricted to the few peaks that support true fir. Threats to the species would include activities that remove host trees or lead to a reduction of a large diameter true fir stand cohort.
105
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Chamonixia caespitosa is endemic to the Pacific Northwest from 9 widely scattered sites from the coast of northern California to the Olympic Mountains in Washington. Two sites are documented on the Siuslaw National Forest in the vicinity of Cascade Head and Cape Perpetua (Castellano et al. 1999). The species is mycorrhizal. Threats to the persistence of a population would include activities that remove host trees.
Cortinarius barlowensis is endemic to the Pacific Northwest in western Washington and Oregon and along the northern California coast (ISSSSP 2007). Within this area it is known from 10-50 sites. There are no known sites from the Siuslaw National Forest (NRM TESP 2013). The general habitat description is on soil under conifers. Habitat is soil under conifers. As a mycorrhizal species, threats to the species persistence would include activities that remove host trees.
Phaeocollybia californica is endemic to the Pacific Northwest, known from 36 sites in western Washington, western Oregon and northern California. There are four sites known to occur on the Siuslaw National Forest (NRM TESP 2013). This species is mycorrhizal, associated with the roots of Douglas-fir, western hemlock and Pacific silver fir. Threats to the species’ persistence would include activities that remove host trees.
Phaeocollybia gregaria is endemic to Oregon, where it is known from 5 sites (Norvell and Exeter 2008). One of these is located on the Siuslaw National Forest in Cascade Head Experimental Forest (NRM TESP 2013). The species is mycorrhizal, associated with the roots of Douglas-fir and Sitka spruce. Threats to the species’ persistence would include activities that remove host trees.
Phaeocollybia oregonensis is endemic to the Pacific Northwest, known from 10 to 50 sites in western Washington and Oregon (ISSSSP 2007). There are two known sites on the Siuslaw National Forest (NRM TESP/Invasive 2013). This species is mycorrhizal, associated with the roots of Douglas-fir, western hemlock and Pacific silver fir. Threats to the species’ persistence would include activities that remove host trees.
Pseudorhizina californica is known from 10 to 50 sites in Oregon and Washington, primarily in the Cascades, with one known site from the Siuslaw National Forest (ISSSSP 2007). The species is a litter and wood saprobe occurring on or adjacent to well-rotted stumps or logs of coniferous trees, and on litter or soil rich in brown rotted wood. Fruiting occurs in June. As either a wood or litter saprobe, Pseudorhizina californica may form symbiotic associations with the fine root systems of plants, growing out into the soil matrix, or it may be confined to the available substrate (log, stump, etc.). Threats to the species’ persistence would include removing large woody debris or live conifers that it may be associated with.
Ramaria rubella var. blanda is known from 3 sites in the Pacific Northwest. No sites are known from the Siuslaw National Forest (NRM TESP 2013). Habitat is the down wood of Sitka spruce and red alder. Threats to its persistence would include activities that remove down wood of its preferred species, or precludes the recruitment of these in the future.
Rhizopogon exiguous is endemic to Oregon and Washington where it is known from five sites, one of which is on the Siuslaw National Forest in the vicinity of Marys Peak (Castellano et al. 1999). An underground-fruiting fungus in the truffle group, this species is associated with the roots of Douglas-fir and western hemlock. Threats to its persistence would include activities that remove host trees.
106
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action Because no commercial thinning or other proposed actions would take place, Alternative 1 would have no impact to sensitive mycorrhizal fungi species or their habitats.
Alternative 2 –Proposed Action Under the proposed action, commercial thinning would remove host trees for sensitive mycorrhizal fungi. These species live on tree roots, forming a mutually beneficial relationship between tree and fungi. By increasing the surface area of the tree root, water and nutrient uptake by the tree are increased. In return, the fungi derive nourishment from sugars produced by the tree. Without a connection to a live tree, the fungi would not persist. Individuals connected to harvested trees in thinned plantation stands would be lost. Because commercial thin areas would have a residual stand of between 40 and 90 host trees per acre with the largest created opening no more than 1 acre, fungi would recover and persist in the stand post-harvest. Most losses would be limited to created openings where the species should recolonize over time. The construction of temporary roads and landings would similarly result in tree removal and soil disturbance that would lead to local loss of mycorrhizal fungi. Because sensitive mycorrhizal fungi would be expected to persist within portions of commercially thinned units where suitable host trees remain, and the area of loss is expected to be a small proportion of the project area, implementation of Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability for this fungi group.
Cumulative Effects The proposed action would not have any cumulative effect on mycorrhizal fungi because there are no effects from past, present or foreseeable future actions that overlap in time and space.
3.4.1.2.5. Bridgeoporus nobilissimus
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action No commercial thinning or other proposed actions would occur, therefore selection of Alternative 1 would have No Impact to Bridgeoporus nobilissimus or its habitat.
Alternative 2 –Proposed Action Brigeoporus nobilissimus is primarily associated with older noble fir (Abies procera) and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) forming large shelf conks on the tree bole. A purpose and need of the project is to increase tree species diversity in plantation stands. Because noble fir in the project area is very limited and thinning prescriptions designate it as a leave tree species, any fungus present in plantation stands would persist post-harvest. Therefore, selection of Alternative 2 would result in No Impact to Bridgeoporus nobilissimus individuals or habitat.
Cumulative Effects The proposed action would not affect Bridgeoporus nobilissimus or its host tree and no future project activities are planned that would harvest mature noble fir trees or reduce recruitment of younger trees for a future large noble fir component in the project area. Therefore, there are cumulative effects.
107
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.4.1.2.6. Pseudorhizina californica
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action No commercial thinning or other proposed actions would take place; therefore Alternative 1 would have No Impact to Pseudorhizina californica or its habitat.
Alternative 2 –Proposed Action Pseudorhizina californica is a litter and wood saprobe occurring on or adjacent to well-rotted stumps or logs of coniferous trees, and on litter or soil rich in brown rotted wood. Threats to the species’ persistence would include removing large woody debris or live conifers that it may be associated with. Under the proposed action, large woody debris would increase in commercial thinning stands in the near-term as a result of tree harvest. Future recruitment of woody debris would occur in the long-term as insects and disease naturally thin out residual stand trees, allowing the species to persist over time. The loss of individuals can be expected locally as the result of landing and temporary road construction where woody debris is removed and soils are compacted, however this area would be small in relation to the planning area. Therefore, selection of Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability.
Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects to Pseudorhizina californica because there are no effects to this species from past, present or foreseeable future actions that overlap in time and space with the proposed action.
3.4.1.2.7. Ramaria rubella var. blanda
Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 – No Action No commercial thinning or other proposed actions would take place; Alternative 1 would have no impact to Ramaria rubella var. blanda or its habitat.
Alternative 2 –Proposed Action Ramaria rubella var. blanda requires down red alder or Sitka spruce to persist. Commercial thinning would result in increases to the amount of down wood. Project activities to create down wood and design criteria to maintain or enhance species diversity in the project area should allow this species to persist across the project area over time. Selection of Alternative 2 would result in No Impact to this species. No other indirect effects are likely.
Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects to Ramaria rubella var. blanda because there are no direct or indirect effects from the proposed action and there are no effects to this species from past, present or foreseeable future actions that overlap in time and space with the proposed action.
3.4.1.3. Survey and Manage Species Survey and Manage pre-disturbance surveys were initiated (defined as at least one occurrence of actual in-the-field surveying undertaken according to applicable protocol) in reliance upon the 2011 Consent Decree species list in effect on or before April 25, 2013. As such, the project utilizes the December 2003 species list. This list incorporates species changes and removals
108
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
made as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews with the exception of the red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus.
Survey and Manage pre-disturbance surveys were initiated prior to April 25, 2013 and therefore the South Nestucca Project applies the Survey and Manage species list in the 2011 Settlement Agreement and thus meets the provisions of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement.
The South Nestucca Project applies a 2006 Exemption from a stipulation entered by the court in litigation regarding Survey and Manage species and the 2004 Record of Decision related to Survey and Manage Mitigation Measures in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844- MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 10, 2006). Previously, in 2006, the District Court (Judge Pechman) invalidated the agencies’ 2004 RODs eliminating Survey and Manage due to NEPA violations. Following the District Court’s 2006 ruling, parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation exempting certain categories of activities from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines, including both pre-disturbance surveys and known site management. Also known as the Pechman Exemptions, the Court’s Order from October 11, 2006 directs:
“Defendants shall not authorize, allow, or permit to continue any logging or other ground- disturbing activities on projects to which the 2004 ROD applied unless such activities are in compliance with the 2001 ROD (as the 2001 ROD was amended or modified as of March 21, 2004), except that this order would not apply to:
• Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old: • Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; • Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and • The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging would remain subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph a. of this paragraph.” Components of the project which are consistent with the “Pechman” exemptions from applying survey and manage standards and guidelines include thinning in plantation stands less than 80 years old and replacing road culverts.
Management Category A and C species, which require pre-disturbance surveys if habitat is present, were surveyed in plantation stands greater than 80 years (see Table 19). In addition, the survey attempted to relocate a known site for horsehair lichen (Bryoria subcana), documented to occur about 130 feet from the boundary of Unit 10A. The lichen is Management Category B, requiring that known sites be managed.
109
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Table 19. Management Category A and C species surveyed for in plantations greater than 80 years. Management Species Common name Group Category Hypogymnia duplicata slender tube lichen Lichen C Leptogium cyanescens skin lichen Lichen A Lobaria linita lung lichen Lichen A Pseudocyphellaria perpetua Cape Perpetua specklebelly Lichen A Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis Rainier specklebelly Lichen A Schistostega pennata green goblin moss Bryophyte A
3.4.1.3.1. Survey Results One survey and manage species, slender tube lichen (Hypogymnia duplicata) was located approximately 1,000 feet from the boundaries of Units 10A and 10B. The known site for horsehair lichen was not relocated.
3.4.1.3.2. Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1 – No Action Both horsehair lichen and slender tube lichen are sensitive species. Effects follow those disclosed in the Sensitive Species section.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Both horsehair lichen and slender tube lichen are sensitive species. Effects follow those disclosed in the Sensitive Species section.
3.4.1.3.3. Cumulative Effects Both horsehair lichen and slender tube lichen are sensitive species. Effects follow those disclosed in the Sensitive Species section.
3.4.2. Invasive Plants Field surveys for invasive plants were conducted within the project area. Fourteen percent of the total vascular plants inventoried were found to be non-native, of which five are designated by Oregon as noxious weeds (see Table 20). Other non-native species in the project area not designated noxious but considered to be invasive are foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), bitter dock (Rumex obtusifolius), English holly (Ilex aquifolium), and false dandelion (Hypochaeris radicata).
The majority of non-native species are found in areas where the soil is periodically disturbed or had been disturbed in the recent past. Road edges, old landings, closed roads, and skid trails are typical. Small areas of soil disturbance created by elk trailing or blow down in forest habitat also have concentrations of foxglove which establishes and spreads under a forest canopy as well as full sun.
The most common invasive species in the project area is creeping buttercup, found along and within most open and closed roads, skid trails, and relatively undisturbed riparian areas followed by foxglove which is prevalent along roads, old landings, and small areas of soil disturbance in plantation stands such as elk trails and upturned rootwads. This species also establishes in canopy gaps within otherwise closed-canopy forest. Tansy ragwort and bull thistle are also relatively common along roads, skid trails, and old landings. Scotch broom and Himalayan blackberry are
110
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
less prevalent and found in the same type of situations. St. John’s-wort was occasionally found along roads.
One population of English holly was located within Unit 037C.
A list of all non-native plants inventoried in the project area can be found in the botanical report (USDA 2014f).
Table 20. Noxious weeds found at the project site.
Species Name Common Name ODA Rating¹
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle B Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom B Hypericum perfoliatum St. John’s-wort B Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry B Senecio jacobaea tansy ragwort B ¹The ODA “B” rating includes weeds of economic importance which are regionally.
3.4.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.4.2.1.1. Alternative 1 – No Action Selection of alternative 1 would result in invasive plant populations expanding at an estimated rate of 8-12 percent (USDA 2005) due to on-going activities outside the scope of the project such as routine road maintenance, vehicle traffic, animal movement, and recreational activity.
3.4.2.1.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action A weed risk assessment rates the project as High Risk for the introduction and spread of invasive plants due to soil disturbance, equipment and vehicle movement, and increased light infiltration in thinned plantation stands. The consequence of this expansion would vary by species. Creeping buttercup and bitter dock are the most widely distributed invasive species in the project area, however, their expansion is not likely to have a large impact on native vegetation and wildlife habitat because they tend to occupy highly disturbed areas along roads and in landings with little encroachment into surrounding, more natural habitat.
In contrast, foxglove, bull thistle, and tansy ragwort are expected to spread into plantation stands where they would displace native vegetation and degrade habitat. Scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry, and St. John’s-wort may also expand into plantation stands, but to a lesser extent. The one population of English holly would likely persist and may expand in the vicinity of the infestation.
Project design criteria that will somewhat reduce the risk of expansion for Scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry, and English holly include pre-treatment to reduce the seed crop in areas that will be disturbed, and avoiding existing infestations when designating landings, equipment staging areas, and gap creation locations. Tansy ragwort and bull thistle have wind-dispersed seed that can travel long distances. Project design criteria to reduce the seed crop may help provide some benefit, however overall increases in infested area should be anticipated.
Project design criteria will reduce the risk of introducing a new invasive plant species as a result of project activities.
111
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.4.2.2. Cumulative Effects Past, present and future use of system roads has, and will continue to be, a source of invasive plant introduction and spread within the South Nestucca project area. Seed and plant parts transported on vehicle tires and chassis as well as in the fur of animals that use roads as travel- ways contribute to the sources of infestation discussed in the project effects.
The primary control for tansy ragwort on the Forest in recent years has been bio-control insects with hand pulling or mowing in high value locations such as wilderness trails and trailheads. Within the project area, this is a low-priority species and passive bio-control will be relied on the keep populations at acceptable levels. Manual and mechanical treatment may be used on a case- by-case basis for any non-native invasive plant if there is a large expansion in the population resulting from project activities.
Activities affecting invasive plant introduction and spread in the project area would overlap with proposed project activities, but best management practices and project design criteria would ensure the risk of invasive plant introduction and expansion of existing populations would remain at an acceptable level for the life of the project. 3.5. Hydrology (District Hydrologist, USDA 2014g)
3.5.1. Introduction and Description of Existing Condition
3.5.1.1. Physical Setting The South Nestucca project area contains the entire the Three Rivers sub-watershed (hydrologic unit code (HUC) 171002030208) and a small portion of the Farmers Creek sub-watershed (HUC 171002030209) containing George Creek and the Nestucca River from river miles 10 to 16 (see Figure 1). Three Rivers is a tributary to the Nestucca River, which drains into Nestucca Bay on the Pacific Ocean.
The Nestucca Watershed has mild wet winters, and cool, relatively dry summers (USDA USDI 1994). The average high air temperature is 73°F and the average low is 36°F. Annual Precipitation varies from 80 inches in the lower elevations to 100 inches in the upper elevations. Eighty percent of the precipitation occurs October through March.
Geology in the Nestucca Watershed is characterized by intermixed layers of volcanic and sedimentary rocks, which makes the slopes prone to landsides (USDA USDI 1994). Landslides predominantly occur in periods of high rainfall, and can be triggered by poorly placed roads and timber harvest activities that destabilize landslide prone areas. The Nestucca Watershed Analysis (USDA USDI 1994) shows that about eight percent of the project area has a high or extreme landslide potential, and there are about 3 miles of road with landslide potential. Water quality can be impacted if the landslide material enters streams as sediment.
3.5.1.2. Watershed Condition The U.S. Forest Service has established the Watershed Condition Framework to assess and track changes to the condition of watersheds containing National Forest System lands (USDA 2011). Watersheds are rated as either functional (healthy), functioning at risk (at risk of becoming impaired), or impaired (degraded or severely altered). Watersheds that are rated as functional “would capture, store, and release water, sediment, wood, and nutrients within their range of
112
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
natural variability, and are capable of supporting a diverse population of aquatic- and riparian- dependent species” (USDA 2011). Watersheds functioning at risk lack some of these qualities and are at risk of becoming impaired. Watersheds that are impaired have crossed some physical, hydrological, or biological threshold that would require substantial changes to alter the rating. Condition is assessed for the watershed as a whole which, like the project area watersheds, may include other ownerships that are managed differently than Forest Service lands.
The Watershed Condition Framework rating for the Farmer Creek sub-watershed is functioning at risk and Three Rivers sub-watershed is functional (USDA 2014h). The condition of individual resources that were used as indicators, along with professional judgment, to determine the overall sub-watershed condition ratings are listed in Table 21.
Table 21. Watershed condition indicators for the project area.
Watershed Condition Farmer Creek Sub-watershed Three Rivers Sub-watershed Indicators (Functioning at Risk) (Functional) Aquatic Biota Condition Fair Fair Riparian Condition Fair Good Water Quality Condition Good Fair Water Quantity Condition Good Good Aquatic Habitat Condition Poor Poor Road and Trail Condition Poor Poor Soil Condition Good Good Forest Cover Condition Good Good Forest Health Condition Good Good Terrestrial Invasive Species Good Good Condition Fire Effects/Fire Regime Fair Fair Condition Reference: USDA (2014h)
3.5.1.3. Water Quality
3.5.1.3.1. 303(d) List and TMDLs The 1972 Clean Water Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or each state, to biennially develop a list, known as the Section 303(d) list, of all water bodies that are impaired with respect to beneficial uses. Beneficial uses within the project area water bodies include fisheries, aquatic life, drinking water, recreation, and irrigation.
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) as means for improving water quality and delisting water bodies from the 303d list. A TMDL describes the amount (load) of each pollutant a waterbody can receive and still not violate water quality standards. Project area water bodies with TMDLs, need a TMDL, or just have potential water quality concerns are listed in the following table and discussed below:
113
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Table 22. Project area water bodies and associated water quality concerns.
Water Body River Parameter Beneficial Uses Status (Stream/Lake) Miles
Alder Creek 0 to 3 Aquatic life Cat 3B: Potential concern
0 to Alkalinity Cedar Creek Aquatic life Cat 3B: Potential concern 4.3
0 to Three Rivers Aquatic life Cat 3B: Potential concern 12.5
0 to Cat 5: Water quality limited, Cedar Creek Aquatic life 4.3 303(d) list, TMDL needed Biological 39.2 to Cat 5: Water quality limited, Criteria Nestucca River Aquatic life 53.8 303(d) list, TMDL needed
5 to Cat 5: Water quality limited, Three Rivers Aquatic life 12.4 303(d) list, TMDL needed
Salmon and Dissolved 5.8 to Cat 5: Water quality limited, Nestucca River steelhead Oxygen 40.9 303(d) list, TMDL needed spawning
0 to Water contact Cat 4A: Water quality E. Coli Nestucca River 28.9 recreation limited, TMDL approved 0 to Cat 4A: Water quality Fecal Coliform Nestucca River Shellfish growing 28.9 limited, TMDL approved
Salmonid fish 0 to rearing; Temperature Nestucca River TMDL approved 28.9 Anadromous fish passage
Reference: DEQ (2014)
3.5.1.3.2. Alkalinity Alkalinity is a potential concern in Alder Creek, Cedar Creek, and Three Rivers. None of the project area water bodies have a TMDL for Alkalinity. Alkalinity is a measure of the quantitative capacity of water to absorb acid. The low alkalinity in project area water bodies is likely caused by acid rain due to the absence of point sources for acids. Land management practices on National Forest lands are not contributing to elevated alkalinity levels.
3.5.1.3.3. Dissolved Oxygen and Bacteria The Nestucca River has the only 303(d) listing for dissolved oxygen in the project area. The listing is for river miles 5.8 to 40.9 and not just for the short segment of the Nestucca River flowing through the project area. Low dissolved oxygen occurrences are thought to be localized and are attributed to occasional periods of elevated water temperatures and the associated increase in growth of oxygen consuming bacteria and/or algae (USDA USDI 1994b). The Nestucca River is water quality limited with approved TMDLs for both E. coli and fecal coliform
114
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
bacteria. Sources of bacteria include rural and urban residential development (failing septic systems), urban stormwater runoff, farming, and wastewater treatment discharge (DEQ 2002). Land management practices on National Forest lands are not a substantial source of bacteria.
3.5.1.3.4. Biological Criteria The presence, condition and numbers of types of fish, insects, algae, plants, and other organisms are used as biological criteria to assess the health of aquatic ecosystems (EPA 2014). A deficiency of these biological criteria suggests an unhealthy aquatic ecosystem. Cedar Creek, Nestucca River, and Three Rivers are 303(d) listed for biological criteria and TMDLs are needed.
3.5.1.3.5. Water Temperature Excessive temperatures within the Nestucca Watershed are attributed to a lack of riparian vegetation and over widened channels, causing an increase in heat load to the river (DEQ 2002). The segment of the Nestucca River flowing through the project area has an approved TMDL for temperature. The Nestucca River does not flow through any Forest Service lands within the project area. None of the other water bodies within the project area have TMDLS or are 303(d) listed for temperature.
3.5.1.4. Sedimentation Sediment in the Nestucca River Watershed is derived from both natural events and human activities (DEQ 2002, USDA USDI 1994b). Naturally delivered sediment enters streams through natural processes, such as floods, runoff from large fires, mass wasting (landslides and debris torrents), and stream bank erosion. Very little sediment occurs naturally from surface erosion due to the Nestucca Watershed soils having high porosity, high water holding capacity, and a tendency to revegetate quickly after disturbance (USDA USDI 1994b). Natural balanced sediment input is a necessary part of a functioning watershed. Land management activities, such as farming, residential development, timber harvesting, and road building, can alter natural sediment production and delivery processes. Sediment becomes a problem when excess amounts are added to the system and causes water quality standards to be exceeded.
None of the water bodies within the project area are 303(d) listed for sediment. Sedimentation in the lower Nestucca River, which flows through the project area but does not flow through the National Forest lands, has been identified by DEQ as having substantial sedimentation problems. However, there is insufficient data to determine its status as impaired or develop a TMDL (DEQ 2002). Erosion of stream banks in areas having insufficient riparian vegetation was cited as the source of excessive fine sediments.
3.5.2. Desired Future Condition Desired future condition for the project area is the same as those specified for the entire Forest Plan as amended. All streams should produce clean, cool water consistent with their natural thermal potential as defined by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality water quality standards (see Oregon Administrative Rules 340-041-0028). In addition, an objective of the Northwest Forest Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy (an amendment to the Forest Plan) is that all projects “maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved.” Sediment production and delivery from land management sources should therefore be minimized such that the effects are indistinguishable from natural sources.
115
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.5.3. Direct and Indirect Effects Based on existing water quality concerns identified in the current conditions section, direct and indirect effects to water quality for each alternative are evaluated below using water temperature, sedimentation, and biological criteria as indicators.
3.5.3.1. Alternative 1 – No Action
3.5.3.1.1. Water Temperature Under the No Action alternative, no management of riparian reserve areas would occur. Riparian reserves areas, as defined in the Forest Plan, provide protective zones around streams, wetlands, and water bodies to minimize the potential for sediment, temperature, and dissolved oxygen problems. With no management, existing riparian and stream-channel conditions would be maintained on National Forest lands and, therefore, water temperatures would be unchanged and continue to meet the water quality standard.
3.5.3.1.2. Sedimentation No timber harvesting would be conducted under the No Action alternative. As a result, there would be no temporary roads, log landings, haul roads, or hill slope disturbance by heavy equipment. As such, no new sources of management-related sediment would be created. However, road maintenance and repair on the proposed haul routes would continue to be deferred. Some periodic roadside brushing and surface grading would occur as budget and scheduling allowed, but for the most part, roads would remain in the current state or deteriorate. Vegetation would continue to grow and fill drainage ditches and block culverts. Roads would continue to be chronic sources of sediment, barriers to natural sediment transport regimes, and potentially at risk of culvert failure or stream channel diversion in storms. This alternative has the greatest risk for sedimentation due to the deferral of road maintenance.
3.5.3.1.3. Biological Criteria Under the No Action alternative, no activities would occur that would have a potential to diminish biological criteria. However, with no action, there is a greater risk of road failure due to deferred road maintenance. Road failures could lead to altered stream channels or increased sediment input, which have a potential to diminish biological criteria.
3.5.3.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
3.5.3.2.1. Water Temperature Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, there has been much scrutiny concerning the effect of timber harvesting on water quality. Especially in riparian areas where the vegetation provides shade necessary for maintaining cool water temperatures. The Forest Plan (USDA 1990) standards and guides require that enough vegetation be left intact along perennial streams to limit solar heating of streams so that water temperatures are maintained within State water quality standards. Vegetation buffers designed for this project are varied by stream type and proximity to coho salmon habitat:
• Intermittent streams 15 feet,
• Perennial streams 30 feet,
• Perennial streams within 1,000 feet upstream of coho salmon habitat 75 feet, and
116
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• Perennial streams adjacent to coho salmon habitat 100 feet.
Studies show that buffers, like these, provide sufficient shade to maintain acceptable water temperatures (Chan and others 2006; Wilkerson and others 2006, Groom et al. 2011, USFS 2011, USDA 2009). Given the use of buffers and that none of the streams within the project area harvest units are temperature impaired, it is expected that temperature regimes would be maintained by implementing the Proposed Action.
3.5.3.2.2. Sedimentation The Forest Plan for the Siuslaw National Forest established standards and guidelines that require detrimental soil disturbance not to exceed 15 percent of the total Forest land within a project area (USDA 1990). Soil disturbance below this threshold not only ensures adequate soil productivity, but also helps to limit sediment runoff to a level that is indistinguishable from natural sources. For the Proposed Action alternative, the total soil disturbance is estimated to be less than three percent, which is well below the 15 percent threshold. This percentage was calculated using the total harvest unit acres within the project area and total acreage of expected ground disturbance.
McGurk and Fong (1995) determined that the greater the soil disturbance in close proximity to stream channels the greater the risk to an aquatic ecosystem. To limit near stream effects of timber harvesting, the Forest Service uses best management practices (BMPs) to limit sediment runoff (USFS 1988). No-cut buffers of trees along stream courses are a BMP that has proven to be very effective at filtering sediment so that the effects are indistinguishable from natural sources. No-cut buffers designed for this project are varied from 15 to 100 feet depending on stream type and proximity to coho salmon habitat (see temperature discussion above). Most harvest units, however, have a combined total of less than one mile of buffered perennial and intermittent streams. Given the low stream mileage and use of sediment filtering buffers, the risk of sediment reaching streams is low for the proposed thinning operations.
The roads have the most potential for sediment runoff, but this risk is also small. With the completion of the deferred road maintenance, the haul routes are not expected to contribute much, if any, sediment runoff into streams. Most surface erosion occurs within the first two years of construction (Elliot 2000). There are only about 8 miles of new and 7 miles of reopened temporary roads proposed. Furthermore, most sediment from roads enters streams where roads cross streams, or where roads are close to streams (Elliot 2000). These are all located at or near ridges tops and well away from perennial drainage courses. In addition, roads that are more susceptible to runoff and/or damage under wet conditions have been restricted to dry season haul only.
The proposed use of an existing rock stockpile and redevelopment of the three existing rock pit sites are not expected to be a concern for sediment runoff due to the implementation of project design criteria for sediment control. These sites also have an adequate vegetation buffer between them and nearby streams to act as a natural sediment filter.
3.5.3.2.3. Biological Criteria The Proposed Action does not include activities that would typically affect biological criteria, such as pesticide or herbicide application or harvest activities in the near stream areas. With the absence of these activities and the low risk of sediment input described above, diminishment of biological criteria is not expected.
117
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.5.4. Cumulative Effects The existing conditions for water quality described in this analysis are the result of past and current actions in the watershed. There are a number of reasonable foreseeable actions in or near the project area in which water quality effects would be a consideration. The Forest Service has completed planning for two similar terrestrial restoration projects in the Nestucca River Watershed, but not within the project area. Other watershed scale actions currently planned include extensive road decommissioning and road maintenance projects. A number of smaller scale stream and meadow restoration projects, road maintenance, and logging on non-Forest Service lands are also expected in the foreseeable future. The effects to water quality by any one of these actions may be negligible by themselves. However, the combined (or cumulative) incremental effects of the past and future actions can potentially have a negative effect on water quality and must be evaluated. Cumulative effects to water quality for the Proposed Action alternative are evaluated below using water temperature and sedimentation as indicators.
3.5.4.1. Water Temperature Given that the Proposed Action alternative is expected to maintain water temperatures, the contribution of the proposed action to the cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable actions are expected to be negligible. It is also a matter of scale, only a very low number of stream miles have a potential to be affected. There are estimated to be only 22 miles (two percent) of perennial streams in or adjacent to treated areas as compared to 914 miles within the project area sub-watersheds combined. Similarly, there are only about 50 miles (four percent) of intermittent streams in or adjacent to the harvest units as compared to 1,230 miles within the project area sub-watersheds combined. Therefore, the cumulative effect across the entire drainage system would be negligible.
3.5.4.2. Sedimentation The cumulative area of soil disturbance from logging and roads in a watershed has been related directly to negative water quality effects due to sedimentation (McGurk and Fong 1995, Menning and others 1996). In general, the cumulative soil disturbance becomes a concern when it reaches about 10 to 12 percent of a sub-watershed’s area (Menning and others 1996). The area of soil disturbance associated with the proposed action is very small in comparison to the size of the project area sub-watersheds (6th field HUCs). For any given sub-watershed, the area of disturbance associated with thinning operations is approximately 0.6 percent or less. Given that this is such a small percentage of the watershed, the cumulative effects to sedimentation are expected to be negligible. In addition, sediment runoff for an area of soil disturbance tends to decrease with time (Menning and others 1996). Most of the sediment runoff occurs in the first two years of soil disturbance. Given that the thinning operations are expected to be spaced over a 15-year period, the cumulative effects would be further minimized.
3.5.4.3. Biological Criteria National Forest lands in the project area are not a source of pollutants that diminish biological criteria. Pollutants such as pesticides, sediment, and temperature that can affect biological criteria are associated with the lands other than National Forest. There are no cumulative effects to biological criteria because there are no direct or indirect effects form the proposed action. 3.6. Soils & Geology (Forest Geologist, USDA 2014i)
118
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.6.1. Introduction The Siuslaw Nation Forest Soil Resource Inventory (Badura et al. 1974) was made to provide basic soil, bedrock, and landform interpretation for management interpretations. A copy is on file at the Hebo Ranger District. The soils in the analysis area are highly productive silt to gravelly loams formed on a variety of bedrock materials from bedded marine sediments to submarine volcanic material. Side slopes and soil depths are highly variable, but soil moisture and temperature regimes are very favorable for soil biological activity and plant growth on most sites. The unit summary table lists the landtypes by unit that were mapped in the field. All listed landtypes are suitable for timber production.
The Nestucca Watershed Analysis of 1994 discusses the existing condition of the areas investigated in this report.
The major short-term, intermediate, or long-term impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity, as discussed in the Siuslaw National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 1990), include displacement, compaction, nutrient loss, and instability. In most situations, preventing soil impacts is the most effective and feasible way of ensuring long-term soil productivity. To maintain long-term soil productivity, Standard and Guide FW107 in the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan requires that the total acreage of all detrimental soil conditions not exceed 15% of the total land within each harvest unit, excluding roads and landings.
3.6.2. Direct and Indirect Effects The major short-term impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity, as discussed in the Siuslaw National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement, include displacement, compaction, nutrient loss, and instability. In most situations, preventing soil impacts is the most effective and feasible way of ensuring long-term soil productivity. The total area of cumulative detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 15% of the total acreage within the activity area.
3.6.2.1. Alternative 1 – No Action Stands would continue to develop. Many of the stands proposed for thinning currently have little understory vegetation because of the lack of sunlight to the forest floor. Intermediate and suppressed trees would slowly be removed from the stand through mortality and decay. In areas of heavy stocking, stands would stagnate. Blow down and snow down would continue to add fuel to the forest floor. In general, plant diversity would diminish as well as soil biota because of the lack of sunlight. Evidence of compaction from previous entries is still present in some ground- based areas. In areas already compacted or disturbed by the initial entries, the soil building process would continue to return the soil to near pre-harvest conditions. Short-term to intermediate-term impacts from harvest, such as soil disturbance, dust (or mud), slash accumulation and disposal, and longer term impacts such as compaction and nutrient loss would not occur.
Slope instability has been an active process in the project area for centuries. The initial timber harvest likely increased failure rates in the intermediate term. Some head wall failure areas are present, as well as road side cast failures. Most of those sites have stabilized and revegetated in the last few decades. The intensive rain storms of 1996 and subsequent years caused a few additional failures in this project area. These areas also have begun to re-vegetate as alder saplings are evident in most areas of these newer slides. It would appear that failure rates in the last few decades have approached more natural return intervals, primarily related to large storm
119
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
events. Consequently, no effects to slope instability are anticipated whether the units are managed or not.
No action is not considered beneficial for long-term soil productivity. Overstocked stands would rapidly see density increase, growth slow, and mortality rise. Fuel accumulations from blow down, snow down, and bug kill provide an ever increasing amount of fuel loading.
3.6.2.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
3.6.2.2.1. Displacement Displacement is defined as the removal of more than 50% of the topsoil or humus enriched soil horizons from an area of 100 square feet which is at least 5 feet in width. Displacement can occur with timber management during road or landing construction, yarding, or the mechanical treatment of slash, such as machine piling. Contract requirements which reduce or eliminate displacement are the primary way to minimize this concern (see Project Design Criteria, Appendix A).
Yarding activities on the existing plantations have for the most part occurred with the appropriate suspension requirements. Slash treatments usually maintained some amount of duff, though the current duff retention standards may not have been achieved. Whether these two activities resulted in moderate to major detrimental impacts to productivity in some units is difficult to determine. At this point in time, little physical evidence can be found in any unit to indicate whether these two timber management activities resulted in significant, long-term detrimental soil displacement or off-site soil movement.
