Johnnie Forest United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Management Project Pacific Northwest Region Umpqua National Forest
Tiller Ranger District
March 2013
2 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest Johnnie Forest Management Project Environmental Assessment
Douglas County, Oregon March 2013
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest
Responsible Official: Donna L. Owens, District Ranger Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest 27812 Tiller Trail Highway Tiller, Oregon 97484 Phone: (541)-825-3100
For More Information Contact: David Baker, ID Team Leader Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest 27812 Tiller-Trail Highway Tiller, OR 97484 Phone: (541) 825-3149 Email: [email protected]
Electronic comments can be mailed to: [email protected]
Abstract: This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes a no-action alternative, and one action alternative that includes fuels treatment, pre-commercial thinning and commercially harvesting timber on approximately 3,305 acres, treating activity-generated fuels, conducting road work, and other connected actions. The proposed thinning units are located within Management Areas 10 and 11 of the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as well as the Matrix, Late Seral Reserve (LSR) and Riparian Reserve land-use allocations defined by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The project area is located within the Middle South Umpqua watershed on the Tiller Ranger District.
3 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The 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 of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 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.
4 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………....3 List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………..7 List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………….8
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION…………………………………...9 PROJECT LOCATION ……………………………………………………………………...……..9 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION …………………………………………………………11 PROPOSED ACTION ………………………………………………………..…………………..11 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSES …………..….15 SCOPING ……………………………………………………………………………………….…17 ISSUES AND CONCERNS ………………………………………………………...………...….17 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION …………………………………………………..……………..18
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION…………..19 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY ………….19 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL …………………………………………………...19 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION …………………………………….………………………19 ALTERNATIVE 2: PROPOSED ACTION ……………………….……………………..….19 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES …………………………….…………………..………….23 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES, AND MONITORING ……….………………………………….………………….………….25
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS…..39 ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CONRTIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS…….………..….39 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT…………………………………………………….…….……...... 41 ECONOMICS…………………………………………………………………….……………..41
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT………………………………………………………..……………47 BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER ……………………………………………………………49 WATER QUALITY ………………………………………………………...…………………..50 STREAM FLOWS ………………………………………………………….………………….55 RIPARIAN RESERVES ………………………………………………………………………58 STREAM CHANNELS …………………………………………………………..……………64 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION …………………………………………..……………..69 CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION ……………………………………………………….……..71 FISHERIES …………………………………………………………………………………….74
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT……………………….……………………………………89 FOREST VEGETATION ………….………………………………………………….……….89 WILDLIFE …………………………………………………………………………..…………101 SOIL PRODUCTIVITY ……………………………………………………………………….165 CLIMATE CHANGE ……………………………………………………………….…….……176 BOTANY ……………………………………………………………………….………………179 FIRE AND FUELS ………………………………………………………………………...….201 HERITAGE RESOURCES …………………………………………………..………………215
SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED AND OTHER DISCLOSURES…………………………...217 AIR QUALITY AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT ……………………………………....…….217 WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS …………………………………………………...….…218 POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS ………………………………………………...…….218 5 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest PRIME FARMLANDS, RANGELANDS, FORESTLANDS, AND PARKLANDS …..…219 CONFLICTS WITH PLANS POLICIES OR OTHER JURISDICTIONS …….….……..219 POTENTIAL OR UNUSUAL EXPENDITURES OF ENERGY ………………...….…...219 CONSUMERS, CIVIL RIGHTS, MINORTY GROUPS, AND WOMEN ………..….…..219 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ……………………………………………………….…..…220 RECREATION AND VISUALS …………………………………………….……….….….220
CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS…………………………………..223 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ………………………………………………………..…………223 AGENCY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION …………………..………223 INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ……………………………………………………..………224
GLOSSARY…………………..……………….…………………….……………..……225 REFERENCES …………………………………………………….…………..……….227
6 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest List of Tables
Table 1. Connected Actions Associated with the Proposed Actions …………………..…………21 Table 2. Alternative 2 Unit Summaries..………………………………...………………..………….22 Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives ……………………………………...…………….………….. 23 Table 4. Past Management Activities in the Planning Area ……..………...………….…..………39 Table 5. Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Planning Area ..……………..40 Table 6. Economic Efficiency Analysis ………………………………………………..……….……42 Table 7. Umpua NF Wildfire Details for Decade ……………………………………..…………….44 Table 8. Economic Impact Analysis ……………………………………………………..…………..46 Table 9. Summary of the 6th Field Sub-watersheds ……………………………………..………...51 Table 10. Water Quality 303(d) Listings in the Johnnie sub-watershed..…………………………52 Table 11. Average Maximum Temperatures for Sites Downstream from Johnnie ……………...53 Table 12. Hydrologic Recovery Pre- and Post- Treatment ……………………..…………..……..58 Table 13. Summary of Treatment Proposed in Riparian Reserves……………….…………..…..62 Table 14. Summary of Road and Landing Actions in Riparian Reserves..…………. …….……..62 Table 15. Road Work at Stream Crossings…..……………………………………………………...65 Table 16. Summary of Riparian Reserve Actions and Effects ………………………….……...…67 Table 17. Anadromous Fish Usage In and Downstream of Johnnie Planning Area…………….76 Table 18. Resident Fish Usage In and Downstream of Johnnie Planning Area…………………77 Table 19. Bivalve and Gastropod Potential Habitat in Johnnie Planning Area ………………….77 Table 20. Determination of Effects to Threatened and Sensitive Aquatic Species ………..……81 Table 21. Analytical Process Summary of effects to Indicators …………………………………..83 Table 22. Current Distribution of Age Classes within the Johnnie Planning Area ..……….…… 90 Table 23. Existing Physical and Biological Stand Conditions for Commercial Stands ………….91 Table 24. Desired Stand Conditions and Prescribed Actions, Valley Bottom…………………….95 Table 25. Desired Stand Conditions and Prescribed Actions, Mountain Slope.………………….95 Table 26. Residual Stand Conditions after Commercial Thinning …………………………...……96 Table 27. Pre-commercial Existing Stand Conditions ………………………..…………………….97 Table 28. Summary of Direct and indirect Effects to Vegetation ……….…………………………98 Table 29. Snag Habitat Deficiencies in Deadman/Francis Sub-watersheds ….………………..104 Table 30. Management Indicator Species …………………………………….……………………109 Table 31. Umpqua National Forest NSO Habitat Baseline ………….…………………………...110 Table 32. Regional Trends of Primary Cavity Nester ……………………………………..………115 Table 33. Focal Species in the USFS Landbird Strategic Plan ………………………………....118 Table 34. Umpqua NF Listed and Sensitive Species Ecological Requirements………………..128 Table 35. Umpqua NF Listed and Sensitive Species Pre-field Review and Summary ………..132 Table 36. Environmental Baseline for Johnnie Action Area ……………………………………...138 Table 37. NRF and Habitat Spatial Conditions …….………………………….…..………………141 Table 38. Stream and Road Densities in the Johnnie Planning Area ……….…………………..165 Table 39. Noxious Weed List ………………………………………………….………………….…183 Table 40. Noxious Weeds Known to Occur in the Project Area.…………………………………186 Table 41. Umpqua NF Listed and Sensitive Plant List ……………………………………………189 Table 42. Other Rare or Uncommon Plant Species ………………………………………………193 Table 43. Estimated Brush Disposal Costs by Alternative ..…………………..………………….201 Table 44. Action Alternative FRCC Rating Within Planning Area ……………………………….202 Table 45. Summary of Fuels Treatment Acres and Effects ………………….....……………….211
7 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest List of Figures
Figure 1. Johnnie Planning Area Vicinity Map ………………………………………….…………10 Figure 2. Johnnie Planning Area Boundary and Proposed Units Map …………….………...... 13 Figure 3. Average Composite Log Prices, Douglas County Market Area .……...………..…….43 Figure 4. Middle South Umpqua Sub-Watersheds..……….………………………………………48 Figure 5. Major Streams within the Planning Area …..…………………..……………….……….49 Figure 6. Current Stand Conditions …………………………………………….…………....……..93 Figure 7. Desired Future Stand Conditions ……………………………………..……….…………93 Figure 8. DecAID Information for Snags (10”) …………………………………………………..103 Figure 9. DecAID Information for Snags (20”) ……………………………………...….…….….103 Figure 10. DecAID Information for Downed Wood Cover …………………….……...………….104 Figure 11. DecAID 30% Tolerance Levels (10” snags) ……………………….………..…………107 Figure 12. DecAID 30% Tolerance Levels (20” snags) ……………………….……….………….107 Figure 13. Down Wood Cover – 50% Tolerance Levels ……………………….…..….………….108 Figure 14. Elk Population Trend in Dixon Management Unit ………………………….…………113 Figure 15. Black-Tail Deer Numbers by Management Unit ………………….…………...………113 Figure 16. Johnnie NSO Habitat Action Area …………………………………………….………..139 Figure 17. Johnnie Potential [NSO] Disturbance Activities ………………………………………145 Figure 18. Soil Landforms in Johnnie Planning Area …………………..…….…………………...167 Figure 19. Soil Instability in Johnnie Planning Area ………………………………………………172 Figure 20. Fuel Model 10 Pre-harvest Condition ………………..…………….…………………..203 Figure 21. Fuel Model 8 Desired Condition…………………. ………………….…………………206 Figure 22. Current and Desired Canopy Structure .………………...………….…………….……206 Figure 23. Roadside Fuels Pre and Post Treatment ………………………….……………….….207 Figure 24. Crown Index Pre- and Post Harvest ……………………………………………………210
8 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need for Action
CHAPTER 1. Purpose and Need for Action
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. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters:
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the proposed action, the need for action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public responded.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative actions that may have been developed or considered in response to comments raised by the public during scoping. The end of the chapter includes a summary table comparing the proposed action and alternatives with respect to their environmental impacts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environment impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the Environmental Analysis.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analysis of the project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Tiller Ranger District office at 27812 Tiller Trail Hwy, Tiller, OR 97484.
PROJECT LOCATION This project is located in the Johnnie Springs area of the Tiller Ranger District with concentrations of privately owned infrastructure such as homes and main travel routes.
9 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
This project includes approximately 3,050 acres located in the Tiller Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest, within the Middle South Umpqua Watershed. The project area includes the following land use allocations: matrix, riparian reserve, and LSR. The following Management Areas (MA), as described in the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) are in the planning area: MA 10 (Timber Management) and MA 11 (Big Game Winter Range). The project area boundary includes portions of the following township, range, and sections (Willamette Meridian): T29S, R1W, Sec. 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 T30S, R1W, Sec. 5, 6, 7, and 8 T30S, R2W, Sec. 12 The proposed roadside treatment units involve the following Forest Roads: 2810, 2810- 100, 2810-101, 2810-110, 2810-200, 2810-210, 2810-229, 2810-311, 2800-300, 2827, 2827-300, and 2827-013.
Figure 1. Johnnie Planning Area Vicinity Map
10 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The lack of fire due to aggressive fire suppression has allowed for dense vegetation and surface fuels to accumulate which in turn greatly increases the potential for a high severity wildland fire that is uncharacteristic of the historical fire regime. The desired condition is a reduction in homogenous stem-exclusion stands, increased diversity and abundance of a variety of plant and animal species, and increased understory species diversity. Because existing vegetative conditions on the landscape have varied from the desired conditions, the underlying needs for this proposal include: Restore species composition and structural diversity of plant communities needed to attain ACS Objectives within riparian reserves that are currently in a homogenous, stem-exclusion condition due to past management. Reducing the risk to life, property and resource values within the project area from a high severity wildland fire uncharacteristic of the historical fire regime on National Forest system lands. Improving fire suppression abilities and firefighter safety by modifying predicted fire behavior in the project area through density management and fuels treatments. Improve evacuation routes for residences and recreationalists by thinning the dense vegetation alongside main travel routes within the planning area creating shaded fuel breaks.
Areas identified for treatment in other locations place an emphasis on improving the ability of the forest to withstand a wildfire event. This proposal may compliment other existing and planned firewise treatments on adjacent non-national forest lands within the project area. Vegetation treatment on non-national forest land for reducing the risk to individual homes is the responsibility of private landowners. Proposed Action The actions proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are: Pre-commercial thin approximately 582 acres – less than 8 inches in diameter – slash would be hand piled and burned. Commercially thin approximately 266 acres in dense conifer stands under 80 years of age. Activity created fuels would be treated as necessary thru hand pile and burning. Treat approximately 2457 acres of non-commercial fuels along proposed roads (300 feet on either side) to create shaded fuel breaks. Activity fuels would be piled and burned or could be available as non-commercial firewood. Future follow-up treatments, such as repeated brushing, piling and burning, may be needed in order to maintain the effectiveness of the original treatment. Subsequent treatments may occur up to 10 years after the initial implementation and would be assessed and prioritized on a case-by-case basis. No new permanent road construction is proposed with this project. Three temporary roads may be built to provide access to implement the project. One temporary spur road 11 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
of approximately 600 feet would be constructed to provide yarder access for Unit 1. A decommissioned road would be re-opened for better access to unit 168 and closed after use. Two temporary spur roads of approximately 440 feet and 410 feet would be built to better facilitate logging of this same unit. All temporary roads would be obliterated at projects end. No temporary roads being used under this proposal cross any streams. Approximately 40 miles of roads would receive routine road maintenance such as brushing, ditch cleaning, culvert cleaning, and post haul surface blading. The proposed action is described in more detail in Chapter 2 under Alternative 2, Proposed Action.
12 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Figure 2. MAP of area and Commercial and Pre-Commercial units
13 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
14 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Decision Framework The responsible official for this project is the Tiller District Ranger. Given the purpose and need, the responsible official reviews the proposed action, the alternative, and their environmental consequences, in order to determine whether to implement the proposed action as described, select a different alternative or take no action at this time.
Management Direction National forest management is guided by various laws, regulations, and policies that provide the framework for all levels of planning. These higher-order documents are incorporated by reference and can be obtained from Forest Service offices or on the internet. National direction which guides the project analysis includes, but are not limited to: the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA); the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the National Historic Preservation Act of 1979; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; Clean Water Act of 1972 , Clean Air Act of 1970.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSES The 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and its amendments to date, including the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (NWFP), provide broad management direction for the Johnnie Forest Management Project. The Johnnie planning area includes Management Areas (MA) 10 (Timber Management) and 11 (Big Game Winter Range) as defined by the LRMP, as well as Matrix, Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), and Riparian Reserves as defined by the NWFP, with the proposed thinning units being located within MA 10, 11, Matrix, LSR, and Riparian Reserve areas. Following are descriptions of the different types of management areas within the project area: Management Area 10 provides for production of timber on a cost-efficient sustainable basis consistent with other resource objectives. Management Area 11 provides for big game winter range habitat and timber production consistent with other resource objectives for wildlife habitat, riparian habitat and water quality, visual quality, and recreation. Matrix lands consist of those federal lands outside the six categories of designated areas (Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves). Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities are to be conducted in the portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands. Late-Successional Reserves are lands in which the management objective is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest
15 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. Riparian Reserves provide an area along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable and potentially unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. This EA tiers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended, and the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. This EA also incorporates by reference the 2003 Umpqua National Forest Roads Analysis. An Umpqua Forest-Scale Roads Analysis (USDA, Umpqua National Forest, 2003) that evaluated access issues for key road systems across the Forest and recommended further evaluations at the watershed and project scale. Roads analysis below the Forest scale is not automatically required, but may be undertaken at the discretion of the Responsible Official (FSM 7710). It has been determined that a roads analysis below the Forest scale was not needed to support the Johnnie Forest Management Project because no road management activities under this project would result in any changes to access, changes to current use, or changes in traffic patterns or road standards. This EA incorporates by reference the recommendations and analysis in the 1997 Deadman/Francis Watershed Analysis (WA), as well as the 2006 Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (ODEQ, 2006), and the 2008 South Umpqua Sub-basin Water Quality Restoration Plan. This EA incorporates by reference the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). Chapter 3 provides a summary of the specialists input in adequate detail to support the rationale for the decisions and the appendices provide supporting documentation. The Project Record contains supplemental information and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. Incorporating this information implements the CEQ Regulations provision that agencies should reduce National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4), and that environmental documents shall be “analytic rather than encyclopedic, and shall be kept concise and no longer than absolutely necessary (40 CFR 1502.2)”. The objective is to furnish adequate site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The Project Record is available for review at the Umpqua National Forest Tiller Ranger District, 27812 Tiller-Trail Highway, Tiller, OR 97484.
SCOPING Public involvement for the Johnnie Forest Management Project began with the mailing of the scoping notice in June, 2011 to approximately 65 members of the public. The scoping notice described project components and queried interest in one of two field trips to be held. The field trips were scheduled for June 27th, with the second scheduled 16 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
for July 9th 2011. Four individuals attended the first fieldtrip and no one attended the second fieldtrip. Two comment letters were received, both during the formal scoping period. The Tribal governments (Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribe of the Grand Ronde Indians, and the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians) were sent a letter describing the project and soliciting issues. The Johnnie Forest Management Project record contains a detailed scoping summary that describes Forest Service outreach efforts, the scoping comments received for the project, and how the Forest Service addressed scoping comments in the Johnnie Forest Management Project EA.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS Issues are based on unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources that are generally raised during scoping and can be used as the basis for formulating and comparing alternatives to the Proposed Action, for prescribing mitigating and monitoring measures, or for identifying environmental analysis needs (40 CFR 1502.14). Scoping during the Johnnie Forest Management Project planning process resulted in two letters where the writers identified several concerns that have been addressed as described below. No other alternatives to the Proposed Action or No Action were developed as a result of the comments.
ISSUES THAT DID NOT DRIVE ALTERNATIVES Comments that raised concerns, but did not provide a cause and effect statement to become an issue that would drive an alternative, have been identified and resolved by: clarifying the Purpose and Need or the Proposed Action in Chapter 1; addressing the concern by developing project design features (PDFs), including Best Management Practices (BMPs), or identifying monitoring activities in Chapter 2; or by disclosing effects in the analyses of Chapter 3. As these concerns were resolved as described below, they did not drive the development of an alternative to the Proposed Action and as such will not be discussed or analyzed further. CONCERNS ADDRESSED BY CLARIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN CHAPTER 1 Comments suggesting that road construction should be avoided or minimized are addressed in the Proposed Action, as no new permanent roads are proposed in association with this project, and all temporary spur roads would be obliterated after use. Possible concerns about the negative effects of not treating the remaining acres within the analysis area were raised. Not all acres in the area would benefit from density management treatment at this time, or present a high risk of fire hazard. In some older stands the benefits of retaining current forest structure outweigh the costs and benefits of thinning, while fuel treatments would continue along roads evaluated as high fire risk adjacent to those stands. Acres not identified for treatment are not a part of the proposed action and would not contribute towards the purpose and need of the Johnnie Forest Management EA.
17 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
CONCERNS ADDRESSED BY PDFS, BMPS, AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES IN CHAPTER 2 The following comments were addressed through project design features (PDF), Best Management Practices (BMP), and monitoring activities that are specifically developed for the purposes of minimizing resource damage. Concern was raised concerning activity fuels produced through logging. PDF’s and BMP’s in Chapter 2 were developed and included specifically to minimize and avoid the effects of activity fuels post project implementation.
CONCERNS ADDRESSED BY THE ANALYSES IN CHAPTER 3 Concern was expressed regarding snags and down wood, the effects to which are disclosed in the Wildlife section. Concern was raised regarding commercial thinning, and its effects on natural resources (specifically conifers and aquatic resources). Concern was mentioned regarding retention of under-represented tree species and trees with defect. The Forested Vegetation section describes the thinning from below prescription as well as those trees to be retained. Thinning in stands under 80 years old should be variable. The Forested Vegetation section describes the thinning from below prescription.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Should Alternative 2 be selected as a result of this NEPA process, the Forest Service would implement the timber harvest and associated activity fuel treatments and road work through timber sale contract. In the course of implementing complex projects, minor changes may be needed to better meet on-site resource management and protection objectives. Minor adjustments, within approximately ten percent accuracy of the proposed measures, may be needed to adjust unit boundaries for resource protection, to improve logging system efficiency, and to better meet the intent of the resource prescriptions. For example, changes in aspects of logging systems, including locations of temporary spur roads may be required to better facilitate logging systems and provide for resource protection. These minor changes would not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required to document any changes, the criteria to determine the need to supplement an existing Environmental Assessment (FSH 1909.15, sec.18) would be followed.
18 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
CHAPTER 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Johnnie project. It describes both alternatives considered in detail. The end of this chapter presents the alternatives in tabular format so that the alternatives and their environmental impacts can be readily compared. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis of a proposed action and other reasonable alternatives, including no action. The no action alternative (Alternative 1) provides a baseline for estimating environmental effects and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) was developed to meet the Purpose and Need. These two alternatives for the Johnnie Forest Management Project are considered in detail in this EA.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY No alternatives were developed from comments received during the scoping process beyond the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives. The concerns that were brought up during the scoping process have been addressed through either project design features, best management practices, monitoring, and/or addressed through specialist analyses in Chapter 3. These concerns were listed in Chapter 1.
Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, no commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, activity fuel treatments, roadside fuels reduction, road work, or other connected actions would take place. No ground- disturbing activities would take place and no timber would be offered for sale. Ongoing and future activities, such as routine road maintenance, recreation use, and noxious weed control would be expected to occur.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action Dense conifer stands in the project area contain too many trees to be considered healthy and are highly susceptible to wildfire. Part of the proposed action is to reduce these stand densities through activities such as thinning, pruning, piling and burning slash. The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) has been designed to meet the Purpose and Need by implementing the following activities:
Commercial thinning (harvesting trees 8” or greater diameter at breast height) in approximately 266 acres utilizing a range of silvicultural prescriptions that would generally retain approximately 70 to 160 (average: 101) trees per acre. This range allows prescriptions to be applied to each unit depending on slope, aspect, and other site-specific conditions. The prescriptions are anticipated to result in approximately 4.3 million board feet 19 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
of timber and are designed to increase the health and vigor of the leave trees while reducing risk of and damage by wildfire.
Pre-Commercial thinning (cutting of trees less than 8” diameter at breast height) would occur on approximately 582 acres utilizing a thin from below silvicultural prescription to reduce stand densities to an estimated 225 trees per acre.
Reduction of roadside fuels and stand densities would occur on approximately 2457 acres by creating a shaded fuel break 300 feet either side of roads by removing small diameter trees and brush through activities such as thinning, pruning, piling and burning slash. Only trees less than 8 inches diameter at breast height would be removed.
Approximately 193 acres of ground-based, or mechanized, logging systems and 73 acres of skyline logging systems would be employed to implement the thinning prescriptions. Mechanized equipment is generally utilized on slopes under 35% and skyline systems over 35% slope.
Approximately 79 landings are proposed, 37 of which are in skyline units and 42 in ground- based units. The average landing size is 0.05 acres in skyline units and 0.12 acres in ground-based units. Landings will be rehabilitated after use, subsoiling and seeding as necessary.
Riparian reserves along fish-bearing (class 1 and 2) streams will not be thinned. Approximately 42 acres of riparian reserves along perennial non-fish bearing (class 3) and intermittent (class 4) streams are proposed for thinning treatments outside of the no-cut buffers. Class 3 no-cut buffers would be 85 feet each side of stream channel; class 4 no-cut buffers would be 25 feet each side of stream channel; where instability or slope breaks are present, buffers would be widened to protect these areas. Zero (0) mechanical and approximately 2 skyline landings are proposed within riparian reserves.
Generally, felled material down to a six inch diameter top would be yarded and removed from the site and material from six to three inch diameter tops would be brought to the landings. Whole-tree yarding could occur, provided enough slash remains on site to meet temporary spur road obliteration and winterization requirements. Yarded material may be chipped, left on the landing for firewood cutters, or burned.
The activity fuels, or slash, would be treated in order to break up the continuity of the fuels throughout the units. In commercial units, grapple pile burning would occur on approximately 193 acres in the ground-based units. Hand piling and burning may occur in portions of the skyline units (approximately 73 acres) with the objectives of reducing the risk of human- caused fires and enhancing fire suppression efforts. All landing piles would be burned. Activity fuels in pre-commercial units would be handpiled and burned. Implementation of these treatments would be subject to a post-harvest fuels assessment.
20 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Implementing road work: no new system roads would be constructed and all temporary spur roads would be obliterated after use.
Temporary spur road construction- approximately 0.11 miles of new temporary spur road would be constructed to gain access into thinning Unit 1.
Temporary spur road reconstruction- approximately 0.16 miles of temporary spur route to gain access into thinning unit 168 would be located on the existing footprint of skid roads.
Road maintenance- This project would include maintenance work on approximately 62 miles of existing roads including: dust abatement and ditch maintenance as needed; grading, shaping, and rocking of road surfaces; constructing, removing, and replacing water bars; repairing, reconstructing, and improving drain dips; roadside brushing. Approximately 160 hazard trees have been identified and marked that currently pose a risk along haul routes; these would be cut prior to haul and may be removed or left on site. Two existing disposal areas are to be used for material cleaned from ditches, road surfaces, and excess excavation. Rock sources for the above work include Budd Quarry to produce approximately 600 cubic yards of pit run and Brown Quarry with an estimated 675 cubic yards of crushed aggregate and riprap. Connected actions, in general, are those actions that depend on the Proposed Action in order to be implemented, are mitigation or design features that may be required to implement the Proposed Action, or are similar or related activities located within the project area boundary.
Table 1. Connected Actions associated with the Proposed Action Action Amount
218 acres of manual weed removal (Project area wide, see Noxious weed treatment: Year 1 Botany Report) Noxious weed treatment: Year 2 185 acres of manual weed removal
Install five new culverts, replace nine culverts, clean 200 feet of
ditch line and clean culvert basin, repair road at five locations, Watershed improvement projects removing slide material and reconstruction road surface. Install
one gate to control access.
Quarry Re-Development Budd and Brown Quarry’s
21 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 2. Alternative 2 Unit Summaries Unit # Acres Acres Riparian Thinning Volume Logging Systems Fuels Treatment Thinned Thinned in Volume Prescription Removed Riparian to be (mbf) Reserves Removed (trees per acre (mbf) retained) Skyline Ground HP Grapple Landing (acres) -based burn pile Pile (acres) (acres) burn Burning (acres) (Piles)
1 31 3.6 35.3 99 333.9 21 10 21 10 17
13 7 3.2 41.6 78 91.0 0 7 0 7 3
34 7 5.9 49.0 88 58.1 0 7 0 7 2
35 2 0 0 94 37.6 0 2 0 2 2
36 15 1.4 18.5 91 198.0 0 15 0 15 2
103 93 8.9 181.6 107 2033.1 0 93 0 93 10
161 27 2.4 35.8 98 447.1 0 27 0 27 4
166 22 4.2 52.9 158 277.2 20 2 20 2 16
168 33 9.3 129.3 122 576.7 32 1 32 1 15
174 14 1.4 13.9 91 138.6 0 14 0 14 2
228 15 1.9 19.0 81 150.0 0 15 0 15 6
Totals 266 42.2 576.9 Ave. 101 4.3 73 193 73 193 79
22 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 3 compares the alternatives by the elements of the Purpose and Need, the issue indicators, and summarizes other activities, actions, and effects that would occur.
Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Timber Production Volume of timber harvested (mbf) 0 4.25 Return to Treasury 0 $132,195 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0 0.56
Logging Systems Skyline (acres) 0 73 Ground-Based (acres) 0 193
Activity Fuels Treatments Hand pile (acres) 0 73 Grapple pile burning (acres) 0 193 Landing pile burning (piles) 0 79
Operating Seasonal Restrictions
Bark Slippage (waivers could apply if requested by purchaser and approved by Forest Service) N/A 4/15 – 7/1 Normal Operating Season N/A 6/1-10/31 Instream work, i.e., culvert replacement (waivers could N/A 7/1-9/15 apply if approved by Forest Service) Prescribed fire within 0.25 mi. Northern Spotted Owl sites N/A 3/1-7/15
24 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, MITIGATION MEASURES, PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES, AND MONITORING
The following measures apply to the action alternative or as otherwise stated. These requirements will be implemented in order to meet laws, regulations, and policies. In most cases they have been designed to reduce potential environmental effects. Mitigation measures are defined as actions that: avoid the impact all together (such as avoiding harvest on unstable land); minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action; rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring; reduce the impact over time by applying maintenance operations (such as road maintenance).
General Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs), symbolized by a checkmark (), are mitigation measures prescribed to protect the beneficial uses of water and to address water quality objectives as required by the Federal Clean Water Act and the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended. Each BMP is listed by the code used in the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide called General Best Management Practices (USDA, Forest Service, 1988). A complete BMP checklist is included in the Project Record. Other mitigation not related to compliance with the Clean Water Act is indicated by a round bullet (). Some of the items included in this list are not considered mitigation, but they are included in order to track project design features or prescriptive details. These are noted with the symbol (Rx). Monitoring is delineated by a lightning bolt (). Contract provisions are noted in parentheses where they apply and Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) from the Umpqua National Forest LRMP and Northwest Forest Plan also are listed. All BMPs, PDFs, and mitigation measures that apply to temporary roads also apply to swing roads. Swing roads are temporary roads that will not be used for log truck traffic but will provide access for yarders and skidders to pull logs to mechanized landings.
LOGGING EROSION CONTROL MEASURES BMPs: T-3, T-8, T-13, T-14, T-16; Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-60-5; IV-65-3, IV-71-13, IV-72-16. OBJECTIVE: Ensure any increase in sedimentation is minimized during and after logging or associated activities. Logging methods are described in the Project Record. ACTIONS: Identify areas with high erosion potential and adjust unit design. Completed during the planning process. Stream course protection will be used on all stream classes (BT6.5). Erosion control measures will be identified where project areas have the potential to produce erosion/sedimentation that may affect water quality and beneficial uses in surface waters 25 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
(CT6.6#). The installation/application of appropriate erosion control measures will be applied on designated soil gouges in skyline corridors and on ground-based equipment skid trails that may reroute or concentrate runoff in order to spread water and allow for infiltration into the soil. Landings that have been used shall be sloped and ditched to allow water to drain or spread. (BT6.64) ( BT6.63) (BT6.6). Between November 1 and April 30, no more than ½ acre of exposed soil, including landings, skid trails, and temporary roads shall exist at any time. All required erosion control work shall be completed and kept current by September 15 of a given year. Cut-and-fill slopes will have full erosion control work completed in the same operating season as constructed. Native seed shall be applied to areas that are prone to erosion and that have been disturbed by purchaser operations in order to establish an adequate cover of grass or other herbaceous vegetation. Seeding should be kept current preceding expected periods of rain. The seed mix to be used will be provided or agreed to by the Forest Service.
LOGGING PRACTICES BMPs: T-1, T-11, T-12, T-16 Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-60-2, IV-60-5, IV-67-1, IV-68-2, IV-176, IV-188, IV-190. OBJECTIVE: Minimize impacts to water quality and soil productivity from timber harvest to the extent practical through logging practices. (BT 6.5) ACTIONS: To reduce the number of skyline corridors, corridors will average 100-150 feet apart from center to center. Cable corridors that extend through no-harvest stream buffers will be limited in number and width to the greatest extent practicable to minimize damage to riparian vegetation. If riparian vegetation needs to be cut to allow for the corridor, it will be felled and left in place. No log yarding will occur in cable corridors within no-harvest stream buffers. Use pre-existing skid trails at the discretion of the sale administrator and to the extent feasible. Ground-based equipment shall not operate on slopes that are greater than 35%. Location of all skid trails will be agreed to prior to felling, unless otherwise agreed to in writing (BT6.422) at an average of 100 feet apart. Locate landings so that timber can be yarded with minimal disturbance to riparian reserves. Landings will be located outside of the designated no-harvest stream buffers. Landing size should be no larger than needed for a safe, efficient yarding, chipping, and loading operation (BT6.422). No yarding of logs across stream channels.
26 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Yarding within NWFP Riparian Reserves identified for thinning (outside of no-harvest stream buffers) will require at least one-end suspension of the logs to the extent practical. All landings and temporary roads used by the purchaser will be subsoiled to increase water infiltration and reduce surface water runoff to streams. Subsoiling will occur to a minimum depth of 20 inches. An exception may be given to areas where the sale administrator determines slash concentrations or soil rock content is too high to allow for subsoiling. Under the timber sale contract the purchaser will be required to subsoil all temporary roads, skid trails used by the purchaser (200 feet out from each landing), all landings used by the purchaser (unless required for slash storage and chip process after the purchaser has finished), and all skid trails used by the purchaser that are within 200 feet of a stream. The intent of this action would be to mitigate existing legacy disturbances to meet Standards and Guidelines for soil disturbance and long-term site productivity.
CONTROL OF PURCHASER OPERATIONS BMPs : T-5, T-10, T-13, T-14, T-15, T-18, T-19, T-21, T-22, R-3, R-9, R-19, R-20, W-4; VM-2, Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-83-3, IV-82-5, IV-61-9. OBJECTIVE: Enable the Forest Service to exercise control of operations to prevent impacts which could have detrimental results to water quality. ACTIONS: Contract preparation and administration will include operating periods, modification language, and control and acceptance of purchaser work (BT6.1 and BT6.35). The Normal Operating Season (June 1 to October 31) for the sale area will be identified and applied, unless otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service. To prevent damage to water quality during the operating period, restriction of equipment shall be enforced through the use of appropriate Timber Sale Contract (TSC) provisions when conditions for timber harvest, road construction, or road use are such that excessive damage will result. The Umpqua Road Rules, which calls for suspending work when either road or environmental damage such as stream turbidity is predicted, will be enforced. The kind and intensity of erosion control work done by the purchaser shall be adjusted to ground and weather conditions and the need for controlling runoff. Waivers to operate outside this period may be granted upon approval of the Forest Service representative. Purchaser erosion control structures and maintenance work which must be inspected prior to acceptance by the Forest Service are to be specified in the TSC (CT6.6#). If weather conditions warrant, haul routes must be inspected weekly or more frequently by Forest Service personnel. Inspections will focus on road surface condition, drainage maintenance, and sources of soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Pollutants from logging or road reconstruction equipment will be kept from entering waterways during servicing or refueling by selecting areas at least 150 feet away from wet areas and surface water, and by using a berm around sites to contain spills. If the volume of fuel exceeds 660 gallons in a single container or a total on site storage of 1320 gallons, a Spill
27 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan (BT6.341) is required and the necessary equipment will be on site during operations (BT6.34). The purchaser shall take appropriate preventative measures to ensure that any spill does not enter any stream. Any spill that occurs must be reported to the Contracting Officer. All landing locations will be approved by the Forest Service prior to landing construction and agreed upon plans for the landing shall insure water quality protection (BT6.422). Any guy-line trees located outside of the harvest unit boundaries that need to be felled would not be included in the Timber Sale Contract; these guy line trees will be left on site. Guy-line trees for skyline logging will be trees of an adequate size to meet operational needs for a specific yarder and Oregon OSHA safety requirements. Whenever possible, selected guy-line trees will be among the smallest diameter trees, in order to maintain large diameter trees on the landscape.
RIPARIAN AREAS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO CUTTING UNITS BMPs T-4, T-7, T-8; Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-60-1, IV-60-4, 5, 6; IV-61-11, IV-33-5. OBJECTIVE: Establish riparian area protection zones to minimize stream temperature increases, protect channel bank structure, and provide a debris filter for sediment and debris which could enter the channels, and maintain a source of large woody debris for continued stream channel stability and structural diversity. ACTIONS: Stream courses and wetlands will be identified on sale area maps. Wetlands will be protected from ground disturbance or substantial microclimate change by applying no-cut buffers for commercial operations. No logging corridors will be put through wetlands or their no-harvest buffers. Protect all streams, wetlands and no-harvest buffers with directional felling (C/CT6.41#), and waive debris cleanout of streams (B/BT6.5). Trees that are in no-harvest stream buffers and are damaged during timber harvest or road activities will be left on site. Restrict ground-based equipment entry to beyond 50 feet of streams and wet areas, or outside the primary shade zone whichever is greater. Site-specific no-harvest buffers were identified for all streams located during field reconnaissance of Johnnie units. Perennial stream buffers follow guidance in the Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies (USDI/USDA 2005) to protect the primary shade zone from harvest and incorporate field reconnaissance and professional judgment. For any new streams identified in the commercial thinning units during project implementation, the district hydrologist or fish biologist will be consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers. The following are the recommended minimum no-harvest buffer width recommendations in commercial units to ensure protection of streams and streamside habitats for any unmapped 28 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest streams identified during project implementation. The district hydrologist or fish biologist will be consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers and these individuals may modify the recommended buffers but must assure compliance with ACS and the NWFP Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy by providing a minimum buffer of 85 feet either side on perennial streams and 25 feet either side on intermittent streams: - perennial streams: 85 foot buffers or the slope break, whichever is greater; - intermittent streams without erosion concerns: 25 foot buffers or the slope break, whichever is greater; - intermittent streams with potential erosion issues: 50 foot buffers or the slope break, whichever is greater; - wetlands less than 1 acre: 50 foot buffers; - wet unique habitats greater than 1 acre: 150 foot buffers. In non-commercial thinning and fuel treatment areas, no overstory canopy will be removed within primary shade zones. Width of the primary shade zones will be established using the following guidelines, where distance is measured in feet up slope either side of the streambank:
HEIGHT OF TREE HILL SLOPE HILL SLOPE HILL SLOPE <30 % 30 TO 60 % >60 % Trees < 20 feet 12 14 15 Trees 20 to 60 feet 28 33 55 Trees >60 to 100 feet 50 55 60 Trees >100 to 140 feet 70 75 85
Protect hardwood trees and shrubs, and Pacific Yew whenever possible.
TEMPORARY AND SYSTEM ROAD CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND HAUL BMPs R-2, R-3, R4, R5, R-6, R-7, R-9, R-15, R-23; Forest Plan S&G IV-83-6. OBJECTIVE: To minimize sedimentation, the effects of water concentration on roadbeds, cut slopes or fill slopes, and subsequent production of sediment associated with temporary road construction and road reconstruction. ACTIONS: Erosion control measures (e.g. silt fences, weed-free straw/straw bales, etc.) will be placed and maintained at sites that have potential to deliver sediment to the stream network on or before September 15. If sediment delivery is noted, additional erosion control measures will be placed and maintained. All new temporary road construction will be done using outslope designs, with drain dips and grade sags as needed, so that no new ditchlines will be built. Road construction or reconstruction operations (including culvert replacements) will occur during minimal runoff periods. 29 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Roadwork contractors will have spill prevention and recovery equipment on site during all road construction operations as agreed to by the Forest Service. Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads will have water bars installed and road barriers placed to prevent damage after commercial use is complete, as appropriate. Level 1 aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will be barricaded and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems. Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively draining. During construction and reconstruction activities, waste material shall be placed in Forest Service approved waste sites. Instream work would occur between July 1 and September 15 unless a waiver to work outside this window is first approved by the District Fisheries Biologist or Hydrologist. Aggregate will be placed on access roads into water sources to reduce sedimentation to streams, as needed. Haul on native surfaced roads should not occur during the wet season. Surface rock placement may be done outside the normal operating season as weather and road conditions permit, but no surface rock can be added to extend the season of haul on any of the abandoned roads that are to be obliterated after use. Relief culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest Service before installation to ensure that water is routed only onto stable soil/vegetation. Cut-and-fill slopes will have required erosion control treatments completed the same year they are constructed even if they are not completed to final acceptance specifications. If the same area requires further disturbance to complete the road construction, it will be re-vegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection. Construction activities that may expose new soil (including clearing, grubbing, excavating, and fill placement) will be limited to the normal operating season (June 1 to October 31). However, construction activities may be suspended anytime during wet weather to protect water quality of affected streams. Construction sites will be re-vegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection. Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future traffic and disperse subsurface water on all maintenance level 1 system roads that are re- opened and subsequently blocked. The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur road under the timber sale contract. This involves subsoiling the road as appropriate, and pulling displaced soil and duff back over the road surface. Slash will be pulled over the top of the road to provide additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of temporary roads (new or legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest Service, for depth of treatment and use of effective ground cover on treatment area. No new temporary roads without previous ground disturbance will be constructed on slopes exceeding 35% slope.
30 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
No chemical dust abatement will be applied within 25 feet of perennial streams or any other stream crossing in which water is flowing during chemical application. No dust abatement chemicals will be applied within 1 foot of the outside edge of road ditch lines. Application of dust abatement will occur when streams are at their seasonal baseflow. Dust abatement will not be applied when raining and a 3-day forecast of clear weather shall follow any application of dust abatement. A Forest Service soil scientist shall review all temporary roads prior to treatment to initiate and finalize the treatment prescription; the effectiveness of the temporary road restoration prescription in preventing erosion and providing suitable plant habitat shall be monitored. Hazard trees identified along the haul routes and within treatment units will be felled as needed to meet OSHA requirements.
ROCK SOURCE DEVELOPMENT BMP: R-22 ACTIONS: Rock quarry benches, access roads and work areas should be sloped to drain and disperse surface water without ponding. Runoff should not flow directly into streams.
FISHERIES/WATERSHED BMPs: R-14, W-7 ACTIONS: Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, will be completed during low flow conditions when the potential for delivery of construction-related sediment can be minimized. During construction, stream water will be diverted around the work site and back into the channel. Hoses used for drafting water from fish-bearing streams must be equipped with a 5/32” mesh screen. Pumping of water for use in road maintenance must allow for the retention of at least 90% of the original stream flow below the pumping site. Forest long-term stream temperature monitoring sites which are applicable to the Johnnie Planning Area include Deadman Creek and Dumont Creek. The on-going summer stream temperature monitoring at these sites is evaluated each year.
31 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
SOIL AND SITE PRODUCTIVITY BMPs: T-9, T-12; Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-67-1, 2, 3, IV-71-12 ACTIONS: Following the close of the sale (under separate contract), machine piling and subsoiling would occur. Where subsoiling occurs, adequate slash will be used to cover the subsoiled areas as effective ground cover; this will also help to minimize erosion. Slash loading will not be to a depth that will prohibit forage grass seed from germination and sprouting. Seed and ground cover (straw, chips, hydromulch, etc.) shall be applied to bare soil and drainage areas around landings. Seeding should be kept current, preceding expected periods of rain. The seed mix to be used will be provided or agreed to by the Forest Service. Slash piles created by the purchaser around landings would be placed on compacted work areas, away from waterways and ditches. Designate and locate skid trails to minimize the area affected by logging operations; use pre- existing skid trails at the discretion of the sale administrator and to the extent feasible. Locate skid trails away from areas identified as having sensitive soils (such as wetlands and conditionally unsuitable soils as mapped in the Project Record – Soils). Restrict ground based logging to lands less than 35% slope. Maintain at least 45%-65% effective ground cover in order to maintain soil productivity and prevent soil erosion. The levels of effective ground cover will be monitored, as funding allows. If monitoring determines that effective ground cover goals are not met then site specific recommendations will be developed by a soil scientist and the fire management officer. Monitoring will include representative samples of each yarding method, fuels treatment, subsoiling mitigation, and tree mortality along treatment areas to determine if soil management objectives are being met (S&G#11, LRMP IV-71). Rx In order to minimize effects to soils, where practical, slash piles will be placed on new and existing skid trails that have been previously obliterated. When machines are used to pile slash, soil restoration and piling operations would be implemented together in a single pass with equipment that is suited for both operations (i.e. excavator with a combination subsoiler and brush-rake attachment).
FIRE SUPPRESSION, FUELS MANAGEMENT, AND AIR QUALITY BMPs: F-1, F-2, F-3; Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-25 (10); IV-33 (4); IV-36 (2); IV-37 (6); IV-42 (1a); IV-60 (7); IV-67 (1d); IV-92-4, 5, 11;
32 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
NWFP ROD S&Gs: C 35-36, FM-1, FM-4 OBJECTIVE: Improve stand fire resiliency while reducing the potential water quality degradation, subsequent flooding, or soil displacement caused by prescribed or wildland fire. Reduce fuel loads to reduce wildfire effects to soil productivity, minimize erosion, and prevent ash, sediment, nutrients and debris from entering water bodies. ACTIONS: Burn plans would include water quality objectives and burning would be carried out when fuel moistures are sufficient to ensure retention of effective ground cover where needed. Levels and methods of fuels treatment would be guided by the protection and resource objectives within the management area. Burn plans would be prepared in advance of ignition and approved by the appropriate line officer for each prescribed fire. General burning guidelines are designed to minimize erosion. Equipment used to pile slash would be track mounted with ground pressure not to exceed seven pounds per square inch (psi) and would meet the following specifications: capability of reaching 25 feet; climbing ability up to 25% slope; pivot-operator cab, engine, and arm able to swing 360 degrees while tracks remain stationary; machine would be equipped with a brush grapple or articulating brush grapple mechanism. Equipment used to grapple pile slash would use existing skid trails, and temporary and permanent roads on slopes less than 25% as much as possible. Soils would be protected in several ways; methods include creating well-constructed and covered (4-mil plastic at 75% pile height) hand piles that would burn quickly and completely, and developing burn plans that address desired fire intensity in areas of particular concern. The levels of effective ground cover would be monitored by the Forest Service as the project progresses. If monitoring determines that effective ground cover goals are not being met, site specific recommendations would be developed by the sale administrator, soils scientist or fire/fuels management. To determine if soil management objectives are being met, monitoring would include representative samples of each yarding method, fuels treatment, subsoiling mitigation, and tree mortality along treatment areas (S&G#11, LRMP IV-71). Ground skidded units shall be given high priority for soils monitoring. Air quality would be emphasized during prescribed fire planning. Project Design Features that would be considered shall include extending the burning season to spread emissions throughout the year. All burning would be planned and conducted to comply with applicable air quality laws and regulations and coordinated with appropriate air quality regulatory agencies. Burning would be conducted to meet air quality standards as outlined by Oregon DEQ. Air quality monitoring would be conducted by the DEQ.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
33 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
To protect nesting spotted owls, for proposed and connected actions that create above- ambient noise levels (i.e. road maintenance, brushing, subsoiling, etc.), abide by the terms and conditions in the programmatic Biological Opinion (FWS-1-15-03-F-0454). When possible, do not schedule these activities to occur between March 1 and July 15.
To protect nesting northern spotted owls, prescribed fire operations would be prohibited from March 1 to July 15 with ground base portion of unit 174 (1.8 acres) and roadside fuel treatment within .25 mile radius of NSO sites 0263, 0258 and RS Clayton (reference BA for map)
Guyline trees felled for safety reasons in units adjacent to Nesting, Roosting, Foraging habitat will not be removed once they are felled. See analysis file for map and GIS file of exact units where this restriction will apply.
Retain all guyline/tail-holds trees felled outside of unit boundaries. All trees damaged during harvest operation, such as intermediate support trees or line damage trees, would be retained to mitigate the decreased rate of snag recruitment caused by thinning and harvest activities.
To reduce impacts to nesting landbirds, burning of hand piles and machine piles will occur in the fall/winter months and not in spring or summer.
During treatment (harvest and burning) retain and protect all hard wood trees greater than eight inches diameter to the extent practical from disturbances that might otherwise destroy the integrity of those trees.
Retain and protect (during harvest and burning) existing large down wood (>6 inch diameter) and snags (>9 inch dbh) to the extent practical and safe. Avoid mechanical impacts and movement of large down wood and leave felled snags on site. To achieve DecAID moderate levels of snags per acre, retain up to 6 trees per acre greater than 15” in diameter or the largest trees available for snag creation in managed stands. Snag creation would occur in harvested managed stands that fall within the peregrine falcon primary zone and adjacent to spotted owl cores (units 107, 113, 114, 140, 146, 158, 164, 200, and 202).
To reduce impacts to Crater Lake tightcoils (Pristiloma arcticum crateris), perennial wetlands considered to be suitable habitat (those located between 2750 and 6400 feet elevation) for the species would be edge buffered by 33 feet to reduce potential impacts to the species and changes to habitat conditions.
SILVICULTURE AND FOREST MANAGEMENT BMP: T-20 OBJECTIVE: To manage and protect desired vegetation.
34 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
ACTIONS: Sale Administrators will stress the need to protect residual trees during logging. This measure is especially important when logging the mechanized units during times when leave trees are susceptible to bark slippage. Rx If feasible, in skyline units, retain all trees used as anchors in the skyline operation as long as they do not pose a hazard. Rx Incorporate existing snag patches (e.g., root-rot pockets, etc.) in skips left as a result of variable density thinning in all alternative to be utilized as hiding cover and sources of cavities. Retain large trees with mistletoe in the crown for use by wildlife in these skips, when feasible. Rx Retain clumps and individual snags as available. Retain all hollow snags and logs, and snags with existing cavities as much as practical. Rx Minority tree species and legacy habitat components (e.g., large legacy snags) would be left standing in harvest areas, when possible. Rx Boundary trees will be factored into the Designation by Description specifications. Rx Limit disturbance to existing large downed wood (>20” small end) by not bucking or moving the downed wood during yarding as much as possible. Rx OSHA requires that hazardous trees/snags be felled to protect workers on the ground during forest operations. Snags that must be felled for safety reasons should be retained on the forest floor to help attain down wood requirements. Rx In areas treated with mechanical harvest, cut hazard trees as high as possible to be retained for wildlife use, where feasible. Rx Protect hardwoods and pacific yew whenever possible for vegetative diversity.
BOTANY R-6 Invasive Plan FEIS S&Gs: 2, 3, 7, & 13; Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-200 (C5-I); Contract Provision: B/BT6.35. ACTIONS: Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will operate outside the limits of the road prism (including public works and service contracts), require the cleaning of all heavy equipment (bulldozers, skidders, graders, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering National Forest System Lands (Prevention Standard 2—Regional Invasive Plants FEIS and B/BT6.35). A District or Forest botanist will inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites and borrow material for invasive plants before use and transport. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free by a District or Forest botanist (including material from commercial sites) (Prevention Standard 7 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS).
35 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
All personnel, contractors, etc. working on the project will be made aware of the high priority “A” weeds (specifically Scotch broom) that could be found during activities; any high priority noxious weeds found should be reported to the Forest Service. Use signs such as “logging use only” to discourage public access to active temporary road construction sites by establishing road closures. Allowing only vehicles involved with the construction on the site will help limit introduction of noxious weed seed. After harvest, treat remaining or new infestations of noxious weeds for up to three years following sale closure. Wherever possible, use native re-vegetation techniques to reestablish native plants on sites where weeds are removed as well as in areas where exposed mineral soil provides optimal conditions for weeds to colonize. Native plant materials are the first choice in re-vegetation for restoration and rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur. Non-native, non-invasive plant species may be used in any of the following situations: 1) when needed in emergency conditions to protect basic resource values (e.g., soil stability, water quality and to help prevent the establishment of invasive species); 2) as an interim, non-persistent measure designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plants; 3) if native plant materials are not available; or 4) in permanently altered plant communities. Under no circumstances will non-native invasive plant species be used for re-vegetation (Prevention Standard 13 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). Maintain desirable roadside native vegetation. If desirable vegetation is removed to bare mineral soil during blading or other ground disturbing activities, that area must be re-vegetated. Conduct road blading, brushing and ditch cleaning in areas with high concentrations of invasive plants in consultation with District or Forest-level invasive plant specialists; incorporate invasive plant prevention practices as appropriate (Prevention Standard 8 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). Weed areas of concern will be marked with orange flagging and labeled “NOXIOUS WEEDS” with black lettering. Forest Service will provide the contractor with a map indicating where the known infestations of Forest Rated “A” noxious weeds and other invasive weeds of concern are located. Contractor will avoid ground-disturbing activities in the flagged and/or staked areas unless otherwise directed by the COR/FSR. Whenever possible, roadside brushing will be accomplished prior to seed setting of noxious weed species (approximately late June) in noxious weed flagged areas. The intent of this is to stop and/or prevent noxious weed spread and establishment. If needed, use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and/or mulch are not available, then it must be certified, all states, noxious weed-free (Prevention Standard 3 - Regional Invasive Plants FEIS). Note: because of the aquatic nature of rice, the harvested straw is already considered weed-seed free. The District or Forest specialist may approve the use of rice straw for some applications.
RECREATION AND HERITAGE RESOURCES Forest Plan S&Gs: IV-19-2; IV-24-5, 6; IV-25-10, 11
36 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
USDA Handbook: 462 pg. 32-35; IV-29-5 (Cultural Resources); IV-19-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 (Visual Resource). In the event that an unknown historic or prehistoric site is discovered in the course of the project, the activity will be stopped and the Forest Archaeologist will be contacted. Appropriate measures will be taken to stop any adverse effects to the site resulting from the activity (BT6.24). Any adverse effects, should they occur, shall be mitigated. Site monitoring will be conducted in order to protect known cultural resources.
A truck haul warning sign would be placed at the appropriate locations along haul routes to warn recreationists of oncoming log truck traffic.
37 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
38 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects This chapter describes the components and scope of the human environment that may be affected by implementation of the alternatives outlined in Chapter 2 and discloses the potential consequences of implementing each alternative, including the best management practices and project design features. This chapter presents the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives. The effects are discussed in terms of social and environmental changes from the current condition and include qualitative and quantitative assessments, where possible. All discussions are tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) of the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP and the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program. This chapter also incorporates by reference all reports and analyses prepared by resource specialists, which are summarized in this chapter. ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The tables below document the relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that may contribute to cumulative effects for the Johnnie Forest Management Project. Recently, the Council on Environmental Quality issued a memo stating that agencies are not required to “catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions” (CEQ memo, June 24, 2005). Instead, agencies should use scoping to focus on relevant past actions and discuss their relevance in terms of the cause and effect they had on a resource. This direction is followed in this project; the following tables are displayed to summarize information known about the subwatersheds that constitute the planning area.
Table 4. Past Management Activities in the Planning Area Activity Decade Acres/Miles Description and Extent of Activity
Overstory The cutting of trees constituting an upper canopy Removal 1970’s 440 layer to release understory trees. The primary 1980’s 115 source of regeneration is advanced reproduction. Total 555 acres
Clearcut Harvest ~Past, Clearcut harvest that has occurred on private land on Private Land current and 16,383 acres within the project area boundary future Stand Clearcut 1950’s 905 An even-aged regeneration or harvest method that 1960’s 447 removes all trees in the stand producing a fully 1970’s 45 exposed microclimate for the development of a new 1980’s 1387 age class in one entry. Total 2,784 acres
Shelterwood Cut 1970’s 566 A type of cut that removes trees except those 1980’s 850 needed for the purpose of seed production. 1990’s 1,416 acres Prepares the seed bed and creates a new age class Total in a moderated microenvironment. Shelterwood An optional cut to enhance conditions for seed Preparatory cut 1980’s 112 acres production and/or develop windfirmness for a future shelterwood establishment cut.