Road development in the project area is extensive, and most large blocks of forest have been accessed. Most major road systems were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s with older road construction standards, though most roads are located on stable benches, flats or ridges. The amount of new road construction slowed considerably in the late 1980s, and with subsequent entries reconstruction began to dominate. Newer roads, when required, were constructed to different and better standards. Road grades were steepened and pitched to better fit roads to the terrain. Cuts and fills were minimized, and drainage controls were added to promote long term slope stability. Most road cuts and fills have naturally vegetated over the years. Because of relatively high infiltration rates, overland flow is generally limited throughout this project area. Consequently, erosion from roads is not generally considered a concern, except in a few localized areas.
Unless otherwise stated or mitigated, all designated streams require full suspension or yarding away from the stream course during the yarding process (MA-15-27). To adequately protect the soil resource, the primary yarding objective for all units would be either ground based systems with predesignated skid roads and directional falling as appropriate, or skyline yarding with one end suspension (except at tail trees and landings). The primary factor differentiating these two yarding systems would be side slope.
Recommended suspension requirements would control the potential for unacceptable displacement. Most areas with side slopes less than 30% would be recommended for ground based yarding systems. Compaction would be controlled by designated skid or forwarder roads, and the use of existing truck roads as much as possible (to minimize the skidding distance and number of trips). Skyline yarding with one end suspension would be recommended for units or portions of units with side slopes greater that 30% to avoid excessive disturbance from heavy
120
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
equipment. Potential nutrient loss would be controlled by duff retention standards. Slope stability would be maintained by deleting those areas or units where harvest could result in unstable soil conditions.
Where ground-based logging operations may be conducted, compaction would be controlled by designated skid or forwarder roads, and the use of existing roads as much as possible. The field investigation indicated that none of the units as a whole exceeded the Siuslaw National Forest FW-081 Standard of 15% of an activity area impacted by compaction from previous management.
Potential nutrient loss would be controlled by duff retention standards. In general, this is not considered a concern because hand or machine piling and burning or under-burning would be of limited extent or not proposed for most units.
Unstable or potentially highly unstable terrain from both debris chutes and slump/earth flow complexes is generally considered unsuited for timber harvest. Slope instability would be avoided by excluding potentially unstable areas from thinning units. Sensitive areas would be buffered by unharvested areas to maintain intact rooting zones. Slope instability concerns were noted in two plantation units, 254 and 345. The recommendations involve increasing standard stream buffer distances to include the associated potentially unstable headwalls or stream banks. Consequently, potential slope instability with proposed management in any unit is not considered a concern. No additional specific mitigation is proposed for remaining manageable acreage, other than the unit boundary placement, as none is needed.
The soils mitigation measures are designed to maintain long term soil productivity and provide a level of erosion control that is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the Siuslaw National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) and Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality guidelines. All prescriptions or design criteria are designed to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the General Water Quality Best Management Practices Handbook (Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988). Prescriptions for soil protection and watershed considerations take into account past and predicted future land management activities. Standard contract language should provide sufficient erosion control measures during timber sale operations (BMP T-13).
Summary - Disturbance from yarding would be well within the Regional and Forest standard and significant adverse impacts are not anticipated. With appropriate suspension during logging, soil disturbance is minimal and off site erosion is essentially non-existent. During harvest, the retention of stream adjacent trees and the requirement of full suspension yarding over or away from stream courses would minimize or eliminate off-site erosion from logging operations.
3.6.2.2.2. Compaction Compaction is an increase in soil bulk density of 15% or more and/or a reduction of macropore space of 50% over the undisturbed soil. Excessive soil compaction from heavy, mechanized equipment used during logging can decrease soil productivity by restricting root growth, reducing rainfall infiltration rates, and increasing over land flow and run off. Prior management on some units, conducted before any requirements were established, created compaction conditions which may now approach or exceed the currently accepted standards and guidelines.
Evidence of compaction from previous entries is still present, though often difficult to find. Field reconnaissance through most all the proposed units showed some level of existing compaction, usually from the primary access roads and old landings. In no case was compaction measured
121
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
directly. Heavily disturbed skid roads, landings or other areas where equipment tracks were evident are considered adversely compacted.
None of the proposed harvest units exceed the Siuslaw National Forest Standard of 15% of an activity area impacted by compaction. Many of the units have areas of skyline ground that were not previously compacted and are not planned for ground based harvest.
The off-site stands have little or no existing compaction from previous management since they resulted from the planting of fire-burned areas.
The major potential source of compaction (and also much disturbance) is ground based skidding equipment. Unrestricted tractor yarding and tractor piling would not be considered on those landtypes where sideslopes are gentle enough (generally less than 30%) to support tractor usage (BMP T-9 and VM-1, and FW-107). The silty nature of the fine-grained soils, and evidence that significant soil moisture is available most of the year indicate that any type of unrestricted tractor yarding and piling (even low ground pressure) would lead to excessive soil compaction and/or disturbance. Restricted tractor yarding from predesignated skid roads would only be considered if the adversely affected area remains less than 15% of the activity area. With tractor yarding, skid roads would be predesignated, approved in advance of use by the Timber Sale Officer and generally 150 to 200 feet apart. With a processor/forwarder system the skid roads are usually only about 50 to 60 feet apart, but the number of trips for each individual road are substantially less than with skidding. Extensive monitoring on numerous Forests and Districts has shown that when designated skid roads are properly utilized in conjunction with line pulling and directional falling, compaction from ground-based tractor operations generally remains at about 9 to 13%. Reducing the effective weight of the tractors and reducing the number of trips over a piece of ground are other means to reduce the risk of soil compaction and displacement.
With entry into any ground-based unit, evident skid or haul roads would be utilized before any new skid road is approved. It is not likely that entry into any unit, with appropriate controls on skid road location and density, would exceed the Forest threshold at the completion of harvest activities.
Summary - With the use of designated skid roads, the reuse of the existing skid road system, and the possible subsoiling of primary landings, compaction is not anticipated to exceed 15% in any unit and should be below or well below the 10% level in most units that were previously managed.
Skyline operations in thinning units with small wood and intermediate supports usually impacts less than 1% of the unit area. Skyline yarding is proposed for portions or all of most units. These units had low existing compaction levels, generally less than a few percent in the skyline areas. Skyline landings are primarily planned at old existing landings, road turnouts, and road junctions. Little new spur road would be required. Consequently, cumulative effects from existing compaction and skyline yarding are not anticipated.
3.6.2.2.3. Nutrient Loss The primary mechanism for excessive nutrient loss is uncontrolled wild fire at high fuel loadings, low fuel moistures, and adverse weather conditions. Fire recurrence intervals of 100 to 200 years are apparent in the natural system. Many of the stands in this project area have had an active fire history in the last 100 to 200 years or so. As a result, large expanses never had much down woody debris, or all of the accumulating down woody debris was removed by the fires. Many of the managed stands also had the initial harvests when PUM standards were in effect. This required
122
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
that larger waste material (usually 8 inches wide and 10 feet long or greater) be removed from the units to reduce fire intensity. In addition, most managed stands were broadcast burned which removed additional amounts of above ground organic matter. Consequently across numerous older managed stands, management generated, down woody debris or slash is at low levels, likely replicating the natural condition in many areas. Younger plantations retained much more slash and large woody debris as is the current Forest plan direction. As a result, a wide range in the above ground tonnage of decomposing organic matter exists with amounts generally varying because of management history and fire intensity. The variety exists both between and within units. In some units, concentrations of large woody debris still remain from the initial entry.
Slash accumulation and the potential for wild fire can affect soil nutrients, however, activities, which reduce stocking levels, improve stand vigor, and eliminate excessive fuel loading are beneficial to soil nutrients in the long term. Slash would either be scattered in the units or piled and burned. Piling may occur by hand or with a grapple machine. Grapple piling occurs with a grapple not with a dozer brush rake. Grapple piling requires only one pass of the machine across the landscape, and the machine works while sitting on slash. Extensive monitoring of grapple machine piling operations indicates that little or no additional compaction or displacement occurs, when properly implemented. On typical thinning, hand piles number about 40 per acre and occupy about 20 square feet per pile for a total of about 800 square feet per acre or about 1.8% per acre. Machine piles are substantively less in number, but correspondingly larger in size so that the 1.8 to 2% figure is maintained. In many cases only a few acres of any particular unit are hand piled or machine piled. Burning the piled slash may develop sufficient heat to affect the underlying soil. However, pile burning is usually done in the fall or winter months when duff and soil moistures are higher, and this helps reduce the downward heat effects to the soil. Consequently, pile burning is considered a minor effect because of the limited overall acreage involved. No under-burning is being considered for these units at this time.
Another aspect of long term nutrient availability and ectomycorrhizal formation is the amount of larger woody material retained on site. Management activities would be planned to maintain enough large woody debris (dead and down) to provide for a healthy forest ecosystem and ensure adequate nutrient cycling. At this time, site specific needs would be considered commensurate with wildlife objectives.
Summary - Duff retention objectives would be provided on a unit-by-unit basis in the unit summary table. Concentrations of larger down logs that were produced naturally with the initial harvest should be left undisturbed as much as possible. Consequently, with the retention of adequate duff and woody debris, potential adverse impacts to long-term soil productivity are not anticipated.
3.6.2.2.4. Instability Slope instability is a natural ecological component of the Coast Range ecosystem. Failure recurrence intervals of 50 to 150 years are apparent in the natural system, primarily in conjunction with large storm events. Debris chute failure recurrence is generally associated with more episodic large fire and / or flood events. Slump / earth flow instability is more steady state and may extend for centuries. Slope failures of either type carry large wood and rock to stream systems. This material is needed to both create suitable structure for sediment storage and provide the gravels required for fish and other aquatic habitat. However, numerous failures, without the associated boulder or log structure, can overload a system with sediment and destroy functioning habitat.
123
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Slope instability has been an active agent in the down slope movement of soil in most of the analysis area in the last 150 years or so. The South Nestucca project area, located in the Coast Range physiographic province, lies on either steep, shallow-soiled side slopes or deeper stable gently sloping uplands of eroded Tertiary volcanic strata and/or bedded sediments of sandstones and siltstones. Both rotational (slump type) and translational (debris chute) failures are evident. The larger scale (hundreds of acres) rotational soil failures or slump type / earth flow terrain can be found in most units, though for the most part, it is old and long stabilized. Both natural and management related translational failures are also present in this landscape. Management induced debris chute type slope instability from road sidecast failures and root strength loss from headwall harvest are evident in a few units.
The potential exists for timber management to induce additional debris chute type, slope instability. To avoid this concern, potentially unstable areas would be deleted from the proposed units, as mentioned above. Some areas would be excluded from units by layout. Other areas would be included with wider riparian, no harvest zones. A few yarding corridors may be required through some larger, potentially unstable areas to access stable portions of units. The cutting of a few trees in a yarding corridor in this situation is not considered sufficient to adversely affect the stability of any particular area. Generally, these cut trees should be retained in the unit for woody debris or stream recruitment.
Summary - Field review of numerous previously thinned units in stable terrain on this and other Forests has shown no increase in slope instability in either the uplands or riparian reserves with thinning. Thinning across the uplands, and within and through riparian reserves improves long- term slope stability as stand conditions change with release and increased tree growth. Crowns and root systems expand; and evapotranspiration rapidly returns to or exceeds preharvest conditions. Thinning should emphasize the retention of a well-distributed stand of larger trees, both conifer and hard wood. With the avoidance of the potentially unstable areas, mentioned previously, long term slope stability should be maintained, and increased slope instability with this project is not anticipated.
Some units may require temporary roads to access suitable landing sites for either ground based or skyline yarding systems. In all cases, these temporary roads are located on gentle stable side slopes in common material. The construction of these temporary roads for this sale would maintain slope stability.
3.6.2.2.5. Transportation Development Some units would require the reopening of existing roads, often constructed decades ago, to access suitable landing sites for either ground based or skyline yarding systems. In most cases, use of these old roads would allow for drainage structure improvements and fill stabilization. Some units are accessed by using newer Forest Service roads that now require some additional work to maintain adequate road drainage and surface integrity.
Existing, closed, unclassified roads provide some access to some units. These old roads for the most part are native surface, overgrown with vegetation, and show little or no active erosion. They usually have no ditches or culverts, are often outsloped, and have few if any water bars. Most of these roads have solid subgrades, which are suitable for dry season haul with perhaps a little spot rocking in a few critical areas. Extended season or wet weather haul would likely require rocking of the entire length of most spurs with at least six inches or more of a higher quality aggregate.
124
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
In addition, a few new temporary spurs roads may be required to access some critical portions of some units. In all cases these roads are well located on ridges or benches with stable, gentle side slopes. These temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, seeded, and natural drainage patterns would be reestablished.
Summary - Development of the transportation system for this sale would maintain or enhance slope stability, would produce little or no off site erosion, and would provide an opportunity to rehabilitate old road courses.
3.6.2.2.6. Unsuited Lands Unsuited, unregenerable landtypes, such as cliffs and rock outcrops, critical rocky areas, wetlands and dry meadows or unstable areas were mapped as part of the field reconnaissance. These landtypes can control the location of unit boundaries or be found within units. Unsuitable areas would be avoided or excluded during unit layout. Skyline corridors running through unsuitable areas within or adjacent to a unit are acceptable to access suitable portions of the unit. Trees in the unsuitable area that need to be cut to maintain the integrity or safety of the sky line corridor would generally be left for down woody debris. At a minimum, partial suspension would be used over rocky areas, although full suspension would further minimize impacts. Full suspension would be used over wetlands, dry meadows and riparian sites.
3.6.2.3. Summary Possible short-term impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity include displacement, compaction, nutrient loss, and instability. In total, detrimental impacts should not exceed 15% of the area of any unit and anticipated direct effects to the soils resource would be within Siuslaw National Forest Standards and Guidelines.
3.6.3. Cumulative Effects
3.6.3.1. Sediment production No measurable cumulative additions of fine sediment would be expected to enter streams from stand treatments. Using and maintaining roads could increase fine sediment in the short term. Potential pulses of sediment associated with harvesting timber on private land, along with chronic sources of sediment from other actions, such as livestock grazing, are expected to continue. Overall, Alternative 2 is expected to cumulatively reduce sedimentation in the project planning area.
3.6.3.2. Soil productivity Considering past and proposed commercial-harvest operations, the detrimental soil condition (i.e., soil compaction and displacement) for each commercially thinned plantation is expected to be substantially under the 15-percent threshold established by the Siuslaw Forest Plan for National Forest System lands. Therefore, no substantial cumulative reductions in soil productivity are expected.
3.6.4. Identification of Irreversible or Irretrievable Resources
No irreversible and /or irretrievable use of the soils or geology resource is anticipated, beyond that which has been previously identified in the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. Road or landing aggregate, either crushed or pit run, that might
125
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
be required for this sale could come from various Forest or commercial rock sources. Clearing of less than one acre could be associated with the development of this or any other rock sources. Clearing could include managed stand trees in plantations, brush or hardwoods. 3.7. Heritage Resources (Forest Archaeologist)
3.7.1. Introduction Background research for cultural resources was conducted for the South Nestucca Project, including a thorough review of relevant historic records, reference literature, and cultural resource files on the Siuslaw National Forest. The research was used to delineate areas within the project area that were determined to most likely to contain cultural resources. Following the delineation of “high probability areas” for cultural resources, the Forest Archaeologist reviewed the list of proposed actions and assessed their potential to affect historic properties according to the terms of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement between the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer (PA).
It was determined that many of the activities have little or no potential to affect historic properties. The following activities are listed in Appendices A and C of the PA and do not require field survey:
• Plant transitory gaps within plantations.
• Underplant commercially thinned plantations.
• Fall and leave trees within the commercially thinned stands to create Coarse Woody Debris (CWD);
• Top live trees to create snags in plantations.
• Repairing and maintaining key and non-key forest roads;
• Open approximately 8 miles of closed non-key system roads.
• Open approximately 3.7 miles of temporary roads on existing footprints
Proposed activities not covered under the appendices of the PA, like commercial thinning, gap creation, and temporary road construction requires field survey of high probability areas for cultural resources, as determined by background research.
Consequently, field survey was conducted by the Forest Archaeologist during the summer and fall of 2012 within the project area. The field survey identified no cultural resources considered potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
3.7.2. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.7.2.1. Alternative 1 – No Action If the no action alternative is implemented, there would be no direct effect on the existing conditions of the cultural resources identified within the project area.
126
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.7.2.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Timber harvest and temporary road construction and commercial timber harvesting (ground, skyline, and helicopter based yarding) would result in more ground disturbance than Alternative 1, increasing the risk of inadvertent damage to cultural resources (see Table 4 for comparison of approximate acres of harvest and miles of temporary road construction). However, appropriate surveys and cultural site protection measures are already in place for this project (see Design Criteria, Appendix A); the potential direct effects would be in the form of inadvertent damage to the integrity of cultural resources which were not discovered during initial survey. Any sites uncovered during implementation of the project would require the application of Design Criteria described in Appendix A, so minimal effects to cultural resources would be expected.
3.7.3. Cumulative Effects Treating managed stands would have minimal risk to heritage resources because actions are generally on previously disturbed ground. Adverse cumulative effects would not be expected. There are no cumulative effects since there are no effects from past, present or foreseeable future actions that overlap in time and space. 3.8. Recreation and Special Uses (District Recreation and Lands Staff Officer)
3.8.1. Introduction and Existing Condition Developed and dispersed recreation and Special Use permitted activities are all present in the area encompassing the South Nestucca Restoration Project. Recreation activities include camping at Hebo Lake Campground and South Lake Campground, dispersed camping, hiking and horseback riding on the Pioneer Indian Trail #1300, scenic and wildlife viewing, hunting and fishing, huckleberry picking, and driving for pleasure.
Hebo Lake and South Lake campgrounds are both within the project area. Both campgrounds enjoy moderate to heavy use during the summer and fall. Local families as well as visitors to the Pacific Northwest use these campgrounds for family activities, day use fishing, and camping during hunting season. Both campgrounds have restrooms, tables, fire rings and access to the Pioneer Indian Trail.
The Pioneer Indian Trail, which is located in the northern portion of the project area, is 8 miles long and is used year round by hikers and horseback riders. This is the only trail on the Hebo Ranger District open to horses. There are three trailheads associated with this trail and several trail junctions along Forest Road (FR) 14. Use is high during the summer and moderate in the fall. During the winter and spring the use is low.
There are several dispersed camping sites in the project area. These sites are pullouts along FR 14 as well as sites along several spur roads off FR 14. These sites, which usually include an open area next to the road and a rock fire ring, are used primarily during the summer months and again during hunting season in the fall. Based upon road conditions attributed to vehicle activity, it is fair to say that the dispersed camping sites in the project area have moderate use.
Special Use activities in the project area include an important communication site on Mt. Hebo, a buried power line and a buried fiber optic line. These uses are permitted throughout the year. FR14 is the current access to the communication site and year-round access is imperative.
127
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.8.2. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.8.2.1. Alternative 1 – No Action The no action alternative would maintain the existing recreational experience. Visitors would continue to access the forest for recreation. A decision to select this alternative may diminish viewing opportunities over time, and huckleberry gathering opportunities may decrease without the proposed openings planned with this project. South Lake would not have the opportunity to become a more open park-like setting that many campers enjoy. Increased traffic and traffic patterns would not be modified or increased and roads and areas would not be closed unless it is currently managed with these closures. The No Action alternative would allow visitors to continue to visit the forest without increased ambient noise or increased traffic that would be associated with this restoration project in any of our developed or dispersed recreation areas.
If the No Action Alternative is selected Special Use activities would continue to be administered and managed as per agency direction. Traffic concerns would continue to be minimal.
3.8.2.2. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Implementing this alternative would result in some short-term adverse impacts to recreation and special use activities in the project area. These short-term impacts to visitor use, including temporary area closures, log haul traffic, and noise associated with heavy equipment and helicopter use, would generally be dispersed through time and throughout the project area. The proposed action is also expected to benefit recreation and special use activities in the long term by increasing the quality and diversity of habitats available for public enjoyment, indirectly creating habitat for elk, deer, and other species sought by recreational hunters, improving road safety from road maintenance activities associated with commercial thinning.
3.8.2.2.1. Recreation Locations which have developed and dispersed recreational opportunities (along and near FR 14) in the project area have low to moderate special use and recreation use on weekdays and high recreation use on most weekends.
Pioneer Indian Trail #1300 The Pioneer Indian Trail is an 8 mile long trail that winds around Mt. Hebo through open meadows and closed canopy forest. There are three (3) trailheads associated with the Pioneer Indian Trail. They are all located on or near FR 14, one of the proposed haul routes. If this alternative is implemented recreationists may experience elevated noise, harvest activity and traffic congestion when traveling on FR 14 to the (3) trailheads.
Harvest activities that are planned for this project may change the recreational experience of the forest visitor riding or hiking on this trail. Impacts to recreation on the trail would generally consist of temporary trail closures, increased traffic on roads intersecting the trail, and increased noise audible from the trail. Implementation of the project design criteria (Appendix A) would ensure that logging activities on the ground in close proximity to the trail as well as overhead cable yarding would not adversely impact the trail (e.g. no skidding would occur across the trail). In the interest of public safety, the trail would be periodically closed. Impacts to the public would be minimized to the maximum extent practicable by providing advance notice of closures, notifying the public of alternate recreation sites, and closing the trail only when necessary to ensure public and operator safety (see Appendix A).
128
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Even when the trail is open, noise from helicopters and heavy equipment associated with commercial thinning may affect visitor enjoyment of some portions of the trail and may limit the use of livestock for short periods of time depending on livestock handlers comfort levels. Increased haul traffic may also be encountered at the four trail junctions that intersect FR 14. Hikers and horseback riders alike may encounter this traffic while trying to cross at these intersections which may change the level of safety that recreationists normally associate with this road. While some traffic is always expected there may be times when the proposed project work may change the typical traffic patterns visitors are accustomed to on or near this road. These impacts would be minimized as much as possible by ensuring adequate timely notification of project activities to the public (See Appendix A).
Camping Impacts from the South Nestucca Restoration Project may occur at Hebo Lake Campground. Typical camping experiences, which include a relatively quiet peaceful setting, may change for short periods of time by elevated noise associated with distant harvest operations as well as haul traffic on FR 14 close to the campground.
Campers at other dispersed and developed sites in the project area including South Lake Campground and dispersed locations along FR 14 may experience elevated noise as well as periods of heavy traffic not usually associated with this recreational area. Because most project activity would occur on weekdays this increase of noise and traffic should be minimal.
South Lake Campground is located in one area of this project that has several planning units surrounding the campground. This campground may be closed for several months during the time activity associated with this project is underway in the vicinity of the campground. Many vehicles including haul trucks, noise associated with this project, and the inability to maintain the campground because of road closures would change the experience typically associated with the campground.
Harvest activity may temporarily close a section of FR 14. Even with this temporary closure most recreation areas would remain open, and accessible via alternate access routes, so there should only be minor impacts associated with this closure. The scheduling of harvest operations on weekdays would further reduce potential impacts to recreation users because recreation use is typically greater on weekends. Other Recreation Activities
Other Recreation Activities Harvest activity in the project area may temporarily impact other recreational activities that occur throughout the year. Many of these recreational activities are day outings on weekends that typically do not occur when project work is being done during the weekday. Hunting is one of the activities that may be impacted while this project is underway as recreational hunters often plan week long (or longer) trips. Opportunities for hunting in favorite locations may be temporarily reduced because of harvesting activities occurring during the hunting season. Hunting trips that coincide with fall project activities may see an increase in traffic, noise, temporary road closures, and changes in access to areas previously open. However, hunters and hunting opportunities may benefit from this project in the future as thinning could provide better habitat for game by allowing more sunlight to reach the forest floor which in turn increases the production of browse (grasses and forbs) that game typically seek.
Many of our forest visitors stop alongside forest roads included in this project area to pick berries and picnic. During the week visitors may experience increased noise, increased traffic, road or
129
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
area closures, and other harvest activities that are not typically encountered on a forest recreation visit. As mentioned previously, many of these recreational activities are planned and occur on weekend days so project activity should not be a large concern to most recreational visitors if the roads remain open on weekends.
The proposed action may have positive long-term outcomes on recreational use within the project area. Many forest visitors drive for pleasure looking for scenic overlooks or the hope of viewing wildlife in their native habitat. Wildlife and scenic viewing areas scheduled for treatment in the project area may be enhanced by openings created which would improve scenic views of the landscape in the short term. In the long term, late successional forest with very large trees and multi-layer canopies would provide a more varied scenic experience. In the short term, openings and thinned areas will allow for more opportunities to view larger wildlife, while in the long term the more open viewing will give way to a wider variety of wildlife species that inhabit late- successional forests and opportunities to view them. The proposed action may improve access for forest visitors by removing trees and brush. Also, future access by forest visitors to areas within the project boundaries could be improved long-term if FS roads identified as timber haul routes receive funding from the commercial sale(s). Improvements could include cleaning drainage ditches and resurfacing the road. Recreationists would benefit from road improvements that enhance access opportunities.
3.8.2.2.2. Special Uses Three (3) Special Use Permits are currently being administered in the project boundary area. Mt. Hebo Communication Site has five facilities with towers at Main Point and one facility with a tower at South Point. At times access may be critical for permittees to work on these communication facilities. Project design criteria must ensure continued access for communication permittees over the course of the project. Also, buried power lines and buried fiber optic lines are currently permitted and located adjacent to FR 14. Any road improvements or changes can occur only after conduit location has occurred.
3.8.3. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects since there are no effects from past, present or foreseeable future actions that overlap in time and space. 3.9. Scenic Quality (Forest Landscape Architect, USDA 2014j)
3.9.1. Introduction The project must meet scenic quality objectives and guidelines defined by the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) and the project is guided by the Pacific Coast Highway 101 National Scenic Byway Plan to protect the cultural and natural landscape values along the Byway. Goals for scenery restoration and enhancement along the Nestucca River corridor and the Three Rivers corridor within the South Nestucca coast landscape (as set by the Forest Plan(USDA 1990) and the Scenery Management System (USDA 1995), are to retain and enhance vegetation and cultural features which are characteristic of the scenery of the corridor and larger landscape, and to restore a more natural appearing forest vegetation where needed.
The project must protect the National Wild and Scenic River eligibility of the Nestucca River by protecting its free flow and its outstandingly remarkable values as an eligible Recreation River, and its recreation and scenic values as an Oregon State Scenic Waterway. The project area
130
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
borders the Hebo-Nestucca Roadless area with scenery of semi-primitive character, and so there are Roadless area considerations at the northern edge of the proposed project area. The top of Mount Hebo is a Special Interest Area as defined by the Forest Plan, with special considerations for scenery.
3.9.1.1. Key Viewpoints and Viewers The project area is viewed from Pacific Coast Highway 101, from the Pacific Ocean, from Highway 22, from Highway 858, from FR 14, and from elsewhere within the project area. The proposed project area makes up a central part of the setting for the towns of Hebo and Cloverdale.
Views from the Pacific Ocean, Highway 101, Highway 22, and the Mount Hebo Road are considered sensitivity level one views, where a high proportion of viewers are viewing scenery.
In the Three Rivers landscape, particularly, views are largely restricted to viewing other points within the corridor. As is typical of the coast range, views there tend to be short, with many ridge lines in different directions and small areas of open land.The river corridor provides some level land and more open views. The Nestucca River/Highway 101 corridor has areas of more broad open land, though also largely contained views.
3.9.1.2. Existing Scenic Condition, and Integrity of Coast Landscape Federal lands make up much of the natural coastal zone scenery. Among its other values, natural appearing coastal land is the primary value in the state for tourism. Study of federal and adjacent lands in the Oregon coastal landscape shows the great importance of federal land as providing stretches of natural appearing landscapes.
“High scenic integrity” exists in landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident. Moderate scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.”
Along the Coast, federal land and state owned beaches are large-scale land forms; in between, the scenery is increasingly broken up and small scale. For the corridors and viewsheds, coherence and consistency of the landscape is a key scenery management issue, which relates obviously to adjacent land management. As noted in the FEIS for the Forest Plan (USDA 1990), over half of the land seen in many view sheds is privately owned. No agency or individual can control the appearance of a viewshed. The FEIS lists the condition in 1990 of Highway 101 as slightly altered. Examples of mixed land ownership and related scenery concerns occur along Nestucca River Road and 101. Inconsistencies with the characteristic coastal landscape experience are noted in the Assessment Report, Federal Lands in and Adjacent to Oregon Coast Province (USDA-USDI 1995). As a result of cumulative inconsistencies and fragmentation of characteristic Coast Range landscape, its scenic and cultural value is diminished and in some places lost.
131
South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.9.1.3. Scenic Quality Objectives The Mount Hebo Special Interest Area has scenery as an outstanding value. Scenic quality is to meet or exceed partial retention scenic quality objective, as set by the Forest Plan (USDA 1990). Much of the project area is within the Special Interest Area or/ and Mount Hebo Road - Forest Road 14 view corridor, in foreground, with a high concern for scenic quality.
Portions of the project area are in the Highway 22 and Highway 101 scenic corridors, in middle ground, one mile to two and one-half miles as seen from these corridors. Any portion of the Nestucca landscape which is part of the Highway 101 and Pacific Ocean viewing corridor is to meet the scenic quality objective of retention, where modifications are not evident to the casual observer, and changes are not apparent after one year. The project area has a partial retention scenic quality objective within the Highway 22 road corridor.
The project area has a retention or partial retention scenic quality objectives within the Nestucca River corridor. The standard for the upper Nestucca view corridor is retention and partial retention. Any modification to the setting here is to appear natural and subordinate in the view.
The remainder of the project area has a standard of modification, where modification can be evident, but not dominant, and must appear natural in background views of the area.
The project area has three small lakes. Lake settings are important as scenic, cultural landscapes, as well as having ecological value.
3.9.2. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.9.2.1. Alternative 1 – No Action The no action alternative would not actively change the Forest vegetation. The existing even spacing of the plantation trees which cover much of Mount Hebo would alter slowly, and appear more natural over time.
3.9.2.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action This proposed South Nestucca Restoration Project is part of an overall effort by the Forest Service, within the watershed and throughout the Siuslaw National Forest, to restore natural conditions to resemble those at a particular point in time, while allowing natural processes to effect change to various extents at different locations. Under the proposed alternative, thinning units would be created on the northeast face of the Gauldy Ridge and on the southwest facing slopes of Mount Hebo. The thinned areas are on both sides of Highway 22, to the east of Highway 101, and north of the town of Hebo.
The action alternative sets a goal for the project area landscape of patches of old growth, new growth, and care of riparian quality which is likely to tend to increase the naturalness of appearance and cohesiveness of vegetation pattern in landscape views. The variation of treatment of vegetation proposed– thinning in stages, and gaps proposed to be created and many replanted across the project area – would be likely to help restore a more natural appearance to Mount Hebo landscape, to close and wide landscape views here. Variable spacing proposed, and design criteria for scenery adjusting thinning density at boundaries to blend with adjacent vegetation condition, would be likely to help to create a more natural pattern and detail appearance under the action alternative.
132 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
A number of the proposed thinning units would be along FR 14, including some intended to meet particular enhancement objectives. Huckleberry enhancement areas, in view from FR 14, would be thinned and create more open forest, patchy clearings in forest, at those locations, and would be an enhancement to scenic values.
Thinning proposed adjacent to South Lake would have variation from continuous spacing and variation in types of trees would be enhanced. The goal for scenery would be to enhance the natural appearance of vegetation by making the vegetation patterns more continuous from the lake side to its surroundings. Within the South Lake dispersed camp area, trees that are in decline would be individually selected for removal. Restoration of the lake shore in the main camp site is proposed.
Pioneer Indian Trail has particular scenic value: the historic, elemental character of the trail and its immediate undisturbed forest setting. Under the proposed alternative, there is the possibility that the trail and its immediate setting may be damaged. Design criteria would be included to help reduce that possibility. Known early trail segments are between Hebo Lake and the switchback on FR 14 and near North Lake (through proposed units 010B, 027 A, 027 B). These trail sections are most important to protect.
The winding, varied topography, the short sight distance, with much of the thinning units screened by variations of topography in view from Highway and river corridors, make the vegetation changes proposed by the action alternative along the river/highway corridors likely to blend well with the landscape, and meet scenic quality objectives.
3.9.2.2.1. Rivers and Streams; Effects on Wild and Scenic River eligibility of proposed thinning Project area streams flow into the eligible Wild and Scenic Nestucca River. The proposed action is intended to enhance the fisheries value of the watershed, and so of the river, and so enhance the outstandingly remarkable values for this eligible wild and scenic river. The natural condition of the river and river scenery is also expected to be enhanced by project work to restore of natural quality and characteristics of the stream side vegetation in the project area which feed into and are part of the Nestucca River landscape.
3.9.2.2.2. Road Construction and Operations Under Alternative 2, some new temporary roads would be built. All road construction makes long term alternation to the landscape, particularly if the road is not scarified and graded after use to meet existing natural grade. Impact of operations on the Pioneer Indian Trail and its primitive appearing setting is of particular concern, and design criteria would be included to help protect the trail itself, and the primitive, undisturbed natural character of its immediate setting.
3.9.2.3. Summary The proposed action is expected to help to restore more natural appearing scenery and improve scenic integrity on Mount Hebo.
133 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Figure 31. South Nestucca viewshed map showing areas in view from highways and the town of Hebo (Carol Boyd, Geographic Information Specialist, Feb. 2014).
134 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.9.3. Cumulative effects Activities proposed are expected to help restore characteristic large landscape pattern, and allow for natural variation in the appearance of this Coast Range landmark and river landscape. There are no cumulative effects because there are no measurable adverse direct or indirect effects. 3.10. Public and Management Access (Forest Transportation Planner, USDA Forest Service 2014k)
3.10.1. Introduction The South Nestucca project planning area is within the Nestucca River watershed basin, Hebo Ranger District on Siuslaw National Forest. Timber Haul is planned from commercial thinning in area plantations. This section analyzes roads planned for timber haul within the planning area.
Only National Forest system (NFS) roads are included in this analysis. NFS roads are displayed in the Forest Transportation atlas which includes Geographical Information System (GIS) transportation layers and the INFRA travel routes data base. Generally, temporary roads for haul are not complex and are analyzed under the logging feasibility report only. However, one temporary road into stand 302363 should be planned for critical construction. Plans or criteria drafted by a project engineer are anticipated necessary and would be included with the temporary road provision of the timber sale contract for the temporary road into stand 302363.
Field work occurred during the summer and fall of 2010 and the summer of 2014. Data spreadsheets are included in the transportation specialist report, available in the project file at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, Oregon.
3.10.2. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.10.2.1. Alternative 1 – No Action This alternative would maintain the current road management strategy to keep the existing key forest roads open and passively allow vegetation to continue growing in inhibiting vehicle traffic on non-key roads.
While currently suitable for non-commercial traffic, with no immediate threat of failure from non-commercial use, maintenance needs on key forest roads would continue to accumulate due to lack of funding, further deteriorating the existing key forest road system. Prioritized road maintenance and repair would continue to be accomplished within existing budgets, addressing some of the needed maintenance and correcting critical maintenance items as they are identified.
Under the no-action alternative the risk of losing non-key roads to failure increases. Vegetation would continue to fill drain ditches and water bars, and block culverts. This would increase the risk of fill saturation and road failure over time. The risk to water quality and aquatic habitat would increase over time as well.
3.10.2.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The proposed action would repair or maintain key and non-key roads. Maintaining and repairing these roads would improve structural strength, add road surfacing to reduce sediment, accommodate commercial timber haul, and safely accommodate mixed commercial and passenger traffic.
135 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.10.2.2.1. Haul Summary There are approximately 74 miles of NFS roads planned for haul within the South Nestucca project area (Table 23). Approximately 8 miles are closed by existing barricades and would need re-opened. The longest haul roads are key roads 1400 (Mount Hebo), 1424 (Lawrence Basin), 1428 (South Lake), 1500 (Gauldy Ridge), 1533 (Clear Creek), 2210 (Crazy Lakes), 2234 (Little Hebo), and 8595000 (Foland Creek or Bixby). Most roads are aggregate surface while NFS road 1400 is mostly paved.
Table 23. National Forest System haul road summary.
Total NFS roads Miles Open Miles* Percent Open 8 Key Roads 40 40 100 Non-key Roads 34 26 77 Total Key & Non-key 74 66 90 *open miles of non-key roads may be grown in with vegetation
Routine maintenance and rock re-surfacing is planned on all haul roads. Approximately 71 miles are planned for wet weather haul (Table 24). Additional rocking would be recommended at sensitive stream crossings, bridge approaches, and areas more difficult to drain such as through cuts. Engineering would work with fisheries and watershed staff to identify sensitive areas. Approximately 3 miles would be restricted to dry season haul, generally between June 15 and October 15.
Table 24. Season of haul road summary.
Season of Haul Total Miles
All Season 71 Dry Season 3 Totals 74
A stock pile of existing crushed rock has been identified for use at T5S R9W, SW quarter of section 11. The pile is located along NFS road 2234 at approximate mile post 5.5. Three existing rock pits have been identified for use at various locations in the planning area. Use of these sites would be within the existing pit development site. Some of these sites have young alder growing within the established rock pit. Development of the sites may require blasting and rock crushing operations. Rock would be used for re-surfacing prior to and during log haul. Locations include T5S R9W SW quarter of section 11 along NFS road 2234 at approximate mile post 5.5; T4S R9W SW quarter of section 22 along NFS road 1431 at approximate mile post 1.1; and T5S R9W SW quarter of section 6 along NFS road 1500 at approximately mile post 7.1.
3.10.2.3. Maintenance and Reconstruction Cost Summary Maintenance on haul roads includes rock re-surfacing, blading and shaping road surfaces, roadside brushing and cleaning drainage structures such as ditches and relief culverts. Logging out and cleaning sloughs and slides are incidental and ongoing maintenance activities. Maintenance is designed to improve road surfaces and increase safe driving conditions.
136 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Reconstruction may include fill repairs, culvert replacements, asphalt repair, road re-surfacing and bridge repairs. No major reconstruction needs have been identified with this project; however, minor fill repairs, rock re-surfacing and routine drainage improvements are anticipated.
An estimated cost for maintenance and reconstruction of the longer haul roads is about $800,000, although costs for individual roads vary (Table 25). Rock re-surfacing is approximately 40% of the cost.
Table 25. Alternative 2 road maintenance and reconstruction cost estimates for main haul roads. NFS Road 1400 1424 1428 1500 1533 2210 2234 8595 Number
Miles in project 13.3 2.7 1.1 6.8 3.3 5.3 6.5 2 area
Reconstruction and repair 300,000 40,000 40,000 110,000 50,000 130,000 80,000 30,000 costs ($)
3.10.2.3.1. Other Haul Considerations NFS roads that cross private land were checked for existing easements. Easements have been verified and copies reside at the Hebo Ranger District and the Supervisors office in Corvallis. No new right-of-way easements are required for the haul routes analyzed. Adjacent private land owners who wish to be contacted during timber sale and haul activities should contact the Hebo Ranger District.
3.10.3. Cumulative Effects Known and reasonably foreseeable transportation projects within the Nestucca River watershed include the 2011 Nestucca Legacy Roads I Decision Memo, the 2011 Nestucca Legacy Roads II Decision Memo, and the 2012 Nestucca Legacy Roads Decision Memo. The three decisions authorize open roads to be stored in the Nestucca basin Transportation Analysis. A total of 107 miles of roads are planned for storage with these projects. Implementation started in fiscal year 2012 and would continue until funding runs out or all roads are stored. The 2012 Nestucca Roads Decommissioning Project includes 24 miles of roads planned for decommissioning with 29 stream crossing culverts to be removed. Implementation started in fiscal year 2013 and would continue until funding runs out or all roads are decommissioned.
A combined total of 131 miles are proposed for storage or decommissioning in the Nestucca basin. Motorized vehicle access would be reduced from approximately 295 miles open to 164 miles open (56% reduction). Eight-eight of the 164 open miles would be key roads, open to highway legal vehicles only. Seventy-six miles would be non-key roads, open to highway legal vehicles and off highway vehicles.
Legal access for other public agencies and adjacent private land owners was considered. The cumulative effect is no net loss of legal access to adjacent public or private lands. No permitted roads are affected by storage or decommissioning.
There are no cumulative effects since there are no effects from past, present or foreseeable future actions that overlap in time and space.
137 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
3.11. Fire and Fuels (Assistant Forest Fire Management Officer)
3.11.1. Introduction Historically, fire return intervals on the Siuslaw National Forest were infrequent (100-200 years) with mixed severity (partial overstory mortality) on the interior zones and infrequent (>200 years) with high severity (stand replacing fire) in the coastal fog zones. Fire return interval combined with fire severity defines a fire regime. The Siuslaw National Forest, including the South Nestucca project area, is categorized as fire regimes III, IV, V.
The fire occurrence in the project area is relatively low, but the potential for a high severity damaging wildfire does exist when fuel, weather and topography align to create high fire danger. Between 2004 and 2013 the Siuslaw National Forest’s 10 year fire average is 13.3 fires per year burning a total of 6.8 acres per year. Of these fires only four were reported as non-human caused (lightning) and burned for a total of 1acre. Human caused fire is the most common ignition source contributing to 97% of the fire starts and typically occurs in areas that are easily accessible to humans. Most if not all lightning is accompanied by a significant amount of rainfall, sufficient to reduce the probability of wildfire ignition.
3.11.2. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.11.2.1. Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under Alternative 1, no timber would be harvested and therefore no activity fuels would be generated or treated. The forest floor surface fuels would continue to be classified as High Load Conifer Litter TL5 (Scott and Bergen 2005).
3.11.2.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The proposed action under alternative 2 would mechanically treat approximately 920 acres of mature off-site plantations and 848 acres of young plantations. These treatments would increase the amount of dead and down woody fuels on the forest floor.
These activity generated fuels (slash) add to existing dead and down fuel loadings and affect fire behavior. Fuels in thinned stands and within 25 to 100 feet of Forest Service Key or County roads or within 300 feet of the wildland urban interface (structures) would be treated to reduce the volume of fuels and the potential for wildfire. Treatments of fuels in thinned stands may include underburning, hand or machine piling and burning, chipping, mastication, directional felling, whole tree logging, or pull back and scattering of fuels.
3.11.2.2.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
Commercial Thinning and Large Woody Debris Addition The proposed commercial thinning and addition of down wood in the project area would open the stands, creating a forest canopy that is less susceptible to sustaining a crown fire. Ladder fuels would be reduced as harvest operations reduce fuel continuity. Because moderately thinned stands would have fewer residual trees and more crown spacing, these stands would be less susceptible to crown fires than untreated stands.
Thinning managed stands and adding down wood to commercially thinned stands would increase fuels on the forest floor. Andersen (1982) developed aids to assist fuels and fire-behavior analysts
138 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
in determining an appropriate fuel model or models for estimating potential fire behavior. He developed 13 fuel models representing the various components of living and dead vegetation in forest or rangelands across North America. Andrews' (1986) fire-behavior program (BEHAVE) predicts fire behavior characteristics such as fireline intensity, rates of spread, and resistance to control. Additional research has been done and an updated guide for determining fire behavior based on fuel models’ has been developed by Scott and Bergen (2005). Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set For Use With Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model provides 42 fuel models that allow the user to more closely define the fuel type that they are modeling fire behavior in. Using these tools—along with local knowledge and weather variables measured from Cannibal Mountain Remote Automated Weather Station—thinning under Alternative 2 is expected to have the following effects on fuels and the potential results from fire ignitions:
Fuel loading and risk of a fire start would temporarily increase for a period of up to 4 years at the site as a result of the proposed action. During this period, thinning slash could support a surface fire and would increase resistance to control by firefighting forces. Fuels would be expected to decay over time and based on local observations within 3-4 years fine fuels such as needles and twigs would have decomposed. In addition, with the reduced overhead canopy the brush is likely to increase growth, which adds to the live fuel loading. Similarly, as the canopy is opened up, dead fuels, duff, and surface vegetation would be dried out as a result of increased air circulation and sun exposure, lowering the fuel moisture and increasing the flammability. Fuels created from light to moderate thinning would fall under Andersons light-slash fuel model (fuel model 11) or Scott and Bergens High Load Conifer Litter (TL 5), and in moderate thinning units activity fuels would be characterized by Andersons medium-slash fuel model (fuel model 12) and Scott and Bergens Low Load Activity Fuel (SB 1). While down wood can contribute to resistance to control for firefighters, it is mainly the fine fuels that contribute to rapid rates of fire spread. With the addition of large woody debris fire hazard is expected to remain low due to climate, incremental additions of down wood over time, location of down wood within stands (less risk in lower, moister slopes), average down wood pieces per acre throughout the watershed, and reduced vehicle access to thinned stands. Fire behavior in thinning slash in late summer would create fireline intensities and flame lengths difficult for hand and engine crews to suppress safely and successfully by direct attack. Therefore: roads and skid trails would be the primary control lines in indirect suppression, likely increasing the number of acres that would burn; and the late-successional reserve objective to limit the size of all wildfires in the reserve would be difficult to meet.
Increased fire intensity could increase the effects on other resources. Soils could be damaged by fire if nutrients and organic matter are consumed, increasing the potential for soil erosion due to overland flow. The severity of any damage (e.g., soils, trees, and shrubs) would be directly linked to the intensity of the fire.
Key and Non-key Forest Road Actions Fuels in thinned stands within 25 to 100 feet of key roads and at landings would be treated to reduce the volume of fuels and the potential for human caused ignition. Treatments may include burning (machine or hand piles, or underburning), chipping, mastication, directional felling, whole tree logging, or pull back and scattering of fuels. About 32 acres located adjacent to key and County roads would be treated.
139 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Fuels in thinned stands that cannot be adequately treated by the means mentioned above and that extend into the entire unit may be treated by broadcast underburning, jackpot burning, and piling in the unit and burning. Units currently identified that may be treated with these methods include units 37A, 37B, 37C and 39.
Road decommissioning or closure would reduce access to thinned stands, thereby reducing the risk of human-caused fire ignitions. These road actions would also slow the rate of initial attack in the rare event of a naturally caused wildland fire. Reducing fuel concentrations adjacent to roads and at landing locations would substantially reduce the risk of fires starting and spreading at rapid rates.
Summary In summary, fuel treatments would reduce fuel concentrations in high risk areas. These actions would substantially reduce the increased potential for human caused fire ignition and spread.
Prescribed Burning Actions All prescribed burning would be designed to be consistent with the requirements of the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (ODF 2005) and the Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Quality and Visibility Protection Plan (DEQ 2003). Effects of fuel treatments are described below:
• Because slash volumes would be relatively small or treatment areas would be scattered, adverse effects to air quality from burning would be short-term and localized. • All burn plans would be designed to minimize adverse impacts to soils and residual trees and include contingency plans, ensuring the availability of adequate fire-suppression resources in the event of an escaped fire (Appendix A). • Fuel treatments would be timed to reduce the potential for fire spread, and scorch and mortality to residual trees. High soil and duff moisture would also prevent soil damage from occurring. • Patrol and mop-up of burned piles would occur, when needed, to prevent treated areas from re-burning or becoming an escaped fire (Appendix A).
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Actions Fuels in thinned stands and within 300 feet of structures (WUI) would be treated. Treatment would be the same as roadside treatment and includes prescribed burning, hand or machine piling and burning, chipping, mastication, directional felling, whole tree logging, or pull back and scattering of fuels. Two of the proposed thinning units are adjacent to private property. These units currently do not have structures within the WUI but would be checked prior to completing the BD plan (See Appendix A).
3.11.3. Cumulative Effects Adjacent and to the east of unit 302363 is private timber land owned by Hampton Affiliates. Hampton Affiliates indicated that they would be treating their land with a variety of pre- commercial thinnings within the next 4-9 years. It is reasonable to expect that both mechanical treatment within unit 302363 and pre-commercial thinning on private land may overlap in time. If this does occur there could be an increase in potential for a fire start on either ownership.
140 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.12. Unroaded Areas (The Team)
Unroaded areas are defined as “any area, without the presence of a classified road, of a size and configuration sufficient to protect the inherent characteristics associated with its roadless condition. Unroaded areas do not overlap with the inventoried roadless areas (IRA).” (36 CFR 219.36).
Three areas were identified during the RARE II (1977) roadless inventory: Hebo 1A (Hebo- Nestucca IRA), Hebo 1B, and Hebo 1C, all of which overlapped with the South Nestucca project area. Hebo 1B and Hebo 1C were dropped from wilderness consideration in the Siuslaw NF Plan (USDA 1990; Hebo 1A IRA is discussed in section 1.3.4.3) and are no longer designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas. Following completion of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in 2001, the area identified as Hebo 1A was designated as an IRA with a fixed boundary and prohibitions set by Forest Service regulation. The Hebo 1B and 1C were not included as IRAs under this Rule.
District Databases for the existing road system and past harvest were combined with local knowledge of the area, input received during the 30-day public comment period, and examination of aerial photography to make this analysis. Two unroaded areas were identified within the South Nestucca project area (maps of these areas are available in the South Nestucca project record):
• 1,500 acres spanning from Mt. Hebo south to Three Rivers (area included within the area previously identified as Hebo IB);
• 1,200 acres in the Crazy Creak area (within the area previously identified as Hebo 1C).
Areas qualify for placement on the potential wilderness inventory (“potential wilderness areas”) if they meet the statutory definition of wilderness (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70). PWAs are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or impart any particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of potential wilderness (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 72), and they are not preliminary administrative recommendations for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 73). The inventory of PWAs does not change the administrative boundary of any inventoried roadless area (IRA). Areas that do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, that are less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria may be considered PWAs (FSH 1909.12 sect. 71.1):
a. Areas can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions.
b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size.
The Team assumed the areas could qualify as PWAs, evaluated each of the two areas for their wilderness potential (FSH 1909/12 Chapter 72), and determined that neither area meets the tests
141 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
of capability, availability, and need required for an area to be considered suitable for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12). Both areas fail to meet the Natural Capability Standard of potential wilderness. Human influences have already substantially altered the ecological processes throughout both areas. The areas were planted with off-site tree stock shortly after the 1910 Mount Hebo fire and portions of both areas were commercially thinned between 1992 and 2000 (see section 3.1.1.2.4). Wildlife experts recently reviewed the area and determined that the off-site trees provide little habitat for northern spotted owls and flying squirrels due to their structure as compared with local seed sourced trees (see also sections 1.4.1, 3.2.1.2, and 3.2.1.3). The off-site stands are single-storied, uniformly spaced, of uniform composition (off-site Douglas fir), high- density, and highly susceptible to Swiss needle cast. These plantations comprise much of the unroaded areas but do not provide the same characteristics of natural stands therefore these areas do not meet the Natural Capability Standard required designated wilderness.
3.12.1. Direct and Indirect Effects
3.12.1.1. Alternative 1 – No Action There would be no thinning, snag creation, down wood creation, or other habitat enhancement. Both unroaded areas would remain unchanged, except by natural processes and routine road and trail maintenance. The degraded condition of the off-site forest stands would persist. Total acreage of the unroaded areas would remain the same.
3.12.1.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under this Alternative, thinning is proposed for a relatively small portion of unroaded area in the watershed. Units proposed for commercial thinning under this Alternative make up 19% of the approximate 1,500 acres of unroaded land that spans from Mt. Hebo south to Three Rivers, and approximately 4% of the roughly 1,200 acres of unroaded land in the Crazy Creak area. There would be short-term effects from equipment noise, tree slash, vegetation disturbance, and smoke. Treatments would improve ecosystem health and resiliency. Under this alternative 0.8 miles of new temporary road would be constructed in the Mt. Hebo-Three Rivers unroaded area and 140 feet of new temporary road would be constructed in the Crazy Creek area. All newly constructed temporary roads would be decommissioned by seeding, covering with slash, or other methods necessary to restore the area after use (see Appendix A).
Natural integrity could decrease in the short-term but would increase beyond the pre-treatment condition in the long term. The two areas have been altered by past management activities including wide-scale planting of off-site trees and commercial thinning, activities proposed under Alternative 2 are not expected to measurable affect existing roadless/undeveloped characteristics of these areas. In contrast, the proposed action is expected to improve these characteristics over the long term.
The impacts to soil, water quality, air quality, plant and animal communities, habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, noxious weeds, are essentially the same as those disclosed for the larger project area and are not repeated here. Effects to recreation and cultural resources are also the same as those disclosed in previous sections and are not reiterated here.
3.12.2. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects because the proposed project would not measurably affect roadless/undeveloped characteristics. Cumulative effects to other resources are disclosed elsewhere in chapter 3 of this EA.
142 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
3.13. Environmental Justice (The Team)
Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the problem of adverse environmental effects by agency programs on minority and low income populations. A lower percentage of individuals and families are below poverty level in the communities immediately surrounding the project area when compared to Tillamook County overall, or statewide figures, although the rural nature of the project area makes it difficult to accurately assess socioeconomic characteristics (Headwaters Economics 2014). Census data and US Department of Labor statistics indicate that median household incomes in Tillamook and Yamhill County are above the national poverty guideline (Headwaters Economics 2014). Based on local knowledge, small pockets of low-income populations live in the planning area and some augment incomes through actions such as gathering firewood and other forest products to sell. Some farms exist in the planning area, and domestic-use water systems include individual wells and spring-fed systems.
Temporary road closure actions could reduce vehicle access to areas that provide shrubs for picking or wood for firewood gathering, however, these closures would be limited in geographic scope and duration. Long-term access to such areas would be improved through road maintenance activities associated with the proposed action. Thinning stands would also improve conditions for shrub growth and provide opportunities for firewood gathering. Some proposed actions in the planning area may provide job opportunities for local residents. None of the proposed actions are expected to affect farms or water quality of municipal or domestic-use water systems.
Although 90-100% of the population in areas surrounding the project area self-identify as white, 10.4% of the Hebo CDP (census-designated place) self-identifies as American Indian (Headwaters Economics 2014). The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde (CTGR) reservation is located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project area. The Hebo Ranger District discussed the proposed project with representatives of the CTGR and worked with the Tribe to include actions that would benefit Tribal members (e.g. huckleberry enhancement). No adverse effects from project activities are expected to disproportionately affect members of the CTGR or any minority group.
In summary, effects of alternatives on the human environment (including minority and low- income populations) are expected to be similar for all human populations regardless of nationality, gender, race, or income. No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations are expected as a result of implementing any alternative. 3.14. Climate Change (The Team)
A growing body of scientific evidence and climate modeling indicate that climate change is occurring. While there are no specific projections for the project area, it can generally be expected that summers would be drier and winter rains may be more intense (Bare et al. 2005, Mote 2003, Mote et al. 2005, Dale et al. 2001).
The proposed action was not specifically designed to mitigate or respond to potential climate change and this analysis does not attempt to quantify carbon emission or sequestration or to assert that one alternative would emit or sequester more than another. Instead, this analysis addresses aspects of the proposed action that may affect carbon emission or sequestration and how the
143 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
South Nestucca Restoration Project may help or hinder the forest’s ability to deal with climate change.
The proposed action involves thinning forest stands to improve stand health and growth. Rapidly growing forests are recognized as a means of carbon sequestration (FAO 2007). Forest health and growth issues are discussed in the Forest Stand Conditions section (3.1).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarized the contributions of global human activity sectors on climate change (IPCC 2007). The top three human-caused contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from 1970 to 2004) are fossil fuel combustion (56.6% of global total), deforestation (17.3%), and agriculture/waste/energy (14.3%) (IPCC 2007). The IPCC analysis of "deforestation" focuses on land use conversions and large scale deforestation (removal of all trees) as the primary forestry-related issues (e.g., conversion of rainforest into agricultural land; conversion of forest into developed land). The proposed action does not fall within these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions; it does not convert forested land into a developed condition or otherwise deforest the land. Given the IPCC findings and the relatively small-scale and limited impacts the Project would have on the forest, the incremental contribution to greenhouse gases and climate change would be negligible.
The IPCC recommends forest management as a key mitigation "technology" for the forestry sector, including management to "improve tree species" and increase biomass production (IPCC 2007). The proposed action is consistent with these recommendations because variable thinning, deadwood creation, and underplanting with diverse tree species, would help accomplish these objectives.
The proposed action is not likely to have direct localized effects on climate. By its very nature, the discussion of a project’s effect on climate change is indirect and cumulative because the effects occur at a different time and place, and because the scale of the discussion is global. Since it is not reasonable to measure a project’s global impact, the discussion here focuses on key elements of forest management discussed in the scientific literature. For this proposal, the following actions have the potential to affect carbon emissions or sequestration:
Thinning to enhance the health of the residual stand would result in trees that are better able to withstand stresses such as dry summer conditions (Millar et al. 2007; Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003). The no-action alternative would result in trees that are stressed by moisture competition.
Variable density thinning with skips and gaps and the retention of minor species would result in stands that are resilient and better able to respond to whatever changes come in the future (Millar et al. 2007). The no-action alternative would result in uniform crowded stands.
Fossil fuel is used by equipment such as saws, tractors, skyline yarders, helicopters and log trucks. It is possible for some of this equipment to use biofuels, and it is likely to be used where it is available and price competitive. Helicopters would use more fuel than other yarding options. The no-action alternative would not use fuel.
Small quantities of debris at landings would be burned, releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Burning at landings would be minimal because most tree tops and branches of harvested trees would be left scattered in the forest. In moist forests, leaving this debris in the forest would not result in a high fire hazard situation; thus, these areas would not be burned. The no-action alternative would not implement any burning.
144 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Woody debris retained on the ground increases soil carbon sequestration (Millar et al. 2007). The action alternative would retain existing debris and logs on the ground, and would add more woody debris through leaving tops of trees in the forest and creating snags and down wood. The no-action alternative would result in stagnation of trees and some would eventually die and fall to the ground.
Utilizing trees to create long-lived wood products sequesters carbon. The no-action alternative would not create any long-lived wood products (IPCC 2007; FAO 2007; Stavins and Richards, 2005; Upton, et al. 2007).
To summarize, the alternatives would result in some carbon emissions and some carbon sequestration. The benefits to forest health and resiliency with the action alternative would allow stands to better respond and adapt to the future climate. 3.15. Additional Disclosures (The Team)
• This environmental assessment is tiered to the Siuslaw Forest Plan FEIS, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, and is consistent with those plans and their requirements.
• None of the alternatives would affect minority groups, women, and consumers differently than other groups. These groups may benefit from employment opportunities and by- products that proposed actions would provide; the no-action alternative would have neither adverse nor beneficial effects. None of the alternatives adversely affects civil rights. All contracts that may be awarded as a result of implementation would meet equal employment opportunity requirements.
• None of the proposed actions would affect known prehistoric or historic sites because no new disturbance on previously undisturbed ground is expected. As outlined in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, no effects are anticipated on American Indian social, economic, subsistence rights, or sacred sites.
• No adverse effects on wetlands and flood plains are anticipated.
• There is no prime farmland, park land, or range land within the project area and no impact to these areas is expected.
• The project is not within any congressionally designated area and would not affect any designated wild and scenic rivers.
• The proposed project is adjacent to an inventoried roadless area (IRA), but no actions are proposed for the IRA and the proposed action is not expected to degrade the quality of the IRA.
• The proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act because federal lands are excluded from being inside state coastal zone management boundaries, and there are no reasonably foreseeable Project effects on uses and resources located inside those boundaries.
• None of the proposed actions are expected to substantially affect human health and safety.
145 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
• Proposed activities are consistent with the Clean Air Act because effects from activities, such as log hauling (dust) and prescribed burning, are localized and short-term.
• Because of the design criteria to be applied (Appendix A), this project is expected to be consistent with the Clean Water Act.
• The proposed project is not expected to measurably affect global warming. The US Forest Service would continue an active leadership role in agriculture and forestry regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Joyce and Birdsey 2000).
• These actions do not set a precedent for future actions because they are similar to actions implemented in the past.
Chapter 4. Agencies and Persons Consulted 4.1. Public Scoping The Hebo Ranger District mailed letters describing the proposed project to about 170 individuals and organizations in August 2012. On August 8, 2012, the District also placed a notice of opportunity for public comment in the Tillamook Headlight Herald in Tillamook, Oregon. The scoping letters and public notice requested comments on the proposed project by September 21, 2012. The proposal was first listed in the 10/01/2012 to 12/31/2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions for Siuslaw National Forest. The District received four comments regarding the proposed project.
The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this EA: 4.2. Tribal Consultation The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (CTSI) and the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde (CTGR) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were informed of the Project’s proposed actions during the initial public-notification process. Kevin Bruce, Forest Archaeologist, visited the South Nestucca planning area in the summer of 2012 with representatives from CTSI to discuss huckleberry management and traditional Tribal use in the planning area. Kevin Bruce also visited the area with representatives of the CTGR in the summer of 2012 to discuss similar opportunities. On August 6, 2013, Kevin Bruce; Chad Atwood, Operations Staff; Michelle Dragoo, District Wildlife Biologist; and Marty Stein, Forest Botanist, met with representatives of the CTGR for a follow up discussion regarding the possibility of enhancing huckleberry habitat in the planning area. Hebo District staff also presented information about the project at annual meetings with both tribes in 2013 and 2014.
4.2.1. Agencies, Governments, and Organizations Consulted
4.2.1.1. Federal Agencies National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – Project actions associated with commercial thinning, including road repair and maintenance, tree felling, yarding, and hauling, have been designed to have no effect on Oregon coast coho salmon (listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act) or its critical habitat. The project would not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat for coho and chinook salmon, as designated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
146 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) - Listed species that may occur in the planning area include the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and Oregon silverspot butterfly. The project would have no effect on Oregon silverspot butterfly. Consultation with FWS for this project for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet is complete, and the FWS concluded that this project would not jeopardize the continued existence of either species (USFWS 2013b). Design criteria included in Appendix A reflect the terms and conditions associated with the biological opinions.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - Land managed by the BLM is in the project-planning area. The BLM has been consulted regarding any plans they may have for the planning area.
4.2.1.2. US Congressional Representatives Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Jeff Merkley, and Representative Peter DeFazio were notified about the proposed project. No comments were received from them.
4.2.1.3. State of Oregon All proposed actions were evaluated under the 2004 programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office (USFS 2005c). No further consultation with SHPO was needed.
Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division, Oregon Parks and Recreation, and State Senator Joanne Verger were notified about the proposed project. No comments were received from them.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was contacted during the initial public- notification process. ODOT staff commented on the project by phone, stating that it wanted to confirm the Forest Service was aware of the need for access permits when commercial haul entered state controlled roads.
4.2.1.4. Local Governments County commissioners of Tillamook, Yamhill, Polk, and Lincoln Counties, county soil and water conservation districts, the mayor of Lincoln City, and other local government representatives were notified. No comments were received from them.
4.2.1.5. Watershed Councils The Salmon - Drift Watershed Council and the Nestucca, Neskowin, and Sand Lake Watersheds Council were both notified of the proposed project. No comments were received from them.
4.2.1.6. Other On August 29, 2012, Michael Reichenberg, District Silviculturist, and Michelle Dragoo, District Wildlife Biologist, met with Doug Heiken of OregonWild to discuss the proposed actions including the potential for butterfly habitat creation along Forest Road 1400.
On June 12, 2014 Wayne Patterson, District Silviculturist; Frank Davis, Forest Environmental Coordinator; Chad Atwood, Operations Staff; Michelle Dragoo, District Wildlife Biologist; Marty Stein, Forest Botanist, and Lorena Wisehart, NEPA Planner, met with representatives of OregonWild. The group toured proposed stands within the South Nestucca project planning area.
147 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
On June 12, 2014, Chad Atwood, District Operations Staff, discussed the proposed project with the Hebo Stewardship Group (HSG). The HSG includes representatives from local government and watershed councils in areas surrounding the District.
On November 26, 2012; November 15, 2013; and November 19, 2014; Wayne Patterson, discussed the proposed project with the American Forest Resources Council. 4.3. List of Preparers Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Specialty Members John Casteel Team Leader/NEPA Lorena Wisehart Team Leader/NEPA Michelle Dragoo Wildlife Biologist Marty Stein Botany Ron Hudson Hydrology Doug Shank Geology Adriana Morales Fisheries Matt Ruedy Logging Systems Eric Hays Logging Systems Alex Wickham Logging Systems Chris Waverek Fire/Fuels Wayne Patterson Silviculture Michael Reichenberg Silviculture Mike Brouwer Transportation Systems Rob Sanders Transportation Systems Debra Hobbs Recreation Nancy Craft Lands/GIS Jessica Dole Scenery Kevin Bruce Heritage
148 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Chapter 5. Acronyms AMA – Adaptive Management Area
BE, BA, BO – Biological Evaluation, Biological Assessment, Biological Opinion
BLM – Bureau of Land Management
CH – Critical Habitat
EFH – Essential Fish Habitat
EIS or FEIS Environmental Impact Statement or Final Env. Impact Statement
ESA – Endangered Species Act
Forest Plan or Plan – Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
FR – Forest Road
HSG – Hebo Stewardship Group
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRA – Inventoried Roadless Area
LOC Letter of Concurrence
LFH – Coho Listed Fish Habitat
LWD or CWD – Large Woody Debris or Course Woody Debris
LSR – Late Successional Reserve
NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
NLAA or LAA (Not) Likely to Adversely Affect
NFS – National Forest System
NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service
NWFP– Northwest Forest Plan
NSO – Northern spotted owl
ODOT – Oregon Department of Transportation
PA – Programmatic Agreement
PDC – Project Design Criteria
PETS – Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species
SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office
149 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
SIA or SMA – Special Interest Area or Special Management Area
Team or IDT– Interdisciplinary Team
USDA – United States Department of Agriculture
USDOI – United States Department of the Interior
USFS – United States Forest Service
USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WA – Watershed Analysis
WCI – Watershed Condition Indicator
WUI – Wildland Urban Interface
Chapter 6. References Abbe, T.B. and D.R. Montgomery. 1996. “Large woody debris jams, channel hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers.” Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12:201- 222.
Adams, J.N. and R.L. Beschta. 1980. “Gravel bed composition in Oregon coastal streams.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37: 1514-1521.
Alig, R.J. 2003. “Biology, ecology, and economics at play: land use and land cover changes in the 21st century.” Science Findings 55:1-2.
Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington, Version 1.0: Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.
Altman, B., J. Hagar. 2007. Rainforest Birds: A Land Manger’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5304. 60 p.
Anlauf, K.J., K.K. Jones, and C.H. Stein. 2009. The Status and Trend of Physical Habitat and Rearing Potential in Coho Bearing Streams in the Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit. OPSW-ODFW-2009-5. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-122. Boise, ID: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise Interagency Fire Center. 22 p.
Anderson, P.D., D.J. Larson and S.S. Chan. 2007. “Riparian buffer and density management influences of microclimate of young headwater forests of western Oregon.” Forest Snow and Landscape Research 53 (2007) 254-268.
Andrews, L.S., J.P. Perkins, J.A. Thrailkill, N.J. Poage and J.C. Tappeiner, II. 2005. “Silvicultural approaches to develop northern spotted owl nesting sites, central Coast Ranges, Oregon.” Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20:13-27.
150 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Andrews, P.T. 1986. Fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-94. Boise, ID: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise Interagency Fire Center.
Antoine, M.E. and B. McCune. 2004. “Contrasting fundamental and realized ecological niches with epiphytic lichen transplants in old-growth Pseudotsuga forest.” The Bryologist 107 (2): 163-173.
Ares, A., S.D. Berryman and K.J. Puettmann. 2009. Understory vegetation response to thinning disturbance of varying complexity in coniferous stands.” Journal of Applied Vegetation Science 12(4): 472-487
Applegarth, J. S. 1995. Invertebrates of special status or special concern in the Eugene district. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 126 pp.
Assmann, E. 1970. The Principles of Forest Yield Study. Pergamon Press, New York, NY. 506 p
Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2002. “Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states.” Biological Conservation 114: 79-90.
Badura, G.J., H.A. Legard and L.C. Meyer. 1974. Siuslaw National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 139 p.
Bailey, J.D., C. Mayrsohn, P.S. Doescher, E. St Pierre, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1998. “Understory vegetation in old and young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon.” Forest Ecology and Management 112:289–302.
Bare, B.B., R. Gustafson, P. Mote, L. Brubaker and J. Perez-Garcia. 2005. Effect of global climate change on northwest forests. University of Washington. Denman Forestry Issues video series. Available online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJSt2y93xes.
Beechie, T. J. and T.H. Sibley. 1997. “Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwest Washington streams.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:217-229.