39 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Activity Decade Acres/Miles Description and Extent of Activity
A type of cut that removes trees except those 1980’s 180 acres needed for the purpose of seed production. Seed-tree Seed Prepares the seed bed and creates a new age class Cut in an exposed microenvironment. A final removal cut that releases established Shelterwood 1980’s 376 acres regeneration from overstory competition after it is no Removal Cut longer needed for shelter under the shelterwood regeneration method. 1970’s 123 An intermediate harvest with the objective of 1980’s 995 reducing stand density primarily to improve growth, Commercial Thin 2000+ 326 enhance forest health, and other resource Total 1,444 acres objectives.
1970’s 1877 An intermediate harvest removing trees which are Salvage Cut 1980’s 295 dead or dying because of injurious agents other 1990’s 105 than competition, to recover economic value that Total 4,108 acres would otherwise be lost.
An intermediate harvest removing trees to improve Sanitation Cut 1970’s 31 acres stand health by stopping or reducing the actual or anticipated spread of insects and disease.
Table 5. Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Planning Area Activity Type Approximate Notes Acres/Miles Noxious Weed Treatment 200+ acres Ongoing treatment of noxious weeds in the watershed Private Land Harvest or 16,383acres It can be assumed that private industrial lands Thinning within the planning area boundary may be subject to harvest at 40 year intervals Road Maintenance 24 miles Ongoing maintenance of road system in the watershed
40 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT Social Environment Economics – Tracked as a disclosure issue The economic analysis focuses on the direct, indirect, and induced costs and benefits of the alternatives and the connected actions described in Chapter 2. Net present value and benefit/cost ratio are the primary criteria used to compare the direct effects of the alternatives to the Federal Government, termed economic efficiency analysis. Impacts to the general economy of the area are modeled using IMPLAN Professional, an input/output model developed by the Forest Service (IMPLAN 2000). The most current IMPLAN data available is 2010. Assumptions regarding the economic analysis are footnoted where appropriate. Most timber sales from the Tiller Ranger District are purchased and operated by individuals and companies based in Douglas County. Total mill capacity in Douglas County in 2003 stood at 760 mmbf/year (Ragon 2003). There have been two permanent mill closings since then: one sawlog mill and one plywood mill. A figure of 700 mmbf is used to estimate the contribution of each alternative towards meeting demand. Final demand is assumed to be wood products ready for shipment at the mill yards. Douglas County Economic Situation Total employment in Douglas County is difficult to quantify exactly, as the Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS), Census Bureau, and IMPLAN use different criteria to measure employment. Because of this, percentages and relative differences are used for analysis where possible instead of absolute numbers. The 2008-2009 recession has impacted the timber industry in the county especially hard. Unemployment in Douglas County rose from 8.3% in January of 2008 to the highest point in May, 2009 at 16.5% (OLMIS 2012). Current unemployment stands at 12.8%. According to OLMIS, the county has lost 582 logging and wood products manufacturing jobs since 2008 through the first half of 2011. In 2010, the logging, forestry and wood products manufacturing sectors provided about 9.1% of Douglas County’s employment, and 28.6% of the overall industrial output, according to the 2010 IMPLAN data. IMPLAN data through 2010 show total employment in Douglas County has declined by 1.8% since 2002, however, the decline is 38% in forestry, logging and wood products manufacturing. The average annual wage paid in the county in 2010 was $30,978, compared to the forestry, logging, and wood products manufacturing average wage of $56,878 based on the 2010 IMPLAN data. Even with the decline, wood products industry employment is a key part of the economy of Douglas County. Economic Efficiency Analysis The direct economic effects of the alternatives are displayed in Table 6. The standard criterion for deciding whether a government program can be justified on economic principles is net present value (NPV) – the discounted1 monetized 2value of expected net benefits (OMB A-94). Forest Service planning costs are not included in the economic efficiency analysis since they are considered sunk (OMB A-94). It is estimated that this project has cost about $256,000 to plan over the last two fiscal years. Based on the expected return to the Federal government shown in Table , the action alternative is below-cost, including Forest Service planning, sale
1 Discounting is the process of calculating the present value of a future amount of money. 4% is the standard discount rate for long-term projects (OMB A-94). 2 Lit. “to give the character of money to.” A cost or benefit is monetized when it is expressed in terms of money. 41 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest preparation, and administration costs. Alternative 1 is considered below-cost since there would be no return to the U.S. Treasury with expenditures for planning. The action alternative would be marketed as at least one individual timber sale. This sale would be offered in a public auction to achieve the highest return possible3. It is anticipated that all post-sale mitigation requirements would be paid for by stumpage4 from the timber sale. The action alternative shows a negative net present value. This alternative would require other sources of funds, other than the timber sale, to completely fund fuels treatment work. However, it is anticipated that the timber sale marketed from this alternative would be viable and would attract competitive bids. Table 6. Economic Efficiency Analysis Alt 2
5 Timber Volume (MBF) 4,302 Acres by Harvest Method Skyline 73 Ground-based 193 Total Acres 266 Commercial Volume (MBF)/Acre 16.2 Total Present Value Benefits
Gross Benefits – Delivered log value $1,737,797 Present Value Costs
FS Prep & Admin $131,288 Logging $1,052,913 Slash Disposal $133,341 Road Work $116,270 Reforestation $0 6 Non-commercial Treatments $129,142 Roadside Fuels Treatments $1,499,279 Total Cost $3,128,593 Net Present Value ($1,390,795) Stumpage (2012 dollars) $480,709 Predicted Stumpage Price/MBF $111.74 7 Potential Return to the Treasury $132,195 8 B/C Ratio 0.56
3 Individual timber sales would be appraised and offered at fair market value, or the minimum to cover reforestation costs and a $0.50/ccf return to the Treasury, whichever is higher. 4 Stumpage is the value of the timber “on the stump.” It is the timber sale contract minimum value and is determined by subtracting logging, road work, and slash disposal costs from the delivered log price. Timber sale purchasers may bid more in a competitive auction. The actual monetary return to the U.S. Treasury is determined by subtracting all post sale costs from the stumpage. 5 MBF is thousand board feet. The Forest Service estimates MBF using east-side Scribner rules, therefore the volume as shown, is higher than if west-side, long log Scribner rules would be applied. 6 $331,000 could be available under Knutson-Vandenberg Act deposits from stumpage to pay part of the non- commercial and roadside treatments that are within commercial timber sale areas. 7 This is calculated to at least cover the requirement for 25% Payments to Counties and 10% Road & Trail Fund. 42 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Log prices fluctuate due to a variety of market forces, many of which are external to Douglas County and Oregon. Typically, log prices are higher in the winter months and lower in the summer/fall, reflecting the availability of logging due to weather. The recent recession and slowdown in nation-wide housing has caused the local log market to fall drastically. Figure displays a composite Douglas-fir log price history ($/mbf) for the local Douglas County market since 1990 using Oregon Department of Forestry log price information (ODF 2012). The data in Table 6 are not adjusted for inflation and are equated to west side long log Scribner scaling rules. The economic efficiency analysis displayed in Table 6 uses average local log prices from the most recent four quarters, adjusted for short log volume. Log prices hit historic lows during the 1st quarter of 2009 and have come up since. The outlook for continued recovery is tenuous, but indications are for housing to slowly improve in mid-2012 and beyond. In the short-term, log prices could fluctuate based on import/export pressure, natural disasters, or general economic trends. If log prices decline, less money would be available for post-sale activities, and the value of the timber could reach a point where an individual sale may not be marketable. A decline in log prices of 26% or more from 2nd quarter, 2012 local prices would likely result in a no-bid sale. It would be speculative to predict the local markets at the time of sale offer or operation.
Average Log Prices
800.00
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
1995 2008 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 3. Average Composite Log Prices, Douglas County Market Area.
Alternative 2 has a positive predicted stumpage price and has the potential to return an estimated $132,195 to the Federal Treasury. This amount would cover the 25% fund payments to counties. Non-Commercial Benefits The costs of the non-commercial and roadside fuels reduction treatments drive the net present value of the project below zero. However, benefits will accrue to the Government and to neighboring private landowners from lower fire risk, better access for firefighters, and better
8 B/C Ratio is the benefit/cost ratio, another standard criterion for economic efficiency. It is the product of the present value of benefits divided by the present value of costs. 43 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest protection of improvements in the short-term (10 years) should a fire occur. A full discussion of fuels and fire effects is included in this chapter. A complete economic analysis of potential benefits (i.e. cost reductions) due to implementing the action alternative requires many assumptions of future fire occurrence and severity resulting in an infinite array of possible outcomes. Therefore, this analysis will describe the average cost of firefighting and loss of timber on the Umpqua in the past decade due to wildfires and the probability of a cost savings on any one acre due to the action alternative. Nationally, recent wildfire suppression costs average about $161 per acre burned. (Stockmann, et al. 2010) In the Pacific Northwest, the average large fire suppression cost from 2000 through 2008 was $277 per acre. (NWCC 2008) In 2010, the average large fire suppression cost in Oregon was $612 per acre. (NWCC 2010) Small fires tend to have higher per acre costs. This analysis will use $600 per acre for direct suppression. Table 7 displays the wildfire details on the Umpqua in the last decade. Table 7. Year # of Fires Acres Average Burned Fire Size (acres) 2002 102 90,829 864 2003 38 1,440 34 2004 27 10 0.4 2005 21 2 0.1 2006 65 79 1.2 2007 54 20 0.4 2008 125 22,128 166 2009 22,274 2010 46 11 0.2 2011 60 2,672 45 Totals 139,465
There have been 12 large fires (or fire complexes) on the Umpqua during the period of 2002 to 2011. These 12 fires account for about 98% of the acres burned. For this 10-year period, an average of 13,947 acres burned per year. Given a forest area of 985,980 acres, there is roughly a 0.0142 probability of any acre on the forest burning in a particular year. Assuming this probability, about 433 acres within the 3,050 acre project area would be likely to burn sometime in the next decade. If we reduced the probability of a large fire in the project area to 0% in the next decade due to the action alternative (best case), the cost savings to the Federal Government for direct suppression action would be about $260,000 (433 acres x $600/acre). Total cost savings could be 2 to 30 times higher if other associated costs such as Burned Area Rehabilitation, habitat loss, and human health costs are included. (Dale 2010) Fire severity assessments from recent large fires on the Umpqua indicate an average of 19.2% of large fires burn with high severity which kills most or all the timber in those areas. Assuming timber is destroyed on 19.2% of the burned acres in a year, and using a conservative volume 44 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest estimate of 35 MBF per acre, approximately 291 MBF of timber is lost to wildfire per year on the Umpqua. Again, if we reduced the probability of a large fire in the project area to 0% in the next decade due to the action alternative, we could expect to save 2.9 MMBF of National Forest timber. In addition, we would eliminate the liability of private timber loss from a fire starting on National Forest and burning onto private timberland. The combined cost and timber value savings of the non-commercial activities in the action alternative using the preceding assumptions is estimated to be at least $584,000 in 2012 dollars. Economic Impact Analysis The economic impact analysis using IMPLAN considers changes in employment and income due to changes in the economic activity of the county from each alternative. An individual timber sale may not substantially change the overall economic activity of the county, since the amount of timber volume represents a small percentage of the total demand. Since 2005, Umpqua National Forest timber volume has been offered at a somewhat consistent level, at about 41 mmbf per year, or 6% of the total mill capacity in Douglas County. Timber sales from the National Forest are viewed as raw material available for the local industry, allowing production and support for jobs in the local economy to be sustained. Local National Forest timber would offset logs imported to the area, potentially reducing overall costs and increasing production. Table 8 displays the results of the economic impact analysis by alternative. In general, the sale of timber from the National Forest would result in sustained or increased employment in the logging and wood products manufacturing sectors, in the forestry services (slash treatment, planting, etc.) and indirect and induced employment in many other sectors. Payments in lieu of taxes due to Douglas County from timber receipts are not included in these figures, as they are accounted for in the return to the Federal Treasury shown in Table 6. Other direct, indirect, and induced benefits are derived from road reconstruction and other connected actions that may be funded by revenue from the timber sales or other funding sources. These work activities are treated as costs in the benefit/cost analysis since they reduce the revenue to the Federal Treasury, but they have economic benefits to the local community since most are contracted services. These benefits are included in the economic impact analysis and in the numbers reported in Table 4. The IMPLAN output files that document the complete analysis by sector are part of the Economic analysis file. The numbers in Table 8 are not intended to be absolute. The analysis should be used to compare the relative differences among alternatives. The percentages listed are percentage of the total Douglas county activity, including all sectors. The value of each activity included in the impact analysis was estimated from the cost and benefit analysis spreadsheets. An estimate was made of the percent of each activity’s value that would be spent locally. The value to the wood products manufacturing sector was estimated to be 40% of the delivered log price, reflecting the difference between end product value and log cost to the mill. This difference can be widely variable based on mill efficiency and the choice of end products, but it approximates the value given for all of Oregon in 1998 (Gebert 2002). The percentage of value assigned to sawlog and veneer production is 95% and 5%, respectively, based on the small average diameter of harvested trees in this commercial thinning.
45 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 8. Economic Impact Analysis Alt 2 Value* % Change in Total Industrial Output 4,786,048 0.2 Change in Employment 49 0.1 Change in Labor Income 2,373,414 0.2
Contribution to local mill capacity 4.3 MMBF 0.6
* Employment is number of jobs. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 is not shown in Table 8 since by definition it would not change the conditions or level of economic activity in the County. This alternative may, however, contribute to a decline in the local timber industry, since it would keep federal timber from the market, at least in the short-term. No attempt was made to quantify that impact, as it would be speculative to estimate the current and reasonably foreseeable timber supply in the local area. Alternative 1 would have no impact on current levels of fire suppression costs. Alternative 2 has a beneficial direct effect to the local economy through employment in logging, milling, and support jobs and the supply of raw materials for manufacturing. These effects are relatively small in terms of the percentage of Douglas County activity in each category. Implementation of this alternative would contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to the local economy. This project, when combined with other federal timber sales from the Umpqua National Forest, would contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect of sustaining the wood products infrastructure in Douglas County.
46 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT The proposed action and its relationship to the aquatic environment were assessed during the scoping process. One comment received during scoping concerned protection of riparian reserves and aquatic resources. This concern was general and not determined to be an issue that would drive an alternative due to the application of no-cut buffers along streams, the low impact associated with second-growth commercial thinning, and the site-specific best management practices and project design features developed to minimize effects to the aquatic environment. The effects related to this concern are disclosed in this aquatic section. This aquatic analysis focuses on how the Johnnie Forest Management Project alternatives affect water quality, riparian and aquatic habitat at various scales. This includes site-specific disclosure at the scale of individual streams or thinning units and at various larger scales including the Middle South Umpqua Watershed9 The compatibility with the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is discussed and the results of watershed analysis are presented. A description of the existing condition of the important physical and biological components of the ACS is discussed, and conclusions are offered regarding how the alternatives move conditions toward desired conditions in terms of all nine ACS objectives which include: 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. 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. 3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. 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. 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. 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. 7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. 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,
9 A “watershed” is a subdivision of land that is based on hydrologic drainage and defined by a national hierarchical system, which delineates hydrologic drainage in nested multi-level subdivisions. The watershed level subdivides the “sub-basin” level (4th level). The 5th level watershed in this situation is Row River which is subdivided by five smaller sub-watersheds (6th level). The sub-watersheds are subdivided by drainages (7th level), which is the smallest hydrologic subdivision. 47 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.
Figure 4. Johnnie Units and Planning Area in relation to the Six Sub-watersheds of the Middle South Umpqua River Watershed The Middle South Umpqua 5th Field Watershed is approximately 98,915 acres. The Johnnie planning area encompasses 17,312 acres within the Deadman, Francis and Dumont Creek 6th Field Sub-watersheds (Figure 5).
48 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Figure 5. Major Streams in and adjacent to Planning Area within Johnnie Sub-watersheds.
BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER To meet the Clean Water Act and standards and guidelines in the Umpqua National Forest Plan (and in compliance with watershed standard and guideline #1), the beneficial uses of water must be identified, and management activities planned, so they would not interfere with or be injurious to the beneficial uses of adjacent and downstream waters. The relevant beneficial uses of the South Umpqua River and its tributaries, as determined by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, are: 1) public and private domestic water supply; 2) industrial water supply; 3) irrigation; 4) livestock watering; 5) resident fish and aquatic life; 6) wildlife and hunting; 7) fishing; 8) water contact recreation; and, 9) aesthetic quality (ODEQ 2003).
49 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
WATER QUALITY
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
The relevant Standards and Guidelines from the Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)(USDA 1990) related to water quality include:
Water quality/riparian area S&G 1: All effective shading vegetation would be maintained on perennial streams unless a site-specific assessment shows that shade removal will not result in water temperature increase or degrade aquatic habitat. Water quality/riparian area S&G 5: Streams would be designated for protection on timber sale maps (e.g. Timber Sale Contract provision B6.5). Water quality/riparian area S&G 12: The application of best management practices (BMPs) for the protection of water quality and beneficial uses (e.g. fish habitat or potable water) would be monitored where ground-disturbing activities occur. Watershed cumulative effects and water quality, S&G 1: The beneficial uses of water must be identified and management activities planned so they would not interfere with or be injurious to the beneficial uses of adjacent and downstream waters. Watershed cumulative effects and water quality S&G 2: Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitats would not be degraded by turbidity, sediment, or scoured stream channels caused by timber harvest, road construction, and related activities.
WATERSHED ANALYSIS (WA) RECOMMENDATIONS Deadman and Dumont Creeks are listed as water quality limited for temperature on the 303 (d) list (ODEQ 1998) Additional monitoring completed in 1992 and 1996 indicates that Francis, East Fork Deadman, Middle Fork Deadman, and West Fork Deadman Creeks will likely be listed as water quality limited in the future (see pages 52, 53). Canopy cover should be maintained or improved in perennial streams throughout the basin to reduce water temperatures and perpetuate salmonid habitat. Harvesting in Class I, II, and III Riparian Reserves should only occur to meet site specific riparian objectives (Deadman/Francis Creeks Watershed Analysis, USDA 1997a)
NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN TEMPERATURE DIRECTION The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies were revised in 2010 (USDA/USDI 2010). Specific treatment and buffer recommendations are based on balancing restorative thinning with retention of primary shade to minimize effects to stream temperature. According to this strategy, the primary shade zone is the strip of trees along a stream that provides shade to the water between 1000 and 1400 hours during a summer day. This is the most effective shade for protecting water from temperature increases. Guidelines to protect stream temperature specify primary shade zone widths determined by tree height and slope. When these guidelines are followed, sufficient stream temperature protection is assured. Perennial stream buffers in the Johnnie units would be 85 feet either side of the stream, or where inner gorge slope breaks or instability occur they would be wider to protect these areas. Intermittent stream buffers would be 25 feet wide, or wider to protect unstable areas or inner gorges.
50 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Fish Bearing Subwatershed Name Total Area Approximate Acres of % Forest Service Stream th (Acres) Proposed Treatment (6 level) (Miles)
Deadman 18,677 41 12 (Commercial) 11.5 362 (Pre-commercial) 345 (Fuelbreak)
Dumont 19,835 99 33 (Commercial) 21.0 13 (Pre-commercial) 650 (Fuelbreak)
Francis 12,725 72 219 (Commercial) 9.2 166 (Pre-commercial) 1195 (Fuelbreak)
Totals 51,237 -- 264 (Commercial) 41.7 541 (Pre-commercial) 2190 (Fuelbreak)
Table 9. Summary of the 6th Field Sub-watersheds
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS A combination of naturally occurring hydrologic conditions and past management practices have resulted in elevated summer temperatures in the many streams in the planning area. Early studies with small streams in western Oregon found that solar radiation was the primary source of energy causing summertime water temperature increase when streamside vegetation was removed. Removal of stream shade during timber harvest was a common practice from initial entry into the watersheds in the 1940’s through the early 1980’s on Forest Service administered lands and has contributed to increased stream temperatures. Natural and management-caused flooding and debris torrents also contributed to the loss of stream shade and wider channels. In the early 1980’s riparian buffers were utilized; however these buffers were not always adequate for maintaining stream shade. Only after the Northwest Forest Plan was implemented in 1994 was shade and other riparian dependent functions consistently addressed through maintaining or enhancing riparian reserves along streams. Low base flows typical of the Western Cascades also contribute to conditions which result in relatively high, naturally occurring summer stream temperatures within the planning area. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) water quality standards are applied to protect the most sensitive beneficial uses in a waterbody. Salmonids and other cold water species that inhabit most streams in the South Umpqua River are considered the beneficial uses most sensitive to stream temperatures. Numeric criteria in the temperature standard were developed to protect different aspects of the life histories of salmon and trout such as spawning and rearing. Criteria were also developed for critical habitat areas that serve as the core for salmonid protection and restoration efforts. This biologically-based criterion requires that the seven-day moving average of the daily maximum temperature shall not exceed 60.8°F (16°C) year-round for the protection of salmonid and resident fisheries in core cold-water habitat and pertains to entire Middle South Umpqua watershed. The criteria for waters designated as salmon and trout rearing is 64.4°F (18°C).
51 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
ODEQ has identified water quality limited streams throughout the State of Oregon, as required by the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) (ODEQ 1998). Most of the planning area exceeds the core cold water habitat criteria at measured sites. Portions of Dumont Creek exceed the salmon and steelhead spawning criteria (Table 10). Several portions of the South Umpqua River are also listed for exceeding the pH criteria. The Umpqua Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was approved in 2007(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2006). For stream temperature, no increase was allocated. Modeling for stream temperature in the South Umpqua River through the Planning Area indicated that the existing shade is near its natural potential and temperature exceeds the numeric criteria due to channel width and low potential effective shade levels (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2006); however, these results do not take into account past anthropogenic effects on floodplain connectivity, channel complexity, large woody debris and other factors. Three permanent summer temperature monitoring sites are established at the mouths of Dumont and Deadman Creeks and the South Umpqua at Tiller; additional sites occasionally monitored are established at the mouths of Francis and Budd Creeks Seven-day average maximum temperatures for these sites as well as years of record are shown in Table 11.
Table 10. Water Quality 303(d) Listings in the Johnnie Sub-watersheds
Waterbody Name River Mile Parameter Season Temperature South Umpqua River 57.7 to 102 All year Core Cold Water South Umpqua River 57.7 to 102 pH Summer
South Umpqua River 80 to 102 Sedimentation All year Temperature Deadman Creek 0 to 4.9 All year Core Cold Water Temperature Dumont Creek 0 to 2.9 All year Core Cold Water And Spawning 1/1 to 6/15 Temperature East Fork Deadman Creek 0 to 5.8 All year Core Cold Water Temperature Francis Creek 0 to 3.7 All year Core Cold Water
The South Umpqua River has also been listed for violation of summer pH standards. Most of the pH data from the South Umpqua above Elk, and Jackson Creek has been collected during the summer months when the maximum pH is likely to occur as a result of conditions conducive to periphyton growth. Such conditions include increased solar radiation and steam temperature, and decreased stream velocity and depth. During cooler, higher flow conditions, pH concentrations will generally be lower than during summer low flow. In addition, in the fall- winter-spring, flows are dominated by rain water which has a lower pH. PH values greater than the criteria likely occurred under natural conditions; however, they are exacerbated by the removal of riparian shade. The removal of riparian shade causes warmer stream temperatures and increased solar radiation reaching the stream. Both of these factors lead to increases in attached algae (periphyton) growth. Algae photosynthesis and respiration cause daily swings in pH and DO levels. DO values do not appear to exceed the numeric criteria, however temperature improvements will also improve DO concentrations. Nutrients also encourage the growth of algae; however, only natural sources of nutrients were identified (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2006).
52 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 11. Summer water temperature monitoring sites and 7-day average maximum temperatures for streams downstream from Johnnie Units.
7-day average maximum Total years Stream Name Years monitored temperature (° farenheit) monitored
South Umpqua at Tiller 82.6 1980,1988, 1990-1998, 22 2000, 2002-2011
Deadman Creek 75.0 1996-1998, 2000-2011 15
Dumont Creek 75.4 1978-1979, 1981-1998, 31 2000, 2002-2011
Francis Creek 66.7 1996, 2011 2
Budd Creek 64.8 2004-2008 5
An additional water quality parameter that is included in DEQs 303(d) list and downstream (of the planning area is sedimentation in the South Umpqua River above river mile 80. The TMDL discusses this listing in its Overview and Background section (ODEQ, 2006). “DEQ is considering revising the criteria for determination of water quality parameter impairment related to sedimentation. Currently, sedimentation lacks quantitative listing criteria. A quantitative approach using relative bed stability will probably be proposed. To evaluate the fine sediment impacts on stream biota/spawning potential for the remaining three listed reaches of Jackson Creek, Beaver Creek and South Umpqua River additional data would have to be collected if using the relative bed stability approach. Until such data is collected it is suggested to place the remaining listings in a status of “concern” or insufficient data and the work to develop TMDLs for the remaining three listings will be placed on hold until criteria are selected and additional data is collected.” (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2006). The NWFP provides for long-term maintenance of water quality in conjunction with allowing vegetative treatment necessary or desirable to restore ecological health in riparian areas that have been previously harvested or affected by fire exclusion or other disturbance. The Forest Service and BLM sought concurrence with ODEQ that the practices and Standards and Guidelines identified in the NWFP are sufficient for protecting and restoring stream temperatures. Working cooperatively these agencies developed a streamlined approach that meets ODEQ’s expectations for stream temperature compliance under the Clean Water Act (USDA/USDI 2010). This methodology recognizes that thinning prescriptions that are protective of vegetation, that produce shade during the period of greatest solar radiation, and that limit the loss of vegetation that produce shade during the rest of the day, will ensure benefits for effective shade over the long-term. It also recognizes that thinning outside the primary shade zone10 can benefit effective shade over the long-term within overstocked stands by accelerating tree growth. The desired condition is the maintenance of water quality in keeping with ACS objective #4, while providing for increased fire resiliency and reduced wildfire hazard in treated areas.