Beechie, T.J., G. Press, P. Kennard, R.E. Bilby and S. Bolton. 2000. “Modeling recovery rates and pathways for woody debris recruitment in northwestern Washington streams.” North American Journal Fisheries Management 20:436-452.
Benda, L.E. and T.W. Cundy. 1990. “Predicting deposition of debris flows in mountain channels.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27:409-417.
Berg, L. and T.G. Northcote. 1985. “Changes in territorial, gill-flaring, and feeding behavior in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-term pulses of suspended sediment.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 42:1410-1417.
Beschta, R.L. 1980. Turbidity and suspended sediment relationships. In Proceedings of Watershed Management Symposium, Irrigation and Drainage Division, Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, Boise, Idaho, July 21-23, 1980. 1-12.
Bilby, R.E. 1985. “Contributions of road surface sediment to a western Washington stream.” Forest Science 31:827-838.
151 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan and S.H. Duncan. 1989. “The generation and fate of road-surface sediment in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington.” Forest Science 35(2): 453- 468.
Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward, 1989. “Changes in Characteristics and Function of Woody Debris with Increasing Size of Streams in Western Washington.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:368-378.
Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1991. “Large woody debris characteristics and function in streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwest Washington.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:2499-2508.
Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. “Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:371-374.
Brown, E.R.(ed). 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington (two volumes). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Publication No.: R6-F&WL-192-1985. Pacific Northwest Region, 319 SW Pine, PO BOX 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.
Brown, G.W. 1988. Forest and Water Quality. OSU Bookstores, Inc., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Brown, G.W. and J.T. Krygier. 1971. “Clear-cut logging and sediment production in the Oregon Coast Range.” Water Resources Research 7(5) 1189-1198.
Burnett, K.M., G.H. Reeves, D.J. Miller, S. Clarke, K. Vance-Borland and K. Christianson. 2007. “Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation.” Ecological Applications 17(1):66-80.
Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala (tech. Coords.) 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654, U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Washington, D.C. vol.2.
Carey, A. B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forest. Gen. Tech. Report 76. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR:. 46pp. (Huff, Mark H.; Holthausen, Richard. S.; and Aubry, Keith B., tech. coords. Biology and management of old-growth forests).
Carey, A.B. 2003a. “Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable density thinning.” Forestry 76(2):127-136.
Carey, A.B. 2003b. “Restoration of landscape function: reserves or active management.” Forestry 76(2):221-230.
Carey, A.B. 2007. AIMing for Healthy Forests: Active, Intentional Management for Multiple Values. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-721. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station.
Carey, A.B., B.R. Lippke and J. Sessions. 1999. “Intentional systems management: managing forests for biodiversity.” Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 9(3/4):83-125.
152 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Carey, A.B. and R.O. Curtis. 1996 “Conservation of biodiversity: a useful paradigm for forest ecosystem management.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 610–620.
Castellano, M; J. Smith, T. O’Dell, E. Cázares and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to strategy 1 fungal species in the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-476. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 195 p.
Castellano, M; E. Cázares, B. Fondrick, and T. Dreisbach. 2003. Handbook to additional fungal species of special concern in the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-572. Portland, OR. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 144 p.
Chan, S.S., K. Mass-Hebner and W. Emmingham. 1996. “Thinning Hardwood and Conifer Stands to Increase Light Levels: Have You Thinned Enough?” COPE Report 9(4): 2-6.
Chan, S.S. et al. 1997 “The Role of Silviculture in the Active Management of Riparian Zone Vegetation in the Oregon Coast Range: a Partnership between Researchers and Managers. Published from the proceedings of the National Silvicultural Workshop, May 21-23, 1997, GTR 238, Warren, Pennsylvania.
Chan, S.S., D.Larson and P.D. Anderson. 2004. Microclimate patterns associated with density management and riparian buffers. An interim report on the Riparian Buffer Component of the Density Management Studies. BLM: HA-I01-0010 Mod. 0003; PNW: 01-IA- 11261953-214. Corvallis, OR: USDI BLM and USDA Forest Service. 43 p.
Chan, S.S. P. Anderson, J. Cissel, L. Lateen and C. Thompson. 2004. “Variable density management in riparian reserves: lessons learned from an operational study in managed forests of western Oregon, USA.” Forest Snow and Landscape Research 78(1/2): 151- 172.
Chan, S.S., D.J. Larson, K.G. Maas-Hebner, W.H.Emmingham, S.R. Johnston and D.A. Mikowski. 2006. “Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 2696-2711.
Chappell, H.N. and A. Osawa. 1991. “The Stand Management Cooperative: A cooperative re- search program in silviculture, growth and yield, and wood quality in the Pacific Northwest.” Hoppa Ringyo 43: 7–11.
Christy, R.E. and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of Bats in Douglas-fir Forests.” In: M.H. Huff, R.M. Holthausen, K.B. Aubry, tech eds. Biology and Management of Old-Growth Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-308. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Csuti, B., T.A. O’neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines and J.C. Hak 2001. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife, Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History. OSU Press, Corvallis, OR. 525 pp.
Curtis, R. O., and D. D. Marshall. 1986. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas- fir: Report no. 8 —the LOGS study: Twenty-year results. Res. Pap. PNW-356. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 113 p
153 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Curtis, R.O. and A.B Carey. 1996. “Timber supply in the Pacific Northwest: managing economic and ecological values in Douglas-fir forests. Journal of Forestry 94(9): 4-7, 35-37.
Curtis, R.O., D.S. DeBell, S. Dean, C.A. Harrington, D.P. Lavender, J.B. St. Clair, J.C.Tappeiner and J.D. Walstad. 1998. Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir region. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-435. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 123 p.
Cushman, K., R. Exeter, M. Stein. 2009. Conservation Assessment For Elegant Fawn Lily (Erythronium elegans). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 34 p.
Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks and M. Wotton. 2001. “Climate change and forest disturbances.” BioScience 51: 723-734.
Deal, R.L. 2006. Red alder stand development and dynamics. In: Deal, R.L. and C.A. Harrington, eds. Red alder – a state of knowledge. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-669. Portland, OR: USDA, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 45-54.
DeBell, D.S. and P.A. Giordano. 1994. “Growth patterns of red alder stand development and dynamics.” In: Hibbs, D.E.; DeBell, D.S.; Tarrant, R.F., eds. The Biology and Management of Red Alder. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 116-129.
Dent, L., D.Vick, K. Abraham, S. Schoenholtz and S. Johnson. 2008. “Summer temperature patterns in headwater streams of the Oregon Coast Range.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44(4): 803-813.
Dodson, E.K., A. Ares and K.J. Puettmann. 2012. “Early responses to thinning treatments designed to accelerate late successional forest structure in young coniferous stands of western Oregon, USA.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42(2): 345–355.
Dicken, S.N. and E.F. 1979. The Making of Oregon: a Study in Historical Geopgraphy. Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society.
Duncan, S.H., R.E. Bilby, J.W. Ward and J.T. Heffner. 1987. “Transport of Road-Surface Sediment through Ephemeral Stream Channels.” Water Resources Bulletin 23(1): 113- 119.
Elliot, J. W. 2000. Roads and Corridors. In Dissmeyer, G.E. (Editor). 2000. Forest and Grasslands: A Synthesis of Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39, Ashville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Scrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell, and C.J. Cederholm. 1987. “Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox.” In E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (eds.) Streamside Management: Forestry and Fisheries Interactions. p. 98-142.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2007. Roles of forests in climate change. Available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/climatechange/en/.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Government Printing
154 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Office 1993-793-071, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service, USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service, and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Franklin, J.F. 2001a. Keynote Comments -Managing Young Stands to Meet LSR and Riparian Objectives. Workshop held at Portland, OR on August 29, 2001, http://www.reo.gov/ama/franklin2001.htm.
Franklin, J.F. 2001b. Personal .communication during Siuslaw National Forest field trip, September 2001.
Forsman, E.D. and A. Giese. 1997. “Nests of northern spotted owls on the Olympic peninsula, Washington.” Wilson Bulletin 109(1): 28-41.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness, 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Report GTR PNW 8. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 427 p.
Franklin, J.F., R.J. Mitchell, and B.J. Palik. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. General Technical Report NRS-19. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.
Glenn, E.M., M.C. Hansen and R.G. Anthony. 2004. “Spotted owl home-range use in young forests of western Oregon.” Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1): 39-56.
Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel and J.M. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.
Groom, J.D., L. Dent, L.J. Madsen and J. Fleuret. 2011. “Response of Western Oregon (USA) Stream Temperatures to Contemporary Forest Management.” Forest Ecology Mangagement 262:1618-1629.
Guenther, K. and T.E. Kucera. 1978. Wildlife of the Pacific Northwest: occurrence and distribution by habitat, BLM district and national forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific NW Region. 128 p.
Guerrant, E.O., K. Karoly and S. Lorenz. 1996. An electrophoretic analysis of genetic diversity in Erythronium elegans at Lost Prairie and Mt. Hebo. Unpublished report. The Berry Botanic Garden, 11505 SW Summerville Ave, Portland, Oregon 97219. On file with: Siuslaw National Forest, P.O. Box 400, Waldport Oregon 97394.
Hadfield, J.S., D.J. Goheen, G.M. Filip, D.L. Schmitt and R.D. Harvey. 1986. Root Disease in Oregon and Washington Conifers. R6-FPM-250-86. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW Region.
Hagar, J. and S. Howlin. 2001. Songbird community response to thinning of young Douglas-fir stands in the Oregon Cascades—Third year post-treatment results for the Willamette National Forest young stand study. Corvallis, OR: Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University. 7 p.
155 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Hammond, P.C. 1991.Activity of the Oregon silverspot butterfly in the forest fringe at Mt. Hebo, Tillamook County, Oregon. The Nature Conservancy and Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR. 16 pp.
Hammond, P. C. and D. V. McCorkle. 1984. “The decline and extinction of Speyeria populations resulting from human disturbances (Nymphalidae: Argynninae).” J. Res. Lepid. 22: 217- 224.
Hann, D.W.; Marshall, D. D.; Hanus, M. L. 2006. Re-Analysis of the SMC-ORGANON Equations for Diameter-Growth Rate, Height-Growth Rate, and Mortality Rate of Douglas-Fir. Oregon State University Forest Research Laboratory Research Contribution 49. Corvallis, OR. 24p.
Harr, R.D. 1977. “Water Flux in Soil and Subsoil on Steep Forested Slope.” Journal of Hydrology 33:37-58.
Hassan, M.A., M. Church, T.E. Lisle, F. Brardinoni, L. Benda and G.E. Grant. 2005. “Sediment Transport and Channel Morphology of Small, Forested Streams.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41(4):853-876.
Hays, D.W., K.R. McAllister, S.A. Richardson and D.W. Stinson. 1999. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Western Pond Turtle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 66 pp.
Headwaters Economics. 2014. Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. Available at: http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt.
Heimann, D.C. 1988. Recruitment trends and physical characteristics of coarse woody debris in Oregon Coast streams. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Hemstrom, M.A. and S.E. Logan. 1986. Plant Association and Management Guide Siuslaw National Forest. R6Ecol 2201986A. USDA Forest Service, PNW Region.
Hibbs, D.E. and D.S. DeBell. 1994. “Management of Young Red Alder.” In: Hibbs, D.E.; DeBell, D.S.; Tarrant, R.F., eds. The Biology and Management of Red Alder. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 202-215.
Hibbs, D.E. and P.A. Giordano. 1996. “Vegetation characteristics of alder-dominated buffer strips in the Oregon coast Range.” Northwest Science 70:213-222
Hibbs, D.E. and A.L. Bower. 2001. “Riparian forests in the Oregon Coast Range.” Forest Ecology and Management. 154:201-213.
Hobbs, S.D. 2002. Forest and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range. OSU Press, Corvallis, OR 276 pp.
Huff, M. H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson and J. Baldwin, tech. coords. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—The first 10 years (1994-2003): status andtrends of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-650. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 149 p.
Impara, P.C. 1997. Spatial and temporal patterns of fire in the forests of the central Oregon Coast Range. A dissertation submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the
156 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in geography. Corvallis, OR: Department of Geography, Oregon State University.
Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team. 1999. Recovery of Wild Salmonids in Western Oregon Forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act Rules and the Measures in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Technical Report 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salon and Watersheds, Governor’s Natural Resources Office, Salem, Oregon.
Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team. 2002. Recovery of wild salmonids in western Oregon lowlands. Technical Report 2002-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Governor's Natural Resources Office, Salem, Oregon. 169p.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change" Chapter 9. In Climate change 2007: the IPCC Fourth Assessment report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Inter-agency Special Status Sensitive Species Program. 2007. Conservation Assessment for Fungi Included in Forest Service Regions 5 and 6 Sensitive and BLM California, Oregon and Washington Special Status Species Programs, Appendix 1. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/
Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
Jones, J.A. 2000. “Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, regrowth, and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon.” Water Resources Research 36(9): 2621–2642.
Jones, J.A. and G.E. Grant. 1996. “Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon.” Water Resources Research 32: 959–974.
Joyce, L.A. and R. Birdsey. 2000. The impact of climate change on America’s forests: a technical document supporting the 2000 US Forest Service RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 133 p.
Juday, G.P. 1977. The Location, Composition, and Structure of Old-growth Forests of the Oregon Coast Range. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Kennedy, R.S.H. and T.A. Spies. 2004. “Forest cover changes in the Oregon Coast Range from 1939 to 1993.” Forest Ecology and Management 200:129-147.
Kerr, A. 2012. Ecologically Appropriate Restoration Thinning in the Northwest Forest Plan Area. Conservation Northwest, Geos Institute, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Oregon Wild.
King, J.E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser Forestry Paper No. 8. Centralia, WA. Weyerhaeuser Company Forestry Research Center.
Lancaster, S.T., S.K. Hayes, and G.E. Grant. 2003. “Effects of wood on debris flow runout in small mountain watersheds.” Water Resources Research, 39(6):1168.
157 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Larson, K.R., and R.C. Sidle. 1980. Erosion and sedimentation data catalog of the Pacific Northwest. R6-WM-050-1981, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR, 64p.
Latham, P. and J.C. Tappeiner. 2002. “Response of old-growht conifers to reduction in stand density in western Oregon forests.” Tree Physiol. 22: 137-146.
Lesica, P.B., S.V. McCune, S.V. Cooper and W.S. Hong 1991. “Differences in lichen and bryophyte communities between old-growth and managed second-growth forests in the Swan Valley, Montana.” Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 1745–1755.
Lienkaemper, G.W., and F.J. Swanson. 1987. Dynamics of large woody debris in streams in old- growth Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17:150-156.
Lindenmayer, D.B. and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: a Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Island Press, Washington, DC, 351 pp.
Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Meyers, and R. N. Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennant) in South- Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California – Volume I: Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Lorion, C, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis Research Lab. Personal communication with Jack Sleeper, fishery biologist, Siuslaw National Forest.
Luce, C. H. and T. A. Black. 1999. “Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon.” Water Resources 35(8), 2561-2570.
Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black, 2001.” Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Erosion from Forest Roads. In: Land Use and Watersheds: Human Influence on Hydrology and Geomorphology.” In Urban Forest Areas, M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. Burges (Editors). American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application 2, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp. 165-178.
Lutz, J.A., and C.B. Halpern. 2006. Tree mortality during early forest development: A long-term study of rates, causes, and consequences. Ecological Monographs 76(2): 257-275.
Mainwaring, D.B., D.A. Maguire, D.A., A. Kanaskie, A. and J. Brandt. 2005. “Growth responds to commercial thinning in Douglas-fir stands with varying severity of Swiss needle cast in Oregon, USA.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 2394-2402.
Martin, D.J. and L.E.Benda. 2001. “Patterns of Instream Wood Recruitment and Transport at the Watershed Scale.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:940-958.
Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter and A.L. Conteras, eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis, OR.
Marshal, D.D., J.F. Bell and J.C. Tappeiner. 1992. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 10 – the Hoskins study, 1963 - 1983. Research Paper PNW-RP-
158 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
448. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 65 p.
Maser, Z., C. Maser and J.M. Trappe. 1985. “Food habits of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) in Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 64: 2086–2089.
Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis. 406 pp.
May, C.L. 1998. Cebris Flow Characteristics Associated with Forest practices in the Central Oregon Coast Range. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
May, C.L. 2001. Spatial and temporal dynamics of sediment and wood in headwater streams in the Oregon Coast Range. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
May, C.L. and R.E. Gresswell. 2003. “Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater streams in the southern Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33:1352-1362.
May, C.L. and R.E. Gresswell. 2004. “Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Debris-Flow Deposition in the Oregon Coast Range, USA.” Geomorphology 57 (2004) 135-149.
McCune, B. 1993. “Gradients in epiphyte biomass in three Pseudotsuga–Tsuga forests of different ages in western Oregon and Washington.” Bryologist 96: 405–411.
McCain, C. 2011. Personal communication with Siuslaw National Forest Ecologist. September 23, 2011.
McCain, C. and N. Diaz. 2002. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of the Northern Oregon Coast Range. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-02-02.
McDade, M.H. 1988. The source area for coarse woody debris in small streams in western Oregon and Washington. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin and J. Van Sickle. 1990. “Source distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington.” Canadian Journal of Forest Reserach 20:326-330.
McGurk, B.J. and D.R. Fong.1995. “Equivalent Roaded Area as a Measure of Cumulative Effect of Logging.” Environmental Management, 19(4), 609-621.
McIntosh, B.A., J.R. Sedell, R. F. Thurow, S.E. Clarke and G.L. Chandler. 2000. “Historical changes in pools habitats in the Columbia River Basin.” Ecological Applications 10(5): 1478-1496.
McIver, J., S. Muttillinja, D. Pickering, and R. VanBuskirk. 1991. Populations dynamics and habitat selection of the Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta): a comparative study at four primary sites in Oregon. Report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, Oregon. 61 pp.
Melillo, J.M., R.J. Naiman, J.D. Aber and K.N. Eshleman. 1983. “The influence of substrate quality and stream size on wood decomposition dynamics.” Oecologia 58:281-285.
159 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Mellen-McLean, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Wouldhite, B.B. Hostetler, C. Ogden and T. Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon.
Menning, K.M.; Erman, D.C.; Johnson, N.K.; and Sessions, J. 1996. Modeling Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystem, Assessing Cumulative Watershed Effects, and Limiting Watershed Disturbance. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. 1996. Final report to Congress, Addendum. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Miadlikowska, J., B. McCune and F. Lutzoni. 2002. “Pseudocyphellaria perpetua, a New Lichen from Western North America.” The Bryologist 105, 1:1-10.
Michel, N., D. F. DeSante, D. R. Kaschube and M. P. Nott, 2006. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program Annual Reports, 1989-2003. NBII/MAPS Avian Demographics Query Interface.
Millar, C.; L. Stephenson and S. Stephens. 2007. “Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty.” Ecological Applications 17(8) 2145–2151.
Montgomery, D.R., T.B. Abbe, N.P. Peterson, J.M. Buffington, K. Schmidt and J.D. Stock. 1996. “Distribution of bedrock and alluvial channels in forested mountain drainage basins.” Nature 381:587–589.
Morlan, J.C. 1987. Cascade Head Preserve, The Nature Conservancy. 1987 Field Season Report. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR.
Mote, P.W. 2003. “Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic causes.” Geophysical Research Letters 30: 1601.
Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, M. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2005. “Declining mountain snowpack in western North America.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86: 39-49.
Muir, P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner, J.D. Bailey, W.E. Elliott, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, E.B. Peterson, and E.E. Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Biological Sciences Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-006. 76 p.
Murphy, M.L. and K.V. Koski. 1989. “Input and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska Streams, and Implications for Streamside Management.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427-436.
Naiman, R.J., E.V. Balian, K.K. Bartz, R.E. Bilby, and J.J. Latterell. 2002. Dead Wood Dynamics in Stream Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181.
Nakamura, F. and F. J. Swanson. 1993. “Effects of coarse woody debris on morphology and sediment storage of a mountain stream system in western Oregon.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18:43–61.
Nestucca/Neskowin Watershed Council. 1998. Watershed Assessment. 68 p.
160 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Newton, M.; Cole, E.C. 1994. Stand development and successional implications: pure and mixed stand. In: Hibbs, D.E.; DeBell, D.S.; Tarrant, R.F., eds. The biology and management of red alder. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 106-115.
Nickelson, T.E., J.D. Rodgers, S.L. Johnson, and M.F. Solazzi. 1992. Seasonal changes in habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49:783-789.
Nierenberg, T.R. and D.E. Hibbs. 2000. A characterization of unmanaged riparian areas in the central Coast Range of western Oregon. Forest Ecology & Management 129:195-206.
Noggle, C.C. 1978. Behavioral, physiological and lethal effects of suspended sediment on juvenile salmonids. Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 87 p.
Nott, M. P., D. F. Desante, and N. Michel 2007. Monitoring, Modeling and Managing Landbird Populations in Forests of the Pacific Northwest: The Application of MAPS Demographic Monitoring Data to Forest Bird Management and Conservation. Available online at: http://birdpop.org/usfsr6/usfspnwr6.htm
Nott, M. P., D. F. Desante, P. Pyle and N. Michel. 2005. Managing Landbird populations in Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region. Publication No. 254 of The Institute for Bird Populations.
Natural Resources Information System. 2011. Ad hoc query of TESP database.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment, Habitat. Part 4(c) ODFW 3. Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Assessments Methods and Population Results. 568 p.
Ohmann, J.L. and M.J. Gregory. 2002. “Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(4):725-741. Other references, methods, and data dictionary on http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=common&id= dataDictionary&ref=nwfp.
Old-Growth Definition Task Group (Franklin, J.F., F. Hall, W. Laudenslayer, and others). 1986. Interim definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Note PNW- 447. p. 7.
Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics; updated edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 520 pp.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 2005. Oregon Smoke Management Plan.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Nestucca Bay Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Air Quality and Visibility Protection Plan.
161 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. 2006 Biennial Clean Water Act Section 305(b) report to EPA. Available online at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Oregon’s 2004/2006 Integrated Report Database. Available online at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp#db.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2014. Oregon’s 2012 Draft Integrated Report Database. Website found at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2012/search.asp. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2007. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Oregon State University, Portland, Oregon. 100 p.
ORGANON. 2014. ORGANON Growth and Yield Project. http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/research/organon/ (last accessed July 28, 2014).
Pabst, R.J. and T.A. Spies. 1999. “Structure and composition of unmanaged riparian forests in the coastal mountains of Oregon, U.S.A.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29: 1557- 1573.
Peterson, N.P. and T.P. Quinn. 1996. “Spatial and temporal variation in dissolved oxygen in natural egg pockets of chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum), in Kennedy Creek, Washington.” Journal of Fish Biology 48: 131-143.
Pettersson, R.B.; J.P. Ball, K.E. Renhorn, P.A. Esseen, K. Sjöberg,K. 1995. “Invertebrate communities in boreal forest canopies as influenced by forestry and lichens, with implications for passerine birds.” Biological Conservation 74: 57–63.
Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2000. Amendment 14 to the Pacific coast salmon plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Portland, OR: 146 p.
Partners in Flight. 2005. Southern Pacific Rainforest; Priority Bird Populations and Habitats. http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/pl_93sum.htm (last accessed July 28, 2014).
Peck, R. and C. Niwa. 2004. Longer-term Effects of Selective Thinning on Carabid Beetles and Spiders in the Cascade Mountains of Southern Oregon. Northwest Science 78(4) 267-277.
Pike, L.H. 1978. “The importance of epiphytic lichens in mineral cycling.” Bryologist 81:247– 257.
Pike, L.H., D. Tracy, D., M. Sherwood and D. Nielsen. 1972. “Estimates of biomass and fixed nitrogen of epiphytes from old-growth Douglas-fir.” Pages 177–187. In J. Franklin, L. Dempster, and R. Waring, editors. Proceedings: research on coniferous forest ecosystems, a symposium. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
Poage, N.J. and P.D. Anderson. 2007. Large-scale silviculture experiments of western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-713. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 44 p.
162 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Poage, N.J., P.J. Weisberg, P.C. Impara, J.C. Tappeiner and T.S. Sensenig. 2009. “Influences of climate, fire, and topography on contemporary age structure patterns of Douglas-fir at 205 old forest sites in western Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 1518- 1530.
Pollock, J.W. 1981. Landscape Character Types of the National Forests in Oregon and Washington, Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Pypker, T.G., M.H. Unsworth, B.J. Bond. 2006. “The role of epiphytes in rainfall interception by forests in the Pacific Northwest. II. Field measurements at the branch and canopy scale.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 819-832.
Reeves, G.H., K.M. Burnett, and E.V. McGarry. 2003. “Sources of large wood in the main stem of a fourth-order watershed in coastal Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33:1363-1370.
Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Would. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Available online at: http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/.
Robison, G.E. and R.L. Beschta. 1990. “Identifying trees in riparian areas that can provide coarse woody debris to streams.” Forest Science 36:790-801.
Romero, N., R.E. Greswell, and J.L. Li. 2005. “Changing patterns in coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorynchus clarki clarki) diet and prey in a gradient of deciduous canopies.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 62:1797-1807.
Root, H., B. McCune, and P. Neitlich. 2010. “Lichen habitat may be enhanced by thinning treatments in young Tsuga heterophylla - Pseudotsuga menziesii forests.” Bryologist 113: 292-307.
Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D. L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Pp. 580-623 in: D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, ed. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR
Rosenfeld, J.S. and L. Huato. 2003. “Relationship between Large Woody Debris Characteristics and Pool Formation in Small Coastal British Columbia Streams.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 23:928-938.
Smith, D.M. 1986. The Practice of Silviculture, Eighth Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 527 p.
Smith, D.M., B.C. Larson, M.J. Kelty, and P.M.S. Ashton. 1997. The Practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology. New York: Wiley 1997 p. xvii + 537 p.
Spies, T. 2007. Research Ecologist and Team Leader, Landscape and Ecosystems Team, Pacific Northwest Research Station, US Forest Service. Portland, OR: Region 6, pers. comm.
Spies, T.A. and S.P. Cline. 1988. “Coarse woody debris in forests and plantations of coastal Oregon.” In: Maser, C.; Tarrant, R.F.; Trappe, J.M,; Franklin, J. F.; tech eds. From the
163 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-229. Portland, OR; U.S.D.A, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 5-24.
Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. “The structure of natural young, mature and old-growth Douglas-Fir forests in Oregon and Washington.” In Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-Fir Forests. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR; U.S.D.A, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Story, A., R.D. Moore, and J.S. Macdonald. 2003. “Stream temperatures in two shaded reaches below cutblocks and logging roads: Downstream cooling linked to subsurface hydrology.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33(8):1383-1396.
Spittlehouse, D.L. and R.B. Stewart. 2003. “Adaptation to climate change in forest management.” Journal of Ecosystems and Management 4(1): 1-11.
Stavins, R.N. and K.R. Richards. 2005. The cost of U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. January 2005.
Stout, H.A. et al. 2010. Draft Updated Status Review of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Newport, OR.
Tappeiner, J.C., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T.A. Spies and J.D. Bailey. 1997. “Density, ages and growth ratios in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27:638-648.
Thies, W.G. and R.N. Sturrock. 1995. Laminated root rot in western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-349. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Pages 17, 24-25. In cooperation with Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service.
Thomas, J.W., Forsman, E.D.; Lint, J.B., [and others]. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service; USDOI, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, Portland, OR.
Thomas, R.B. and W.F. Megahan. 1998. “Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: a second opinion.” Water Resources Research 34(12): 3393–3403.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. USDA Forest Service Headquarters, Washington D.C. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Portland, Oregon.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990a. Siuslaw National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”). Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/siuslaw/landmanagement/planning.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990b. Siuslaw National Forest. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Forest Plan.
164 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990c. Siuslaw National Forest. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, Forest Plan. 35p.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992a. Siuslaw National Forest. Forest Plan Amendment No. 2. 48 p.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992b. Neotropical migrants on national forests in the Pacific Northwest: a compilation of existing information. Report PB93- 128825. 45 pp. plus tables and appendices.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents in the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old Growth Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 74 p.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook No. 701.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996. Siuslaw National Forest. Management Plan for the Mt. Hebo Scenic-Biological Special Interest Area. 19 p. plus maps.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Final Rule.” Federal Register 66(9) (January 12, 2001).
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Siuslaw National Forest. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Five Rivers Landscape Plan. 106 p. plus appendices.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Siuslaw National Forest Road Analysis Report.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement for preventing and managing invasive plants. Portland OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005b. Status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-648. Portland, OR: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005c. Project review for heritage resources under the terms of the 2004 programmatic agreement among the USFS R6, ACHP, and SHPO. Corvallis, OR: Siuslaw National Forest.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007. Siuslaw National Forest. Environmental Assessment:Siuslaw Thinning and Underplanting for Diversity Study— Phase II. 52 p. plus Appendices.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Siuslaw National Forest. Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Siuslaw National Forest, Fiscal Year 2009. 79
165 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
p.United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. May 2011a. Watershed Condition Framework. FS-977. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011b. “East Alsea Landscape Management Project Fisheries Biological Evaluation.” Appendix H in Siuslaw National Forest. Environmental Assessment: East Alsea Landscape Management Project. 39 p.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results USDA Forest Service National Summary Report. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014a. Forest Vegetation Simulator, http://www.fs.fed. us/fmsc/fvs/index.shtml.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014b. Siuslaw National Forest 2014 Travel Analysis Report. Corvallis, OR. 83 pp. plus appendices.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014c. South Nestucca Restoration Project – Fisheries Biological Evaluation. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. 2014d. South Nestucca Restoration Project – Silviculture Specialist Report. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014e. South Nestucca Restoration Project – Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014f. South Nestucca Restoration Project – Botanical Report and Biological Evaluation. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014g. South Nestucca Restoration Project – Watershed and Hydrology Report. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2014h. The USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework and Prioritization Interactive Map. Website found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014i. South Nestucca Restoration Project – Soils and Geology Report. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file online at http://data.ecosystem- management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=39933 and at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014j. South Nestucca Restoration Project – Scenery and Landscape Report. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file online at http://data.ecosystem-
166 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=39933 and at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014k. South Nestucca Project – Timber Haul Analysis. 4 p. Available in the South Nestucca Restoration Project project file online at http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=39933 and at the Hebo Ranger District office in Hebo, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries; United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Analytical Process for Development of Biological Assessments for Consultation on Federal Actions Affecting Fish Proposed or Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [and others]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Irregular pagination.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Documents within the Range of the northern Spotted Owl and Standards and guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted owl.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Nestucca Watershed Analysis. 74 p. plus appendices.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Assessment Report: Federal Lands in and Adjacent to the Oregon Coast Province. Corvallis, OR: USDA Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest. 112 p. plus maps and appendices.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1997a. North Coast Range Adaptive Management Area Guide. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR. 88 p.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Late-successional Reserve Assessment for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area. Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Survey Protocol For Red Tree Vole –
167 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Version 2.1. Available at: http://www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage/SP/RedTreeVole/200210/RTV%20protocol%20 revision-V.2.1-final.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan – Version 3.0. Available at: http://www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage/SP/Mollusks/terrestrial/Mollusk%20document. pdf – p. 31-39.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies. Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Conservation Assessment for the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) in Oregon; Version 1.0.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Biological Assessment FY2009 & FY2010 Activities in the North Coast Province Which Might Disturb Northern Spotted Owls or Marbled Murrelets.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Biological Assessment of Activities proposed during FY2010-2013 in the north Coast Planning Province, Oregon which might Disturb but Are Not Likely to Adversely Affect Northern Spotted Owls or Marbled Murrelets.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Biological Assessment of Habitat Modification Projects Proposed during Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 that are Not Likely To Adversely Affect (NLAA) Northern Spotted Owls or Marbled Murrelets and their Critical Habitats.
United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service 2008. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the Little Nestucca Restoration Project, Wilson-Trask-Nestucca subbasin (4th Field HUC:17100203), Tillamook and Yamhill Counties, Oregon; West Alsea Landscape Management Project, Alsea River subbasin (4th field HUC: 17100205), Lincoln County, Oregon; and Lobster Landscape Management Project, Alsea River (4th field HUC: 17100205) and Siuslaw river (4th field HUC 17100206) subbasins, Lincoln, Benton, and Lane Counties, Oregon. NMFS Northwest Region, Seattle, WA. 78 p.
United States Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Programmatic Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.
168 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Fish Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington, CY2013. NMFS (NMFS Consultation Number: NWR-2013-9664, 2013). Seattle, WA.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Listing the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly as a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. 45 Fed. Reg. 44935.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Oregon silverspot butterfly recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. 33 pp.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl. Proposed Rule. 54 Fed. Reg. 26666.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl. 55 Fed. Reg. 26114.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California Population of the Marbled Murrelet. 57 Fed. Reg. 45328.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. 57 Fed. Reg. 1796.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover. 58 Fed. Reg. 12864.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Final Rule. 61 Fed. Reg. 26256.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR. 203 pp.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Management Recommendations for the Oregon Red Tree Vole Version 2. 25 pp. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/recommendations/mammals.php.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Revised Recovery Plan for Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta). Portland, OR. 111 pp.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and the Coquille Indian Tribe for Programmatic Aquatic Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington that Affect ESA-Listed Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species and their Critical Habitats. (FWS TAILS Number 13420-2007-F-0055) Portland, OR.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for Fisher (Martes pennanti)-West Coast Distinct
169 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA
Population Segment. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0HS.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plan; Final Designation of Critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. 73 Fed. Reg. 47325.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. Portland, OR.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. 2008c. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 pp.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. 77 Fed. Reg. 71876.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities (ARBO II). CY2013 Biological Opinion (NMFS Consultation Number: NWR-2013-9664, 2013).
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Letter of Concurrence on the Effects of Habitat Modification Activities on the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and Critical Habitat in the North Coast Planning Province, FY 2013 – 2014 proposed by the Eugene District, Bureau of Land Management, Salem District, Bureau of Land Management; and Siuslaw National Forest. Portland, OR.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species Fact Sheet: Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Available at http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/northernspottedowl/. Last accessed Nov. 6, 2014.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Water: Biological Criteria. Website found at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/biocriteria/index.cfm.
Upton, B.R., R. Miner, M. Spinney and L.S. Heath. 2007. “The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States.” Biomass and Bioenergy (32):1-10.
Verts B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA. 800 p.
170 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Wilkerson, E., J. Hagan, D. Siegel, and A. Whitman. 2006. “The effectiveness of different buffer widths for protecting headwater stream temperature in Maine.” Forest Science 52(3): 221-231.
Wimberly, M.C. 2002. “Spatial simulations of historical landscape patterns in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest.” Canadian Journal of Research 32: 1316-1328.
Worthington, N.P.; R.H. Ruth, and E.E. Matson. 1962. Red alder: its management and utilization. Misc. Publ. 881. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Range and Experiment Station.
Zybach, B. 2003. The Great Fires: Indian Burning and Catastrophic Forest Fire Patterns of the Oregon Coast Range, 1491-1951. A dissertation submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Sciences. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
171
United States Department of Agriculture South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendix A: Project Design Criteria
Siuslaw Hebo Forest Service National Forest Ranger District January 2015
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Chapter 1. Introduction Design criteria for actions identified in the South Nestucca Restoration Project EA (EA) were developed to ensure the project is consistent with management guidelines and project objectives. The following design criteria and mitigation measures have been included to ensure consistency with standards and guidelines of the 1990 Siuslaw Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SLRMP), as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), consultation documents for federally listed species or designated critical habitat, and the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (USDA USDI 1998), among other documents.
Appropriate specialists will be consulted before any design criteria or mitigation measures for proposed activities are changed. Forest Service direction, regulations, and standards and guides for resource protection may change over time. If changes occur prior to completion of any project actions, then the actions should be modified to reflect mandatory changes. The following design criteria and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the proposed project and will be employed during project implementation.
Chapter 2. Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures 2.1. Criteria Common to All Actions
2.1.1. Water Quality Follow Siuslaw Plan standards and guidelines (FW-114 through FW-118) to meet water-quality standards outlined in the Clean Water Act for protecting Oregon waters, and apply practices as described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. Design criteria, including these practices, are incorporated throughout the project, such as in project location, design, contract language, implementation, and monitoring. The State has agreed that compliance with these practices will ensure compliance with State Water Quality Standards (Forest Service Manual 1561.5, R-6 Supplement 1500-90-12).
If the total oil or oil products storage at a work site exceeds 1,320 gallons in containers of 55 gallons or greater the purchaser shall prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC plan will meet applicable EPA requirements (40 CFR 112), including certification by a registered professional engineer. (SLRMP: FW-119, 120, 122).
2.1.2. Fish • Generally limit the season of operation for in-stream work to July 1 through September 15. Where needed, a waiver will be requested from ODFW and NMFS to conduct in-stream work after September 15.
• Refueling of hand powered equipment is not allowed within 50 feet of any stream. Dust abatement chemicals are not utilized with this project, but transport vehicles and support vehicles use diesel or gasoline. These would be refueled at landings or service areas located at least 150 feet away from stream channels.
• Transport vehicles and support vehicles using diesel or gasoline will be refueled at landings or service areas located at least 150 feet away from stream channels.
A-1 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
2.1.3. Wildlife Compliance with the US Forest Service goal of supporting recovery of threatened or endangered species (FSM 2602;) requires that a wildlife biologist participates in the planning and design of all projects that potentially affect listed species to assure actions are consistent with current consultation. A wildlife biologist will help design actions to make effects determinations to threatened or endangered species that are consistent with consultation, and to minimize potential adverse effects to other species.
2.1.3.1. Oregon Silverspot Butterfly • No log haul along portions of Forest Service Road 1400 or 1400-113 during flight season for Oregon silverspot butterfly, July 1 to September 30 (see Table A-5).
• No low-flying helicopters over meadows at the top of Mt. Hebo.
• No staging or other equipment set-up, creation of landings, or temporary road construction in the meadows at the top of Mt. Hebo.
• No washing or fueling of equipment at staging areas where runoff could contaminate meadows.
• When necessary to ensure project activities do not raise the level of traffic above typical public use, close the portion of Forest Service Road 1400 that runs adjacent to and between the meadows at the top of Mt. Hebo.
• No thinning in forest fringe directly abutting occupied Oregon silverspot habitat.
2.1.3.2. Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet Design Criteria must include the most current requirements form the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for federally listed wildlife. For northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, these requirement are described in a biological opinion (BO) or corresponding letter of concurrence (LOC) All action alternatives incorporate the design criteria and monitoring requirements disclosed in this Appendix as well as the design criteria associated with the programmatic consultations for habitat modification for fiscal years 2013-2014 (LOC 01EOFW00-2012-1-0124), disturbance for fiscal years 2014-2013 (LOC 01EOFW00-2013-I-0190), and aquatic restoration (ARBO II 2013) for fiscal years 2013-2017 (LOC 01EOFWOO-2013-F-0090). The following is a summary of the most relevant (but not all) design criteria from these consultations:
The proposed action includes all field processes needed to plan, evaluate, prepare and complete activities regardless of funding source(s), as well as activities conducted on private lands under the Wyden Authority. Such processes include, but are not limited to: road construction; falling,-bucking and yarding; loading; hauling; site preparation; burning; brushing; piling; scarification; planting; and coarse woody debris and snag creation. A wildlife biologist will participate in the planning and design of all projects affecting listed species.
Table A-1. Breeding periods for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet used in the analysis of project activities.
SPECIES BREEDING PERIOD CRITICAL BREEDING PERIOD
Northern Spotted Owl March 1 – September 30 March 1 – July 7
Marbled Murrelet April 1 – September 15 April 1 – August 5
A-2 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• For northern spotted owls, burning within the disruption distance of an occupied nest or predicted nest patch between March 1 and July 7 is prohibited. If the current nest tree is not known, the disruption distance will be measured from the edge of a 300 meter buffer (nest patch) around the known or predictive site. For marbled murrelets, burning within the disruption distance of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat, or unsurveyed potential nesting structure, between April 1 and August 5 prohibited.
• No blasting would occur during these species’ entire breeding period (TableA-1) as part of any proposed activity.
• Use of ICS Type I helicopters within the disruption distance of owl occupied nest locations or predicted nest patches during the breeding period (March 1 – September 30) is prohibited. If the current nest tree is not known, the disruption distance will be measured from the edge of a 300 meter buffer (nest patch) around the known or predictive site. Use of ICS Type I helicopters within the disruption distance of occupied murrelet habitat, unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat, and unsurveyed murrelet potential structure during the entire breeding period (April 1- September 15) is prohibited.
• Use of ICS Type II, III, or IV helicopters within the disruption distance of owl occupied nest locations or predicted nest patches during the critical breeding period (March 1 – July 7) is prohibited. If the current nest tree is not known, the disruption distance will be measured from the edge of a 300 meter buffer (nest patch) around the known or predictive site. Use of ICS Type II, III, IV helicopters within the disruption distance of occupied murrelet habitat, unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat, and unsurveyed murrelet potential structure during the critical breeding period (April 1- August 5) is prohibited.
• Individual Tree Removal does not include the removal of individual trees with owl or murrelet nesting structure including known nest trees. A known spotted owl nest tree or a murrelet nest tree from occupied murrelet habitat may be removed only when it is an immediate danger and when the tree is not currently being used by nesting owls or murrelets or their young and will be covered under an emergency consultation. • To minimize the risk of attracting predators to activity areas, all garbage (especially food products) would be contained or removed daily from the vicinity of any activity.
• No new permanent roads will be built in critical habitat. Any treatments in critical habitat will maintain pre-treatment habitat functionality at the stand scale.
• Although actions might extend into the next time period(s) within a given year, no actions may occur in a more restrictive time period. For example, an activity slated to begin during the July 8 - August 5 time period may extend into the August 6 - September 30 time period, or even the October 1 - February 28 time period, because the potential level of effect would be the same or less. For this example, actions may not ever occur between March 1 and July 7, because the potential level of effect might be greater.
2.1.3.2.1. Specific to the Spotted Owl • No activity will occur within the disruption distance (Table A-2) for that activity from a known or predicted nest site. If current nest tree is not known, disruption distance will be measured from the edge of a 300 meter buffer (nest patch) around the known or predictive site. Disruption distances have both a spatial and temporal component.
A-3 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
• Harvest within a known nest patch or predicted nest patch is prohibited.
Table A-2. Disturbance/disruption distances for northern spotted owls during the breeding period (March 1 to September 30).
DISRUPTION DISRUPTION DISTURBANCE DISTANCES DURING DISTANCES DURING DISTURBANCE DISTANCES DURING THE CRITICAL THE LATE BREEDING THE BREEDING PERIOD SOURCE BREEDING PERIOD PERIOD (MAR 1 – SEP 30) (MAR 1 – JUL 7) (JUL 8 – SEP 30)
Road brushing and maintenance on all 440 yards (0.25 mile) 0 yards 0 yards roads
Hauling on open roads 0 yards 0 yards 0 yards
Use of chainsaws 440 yards (0.25 mile) 65 yards 0 yards
Heavy equipment 440 yards (0.25 mile) 35 yards 0 yards
Tree climbing 440 yards (0.25 mile) 35 yards 0 yards
Burning 440 yards (0.25 mile) 440 yards (0.25 mile) * 0 yards
Use of Type I helicopter 2 880 yards (0.5 mile) 440 yards (0.25 mile) ** 440 yards (0.25 mile)
Use of Type II, III or IV 3 440 yards (0.25 mile) 120 yards 0 yards helicopter
Use of fixed-wing aircraft 440 yards (0.25 mile) 120 yards 0 yards
Pile driving 440 yards (0.25 mile) 60 yards 0 yards
Rock crushing 440 yards (0.25 mile) 180 yards 0 yards
* Burning within the disruption distance of an owl occupied nest or owl predicted nest patch between March 1 and July 7 is not addressed by this assessment. See Standard 3. If the current nest tree is not known, the disruption distance will be measured from the edge of a 300 meter buffer (nest patch) around the known or predictive site. ** Type 1 helicopter use within the disruption distance of an owl occupied nest or owl predicted nest patch between March 1 and September 30 is not addressed by this assessment. See Standard 5. 1 Noise disturbance distances were developed from a threshold of 92 dB (USFWS 2003a). Smoke disturbance distances are based on a FWS white paper (USFWS 2008b). 2 Type I helicopters seat at least 16 people and have a minimum capacity of 5,000 lbs. Both a CH-47 (Chinook) and UH-60 (Blackhawk) are Type I helicopters. Kmax helicopters are considered “other” for the purposes of disturbance. Sound readings from Kmax helicopter logging on the Olympic NF registered 86 dB at 150 yards (Piper 2006). 3 All other helicopters (including Kmax).
2.1.3.2.2. Specific to the Marbled Murrelet • Project activities (including associated road construction, site burning and other disturbances) would not take place within the disruption distance (Table A-3) of a known occupied marbled murrelet stand during the critical nesting season. The wildlife biologist may increase the distance or modify the timing based on site-specific information. See Table 4 for a list of units and roads where restrictions apply.
• Activities associated with projects (including associated road construction) within the disruption distance of known occupied or unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat, or potential nesting
A-4 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
structure, and implemented between April 1 and September 15 would not begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would end 2 hours before sunset except when compliant with Option 3 of the Level 2 March 26, 2004 policy for the management of potential nesting structure. See Table A-4 for a list of units and roads where restrictions apply.
• In units which contain trees with potential murrelet nesting structure the unit wildlife biologist will be involved to insure that the potential nest structure is managed in accordance with options 2 or 3 of the Level 2 policy for the management of potential nesting structure.
• All thinning and individual tree removal actions that may affect the Critical Habitat of the marbled murrelet will comply with the standards of the May 13, 1997 biological opinion (USDI 1997a). For the South Nestucca Restoration Project, the following design criteria from the 1997 BO apply:
o Commercial Thinning (in Critical Habitat) . No suitable marbled murrelet nest trees will be removed (individual trees with at least one potential nesting platform). The unit wildlife biologist will make the determination of whether a tree is considered a suitable nest tree. . Suitable nest trees will be protected by designing prescriptions for forest stands surrounding them (within 0.5 mile) that: • provide protection from potential windthrow; • require no openings within one tree length surrounding a potential nest tree; and • ensure no damage to any potential nest tree limbs. o Hazard Tree Removal (In Critical Habitat) . Note that all Hazard Trees (Danger Trees) along roadsides will be identified, assessed, and treated according to the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) policy as detailed in FSM 7733, R6/PNW Supplement No. 7730- 2007-2, June 8, 2007. . Remove only trees that represent an immediate danger, defined as trees with a risk factor of 7 or 8 in Long Range Planning for Developed Sites in the Pacific Northwest: The Context of Hazard Tree Management (Harvey and Hessburg 1992). . Consider both safety and biological significance when identifying hazard trees. . Consider topping, limbing or other measures to conserve potentially valuable marbled murrelet nest trees. . Unsurveyed potential murrelet nest trees are not allowed to be removed within the breeding season.
o Heavy thinning in stands within murrelet critical habitat is prohibited.
o Heavy thinning treatments within 300 feet of occupied or unsurveyed murrelet habitat or nesting structure is prohibited. Other activities within 300 feet of unsurveyed murrelet habitat or nesting structure will maintain 40 percent or greater canopy cover, averaged over the 300 feet buffer area, and will not create openings greater than ¼ acre.
A-5 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
o Trees containing murrelet nesting structure shall not be removed unless verified by protocol survey to be unoccupied.
Table A-3. Disturbance/disruption distances for marbled murrelets during the breeding period (April 1 – September 15).
DISRUPTION DISTANCES DISRUPTION DISTANCES DURING THE BREEDING WITH DAILY TIMING PERIOD RESTRICTIONS *, unless DISTURBANCE (APR 1 – SEP 15) noted otherwise DISTURBANCE DISTANCES DURING THE (AUG 6 – SEP 15) BREEDING PERIOD SOURCE Standard 19 Prohibits disruption to Occupied Habitat (APR 1 – SEP 15) Standard 20 requires daily timing restrictions* during the entire breeding period, when adjacent to suitable habitat and nesting structure unless in compliance with the Level 2 March 26, 2004 Policy, option 3. Road brushing & 0 yards 0 yards maintenance on well- 440 yards (0.25 mile) with no daily timing with no daily timing traveled roads restrictions restrictions 0 yards 0 yards Log hauling on all open 440 yards (0.25 mile) roads with no daily timing with no daily timing restrictions restrictions Road brushing & maintenance on less- 440 yards (0.25 mile) 100 yards 0 yards traveled roads Road repair such as 440 yards (0.25 mile) 100 yards 0 yards culvert replacement Use of chainsaws 440 yards (0.25 mile) 100 yards 0 yards Tree climbing 440 yards (0.25 mile) 100 yards 0 yards Use of heavy equipment 440 yards (0.25 mile) 100 yards 0 yards Burning 440 yards (0.25 mile) 440 yards (0.25 mile) 0 yards Use of a Type I 2 880 yards (0.5 mile) 440 yards (0.25 mile) 440 yards (0.25 mile) helicopter
Use of a Type II, III or IV 3 440 yards (0.25 mile) 120 yards 0 yards helicopter
Use of fixed-wing aircraft 440 yards (0.25 mile) 120 yards 0 yards Pile driving 440 yards (0.25 mile) 100 yards 0 yards Rock crushing 440 yards (0.25 mile) 180 yards 0 yards
* Daily timing restrictions: Activities would not begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would end 2 hours before sunset. 1 Noise disturbance distances were developed from a threshold of 92 dB (USFWS 2003a). Smoke disturbance distances are based on a FWS white paper (USFWS 2008b). Visual disturbance distances for marbled murrelets are based on a FWS white paper (USFWS 2003b). 2 Type I helicopters seat at least 16 people and have a minimum capacity of 5,000 lbs. Both a CH-47 (Chinook) and UH-60 (Blackhawk) are Type I helicopters. Kmax helicopters are considered “other” for the purposes of disturbance. Sound readings from Kmax helicopter logging on the Olympic NF registered 86 dB at 150 yards (Piper 2006). 3 All other helicopters (including Kmax).
A-6 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
2.1.3.3. Seasonal and Daily Timing Restrictions for Project Activities Tables A-4 and A-5 identify the thinning units and roads for which seasonal or timing restrictions apply. These restrictions may apply to all or a portion of the unit or road shown. The unit wildlife biologist is responsible for providing the information on specific areas where the restrictions apply prior to project implementation.
Table A-4. Seasonal and daily timing restrictions for thinning units for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet.
Daily Timing Restrictions Apply Units with Restrictions Operating Season (4/1 – 9/15)
302238 ANYTIME N/A 302240 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302245 ANYTIME N/A 302254 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302303 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302320 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302339 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302345 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302346 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302354 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302363 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302369 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) 302375 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O6 8/6 - 3/31 Yes O9 8/6 - 3/31 Yes O10A 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O10B 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O27A 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O27B 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O29 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O30 ANYTIME N/A O32 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O33 ANYTIME N/A O37A 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O37B 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O37C 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O39 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O43 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O45A 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O45B 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O55 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions) O57 8/6 - 3/31 Yes O58 8/6 - 3/31 (portions) Yes (portions)
A-7 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
Daily Timing Restrictions Apply Units with Restrictions Operating Season (4/1 – 9/15)
O60 ANYTIME N/A O74 8/6 - 3/31 Yes O79 ANYTIME N/A O96 8/6 - 3/31 Yes
Table A-5. Seasonal and daily timing restrictions for roads for wildlife including northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and Oregon silverspot butterfly. Beginning Road Number Wildlife Restrictions Termini
1400 Hwy 22 • None. • Seasonal restriction - no log haul during silverspot butterfly 1400 MP 7.87 flight season (7/1 - 9/30) along a portion of this segment at the top of Mt. Hebo. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and 1400 19.68 culvert replacement along portions (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portions). • Seasonal restriction - no log haul during silverspot butterfly flight season (7/1 - 9/30). 1400-113 1400 • Seasonal restrictions for brushing, maintenance (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • Seasonal restrictions for brushing, maintenance and culvert 1400-117 1400 replacement (portions) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 8/5 (portions). • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1400-186 1400 storing road (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1400-195 1400 storing road (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). 1410-000 1491 • No restrictions. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1424-000 1400 storing road (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1424-111 1424 reopening road (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily timing restrictions apply 4/1 - 9/15. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1424-112 1424 reopening road (portion)(4/1 - 8/5). • Daily timing restrictions apply (portion) 4/1 - 9/15. 1428 2210 • No restrictions.
A-8 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Beginning Road Number Wildlife Restrictions Termini
• Seasonal restrictions for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1428-134 1428 decommissioned (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul. 1428-135 1428-134 • No restrictions. 1428-136 1428-134 • No restrictions. 1428-138 1428 • No restrictions. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1431 1410 storing road (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1431-111 1431 storing road (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul. 1431-112 1431 • No restrictions. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1431-118 1431-111 storing road (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated (if 1432 1400 needed) (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul.
• Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated (if 1432-111 1432 needed) (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). No restrictions on haul.
• Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1432-112 1432-111 storing road (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul. 1432-114 1432-111 • No restrictions. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1477 1400 opening and re-storing road (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul.
A-9 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
Beginning Road Number Wildlife Restrictions Termini
• Seasonal Restrictions required for heavy equipment associated with reconstructions along portions 4/1 - 8/5. 1491 1400 • Daily timing restrictions required along same portions 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions for haul or brushing. 1491-112 1491 • No restrictions. 1491-115 1491 • No restrictions. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1491-116 1491 storing road (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul. 1500 Hwy 22 • No restrictions on haul.
1500-111 1500 • No restrictions.
• Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1500-115 1500 storage or decommissioning (portion) (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 1500-116 1500-115 storage or decommissioning (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul. 1500-143 1500-111 • No restrictions. 1533-000 1500 • No restrictions on haul. 1590-000 1500 • No restrictions. 1590-111 1590 • No restrictions. 1590-112 1590-111 • No restrictions. 1590-113 1590 • No restrictions alone existing road or any new temporary road. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and heavy equipment associated with storing road (portion) (4/1 - 1590115 1590 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15 (portion). No restrictions on haul. 2210000 Tribal Boundary • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 2210124 2210 storage (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert removal and heavy equipment associated with 2210124 MP 0.2 decommissioning (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul.
A-10 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Beginning Road Number Wildlife Restrictions Termini
• Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and culvert replacement and heavy equipment associated with 2210160 2210124 storage (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and heavy equipment (4/1 - 8/5.) 2214000 2234 • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and heavy equipment associated with storage (4/1 - 8/5). 2214000 2234 • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul. 2234000 Hwy 22 • No restrictions on haul. 2282000 2234000 • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for heavy equipment associated with brushing and maintenance (4/1 - 8/5). 2282000 Hwy 22 • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for heavy equipment associated with brushing, maintenance and storage of temp roads off of 8595000 Co Rd 876 8595. (4/1 - 8/5). • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul. • Seasonal restrictions required for brushing, maintenance and heavy equipment associated with storage (4/1 - 8/5). 8595115 8595 • Daily Timing Restrictions required 4/1 - 9/15. • No restrictions on haul.
2.1.3.4. Bald Eagle • No activities will be implemented between January 1 and August 31 within 0.25 mile or a 0.5- mile sight distance of a known bald eagle nest site, unless the unit biologist verifies that the nest is unoccupied.
• No activity within 0.25 mile or a 0.5-mile sight distance of a bald eagle winter roost will be implemented between October 15 and April 15, unless the roost is verified to be unoccupied by the unit wildlife biologist (Region 6 Bald Eagle Policy Following Delisting and During the Five- Year Monitoring Period).
2.1.3.5. Red Tree Vole • No activities involving tree removal or felling will occur within any red tree vole habitat management areas.
• Outside of red tree vole habitat management areas, no trees that have been identified and marked as a nest tree will be removed or felled.
2.1.4. Invasive Plant Prevention and Management
A-11 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
• Treat units and roads identified as having English holly, cherry laurel, English ivy, Scotch broom, and blackberry prior to project implementation by manually pulling or mechanically cutting.
• Seed new temporary construction and landings with a mix of certified weed-free native blue wild rye and Alaska brome grass seed.
• Whenever possible, maintain native surfaces on temporary roads rather than using imported rock.
• All heavy equipment (excluding passenger vehicles) shall be clean and free of soil, vegetative matter, or other debris that may contain or hold weed seeds prior to entering National Forest System lands (WO-B/BT 6.36).
• Erosion control materials (seed, straw, hay) must be certified free of weed seed and plant parts. The USFS will provide certified native grass seed for site restoration.
• Inspect material sources (e.g., rock quarries or soil borrow sites) on site and ensure that they are weed-free before use and transport. Inspection will be provided at no cost by the Forest botanist or other FS personnel trained in weed identification.
2.1.5. Heritage Resources • Changes to current unit configurations and/or addition of new project activities, like the establishment of new harvest landings, will require consultation with the Forest Archaeologist in order to protect known and unknown resources.
• Should heritage resources be discovered as a result of any project activities, earth-disturbing activities must be suspended in the vicinity of the find, in accordance with federal regulations (NHPA and 36 CFR 800). The Forest Archaeologist must be notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend a subsequent course of action.
• The Arthur Riggs Homestead site located within the project area during archaeological survey will be buffered from earth-disturbing activities. Contact the Forest Archaeologist for specific location information.
2.1.6. Lands and Special Use Authorizations • Coordinate with Lands and Special Uses staff prior to implementation to identify areas where project actions may conflict with existing authorizations (i.e., permits, leases, and easements).
• Access to Mt. Hebo Communication Site should be available 24 hours/day. If this is not possible for a brief time the District Office should be notified in advance of temporary closure in order to pass this information on to the Communication Site Lessees.
2.1.7. Recreation • Public notice should occur the spring before project restoration work will begin. Public notice will include press releases as well as communication with local communities. District Staff should attend town meeting to communicate recreation facility closures that would be affected by this project.
• Notices at recreation facilities at or near the project area will be posted and will remain during the project. Recreation staff should update these notices on an as needed basis.
A-12 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• Forest and District offices should have available all notices and updates. These notices should be provided by Hebo District Recreation staff.
• If Leave trees are marked mark them on the side of the tree facing away from the trail. Fall trees away from the trail, where feasible. Low cut stumps to <8” stump height within immediate view (10-20 feet) of the trail (Note – this will require cutting off hinge if top of hinge is excess of 8 inches – make note in prospectus as to need for double cutting stumps).
• Logging corridors across the trail will be designated by the USFS. Protect the trail tread using cloth covered by 1-2 feet of slash, as appropriate. No skidding or heavy equipment will be allowed across the trail tread.
• Damage to the trail would be repaired by Sale Operator. Should damage occur to the Pioneer Trail during harvest activities the District Recreation Staff must be notified to evaluate the damage and recommend a subsequent course of action.
• To discourage off-road driving, where possible site landings 150 feet away from trail and campgrounds, and allow trees to remain as a buffer along roadway where trail or campground is in close proximity or intersects the roadway.
• Adjacent to the trail and campgrounds, leave tree spacing and densities should vary. Sale Administrator will discuss leave tree options with sale operator to allow for optimal opportunity of leave tree locations.
2.1.8. Fire and Fuel Management
2.1.8.1. Prescribed fire Any prescribed burning will require an approved burn plan that meets the parameters identified in FSM 5150.
2.1.8.2. Slash management • Treat residual logging slash within 25 feet of county roads and key forest roads to reduce the risk of human-caused fire. Treatment may include piling, scattering, hauling, directional felling, chipping or mastication. Units and roads that will require treatment are listed in Table A-6. Identify specific areas in the timber sale contract or on implementation maps.
• If scattering of landing slash will not adequately address the fire hazard, pile and burn landing slash within 25 feet of open-system roads. Seed burned areas with native, certified weed-free seed, if the landing is larger than 1/5 acre (about 95’ X 95’) and has a native (non-rock) surface.
2.1.8.3. Down wood To reduce the potential for wildfire, do not create down wood within 50 feet of county and key forest roads unless the tops are kept outside. Identify specific roads in the timber-sale contract or on implementation plan maps.
2.1.8.4. Wildland-urban interface • If there are any structures within 300 feet of stand boundaries, defensible space will be created to reduce the risk of wildfire. Treat areas within 300 feet of structures to reduce fire risk:
A-13 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
• Thin stand density to an average 70 trees per acre or lower to allow for underburning or for hand- pile burning and to reduce the risk of a running crown fire. Wider spacing in stands permits heat to escape, minimizing crown damage and creating a fuel break that will not easily support a running crown fire. Based on past results, no more than 10 percent of the residual trees will be damaged by fire.
• Count damaged trees towards meeting the down woody debris requirement.
• Treat residual logging slash so that ground fuels are 10 tons per acre or less.
• Treatment can include underburning, hand or machine piling and burning, chipping, mastication, directional felling, whole tree logging, or pull back and scattering of fuels.
• Consider whole-tree yarding and slash disposal on landings to potentially eliminate the need additional slash treatment.
• Units that are adjacent to private land but have no structures at this time will be re-evaluated for structures during the BD appraisal. These stands are: 074 and 302363.
Table A-6. Fire and fuels road treatments. Stand Road Acres 302238 1491 1.1 302240 1491 3.1 302245 1491 1 302254 1491 2.4 302303 1500 1.4 302320 1500 0.8 302339 NA 0 302354 1500 0.4 302363 2210 3.5 O7 14 3.4 O8 14 0.4 O27A 14 1.2 O37A 14 1.3 O37B 14 2.2 O39 14 1.5 O43 1428 0.1 O55 2234 1.4 O57 2234 0.8 O58 14 2.4 O58 1428 3.5
A-14 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
2.1.9. Scenic Quality
2.1.9.1. Pioneer Indian Trail Pioneer Indian Trail (10B, 27A, 27B, 58) Trail to be a protected feature of the sale. Retain and protect the historic early hand- made character of the trail, the trail quality, and the undisturbed appearance of the trail and Forest here. Avoid crossing trail to access trees on east side of trail. Access from east, if possible. If must cross trail, use measures to protect trail undisturbed at points of crossing during operations, example use of a “blanket” at points of crossing during operations. Any damage to trail to be repaired by hand work, for appearance and materials to match existing trail. Cut stumps as low as possible within 100 feet of trail.
2.1.9.2. South Lake (58, 43, 60) South Lake facilities, ground surface, and unmarked trees within camp area to be protected features of the sale:
• Minimal, individual, tree selection proposed to remove of trees expected to die within approximately 10 years. Recommend forest patterns as continuous as possible from lake setting across adjacent road to surrounding forest.
• Any thinning done within South Lake dispersed camp would be individual tree selection, with the Silviculturist, Recreation specialist, and/or the Landscape Architect identifying trees to be removed. Consider long term vegetation management of the South Lake site in tree selection. Consider South Lake marking with recognition that it is within a larger plant association defined area. Restoration and thinning work to be done in a manner that is as continuous as possible with the lake setting, so that the recreation site is within a natural vegetation setting that is as continuous as possible across the developed site to the surrounding more undisturbed site. The natural vegetation setting is as continuous as possible across the developed site –including on either side of the road -to the surrounding more undisturbed site.
• Restore and protect compacted bank of lake in main area of campground. Restore in a manner that uses natural materials and leaves the lake shore natural appearing. Possible KV project.
• Cut stumps as low as possible within or in immediate view from South Lake.
2.1.9.3. North Lake (37B) Any thinning done near North Lake would be individual tree selection, with the Silviculturist, Recreation specialist, and/or the Landscape Architect identifying trees to be removed. Consider North Lake as it is within larger plant association defined units - with recognition that it is part of larger plant association defined units -and restoration and thinning work done according to the setting that it is in, so that the lake is within a natural vegetation setting that is as continuous as possible across the developed site to the surrounding more undisturbed site.
2.1.9.4. Forest Road 14 (08, 07, 302238, 27A, 39, 37A, 37C, 37B, 58) Small clearings would be created in thinning units on Mount Hebo to enhance variation to more close to expected natural variation. Any thinning done within the foreground of FR 14 corridor (within 300 feet) would be individual tree selection, with review by Silviculturist and Recreation Specialist/landscape architect.
A-15 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
West and southwest of Road 14, across road from, adjacent to South Lake Camp (43, 60): Varied amount of thinning is proposed in Silviculture prescription, and enhancing variation of tree species. Some patches would be more open.
West of South Lake, young stand across Forest Road 14 (unnumbered stand between 60 and Forest Road 14): Select/thin for a more patchy, uneven age appearance, so that forest is more natural appearing and over time forest around South Lake and here are a more continuous forest pattern.
Cut stumps as low as possible within +/-100 feet of Forest Road 14. 2.2. Silviculture Prescriptions
2.2.1. Wildlife • Leave a minimum of 10% untreated areas in each stand. This includes stream-adjacent buffers and in-operable areas. Untreated areas help to vary densities in and between stands, and they increase habitat diversity (LSRA p. I-9).
• Three to 10 percent of the stand will be in gaps less than one acre in size. Gaps over ½ acre in size should not occupy more than five percent of the stand area (LSRA p. 100 and I-9)
• Half of all gaps over ½ acre will either be left unplanted, or will be planted with shrubs or hardwood species as determined by the silviculturist and wildlife biologist.
• Commercial thinning prescriptions would preferentially retain shade tolerant conifer tree species over Douglas-fir when they are present. Retain a portion of conifer trees exhibiting forms of decadence or physical damage that may include broken, damaged or missing tops, sweep or crook, forked or multiple tops, decay conks, evidence of animal damage of cavity excavations. Tall deciduous tree species would be retained that include big leaf maple, red alder, bitter cherry, Scouler’s willow, and cascara. Damage to deciduous tree species would be minimized through directional felling techniques.
• Favor retention and release of species that comprise the minor component in stands, considering both hardwood and conifer species (LSRA p. I-9).
• Retain and release the larger conifer and hardwood trees, conifer trees with relatively large limbs and cavities (LSRA p. 92, I-9)
• Retain trees with defects, such as cavities, broken tops, or forks, especially the larger trees (LSRA p.92, I-9).
• Retain trees with large nests (greater than 12” in diameter).
2.2.2. Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) • Post-harvest stand structural variability would be increased through snag and coarse woody debris creation. In units being considered for commercial harvest, snags and down wood would be created by topping representative trees within the treatment area boundary according to the silvicultural prescription. Additionally, one (1) tree from adjacent mature stands would be topped to create large snag habitat for every five (5) acres of commercial thinning treatment.
• Retain the larger snags (where safely feasible) and down wood.
A-16 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• Protect existing snags larger than or equal to 20 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) and ten percent of snags between nine and 20 inches in dbh (snag use will be greater in the size classes closer to 20 than to nine) where it will address safety, felling and yarding concerns. Retain any snags knocked over during project activities as down wood (LSRA p. 92).
2.2.3. Botany • Retain an average of at least 40 trees per acre in managed stands and minimize soil disturbance and compaction to maintain habitat for survey and manage and sensitive fungi species in the project area.
2.2.4. Riparian Buffer Designation • Implement protective vegetation leave areas or buffers around all streams, potentially unstable areas, and wet sites to maintain stream temperature, maintain stream-adjacent slope stability (including headwalls), and protect riparian vegetation.
• Determine width of no-harvest buffers, based on site-specific factors such as flow regime (i.e., perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral), presence or absence of conifers, and slope-stability conditions. Buffers will at least include the inner gorge adjacent to streams and the active floodplain. Table A-7 identifies the minimum buffer widths for this project. Increase buffer widths where needed to avoid unstable areas (SLRMP: FW-087, -088, -089, -112).
Table A-7. Design criteria and description of no cut buffer widths for Alternative 2. Stand Location No Cut Buffer Description • Minimum buffer1 of 30 ft. where plantation conifers exist within 30 ft. of channel, and two rows of plantation conifer will not be removed; or Containing or adjacent to other perennial streams • Where plantation conifers do NOT exist within 30 ft. of channel, a minimum buffer of 30 ft. and the first row of plantation conifer that is encountered upslope of the 30 ft. buffer will not be removed. • At least 15 ft. from intermittent streams and Containing or adjacent to other intermittent streams minimum retention of first single row of plantation conifers.2 1Buffers will at least include the inner gorge adjacent to streams and the active floodplain. 2Most intermittent stream buffers will be approximately 30 feet minimum due to the proximity to the 1st row of conifers.
2.2.5. Scenery • Implement variable spacing for all thinning. Thin for natural appearance, variable spacing, and occasionally leave a clump of 3 or more trees.