10 The primary shade zone consists of the trees that intercept solar radiation during the hottest portion of the day and year. The primary shade zone can vary from 12 to 85 feet depending on slope and tree height. 53 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects in the context of water quality are those that would occur in planning area streams. Direct effects are triggered immediately as a result of the Johnnie alternatives. Indirect effects are those that could occur later in time or downstream of the action at the drainage or larger scale. Alternative 1 would result in no direct or indirect effects to water quality from thinning, since no riparian trees would be cut along any perennial streams that could affect stream shade and influence stream temperature, sediment delivery or pH. However, crowded continuous canopy stand conditions would increase the risk of sustained crown fire across the planning area; this could result in increased stream temperature due to canopy loss, and increased delivery of sediment to streams from such high severity fire. Thinning trees under Alternative 2 would not have a direct or indirect effect on stream temperature or pH. The silvicultural prescription requires the retention of a no-harvest buffer on all perennial streams. The action alternative would thin within riparian reserves, but effective shade along perennial streams would be retained. Thus, no measurable increase in stream temperature or pH due to riparian shade removal is anticipated under this alternative in any streams within or downstream of the planning area due to riparian thinning. The treatment would benefit stand development by reducing stand density and accelerating the development of large trees. Water quality standard and guideline #1 and recommendations in the watershed analysis would be met. Streams within and adjacent to thinning units would be identified with applicable protection meeting water quality standard and guideline #5. While clear-cut harvesting can release nitrogen that can leach to adjacent surface waters during runoff periods (Brown, Gahler and Marston 1973, Sollins et al. 1980, Sollins and McCorison 1981, Harr and Fredricksen 1988) (MacDonald, Smart and Wissmar 1991, Beschta et al. 1995), thinning treatments such as those proposed by this project typically do not result in nitrogen delivery to streams. Nitrogen leaching to surface water is directly proportional to the size (clear- cut versus thinning and small gaps) of created openings (Prescott 2002, Lindo and Visser 2003). Harvesting the same proportion of trees as single trees reduces the likelihood of nitrogen losses to the soil and potentially to the local streams. Release of nitrogen associated with fuels burning in the action alternative, would probably elevate mobile nitrogen at the site scale in the surface soil, but not deliver additional nitrogen to streams. This is because of the limited amount of released nitrogen, which would be utilized onsite in the soil by microbial activity or taken up and used by the residual trees (MacDonald et al. 1991). Therefore, nutrient levels in the streams near harvest units and further downstream would likely remain the same as before treatment under the action alternative. Road reconstruction under Alternative 2 includes gravelling, ditch-cleaning, culvert additions and replacements and road reshaping. Only two stream-crossing sites are proposed: a culvert would be added to a small intermittent stream on the 2810 road where the water currently drains down ditchline and another on a small intermittent stream on the 2810-200 would be replaced due to damage. If KV funding allows, work done at the end of the 2800-300 road would correct the diversion of a stream, through the addition of a culvert or recontouring the road. Currently half this streams’ flow is diverted to a ditch relief culvert where it is creating a gully connected to the natural stream. This in-channel work would cause direct and indirect turbidity effects. A total of approximately 1600 feet of existing abandoned non-system roads would be reconstructed as temporary roads then obliterated after use. Another 325’ of existing non-system road would be used then obliterated; none of these roads cross stream channels. The use of Best Management Practices and project design features (see Chapter Two) for all in- stream work, including timing of in-stream work and erosion control measures, would minimize effects at the immediate work site and downstream through the first winter season. The action alternative would cause in-stream work induced turbid water with potential sediment bearing 54 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest nutrient release. This direct effect would be short-term and mitigated from carrying downstream through the BMPs and project design features. Direct and indirect effects (turbid water and nutrient release) in response to rain and runoff would be short-term (one season) during the wet season and difficult to discern from background runoff turbidity. These effects would not be expected as project design features (erosion control) become effective with time (by the second season). The Best Management Practices (see Chapter Two) identify the Umpqua Road Rules, which call for suspending work when either road or environmental damage such as stream turbidity is predicted. The implementation of the Road Rules would reduce direct and indirect effects to water quality. A best management practices (BMPs) checklist applicable to the disturbances and for the protection of water quality and beneficial uses would be used. The purpose of the checklist is to identify roles and responsibilities for tracking BMPs through time to insure that these measures would be included in the various contracts and implemented on the ground. The development and subsequent use of the BMP checklist meets water quality standard and guideline #12. The fuels treatments for Alternative 2 that would have the potential to affect water quality are pile burning in the commercial and precommercial units and the fuelbreak. The burning of concentrated fuels tends to disturb the soil’s duff layer, exposing soil to erosion. The project design features that implement the burning of slash during moist conditions, and guides the placement and size of piles, including minimum distance from stream channels, would help retain effective ground cover and reduce the risk of effects to water quality.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Past harvesting of perennial stream shade occurred throughout the Middle South Umpqua Watershed up until about the early 1990’s. This loss of stream shade contributed to elevated stream temperatures in planning area streams. However, areas harvested prior to the mid 1980’s are now providing stream shade (Holaday 1992). Alternative 1 would result in no direct or indirect effects to water temperature, or turbidity that would incrementally add to possible downstream heating or stream turbidity due to past, present or reasonably foreseeable future disturbance, however the risk of a wildfire which could remove canopy and increase sediment delivery to streams is greater under this alternative. Alternative 2 would protect the effective shade along perennial streams to avoid stream temperature increases. The action alternative would cause short term direct and indirect turbidity effects from in-stream work. However, these effects would likely be negligible at the subwatershed scale; as such, the spatial and temporal extent and magnitude of these effects would not incrementally add to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable effects. Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitats would not be degraded by turbidity, sediment, or scoured stream channels caused by timber harvest, road construction, and related activities. Watershed cumulative effects and water quality standard and guideline #2 would be met. Therefore, no cumulative temperature or turbidity effect would result from the action alternative.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY As disclosed above in this water quality section, no prolonged or adverse effects to water quality or the associated beneficial uses of water are expected from any of the proposed activities in the action alternative including those actions occurring in the riparian reserve land allocation. As such, the long-term trend of improving water quality in the subwatershed would not be set back; water quality in planning area streams would continue to support riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems consistent with ACS objective #4. Since the action alternative applies all relevant standards and guidelines, and since they were developed to restore riparian ecosystem 55 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest health at the stream reach and landscape scale, they are also in keeping with the overarching intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA/USDI 1994).
STREAM FLOWS
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The relevant standards and guidelines from the Umpqua LRMP related to streamflow include: Watershed cumulative effects and water quality, S&G 2: Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitats would not be degraded by turbidity, sediment, or scoured stream channels caused by timber harvest, road construction, and related activities. Watershed cumulative effects and water quality, S&G 4: Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitat (water quality) would not be degraded by increased peak flows caused by canopy removal from timber harvest, road construction, and related activities.
WATERSHED ANALYSIS (WA) RECOMMENDATIONS . Road densities are very high throughout the watershed, so new road construction should be limited and there should be no net increase in road density. Dose and Roper (1994) showed that when road densities exceeded roughly 1.24 km/sq. km.(2 mi./sq.mi.), signs of degradation become noticeable. Opportunities to obliterate roads after timber harvest should be examined. (USDA 1997a)
EXISTING CONDITIONS The stream flow regime of the Johnnie Planning Area is influenced by Western Cascades geology. The Western Cascades stream flow regime responds rapidly during winter runoff events. This regime has large annual flow fluctuations with large differences between summer low flow and winter high flow. In general, the stream flow record from the gauging station on the South Umpqua River at Tiller, downstream of the planning area (about 11 stream miles) reveals that winter flow responds quickly to storm precipitation with rapid runoff, in sharp contrast to summer flows that are very low. Approximately 71% of the planning area is within the transient snow zone (2,000 to 5,000 feet in elevation) where winter peak flows are an important fluvial process. In this zone, warm rain can follow a colder snow storm causing rapid snowmelt. Studies in the Upper Willamette sub-basin 88% of floods with a return period of greater than six years were associated with rain-on-snow events (Harr 1979, Christner 1981). Sizeable canopy openings can result in greater snow accumulation and more rapid snowmelt compared to locations lacking large canopy openings. The forest canopy has a major influence on snow accumulation, distribution, and melting rates. The Umpqua Forest Plan requires an analysis of forest canopy conditions (standard and guideline #4, listed above). The hydrologic recovery percentage (HRP) was used to estimate the hydrologic recovery of the forest canopy at the drainage, subwatershed, and watershed scales. An area is considered fully recovered when the canopy closure is 75% and the average tree diameter is eight inches (USDA 1990b). The hydrologic recovery level represents an area compilation of forest canopy re-development following disturbance. It also represents the potential influence on the stream flow and stream channel effects from floods. A hydrologic recovery of 75% or greater would maintain current peak flows and avoid an adverse change to physical channel condition and associated factors such as water quality and fish habitat. Statistically discernible increases in peak flows have occurred when greater than 25% of smaller drainages have been harvested (loss of canopy) and included roads; that is, the hydrologic recovery was less than 75% (Jones and Grant 1996, Thomas and Megahan 1998). Conditions
56 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest below the 75% hydrologic recovery value (i.e., lower levels of hydrologic recovery) need further evaluation for potential peak flow cumulative effects from rapid snowmelt during rain-on-snow storms (following standard and guideline #4). The existing conditions of the hydrologic recovery levels for the catchments (7th field watersheds) associated with the Johnnie planning area are currently all above 75%, the threshold of concern. Current hydrologic levels are displayed in Table 9. Hydrologic recovery for catchments within the planning area was determined using GIS activity layers. Current and past aerial photos were used to assess existing conditions on private land. A site class IV was used to calculate percent recovery. Some studies have proposed that forest roads on steep slopes may intercept subsurface flow and hasten its arrival as surface flow to stream channels (Wemple, Jones and Grant 1996, montgomery 1994). A recent study found that in seven of eight small catchments studied (25- 625 acres) the subsurface flow interception effect by roads produced moderate (13-36%) increases of large (>1 return period) peak discharge events and increases persisted for decades (Jones 2000). The planning area is composed of many smaller catchments of this size range that contribute to larger drainages. Interception of ground water at road-cuts and the extension of the channel network through the road ditches with too few relief culverts can potentially alter the timing of water delivery to the stream network. Road ditches draining into a stream and culverts with gullies below that connect directly to a stream channel can extend the stream network (Wemple et al. 1996). There are many stream crossing culverts that are connected to ditches greater than 300 feet within the planning area. The desired condition is the protection of flow regimes in keeping with ACS objective 6, while providing for increased fire resiliency and reduced wildfire hazard in treated areas.
INDIRECT EFFECTS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Peak flows represent an indirect effect rather than a direct small-scale effect. The Forest Plan identified an analysis area between 1,000 and 5,000 acres to evaluate potential peak flow response. Only downstream indirect effects and cumulative effects are discussed for the peak flow analysis. Alternative 1 would not reduce canopy cover from thinning; therefore, no change in hydrologic recovery would occur that would potentially increase peak flow. However, crowded continuous canopy stand conditions would increase the risk of sustained crown fire across the planning area; this could result in increased peak flow due to canopy loss. No new culverts would be installed, and no non-system roads would be obliterated, so no reduction in peak flow effects from these actions would be realized. The overall hydrologic recovery analysis of snow accumulation and melt utilized research that was done on the Umpqua and Gifford Pinchot National Forests. This research indicated that a shelterwood canopy, which provides about 15% canopy closure, can allow about 60% greater snowpack runoff than mature forest at the site scale (Storck, Kern and Bolton 1999). The proposed silviculture treatments would increase the potential for snow accumulation in the thinned areas. Leave trees in thinned areas would break up the flow of the warm wind across snow pack and substantially mitigate the rapid snow melt process. The analysis for the action alternative assumed an average of 30% hydrologically recovered for the proposed commercial units (which will retain 44% to 63% canopy cover), 50% recovered for pre-commercial units, and 60% recovered for fuelbreaks. These very conservative assumptions allowed for a margin of safety in the analysis that addresses scale and treatment differences between the original study and this project.
57 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Conservative estimates of potential canopy removal on private land were also used in the analysis; if any private industrial timber land appeared close to harvestable size, it was assumed 0% recovered. In Lower Deadman catchment, the combined BLM and private land was assumed an average of 25% canopy cover, based on aerial photo images. The proposed silvicultural treatments would maintain the HRP well above the level of concern for catchments where significant treatment is planned (Table 12). Therefore, Alternative 2 would not reduce canopy cover to a level that would cause an indirect peak flow response at the catchment scale or that would be detectable at the subwatershed or watershed scales. The hydrologic recovery would maintain current peak flows and avoid adverse change to physical channel conditions and associated factors such as water quality and fish habitat (consistent with S&G 2 and S&G 4, listed above). No cumulative peak flow effect is expected under the action alternative when considering past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities.
Table 12. Existing and proposed action hydrologic recovery
Alternative 1 7th Field Catchments Alternative 2 (Existing Conditions)
East Fork Deadman 93% 88%
Lower Dumont 96% 90%
Sam 80% 75%
Francis 84% 83%
Straight 97% 95%
Lower Deadman 77% 76%
No new roads would be built that would add to stream extension effects on flow timing. The addition of five new culverts and the subsoiling of 1925’ of existing compacted non-system roads would slightly reduce past management impacts on peak flows.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY As disclosed above in this stream flow section, no effects to flow regimes or the associated beneficial uses of water are expected from any of the proposed activities in the action alternative including those actions occurring in riparian reserves. As such, the timing, magnitude, and duration of peak, high, and low flows are protected under the action alternative, consistent with ACS objective #6. Since the action alternative applies all relevant standards and guidelines, and since they were developed to restore riparian ecosystem health at the stream reach and landscape scale, they are also in keeping with the overarching intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA/USDI 1994).
RIPARIAN RESERVES The riparian reserve land allocation was established in the Northwest Forest Plan as part of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA/USDI 1994). This riparian reserve analysis is based on the guidance in the Northwest Forest Plan which, in general, is defined for this analysis as one site potential tree height on non-fish bearing streams (either perennial or intermittent) and two
58 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest site potential tree heights on fish bearing streams. No changes to these guidelines were made with any of the Watershed Analyses covering the planning area. A site potential tree height is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees, at 200 years or older, for a given area. The height of site potential trees in Analysis Area is 170 feet. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. This strategy is based, in part, on natural disturbance processes. Proposed riparian actions are assessed in relation to the watershed’s existing condition and any short or long-term effects to such conditions.
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas (as per the 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP) and Riparian Reserves (as per the1994 Northwest Forest Plans) specifically related to the Johnnie project include: Umpqua LRMP C-2-VIII, IX, X: Prohibit timber harvest and site preparation…except to meet riparian objectives. Yarding corridors are permitted at designated locations with full log suspension over the streambank and protected vegetation. Corridors must minimize disturbance to riparian vegetation and meet riparian objectives. Incorporate activities that minimize both prescribed fire and wildfire damage to riparian vegetation. Northwest Forest Plan TM-1 (c): Prohibit timber harvest except where silvicultural practices are applied to control stocking, to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Northwest Forest Plan FM-1: Design fuel treatment to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuels management could be damaging to long-term ecosystem function.
WATERSHED ANALYSIS (WA) AND NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS . Vegetation manipulation within the Riparian Reserves of intermittent streams (Class IV) is acceptable….where the objective is to meet a specific riparian zone objective, that objective will drive the silvicultural prescription (Deadman/Francis Watershed Analysis, USDA 1997a; Buckeye/Zinc Watershed Analysis, USDA 1996) Silvicultural prescriptions should meet management objectives within the context of site conditions and historic fire processes. However, deviation from this generality is acceptable in order to retain the stand- and landscape level complexity. Generally, stands should be restored to species composition and structure that is more sustainable and typical of native forests prior to fire suppression. (USDA 1997a) Second growth stands, plantations, and selectively harvested stands are over represented on the landscape. They have a narrow silvicultural treatment window and should be treated in order to meet stand structure and composition objectives and avoid undesirable mortality. However, some dense stands and patches within stands should be retained across the landscape in order to retain diverse habitats. (USDA 1997a) Objectives for riparian vegetation restoration are provided by the FSEIS (USDA/USDI 1994) and the desired future conditions. The FSEIS includes two objectives particularly relevant to silvicultural practices: 1. Restoring the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel
59 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. 2. Habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species These objectives can be met by using silvicultural practices that increase tree diameter growth rates, increase diversity of trees, shrubs and herbs in both the understory and overstory, and concentrate tree mortality in specific tree sizes and stand areas. (USDA 1995)
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITION About 25% of the three Johnnie sub-watersheds within Tiller Ranger District boundary are in the Riparian Reserve land allocation. On Forest Service land, about 24% of the Riparian Reserve has been previously clearcut, and another 1% is occupied by permanent roads; an unknown percent has been previously harvested by non-regeneration methods, but the Deadman-Francis Watershed Analysis estimated that 58% of mapped Riparian Reserve was altered by road construction or timber harvest activities. On private land these percentages are much higher. Establishment and stem exclusion stages of stand development are more prevalent within Riparian Reserves than they historically were, and late successional are less so (USDA 1997a, USDA 1995) All proposed commercial and pre-commercial thinning units were previously regeneration harvested, are under 80 years of age, and are in the stem exclusion stage. If left untreated, many stands are on a track to develop as closed, homogeneous stands that do not represent desired conditions for either the matrix or riparian reserve land allocations. Roads in riparian areas have the potential to limit shade and reduce the deposition of large wood and debris to streams and riparian areas. The Johnnie sub-watersheds have approximately 43 miles of system roads within riparian reserves, and a total road density averaging about 3.2 miles per square mile. In the Johnnie planning area there are many more miles of abandoned roads within or leading to historic logging units. These dead-end roads were built in the 1950’s and 1960’s to haul logs out of the original clearcuts. These roads are referred to as non-system roads by the Forest Service because they were built and left after logging and never evaluated as part of the long-term road system. Under today’s practices, many of the abandoned roads in the Johnnie units would have qualified as temporary roads that would have been obliterated following logging use. A few of the abandoned roads located on slopes and lacked surface rock had long-term erosion problems that continue today. The desired condition for second-growth riparian reserves is a decrease in riparian area occupied by permanent roads, increased species and structural diversity, and lower risk of stand replacement fire in keeping with ACS objectives 2, 3, 8, and 9.
Proposed Riparian Forest Treatments The action alternative would apply thinning to riparian reserves using various logging methods and activity fuel reduction techniques as described in Table 13. The riparian reserve thinning prescriptions would be the same as in the adjacent matrix land, which involves thinning the smaller and mid-sized trees as detailed in the alternative descriptions in Chapter Two, and in the Silvicultural report. The riparian reserve thinning would retain no-harvest buffers along all stream channels to ensure that harvest activity would not disturb stream banks or beds. Less than 1% of the Forest Service Riparian Reserve within the three sub-watersheds would be thinned.
60 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Road work in the riparian reserve would be necessary in order to access the stands for thinning and log haul (Table 14). No new permanent roads would be constructed within or outside of riparian reserves. No temporary roads would be created or used in the riparian reserves or cross any stream channels. Two landings would be constructed within riparian reserves, one in the outer edge of the reserve in unit 228 and the other in unit 34. Both would be constructed along existing system roads and could be sub-soiled, mulched and/or seeded after use. DIRECT EFFECTS The direct effects to riparian reserve forest conditions are defined as those occurring within the confines of the riparian reserve over the course of one to two decades following implementation. Alternative 1 has no ground disturbing activities in riparian reserves, and as such, has no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to riparian reserves. Over the long-term, however, riparian conditions could potentially degrade as a result of Alternative 1 if the area experienced a stand replacement wildfire in large portions of the planning area. In this case, vegetation could be greatly reduced, which could reduce habitat for riparian species and change microclimate conditions. There is a higher likelihood of such a crown type wildfire in the planning area under Alternative 1 than under the action alternative due to higher fuel levels. The thinning under the action alternative would reduce canopy cover to 44% - 63%. These reductions in canopy would allow more light penetration, resulting in warmer and dryer riparian forest conditions compared to Alternative 1, although no-cut buffers on all streams and wetlands would reduce this effect. This opening of canopy would also stimulate understory growth, leading to more diverse structure and age components in the longer term. The thinning under the action alternative would also lower the rate of litter input to the riparian forest floor which represents important nutrient cycling and food bases for riparian organisms. This thinning effect may lower local populations of riparian dependent organisms. Such effects would gradually subside as canopy closure returns over time. Chan et al. (2006) reported that percent skylight through the canopy following a variety of thinning treatments rapidly decreased by an average of 2% per year in the Oregon coast range as the crowns of leave trees and understory vegetation respond to the thinning with rapid growth. The canopy of residual leave trees would gradually fill in, reaching pre-existing conditions within one or two decades. Thinning would lower the risk of canopy-reducing stand replacing fires within these riparian reserves. In contrast under Alternative 1, the absence of disturbance would maintain the stem exclusion stage and delay the development of late successional stand structures for many decades (Anderson et al., 2005). The logging in riparian reserves would also create soil disturbance resulting in a loss of site productivity and habitat modification, and the construction of 2 landings would result in soil disturbance and small gaps created. Post-treatment monitoring of timber sales has revealed that the amount of disturbed soil varies by logging system with skyline logging typically disturbing less than 4% of the surface of a given harvest unit and ground-based logging disturbing about 10% of the surface of a harvest unit (USDA 1997b). Ground based logging is higher due to the use of skid trails. Project design features developed to minimize effects from ground based logging include reusing existing skid trails, limiting spacing between trails, restricting equipment entry to no closer than 50 feet from stream channels and subsoiling skid trails and landings, and adding slash after use. These measures, detailed at the end of Chapter Two, lower the extent and intensity of the effects disclosed above.
61 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 13. Summary of Proposed Treatments in Riparian Reserves
Actions Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Thinning in Riparian Reserves
Commercial Thinning 0 26 acres
Precommercial Thinning 0 118 acres
Fuel treatments in Riparian Reserves
Machine pile 0 13 acres (all ground based logging acres in units 1,13, 34, 35, 36,103,161,166,168,174,228)
Hand pile and burn 0 118 acres (precommercial units)
Roadside Fuelbreak 0 367 acres (Combination of handpiling, Handpile Burning)
Total RR fuel treatment 511 acres
Logging Systems in Riparian Reserves
Skyline 0 13 acres
Ground Based 0 13 acres
Table 14. Summary of Road and Landing Actions within Riparian Reserves
Road Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2
New permanent roads 0 0
New temporary roads (constructed and obliterated following use) 0 0
Landings constructed 0 2
The fuel treatments that apply fire to concentrated slash piles (machine and hand piles) could result in direct effects to riparian reserves in terms of site productivity and bare soil exposure. Such concentrated pile burning typically removes the soil and duff, where mineral soil can be exposed and small, low mobility organisms can be killed. Since machine piles typically cover up to 5% of a treatment area, the 13 acres of machine piling and burning under Alternative 2 could result in hot burns on an estimated 0.65 acres. Likewise, the handpile burning prescribed for 118 acres may result in about 3% of the acres burned (approximately 6 acres) where site productivity would be negatively affected. These 6 acres represents <0.001% of Riparian Reserve in the three Johnnie sub-watersheds. 62 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Under Alternative 1, no soil disturbance or vegetation removal from logging or activity fuel burning would occur, no bare soil would be exposed, and no productivity losses would occur in riparian reserves. In summary, several types of direct adverse effects to riparian forest conditions can be expected to occur under the action alternative. The magnitude of these effects at the site-scale in relation to the planning area and the broader subwatershed scale are inconsequential. This is because both the extent of the reduced soil productivity and the effected area (as described above) are predicted to be low both in size and duration.
INDIRECT EFFECTS The indirect effects to riparian reserve forests are defined for this analysis as those that would occur within the riparian reserves of the Johnnie activity units over the long-term (greater than two decades). Thinning under the action alternative would reduce snag and down wood recruitment rates compared to Alternative 1 by removing trees that would otherwise die from suppression mortality. The loss of suppression mortality associated with the thinning in riparian reserves would affect trees ranging in size from seven inches up to trees greater than 18 inches in some stands. Since suppression mortality typically kills smaller, suppressed trees rather than the larger dominant trees, the majority of the recruitment loss associated with the action alternative would be from smaller-sized trees. Most of the wood that naturally recruits to streams comes from within the first 65 feet of the stream (Murphy and Koski 1989, McDade et al. 1990). Therefore little wood recruitment would be lost along perennial streams since they are buffered 85 feet. The 25 foot no-cut buffers on intermittent streams would result in loss of snags and channel wood in the areas thinned along them; riparian reserves thinned along intermittent streams amounts to 12 acres. The effects of this snag and down wood recruitment loss include the loss of habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species that depend on these habitat structures. Though some habitats and habitat quality would be diminished, the small scattered extent of the thinning is not expected to result in riparian species population declines. In the context of the riparian reserve network at the subwatershed level, this amount is inconsequential. The action alternative would result in long-term beneficial effects to riparian forest structure and composition; development of late-successional conditions would occur sooner than in Alternative 1. As such, under the action alternative, standard and guideline TM-1(c) would be met. The silvicultural practices applied to control stocking in the riparian reserve contribute to meeting the objectives for desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Alternative 1 is less likely to achieve the desired conditions of increased species and structural diversity or the acceleration of late-successional stand characteristics for riparian reserves of treated stands, within the next several decades; rather these stands will retain their dense homogenous character for much longer. At the scale of the planning area riparian reserve network and the fifth field level Middle South Umpqua watershed, all the above indirect effects of habitat changes in the riparian reserves would not be measurable. Since the indirect effects exhibit a very low magnitude at the scale of the planning area, they would be substantially diluted at these larger scales.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects are discussed with Stream Channels on page 66. 63 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
STREAM CHANNELS Streams in the planning area are primarily affected by roads that cross them or that exist near them, by the age of the adjacent forest that provides bank stability and large wood input, and by the effects of disturbance such as floods and fire. The impact to streams from the various forms of road work is disclosed in this section.
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Relative standards and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan include: RF-2a: For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by minimizing road and landing locations in riparian reserves. RF-2e: For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives by minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of stream flow and interception of surface and subsurface flow. RF-3: Determine the influence of each road on the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives through watershed analysis. RF-3a: Meet ACS objectives by reconstructing roads and associated drainage features that pose a substantial risk. RF-3c: Meet ACS objectives by closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing roads based on the ongoing and potential effects considering short-term and long-term transportation needs.
WATERSHED ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS . Channel extension occurs across the landscape in the Deadman/Francis watershed. Channel extension can be reduced by adding culverts, drain dips, and other drainage structures to existing roads which helps to interrupt the direct stream extension by dispersing the water on the hillside at desired locations rather than concentrating it into existing streams. Obliterating roads will reduce road densities and decrease channel extension. (USDA 1997a)
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS Past management practices such as clearcutting forests, building roads and removing large down wood from stream channels have impacted stream channels by reducing channel complexity, changing channel morphology and limiting aquatic habitat. The streams in the proposed planning units tend to be first to third order high gradient channels. Riparian trees and down woody debris tend to help stabilize these channels. Road densities are high throughout the planning area. Runoff from roads connected to streams can be a source of fine sedimentation to stream channels, and interception and re-routing of subsurface water by roads can affect the timing and magnitude of streamflow. This is particularly of concern for valley bottoms and mid-slope roads that cross several stream channels. Roads also pose risks to the aquatic ecosystem by producing sediment to streams when culvert hydraulic capacity is exceeded. Culvert failure often results in a washout of the crossing; fill is eroded or the flow diverts down the road’s ditch. During the development of the Johnnie roads analysis (see Roads section of this chapter), stream crossings were inventoried in order to prioritize high-risk sites for failure and address standard and guideline RF-2e. The Roads Analysis satisfied standard and guideline RF-3 by assessing the influence of each road on the
64 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Five new culverts would be added and 9 more would be replaced to reduce concentration of water, reduce risk of culvert failure or re-route water to more stable areas. Only two of these culverts are stream-crossings, both on small intermittent streams. Desired conditions for stream channels in the planning area include: 1) decreased risk of road- related stream diversion and stream crossing failure, in keeping with ACS objective #5 that addresses the sediment regime; 2) improved habitat connectivity for upstream movement of aquatic organisms in keeping with ACS objective #2 that addresses connectivity within watersheds; and 3) maintained levels of large instream wood in keeping with ACS objective #3 that addresses stream bed and bank conditions and 4) Maintain and restore in-stream flows to protect flow regime patterns and related natural processes in keeping with ACS objective #6.
PROPOSED TREATMENTS IN STREAM CHANNELS The action alternative would implement routine timber sale road reconstruction to achieve safe and effective haul conditions. None of the temporary roads that would be used under the action alternative would cross any streams. Two small stream-crossing culverts would be upgraded on haul routes on small intermittent streams to reduce risk of culvert failure and replace damaged pipe (Table 15). Connected actions include installation of armored dips on two roads where streams are currently being diverted by the roads and are chronic sediment delivery sites.
Table 15. Road Work at stream crossings
Road Work Proposed Objective 2810-200 Replace 18” culvert Replace damaged and rusted MP 2.878 pipe 2810-400 Replace 18” culvert with Reduce plugging potential MP 0.663 24” culvert
28-300 Install armoured dip or Correct stream diversion culvert, recontour
28-302 Install armored dips Correct stream diversion
DIRECT EFFECTS The direct effects to stream channels are defined as short-term effects at the immediate location of instream project areas over a period of up to five years. This is based on observations of the recovery time for in-channel and bank disturbances associated with road reconstruction. The direct effects to stream channels from instream work would be increased sediment input caused by exposure of soil throughout the area when working in the channel or along stream banks. Channel banks and beds would also be modified during these activities with equipment working on banks and within channels. There is no potential to harm fish during this work, as no work site is on fish-bearing streams. Adverse biological effects would last several days to 65 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest weeks when the machinery is operating in the channel. Vegetation, which would help stabilize the banks, is expected to establish within two years of construction and the amount of sedimentation potentially delivered with each instream reconstruction site is low. This level of sedimentation from dispersed instream construction sites associated with the action alternative is minimal with respect to the overall sediment regime of the planning area. Moreover, the erosion control measures and best management practices listed in the roads section of Chapter Two would effectively reduce both the extent and duration of the work-site sedimentation. Under Alternative 1, no direct effects to stream channels or aquatic organisms would occur since no instream work would occur. Because there are no direct or indirect effects, no cumulative effects would occur.
INDIRECT EFFECTS The indirect effects to stream channels are defined as the long-term effects of the instream work that would last longer than five years, plus any downstream effects in perennial streams or fish bearing streams in the planning area. Under the action alternative, the reduced risk of culvert failure at one replacement site would reduce the long-term potential for sediment delivery to the stream if it plugged. In contrast, Alternative 1 would perpetuate the long-term risk of sedimentation associated with this site. Correcting the stream diversions and returning these streams to their natural flow paths help to restore hydrologic connectivity and reduce sediment delivery to these small streams.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TO STREAM CHANNEL AND RIPARIAN RESERVES The potential for the Johnnie action alternative to result in either adverse or beneficial cumulative effects to riparian forest and riparian stream conditions is addressed at the scale of the Dumont, Deadman/Francis Creek sub-watersheds. Since the direct and indirect effects to riparian forests and stream channels are of low magnitude, it is reasonable to assume that these effects would only overlap with the effects of other past, present, and foreseeable future activities at the planning area scale. Effects to streams and riparian forests have resulted from past road building and timber harvest in the Johnnie planning area. The existing miles of road in the planning area’s riparian reserves continues to exert profound local effects to streams at stream crossings with broader stream system effects to connectivity given the hundreds of stream crossings that exist.
66 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 16. Summary of Riparian Reserve Actions and Effects
Riparian/ Amounts by Alternative Riparian Primary Effect (Beneficial Stream Duration Actions and/or Adverse) Change 1 2
Lower tree Beneficial--improved species 30+ years
density & less and structural diversity/late- crown closure successional characteristics, 10-20 years lower risk of severe fire effects 0 ac 26 ac Adverse--dryer microclimate, less litter to streams/forest floor
Change in Beneficial--accelerated growth snag and down of larger leave trees for future
wood recruitment up to 60 years CommercialThinning recruitment 30 years process Adverse--loss of suppression mortality in smaller-sized trees
Lower tree Beneficial--improved species density & less and structural diversity/late- crown closure successional characteristics, lower risk of severe fire effects
30+ years 0 ac 118 ac
commercial Thinning - Adverse--dryer microclimate,
Pre less litter to streams/forest floor
Stream Beneficial—lower risk of stream 0 2 sites
crossing diversion and/or washout culverts 10-25 years
replaced ctions
A Armoured dips Adverse--increased sediment 1 to 2 years 0 sites, 2 sites, installed delivery at the site, &
Road immediately downstream
Machine Pile Adverse--soil disturbance, loss of site productivity, risk of weed infestations 0-20 years 0 13 ac
Hand Pile Adverse--soil disturbance, loss Fuel ActionsFuel of site productivity, risk of weed infestations 0-20 years 0 118 ac
Activities that have occurred on Forest Service land within the three Johnnie sub-watersheds in the last 10 years include BD Stew thinning and the 2810 roadside fuels reduction project. The
67 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest effects to riparian and stream channels within these EA’s are comparable to those discussed above for the Johnnie units. Other activities that would overlap with this project include routine road maintenance, noxious weed control, and public and administrative road use. There are no other reasonably foreseeable activities would overlap with this project that would impact riparian conditions (Table 16). Past clearcuts on federally administered lands occurred one to six decades ago; adverse effects to riparian micro-climates and peak flows from canopy removal have largely recovered. Clear- cutting and road-building continue on private land within the sub-watersheds which do overlap with Johnnie activities and contribute to cumulative effects. Most of the private land making up 28% of the Francis Facial sub-watershed is industrial forest land clear-cut on a 40 to 60 year rotation. Over half of the Deadman sub-watershed is managed by private landowners, or Bureau of Land Management. The adverse direct effect of sediment delivery from the road actions would temporally overlap with the sediment being delivered from the existing road network in planning area streams. Sediment delivery from the proposed road work is anticipated to amount to no more than 10 cubic yards; this amount is much lower than what would be input if these culverts failed during a large storm. This longer-term beneficial effect of the action alternative on stream channels, would help off-set the potential cumulative effects of the action alternative. Taken in total the adverse cumulative effects associated with the action alternative (primarily short term sediment delivery) are outweighed by the longer-term beneficial effects. Thus, the accelerated attainment of desired riparian forest conditions outweighs the short term adverse effects because the longer-term beneficial effects result in greater net benefits.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY The riparian reserves included in this project have regenerated under dense conditions that do not reflect the historic disturbance regime. The actions within riparian reserves under Alternative 2 is in compliance with Northwest Forest Plan Riparian Reserve standard and guideline TM-1c which calls for the application of silvicultural practices that meet desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. As disclosed above under the Riparian Reserve discussion, the action alternative would restore species composition and structural diversity of plant communities, and would also supply sufficient coarse woody debris in riparian areas. As such it is consistent with ACS objective #8. The riparian thinning would also be consistent with ACS objective #9, because the thinning would provide long-term habitat for riparian dependent species of plants and animals. By restoring more open stands like those that historically developed following disturbance, the stem exclusion stands would be less prone to stand-replacement fire and more likely to develop habitat characteristics needed by riparian dependant species. By maximizing the amount of riparian reserve treatment in unnaturally dense stands, the stands would advance more rapidly to maturity, and would move the riparian reserve network toward the natural range of variability of more late-successional habitat. This reduction of unnatural densities increases the likelihood that riparian reserves would continue to provide connectivity at the broader scale after future wildfire or prescribed burns, consistent with ACS objective #2. The improvements in road drainage would provide a small benefit in decreasing sediment delivery and restoring flow regime in the long run, consistent with ACS objectives #5 and #6. Though small scale adverse effects are expected under the action alternative, the broader long- term objective of moving riparian and upland stands toward the natural range of variability addresses the overarching intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.
68 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Alternative 1 would not pro-actively implement any of the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION Erosion and sedimentation are geomorphic processes that shape the physical appearance of the landscape and strongly influence aquatic ecosystems. The range of natural variability for sediment delivery to streams and wetlands within the planning area is considered to be very large because erosion processes are influenced by infrequent natural disturbance events such as floods and wildfire. Sedimentation11 rates to streams are typically inconsequential on a year to year basis but can spike several orders of magnitude during large storm events. Land management practices such as timber harvest have the potential to accelerate erosion rates and the volume of sediment entering streams and wetlands. Within the planning area sediment enters the aquatic environment through mass wasting, surface erosion and fluvial erosion.
FLUVIAL EROSION Fluvial erosion is the erosion of stream banks and stream beds from the forces of water. Stream channels change both spatially and temporally under the fundamental influences of climate, geology, and topography. These factors help determine the stream flow and sediment regimes, as well as riparian vegetation which provides in-stream wood. Disturbances can affect stream channel form and the equilibrium between sediment input and output.
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The relevant standard and guidelines from the LRMP (USDA 1990b) related to fluvial erosion is watershed cumulative effects and water quality standard and guideline #2: Beneficial uses of water and aquatic habitats would not be degraded by scoured stream channels caused by timber harvest, road construction, and related activities.
EXISTING CONDITION The most sensitive channels in the planning area are associated with dormant earthflow terrain. These channels include intermittent and perennial streams. In addition, some channels are not connected downstream by surface flow and are referred to as interrupted streams. The interrupted channels are typically very small, and the water that flows in them during the rainy season drains back into the soil and becomes subsurface water. The beneficial use of these interrupted streams is more locally focused on wildlife and plants. Earthflow channels often lack the complex geology structure in the form of various sized substrates (cobbles and small to large boulders) and are dependent on external input, specifically large wood recruitment, for channel complexity and stability. The erosive processes associated with these channels involve a high proportion of fine sediments that have little armoring of the bed and banks. As a result they often have little resistance to down-cutting and bank erosion during winter storm flow. The intermittent and small perennial non-fish bearing stream channels in the earthflow terrain have been the most impacted channels due to historical timber management and road building. The past clearcutting of riparian vegetation especially along the near vertical banks of these stream channels has contributed to root strength loss, which otherwise helps to bind the fine
11 Sedimentation pertains to the deposition of settling of rock and soil materials in an aquatic environment. 69 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest textured soil in-place and provides physical resistance to fluvial erosion, therefore controlling sediment delivery. Past logging disturbances from yarding old-growth near and across these sensitive channels without suspension or mitigation measures has also influenced potential delivery of sediment to these stream channels. The removal of large channel wood has changed channel stability and affected sediment storage, delivery, and routing. Wildfire in unmanaged areas of earthflow terrain has also influenced sediment delivery and routing, but not to the potential extent as managed areas. Large wood left behind in stream channels from past logging has provided channel storage and localized stability. The desired condition is improved stream channel conditions with enough in-channel wood for proper function, and equilibrium between sediment input and output.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects from fluvial erosion are described at the scale of stream segments within or adjacent to activity treatment areas and that occur during the activity. Indirect effects occur after the activity at the disturbed stream segment, or downstream at the subwatershed or watershed scale, over two to three decades. Alternative 1 would not change existing fluvial erosion processes that are currently occurring. More small wood would be recruited to intermittent streams in the short-term, but large wood inputs would be delayed due to overstocked conditions that slow growth. Alternative 2 would thin riparian reserves (see Riparian Forest Conditions in this Chapter). The riparian reserve thinning would retain no-harvest buffers along all stream channels ensuring harvest activity will not disturb stream banks or beds. Wood recruitment within these no-harvest buffers would remain unchanged from alternative 1, but large wood recruitment from thinned areas outside these buffers would reach larger diameter sooner as thinned trees would grow faster. The culvert additions and replacements would slightly reduce stream extension from road drainage and the subsoiling of existing temporary roads, skid trails and landings would improve infiltration in these areas; no new roads would be built which would add to stream extension or increased sediment delivery to streams. The action alternative would not increase peak flows or accelerate sedimentation that could affect fluvial erosion, thus complying with watershed cumulative effects and water quality Standard and Guideline #2. The riparian reserve thinning would improve overall health and vigor of the riparian leave trees, and would improve the potential future channel recruitment of larger wood while reducing the long-term risk of wildfire effects on the riparian reserves. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects associated with fluvial erosion in planning area streams would occur.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Alternative 1 would not incrementally add to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities to cause a cumulative fluvial erosion effect since no action would occur. However, the risk of stand-replacing wildfire would be higher due to unnatural densities within treatment areas. Since Alternative 2 would not cause any direct or indirect fluvial erosion (as described above), it would not have any effects that could incrementally add to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities at any of the analysis scales, thus no cumulative effect would occur.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY Large historic wildfires were the primary drivers of fluvial erosion when occasional stand replacement fires killed large areas of trees and caused peak flow increases. The advent of 70 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest industrial forestry, fire suppression, clear-cuts, and roads are the primary drivers of peak flow increases and associated effects that cause fluvial erosion. Since the action alternative applies all relevant standards and guidelines, and since it was developed to contribute to restoring the fifth level watershed over the long term (USDA 1995), it is in keeping with the intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The historic sediment regime was one of occasional, episodic sediment delivery following large scale fires. Wildfire occurred in particular drainages, followed by years of recovery with little to no disturbance (Reeves et al. 1995). Most of the sediment delivery came from mass wasting and fluvial erosion triggered by large post-fire rain storms, rather than from surface erosion. The sediment regime is now dominated by on-going, chronic sediment delivery at lower levels, occurring most every winter, due to the road system. Fire suppression has temporarily curtailed the pre-management sediment regime of occasional, episodic sedimentation. Yet, as fire hazard builds due to the lack of natural fire and the preponderance of unnaturally dense plantations, more extreme sediment pulses are expected once wildfire escapes control efforts. The proposed action alternative was purposefully designed to minimize the chance of large scale fire within the proposed units. This in turn helps maintain and restore the sediment regime. Moreover, the long-term benefits of thinning and road drainage improvements under the action alternative outweigh the short-term effects of logging and road work needed to implement the thinning. As such, the action alternative is consistent with ACS objective #5, which calls for the restoration of sediment regimes. Alternative 1 would not proactively address Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION The action alternative presents some risk of water contamination due to the use of fuel products and dust abatement chemicals that have the potential to enter streams if spilled or misapplied. Dust abatement would be accomplished through the application of either magnesium chloride or ligninsulfonate or water to about 3.5 miles of gravel haul road. Excessive rates of application could potentially increase either the surface runoff or the migration of the material through the soil to stream channels. The primary risk of water contamination would occur with a spill near a waterway. Ligninsulfonates are the byproduct of pulp and paper mills. Lignin is extracted as a waste product from wood chips with the use of salts and sulfurous acid resulting in ligninsulfonate. It would be applied to gravel haul roads during the dry summer months at a frequency of 1 treatment for every 1-5 million board feet of timber hauled (depending on site specific road conditions). Ligninsulfonate moves through the environment with water. Excessive rates of application could potentially increase either the surface runoff or the migration of the material through the soil to stream channels. With increasing amounts of rainfall, ligninsulfonates are easily washed away. Although ligninsulfonates can be washed off the road surface, leaching from stabilized road soils has been found to be minor. The primary risk of water contamination would occur with a spill near a waterway. Concentrations in excess of 10,000 ppm could be expected if a transport truck spilled into a perennial stream. When introduced into a waterway, ligninsulfonate will increase the biological oxygen demand of the water and could impart a slight yellow tint to the water (Schwendeman 1981). Ligninsulfonates have been shown to exhibit direct toxic effects on rainbow trout. The LC50 at 48 hours (concentration of ligninsulfonate which would be lethal to 50% of the test population within 48 hours) was calculated to be 7,500 ppm. Effects on growth have been observed at sub-lethal concentrations as low as 160 ppm because ligninsulfonates seem to impair the activities of several digestive enzymes. 71 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Magnesium chloride is highly soluble and also moves through the soil with water. The movement is largely dependent on the rate of application, the frequency and intensity of rainfall, the drainage characteristics of the area of application and the chemical and physical nature of the soil. During periods of long duration or high intensity rainfall, in areas of high surface runoff, or in areas of high soil permeability, magnesium chloride can move considerable distances either as surface runoff or as soil leachate (materials dissolved in water that is within the soil). Surface runoff typically drains into streams, lakes, or ponds whereas leachates feed ground water. Under these conditions it is the constituent ions of magnesium and chloride (Mg2+, and Cl-) that migrate through the environment. Magnesium ions are readily held by soil particles while chlorides tend to remain in solution and potentially infiltrate ground water or runoff into surface waters. Magnesium is a very common element in soil and water and because they readily bond with soil particles they typically do not migrate far from their point of application, which is the case of dust abatement chemical application. Because chlorides do not bond well with soil particles and tend to migrate, their effects are more widespread. Although chloride is present in all natural waters it usually occurs in concentrations of less than 50 ppm (parts per million). Trout begin to suffer serious effects from chlorides when concentrations reach 400 ppm. Concentrations in excess of 10,000 ppm place all fresh water biota in immediate jeopardy. At typical application rates these concentrations would not be expected to occur (USDA 1999).
DIRECT EFFECTS – CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION Alternative 1 would have no direct effects relative to chemical contamination because no chemicals would be used as a result of this alternative. Under Alternative 2 a dust abatement spill or petroleum spill could potentially result in direct effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial uses of water. Dust abatement would be applied to FS Road 2810 (Johnnie Springs Road) through the private residential area, amounting to approximately 3.5 miles. Portions of the haul routes within the planning area are narrow and winding and increased truck traffic elevates the potential for an accident. Several haul roads parallel streams. If an accident were to occur near a stream, fuel or dust abatement chemicals could enter live waterways. This could result in immediate physical harm from a truck entering a waterway, water pollution that could kill or otherwise harm aquatic organisms, and the additional disturbance associated with cleanup. The risk of water contamination due to the application of dust abatement is minimized under the action alternative by several mitigation measures that would be required under the timber sale contract. Dust abatement with chemical compounds under the action alternative includes maintaining a 25-foot no treatment buffer at perennial stream crossings and maintaining a 1-foot no treatment area adjacent to the outside edge of the ditch line. Moreover, the application of dust abatement materials would normally occur only once per year in a window of time when no rain is forecast for at least three days. The buffering of applications away from perennial stream crossings has been found to effectively mitigate pollution of adjacent waters (USDA 1999). The rate of application of dust abatement compounds in the planning area would be “typical” and therefore is not expected to contribute to adverse riparian or aquatic effects. Magnesium chloride is typically used on a limited basis and at low application rates, as compared to study areas where the most noticeable effects have been seen. Based on the literature review and typical application rates for dust abatement purposes that would be used in the Johnnie planning area, effects from these compounds to plants and animals in the riparian and aquatic environments would be negligible under the action alternative.
72 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Timber sale purchasers would be required to have spill prevention and recovery equipment on site, they would be required to develop spill prevention plans if substantial amounts of fuel or other pollutants are stored in sale areas, and traffic control measures would be required in the timber sale contract. All these requirements associated with the action alternative, detailed in Chapter 2 and in the Best Management Practices Checklist (Project Record), function to diminish the chances that potential direct effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial uses of water from project-related pollutants would actually occur. Thus, risk of chemical contamination is considered to be low for the action alternative.
INDIRECT EFFECTS – CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION Under Alternative 2 pollution of off-site or downstream water is possible if trucks transporting fuel or dust abatement compounds were to spill into a river or stream enroute to the project area. The likelihood of this occurring is proportional to the amount of fuel and dust abatement used in the various activities. Due to the relatively small scope of this project, the likelihood of an accidental spill is believed to be low; therefore no mitigation measures would be applied to the transport of potential pollutants outside the timber sale area. Alternative 1 would not utilize these compounds and would result in no risk of indirect effects to downstream beneficial uses due to water contamination. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION Most past and on-going land management operations throughout the Umpqua River basin such as silvicultural activities, timber sales, and all forms of road work use a variety of potentially polluting products (such as dust abatement, petroleum, concrete, adhesives, cleansers, herbicides, etc.) that pose a risk of entering waterways if spilled or mishandled. The level of timber harvest and associated road work on Federal land has diminished over the last two decades relative to the previous three decades. Therefore, the level of additive effects that can contaminate water from such actions has also diminished. Potential contamination of waters within the river basin associated with private industrial forestry operations, intensive agricultural operations (using pesticides, fertilizers, other petroleum products, and herbicides), and city and town development and use by people (sewage, plus all the above mentioned potential pollutants and others not mentioned) has not diminished. Water contaminations from these sources can be expected to increase as demand for food and natural resources increases with the human populations. Therefore, the lower areas of the Umpqua River basin are where the cumulative effects of all the additive forms and sources of water contamination would most likely be realized. The chances of the action alternative resulting in any cumulative effects to water contamination hinges on whether a substantial spill of petroleum or dust abatement products occurs. Should a spill occur and clean-up measures fail, a cumulative effect could be realized. This is particularly true the further downstream an accidental spill occurs. The Johnnie proposed action is not expected to appreciably affect water quality over the long- term (decades, or longer), nor expected to degrade the chemical contamination/nutrients indicator considered by NOAA Fisheries unless an accidental spill were to occur. The chances of such a spill are offset as much as possible by a series of Best Management Practices required in the timber sale contract of the action alternative. Any impacts to water quality associated with contamination of water due to timber sale operations would be short-term and likely localized. As such, the broad-scale goals of the ACS would not be impacted.
73 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
FISHERIES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to evaluate the effects of the Johnnie Project on Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) listed as threatened and the Southern Distinct Populations Segment (DPS) of the North American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the Biological Evaluation (BE) is to evaluate the effects of the project on Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts (SONCC) spring chinook salmon, (Onchorynchus tshawytscha), OC Steelhead (O. mykiss), Umpqua Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys kalawatseti), Western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) and Rotund Lanx (Lanx subrotunda) listed as sensitive by the USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester in December of 2007 (Regional Forester 2007).
Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act states “all federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve Endangered and Threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act”12. Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act also directs each Federal agency to ensure that any action it authorizes funds or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat13. In the fulfillment of Sec 7(a) (2), the action agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available14. Forest Service Policy states “Place top priority on the conservation and recovery of Endangered, Threatened and Proposed species and their habitats15…”. In addition, “Avoid or minimize impacts to species (sensitive) whose viability has been identified as a concern16.”
Project activities require a biological evaluation to be completed17. The biological evaluation process is intended to determine the effects of projects on sensitive and federally listed species in compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service Policy18. In the case where a biological evaluation for an Environmental Impact Statement is needed, it is referred to as a Biological Assessment and determines whether the proposed action is likely to affect an endangered, threatened or proposed species.19
Forests within the range of the northern spotted owl are directed to operate under the Standards and Guidelines of the Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to Forest Service Manual and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD), signed April 13, 1994 and published in the Federal Register of April 18, 1994. The ROD amended the standard and guidelines set forth in Appendices B5, B7, and B11 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Later-Successional and Old- Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl20.
12 Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2600, chapter 2670, page 3 13 FSM 2600, chapter 2670, page 3 14 FSM 2600, chapter 2670, page 3 15 FSM 2600, chapter 2670.31, page 4 16 FSM 2600, chapter 2670.32, page 5 17 FSM 2600, chapter 2672.4, page 14 18 FSM 2600, chapter 2672.24b, page 4 19 FSM 2600, chapter 2670.5 page 8 20 USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management (1994). Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within Range of Northern Spotted Owl . 74 p 74 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires Federal action agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce regarding any action or proposed action authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) identified under the MSA. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines adverse effects as any impact, which reduces the quality and/or quantity of essential fish habitat. Adverse effects include direct, indirect, and site-specific or habitat wide impacts, including individual, cumulative or synergistic consequences of actions21.
The Umpqua River (UR) cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) was listed as endangered under the ESA by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41514), and Critical Habitat for this species was designated on January 9, 1998 (63 FR 1388). Subsequently UR cutthroat trout were delisted on April 26, 2000 (65 CFR 24420). Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon (O. kisutch) and OC steelhead trout (O. mykiss) Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) were proposed as threatened under ESA by NMFS on July 25, 1995 (60 FR 38011) and August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41541), respectively. The OC coho and OC steelhead ESUs were reclassified as candidates for listing under the ESA by NMFS on May 6, 1997 (62 FR 24588) and March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347) respectively, and OC coho were subsequently listed as threatened on August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42587). Critical Habitat was proposed for OC coho in May of 1999 (64 FR 24998) and designated March 17, 2000 (65 FR 7764). OC coho listing was set by the district court decision in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, (161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001). In June 2004, the NMFS proposed to list Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon as “threatened” and on December 14, 2004 NMFS proposed critical habitat designations for several salmon evolutionary significant units (ESUs) including Oregon Coast coho salmon. On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued final critical habitat designations. However, NMFS did not finalize the designation of critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho salmon because at that time it was only proposed for listing. On January 19, 2006, NMFS withdrew its proposals to list OC coho salmon and to designate critical habitat, consistent with its determination that OC coho salmon were not warranted for listing under the ESA. This not- warranted decision was challenged in the Oregon federal district court. In July 2007, Magistrate Judge Stewart found that NMFS’ decision was arbitrary and capricious, and recommended that NMFS’ withdrawal be invalidated and remanded to NMFS. On October 9, 2007, Judge King adopted the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations in their entirety and ordered NMFS to issue within 60 days a new final listing rule consistent with the ESA. Judge King’s October 9 decision invalidating NMFS’ withdrawal decision restored OC coho salmon to its previous ESA status – proposed as threatened, with correspondingly proposed critical habitat. On February 4, 2008 OC coho salmon were relisted as threatened. In June 2001 the North American green sturgeon was petitioned for listing under the endangered species act. NMFS determined that green sturgeon is comprised of two Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) that qualify as species under the ESA: (1) a northern DPS consisting of populations in coastal watersheds northward of and including the Eel River (“Northern DPS”); and (2) a southern DPS consisting of coastal and Central Valley populations south of the Eel River, with the only known population in the Sacramento River (“Southern DPS”). At that time NMFS also determined that neither DPS warranted listing as threatened or endangered (68 FR 4433; January 23, 2003). On April 7, 2003, the Environmental Protection Information Center (and other Plaintiffs) challenged NMFS’ not warranted finding. The not warranted finding was set aside by the U.S. District Court and the matter was remanded to NMFS. NMFS published a Federal Register notice on June 18, 2004, soliciting information from the public to assist in updating the status review and making a new listing determination (69 FR 34135). On April 6, 2005 a Proposed Rule to list the Southern DPS of green sturgeon as threatened under the ESA was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 17386).
21 MSA Training Session, personal notes 1998. 75 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Existing and Desired Conditions Anadromous Fish Occurrence Anadromous fish use within and downstream from the action area is shown in Table 17. The mainstem SU River is a migration corridor for both adults and outmigrating smolts. Coho spawning has been observed in the lower Francis, Deadman and Dumont Creeks. Spawning habitat for steelhead is found in the same stream segments identified for coho; however steelhead are able to negotiate higher falls than coho, so their distribution is greater. Green sturgeons have not been documented within the upper South Umpqua River. Adult spawning counts for spring chinook in the South Umpqua have been conducted for the last 46 years (since 1961) and there have been no reported sightings of sturgeon. These surveys have been conducted using snorkels and scuba in the deeper holding pools where sturgeon would be most likely to occur.
Table 17. Anadromous fish usage within and immediately downstream from the Johnnie Planning Area
Note: The closest harvest unit to habitat for OC coho is ½ mile upstream. Most units are 2-3 miles upstream from any sensitive or listed fish habitat.
OC coho OC spring OC Southern Stream salmon Chinook steelhead DPS green (mi.) (mi.) (mi.) sturgeon
Mainstem South 6 6 6 0 Umpqua
Francis Creek 0.5 0.5 0
Dumont Creek 1 0 1 0
Deadman Creek 1 0 1 0
Budd Creek 0 0 1 0
Total 8.5 6.5 9.5 0
Resident Fish Occurrence A 2007 Umpqua chub survey revealed that approximately 90% of the population above Tiller was located with the reach between the South Umpqua/Jackson Creek confluence and 3C Rock, which located approximately ½ mile down stream from the confluence of Deadman Creek and the South Umpqua River.
Cutthroat and Umpqua Chub stream habitat within the project area is shown in Table 18. Table 18. Resident fish usage within the Johnnie Planning Area
Stream Cutthroat Trout (mi.) Umpqua Chub (mi)
76 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Mainstem South Umpqua 6
Francis Creek 3 0
Dumont Creek 1 0
Deadman Creek 8 0
Budd Creek 1 0
Total 13 6
Bivalve and Gastropod Occurrence Potential aquatic bivalve and gastropod use by stream within the planning area is shown in Table 19.