• Vary thinning for a patchy appearance next to straight unit boundaries, particularly in units along Forest Road 14, and in the Highway 101 and Nestucca River view corridors. Vary edge treatment with condition of adjacent land, thinning more at spots along boundaries where adjacent land is more open, so that transition between treated forest and untreated adjacent land is more gradual.
• To the extent possible, vary thinning near cable corridors (if any) to help blend the corridor into the surrounding forest in view. Thin for a patchy appearance adjacent to cable corridors, (thin
A-17 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
some places adjacent to corridors more than the surrounding forest is thinned and leave patches thinned less than the surrounding forest.)
• Blackberry removal to be included in developed recreation sites and adjacent forest land.
• Protect and enhance big leaf maple ias possible in project implementation. When planting hazel and big leaf maple, concentrate planting in the types of topographical, geographic associations in which they occur naturally, rather than continuously dispersed across the site. Plant big leaf maple in locations that continue and enhance natural topographical associations of Big Leaf Maple: in draws up hillsides, and along creeks and rivers, at edges of openings.
• Replanting of restored areas to be done with plants set out singly or in groups of 3, 5, or 7, or as a mass planting. Plant with an irregular spacing, for a clumpy, natural appearing effect, not in row or grid. Plant to appear as a continuation, extension of surrounding natural vegetation patterns. When covering an area, either plant as a mass of one species, or plant as a community selecting 3 or more species that grow together in the wild. Transplant from nearby forest or plant seedlings from locally gathered seeds or plant rooted cuttings.
• Prune only to clear right of ways, or viewpoints, or to clear dead or diseased branches of plants or trees. Cut branches back to the base of trunk. Prune for natural appearance.
• For noncommercial treatment in the project area adjacent to travel way, developed and dispersed recreation sites, along trails the goal for all work is to have natural appearance and to highlight distinct natural and cultural character areas. Vegetation work to appear as a continuation of natural surrounding vegetation patterns.
• Include the following considerations in noncommercial vegetation work: Highlight small scale variations in vegetation appearance, wild flowers, down tree etc. Manage for distinct appearance in character areas, a grove of trees, a large patch of ferns, etc. Retain existing meadow areas here and protect and enhance riparian areas. Retain areas adjacent to streams and wet areas in a natural condition or manage vegetation to restore. Riparian areas to appear distinct in vegetation from surroundings.
• Within recreation sites and scenic road corridors, within a quarter mile of rivers, all work to be variable spacing, sometimes leaving a clump as one tree. Highlight large trees by thinning more heavily or clearing around them. Leave seedling trees and ground cover as possible around large trees. Leave some clumps of trees and scatter larger openings for natural appearance. Leave evergreen seedlings scattered throughout as possible for added multi-story structure.
• Remove non-native shrubs etc. as fits with other work. Remove hazard trees and dead branches. Low/flush cut stumps adjacent to road. Review example treatments and areas of typical work and areas to leave with Recreation specialist and Silviculturist before work on larger area. 2.2.5.1. Meadows and clearings • Clearing of vegetation to be done in a manner that results in a cleared area looking as natural as possible.
• Place openings, as possible, to mimic natural openings in the Nestucca landscape. Where possible, place openings adjacent to natural features (rock outcrops, existing meadow, etc), to give a logical, natural appearance. Group openings as a connected series of openings where this
A-18 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
fits with topography and other considerations, for natural appearance. Layout opening perimeters in shapes that respond to the natural landscape features, so that the edge appears natural.
• Vary line of meadow edge. Avoid an abrupt edge between meadow and forest. In meadow clearing, create a somewhat undulating edge to help compensate for the lack of variety in the cross section of meadow to forest edge.
• Reseed meadow restoration areas with native seed as soon as possible. 2.3. Plantation Treatments and Associated Actions
2.3.1. Thin and Harvest Actions
2.3.1.1. Project Design • Where feasible, design the logging plan to minimize the need for new temporary roads (SLRMP: FW-162, 163) and new landings, existing roads and landings should be utilized as much as possible.
• As required by law and regulation, units should be designed to maintain long term slope stability. Depending on site specific conditions, actively unstable or potentially highly unstable areas may need to be protected from harvest operations with no-cut buffers. On the other hand, thinning or partial cuts on unstable areas may be considered if the harvest prescription reduces current stocking levels and improves the growth and vigor of the remaining trees, so that root strength and evapotranspiration rates are maintained or increased over the longer term.
• Implement activities which minimize compaction such as skyline logging, where feasible, utilize existing compacted areas as much as possible, and reduce existing compaction through mechanical means (subsoiling) as needed.
2.3.1.2. Yarding • Yarding systems will be designated that meet all applicable standards and guides, that are economically viable, and that minimize soil disturbances.
• Outside of areas designated for full-log suspension and lateral yarding, use one-end log suspension on all areas designated for cable yarding systems to reduce soil displacement and compaction (SLRMP: FW-107).
• In areas of gentle to moderate slope or broken terrain, small sections of ground lead may be acceptable along some skyline corridors (on a case-by-case basis). Cable corridor spacing should be set to both minimize damage to standing timber and the soil resource.
2.3.1.2.1. Skyline Yarding • In some cases, skyline logging systems may be utilized as the primary method of log removal over less expensive systems, in order to reduce the development of the transportation system or to provide increased protection to other resources.
• Skyline logging that minimizes the amount of side-hill yarding or yarding through riparian buffers is preferred.
A-19 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
• Build skyline-cable landings in stable areas with stable cut bank slopes. Use existing landings where feasible (SLRMP: FW-115, 117).
• Locate landings to minimize the need for skyline corridors through riparian buffers. Limit skyline corridors to 12 feet wide. Corridor width may appear wider in areas where trees adjacent to the corridor are cut to meet the silvicultural prescription. Where skyline corridors pass through riparian buffers, remove no more than 20 percent of the canopy in a given 1,000 feet of stream (SLRMP: FW-091).
2.3.1.2.2. Ground-based Yarding • Ground -based equipment is limited to side slopes less than 30 %.
• Ground-based equipment would be limited to the dry season (generally July 1 through October 15), unless otherwise restricted by other resource concerns or waived by Forest Service personnel and consistent with ESA consultation.
• With the use of ground-based yarding systems, always utilize existing skid roads and landings as much as possible. At the completion of harvest activities, spur roads, tractor skid roads or forwarder roads should be water barred and scarified, as is necessary.
• Ground-based skidding equipment shall stay on designated skid trails. Ground-based skid trails will be predesignated and preapproved before use.
• Skid roads should not usually exceed 15 feet in width, and the objective is to maintain a 10 to 12 foot width throughout the length.
• Where practical the skidder, cat, shovel or forwarder should travel on slash to reduce off site soil erosion or lessen soil compaction.
• Skid roads will at least be 100 feet apart with conventional line pulling operations, and 40 to 60 feet apart with processor / forwarder operations.
• In ground based units subsoil the existing skid roads as much as is practical in order to reduce compaction to lower levels. Subsoiling may be curtailed in some areas in order to reduce the amount of root pruning of leave trees and to avoid excessive amounts of exposed soil.
• Over-the-snow yarding is encouraged for Unit 363 and most ground based units, as long as other resource objectives can be achieved and there is sufficient snow accumulation to make over-the- snow harvest feasible.
2.3.1.3. Nutrient Recycling and Erosion Control • Where operable (when whole tree yarding is not utilized), harvested trees should be topped and limbed in the units in order to provide small limbs and needles for nutrient recycling. This objective has to be tempered with the need to reduce fuel loading to control potential wild fires, and to meet site specific standards for slash accumulation. This practice, coupled with limbs that normally break off during yarding, will serve to address soil nutrient, displacement, and erosion concerns.
• To reduce soil erosion, seed exposed soils with native, certified weed-free species; or spread landing slash over landing sites (unless tree planting is planned) and spur roads, especially those with native (non-rock) surfaces. This practice will be more cost effective than machine piling and
A-20 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
burning of landing piles and will help stabilize disturbed soils. The district wildlife biologist or botanist will recommend certain native-surface roads for seeding.
• Existing concentrations of large down woody debris should be protected when feasible during harvest operations.
2.3.2. Temporary and Non-System Roads • A team of appropriate resource specialists and sale administrators will review road sites before preparing road plans for timber-sale contracts and will review any changes in road plans before incorporating them into contracts.
• Limit to dry season (generally July 1 through October 15), as much as possible, use of temporarily reopened non-system roads (to avoid adding rock to native surfaces and to reduce costs).
• For the timber sale contract, identify existing non-system roads to be used during the dry season (generally July 1 through October 15).
• If a road is to be used during the wet season (generally October 16 through June 30), surface with rock aggregate where needed.
• Spot rocking of wet sites that may be present on existing (or newly created) non-system roads used during the dry season should be limited to the improvement of structural strength in the low strength soil area only. Spot rocking should be limited to what is needed to reduce rutting or to provide additional traction for a safe driving surface.
• Waterbar and close temporary roads (and implement any additional storm-proofing necessary) between operating seasons or as soon as the need for the road ceases in order to minimize sedimentation from roads. Where necessary, place straw bales or use other erosion control measures to prevent stream sedimentation and excessive loss of the road surface.
• Evaluate (include a hydrologist, soil scientist, or geologist) temporary roads used for timber removal, especially those used during the wet season (generally October 16 through June 30) to determine need for ripping. Identify roads to be ripped in the timber-sale contract if ripping is to be done by the timber-sale contractor.
• Unclassified or temporary roads used outside the standard operating season, should generally be rocked, snow covered, or frozen to reduce the potential for erosion, unless other mitigating or extenuating circumstances are present.
• Scatter slash created through road building in the stands.
• Purchasers will replace closure devices that were removed for harvest operations. Appropriate closure devices generally include earthen mounds or large boulders. These requirements will be included in the timber-sale contract or waived if they do not apply.
• Limit new temporary roads to stable ridges and benches to minimize soil disturbance.
• Known locations of elegant fawn lily (Erythronium elegans) in Unit 039037A should be marked on the ground and shown on the sale area map and temporary road placement made to minimize disturbance of plants.
A-21 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
2.3.3. Landings • Construct landings in stable areas with stable cut bank slopes. Use existing landings where feasible (SFP: FW-115, 117)
• Consider machine piling and burning of landing piles, especially within 25 feet of key forest roads. The district hydrologist, fire management officer, and sale administrator will determine appropriate sites for machine piling and burning. These sites generally include roads and landings that have been rocked (SFP: FW-162). • Locate all helicopter landings greater than 300 feet from any known spotted owl or murrelet nest trees, or trees with nesting structure.
2.3.4. Waste Sites • Use an interdisciplinary process to determine new sites for waste material before contracts are advertised, and to review existing waste sites to determine need for redesign or relocation. Where feasible, avoid placing waste material in areas that would impact access to future projects. • Place waste material only in stable areas and at least 50 feet away from stream channels. Contour waste piles to about 1.5:1 slope to minimize potential for surface erosion or mass soil movement. Allow waste piles to become vegetated naturally or use erosion control (alder, brush, native seeding, etc.), where there is a moderate to high potential for surface erosion. Compact waste material, where necessary, to prevent erosion. (SFP: FW-117, 171). • Waste material should not be transported outside the project area. • All waste sites should be monitored for a minimum of two growing seasons and any invasive plants that establishes should be treated using the most effective method permitted with a goal of eradication.
2.3.5. Streams and Riparian Areas • Gaps will be at least 150 feet from all stream channels.
• Directionally fell trees away from buffers to protect riparian vegetation from damage. Retain trees accidentally felled into buffers to minimize stream sedimentation or damage to riparian vegetation. Some trees may be removed as determined by a fish biologist or hydrologist (SLRMP: FW-092).
• Proposals to modify stream crossings from hard (e.g., pavement) to soft (e.g.,aggregate) will require an evaluation by aquatic specialists to determine if the modification changes the level of effect on aquatic resources. The evaluation will include a determination that the proposed changes do not retard or prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.
2.3.6. Erosion Control Where practical, at the completion of harvest activities, limbs and woody debris should be placed on areas of exposed soil to reduce the potential for off-site soil erosion.
2.3.7. Scenery
2.3.7.1. Roads: • Wherever possible, contour waste piles, fill disposal, and grade road entrances and points along roads to blend with the surrounding topography. Continue patterns of topography and drainage patterns from above to below roads.
A-22 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• Avoid creating a smooth continuous slope. Generally aim for a rolling, natural grade. Create small shelves in continuous grades to allow native vegetation to establish. Grade to continue surrounding natural grade, and to meet surrounding natural grade.
2.3.7.2. Landings • Site landings to involve minimal impact on natural vegetation and grade, and continue natural patterns of topography and drainage from above to below the landing site as much as possible with other considerations.
• Obliterate landings wherever possible. Recontour to blend with surrounding topography, and to continue natural patterns of topography and drainage across the old landing site as much as possible.
2.3.8. Botany • Known locations of elegant fawn lily (Erythronium elegans) in Unit 039037A should be marked on the ground and landing and skid trail placement made to minimize disturbance of plants.
• Limit piling of slash in Unit 039037A within known locations of elegant fawn lily to landings. Outside of landings, slash can be scattered. 2.4. System Roads
2.4.1. General • Repair and maintain key roads that will be used as haul routes. Limit repair and maintenance work to what is needed to make the haul routes stable and safe for a mix of commercial and public use. Design actions to improve the structural strength and stability of roads, improve drainage of road surfaces, and resurface roads where needed.
o Actions include replacing inadequate or failing ditch-relief culverts, repairing surface patching on asphalt roads, repairing structural patches on failing road fills, resurfacing roads with either gravel or asphalt, and seeding of exposed soils.
o Level existing waterbars, replace failing ditch-relief culverts, and apply surfacing materials (if needed). • Contract specifications:
o Include non-key roads expected for use as part of wet-season haul routes in the timber- sale contract’s specified road reconstruction provisions, if any reconstruction is needed.
o If no reconstruction is planned, specify dry-season, pre-haul maintenance. o Specify road reconditioning, removal of accumulated surface organics, brushing, cleaning culvert inlets, removing slide and slough material, and removal of down trees to open roads.
o Purchasers will replace closure devices that were removed for harvest operations. Appropriate closure devices generally include earthen mounds or large boulders. These requirements will be included in the timber-sale contract or waived if they do not apply.
A-23 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
• Where needed for project access, temporarily reopen closed roads. If the horizontal alignment of temporarily reopened roads needs adjustment, favor the cut-bank side of the road prism to minimize disturbance to side-cast areas and established vegetation.
• Where water bars are temporarily removed from project-maintained roads to facilitate harvest operations, add rock if needed at these sites to maintain a hardened road surface and reduce the potential for erosion.
• Replace water bars, remove temporary culverts, and close project-maintained roads when the project is completed. Follow the Water Bar Placement Guide for Siuslaw Forest Roads.
• Stabilize and close roads not needed for continuous access.
• Locate and design road-closure devices to ensure effectiveness and to facilitate parking for dispersed recreation use.
• Consider retention and repair of asphalt segments near or adjacent to fish habitat and those asphalt segments that connect to existing paved access roads administered by other road management agencies.
• Consider conversion from asphalt to gravel surfacing where it is economically more beneficial in the long term than repairing failed asphalt surfacing and sub grade (e.g., where individual asphalt segments are isolated from other asphalt roads). Asphalt to gravel conversion should only occur where it would not adversely affect fish habitat (e.g., locations with few or no live stream crossings), and where it maintains or restores the objectives of the aquatic conservation strategy.
• Minimize blading of ditches, monitor roads during periods of heavy rain, and use straw bales to trap sediment, where necessary, to reduce stream sedimentation from aggregate-surfaced roads.
• Minimize down-stream movement of sediment from culvert replacement sites, prior to and during construction, by isolating sites that have surface flow.
• Locate road drainage (cross drains) in areas that will not discharge over unstable slopes. If unstable roads are to be used, stabilize them prior to their use.
• Danger Trees along roadsides will be identified, assessed, and treated according to the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) policy as detailed in FSM 7733, R6/PNW Supplement No. 7730-2007- 2, June 8, 2007. Any trees over 18" in diameter that need to be felled for safety reasons will be reported to the unit wildlife biologist in the event that emergency consultation is required.
2.4.2. Log haul • Hydrologist, Fish Biologist, and Engineering staff will determine season of log haul for system and temporary roads. When selecting key and non-key roads for potential log haul during the wet season, consider the length of the collector road, slope position and aspect of the road, road condition, and projected cost for additional rock to support wet-season operations. Preferred candidates for wet-season haul include short, stable ridgetop roads or roads not located on north aspects. Refer to the project Transportation Plan for additional information.
• Minimize log hauling during the wet-season where such use could adversely affect water quality.
A-24 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• During wet-season haul, limit potential sedimentation of streams by using standard erosion control methods such as filter cloth, diverting sediment onto stable, naturally vegetated slopes, or using catch basins to allow settling out of suspended sediment. Where necessary, install culverts or create ditches to disconnect water flow in ditches from streams.
• Use the guidelines in the Siuslaw Road Rules (2011-DRAFT) to suspend log hauling when ground conditions will result in unacceptable road or resource impacts.
• Suspend log hauling when it is determined that active erosion control measures cannot prevent sediment from entering streams. Include a hydrologist in making determinations about use of straw bales and suspension of log hauling.
• Add aggregate to and/or reshape roads prior to log hauling, where needed, to ensure proper drainage and reduce potential impacts to streams.
• Use the Forest Roads Analysis to determine the need for long-term access on system roads.
• Log haul along a portion of the FS 1400 road is restricted during the Oregon Silverspot butterfly flight season (July 1 – September 30). Table A-5 lists the operating seasons for FS roads. Consult the wildlife biologist for the specific road segment this applies to.
Chapter 3. Post-harvest Enhancement Actions With implementation of the South Nestucca Restoration Project, there may be an opportunity to improve various forest resource conditions in proximity to the proposed treatment activities. These opportunities are not necessary or critical for implementing the Proposed Action, but may be considered as Post - Harvest Enhancement Projects. Implementation of these projects is contingent on funding and may or may not occur. They may be financed through: collections generated via scheduled timber sale receipts from implementing the South Nestucca Project (i.e., Knutson-Vandenberg funds), Forest Service appropriated resource and restoration funding, or stewardship contract agreements.
These other improvement projects (or activities) that may be associated with the Action Alternatives are described below. Potential resource impacts from the entire list of other project activities would be considered during future environmental analysis processes. 3.1. Dead wood creation • Create dead wood (cavity development, snags, and down wood) within and adjacent to plantations following prescriptions based on DecAID and the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, for Oregon’s North Coast Adaptive Management Area (refer to Appendix B for additional information).
• Retain un-thinned areas where existing deadwood will remain and where additional small dead wood will be recruited through tree mortality.
• Do not create deadwood within 100 feet of any road or perennial stream.
• Defer creating deadwood in harvested units until one or more years after harvest to allow for canopy recovery, where needed, and to allow for blow-down. At that time, monitor the canopy cover and deadwood levels created by windthrow before additional deadwood is created. Ensure canopy cover remains at or above 40 percent in thinned areas of units.
A-25 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
• To reduce the potential for Douglas-fir bark beetle infestations, minimize felling more than 5 trees per acre for down wood during the period from May 1 through June 15 (adult beetle flight season).
• All deadwood creation activities must comply with the requirements set forth in the current Biological Opinion or LOC(s) from the Fish and Wildlife Service for federally listed wildlife. 3.2. Maintain or improve grass, forb, and shrub habitats Grass, forb, and shrub habitats have been declining in the Forest, including the planning area, for many years. Facilitate persistence of these components through planting gaps, yarding corridors, native surface temporary roads, de-compacted gravel roads or landings where soil types, slopes and aspect are appropriate. Plant with native grass and forb species seed, certified weed-free. 3.3. Planting and tending young trees in commercially thinned stands • See individual stand prescriptions for planting specifications.
• Protect seedlings from excessive wildlife browsing with Vexar tubing, with the exception of Sitka spruce and western hemlock.
• Implement manual-release treatments, if needed to reduce shrub competition around planted trees to aid their survival and establishment. 3.4. Road Closure • Close roads needed for intermittent project access. Use closure devices such as earth berms, boulders, guardrail barricades, or gates, depending on access needs, length of road, and amount of time between project entries. Locate and design closure devices to be effective.
• To the extent possible, defer road closures until harvest, post-harvest mitigation, and post-harvest enhancement actions are completed.
• Planners and engineers will review the project sites before preparing design plans for road- closure contracts. Planners and engineers will review any changes in design plans before they are incorporated into contracts.
• Implement road closure actions during the dry season (generally July 1 to October 15).
• Design water bars to facilitate proper drainage of surface water and to prevent ponding. Place water bars in areas where drainage will not destabilize road fills.
• To keep streams within their channels when culverts are obstructed, build water bars immediately above existing culverts to become the overflow point. Use the Waterbar Placement and Construction Guide for Siuslaw Forest Roads to determine water-bar spacing and design (SLRMP: FW-123).
• Use an interdisciplinary process to determine new sites for waste material before contracts are advertised, and to review existing waste sites to determine need for redesign or relocation. Where feasible, avoid placing waste material in areas that would impact access to future projects.
A-26 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
• Where applicable, seed disturbed sites with a native, certified weed-free seed mixture that includes species that will enhance wildlife forage. 3.5. Roadside maintenance adjacent to key forest roads Roadside maintenance includes actions that remove trees (conifer or hardwoods) from road prisms, and thin some plantations adjacent to key roads. The objectives are to prevent cutbank failure and reduce road maintenance costs caused by trees falling from cutbanks; and reduce shading and leaf litter on roads to improve drainage, reduce organic debris, and improve drying of road surfaces. Design criteria for these actions include: • Reestablish clearing limits in plantations from 10 feet above top of cut to 10 feet below top of fill. Commercial timber sales, firewood permits, or service contracts are appropriate tools for completing the work.
• Maintain appropriate road drainage and erosion control during thinning and salvage operations.
• Restrict harvest equipment to the road surface. Minimize soil disturbance when downhill yarding. Leave trees on site, where removal causes substantial damage to the road or road prism. Require one-end suspension of the leading end of logs, when yarding.
Chapter 4. Monitoring Implementation monitoring determines if the project design criteria and Siuslaw Forest Plan standards and guides, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, were followed. Effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether applying the management activities achieved the desired goals, and if the objectives of the standards and guides were met. Findings resulting from project observations and monitoring are expected to help influence the design of future projects and development of future monitoring plans. 4.1. Implementation Monitoring • Before a contract is advertised, it will be reviewed for consistency with the standards and guides of the Siuslaw Forest Plan as amended, and project design criteria.
• Involve appropriate specialists to ensure activities are implemented as designed, when developing timber sale, roadside salvage or thinning, road decommissioning and other projects. The appropriate specialists will also participate periodically during contract work, especially when unusual circumstances arise that may require a contract modification.
• Identify key checkpoints to ensure that problem situations are addressed in the specifications. These checkpoints include a plan-in-hand review and a contract review of specifications before the next phase of work begins.
• During thinning operations, monitor the consistency of the silvicultural prescriptions in achieving the desired leave-tree stocking, variable spacing, and species and structural diversity. This implementation monitoring is imperative in those stands that are being treated using "Designation by Description" or "Designation by Prescription" methods. With each of these methods, the number and type of leave trees have been specified contractually, but only boundary trees and gaps are physically designated on the ground. 4.2. Effectiveness Monitoring
A-27 South Nestucca Restoration Project EA – Appendix A
Monitoring will be tiered to the Siuslaw Forest Plan. Involve the appropriate specialists in the various monitoring tasks identified below.
4.2.1. Threatened and Endangered Species To show actual levels of effects to listed species, complete and submit project implementation and monitoring forms to the appropriate regulatory agency. Reports to the US Fish and Wildlife Service are prepared at the end of the calendar year and submitted by February 15.
4.2.2. Vegetation Management • Monitor thinning effectiveness in achieving the desired leave tree stocking, variable spacing, species diversity and structural diversity. Adjust post-thinning prescriptions for planting and dead wood creation, where necessary to enhance stand spacing variability, and structural and species diversity.
• Monitor planting effectiveness in achieving survival.
• Monitor created snags and wildlife trees by observing effects of treatments. Focus observations on the location and rate of decay, and use by cavity nesters.
• Evaluate stands for existing snags and down wood within 5 years after the thinning treatment. Modify down wood and snag creation numbers, if necessary, to meet the snag, down wood, and wolf tree objectives.
• Observe all thinned stands to determine if snags or down wood are being created by bark beetles, or other insects or diseases.
• Evaluate riparian leave areas as to their effectiveness in maintaining stream shade.
• For a period of five years after project activities are completed, monitor project sites that have a high risk of invasive plant infestation. Conduct monitoring annually and focus on effectiveness of invasive plant management as well as detection of new infestations. Refer to the botanist report for specific treatment areas and prescriptions.
4.2.3. Wildlife Habitat Treatments • Sample post-harvest canopy closures in stands with different residual trees per acre. The information will provide a more accurate picture of how canopies respond to thinning in the watershed, both short-term and long-term.
• Sample all post-harvest densities to quantify cavity nester use of created snags. Sample stands at approximately 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after harvest for evidence of both cavity nesting and foraging.
4.2.4. Soils • As the proposed project is initiated, it will be monitored to evaluate implementation efficiency, prescription adequacy, and to update sale area rehabilitation needs or protection. Primary implementation monitoring will be conducted at the contract administration phase of the project by the Timber Sale Officer. The logger will be required to maintain adequate suspension during the harvest process, to remain on designated skid roads and landings with equipment, and to limit the number and extent of skid road utilized. In addition, a host of other contract requirements dealing with such items as erosion control, hazardous material use, fire restrictions, etc. will be
A-28 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
enforced. Duff retention will be monitored as part of any post sale activity that may affect the soil resource, such as spot or pile burning, grapple piling, or broadcast burning.
4.2.5. Road Treatments • Review excavated slopes after road-stabilization activities and note areas where eroded materials enter stream channels. Eliminate or reduce erosion, if the surface is eroding and could adversely affect aquatic habitat.
• Observe road surface treatments such as water bars to determine effectiveness and effects on the stability of the outer portion of the road prism.
4.2.6. Heritage • Within one-year of commercial timber harvest or temporary road construction:
• Monitor all “high probability areas” for previously unidentified cultural resources; and
• Monitor a sample of non-high probability areas for previously unidentified cultural resources.
• Evaluate and document the effectiveness of the cultural resources survey design based on monitoring results in a report that is submitted to SHPO.
A-29
United States Department of Agriculture South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendix B: Deadwood Assessment
Siuslaw Hebo Forest Service National Forest Ranger District January 2015
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
I. Introduction
The South Nestucca project area is about 18 air miles south of Tillamook, Oregon. The project area lies within portions of the Nestucca River -Frontal Pacific Ocean fifth-field watersheds. The project area includes portions of the Three Rivers sixth-field watershed. The project boundary includes the Mt. Hebo Special Interest Area and the Hebo-Nestucca Inventoried Roadless Area, however no project actions are proposed within the Inventoried Roadless Area. The project area covers approximately 27,553 acres. Approximately 83 percent (22,680 acres) of the area is on National Forest System (NFS) land (Figure B-1), of which 20 percent (4,527 acres) of NFS ownership is comprised of young forest plantations less than 65 years of age and about 21 percent (4,677 acres) is comprised of older off-site stock plantations that are 80 to 103 years of age. About 17 percent of the project area is privately owned, less than 1 percent is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the state of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde (Figure B-1).
Figure B-1. Ownership in the South Nestucca Project Area. Approximately 58 percent of the NFS land within the project area (13,260 acres) consists of natural stands greater than 65 years old and includes a minor amount in roads, streams and rivers, and meadows. About 20 percent of the NFS lands within the planning area are young plantations (4,527 acres) and about 21 percent (4,677 acres) is comprised of older off-site stock plantations that are 80 to 103 years of age. Forested stands proposed for commercial thinning comprise about 10 percent (2,308 acres) of NFS land in the project area. Of these stands proposed for commercially thinning, 1,769 acres are prescribed to be commercial thinned and the remaining 539 acres would be left as no-cut buffers. Approximately 30 percent of the plantations on NFS lands within the planning area (6,896 acres) would be deferred (Figure B-2).
B-1
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B
Figure B-2. Proportion of South Nestucca Project Area proposed for commercial thinning in relation to deferred, buffered, and non-forested areas and natural stands.
A. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
1. Late-successional Reserve Assessment Guidance The Late-Successional Reserve Assessment for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (LSRA) for this planning area documents the stand structure and composition of mature natural stands in Table 14of the assessment (USDA Forest Service 1998; see Table B- 1). Tables 18 and 19 (based on Spies et. al 1988) in the assessment discloses the range of snags or down wood volumes per acre found in natural stands of different age classes in the Oregon Coast Range. Table 2 in this report summarizes those tables. The objective of the late successional reserves is to protect and restore habitat related to late successional species. The assessment concluded that the loss of the large coarse woody debris (CWD) component is long-term and there is very limited opportunity to create CWD >20" in diameter in the 25-50 year old plantations. The assessment recommended prescriptions that would set managed stands on a trajectory to meet the snag and downed wood levels found in mature and old-growth stands while still providing for an acceptable level of CWD in young stands.
2. Northern Spotted Owl and Marble Murrelet Recovery Plan Guidance Deadwood in the form of snags and downed wood are important habitat components for a variety of species. The recovery plans for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 1992, USFWS 2008) and the marbled murrelet (USFWS 1997) recommended changing the trajectory of managed stands from wood fiber production to a condition that more closely replicates natural stand conditions.
2
Table B-1. From LSRA - Table 14. Structure and Composition of the Mature Condition of Late-Successional Stands by Sub-Series Environments. (Information is expressed in numbers of trees, logs or snags per acre; all data was rounded to the nearest whole number).
Hemlock- Dry (18 plots) Hemlock- Moist (21 plots) Hemlock- Wet (36 plots) Species Small Med. Large Giant Total Small Med. Large Giant Total Small Med. Large Giant Total Bigleaf maple 1 <1 1 Douglas-fir 20 25 6 <1 51 28 23 6 <1 58 9 10 6 <1 25 Red alder 2 <1 2 7 1 9 13 2 15 Sitka spruce <1 <1 <1 1 <1 0 <1 1 2 1 <1 <1 2 Western hemlock 19 10 2.2 <1 31 25 11 2 <1 37 23 11 3 <1 36 Western redcedar 4 <1 <1 4 4 <1 <1 <1 4 5 1 <1 <1 6 Total Live Trees 45 36 8 1 89 (44) 64 36 9 1 109 (45) 53 24 9 1 86 (32) Hard Conifer Snags 15 2 1 <1 17 14 2 <1 <1 16 4 1 <1 <1 6 Soft Conifer Snags 2 2 3 1 8 3 3 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 3 Hard Log 23 6 1 30 14 2 1 <1 18 10 2 1 <1 13 Soft Log 5 2 2 1 10 7 5 5 1 18 3 6 2 1 11 Spruce- Dry (13 plots) Spruce- Moist (39 plots) Spruce- Wet (33 plots) Douglas-fir 8 13 10 <1 31 3 6 3 <1 11 9 5 5 <1 20 Red alder 11 1 <1 13 8 1 <1 8 8 2 <1 10 Sitka spruce 6 7 3 <1 16 8 11 9 2 29 3 3 4 2 11 Western hemlock 19 6 2 27 33 17 4 <1 53 12 7 3 <1 22 Western redcedar 1 1 <1 2 <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 3 102 Total Live Trees 46 28 16 <1 89 (43) 51 34 15 2 34 16 12 2 64 (28) (50) Hard Conifer Snags 4 1 <1 <1 5 9 2 1 <1 12 5 1 1 <1 7 Soft Conifer Snags 1 2 3 1 6 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 4 Hard Log 6 2 <1 9 12 4 2 <1 18 8 3 3 1 16 Soft Log 4 2 3 1 9 8 4 5 1 18 3 5 2 1 11 Live tree data from 1987 Vegetation Resource Survey – 109 plots and 1984 Siuslaw Ecoplot Intensive Survey – 51 plots. (X) Total Medium, Large and Giant conifer trees. Size classes: Small = 9.0-20.9 inches diameter at breast height (DBH); Medium = 21.0-31.9 inches DBH; Large = 32.0-47.9 inches DBH; Giant = 48.0+ inches DBH. Snags = dead standing conifers 10 feet tall or taller, with DBH in the above size classes: Hard snags = snags in decay classes I, II, and III (Cline 1977); Soft snags = snags in decay classes IV and V 9Cline 1977). Logs = pieces greater than 20 feet long, having the large end of the log in the above size classes: Hard logs = logs in decay classes I, II, and III (Fogel, Ogawa and Trappe 1973); Soft logs = logs in decay classes IV and V ( Fogel 1973).
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B
II. Analysis
A. Existing Snag and CWD Levels Compared to Reference Condition Analysis was undertaken to determine how many snags and how much down wood there is on Siuslaw National Forest lands in the Nestucca watershed. Available snags and CWD were analyzed to determine how much exists in the natural stands. This data was used to compare natural stands to managed stands. The current snag and down wood levels were compared to the reference condition.
1. Methodology The analysis used the Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) data (Ohmann and Gregory 2002) that combines satellite imagery and imputed inventory plot data to assess standing and down material in overall snag (≥10” DBH) and large snag (≥20” DBH) categories. Stands were put into three size classes: large (>20” mean DBH), small (10-20” mean DBH), and open (<10” mean DBH or non-forest). Data on current conditions came from interpretation of imagery taken in 2006.
The analysis used the following Geographic Information System spatial data: watershed boundaries (fifth and sixth field watershed scales), the USFS R6 Ecology Program Potential Natural Vegetation model at the plant association group level, the Siuslaw NF management activity layer (managed stands versus natural (no management history recorded) stands), and the GNN data. The variables in GNN data included:
• STPH_GE_25 (snags per hectare >25cm DBH) • STPH_GE_50 (snags per hectare >50 cm DBH) • DCOV_GE_12 (% cover in logs)>12cm diameter) • DCOV_GE_50 (% logcover in logs>50 cm diameter).
Snags included in the GNN variables were at least two meters in height and logs were at least three meters in length. Each size class was calculated independently, and snags were also calculated together across size classes to match DecAID summaries of total snags greater than 25 cm (10”) DBH.