Table19. Bivalve and Gastropod potential habitat within the Johnnie Planning Area
Stream Western Ridged Mussel (mi) Rotund Lanx
Mainstem South Umpqua 6 0
Francis Creek 0 3
Dumont Creek 0 1
Deadman Creek 0 8
Budd Creek 0 1
Total 6 13
Aquatic Habitat Conditions
Middle South Umpqua 5th Field HUC (1710030203) The Middle South Umpqua (MSU) 5th field is approximately 98,915 acres with the BLM administering 17%, USFS 71% and private lands accounting for 12%. Within the Forest Service Boundary, administrative land allocations include 31,368 acres of matrix and 44,461 aces of Late Successional Reserves (LSR). The entire South Umpqua basin on the Tiller Ranger District is classified as a Tier I Key Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan. The MSU is included in this designation and is intended to provide high quality habitat to serve as refugia for the possible recovery of depressed fish stocks. Tributaries to the MSU support a diverse 77 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest assemblage of fish species including Coastal cutthroat trout, Oregon Coast coho salmon, spring chinook salmon and winter steelhead. Currently the most important subwatersheds in the MSU 5th field for anadromous salmonids are Dumont and Boulder Creeks. Brett Roper (Roper, 1995) identified Dumont Creek as a nodal habitat, a tributary with high species diversity and productivity. All anadromous salmonid species within the South Umpqua River basin inhabit Dumont Creek at some time during their life cycle and Dumont is considered a refuge for coho. A substantial proportion (near 100%) of the total smolt production in the Upper South Umpqua basin may come from Dumont Creek. Studies have shown tht Boulder Creek contained the highest density of young chinook in the MSU, but the variability was very high. Coho have used this stream for spawning and juveniles are located approximately seven miles upstream of the mouth. Aquatic habitat has changed from historic conditions within the river and tributaries of the MSU. Aquatic conditions reflect the influences of private forest lands and National Forest Management. Stream habitat has been degraded as a result of timber harvest and road building within the basin. Land ownership patterns, road building, timber harvest, stream cleanout, and landslide/debris torrents have negatively affected aquatic ecosystems in this 5th field. The 5th field matrix shows that only chemical/nutrients, refugia and peak/base flows are "at risk" while all remaining indicators were "not properly functioning."
Dumont Creek Dumont Creek is a 4th order tributary to the South Umpqua River with 31 square miles of watershed area. The Dumont watershed is within Late Successional Reserve (LSR) and Tier 1 Key Watershed as designated by the Northwest Forest Plan.
Dumont Creek currently provides habitat for 4 native anadromous salmonids; Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Threatened), Oregon Coast Cutthroat Trout (Sensitive), OC spring Chinook (Sensitive) and the OC winter steelhead (sensitive). In addition, the Pacific lamprey is also present. Resident fish inhabiting Dumont Creek include Umpqua River Cutthroat Trout, rainbow trout, dace and sculpins. During his thesis on salmonids in the Upper South Umpqua River, Lance Kruzic (1998)came to the conclusion that Dumont contributes nearly 100% of the coho smolts produced in the Upper South Umpqua River.
The Dumont Creek 6th field has approximately 8.4 miles of habitat accessible to anadromous fish. A partial barrier exists at river mile 2.95 which is a barrier to coho but which steelhead can pass. Chinook are not found in the upper portion of reach 1. The lowest 3 miles of Dumont Creek was cleaned of large wood in the 1950’s through 1970’s during timber sales that included some riparian reserve harvest. The removal of instream large wood lead to the down cutting of substrate. Eventually this has lead to an existing condition of bedrock in 21% of the reach. Reviews of the lower portion of Quartz Creek (nearby stream with similar gradient and sinuosity indicate 5- 10 % bedrock is exposed). Fewer deep pools exist, the channel has been simplified (fewer places for fish to hide in), widened and has increased in temperature (in 1937, the Roth survey took a temperature of 61 F at the mouth of Dumont Creek, today temperatures are in the 70’s at the same location). Average, low flow wetted width has also increased from 15 feet during the Roth survey to 21.8 in 1989. Within the lowermost 3 miles of stream, a valley bottom road influences the stream channel and influences channel sinuosity which is lower than expected for the valley form. This road prevents large woody debris (LWD) upslope recruitment to the stream channel on one side of the stream for 3 miles. Old hydrologic features such as side channels and point bars are present but no longer connected to the channel because of channel displacement (from road fill), widening, entrenchment and lack of LWD.
78 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Riparian Reserve cutting removed any possibility of near term wood recruitment. Young trees planted following harvest are now 20 feet tall but in places are densely spaced (and not growing as fast as is desired for future LWD and shading). Survey results indicate 89% of the floodplain is in a sapling/pole condition and 11% small tree. Other areas (such as that portion of the Riparian Reserve within the Clayton Point fire) have openings that need to be planted with a variety of species of trees for shade, future LWD and species diversity.
Deadman Creek Private and BLM lands make up the dominant holdings in the watershed, followed by the National Forest with 41% of the acres. Private lands are generally managed to maximize wood fiber and are generally logged every 40 – 50 years. BLM lands are managed according to the NWFP, but have a higher road density. Streams within the watershed are in a more disturbed condition because of the checker board land pattern with industrial forest lands. Habitat in Deadman Creek was surveyed in 1992 using the ODFW stream survey protocol. Reach 1 (from the confluence of South Umpqua River up Deadman Creek 0.8 miles) which is slightly less than 1 mile in length and below a large waterfall, is where the total production of coho and steelhead originate. Deadman Creek upstream from the waterfall and its tributaries provide habitat for predominately cutthroat trout, as well as nongame fish species such as dace and sculpin.
Francis Creek Francis Creek is utilized by coho in the lowest 1/3rd mile, below a 6 foot falls. Steelhead will likely pass this barrier and utilize the next 2/10’s of a mile of stream up to a 12 foot falls located at river mile 0.5. Above this point cutthroat trout are likely to utilize the stream for another mile. Productivity of the headwater reaches for fish is likely low given the high gradient. Aquatic habitat in the lowest 0.5 mile is relatively good with gravel and cobble substrait, some floodplain connectivity, and natural wood accumulations. Mature forest shades the lowest reach and provides for future large wood recruitment.
EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects to fish are those that would occur in planning area streams as a result of the Action Alternative. Indirect effects are those that could occur later in time or downstream of the action at the drainage or larger scale. This project has been designed to have no negative direct effects on aquatic resources, fish habitat (Essential Fish Habitat) or ESA listed habitat (Critical Habitat). The analysis was conducted utilizing the Analytical Process (AP). Individual components of the Johnnie project were analyzed at length in the Johnnie Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation (Project Record, Specialist Reports). Alternative 1 would result in no direct or indirect effects to fish, since no changes in perennial stream shading, chemical composition of the water, fish passage barriers, changes in peak or base flows, pool frequency, large pools, off channel habitat or width to depth ratios, refugia, drainage network, riparian reserves, disturbance regimes, critical habitat, or change in peak or base flows. Alternative 2 would result in no direct or indirect effects to fish or fish habitat, since no measurable changes would occur in perennial stream shading, chemical composition of the water, fish passage barriers, changes in peak or base flows, pool frequency, large pools, off
79 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest channel habitat or width to depth ratios, refugia, drainage network, riparian reserves, disturbance regimes, critical habitat, or change in peak or base flows.
Cumulative Effects The Tiller Complex of fires of 2002 affected the Aquatic Environmental Baseline of much of the Middle South, Upper South and Jackson Creek 5th field watersheds 22. Within the Johnnie Project area, the landscape was largely unburned and unaffected. In 2009, the Bose and Rainbow fires burned in the Upper South 5th field watershed. Cumulative effects of these fires flow through the mainstem South Umpqua River. It is likely that elevated sediment levels from the 2002 fires are occurring, but decreasing over time as the ground revegetates. Sediment levels created by the more recent and more severe Bose and Rainbow Fires, is likely still relatively high as compared to background levels. In Douglas-fir ecotypes with a fire return interval of 200 years, Agee (1993), hypothesized that sediment output immediately increases by about five times the pre burn levels, and then falls to ambient levels over the next 25 years23. Obviously, a fire return interval of 200 years is long and burns on that return interval should be considered to be very hot (and consistent with those seen in the Rainbow Fire and later portions of the Boze Fire that burned during the same climatic conditions as the Rainbow). Burns such as the Bose and Rainbow fire are anticipated to take much longer to revegetate and return to ambient sediment levels than the Tiller Complex 2002. Lower intensity fires such as the earliest and latest portions of the Tiller Complex 2002, likely liberated far less than what Agee observed and returned to lower levels approaching baseline levels faster than 25 years.
Nutrients were likely delivered to stream channels at levels higher than baseline for several years post fire. Following burns there is a loss of total nitrogen as a result of fire volatilizing nitrogen24. Residual fuels left after the burn contain ammonium nitrogen and may increase the available amounts of nitrogen beyond pre burn levels25. Oxidation of ammonium nitrate can increase nitrate levels in the soil although this is subject to leaching 26. This leaching can deliver increased levels of nutrients to the stream channels and generate algae blooms 27, 28. In basins with high amounts of stream shading, this may be beneficial to aquatic life in that it may increase the amount of nutrients available to aquatic insects and therefore fish. In systems where there is little stream shade, or 303(d) listed streams, there are likely to be algae blooms and detrimental effects on water pH and oxygen levels 29. Given the 25 to 32% high intensity burn on the Tiller Complex of fires, there is limited likelihood of nutrients delivered to streams 30. The patchy nature of the burn however, may allow for enough nutrient capture by plants where there are no negative effects. In addition, the time of year that one would expect most leaching to occur at Tiller is winter and spring. Winter and spring nutrient releases would have much less effect on aquatic conditions because flows are much higher, algae grows slower, solar inputs to the stream are lower -31.
22 USDA Forest Service. Wildfire Effects Evaluation Project (WEEP). Umpqua National Forest: Roseburg, Oregon. 2003, 70pp. 23 Agee, J. K. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press: Washington, D.C. 1993, p.172. 24 Agee, J. K. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press: Washington, D. C. 1993, p.162. 25 Agee, J. K., p.162. 26 Agee, J. K., p.162. 27 Agee, J. K., p.162. 28 Nichols, Robert. Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger District: Tiller, Oregon. Professional judgment. 29 Nichols, Professional judgment. 30 Nichols, Professional judgment. 31 Nichols, Professional judgment. 80 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The Bose and Rainbow fires had a much higher intensity burn pattern. It is likely that they delivered nutrients at levels greater than the 2002 Tiller Complex. They are located an additional 10 miles upstream than the uppermost portions of the Tiller Complex. That additional distance gives additional chance for the aquatic life to utilize more of the liberated nutrients before getting to more degraded sections of the South Umpqua River. Smaller nutrient inputs are not necessarily bad for rivers in good aquatic health, but do have considerable negative effects when added to rivers in poor health.
Aggradation of Federal Effects There are no other federal actions which affect the ESA action area. All ongoing actions, completed actions and completed actions are included in the Environmental Baseline and have been analyzed.
The determination for the Johnnie Project is No Effect for the OC coho and will have no adverse effect on designated critical habitat.
Table 20. Determination Summary
Species Proposed Action Oregon Coast cutthroat trout (Sensitive) NI Oregon Coast coho salmon (Threatened) NE Oregon Coast steelhead (Sensitive) NI Oregon Coast and SOCC spring Chinook NI (Sensitive) Umpqua Oregon Chub (Sensitive) NI Western Ridged Mussel (Sensitive) NI SDPS Green Sturgeon (Threatened) NE Rotund Lanx (Sensitive) NI
Determination Key Threatened, Endangered Species: NE = No Effect NLAA = May Effect – Not likely to Adversely Affect LAA = May Effect – Likely to Adversely Affect BE = Beneficial Effect Sensitive Species: NI = No Impact MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species WIFV = Will Impact Individuals or Habitat With a Consequence That The Action May Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species BI = Beneficial Impact
B. Direct Effects (ESA – Analytical Process) 81 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Direct effects from the Johnnie Project to individual OC coho salmon are not anticipated and the direct effects of the proposed Project Elements (PEs) are neutral (0). a) Proximity: All proposed project elements and activities associated with the Johnnie Project having the potential for direct effect will occur a minimum of ½ mile from areas known to have coho salmon. Effects of the PEs will be so small as to be unmeasurable and neutral (0) at the site, reach and 6th field watershed scale. As a result, this project will have no direct effects on aquatic habitat, any species of fish or critical habitat.
C. Indirect effects
The following analysis uses habitat indicators from the “Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (November, 2004)” (USDA, USDC, USDI and USDI, 2004) to evaluate the potential effects of the Johnnie Project on environmental parameters important to proposed for ESA-listing OC coho salmon and their proposed critical habitat. The effects to baseline indicators were assessed for each of the following project elements (PEs) for the Johnnie Project, and include:
1) tree falling; 2) yarding; 3) new temporary road and landing construction, decommissioning; 4) road renovation, reconstruction, and maintenance; 5) rock quarry operation; 6) timber transport; 7) fuels treatment 8) connected actions shown in Table 1 (Culverts are addressed in PE 4, Non-commercial thinning/fire reduction brushing are addressed in PE 1).
The potential effect (negative, positive, or neutral) that the implementation of each project element may have on each indicator or group of indicators was assessed using the factor analysis approach described in the Analytical Process.
Much of the literature on the effects of timber harvest originated from studies of clearcut logging practices. Many of these studies looked at clearcutting without riparian buffers, utilized hot broadcast burning, and built an extensive network of valley bottom and midslope roads. These practices are no longer employed on federal lands within the geographic area of this assessment. Published studies analyzing the effects of commercial thinning treatments in young (35-80 years old) conifer stands in the Pacific Northwest on water quality and fish habitat is generally not available. The effects analysis in this assessment acknowledges much of this past research on clearcutting practices. While the research on clearcutting helps to frame the discussion of potential extent of effects from timber harvest, the research doesn’t address commercial thinning harvest that should result in effects that are lesser than those identified in the literature on clearcutting.
Muir et al 2002, studied how stands in western Oregon old growth forests developed and indications are that many old growth stands developed in an open condition, with low stocking densities and grew at high rates during their first 100 years. Further findings were that the range of ages in studied old growth stands is large (up to 100 – 300 years in the same stand). Managed stands on the other hand develop at a slower rate, largely because of high stocking
82 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest levels and have a very narrow range of ages and grow as a single cohort competing with each other for water and nutrients.
Table 21. Analytical Process Summary of Effects to Indicators (Negative effect = “-“; Positive effect = “+”; Neutral effect = “0”; Insignificant = “I”; Discountable = “D”; Significant = “S”)
Project Elements
TimberFalling Yarding Roadand Landing Construction RoadMaintenance andReconstruction Quarry Rock RoadClosure/Decom TimberTransport Treatment Fuels ConnectedActions ActionArea Indicator Summary Indicator Habitat Indicators Temperature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sediment/Turbidity 0 0 0 + 0 0 I 0 0 0 Substrate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chemical Contamination Nutrients 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Physical Barriers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak/Baseflows 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 Pool Quality and Frequency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Large Pools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W/D Ratio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Streambanks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Floodplain Connectivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Off-channel Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Refugia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage Network 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 Watershed Condition Indicators Road Density and Location 0 Disturbance History 0 (short-term), + (long-term) Disturbance Regime 0 (short-term), + (long-term) Riparian Reserves 0 (short-term), + (long-term) Primary Constituent Elements of Proposed OC Coho Salmon Critical Habitat All 0
Analytical Process Analysis Summary
83 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The fisheries analysis focuses on the first 8 project elements (PEs) because they are the key components of the proposed action. All 8 of those PEs were determined to have neutral effects on temperature; 7 of the PEs were determined to have neutral effects on fine sediment and one (haul of timber) was determined to have an insignificant effect on fine sediment. All 8 PEs were determined to be neutral on the chemical contamination/nutrient indicator and the physical barrier indicator. Six of the 8 PEs are neutral for the peak/base flow indicator and the roadwork/maintenance and subsoiling are slightly positive on the indicator. All 8 PEs are neutral for pool frequency, quality, large pools, off channel habitat, width to depth ratios, streambanks, and floodplain connectivity indicators. All 8 PEs are neutral for refugia, critical habitat, and disturbance regime. PEs for riparian reserve are all long term positive. Neutral effects, slightly negative, discountable and insignificant effects, are consistent with a “no effect” determination for OC coho, no negative effect for Essential Fish Habitat, and no impact determinations for Chinook, steelhead, cutthroat, western ridged mussel, and the limpet.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY
The compatibility of the proposed action with the nine ACS Objectives is discussed below. 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. In the Johnnie Poject Area, extensive clearcutting has taken place historically in the riparian reserves. All the Johnnie units are very dense stem exclusion stands and lack diversity due to the selection of Douglas-fir over other species during planting and precommercial thinning. If left untreated many stands are on a track to develop as closed, homogeneous stands that do not represent desired future conditions for riparian reserves. The riparian reserves included in this project have regenerated under unnaturally dense conditions that do not reflect the historic disturbance regime. The proposed thinning and fuels treatments in the reserves under the action alternative are in compliance with Northwest Forest Plan riparian reserve standard and guideline TM-1c which calls for the application of silvicultural practices to meet desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. This strategy is based, in part, on natural disturbance processes. By restoring more open stands like those that historically developed following disturbance, the stem exclusion stands would be less prone to stand-replacement fire, and more likely to develop habitat characteristics needed by riparian dependant species. A mitigation measure incorporated into the action alternative requires that fuels treatments occur during moist conditions where large down wood and duff are less likely to be completely consumed.
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. Perhaps the most profound indirect effect to riparian reserve forest conditions under the Johnnie Project are the effects to fire behavior that operate over several decades at both the stand and broader landscape scale. Dense homogenous forests have dramatically altered how wildfires burn today compared to how they burned historically under more open and heterogeneous forest structures. The exclusion of fire over the last several decades in the Johnnie area has
84 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest exacerbated the dense, homogenous conditions in forest stands, and it has allowed the buildup of fuels that could result in unprecedented fire intensities and higher fire severity compared to historical conditions. The combined effects of the thinning with treatment of activity fuels under the action alternative would help modify fire behavior to reduce the likelihood that future wildfires might result in severe fire effects within the treatment areas and beyond.
The action alternative would apply restorative thinning to riparian reserves using various logging methods and activity fuel reduction techniques. The riparian reserve thinning prescriptions would leave dominant trees, retain 70 to 115 square feet basal area, or a range of 50 and 100 trees per acre. This will leave a spacing of 20 – 30 feet. All perennial, nonfish bearing streams would receive 85 foot no cut buffers. The riparian reserve thinning would retain 25 foot buffers along intermittent stream channels. Precommercial thinning in riparian reserves will not reduce canopy closure below 70%. No trees would be skidded across any channel under the action alternative. No equipment will be allowed closer than 25 feet from intermittent stream channels and 85 feet from perennial stream channels. No temporary roads will be built in riparian reserves. Subsoiling of old skid trails and landings after they are used for this harvest will decrease the long-term compaction, allowing better water movement and plant growth than currently exists. The overall riparian forest restoration under the action alternative advances the role of riparian reserves in providing connectivity within and between watersheds, consistent with ACS Objective 2. By treating unnaturally dense stands, the stands would advance more rapidly to maturity, and move the riparian network back toward the natural range of variability of more late- successional habitat.
3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. All perennial, nonfishbearing channels would receive 85 foot no cut buffers. The riparian reserve thinning would retain 25 foot no-harvest buffers along intermittent stream channels. There are no fish bearing stream channels within or directly adjacent to treatment units. No fuels will be treated within the no-cut buffers and no temporary roads constructed across channels. The stream/drainage reconnections are consistent with ACS Objective 3 of restoring the physical integrity of stream shorelines, banks and bottom configurations. The project design and BMP’s have been planned so that no adverse effects are expected under the action alternative. Over time, the broader long-term objective of moving riparian and upland stands toward the natural range of variability addresses the overarching intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.
4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. No adverse impacts to water quality or the associated beneficial uses of water are expected from any of the proposed activities in the action alternative including those actions occurring in the riparian reserve land allocation. As such, the long-term trend of improving water quality in the watershed will not be set back; water quality in Dumont, the Francis Facial watershed, and Deadman Creek will continue to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems consistent with ACS Objective 4. Since the action alternative applies all relevant standards and guidelines, and since they were developed to restore riparian ecosystem health at the stream
85 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest reach and landscape scale, they are also in keeping with the overarching intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.
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. The amount of sedimentation potentially delivered with each ditch relief culvert is negligible. The erosion control measures and restrictions on the timing of work would prevent work site sediment delivery to downstream aquatic habitats. Furthermore, the cross drain culverts will likely reduce the amount of fine sediment delivered to stream channels under the existing condition (environmental baseline).
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. No impacts to flow regimes or the associated beneficial uses of water are expected from the proposed activities including those actions occurring in riparian reserves, such as restorative thinning, underburning, and planting. As such, the timing, magnitude, and duration of peak, high, and low flows are protected and consistent with ACS Objective 6. Since the proposed action applies all relevant standards and guidelines, and since they were developed to restore riparian ecosystem health at the stream reach and landscape scale, they are also in keeping with the overarching intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.
7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. Impacts to flow regimes, timing, magnitude, and duration of peak, high, and low flows are anticipated not to be affected by the proposed action. Subsoiling areas that are currently compacted from previous timber harvest will improve hydrologic movement in these areas.
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. Silvicultural prescriptions are designed to control stocking in the outer riparian reserves and to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. The proposed action would restore species composition and structural diversity of plant communities, and would also supply sufficient coarse woody debris in riparian areas. As such they are consistent with ACS Objective 8. Stream protection buffers and a light thin within the riparian reserves outside of the protection buffer will improve water quality, vegetation, bank stability, nutrient availability and moist microhabitat conditions. Large wood would be available to riparian areas sooner as leave trees would be released from overstocked conditions. Thinning and fuels treatment within riparian reserves recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function. The action alternative would result in less risk of stand replacement fire in the steep and gentle mountain slope landscape areas, which is a long-term beneficial effect. If a wildfire occurred in the planning area, the thinning and fuel treatments under the action alternative would have alleviated dense stand conditions that cause a surface fire to torch into the crowns 86 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest and carry across many acres. As such, a future wildfire under the proposed action will most likely create smaller pockets of stand replacement fire.
9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. The restorative riparian thinning in the proposed action would be consistent with ACS Objective 9, because the thinning would provide long-term habitat for riparian dependant plant and animal species. By restoring more open stands like those which historically developed following disturbance, the stem exclusion stands would be less prone to stand-replacement fire, and more likely to develop habitat characteristics needed by riparian dependant species.
Instream Wood and Thinned Riparian Reserves
Most stream channels within the analysis area are deficit large wood. Riparian areas which were clearcut historically also experienced stream cleanout. These old harvest units, which include riparian reserve, have dense stands of commercial sized trees and are proposed for thinning under Alternative 2. The purpose of the thinning is to reduce the basal area of trees within the riparian reserve to speed growth, improve species diversity and make for a more resilient riparian area. Over the long term (100 years) the outer riparian area (thinned) will grow faster, taller and in time will provide better quality large wood to the stream channel. It is expected that the larger sized trees will provide stable, full spanning large wood that will better achieve flood plain spanning connectivity and sediment storage. Portions of the riparian reserves closest to the streams will be left in an unthinned condition to preserve stream shade, microclimate and serve as a source of short term (<100 years), large wood to the stream channel.
By not thinning the inner riparian reserve, or on perennial streams, the primary shade zone the trees within will grow slower, have less diversity and have higher mortality from natural competition and potentially wildfire. Not thinning the inner riparian reserve is a “trade off ” where the restoration benefits associated with thinning the inner riparian area are foregone because fine sediment levels and downstream water temperatures in the basin, background water temperatures and sediment levels are high (303D listed for sediment/temperature) and conservative restoration is warranted. The trade off means that dense canopy closure maintained and short term sediment increases associated with skidding close to stream channels will not occur, but the stands within the inner riparian area will grow slower, be less diverse and will be more at risk to stand replacing wildfire. Large amounts of small sized wood will be recruited to the stream channel from the inner riparian area.
87 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
88 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT A detailed description of the terrestrial environment can be found in the Deadman/Francis Watershed Analysis (USDA, Umpqua NF 1997). Site specific field work and analysis for this project produced additional information, which is provided in the following sections.
FOREST VEGETATION Two spatial scales are used in the following discussion: (1) the landscape scale; and (2) the stand scale. The landscape scale focuses on larger scale conditions (such as forest vegetation patterns). The stand scale generally refers to an area of approximately 5 to 200 acres in size. Stand exams and other field data were used to characterize stand scale conditions. Existing and future conditions were quantified and modeled using stand exam data and the Forest Vegetation Simulator Model (FVS). Chapter Three, Water Quality section outlines the relevant watershed analysis recommendations.
EXISTING AND DESIRED LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS Forest age-classes that develop following wildfire or clearcutting are used to characterize forest conditions. Four such age-classes are commonly used: 1) Stand initiation - New stand with an open canopy. Stand age is generally less than 30 years, but can be older, especially in higher, colder elevations. 2) Stem exclusion - Stands where new species do not appear and some present species are dying from competition. Stand age is generally from 30 to 80 years, the average tree diameter is about 10” DBH and canopy closure is ≥53%. 3) Mature - Stand where trees reach their maximum height potential. Stand age is generally from 80 to 150 years, the average tree diameter is 10 to 19” DBH and canopy closure is ≥53%. It includes the “understory re-initiation stage” where the understory develops in response to small openings in the canopy (Oliver and Larson, 1996) and the “transition stage” defined in the Northwest Forest Plan as transitioning toward old-growth. 4) Old growth - Stand with overstory trees dying in an irregular fashion and understory trees are filling the gaps. Stand age is generally greater than 150 years, the average tree diameter is ≥20” DBH and conifer canopy closure is ≥70%. This stage includes the “shifting gap” stage as defined in the NWFP (USDA/USDI 1994). The current distribution of age classes in the Johnnie planning area is displayed in Table 26. Stands in the mature and old-growth stage are often combined into the “late-successional stage” because natural stands of mixed ages make separation of these older stages difficult with remote sensing. Analysis using 1998 satellite imagery categorized late-successional stands to be generally 80 years and older.
Currently, late-successional habitat occupies approximately 21% of the Johnnie planning area. This late successional habitat is primarily composed of small patches, in comparison to the larger patches present in the late 1930’s. The small patches and the abundance of the stem exclusion age-class reflect the pattern established by the staggered small clearcuts that occurred from the 1940’s through the 1980’s.
Approximately 62% of the planning area is currently in the stem exclusion stage. The action alternative proposes to commercially and pre-commercially thin those stands that are within this stage of development. This existing condition represents a higher level of stem exclusion stands than under reference conditions due to past timber harvest.
89 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 22. Current Distribution of Age Classes within the Johnnie Planning Area Seral Stage Acres % of planning area Stand initiation (0-30 years) 2168 17 Stem exclusion (30-80 years) 7906 62 Late-successional (80+ years) 2677 21
At the broad landscape scale, the stem exclusion stage covers proportionately much more of the gentle valley bottoms and mountain slopes than during the 1930’s. Areas adjacent to roads in the gentle mountain slope and gentle valley bottom landscape areas are now dominated by plantations in the stem exclusion stage. These landscapes have been dramatically altered over the last 60 years of management and contain the majority of the proposed treatment areas.