The analysis assigned vegetation types to match sub-series vegetation classes used in the LSRA. for The analysis summarized snags (snags per acre) and down wood (cover per acre) on Forest Service lands in the Nestucca watershed and displayed it by density or cover classes matching such classes corresponding to those from DecAID.
2. Results The analysis used results from a Forest Service ecology study in northwest Oregon to compare current condition (combining stands across size classes) to the reference condition (McCain 2011). That study combined DecAID reference distributions of coarse wood by stand size class for each Wildlife Habitat Type (WHT) with reference seral stage distributions developed for Fire Regime-Condition Class (FRCC) for each fifth field watershed. The analysis assigned reference conditions by comparing vegetation subseries to FRCC Biophysical Setting and DecAID WHT and summing by area occupied by each WHT in the fifth-field watershed.
The results of the analysis are coarse approximations. The GNN data is recommended for dead wood analysis at a fifth field watershed scale. This analysis analyzed at a smaller scale, dividing Forest Service lands within the Nestucca watershed into stands size classes. The distribution of snags and down wood is
4
highly variable across the landscape, therefore it’s unwise to rely on estimates from plot data when extrapolated to small parcels of that landscape. The range of variability increases at smaller scales. However, the data approximates the observed differences in managed and unmanaged stands in the Coast Range. The following summary table shows deadwood in the inclusive and large size classes by stand size classes in the Nestucca River watershed.
Table B-2. Deadwood by Size Class.
Snags per Snags per Percent Percent Size Snags ≥10" Snags ≥20" Acres acre ≥10" acre ≥20" Cover of Cover of class DBH DBH DBH DBH Logs ≥5" Logs ≥20" Large 32,943 523,000 255,000 16 8 4 3 Small 24,523 298,000 102,000 12 4 4 3 Open 12,059 37,000 22,000 3 2 3 2
Small and open stands hold about 40 percent of the total snags (>10” DBH) on approximately 53 percent of the area, but only 33 percent of the large snags. The large size class of stands is dominantly older natural forest. This large size class holds 60 percent of all snags, and two-thirds of large snags.
The following histograms (Figures B-3 and B-4) show the percent of Forest Service lands in the Nestucca fifth-field watershed by density class (snags per acre) for the coastal western lowland conifer hardwood wildlife habitat type (68,691 acres). Other wildlife habitat types in the watershed occupy only 1250 acres, less than two percent of the watershed, and are not analyzed in this section.
Seventy-nine percent of the open and 60 percent of the small (managed) stands have less than 6 snags per acre, compared to only 23 percent of the large (principally natural) stands. Thirty-two percent of the landscape under reference conditions has less than 6 snags per acre, reflecting a typical distribution among all three size classes. Most of the high snag densities are in large stands. Thirty-seven percent of large stands had densities greater than18 snags per acre; only 11 percent of small stands had greater than18 snags per acre. Ninety-eight percent of all large stands have some snags. Eighty-eight percent of small stands had at least one snag, while 73 percent of open stands had at least one snag.
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B
Figure B-3. Percent of Forest Service Lands by Snag Density Class (Snags (10"+) on FS lands in Nestucca fifth field watershed % of Coastal western lowland conifer-hardwood wildlife habitat type in snag density class). The histograms of snags greater 20” DBH (Figure B-4) show current distribution on Siuslaw NF lands within the Nestucca fifth-field watershed compared to a reference condition based on information for the Wildlife Habitat Types from DecAID and the Forest Service Fire Regime Condition Class data for this area. The major shift away from the reference condition is reflected in fewer acres in the 6-10 snags per acre density classes; those acres instead have less than 4 snags per acre. As expected from the stand ages, the small, managed stands have very few of the large snags, compared to natural stands. Further, the watershed saw multiple fires that consumed some of the potential legacy woody material for those acres. The stands planted in with off-site tree seed (the offsite stands), are now old enough to have grown into the large (≥20” DBH) size class, but may lack large snags and logs due to their age and their history of repeated fire. Overall, the discrepancy between the reference and current condition is due to a combination of harvest and fire history, which resulted in a lower number of old growth stands than might be typical in this part of the Coast Range. However, the range of natural conditions for a fifth field watershed in the Coast Range could encompass wider variation around the reference condition, given the large size of fires that make up the fire regime in the area.
6
25.00 Large snags (20"+) on FS lands in Nestucca fifth field watershed 20.00 Open/young
Small stand 15.00 (10-20") Large stand(20"+) 10.00 reference
5.00
0.00
Figure B-4. Large Snags on Forest Service Lands (Percentage of Forest Service Lands by Snag Density Class)
B. Desired Condition Based on Successional Pathways Successional pathways are defined by the typical, dominant compositional and structural stages that can be expected as vegetative communities develop following disturbance. Conceptual models of succession were developed for each environment by using inventory information and field observation. (LSRA 1998 Table 14)
Research by Tappenier, et.al. (1997) has shown evidence that many of the Coast Range’s old-growth forests appear to have developed from relatively widely spaced trees that were established in the wake of a series of infrequent disturbances. They quickly developed large, tapered stems, big crowns, and general vigor; all of which contributed to their longevity and stature in old-growth forests. In contrast, young stands today are developing from dense, single-aged, uniformly planted stands or naturally established conifers. Thinning is an opportunity to move plantations to densities closer to those developed naturally.
Deadwood is only one element considered in restoration thinning. Other important components in restoration of late-successional habitat include development of individual tree structure to provide large diameter limbs and providing nesting habitat for northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets; and the opening of tree canopies to provide enough light to reach the forest floor which enhances understory development, diversity, and provides a multi-story canopy. Without thinning, understory tree development and large diameter limb development is substantially delayed. Large limb development may never occur within these overstocked stands.
C. Modeling Deadwood Size and Frequency in Unthinned Plantations The size and number of snags created in unthinned plantations through time is an important component for assessing the effects of proposed thinning prescriptions the in Late Successional Reserves (USDA 1994). Growth models calibrated for this region are being used to project live tree growth and mortality. Forest Vegetation Simulator- Pacific Northwest Variant (http://www.fs.fed. us/fmsc/fvs/index.shtml) and
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B
ORGANON (http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/research/organon/) are two models commonly used predict tree growth and suppression mortality as stands approach expected maximum tree densities. The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS_PN) provides the ability to modify most growth and mortality functions to conform to local observations of stand development. The intent of this analysis is to compare suppression mortality projections from available growth model using default growth model parameters to observed growth data from the Siuslaw National Forest. Following the comparison, the model most accurately representing the observed mortality data will project potential suppression mortality within an unthinned stand at age 101 years.
The Siuslaw National Forest participates in the Siuslaw Thinning and Underplanting Density Study (STUDS) with the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University Forest Science Department (Chan et. al, 2006, Poage and Anderson, 2007). The purpose of STUDS is to determine responses to density treatment ranges considered for LSR development. This analysis uses the year 14 and 15 measurements of the unthinned treatments to validate growth model projections and infer which models may be the appropriate to project mortality into the future in dense, uniform stands.
This analysis uses three no-thin, unplanted one-acre STUDS plots on three sites distributed across the Siuslaw National Forest to assess mortality development patterns. Diameter distributions of live trees and accumulated mortality by diameter at death at the end of the growth period (age 46 years) are displayed in figures B-5, B-6, and B-7. Mortality is almost exclusively occurring in the smaller diameter classes. Virtually all mortality is suppression mortality with the exception of a broken top occurring in a larger tree within the first 8 years of the study at the Wildcat site.
Figure B-5.
8
Figure B-6.
Figure B-7. The Cataract site plot was used to compare actual observed data with growth model projections. The initial data set from this plot at age 31 was entered into three models: FVS_PN, ORGANON_SMC and ORGANON_NWO. The FVS_PN variant was developed in 1995 from Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management data sets. The model is intended to represent the Siuslaw and Olympic national forests and adjacent forest lands (Keyser, 2008). The ORGAON_SMC version was developed and continues to be updated with plot information from the Stand Management Cooperative (SMC) data set. This data set is composed of uniform planted stands with intense density control. Data from older uniform naturally stocked stands were used to supplement the younger SMC data set (Clappell, 1991, Hann et. al, 2006). The Northwest Oregon version of ORGANON (ORGANON_NWO) was developed from from permanent plots in the predominantly natural stands in the Oregon State University school forest.
Projections using the initial Cataract plot data at age 31 were projected for 15 years to age 46 to coincide with the end data set. Figures B-8, B- 9, and B-10 display the projected 15-year live tree distribution and accumulated mortality for each model. The two ORGANON models concentrate suppression mortality within the smaller diameter classes, while the FVS_PN distributes suppression mortality proportionally across diameter classes. This relationship is inconsistent with the STUDS data and other related studies (Dodson, 2012). The two ORGANON models simulate mortality distributed in the smaller size classes. This is more consistent with the observed STUDS data and other related studies than the FVS_PN simulation. The suppression mortality distribution in FVS_PN is a recognized inaccuracy and is under
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B consideration for recalibration (Smith-Mateja, 2012). This analysis indicates that plantation stands would be expected to create suppression mortality similar to the range of projections found with the SMC and NWO_ORGANON models.
Figure B-8.
Figure B-9.
Figure B-10.
10
The two ORGANON models were used to project the Cataract plot data through time to determine a possible range of snag size development to age 101 years. The results are displayed in figures B-11 and B-12. The majority of mortality in these simulations occurred in the smaller diameter classes of less than 20 inches. It is unlikely that much suppression-created deadwood greater than 20 inches in diameter will develop in the unthinned plantation stands prior to age 101 years.
Figure B-11.
Figure B-12.
D. Effects of Thinning on Deadwood Creation
1. Silvicultural Prescriptions and Unit Size Plantations are reviewed by the interdisciplinary team. The original clearcut boundary is used as a starting point evaluating stands for restoration thinning. These boundaries are adjusted by stream buffers,
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B
hardwood dominated areas, acceptable stocking levels, unstable areas and logging feasibility resulting in generally a smaller area than the original clearcut boundary proposed for treatment.
Thinning removes smaller diameter trees that potentially would experience suppression mortality. Snags and coarse woody debris are created following thinning. The no-cut buffers would still experience suppression mortality. Following thinning the stands retain more live trees than the target natural stand as derived from Table 14 - Structure and Composition of the Mature Condition of Late-Successional Stands by Sub-Series Environment found in the LSRA (shown above).
Thinning from below is generally practiced. This removes the smaller diameter trees and leaves the larger dominant and co-dominant trees. Trees harvested range from 6 inches diameter and larger. About three to five years following thinning the stand is evaluated to determine if mechanical or if natural forces wind, insects or disease have created snags or coarse wood. At that point it is determined how many snags and coarse wood pieces need to be created to meet the silvicultural prescription. Snags and coarse woody debris are created from the remnant trees generally 14 to 18 inches in diameter.
2. Deadwood Development The snags and coarse woody debris less than 21 inches in diameter (LSRA 1998 Table 9) develop from the understory trees that regenerate following thinning as space and light are increased. Additional evidence is from the summary of Tables 18 and 19 from LSRA, 1998. These snags may develop from the effects of suppression, insects, disease, or wind. The snags in the medium, large and giant would generally develop from trees that remain following thinning. These snags develop from the effects of insects, disease or wind with the effect of suppression mortality playing no or an insignificant role.
Table B-3. Summary of LSR Assessment Tables 18 and 19.
Total # of Total # of Total # of Cubic Down Wood Snags/Acre > or = Snags/Acre > or = Snags/Acre < 20” Stand Age Feet/Acre of Cubic 20” DBH 20” DBH and > 16' DBH** 1 All Snags Feet/Acre (all heights)*1 tall (all heights) 1
Young 7 2 41 1229 1100
(<80 years) (4 to 10) (0 to 4) (24 to 58) (697 to 1761) (596-1604)
Mature 7 3 47 1486 1729
(80-199 years) (2 to 12) (1 to 5) (11 to 83) (649 to 2326) (776-2682)
Old Growth 7 4 9 2115 3258
(>199 years) (5 to 9) (2 to 6) (7 to 11) (1247 to 2983) (3258-4126)
1Spies and Franklin (1988) *Includes all heights greater than 4.5’ **Includes snags > or = 3.9”
12
Thinning removes potential suppression mortality trees from stands. However, mortality from insects, disease and wind can and will continue following thinning. Early results from the Siuslaw Thinning and Understory Development Study (Yachats) indicate that mortality does occur, not just from suppression.
The Siuslaw Thinning and Under-planting for Diversity Study is designed to characterize the effects of thinning to increase structural heterogeneity on stand composition, structure vegetative diversity and productivity in young even-age managed stands. At one of the replication sites (Yachats) the number of snags >10” diameter at breast height (DBH) 16 years after the initial thinning and one year after a second thinning is disclosed in Table 4. The other sites have not been analyzed yet but appear to have similar number of snags per acre.
Table B-4. Snags/Acre in Yachats Site (TPA = Trees Per Acre). Treatment Snags/Acre >15" DBH Unthinned 7 0 100 TPA 8.5 2 60 TPA 7 1 30 TPA 4.5 2.5
Two studies from the Oregon Coast Range were designed to focus on snag and coarse woody debris development. Spies, (1988) showed that about 41 snags per acre less than 20 inches were in stands less than 80 years old. Carey, (2007) showed that about 33 snags per acres less than 20 inches were in stands less than 80 years old. Carey broke the diameter classes a little further showing that about 26 of those 33 snags per acre were between 4 and 7 inches DBH leaving about 7 trees per acre in between 8 and 19 inches in diameter.
3. Influence of Stand Density on Tree and Stand Characteristics Several studies have evaluated the effects of thinning on young Coast Range conifer stands. The effects of stand density and competition on individual trees and stands have been widely documented (Assmann 1970, Curtis and Marshall 1986, Marshall et al. 1992, Smith et al. 1996). They include:
• Stem size - At low density, trees develop thick tapered stems.
• Crown characteristics - At low density, trees have large branches and wide, long crowns, and much of the stem is covered with foliage and branches.
• Tree vigor and stability - At low density, individual trees are vigorous and better able to resist windthrow, insects, and diseases, and they may produce more seed.
• Total stand growth and yield - Growth and yield are often low in very low-density stands. There is a tradeoff between tree size and the total volume of wood production. In addition, trees growing at low density develop large branches low on the stem, resulting in knots that might reduce wood quality. However, management objectives may include leaving some tress with large branches for wildlife habitat.
• Mortality from inter-tree competition - Mortality is less in low-density stands, and the trees that do die are generally considerably larger than dead trees in high-density stands. Understory vegetation. The less dense the stand, the more developed the understory vegetation.
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B
Regeneration of herbs, understory shrubs, hardwoods, and conifers is much higher under less dense stands because there are fewer overstory trees to compete for light and water.
4. Regeneration of Understory Species Reducing overstory density and shrub cover frequently enables conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs to become established in the understory (Bailey and Tappenier 1998). In a comparison of paired thinned and unthinned stands on BLM land, seedling frequency ranged from 0.3 to 1.0 in thinned stands and 0.0 to 0.2 in unthinned stands. Douglas-fir occurred in 91 percent of the thinned stands but only 22 percent of the unthinned stands. Western hemlock and western redcedar, shade-tolerant species, were the most common conifers in the understory in all stands; their densities and frequencies were highest in thinned stands.
5. Individual Stand Analysis For each stand in the proposed action, stand analysis of the original clearcut size, the proposed unit size, the residual stand trees per acre, the target structure and composition of mature condition of late- successional stands by Plant Association Group (PAG), and the number of created snags and downed wood prescribed following harvest was performed. It was found that stocking levels of live remnant trees per acre still exceeded the target for live and snag levels at the medium, large and giant size when the stand reached maturity. Size and levels of snags and coarse wood that are prescribed following thinning (created or natural) are within the tolerance levels for this stand age. Additionally, the no-cut buffers provide the opportunity for the effects of suppression mortality to continue.
a) Stand 504373 This stand was modeled showing growth and mortality with no thinning, thinning to 30 trees per acre (TPA) and thinning to 60 trees per acre at ages 55 and 125 years with thinning occurring at age 35.
The model was run for mortality rate at ages 55 and 125 for the 30 and 60 trees per acre scenarios and the unthinned stand. Suppression mortality for the unthinned stand occurred, but even at 125 years of age no snags were greater than 19 inches DBH. Suppression mortality essentially is non-existent following thinning in the 30 and 60 trees per acre scenarios. Mortality at lower stand densities is a result of other causes such as disease, insects, or wind effects. Increase diameter growth through thinning provides the opportunity of this mortality in the 20 inch and greater diameter. The model was not run to include understory tree development which we assert is the place that smaller diameter snags and down wood will develop as the trees remaining following thinning will produce the snags in the large and giant size classes.
III. Conclusion
Review of the snag and coarse wood strategies outlined in the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment finds that the commercial thinning prescriptions generally fall between Strategy 2 – Balance long-term and short-term needs by supplying a steady input of CWD over time and Strategy 3 – Develop large trees for future CWD. Some snags and coarse wood are created following thinning (Strategy 2) and commercial thinning accelerates diameter growth compared to leaving a stand unthinned (Strategy 3). Strategy 4 - Allow natural successional processes to dominate by maintain some untreated areas is prescribed within the no-cut buffers. Strategy 1 - Immediately improve nutrient cycling, fungal and soil invertebrate health, and habitat dependent species is prescribed within the pre-commercial thinning units within the watershed where the cut material is left on site.
Furthermore, about 58 percent of the South Nestucca project area is within natural stands where Strategy 4 - Allow natural successional processes to dominate by maintain some untreated areas occurs.
14
IV. References Assmann, E. 1970. The principles of forest yield study. Pergamon Press, New York, NY. 506 p
Bailey, J. D., and J. C. Tappeiner. 1998. “Effects of thinning on structural development in 40- to 100-year- old Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon.” For. Ecol. and Manage. 108:99-113.
Carey, Andrew B.; AIMing for Healthy Forests: Active, Intentional Management for Multiple Values, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, GTR PNW-GTR-721, November 2007.
Chan, S.S.; Larson, D.J.; Maas-Hebner, K.G.; Emmingham, W.H.; Johnston, S.R.; Mikowski, D.A. 2006. “Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 2696-2711
Curtis, R. O., and D. D. Marshall. 1986. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: Report no. 8 —the LOGS study: Twenty-year results. Res. Pap. PNW-356. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 113 p
Dodson, E. K., A. Ares, and K.J. Puettmann. 2012. “Early responses to thinning treatments designed to accelerate late successional forest structure in young coniferous stands of western Oregon, USA.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42(2): 345–355
Hann, D. W.; Marshall, D. D.; Hanus, M. L. 2006. Re-Analysis of the SMC-ORGANON Equations for Diameter-Growth Rate, Height-Growth Rate, and Mortality Rate of Douglas-Fir. Oregon State University Forest Research Laboratory Research Contribution 49. 24p.
Keyser, Chad E., comp. 2008 (revised March 16, 2012). Pacific Northwest Coast (PN) Variant Overview – Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center.
Marshall, D.D., J. F. Bell, and J. C. Tappeiner. 1992. Levels-of-growing stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: Report no. 10-The Hoskins study, 1963-83. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-448. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
McCain, C. 2011. Personal communication with Siuslaw National Forest Ecologist. September 23, 2011
Ohmann, J.L., M.J. Gregory. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(4):725-741. Other references, methods, and data dictionary on http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=common&id=dataDictionary&ref=nwfp)
Poage, N. J.; Anderson, P. D. 2007. Large-scale silviculture experiments of western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-713. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 44 p.
Smith, D. M., & Smith, D. M. 1997. The practice of silviculture: Applied forest ecology. New York: Wiley.
Smith-Meteja, E. 2012. Personal communication with Forest Vegetation Simulator Staff. April, 2012
Spies, T.A., Franklin, J.F., Thomas, T.B. 1988. Coarse woody debris in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington. Ecology. 69: 1689-1702.
South Nestucca EA – Appendix B
Tappeiner, J.C.; Huffman, D.; Marshall, D. [and others]. 1997. “Density, ages and growth ratios in old- growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27:638-648
USDA Forest Service. 1994. Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents in the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old Growth Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Late-successional Reserve Assessment for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area. Corvallis, OR.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Pland; Final Designation of Critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Final Rule. 57 FR 179.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pp.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.
16
United States Department of Agriculture South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendix C: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency Assessment
Siuslaw Hebo Forest Service National Forest Ranger District January 2015
Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Introduction Alternatives 1and 2 have been evaluated to determine how consistent they are with the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. The South Nestucca Project Environmental Analysis (EA) and the Nestucca Watershed Analysis (WA), provide the context for the responses to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.
Objective 1 Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted.
Alternative 1 (No Action) The existing distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale aquatic features would remain on their current restoration trajectory; which can be either towards or away from desired features, depending on which characteristic is assessed. Desired restoration opportunities would be delayed. For example, the desire to increase habitat complexity by accelerating large wood recruitment into some project area streams would not occur until stands adjacent to the creek mature and naturally enter the channel; a process that is likely to take longer under Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Actions—including commercial and non-commercial thinning (coarse woody debris creation) and understory planting—are designed to accelerate development of late-successional forest, increase terrestrial and aquatic bio-complexity, and increase the diversity of landscape features to maintain or restore upland, riparian, and landscape communities.
Commercial and non-commercial thinning projects are expected to encourage the rate of development of large conifers in riparian and upslope areas, understory complexity, and species diversity. Understory planting projects are expected to increase vegetation species diversity and accelerate the development of multiple stand layers; increasing the complexity of these landscape scale features.
Vegetative complexity would be maintained within no-cut riparian buffers. Riparian buffer widths would vary, depending on fish presence, stream size, slope stability, shade cover, sediment delivery potential and other water quality considerations.
Objective 2 Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life- history requirements of aquatic and riparian- dependent species.
Alternative 1 (No Action) The existing spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds would be maintained. As evidenced in the WA and EA, these conditions are currently less than ideal. Eventually, connectivity would be restored in the project area, as road systems age, decay, and fail, producing a large influx of sediment and debris. As long as poorly functioning road systems remain in their current state without maintenance, they would remain a chronic source of fine sediment and continue to block the flow of wood and sediment needed for properly functioning streams.
C-1 South Nestucca EA-Appendix C
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds would be improved by implementing projects recommended in Alternative 2. Specific activities that would achieve this objective include maintaining roads and thinning. Design criteria (Appendix A) are intended to maintain or restore connectivity, particularly in riparian areas.
Road maintenance activities include ditch cleaning, waterbar installation, and resurfacing. This maintenance improves the connectivity of drainage networks by increasing the ability of the road system to drain water and sediment. Thinning would encourage the rate at which plantations become mature stands, increasing the connectivity among existing mature stands within and between watersheds.
No-cut buffers along all stream courses are designed to protect riparian areas from disturbance and maintain a high level of connectivity along these corridors. In addition, temporary road construction would be limited to ridges or generally flat terrain; and no new stream crossings are planned. These criteria serve to minimize the disturbance of intact riparian areas.
For wildlife and aquatic life, proposed activities would not sever existing connections between essential habitats and among watersheds. The physical nature of existing movement corridors would remain unchanged.
Objective 3 Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.
Alternative 1 (No Action) The existing physical integrity of shorelines, banks, and stream bottoms would be maintained. No actions to improve these conditions would occur. Natural re-growth of native riparian vegetation may or may not occur in desired locations.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Project design criteria are intended to maintain the physical integrity of shorelines, banks, and stream bottoms. In the long term, road maintenance would reduce management-related sediment inputs due to chronic erosion of the road prism and related road-stream crossing failures. The physical integrity of the aquatic system would be maintained by no-cut buffers along all stream channels. Additionally, road construction, and reconstruction activities are designed to minimize impacts at project sites. New temporary road construction is limited to stable areas, such as ridges or generally flat terrain; and no stream crossings are planned. These actions maintain physical integrity of riparian areas by conducting these activities outside of (or away from) hydrologically connected riparian areas.
Objective 4 Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.
Alternative 1 (No Action) No actions to maintain or restore water quality would occur under this alternative. Riparian reserves areas, as defined in the Forest Plan, provide protective zones around streams, wetlands, and water bodies to minimize the potential for adverse effects to water quality. With no management of riparian reserve
C-2 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
areas, existing riparian and stream-channel conditions would be maintained on National Forest lands and, therefore, water temperatures would be unchanged and continue to meet the water quality standard. With no temporary roads, log landings, haul roads, or hill slope disturbance by heavy equipment, no new sources of management-related sediment would be created. However, road maintenance and repair on the proposed haul routes would continue to be deferred, which increases the risk of sedimentation from runoff and road failures. Road failures could lead to altered stream channels or increased sediment input, which have a potential to diminish biological criteria.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Actions are designed to maintain water quality and lower the risk of degradation. Water quality would be maintained by completion of deferred road maintenance and implementing design criteria, such as variable-width, no-harvest buffers adjacent to all stream channels and wetlands in thinned stands. Based on the type of action proposed and/or exiting water concerns in analysis area, water quality parameters of most concern are temperature, sediment, and biological criteria.
Given the use of no-harvest buffers and that none of the streams within the project area harvest units are temperature impaired, it is expected that temperature regimes would be maintained by implementing the Proposed Action. Yarding systems are designed to minimize stream crossings, minimizing or eliminating potential effects to temperature and sediment production. Where yarding across streams is planned, implementing design criteria (e.g., limiting the extent of canopy disturbance by having designated yarding corridors, and requiring full-suspension of logs as they are yarded across streams) would protect shade, preventing undue increases in stream temperature; and avoiding delivery of fine sediments, preventing undue increases in stream turbidity.
Road maintenance, such as resurfacing and waterbar installation, improves water drainage and sediment diversion off the road before it reaches road-stream crossings. Ditch cleaning reduces the road failure risk associated with plugged culverts.
The Proposed Action does not include activities that would typically affect biological criteria, such as pesticide or herbicide application or harvest activities in the near stream areas. With the absence of these activities and the low risk of sediment input described above, diminishment of biological criteria is not expected.
Objective 5 Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.
Alternative 1 No Action) Sediment regimes, under which aquatic ecosystems evolved, would continue to be at risk of degradation under the no-action alternative. The risk is primarily attributed to deferred maintenance on a degrading road system. Deferred road maintenance can cause drainage structures to lose function or fail and surface runoff to concentrate, leading to increased sedimentation and road failures. Road failures could lead to increased sediment input and may alter stream channels.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) All elements of the sediment regime were considered in the design of the project. Road-related actions were chosen to maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Frequency of landslides, rates of bank erosion, and volumes of sediment input are affected by factors, such as vegetative conditions in riparian or landslide-prone areas and concentration of flow from roads
C-3 South Nestucca EA-Appendix C
and landings. The sediment regime will be restored by thinning in managed stands to improve vegetative conditions in treated riparian areas, and maintained by avoiding landslide-prone areas.
Road maintenance is intended, in part, to remove or minimize concentration of water flow from roads and to restore connections between surface and subsurface flow between inter-fluvial and fluvial areas. Road treatments decrease effects of past actions on the sediment regime by reducing the rate and volume of sediment delivery due to chronic surface erosion. By locating new temporary roads on ridges or generally flat terrain, and avoiding stream crossings, the risk of sediment delivery from these sources would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated. Associated work sites may continue to produce small amounts of sediment during and immediately after rain events throughout the first winter until the sites are revegetated and stable. Any short-term increases in sediment production or turbidity are expected to be minor and limited to headwaters and well within the range typical of high winter flows or natural streambank erosion.
Based on observations of past thinning sales with similar prescriptions, riparian buffers, soils, and landforms, there is no evidence that the project would increase rates of shallow or deep seated landslides.
Objective 6 Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.
Alternative 1 (No Action) Current, adversely degraded conditions that affect in-stream flows would be maintained. The opportunity to rehabilitate road drainage patterns would be delayed until natural processes produce failures at these crossings.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Road maintenance activities are most likely to affect in-stream flows. There is high natural variability in discharge that is related directly to annual or seasonal precipitation. As such, it is difficult to predict how, when, and where proposed activities would affect the timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows. However, it is expected that the effects described below are likely to occur, if proposed actions are implemented. Road drainage networks can alter the timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows in a watershed. Installation of waterbars, ditch cleaning, and road resurfacing is designed to improve natural processes of stream flow regulation at both the local and watershed scale.
Plantation thinning is not expected to result in measurable changes in stream flow at both the project and the watershed scales, due to no-cut riparian buffers, the amount of remaining vegetation (which results in minor changes in evapo-transpiration rates), low elevation of the project area (because the area receives minimal snow, patterns of snow interception and retention would not be altered), and the small portions of the watersheds that would be affected.
Objective 7 Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.
Alternative 1 (No Action)
C-4 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest
Current, adversely degraded conditions affecting floodplain inundation would be maintained. For example, the opportunity to accelerate large wood recruitment to planning area streams, improving connectivity to the floodplains, would be postponed or not occur.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Design criteria, such as no-cut riparian buffers and full-log suspension requirements over streams would protect floodplains. In the long term, plantation thinning and under-planting would increase the rate of large-conifer development in riparian areas, which would increase the future supply of large wood to some floodplains and stream channels, restoring floodplain function.
Objective 8 Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.
Alternative 1 (No Action) Existing plant communities in riparian areas would be maintained. These conditions are less than ideal. For example, the WA recommends riparian planting and thinning to increase future canopy closure to reduce solar radiation and optimize stream temperature. Without these efforts, less-desirable species (e.g., blackberry) would continue to impede the colonization of desirable riparian species (e.g., big-leaf maple, western red cedar), resulting in continued degradation of thermal regimes and distribution and supply of coarse woody debris.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Plantation thinning, understory planting, snag and coarse woody debris creation, are intended to restore species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas. Habitat elements such as large standing conifers and downed wood, multi-layered canopies, and species diversity would be improved by these activities. Silvicultural prescriptions include retention of larger diameter trees and favor less common tree species in stands. Variation of species composition would be promoted within stands, with the retention of the hardwood component being emphasized.
Design criteria, such as no-cut riparian buffers and yarding restrictions, are intended to maintain species composition and structural diversity of plant communities.
Objective 9 Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.
Alternative 1 (No Action) Existing, degraded habitat conditions for riparian-dependent species would be maintained. Opportunities to improve habitat conditions would be postponed or not occur; relying completely on natural processes to reverse the current trend and to produce a trend towards recovery of populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) All activities are designed to restore natural processes or encourage development of habitat for native riparian-dependent species. Design criteria such as no-cut riparian buffers and locating temporary roads on ridges to avoid stream crossings are intended to maintain habitat for riparian-dependent species.
C-5 South Nestucca EA-Appendix C
Restoring habitat for riparian-dependent species is promoted by encouraging the development of late- successional and old-growth forest habitat in plantations in and adjacent to riparian areas. Proposed activities are designed to reduce the influence of invasive species on native habitats, thus would also have a beneficial effect on riparian-dependent species.
Summary
Alternative 1 In the short term, roads not maintained to standard provide the greatest risk to meeting the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Roads would deteriorate and eventually fail, especially at stream crossings. When roads fail, aquatic resources are often substantially, detrimentally affected, at least for a short term. As such, degraded water quality would continue, until natural processes have removed sediments associated with road fills—a process which could take decades. In the long term, restoration of complex aquatic and terrestrial elements—such as large wood in streams and uplands, and stands with diverse tree species and sizes—would depend on natural processes and take much longer to develop than under Alternative 2. Therefore, this alternative is not expected to meet the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy, because current watershed conditions would not be maintained or improved.
Alternative 2 The project includes some actions that would result in short-term increases in sediment production at specific sites. For example, haul has the potential to increase fine sediment delivery and transport. Any stream channel disturbances or adverse water quality impacts are designed be mitigated to small, isolated short-term effects. At the watershed scale, changes in water quality, turbidity or sediment production would not be detectable. Design criteria were developed to minimize short-term adverse impacts to aquatic resources and to retain desirable watershed conditions (Appendix A). Overall, proposed actions would maintain or restore riparian vegetation and aquatic conditions and processes by maintaining roads; promoting the development of late-successional forest habitat in stands (e.g., thinning, under-planting, and creating dead wood), both within and outside of riparian areas. Therefore, actions proposed by Alternative 2 are expected to meet the nine objectives of the Aquatic Conservation strategy.
C-6 Appendix D – Public Comments
United States Department of Agriculture South Nestucca Restoration Project Environmental Assessment
Appendix D: Response to Comments
Siuslaw Hebo Forest Service National Forest Ranger District January 2015
1
I. Contributions Received During the 30-Day Comment Period Table D-1 summarizes the substantive comments received during the 30-day comment period for the South Nestucca Restoration Project Draft EA. Forest Service responses are provided for each of the comments. Comments were received from three separate parties: Table D-1. Draft EA comments and responses summary.
Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number Andy Geissler, Supportive of VDT "AFRC is glad to see the Siuslaw National Forest treating their Late-Successional Comment noted. American Forest and skips and Reserves proactively with variable density thinning treatments. VDT along with skips & Resource Council gaps. gaps is an effective means to achieving the intent of the LSR system by creating diversity (AFRC)-1 across the landscape."
AFRC-2 Supportive of FS "...we are happy to see the recognition of the need for a sustainable supply of timber Comment noted. recognition of need products included in this project. This sustainable supply is crucial to the long-term survival for sustainable of our members and the communities that they help support." timber supply.
AFRC-3 Wimberly/NWFP "AFRC supports all Forest Service projects that conform with the objectives of your LRMP Historical landscape patterns are presented to provide context for the proposed action. and the NWFP. That said we are confused as to why the agency is considering the work of Management activities are based on the guidance in the Siuslaw National Forest Plan Wimberley (2002) as a justification for addressing the purpose & need. In our opinion this as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. information seems extraneous and irrelevant to the project. Why did the Forest Service spend the time and effort to analyze a land management theory that is impossible to implement given their legal obligation to conform to the NWFP? The NWFP has identified the planning area as AMA & LSR with the clear guidance to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems. So the historical landscape pattern theory is a moot point here."
AFRC-4 NEPA efficiency "AFRC would like the Forest Service to strive toward concise and efficient environmental Comment noted. analyses. We believe that NEPA analysis is one of the most costly and time consuming things that the agency does and we would like to see that cost and time go down rather than up. One way to accomplish this is to eliminate unnecessary pieces of analysis in your documents such as consideration of the work of Wimberley."
AFRC-5 Riparian Reserves "AFRC is glad to see that the Forest Service is being proactive in treating riparian reserves. Comment noted. . . . Treating as much of these plantations in the reserve areas should be a priority to meet the stated needs of diversifying habitat and improving aquatic habitat. Controversy surrounding the supposed importance of all wood to remain in these reserves is confusing to us. If the stands in question regenerated naturally, all of that wood would not even be present in the reserves. We encourage the Siuslaw National Forest to continue to be proactive in treating these overstocked and unnatural stands in their riparian reserves to the extent that you are, despite the unsound controversy surrounding it." Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number AFRC-6 Timing of "We are glad to see the Siuslaw National Forest work to develop EAs that allow for year- Comment noted. operations round operations (yarding & hauling) to occur throughout the majority of the project area."
AFRC-7 Logging systems "We would like to see flexibility in the EA and contract to allow a variety of equipment The Siuslaw has very flexible contracts that allow a variety of equipment to be used so flexibility access to the sale areas." long as the environmental protection standards are met. AFRC often uses the Siuslaw contract as an example for other Forests in the Pacific Northwest.
AFRC-8 Tolerance levels Identify damage tolerance levels rather than firm restrictions, giving the operator flexibility Design criteria for all season haul and harvest (Appendix A) are based on damage to utilize their equipment to its maximum efficiencies. tolerance levels identified in the Forest Plan (FW-107). Contract language specifies damage tolerance limits rather than firm restrictions where possible.
AFRC-9 Logging systems Though some of the proposal area is planned for cable & helicopter harvest, there are These equipment types are authorized on many portions of the analysis area where flexibility opportunities to use certain ground equipment such as fellerbunchers and processors in the resource conditions allow. units to make yarding more efficient. Allowing the use of processors and fellerbunchers throughout these units can greatly increase its economic viability, and in some cases decrease disturbance by decreasing the amount of cable corridors, reduce damage to the residual stand and provide a more even distribution of woody debris following harvest.
AFRC-10 Helicopter yarding ". . . it appears that the Forest developed an EA that will permit year-round harvest Volumes per acre are a concern in the previously thinned stands planned for feasibility operations, however we have some concerns with the potential volume on some units helicopter yarding. Silvicultural prescriptions in these stands focus on gap and "leave identified in the EA for helicopter yarding. In particular we are concerned with those units tree clump" development to provide opportunities to maximize within stand variability that were previously thinned 10-15 years ago. With a reduced level of current standing and still make helicopter yarding economically viable. volume due to these past entries, the potential for a sale with a high enough MBF/acre to make helicopter yarding feasible is questionable. I plan to follow up on this issue with the field staff at the Hebo Ranger District to ensure a viable sale that can be implemented."
AFRC-11 Roads and ". . . we are glad to see that the Forest Service is proposing the roads that are needed to Comment noted. economic feasibility access and treat as much as the project area as possible in an economically feasible way "
AFRC-12 Road "We encourage the Forest Service to carefully consider the future management needs and Existing roads proposed for decommissioning have an interdisciplinary review and decommissioning added costs of fully decommissioning roads throughout their landscape. AFRC believes have been determined no longer needed for resource management. Newly that constructing a road today, then obliterating it, and then rebuilding that same road in 20 constructed temporary roads are built to reach restoration and management goals but years is a waste of time and money." are not proposed for long-term entry. Future access needs are analyzed for each road proposed for construction, closure, or decommissioning in the EA.
Humbard-1 Alternative 2 Recommends the responsible official select Alternative 2 (with the incorporation of design Comment noted. criteria included in comments).
2 Appendix D – Public Comments Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number Humbard-2 Diameter limit FS should consider a strict diameter limit prescription within some of the off-site older Diameter Limit thinning does increase variability. However, it also tends to reduce prescription stands. "Diameter limits tend to hardwire variable density and spacing . . . [and s]ince one growth potential of clumped large trees and has the potential to result in gaps that are of the purposes of the AMA is to provide opportunities for development, demonstration, and larger than our current guidelines allow or locate gaps in inappropriate areas of the testing of techniques to restore late-successional forest conditions, it seems appropriate to stand (riparian areas, murrelet buffer areas, etc.). Additionally, many of the stands test and demonstrate a less common silviculture prescriptions (strict diameter limits) within proposed for treatments are so dense and exposed to high winds that we need to some of the older stands." develop wind firmness before that variability can be introduced. Many of the previously thinned stands are proposed for Diameter Limit thinning in this entry.
Humbard-3 Gaps "While canopy gaps are one of the features of late successional forests, rarely are there In mature and over-mature stands on this District we often find 1+ acre areas where gaps exceeding ½ acre in size and void of any trees. Gaps larger than ½ acre are typically the oldest tree cohort in the stand is not represented. Often these portions of the stand created by wind and even in these cases, a portion of the trees within the gaps remain are occupied by younger trees of varying ages. Additionally, gaps of mortality from standing as live green trees." root rots in this region can, in mature timber stands (primarily Douglas-fir), reach 1+ acres in size (Hansen, Goheen 2000).
Humbard-4 Gap size "Since, one of the objectives of LSR treatments is to mimic (as humanly possible) LSF Comment noted. Similar treatments are proposed in some of the stands. development, then if one acre gaps are created, leave a minimum of 6-8 live green trees (representative of the stand) within the gaps. Following harvest operations, two to four of these trees should then be felled and or topped for CWD and snag creation purposes."
Humbard-5 Gaps and early- " . . . there is no shortage of early-seral habitat within the general vicinity of the project There is a shortage of diverse early seral habitat in the project area (EA section 1.4 seral habitat area. and Table 2; Wimberly 2002; Spies 2007). Private forest lands rarely provide for functional early seral habitat because they are cleared of all legacy materials, planted back intensively, and the early shrubs/herbs/forbs are controlled with one or more herbicide treatments, often creating a homogenous stand of a single species.
Humbard-6 Planting created However, there are shortages of small gaps of understory tree development within the By replanting all of the created gaps, the diverse early seral habitat will be reduced on gaps. stands proposed for treatment, therefore, planting all of the created gaps would be more the temporal scale. Leaving the gaps unplanted allows for the early seral habitat while appropriate than allowing earl seral understory development to occur. allowing for the establishment of shade tolerant seral climax species that are dominant in this region (western hemlock/Sitka spruce). The recruitment of these tree species in disturbed gap sites more appropriately emulate the natural temporal change in seral states. By planting some gaps and leaving some gaps unplanted, it creates more seral state diversity within stands
Humbard-7 Alder planting in If gaps are created within areas where red alder has been harvested, then include the The project does not include treatment of alder dominated stands (EA section 2.2.4). gaps. planting of red alder to maintain species diversity." Red alder will naturally regenerate into many of the created gaps and will be a leave trees species in many stands.
Humbard-8 Thinning from FS should incorporate thinning from above. "Harvesting a portion of the dominant trees A primary objective of the proposed project is to release larger diameter trees. The above for multi- within the younger off site stands . . . Would improve the likelihood of developing multi- interdisciplinary team determined that the treatment methods proposed will ensure the storied stands. storied stands, while decreasing the potential for blowdown . . . by targeting the retention greatest chance of success in achieving project objectives will ensuring consistency of a portion of co-dominant trees, true multi-storied stand development would occur." with Northwest Forest Plan land allocations and other applicable direction.
3 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number Humbard-9 Thinning from AMA objectives include restoring late-successional forest whiles "providing flexibility to See response to comment Humbard-8. above consistent explore innovative methods . . . thinning from above would be a relatively innovative with the AMA. method to test for developing true multi-storied stands. In addition, by removing a portion of the dominant trees, additional timber volume would be removed (than provided by thinning from below), thereby providing greater economical benefits to local communities."
Humbard-10 Young plantations "Trees in these stand age classes have rarely developed dominance, thus it will be difficult Comment noted. Generally, in plantations we select leave trees from the largest, to determine which trees should be thinned from below." healthiest trees in the stand, as they are best adapted to the site/micro-site they are growing on.
Humbard-11 Young plantations "Late successional stands develop under disturbances (insects, disease, windthrow) and See response to comment Humbard-8. and Monte Carlo efforts should be made to remove the “human subjectivity” which typically creates evenly spaced with little stand variability. Monte Carlo will essentially remove the human subjectivity (which trees get cut or left) and should be implemented on a trial basis on some units as a minimum test. Hugh Snook (Salem District Silviculturist) can be contacted for information regarding monte carlo."
Humbard-12 Underplanting in " . . . all gaps should be under-planted, thereby assuring the stands begin to develop multi- See response to comment Humbard-6. young plantations storied stands. Considering the high site productivity within the stands in conjunction with the large amounts of rainfall and herbaceous vegetation, there will be ample areas where early-seral understory development will occur. It is vital that gaps be planted with conifers immediately following harvest operations to assure that multi-storied stand development occurs."
Humbard-13 Temporary roads. If roads are truly temporary, then they need to be truly decommissioned. At a minimum Decommissioned roads will be evaluated by FS personnel to determine the extent of decommissioning should include water-barring, removing drainage structures, sub-soiling decommission activities (See Appendix A). the roadbed, mulching with straw and seeding with native grasses, or mulching with logging slash to further discourage off-highway vehicle use and blocking the road(s) to vehicular use.
Humbard-14 Roads The following terms would more accurately describe road conditions:Road closed and in Road decommissioning has many treatment options which are tailored to the particular storage: Entrance to road is blocked with gate, logging debris or berm or in combination situation encountered. Terminology and road treatments used in the EA follow thereof and waterbars and or drain dips may be installed if needed to maintain proper direction specified in Forest Service Manual 7734. FSM Section 7734.1 provides hydrologic function.Road decommissioning: Same as road closed with the following "Decommission a road by reestablishing vegetation and, if necessary, initiating additions: removal of drainage structures, sub-soiling the roadbed, mulching with straw and restoration of ecological processes interrupted or adversely impacted by the unneeded seeding with native grasses within areas of disturbed soil, and placement of logging slash road. Decommissioning includes applying various treatments, including one or more within road subgrade.Road obliteration: Same as road decommissioning with the following of the following: 1. Reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, and additions:Road fill and rock surfacing will be recovered as much as practicable. Road fill restoring vegetation; 2. Blocking the entrance to a road or installing water bars; 3. would be placed within the subgrade to replicate the original slope of the terrain and the Removing culverts, reestablishing drainages, removing unstable fills, pulling back road rock surface material would be placed at designated stockpile locations. shoulders, and scattering slash on the roadbed; 4. Completely eliminating the roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes; and 5. Other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the unneeded road."
4 Appendix D – Public Comments Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number Humbard-15 Roads If the FS wants the option of using a road in the future, then it needs to define it as a No temporary roads are proposed for use beyond entry for this project. Temporary permanent road that has been closed and is in storage (not decommissioned). roads are decommissioned after use because they are not intended for permanent use. Permanent system roads that have been determined to be necessary for future use are closed and stored.
Humbard-16 " . . . some of the writing and the figures (#s11-29) in the EA are too technical for the Comment noted. This is complex subject on which we have received many comments average reader (173 references to ‘tolerance’). It is my understanding that EA’s should be in the past. The detailed information is provided in order to respond to previous clear and concise while providing the minimal amount of information as to how the effects questions and comments relating to this subject. to the resources were surmised. The average reader is closer to a high school graduate than someone who has a bachelor’s degree in wildlife management. For future EA’s, I would recommend at a minimum the removal of figures such as #11 to 29 and include information the average reader can understand."
Humbard-17 CWD Considering that the majority of managed stands proposed for thinnings in the project area Comment noted. The project is already implementing these recommendations. See lack sufficient amounts of coarse woody debris . . . , I recommend . . . "[a]t least two green EA 2.1.2.1 (e.g. fall and leave up to 5 trees per acre as course woody debris; top up to trees per acre intended to be part of the residual stand would be felled, girdled, or topped to 5 live trees per acre to create snags). function as CWD at the completion of harvest operations. Trees to be utilized for CWD creation would be stand average DBH or larger. Incidentally felled or topped trees (i.e. tail trees, intermediate supports, corridor trees, guyline anchors, landing swing trees, etc.) that are left by harvest operations would be counted toward this target. If such incidentally felled trees are removed or sold, additional trees would be felled, girdled, or topped to meet this target."
Humbard-18 Riparian buffers Harvest buffers inadequate, proposes the following "Within 1.0 mile of listed fish habitat, See Appendix A and EA section 3.3. For perennial streams, the protection buffer is a SPZs are minimum 100 feet wide on each side of perennial streams and 50 feet on minimum distance of 30 feet plus the first two rows of plantation conifer (or where intermittent streams."; "For all other streams, SPZs are minimum 60-85 feet wide conifers are not within 30 feet of the channel, the buffer will be 30 feet plus the first (dependent on tree height and hill slope, Salem District revised guidance 10/08/2010) on row of plantation conifer upslope of the 30 foot limit). For intermittent streams, the each side of the stream and 30 feet on intermittent streams." buffer is 15 feet plus the first single row of plantation conifers. Although these distances are determined to be adequate for protection of aquatic species and riparian wildlife, the actual protection buffers identified on the ground are typically much larger than the minimum buffer distance because of site-specific topography (harvest boundaries are typically laid out at the top of a drainage slope, not mid-slope, and slope distances for drainages in the South Nestucca project area typically exceed the minimum buffer distances. Humbard-19 Water quality "To protect water quality, fell harvested trees away from stream channels when possible. See EA Appendix. A, which provides the following: "Directionally fell trees away from Where a cut tree does fall within the no-harvest buffer, the portion of the tree within the no- buffers to protect riparian vegetation from damage. Retain trees accidentally felled into harvest buffer would remain in place." buffers to minimize stream sedimentation or damage to riparian vegetation. Some trees may be removed as determined by a fish biologist or hydrologist (SLRMP: FW- 091)." Humbard-20 Alder planting "I recommend under-planting red alder adjacent to some of the no harvest buffers." Red alder are abundant throughout the project area, especially in riparian areas, where they frequently and rapidly re-establish voluntarily.
5 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number Humbard-21 Landings " . . . in recent harvest units where landing debris was somewhat scattered instead of piled. The project includes design criteria to treat landings and temporary roads following . . the scattering of debris basically resulted in the landing being covered with portions of harvest. See Appendix A sections 2.3.4, 2.3.1.3. Members of the interdisciplinary team logs. I believe a better solution would be to subsoil using with the purchasers grapple reviewed these criteria to ensure they would protect resources to the maximum extent loader and then scatter the debris enough so that trees and vegetation can become practicable and that they would be feasible during on-the-ground project established." implementation.
Humbard-22 Photos "It would be beneficial to include a few photos of some of the off-site and young stands that Comment noted. are proposed for thinning along with some photos of recent thinnings."
Humbard-23 AMA ". . . the vast majority of BLM and FS LSR thinnings completed within the past 20 years See response to comment Humbard-8. experimentation have resulted in mainly evenly spaced stands with minimal variability. The techniques I propose have been shown to be successful (albeit on a fairly small scale) in achieving variable spacing and density and in addition, considering that one of the objectives of AMA is to test new methods, I believe it is appropriate to implement these on some of the units."
Doug Heiken for Unroaded areas "There is growing scientific recognition that unroaded areas less than 5,000 acres are A section addressing unroaded areas was added to the EA (section 3.12). All units Oregon Wild (OW)- ecologically unique and important and need to be protected. It would be best to let natural proposed for treatment were carefully evaluated by the interdisciplinary team. 1 processes proceed in these areas because so few areas across the landscape will remain Temporary roads are only proposed where necessary (Appendix A 2.3.1.1) and no unmanaged." "The NEPA analysis should reflect the growing scientific evidence indicating permanent roads will be constructed. The 1637 acre area identified in the comment the significant value of roadless areas smaller than 5,000 acres and larger than 1,000 letter is largely unroaded but was planted following the 1910 Hebo fire with off-site tree acres." ". . . the presence of large (>1,000 acre) unroaded areas represents a relevant stock. These trees have grown, but lack the structure of local the local seed source. environmental factor. Even if these areas are not eligible for wilderness, they are Wildlife experts have visited and reviewed the area and determined that the off-site nonetheless significant and worthy of NEPA disclosure and analysis. The FS should trees provided little habitat for northern spotted owls and flying squirrels due to their carefully evaluate these units to see if they need treatment and consider dropping these structure as compared with local seed sourced trees. These stands have been units, or find a way to do them non-commercially, or at a minimum avoid road construction." planted and do not provide natural characteristics of natural stand. Therefore, these stands do not meet the Natural Capability Standard of a potential wilderness. Many of the stands in the area have previously been managed, including commercial thinning in the 1990s, which included temporary road construction and other associated management activities. Additionally, there are many natural and off-site stands in the project area that are not proposed for treatment.
OW-2 Snags and dead "The FS EA produced a lot of words about snags and dead wood, but they seemed to miss See page 9 of the Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B). wood. the most important issues, which are (1) logging unavoidably captures and exports mortality, (2) this is a significant, long-term effect that can be quantified, (3) it is challenging to mitigate this impact, but it can be done by leaving enough green trees in thinned areas and "skips."" OW-3 Dead wood. The EA "fails to recognize that thinning removes many tree trees, so there are much fewer See Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B). trees for natural processes (like insects and wind) to act upon, and when a tree falls, there are fewer trees for it to bump into and cause small contagious disturbance events that are critical to late successional habitat development."
6 Appendix D – Public Comments Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number OW-4 Dead wood. "The FS should strive to emulate natural conditions and natural processes which include Comment noted. The project is proposed to respond to goals and objectives of the abundant dead wood." Siuslaw National Forest Land and resource management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Thinning is proposed to accelerate the development of late- successional and old-growth forest habitat in the project area while providing habitat diversity.
OW-5 Dead wood- "These stands are still suffering from the salvage logging that removed most of the The off-site stands were typically not salvage logged because they were not reachable biomass export. structure from these stands after fire. Now, after 100 years of forest growth and biomass by road. accumulation, the FS should not export another huge fraction of the biomass."
OW-6 Thinning and dead "The EA says 'The percentage of the landscape that provides for the 50-80% tolerance The project is proposed to increase individual tree size after thinning. Although wood-leave trees. interval is less than reference conditions . . . ' Thinning will likely make a bad situation thinning could decrease down wood recruitment in the short term, larger trees are worse. Since dead wood is such a critical component of late successional habitat (which is preferred for snag and down wood recruitment and this could not be achieved without the goal here), the FS must do more to mitigate, by, for instance, leaving more green trees thinning. In addition to leaving unthinned patches in the treated stands, many of the for future recruitment of dead wood." off-site stands originally proposed for treatment will not be thinned. About 58% of the project area is composed of natural stands where natural successional processes will be maintained and no treatment is proposed (Appendix B: Deadwood Analysis pg. B- 15).
OW-7 Dead wood- "DecAID . . . figures should show the effects of logging versus not logging, by adding data DecAID is used to describe landscape variability of terrestrial snag and down wood DecAID. ranges for expected snag levels expected from light thinning, heavy thinning versus, and no abundance at the watershed level. DecAID is not effective at quantifying ecological action. Comparing alternatives is a key purpose of NEPA." benefits from incremental increases in deadwood abundance (see, e.g., Anderson and Ronnenberg, eds. 2011. Density Management in the 21st Century: West Side Story. PNW-GTR-880. Discussing tools for understanding how to manage for snags and down wood). Effects of the No Action Alternative are compared with those of the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 using the best available science.
OW-8 Dead wood- ". . . EA does not clearly disclose the fact that removing stems that are still growing will See response to OW-6. alternatives significantly reduce the number of large snags in the long term. And the effects analysis analysis (trade lacks a clear comparison of alternatives with respect to long-term snag recruitment. The offs). decision-maker needs to understand the trade-offs involved and this is a big one. See e.g., Heiken, D. 2010.)" OW-9 Effects on snag There are no cumulative effects because the proposed action would not measurably affect The direct and indirect effects to snag size and density are not measurable, therefore size and density. snag size or density in the project area." This is not an adequate analysis. This project, there are no cumulative effects from the proposed project. See EA section 3.2.5.4.2. combined with the effects of past logging and many future thinning projects expected in the project area, WILL have significant effects on snag habitat. To suggest otherwise is not accurate. OW-10 EA Formatting Figure 18 seemed to be missing from the pdf copy of the EA that I reviewed. Figure 18 was lost from the conversion to PDF. This formatting error will be corrected in the EA posted on the website.
7 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number OW-11 Silviculture "Taking the off-si[t]e stands down to 40-50 tpa may be removing too much - capturing and The 40-50 TPA treatment is proposed because of the nature of the off-site stands. prescription-dead exporting too much of the last 80-100 years of productivity and leaving too few stems for Heavier thinning is needed in order to replace the poorly adapted off-site trees with wood recruitment. snag and dead wood recruitment. Consider leaving 60 tpa and leaving more options for locally adapted trees that will be more resilient and will allow for more efficient future recruitment of complex dead wood features." Reference to Gray et al. 2009 (remnant development of late-seral habitat. old growth forests in Coast Range- 31% of basal area in standing dead trees); Nonaka et al. 2007 (6 times more coarse wood carries over from old-growth forests after wildlife compared to timber harvest and coarse wood left after logging is smaller and decays faster).
OW-12 Mimic natural The FS should try to mimic natural disturbance processes by leaving much more dead Effects on deadwood are offset by the future deadwood contributions that result from disturbance-leave wood behind, or at least mitigate effects by leaving more green trees behind for future dead thinning the current stands to a density that accelerate tree growth. See response to trees. wood recruitment. OW-6. OW-13 Snag ". . . we urge the FS to do more by protecting all snags >15" dbh, or retain 50% of snags 9- Project design criteria regarding snag retention were incorporated form the North protection/retention. 20" dbh." Coast Late Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) guidelines for coarse woody debris management (see Appendix A and LSRA at 92). The LSRA provides guidance and flexibility it implement certain activities that have been shown to have a high probably of achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the Northwest Forest Plan (LSRA at 1). The guidelines which were incorporated into the design criteria for this project suggest where safety considerations are met, retain all snags equal or greater than 20" dbh and ten percent to snags between nine and 20" (snag use will be greater in the size classes closer to 20" than nine inches). Retain any snags knocked over during management activities as down wood. The only snags which will be intentionally felled as part of this project will be as a result of safety mitigation (LSRA at 92). This language clarifies that it is desirable if possible to give preference to retaining larger snags over the smaller snags.
OW-14 Green tree " . . .protecting existing snags and creating snags after harvest have very short-term See response to OW-6. retention. benefits compared to the long life of these stands. The most important mitigation is to retain enough green trees to ensure ongoing snag recruitment over the long term. The agency often under-estimates the number of green trees that need to be retained."
OW-15 NEPA analysis-live "The NEPA analysis needs to recognize the full life-cycle of forests including the ecological, See Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B). and dead tree hydrological and carbon-cycle value of both live and dead trees. This analysis will also help values. the FS address important issues related to carbon storage and climate change."
8 Appendix D – Public Comments Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number OW-16 Identification of ". . . dead wood values are sacrificed in thinned areas due to the effect of “captured See Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B). Commercial thinning prescriptions follow thinned and mortality,” while other late successional values, such as rapid development of large trees snag and coarse wood strategies outlined in the Late Successional Reserve unthinned areas. and understory diversity may be delayed in unthinned areas, so an important step in the Assessment (USDA USDI 1998); balancing long-term and short term needs by restoration process is to identify the most optimal mix of treated (thinned) and untreated supplying a steady input of CWD over time (strategy 2) and developing large trees for (unthinned) areas. We think this should be a conscious and well-documented part of the future CWD (strategy 3) (EA Appendix B, pg. B-14). Natural successional processes NEPA analysis, not just an accidental byproduct of what’s economically thinnable. Tools dominate in untreated no-cut buffers and natural stands (EA Appendix B, pg. B-14). like DecAID might be used to identify goals for large and small snags that need to be met DecAID is a watershed level tool that would be ineffective at identifying treatment over time and at the geographic scale of home-ranges of focal species. This can help needs at an individual stand level. identify the scale and distribution of untreated “skips.”"
OW-17 Thinning effects on " . . . commercial thinning has an adverse effect on snags and dead wood that are defining See Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B). The EA proposes thinning managed stands snags characteristics of late successional habitat. . . The agency [should acknowledge] that as recommended in the Late Successional Reserve Assessment for Oregon's accelerating development of a few larger live trees (that might become snags if a few of Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (USDA USDI 1998) (EA Appendix them happen to die) comes at the cost of a significant reduction in the number of medium B, pg. B-2). and large snags over time. From an ecological perspective, the net result of commercial logging is undeniably adverse to snag habitat. The agency cannot present logging as a benefit to snag habitat when it is really a cost that needs to be mitigated."
OW-18 Snags "Continuous recruitment of snags is critical to development of old growth forest habitat. We Comment noted. See Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B), and response to OW-6. urge the agency to adopt a process-based approach to snag habitat. Instead of focusing on how many snags there are now and immediately after logging, it is better to focus on (i) whether the project will retain an adequate pool of green trees from which to recruit snags and (ii) whether the project will retain the ecological processes that cause mortality, including density dependent mortality and other mechanisms. Commercial logging will significantly harm both of these snag recruitment factors, so mitigation measures are needed. Green tree retention, including generous unthinned "skips" where density dependent mortality will play out, is necessary to support this process."
OW-19 Retain unthinned " It is often asserted that thinning grows big trees faster and therefore results in more rapid Comment noted. See Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B), and response to OW-6. patches in thinned recruitment of large snags, but FVS and other tools show this NOT to be true. In fact, stands thinning both reduces and delays recruitment of snags, first by removing trees that would otherwise suffer depression mortality , and second by increasing stand vigor and postponing overall mortality. . . . heavy thinning should be used sparingly and generous unthinned patches should be retained WITHIN thinned stands in order to continue the snag recruitment process and mitigate for captured mortality."
OW-20 Stand simulation "To inform the decision, please conduct a stand simulation model to fully disclose the See Deadwood Analysis (EA Appendix B). The EA and Deadwood Analysis utilize the model needed for adverse effects of logging on dead wood, especially large snags >20” dbh, and then best available science at this time. dead wood mitigate for these adverse effects by identifying areas within treated stands and across the landscape that will remain permanently untreated so they can recruit adequate large snags and dead wood to meet DecAID 50-80% tolerance levels as soon as possible and over the long-term."
9 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number OW-21 Discussing of "The EA could do a better job analyzing “trade-offs” related to logging. All logging, including Chapter 3 includes discussions on adverse and beneficial environmental effects logging trade-offs thinning stands of any age, include some adverse impacts and trade-offs. Some impacts of (trade-offs). The project design criteria (Appendix A) serve to minimize or prevent could be improved logging are unavoidable, so there is no such thing as a logging operation that is 100% adverse effects, ensuring that beneficial ecological effects (generally longer term) beneficial." outweigh adverse effects (generally shorter term).
OW-22 Trade-offs It is generally accepted that when thinning very young stands, the benefits outweigh the Research conducted in older stands may not necessarily be applicable to the off-site discussion needs to adverse impacts and net benefits are likely. It is also widely understood that thinning older stands, which are 100+ years old, but do not resemble typical stands of that age. address differences stands tends to have greater impacts on soil, water, weeds, carbon, dead wood recruitment Effects of the no-action and proposed action are disclosed in section 3.1 of the EA. between thinning in so the impacts very often outweigh the benefits, resulting in net negative outcome on the young v. old balance sheet. Thus, as we move from young forest to older forests, the net benefits turn stands. into net negative impacts. See Puettmann [et al. 2011] (“growth of large trees was less responsive to thinning and low mortality rates for larger trees resulted in little recruitment of large snags or coarse woody debris (down wood). In general, thinning increased abundance and diversity of early-seral understory species, with little effect on late-seral species. On sites where shrub cover was already high harvesting initially reduced the cover, but shrubs recovered over time. Exotic species slightly increased in response to treatment …”); and . . . Dodson [et al. 2011] (“…thinning did little to accelerate the development of large snags and coarse downed wood that provide critical wildlife habitat…”) These are some of the trade-offs that must be disclosed and weighed in the NEPA document."
OW-23 Spatial variablity - "Spatial variability is an important aspect of restoration. Please retain clumps of dominant Comment noted. leave tree clumps. and co-dominant trees. The PDCs say " occasionally leave a clump of 3 or more trees." This should be more specific, such as "leave clumps of 3 or more trees at a rate of 2-4 clumps per acre."
OW-24 Single entry. "Instead of doing two entries on wind-swept ridgetops, consider just thinning to 60-70 tpa From our experience with Windjammer and Salal Point, thinning to 60-70 TPA, most and expect some blowdown, and then don't salvage that blowdown, just count it as trees blew over, so to avoid that, and be more responsive to late seral habitat creation, beneficial down wood and natural complexity." two entries are needed. We are confident that windthrow will still add significant down wood in the stands. In helicopter stands, we are going to 70 tpa and creating snags and down wood in those stands. OW-25 Avoid new road "We urge the FS to avoid new road construction.. . .Avoid the adverse effects of road New road construction is limited to temporary roads and all temporary roads will be construction. construction by focusing on areas accessible form existing roads. Areas that are decommissioned following sale activity. They will not be maintained as system roads. inaccessible should be allocated to the untreated portion of the landscape mosaic of New temporary roads are proposed only where needed to achieve landscape treated/untreated areas." restoration objectives. Only a relatively small portion of the project area is proposed for treatment.
10 Appendix D – Public Comments Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number OW-26 Cost benefit "Where road building is absolutely necessary, ensure that the realized restoration benefits New temporary roads and reopened system roads are proposed only where needed to analysis of roads. far outweigh the adverse impacts of the road. Carefully consider the effects of roads on achieve landscape restoration objectives. These roads are located on ridge tops( not connectivity, especially at road/stream crossings, across ridge tops, and midslope side slopes, not side-cast) do not cross any streams, and minimize, to the maximum hydrological processes (such as large wood delivery routes). The NEPA analysis should extent practicable, the potential for impacts to soil and water resources, weed risk, rank new road segments according to their relative costs (e.g. length, slope position, soil native vegetation, wildlife, and other resources. type, ease of rehabilitation, weed risk, native vegetation impacts, etc.) and benefits (e.g. acres of restoration facilitated), then use that ranking to consider dropping the roads with the lowest ratio of benefits to costs. [Also] . . . determine the “effective road density” of each segment."
OW-27 Avoid wet weather "We urge the FS to avoid wet weather hauling and use of heavy equipment during the wet Where necessary, roads are designated for dry season haul only. Project design haul and operation. season. This has been shown to cause more significant sediment production and water criteria (Appendix A) are included to protect fish habitat and water quality during pollution. The coastrange is subject to intense storms. Wet season hauling can create activities such as log hauling. Hydrology, fisheries, and engineering staff will determine conditions that may lead to significant pollution events. It's best to avoid creating these season of operation and haul for temporary roads. Transportation engineers conditions at all." completed a roads analysis for the proposed project and determined the roads suitable for wet weather haul (see EA, 3.10.2.2.1).
OW-28 Temp roads-wet All temp roads should be closed and storm-proofed during the wet season. Project design criteria are included for temporary roads. Operators will be required to season. water bar and close any temporary roads ( and implement any necessary storm proofing) between operating seasons or as soon as the need for the road ceases. Additional mitigation measures will be implemented where necessary to prevent stream sedimentation and excessive loss of the road surface. However, none of the proposed temporary roads cross streams or aquatic resources and there are no known hydrologic connections between temporary roads proposed and project area streams. Hydrology, fisheries, and engineering staff will determine season of operation and haul for temporary roads.
OW-29 Stream buffers. 15-30 foot buffers along streams is inadequate. Thinning will capture mortality, export The minimum stream buffers are described in Appendix A. For perennial streams, the woody structure, and deprive both streams and riparian reserves of needed wood input. protection buffer is a minimum distance of 30 feet plus the first two rows of plantation The FS needs to retain generous unlogged buffers on streams, or dedicate a significant conifer (or where conifers are not within 30 feet of the channel, the buffer will be 30 portion of the trees that would otherwise be exported to create snags that will eventually fall feet plus the first row of plantation conifer upslope of the 30 foot limit). For intermittent in streams and riparian reserves. streams, the buffer is 15 feet plus the first single row of plantation conifers. Although these distances are determined to be adequate for protection of aquatic species and riparian wildlife, the actual protection buffers identified on the ground are typically much larger than the minimum buffer distance because of site-specific topography (harvest boundaries are typically laid out at the top of a drainage slope, not mid-slope, and slope distances for drainages in the South Nestucca project area typically exceed the minimum buffer distances. OW-30 Underplanting Underplanting should be low density and patchy. The EA says that 998 acres will be Many acres will be left unplanted, 998 acres represents a little more than half of the planted. Many acres should be left unplanted, including in the off-site stands. harvested acres proposed in the EA. Additionally, only half of the one-acre gaps are designated to be planted. OW-31 Underplanting A strong component of hardwoods mixed with conifers is ecologically beneficial for a wide Comment noted. composition variety of species.
11 Hebo Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest Person or Organization- Summary Comment Forest Service Response Comment Number OW-32 In support of gaps. We are open to some heavily thinned "gaps" less than 1 acre embedded in treatment units. Comment noted.
OW-33 Unthinned skips We also encourage the FS to prescribe unthinned "skips" within thinning units. These skips Skips are incorporated into the Silviculture prescription for young managed stands encouraged. should be excluded from retention calculations. where possible. For example, the project intentionally leaves relatively large unthinned areas "skips" to facilitate wildlife movement and enhance other ecological processes in some portions of the project area.
OW-34 Elegant fawn lily Conduct thorough surveys for elegant fawn lily (Erythronium elegans). We support the Comment noted. Surveys were conducted during preparation of the EA and additional PDCs that require avoiding temp roads, skid trails, and slash piles in known locations of surveys will be performed prior to implementation. elegant fawn lily (Erythronium elegans).
OW-35 Canopy cover The EA says " Ensure canopy cover remains at or above 40 percent in thinned areas of This relates to an error in the project design criteria that has been corrected, gaps are calculation units. Canopy gaps > ¼ acre are not used for this calculation." If gaps are excluded, then used in the calculation of canopy cover (see Appendix A, section 3.1). unthinned skips should also be excluded from the calculation to ensure adequate retention in thinned areas.
12