The desired landscape condition would have larger age-class patches relative to the current landscape pattern and would restore the late-successional forest to historic refugia in the gentle- sloping areas of the landscape. Desired patch sizes would be larger to approximate historic fire disturbance that covered thousands of acres. Tree densities and forest structure would vary across the landscape, based on the natural disturbance regime. High tree densities and multi- storied forest structure would typically characterize the gentle valley landscape area. Lower tree densities and single or two storied forest structure would typically characterize the gentle mountain slope and steep landscape areas. The desired pattern of vegetation patches would align with patterns produced by moderate severity fire effects in keeping with Deadman/Francis Watershed Analysis recommendations and objective 1 of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which calls for restoration of the diversity and complexity of landscape scale features such as vegetation patterns.
DISTURBANCE MECHANISMS Wildfire: Wildfires represent the primary disturbance mechanism (Agee, 1993) that shaped the Deadman/Francis watershed prior to Euro-American settlement. Over the last 100 years, fire exclusion has created unsustainable forest fuel loads and closed timber stand conditions that would sustain high intensity wildfires. A large wildfire would have a high potential of adversely affecting the visual quality of the watershed, late-successional forests, water quality, infrastructure, and public safety under the current fuel conditions.
Insects: Currently there is very little insect activity within the proposed treatment area. Douglas- fir (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) and ips (Ips spp.) bark beetles typically attack stressed or damaged trees (Furniss 1977, Kegley 1997). Bark beetles are typically present in all stands at low levels; however, large outbreaks may follow tree stressing conditions such as droughts or large wind events. The proposed treatment areas are currently more susceptible to increased beetle activity due to high tree densities, tree size, and lack of species diversity.
Disease: Brown cubical rot (Phaeolus schweinitzii) has been found in all stands of the Johnnie project area. P. schweinitzii is a slow moving heart rot that will infect the lower portion of older (generally greater than 150 years old) trees. The stands proposed for treatment are too young for this fungus to have any real effect on tree growth at this time (Goheen, 2010).
EXISTING STAND CONDITIONS – Managed Stands Proposed for Treatment Stands located within the Johnnie planning area fall into one of three landscape areas: gentle mountain slope, gentle valley bottom, and steep terrain. Gentle mountain slope areas are upper slope areas with lower moisture levels, fewer barriers to fire spread, and historic evidence of larger patches of stand replacement fire, compared to the gentle valley bottoms. 90 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Gentle valley bottom landscape areas are the most likely areas to be refugia from frequent fire, due to the gentle topography and high moisture levels through the growing season. Historically, surface fire dominated with limited amounts of crown fire. Steep landscape areas are dominated by steep slopes where fire intensity is generally greater and stand replacement fire is more frequent than in the other landscape areas.
Current vegetative and biophysical conditions for the proposed stands to be commercially thinned are displayed in Table 23. A range of conditions for the proposed pre-commercially thinning units are displayed in Table 27 under the “Pre-Commercial Thinning” section. These plantations (commercial and pre-commercial) were harvested with a clearcut prescription between 1950 and 1989 and heavily planted with Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and in one stand ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Currently these stands are densely stocked and lack natural canopy gaps, associated understory diversity, and are characterized by simplified structural conditions. Overstories are dominated by Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine and are in the stem exclusion stage of forest development (Oliver and Larson, 1996). Tree species within the upland may include combinations of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), white fir (Abies concolor), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), golden chinkapin (Castanopsis chrysophylla), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Sugar pine is present throughout the project area; however, this species is not a major component within any stand proposed for treatment. Tree species within the riparian zone can include combinations of Douglas-fir, dogwood, white fir, western hemlock, red alder (Alnus rubra), willow spp. (Salix), western redcedar, Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), and bigleaf maple. Variability within stands occur in terms of understory development, density, tree species, canopy closure, mean diameter, slope, aspect, and the amount of riparian habitat. Understory development of shade tolerant conifers, including western redcedar, white fir, Pacific yew, and western hemlock which primarily occur within 60 feet of Class III streams. The shrub layer is light to heavy and consists primarily of vine maple (Acer cirinatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), and cascade barberry (Mahonia nervosa). The presence of snags is very low, with diameters usually less than 12 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Decay class 3–5 large diameter (>20 inches) down logs which are remnant culls from past clearcut harvests are scattered within both upland and riparian habitats.
Table 23. Existing Physical and Biological Stand Condition for Commercial Stands Stand Landtype Potential Slope Aspect Elev. Land QMD TPA Canopy Basal SDI % of # Association Natural Alloc. Closure Area Max Vegetation (ft) (%) (ft2) SDI
Commercial Stands
1 GMS PSME G SE 2800 Matrix 11.9 193 66 144 274 63
13 GV ABCO G S 2000 Matrix 13.5 143 61 138 289 57
34 GV PSME G W 3400 Matrix 12.0 172 61 141 266 55
35 GV ABCO G SE 2000 Matrix 12.3 224 69 179 353 80
36 GV ABCO G SE 2000 Matrix 12.2 194 65 152 411 81
103 GMS PSME M E 3000 Matrix 12.2 237 73 198 346 71
91 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
161 GV PSME G S 3000 LSR 13.1 238 66 189 341 70
166 GMS PSME G E 3600 LSR 9.9 322 76 174 336 69
168 ST PSME S S 3200 LSR 11.5 240 66 168 321 66
174 GMS PSME G SE 3800 LSR 10.8 213 72 130 332 68
228 GMS ABCO G SE 1900 Matrix 12.5 164 67 140 278 55
Landtype Association: GV=Gentle Valley; GMS=Gentle Mountain Slope; ST=Steep Terrain Potential Natural Vegetation: ABCO=Abies concolor (white fir); PSME=Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas-fir) Slope: G=Gentle (0-35%), M=Moderate (35-60%), S=Steep (60-100%) QMD: Quadratic Mean Diameter TPA: Trees per Acre SDI: Stand Density Index
DESIRED STAND CONDITIONS – Managed Stands Proposed for Harvest The desired condition for both upland and riparian second growth managed stands is to move the stands towards conditions approximating those that would exist under the natural disturbance regime for their respective landscape areas, and manage for tree species that naturally persist within the stand. Western Oregon studies support the practice of thinning young stands to mimic natural disturbance processes or to accelerate the development of old forest structure (Tappeiner et al., 1997; Muir et al., 2002; Garman et al., 2003; Lindh and Muir, 2004; Andrews et al., 2005) along with the associated species richness (Bailey et al., 1998). The desired conditions are those typical of late-successional stands that experience infrequent fire and therefore, would persist under a historic fire regime: multi-storied stands with 70-160 tolerant and intolerant overstory and intermediate trees per acre and a shade tolerant understory. Figure 6 displays the current condition as found in stand 103 which shows a young, dense overstory with a small amount of understory trees. Figure 7 displays the same stand 80 years post-harvest (minus any unpredictable disturbances such fire, insects, etc.) which predicts more vertical diversity than currently exists
The stands within the Johnnie project area are located within Matrix, Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), and Riparian Reserve land allocations. Matrix lands have a timber production objective. The desired condition is sustainable, cost efficient timber production to support current and future economies. In order to produce a sustainable yield of timber from this land allocation, timber harvest needs to occur on a regular basis, particularly for those stands that are in the stem exclusion stage where salvaging predicted suppression mortality improves the growth potential of the leave trees. If left untreated, the unnaturally dense conditions of the stem exclusion stands would continue on a track of increased suppression mortality, growth declines, and lost economic opportunities. The target density, measured by the stand density index (SDI), is between 33 and 55 percent. Suppression mortality normally occurs at densities of 55 percent.
92 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Figure 6: Current Condition for Gentle Mountain Slope Landscape Areas
Figure 7: Desired Future Condition for Gentle Mountain Slope Landscape Areas
The objective of late-successional reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late- successional forest ecosystems. Thinning (pre-commercial and commercial) may occur in stands up to 80 years old regardless of the origin of the stands (e.g., plantations planted after 93 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest logging or stands naturally regenerated after fire or blowdown). The purpose of these silvicultural treatments is to benefit the creation and maintenance of late-successional forest conditions. Examples of silvicultural treatments that may be considered beneficial include thinnings in existing even-aged stands and prescribed burning (NWFP, 1994).
The Riparian Reserve land allocation exists along all streams, wetlands, inner gorges, and unstable areas. Many of the proposed treatment areas persist primarily as a single story monoculture. It was determined through site visits that areas of the riparian reserve could benefit from the proposed treatments in that species and structural diversity may be enhanced.
The desired condition for Riparian Reserves is to serve their existing aquatic ecosystem protection functions (e.g. effective stream shade, bank stabilization, provision of wood and leaf litter to the stream channel). The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan stressed that management activities in Riparian Reserves maintain or improve current riparian habitat conditions, functions, and processes. With these objectives clearly defined, silvicultural prescriptions can help shift the current riparian forest to the desired future condition. Riparian Reserves would be restored corridors of healthy forests, both in species composition and structural diversity of plant communities; and would provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, and more natural rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration than currently exists.
Silvicultural treatments can help grow large conifers within riparian reserves that provide shade and wood to streams over long periods of time. Large conifers in the stream (standing or down) are important structural components. Standing large conifers provide habitat to a wide variety of birds, mammals, insects, and invertebrates. When fallen, large conifers in riparian areas continue to provide habitat to terrestrial wildlife species and often benefit aquatic species as well (Maser and Sedell, 1994).
Previous harvesting practices and fire exclusion have produced a fragmented landscape with isolated patches of older coniferous forests interspersed with young Douglas-fir plantations; past management activities have altered the nature of streamside vegetation (Chan, 2006). In the past, timber stands were treated to the streamside; streamside buffers were essentially non- existent. Currently these plantations are essentially monocultures that lack both species and structural diversity. Treating Riparian Reserves would create a healthy, diverse riparian forest community that will maintain properly functioning conditions. This would be accomplished by increasing species diversity and advancing riparian forest structure and development. The riparian reserve areas within the project area receiving treatment could be under-planted with shade tolerant species which would enhance species, vertical and horizontal diversity (Berg, 1995 and Carey et al., 1999). Proposed treatments would also result in providing future high quality large woody debris (LWD) and coarse woody debris (CWD) by spacing and releasing trees.
Silvicultural prescriptions would include species preference to retain and/or remove to help reach specific riparian goals. Active riparian vegetation management in conifer, hardwood, and shrub dominated riparian areas may be necessary to create growing conditions that favor tree regeneration and understory development. Silvicultural prescriptions would focus on treatments that create adequate tree growing conditions for a particular site. Adequate tree regeneration and understory development of both tree and shrub species, can serve as the basic structural components for building, sustaining and optimizing the composition and function of riparian forests. Short-term disturbances that promote tree regeneration and increased health and vigor of residual trees in previously degraded riparian sites currently dominated primarily by Douglas- fir plantations are likely necessary to achieve long-term goals for restoring riparian processes and functions. 94 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Treating Riparian Reserves in the manner described above is consistent with the Northwest Forest Plans standards and guidelines #c (NWFP, 1994 pg. C-31) as well as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objective #1 (NWFP, 1994 pg. B-11).
Table 24. Desired Stand Conditions and Prescribed Actions for the Gentle Valley Bottom Landscape Areas Desired Stand Conditions Prescribed Actions Leave all minor species and don’t factor them into spacing specifications; leave trees joined together Variable tree density, clumps at the base (<2 feet apart) will be treated as one tree under the spacing specifications, regardless of diameter or species. 70-120 tolerant and intolerant overstory trees per Leave all minor species and don’t factor them in the acre; SDI < 55% max; basal area < 160 ft.2;multi- spacing specifications; protect existing understory storied stand structure of western hemlock and western redcedar. Accelerate diameter and height growth of the Reduce tree densities and canopy closures through understory and overstory; overstory canopy commercial thinning. closures < 60%. Use variable density harvest and existing openings/hardwood stands for creating forage gaps Promote big game forage in winter range. not visible from system roads and outside of riparian reserves.
Table 25. Desired Stand Conditions and Prescribed Actions for the Gentle Mountain Slope and Steep/Dry Landscape Areas Desired Stand Conditions Prescribed Actions Leave all minor species (ex.: western redcedar, incense-cedar, western white pine, sugar pine, western hemlock, and hardwood species) and don’t Variable tree density, clumps factor them into spacing specifications; leave trees joined together at the base to one or more trees will be treated as one tree under the spacing specifications, regardless of diameter or species. Leave all minor species (ex.: western redcedar, incense-cedar, western white pine, sugar pine, 70-160 intolerant overstory trees per acre; SDI < 2 western hemlock, and hardwood species) and don’t 55% max; basal area < 180 ft. ;single-storied or factor them into spacing specifications. Target two-storied stand structure Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine (and in several stands incense-cedar) for spacing and harvest. Accelerate diameter and height growth of the Reduce tree densities and canopy closures through overstory; overstory canopy closures < 60%. commercial thinning. Use variable density harvest and existing openings/hardwood stands for creating forage gaps Promote big game forage in winter range. not visible from system roads and outside of riparian reserves.
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL THINNING TREATMENTS AND RESIDUAL STAND CONDITIONS Commercial thinning in upland and riparian areas is proposed to meet the Purpose and Need (as described in Chapter 1), achieve desired conditions (as described above), and fulfill several
95 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest watershed analysis recommendations. Silvicultural prescriptions would be designed to reduce tree densities in second growth stands in a cost effective manner. The reduction in stand densities would result in increased tree growth, health, and vigor of individual leave trees. The proposed treatments would restore stand density, species, and structural diversity to those conditions considered characteristic under a natural disturbance regime. The action alternative would also reduce hazardous fuels and improve stand resiliency to wildfire. This action alternative would also provide wood products to the local economy.
Density management objectives will be achieved using prescriptions specifying thinning from below. Stands will be thinned to approximately 100 TPA (range of 80-160 TPA), depending on silvicultural and other resource objectives. Marking guidelines will specify retention of minor species including sugar pine, western white pine, incense-cedar, western redcedar, and Pacific yew where they occur. Hardwood tree species, such as bigleaf maple, Pacific madrone, and oak spp., will also be retained during implementation where appropriate to maintain habitat and biodiversity for wildlife species associated with hardwoods.
A “no-thin” prescription would apply to portions of some stands to mitigate concerns for merchantability, riparian shade, unique habitats and slope instability concerns and would not be thinned in the foreseeable future; these areas would function as stem exclusion vegetation and serve as sources for small diameter down wood recruitment; specifically within the stream “no- cut” buffer zones.
Table 26 displays general residual stand condition after harvest. A more detailed prescription can be found in the Silvicultural Prescription, located in the Project Record.
Table 26. Residual Stand Condition after Commercial Thinning and Gap/Seed-tree Treatments
)
2
d
%
SDI
DBH
Gap/
QMD
Basal
Acres
Leave
(acres)
Stand# Volume
Harvest Canopy
Thinned MaxSDI
Acre >5”
Area(ft
Seedtree
MBF/stan
TreesPer
Estimated Estimated
Treatment Closure% 1 31 99 3 333.9 12.2 40 81 163 37
13 7 78 0 91.0 13.2 43 74 171 34
34 7 88 0 58.1 12.9 44 80 158 33
35 2 94 0 37.6 11.9 46 72 162 37
36 15 91 0 198.0 12.2 44 73 227 45
103 93 107 9.5 2033.1 12.6 50 76 165 33
161 27 98 2.5 447.1 13.5 41 97 183 38
166 22 158 0 277.2 9.6 57 79 163 33
168 33 122 4 516.7 11.4 43 86 177 36
174 14 91 0 138.6 12.0 57 71 196 40
228 15 81 0 150.0 13.6 52 82 173 34
PRE-COMMERCIAL THINNING
96 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The proposed pre-commercial thinning (PCT) areas are a result of a period of time when timber harvest activities were extensive and of high intensity (regeneration harvests). The majority of the proposed PCT treatment areas were harvested in the 1980’s.
The objective for the proposed PCT treatments are to place stands on the path to do one or more of the following: produce commercial yields of wood, improve wood quality, produce late seral structure, increase the size of what would eventually become late seral blocks, produce large wood as quickly as possible for recruitment into streams, increase ecological diversity, and/or to help control insects and disease.
The PCT treatments would occur in both Matrix and LSR land allocations. PCT treatment would also occur within Riparian Reserves as this proposed project would help attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objective #1 and would accelerate stand development in obtaining late- seral characteristics. PCT treatments would not occur within the primary shade zone, wetlands, or unstable areas. Hardwoods, though rare, would be retained when encountered.
Pre-commercial stands would be thinned to an estimated 14’X14’ spacing (retaining approximately 225 trees per acre) with a 25 percent variance to allow for the best specimen to be retained (i.e. trees that express dominance, are disease free, and have superior form, for example). The expected result of this pre-commercial thinning is increased height and diameter growth (Reukema, 1975) and understory species diversification (Bailey, 1998). Pre-commercial thinning would occur on 15 units totaling approximately 582 acres. Units are displayed on the project area map in Chapter 1 and the average and range of the current trees per acre, quadratic mean diameter, and height are displayed in Table 27.
Table 27. Existing Physical and Biological Stand Condition for Pre-Commercial Stands Stand Condition TPA QMD Height
Average 816 6.3 28
Range 201 - 2288 3.1 - 9.3 14 - 45
TPA: Trees per acre QMD: Quadratic Mean Diameter
ROADSIDE FUELS TREATMENT Dense conifer stands along Forest Roads 2810 and spurs (900, 100, 110, 200, 229, and 300) and the 2827 road and its spurs (300, 200, and 013) contain too many trees to be considered healthy and are highly susceptible to wildfire. In the event of an escaped human caused or wildfire, stand conditions are such that fire suppression efforts could be hampered by heavy vegetation and undergrowth. Potential fire behavior may prohibit direct ground attack. These conditions are the result of years of active fire exclusion on National Forest system and private lands where fire has not been allowed to occur as a natural disturbance.
Part of the proposed action is to reduce these roadside stand densities by creating a shaded fuel break by removing small trees and brush through activities such as thinning, underburning, pruning, and piling slash. Only trees less than 8 inches would be removed. It is expected that this treatment would bring the resulting condition to a Fuel Model 8, which is a more open stand with little ground and ladder fuels. This would produce slow-burning ground fires with low flame lengths in most cases, making it easier to control and having less devastating effects to overstory vegetation.
97 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – FOREST VEGETATION Direct effects are those that are triggered immediately as a result of implementation at the stand scale. Indirect effects are those that would occur within the treatment areas and at the landscape-scale over a period of less than one to five decades (Table 28). The disclosure of effects below applies to both upland and riparian forests.
Table 28. Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects to Vegetation Treatment Vegetation Primary Effect (Beneficial/ Duration Treatment Acres by Change Adverse) (years) Alternative
1 2
Lower stand Beneficial - improved species 30-50 0 266 densities & canopy and structural diversity;
closure / variable increased growth and Commercial density in stands improved health and vigor of and landscape remaining overstory; improved Thinning areas stand fire resiliency in the long term
Lower amounts of Adverse - loss of suppression- 30 0 266 snags and down related mortality in smaller-
wood / larger sized trees diameter trees Beneficial - large snags created / accelerated growth of larger leave trees
Pre- Lower stand Adverse - loss of suppression- 20-30 0 582 Commercial densities & canopy related mortality in smaller- Thinning closure / variable sized trees density in stands Beneficial - improved species and landscape and structural diversity; areas increased growth and improved health and vigor of remaining overstory; improved stand fire resiliency in the long term
Roadside Fuels Reduction of Beneficial - Reduction of 5-10 0 2457 Treatment ladder and surface standing fuels; separation of fuels crown layers; short and long- term effect of reducing crown fire potential; long-term benefit of increased fire resiliency against crown fire.
The action alternative would enhance the growth, health and vigor of residual trees and restore stand density, species and structural diversity similar to those considered characteristic under a natural disturbance regime, while establishing stand trajectories to meet desired conditions for upland and riparian forests. Table 26 displays the stand effects of commercial thinning on canopy closure, density (BA), and expected harvest volumes. These measures were developed using Suppose (v.2.02) interface to the Forest Vegetation Simulator (Crookston, 1997), Western Cascades variant.
98 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
As a whole, the long-term indirect effects of the action alternative would be beneficial. While suppression mortality would be reduced by the action alternative, the growth of the leave trees would be accelerated by thinning and prescribed fire, stand structure would be diversified, and snags would be created. At the individual tree scale, thinning would develop greater diameter branches (Maguire, 1991), deeper crowns, and wind-firmness. At the stand scale, understory growth and establishment would initiate the layering that is characteristic of late-successional structure. Other management actions would add diversity of stand structure and density within individual harvested stands in the short term. Snag creation, fuels treatment, and logging practices (landings, skid trails, skyline corridors) would create small gaps in the short term. In the long term, small scale natural disturbance processes (root disease, insects, blowdown, and fire) would create small gaps within stands. Western Oregon studies support the practice of thinning young stands to mimic the natural disturbance process or to accelerate the development of old forest structures (Tappeiner et al., 1997; Muir et al., 2002; Garman et al., 2003; Lindh and Muir, 2004; Andrews et al., 2005).
The action alternative would implement various combinations of treatments across the landscape. The resulting mosaic would more closely approximate the natural pattern of forest structure as compared to Alternative 1 (No Action). The action alternative would also accelerate the development of late-successional structure within the gentle valley bottom landscape, and at the landscape scale, the proposed treatments would also shift the vegetation pattern toward larger, late-successional patches.
Under the action alternative, variability in stand density and structure would provide greater resilience to natural disturbances such as wildfire. Treatment variation would also create a less continuous pattern of live and dead fuels across the landscape. The beneficial effects of the variation in fuel and canopy density resulting from thinning would be proportional to the number of thinned acres in each action alternative.
NO ACTION Alternative 1 would not attain desired conditions on a stand or landscape scale. The current condition would persist for both upland and riparian forests. The “No Action” alternative would not meet the purpose and need as described in Chapter 1. Under Alternative 1, stands would remain densely stocked, with a high level of canopy cover. There would be little change in species composition. The rate of individual tree growth would continue to decline. Trees would become more susceptible to insects and disease. Tree mortality would increase and the self- thinning phase of forest succession may persist for decades. Without active forest management, that portion of the landscape in the stem exclusion stage would continue to increase as younger plantations enter this stage. Stands identified for this project would continue in the stem exclusion stage.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – FOREST VEGETATION The potential of the action alternative to result in either adverse or beneficial cumulative effects to forest vegetation is addressed at the scale of the Johnnie planning area. The activities in Table 5 were taken into account in the analysis of vegetative age class distribution. The time frame for analyzing cumulative effects is 10 to 50 years, the period of time that thinning would most influence today’s pattern of stand initiation and stem exclusion vegetation.
Commercial thinning in the action alternative would beneficially reduce the existing stem exclusion vegetation by approximately 2.1% within the planning area. As such, thinning would help move stands toward maturity and out of the stem exclusion stage, helping to meet desired landscape conditions. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that Alternative 2 would have no meaningful negative cumulative 99 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest impacts and that the proposed activities and connected actions represent a positive contribution to vegetative conditions in the planning area. Alternative 1 would have no meaningful cumulative impacts on vegetation except in the context of foregone opportunities.
100 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
WILDLIFE
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan were designed, in part, to maintain ecological components such as down logs, snags, and large trees (ROD B-2) through time. The goal for management of forest stands in the matrix land allocation is for timber and other commodity production, while maintaining these ecological components at appropriate levels (ROD B-6) well distributed throughout the landscape (ROD C-40). Provisions for retention of snags and logs should normally be made, at least until the new stand begins to contribute coarse woody debris (ROD B-8). When the Northwest Forest Plan was implemented in 1994, the standards and guidelines for snags and logs were meant to provide initial guidance (ROD C-41). Future refinement of standards and guidelines was expected as new information became available (ROD C- 42, E- 12). More current information (Rose et al., 2001; Mellen-McLean et al., 2009) indicates that the biological population potential models (dating back to the 1970s and 80s) that most standards and guidelines were based on, may now be out of date. The Northwest Forest Plan requires site-specific analysis and the application of models for computing down wood information (ROD C-40) and snag recruitment (ROD C-46) to take into account tree species, diameters, and falling and decay rates, to determine appropriate tree and snag species mixes and densities to achieve the objectives stated above. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator model (FVS v6.21, revision 09/15/10) was used to analyze existing and future levels of snags and down wood. This model recently incorporated the latest information on snag fall rates, decay rates, and height loss rates for the western Cascades. DecAID (Mellen-McLean et al., 2009) was used to determine what levels would be ecologically appropriate for the specific habitat and structure types in the proposed commercial thin harvest units. DecAID is an internet-based synthesis and summary of the published scientific literature, research data, wildlife databases, forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience concerning snags and down wood. It provides information on estimating or evaluating sizes and densities or amounts of dead wood that provide habitat for many species and ecological processes (Mellen-McLean et al., 2009). DecAID provides three tolerance levels (30%, 50%, and 80%) for snag and down wood sizes, densities and percent ground cover used by wildlife species. Tolerance levels indicate a level of assurance for providing habitat that meets the needs of the species. The higher the tolerance level is for the species, the more individuals in the population that are being provided habitat. DecAID version 2.1 Advice on Decayed Wood in the Southwest Oregon Mix Conifer-Hardwood Forest, Small/medium trees Vegetation Condition provides analysis of wildlife data on snag habitat under natural conditions based on the most recent research available (Mellen-McLean et al., 2009). The following tolerance levels given in DecAID are based on the best available data to maintain density of snags for this specific vegetation condition. Inventory data from un- harvested plots were chosen to provide for the greatest number of species based on DecAID narrative, Synthesis and Management Implications section, and tables SWOMC_S.inv-2 and SWOMC_S.inv-3 80% tl = 15 snags/acre ≥ 10 dbh; 6 snags/acre ≥ 20 dbh 50% tl = 7.3 snags/acre ≥ 10 dbh; 3.2 snags/acre ≥ 20 dbh 30% tl = 4 snags/acre ≥ 10 dbh; 2 snags/acre ≥ 20 dbh
The wildlife data for snag density is based on one species of bat, fringed myotis (FRMY) SWOMC_S/L.sp-5). The study by Weller and Zabel (2001) was well designed, with an adequate 101 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest sample size. The minimum dbh of snag included in their density estimates was 30 cm (12 in) dbh, slightly larger than the 25.4 cm (10.0 in) minimum dbh from inventory plots, which equates to a smaller subsample of possible snags. Thus, the fact that the density of snags at FRMY roost sites is higher than those densities from inventory plots with measurable snags indicates the bats are likely selecting for high-density clumps of snags. Weller and Zabel (2001) found FRMY using areas with significantly (p=0.002) higher snag densities than found at random plots. Therefore, the use inventory data seem to be more appropriate measure of setting objective in this watershed. The following tolerance levels provided in the DecAID narrative percent cover down wood, Integrated Summary of Wildlife Data and Inventory Data from Un-harvested Plots section, based on Table SWOMC_S/L.sp-10. They are based on the best available wildlife data to maintain down wood (≥5” dbh) specific to this vegetation condition. 80% tl = 14% cover of down wood 50% tl= 7% cover of down wood 30% tl = 1.5% cover of down wood
WATERSHED ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with the standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan (ROD C-41). The objective for snags and down wood are based on un-harvested reference plots from DecAid for the watershed and provides bases for considering what maybe an appropriate CWD tolerance levels during project implementation.
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS The abundance of snags and logs varies substantially across forested landscapes in the Pacific Northwest (Ohmann and Waddell, 2002). While the majority of the landscape usually supports moderate levels of snags and logs (Mellen-McLean et al., 2009), on portions (about 13% of the landscape in the Southwest Oregon Mix Conifer-Hardwood, (Figures SWOMC_S.inv-14 and SWOMC_S.inv-15) can have no snags, while a smaller portion would have a great deal. The results of the Cow Creek watershed CWD inventory are displayed as representation of the current condition for the Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds. Figure 8 and Figure 9 display the snag habitat by forest age class. Figure 10 displays the percent cover of down wood by forest age class.
102 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Snags > 10" DBH per Acre 9.00 8.00
7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 Number per per Acre Number 2.00 1.00 0.00 20 to 60 years 60 to 80 years 80 to 180 years 180 years +
Forest Age Class
Figure 8. Number of > 10 Inch Snags Per Acre by Seral Forest Age Class
Snags > 20" DBH per Acre 2.00 1.80
1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80
0.60 Number per per Acre Number 0.40 0.20 0.00 20 to 60 years 60 to 80 years 80 to 180 years 180 years +
Forest Age Class
Figure9. Number of > 20 Inch Snags Per Acre Seral Forest Age Class
103 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Coarse Woody Debris - % Cover
8.00 7.00 6.00
5.00 4.00
% Cover % 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 20 to 60 years 60 to 80 years 80 to 180 years 180 years +
Forest Age Class
Figure 10. Number of > 10 Inch Snags Per Acre Seral Forest Age Class
The Cow Creek inventory indicates that all forest age classes are lacking in large (> 20 inch dbh) snag habitat to achieve the 30% tolerance level (based on vegetation inventory data from un-harvested plots in DecAID, (Tables SWOMC_S.inv-2 and SWOMC_S.inv-3 , Mellen- McLean et al., 2009). No forest age class achieves the 50% tolerance level for the > 10 inch snag habitat; the 20 to 60 forest age class did not achieve 30% tolerance level (based on vegetation inventory data from un-harvested plots in DecAID,( tables SWOMC_S.inv-2 and SWOMC_S.inv-3, Mellen-McLean et al., 2009). Table 29 below displays the percent of the area for Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds deficient of snag habitat at each tolerance level, based on un-harvested (reference) plots from DecAID.
Table 29. Percent of the area for Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds deficient of snag habitat at each tolerance level, based on un-harvested (reference) plots from DecAID, SWOMC_S.inv-14 and SWOMC_S.inv-15.
Percent of the area for Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds deficient of snag habitat at each tolerance level, based on un-harvested (reference) plots from DecAID.
>10 inch snags Percent of Area >20 inch snags Percent of Area
30% Tolerance 26% 30% Tolerance 66%
50% Tolerance 44% 50% Tolerance 21%
80% Tolerance 32% 80% Tolerance 15%
The main deviations in snag densities across the landscape are the result of clear-cut timber harvesting and fire exclusion. Approximately 57% of the 31,773 acres of Deadman/Francis sub- watersheds has been clear-cut harvested and retained little or no snags. Approximately 43% remains in a late-seral forest condition (forest older than 80 years). Within the subwatershed approximately 19% area consist of forested stands less than 20 years of age, these stands are
104 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest expected to have little or no snag habitat. Nineteen percent of the area is forest that ranges from 20 to 60 years of age. Approximately 18% of forest area ranges from 60 to 80 years of age. Because the un-harvested (reference) plots showed the whole watershed was low on snags the deciding official determined treatment units in this vegetation condition would not go below the 30% tolerance level. Leave areas (52% of the proposed commercial thin unit acres) provide areas of higher density snags in the future, and natural strata provide the higher densities snags at this time. Common natural disturbances that produce areas with high levels of dead wood include wildfire, insects, and disease, and wind (blow down) events. These events are expected to be the source of patches of high snag densities in the future and should be maintained within the sub-watersheds. Management prescriptions should allow for these extremes because they are ecologically important (White et al., 2002; Mellen-McLean et al., 2009). All forest age class achieves the 30% tolerance level for the down wood percent cover habitat, no forest age class exceeded the 50% tolerance level (based on Integrated Summary of Wildlife Data and Inventory Data from Un-harvested Plots section, based on Table SWOMC_S/L.sp-10 . DecAID, (Mellen-McLean et al., 2009). DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Within the planning area, stand exam data show current average snag densities of 9.1 snags per acre for snags ≥10 inch dbh and 8 snags per acre for larger snags (≥20 inch dbh), with down wood average ground cover of 10%. When compared to the data in DecAID, current > 10 inch snag levels are moderate, but have few or no large snags. The down wood (percent cover) is in the high range. The direct and indirect effects to CWD are analyzed at two scales: 1) within the stands being harvested (stand-scale), and 2) within the landscape of Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds scale. The direct effects are the immediate changes that occur at these two scales. The indirect effects focus on how the alternative would modify the stand CWD dynamics over the next 100 years. The actions that would have the largest effect on CWD are timber harvesting and post- harvest fuel reduction treatments. The roadside fuel break and noncommercial thinning will have no measurable impact to current coarse wood habitat. The precommercial thinning (PCT) activities is not expected to result in direct impacts to snag habitat and the roadside fuel treatment incorporate BMP to protect existing snags. The action alternative causes a decrease in stand levels of snags and down wood because of incidental falling of snags for logging or safety reasons, and by consumption of down wood during the fuels reduction treatments. Harvest treatments would reduce the amount of suppression mortality within the treated portions of stands (290 acres), indirectly affecting future recruitment of CWD. Existing snags and logs would be protected to the extent practical and safe. However, it is probable that the action alternative would lower levels of these structures (by approximately six to seven snags per acre) through mechanical disturbance from tree falling and harvesting. This project would affect dead wood mainly in the small tree structural conditions. It is estimated that an average of approximately three to four snags ≥10 inches would be created from fuels treatments (predicted 5% mortality, See Fuels Section) and potentially damaged from harvest operations within the harvest units during and after treatment. All trees damaged during harvest operations, such as intermediate support trees or line damaged trees, would be retained to moderate the decreased rate of snags loss caused by thinning harvest activities. The baseline snags per acre averages 9.1 in the commercial harvest units, with 6 to 7 snags per acre being lost to mechanical disturbance, reducing the snags per acre to 2 to 3 snags per acre and an additional 3 to 4 snags per acre being created as a result of the fuels treatment; resulting in post treatment snag densities of 5.5-6.5 snags per acre (which is on the low end of the 30% tolerance level of 4 snags per acre (Mellen-McLean et al., 2009)).The changes to
105 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest levels of snags and down wood at the stand-scale are shown in Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13. These graphs show how the alternative would change CWD trajectories over the next 100 years using the latest models. The levels shown in these graphs are weighted stand averages. Under the action alternative, levels of snags ≥10 inches are not predicted to drop below the 30% tolerance level as advised in DecAID (Figure 11), the bottom edge of the gray band, for the next 100 years. Over the next 100 years, the snag levels would begin to increase in the larger diameter class with a reduction in smaller diameter snags. The models indicate that snag and down wood levels remain within the levels advised for by DecAID, and are consistent with CWD levels found in the sub-watersheds. The action alternative would have the effect of maintaining suitable habitat for wildlife, plants, fungi, liverworts, mosses, lichens, and ecological processes that require CWD. Large snag (≥20” DBH) densities within the commercial thin stands are currently below the levels advised for in DecAID (2 snags per acre, 30% tolerance level, Mellen-McLean et al., 2009) in that there are currently approximately .8 snags per acre ≥20” DBH in the stands. The future snags that will eventually be created through stand mortality in the action alternative will be larger in diameter than the snags that would be created as a result of the no action alternative, but fewer in density than compared to the no action alternative. Under the action and no action alternatives, the 30% tolerance level for snags of this size class will not be achieved for 20 to 25 years post treatment (Figure 12). The no action alternative would result in average of approximately 1/2 more snags per acre than would the action alternative in the ≥20” DBH size class 100 years post treatment. All alternatives will exceed the 30% tolerance levels for snags ≥20” DBH by year 30 post treatment and snags in treated stands are likely to be a larger diameter than those in the no action alternative (Silviculture section of Chapter 3 of EA ). Downed wood cover is not expected to change, but remain in the 5.7-6.6% down wood cover range, exceeding 2-6% down wood cover range of the 30% tolerance levels recommended by DecAID in all alternatives (Figure 13, Mellen-McLean et al., 2009). The action alternative would provide other ecological benefits by allowing trees within treatment units to grow larger and faster, and to develop other suitable wildlife habitat characteristics (e.g., large limbs, crowns, etc.) sooner than would occur with the no action alternative.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Substantial adverse effects to levels of CWD at both the stand and landscape-scale are a result of past clear cut timber harvesting, road building, roadside salvage and fire exclusion. The Cow Creek inventory showed an overabundance of land area with no snags or reduced densities, and a deficit of land area with high snag densities. It would take several decades to restore snag and log conditions to within the ranges advised for in DecAID for these two conditions throughout the subwatershed. Down wood levels would vary both in time and across the land, but should remain within the reference range. The action alternative does not add to this existing condition at the stand level because they maintain snag and down wood levels within natural ranges as identified in DecAID. At the landscape-scale, including past, current and future projects, the action alternative does not add to the cumulative loss of snags or down wood.
106 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Snags >10" DBH
36 32 28 No action
24 20 16 Action
12 Alternative snags/acre 8 30 to 80% Tolerance Level 4 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Year
Figure 11. Short and Long Term Changes to >10" dbh Snags (Snags per acre by Year).
The ranges of snags presented in Figure 11 were taken from DecAID, Data from Un-harvested Plots section, and tables SWOMC_S.inv-2 and SWOMC_S.inv-3
Snags >20" DBH
10
8 No action 30 to 80% Tolerance 6
4 Action
Alternative snags/acre 2
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Year
Figure 12 Short and Long Term Changes to >20" dbh Snags (Snags per acre by Year) The ranges of snags presented in Figure 12 were taken from DecAID, Inventory Data from Un- harvested Plots section, and tables SWOMC_S.inv-2 and SWOMC_S.inv-3
107 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Down Wood Cover
16
14
12 30 to 80% Tolerance No Action 10
8 Action 6 Alternative
4 DownWood/Acre
2 % 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Year
Figure 13. Short and Long Term Changes to > 6" Diameter Down Wood The percent down wood cover presented in Figure 13 were taken from Integrated Summary of Wildlife Data and Inventory Data from Un-harvested Plots section, based on Table SWOMC_S/L.sp-10
MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES The Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1990b) has identified a number of terrestrial wildlife species with habitat needs that are representative of other wildlife species with similar habitat requirements for survival and reproduction. The LRMP identified the following species/groups as management indicator species (MIS) for various forest habitats: northern spotted owl, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Roosevelt elk, black- tailed deer, pine marten, pileated woodpecker, and primary cavity excavators (Table 30). The northern spotted owl, pine marten, and pileated woodpecker represent mature and old growth conifer habitats. Primary cavity excavators represent the dead and defective tree habitat. Roosevelt elk and the blacktail deer represent big game winter range. The bald eagle and peregrine falcon are sensitive species that require special management. However, they do not nest within the planning area and this project does not affect their habitat; therefore, they are not discussed further. The planning area is located in the lower elevations of Douglas fir and western hemlock forest. Pine marten occur in the higher elevations with true-fir, mountain hemlock, and lodgepole pine forest types; therefore, because their habitat is not affected by this project, the pine marten are not discussed further.
108 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest Table 30. Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Species Habitat Indicator Unit Of Species/Habitat Habitat Measure Impacted Present in Panning Area
Northern Spotted Mature/Old Growth Habitat Acres Yes No Owl Occupied
Blacktail Deer and Big Game Winter Range Numbers Yes Enhanced Roosevelt Elk
Bald Eagle * None/Special Sightings Yes No Management Winter foraging along South Umpqua River
Peregrine Falcon* None/Special Active Nest No No Management
Pileated Mature/Old Growth Habitat Acres Yes No Woodpecker
Pine Marten* Mountain Hemlock and Acres No No Lodgepole Pine Habitat
Primary Cavity Snag Habitat Acres and Yes Yes Excavators Percent of Snags
*As no suitable habitat for these species is being proposed for treatment, these species will not be considered in this analysis.
Northern Spotted Owl See TES species section for natural history information on the northern spotted owl.
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Several Forest Plan standards and guidelines apply to northern spotted owls and their habitat. Most of the relevant ones that apply to this project have already been listed under the Wildlife Habitat and Threatened, Endangered, Or Other Sensitive Species section (USDA 1990 b, Chapter IV, page 36).
WATERSHED ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS Retain large blocks of late-successional habitat and maintain connectivity to these blocks. Additionally restore large woody debris over the landscape (USDA 1997a).
EXISTING CONDITIONS The Umpqua National Forest (NF) baseline NSO habitat is described in terms of acres by land allocation Table 31. The Umpqua NF is comprised of 986,160 acres of primarily mixed conifer forest. The majority of the Umpqua NF is capable habitat with the exception of the small amount of non-forested land (meadows, lakes, rivers, rocky outcrops, etc.) and upper elevation sub alpine fir and lodgepole pine forests which are not widely utilized by spotted owls (USDI 2008a). However, 53% of the Umpqua NF currently serves as suitable habitat of which 59% is within protected habitat. The majority of the capable but not suitable acres come from past timber harvest activities, with wildfire being the second largest source of capable but currently unsuitable habitat on the Umpqua NF.
Table 31. Umpqua National Forest NSO Habitat Baseline from Northwest Forest Plan.
Alternative 2 Umpqua Capable NRF National NRF Habitat Habitat Downgraded Forest and Removed
Total Acres 986,160 519,371 890,302 0
Percentage of 100% 53% 90% 0% Total
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS The viability of the northern spotted owls was analyzed with the implementation of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) including the Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species was signed in 1994. The ROD amended the 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan of the Umpqua National Forest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion on the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 1994). The Biological Opinion determined that implementing the Northwest Forest Plan would not jeopardize listed species. 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 project area have been estimated using the method identified by USDI-USDA (2008a). That analysis resulted in an estimate of 18 potential NSO home ranges/territories located around activity centers based either on known historic or on predicted activity center locations (KPACs) within the action area (Figure 16). Of these 18 potential NSO home ranges/territories, 11 are based upon historic owl pair or resident single locations identified from surveys which occurred in the late 1990’s, and the remaining 7 home ranges were located as per USDI-USDA (2008a). During the final location refinement required by USDI-USDA (2008a), the Forest’s level one consultation team utilized the Forest’s 2008 NRF map (Davis and Lint 2005). The Johnnie project would modify dispersal habitat within the home range of 18 of the 483 known or predicted activity centers (KPACs) on the Umpqua Forest. These activities include 266 acres of commercial and 582 acres of non-commercial thinning that occur within previously clear-cut regenerated stands 80 years of age or younger, with very little canopy separation and low levels of snags and downed wood. These stands are currently dispersal habitat, and would remain dispersal habitat post treatment (canopy closure would remain at or above 40%). The purpose of the treatments is to create fire resiliency, increase the growth and vigor of existing trees, and retain existing snags and downed wood to the greatest extent that is safe and practicable, while providing wood products to the community. The 2,091 acres of roadside treatment occurs on approximately 937 acres of suitable NSO NRF/dispersal habitat, 888 acres of dispersal habitat only and 260 acres of unsuitable NSO habitat. The proposed treatments would not result in a change of habitat type; however, the actions would degrade both dispersal and NRF habitat by modifying spotted owl habitat components at the site-scale. Activities include felling of individual hazard trees and snags, leaving on site to serve as down woody material. Prescribed burning and other fuel reduction activities such as; chipping, piling and pruning for fuel reduction could entail consumption of small understory trees/shrubs and small 110 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest diameter coarse wood 6 inch or less. Activities such as theses would remove or meaningfully degrade owl habitat even at the site scale. At the stand scale, these activities would have no effect on the structure or function of owl habitat. Where NSO habitat conditions (dispersal and NRF) exist prior to proposed activities, it is expected that they would remain following project implementation: within NRF habitat, project sites would retain dominant overstory trees as nesting structures, and subdominant trees for roosting; would maintain canopy closures at or above 60% for thermal cove, predator protections and dispersal. Dispersal only habitat would retain canopy closures at or above 40%. The project would retain snags and logs to support the owl prey base. Thus, potential minor modification of habitat associated with these activities would be immeasurable and undetectable, and as such are considered insignificant effects. Additional effects to northern spotted owls and their habitats are discussed under the Biological Evaluation of Wildlife Species section and are not repeated here. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects to northern spotted owls and their habitats are discussed under the Biological Evaluation of Wildlife Species section and are not repeated here. DETERMINATION: Following consideration of all of the above, it is determined that proposed activities addressed in this Biological Assessment “May affect, likely to adversely affect” the northern spotted owl (refer to Biological Evaluation of Wildlife Species section).
Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) and Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) - Big Game Winter Range Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) were selected as Management Indicator Species as they are an important socio- economic species (USDA, 1990). Elk and Black-tailed deer were chosen as MIS species to ensure emphasis of winter range habitat management achieved through forage and cover production on land used or suitable for occupancy by deer and elk. Certain areas of the forest were identified as big game winter range under the Umpqua LRMP (USDA,1990). Designated as “Management Area 11”, these areas were designed to provide for big game winter range habitat and timber production consistent with other resource objectives. Timber harvest is encouraged to provide stable production of forage and cover. A 60:40 ratio of forage to cover habitat was once considered optimum for winter range (Thomas et al., 1979; Brown, 1985; Brown, 1991), but more recent studies suggest smaller ratios of forage to cover may be suitable as long as the interspersion of forage and cover is good (Larkin et al., 2004). Ultimately however, forage is the most limiting factor in the project area. Foraging habitat is identified with the Umpqua National Forest Plan as well as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) management plan as the limiting factor in the Cascades. The Forest Plan has several standards and guidelines that apply to elk and deer (big game) winter range. The relevant ones that apply to this project include the use of a habitat effectiveness model (“A Model to Evaluate Elk Habitat in Western Oregon” or similar model) to compare the impact of various alternatives on big game habitat (LRMP IV-38) and direction for management of deer and elk winter range areas described in Forest Plan Prescription C4-I.
EXISTING CONDITION - BIG GAME WINTER RANGE The Johnnie planning area occurs within the 1,009,697-acre Dixon Wildlife Management Unit (WMU). This WMU is monitored by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and contains about 626,622 acres of National Forest Land, 131,286 acres of BLM-managed forest, and private and state lands make up 251,286 acres, located in the western Cascades. The 111 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest forage/cover ratio in the Dixon WMU is 20:80. According to 2010 monitoring data, the elk population trend in this WMU is estimated to be declining and may indicate a decrease in forage habitat that is affecting winter range. The majority of forage in the WMU is found on private lands on the western and southern portions of the WMU, in the lower elevation valleys. Elk herds have relocated to some of these areas over the last 15 years. Forage areas on federal lands are decreasing due to reductions in regeneration harvests and as existing clear-cut units transition from early to mid seral vegetative conditions. However, clearcutting continues to be used as a silvicultural method on private land. The Johnnie planning area is 15,336 acres in size with 5,012 acres of designated winter range (33%). Portions of the planning area are used year round by big game. Across the forest, 183,925 acres of designated winter range habitat exists. Direct and Indirect Effects - Big Game Winter Range The direct and indirect effects to big game winter range were analyzed at the planning and Forest area scale. Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the declining trend in forage habitat on federal lands resulting in poorer future forage habitat and winter range conditions. This would have a negative impact on elk and deer. Thinning would increase the amount of sunlight somewhat to reach the shrub/forbs/grass component of the harvested units creating forage habitat. Approximately 266 acres out of the 183,925 acres (0.15%) of MA 11 will be commercially thinned in the Johnnie Project. The effect of this action is an increase of elk and deer forage production that would occur over the next 10-20 years and then begin to decline as the stands begin to develop larger trees, tree crowns expand and begin to close in again. There will be no effect on the population trends of the elk population in this unit due to the small (<1%) affect to habitat within the WMU, and small (<1%) effect on big game winter range on the Umpqua NF. Roads affect how elk and deer use winter range in that they tend to shy away from roads open to traffic (Rowland et al., 2004; Wisdom et al., 2005). The action alternative would have no impact on open road density in the planning area as no new roads would be constructed and left in place. During project implementation, the action alternative has potential disturbance impacts to deer and elk through increased human activity. ODFW conducts annual aerial surveys for elk populations on and adjacent to the Umpqua National Forest. They also conduct spotlight survey transects for black tailed deer on an annual basis to monitor their populations. The Umpqua’s LRMP states that survey data from ODFW will be how population trends on the Umpqua NF will be monitored (USDA, 1990). Figure 14 and Figure 15 documents the results from these surveys for the Dixon GMU, which encompasses the Johnnie project area.
112 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Dixon Unit Elk Population Trend 4500 4000
3500
3000 2500 Dixion Unit Elk Population 2000 Trend
1500 NumberofElk 1000 Linear (Dixion Unit Elk Population Trend) 500 0
Years Surveyed
Figure 14. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Elk survey population data for the Dixon Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 1992 – 2010. Dixon Unit Blacktail Deer Population Trend 250
200
150 Dixion Unit Blacktail Deer 100 Trend
NumberofDeer 50 Linear (Dixion Unit Blacktail Deer Trend) 0
Years Surveyed
Figure 15. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Black-tailed Deer survey population data for the Dixon Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 1992 – 2010.
Cumulative Effects - Big Game Winter Range The cumulative effects of this project are analyzed at the WMU scale, for that portion that is National Forest Land. This is the spatial scale at which elk populations are monitored by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clearcut harvesting is expected to be fairly limited on Federal lands in the foreseeable future. This suggests a continued decline in the amount of forage habitat within this WMU over the next 1-2 decades. Thinning on Federal Forest Lands (Matrix, AMA and LSR) that is similar to the Proposed Action would likely occur over the next 1-2 decades at a scale of about 1,000 to 3,000 acres per year. This would provide small incremental inputs of forage in the form of small gaps, and an improvement of understory forage vegetation, 113 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest similar in scale to this project. Given the past, present and foreseeable actions, the direct and indirect effects of the action alternative (when cumulatively added on to foreseeable future actions) would not be enough to stop the declining trend in forage habitat and forage/cover ratios within the WMU however, the action alternative are beneficial from a forage production perspective. Determination of Effects - Big Game Winter Range No alternative considered for the Johnnie project would affect the declining population trends and habitat trends for Roosevelt elk or Black-tailed deer throughout their range on the Umpqua National Forest as the anticipated increase in forage from the action alternative and continued loss of forage in the No Action alternative are inconsequential when compared to the overall range of the species and the WMU’s. The population viability of Roosevelt elk or Black-tailed deer would not be reduced by the action alternative because the acres of impact when compared to the size of the WMU’s is < 1% and will have no effect to habitat trends for these species. All Forest Plan S&G’s are going to be met by the implementation of the Johnnie Project.
Primary Cavity Excavators including Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)
Existing Condition Habitat for primary cavity excavators, such as woodpeckers and sapsuckers, consists of dead or defective trees (snags) of the proper size and in adequate numbers to support breeding birds. Habitat for pileated woodpeckers includes old growth/mature habitat. It was believed that primary cavity excavators would survive on the Forest providing that at least 20% of the potential habitat is retained and well distributed across the Forest (USDA 1990). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria for Forest planning suggested a 60 percent level for snag habitat. More recent information suggests higher levels are needed (Mellen et al. 2009). Primary cavity excavators are defined as bird species that actually construct foraging or nesting cavities in snags and large trees. Many species of wildlife use snags for food sources, nesting, roosting, perching, food storage, and even hibernating. The Forest Plan has several standards and guidelines that apply to primary cavity excavators and snag habitat. Most of the relevant ones that apply to this project have already been listed under the Coarse Woody Debris section. For Management Area 10, an additional standard and guideline required the Forest to manage for a 60% potential population capacity (PPC), which provides an indicator of the number of cavity-nesting species likely to be present on the Forest in comparison to the Forest’s total potential (USDA, 1990). Currently, across the watershed there is an average 4.4 snags/acre. This is greater than the 1.15 snags/acre required by the Forest Plan to meet 60% PPC for pileated woodpeckers and other cavity nesters. Timber harvest and fuels reduction are expected to create 5 to 6 snags/acre from equipment and fire damage, exceeding the 100% PPC.
The planning area is located on the west-slopes of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon. Part of the Cascade Mountain breeding bird survey (BBS) route. This route is part of a large-scale survey of North American breeding birds and has been used to monitor landbirds on an annual basis for many years (Sauer et al., 2009). The primary cavity excavators found in the planning area and surrounding forest are listed in table 32.
114 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 32. Regional Trend Estimates of Primary cavity nesters in Oregon (Sauer et al. 2009)
Trend Credibility Species Local status Trend Estimate Rating
Red-breasted sapsucker Common Stable 0.6 Yellow *
Hairy woodpecker Common Stable 1.2 Blue
Northern flicker Common Decreasing 4.9 Blue
Downy woodpecker Uncommon Stable - 0.2 Yellow *
Pileated woodpecker Common Increasing .5 Yellow *
Species in italics trends are not statistically significant due to a credibility rating of yellow which represents a data deficiency in the BBS data due to either low abundance or small sample size detected
Direct and Indirect Effects - Pileated Woodpecker & Primary Cavity Excavators The direct and indirect effects to primary cavity nesters were analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. The action that have the largest direct effect on these species would be commercial thinning, prescribed fire. These proposed actions will reduce snag densities and sizes compared with the no action alternative, and therefore there will be a reduction in snag habitat within the sub-watersheds (see CWD section, Figure 11 and Figure 12 for action and no action snag densities). Commercial thinning (266 acres) is the only action that would meaningful affect the reduction in snag habitat, this is a small portion of the snag habitat available on the Umpqua NF. The pileated woodpecker would be indirectly affected by the thinning, snag creation and prescribed fire because these actions would change the rate of large snag recruitment over time. However, under all alternatives large snag habitat would be attained at a 30% tolerance levels in the next two decades. Indirect effects result from changes in future snag recruitment caused by commercial thinning. This indirect effect would occur over the next 100 years as the stands develop into older forests. The no action alternative would maintain snag levels in smaller diameters, but higher densities. Larger diameter snags, which are more valuable habitat because they stand longer and provide habitat for birds which require large trees to nest, would develop slowly, and would not reach desired levels for another 20 to 25 years (Figure 12). The action alternative would decrease small diameter snag densities through timber harvesting impacts. However, timber harvesting and fuels treatments would also damage and create some new snags. In addition, in non- harvested and leave areas small diameter snags will start to develop due to competition mortality in these areas. Large snags would develop, but not reach the 30% tolerance levels as recommended by DecAID tables SWOMC_S.inv-2 and SWOMC_S.inv-3, for approximately another 20 to 25 years (Figure 12). These changes in snag levels would have minor negative effects on primary cavity excavators because they maintain lower, but adequate numbers of snags in the short and long term. Hagar et al. (2004) recorded increases in population density of red-breasted sapsuckers and hairy woodpeckers for heavy thinning on the Willamette National Forest. Hayes et al. (2003) noted a three-fold increase in hairy woodpeckers, within 5 years following similar commercial thinning treatments in the Coast Range of Oregon. The reasons for these increases may be related to the attraction of these species to trees damaged during
115 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest thinning (Hagar et al., 2004). Both species can utilize smaller diameter trees. Bate (1995) found both species mostly using >18” dbh hard snags, and populations declined in densely stocked conifer stands with small (<10” dbh) trees. Pileated woodpeckers are mostly associated with late-successional forest and primarily use larger snags. No late-successional or mature habitat is being measurably impacted under any of the alternatives considered for the Johnnie project. There are no meaningful differences between the action alternative with regard to impacts on cavity nesters. Cumulative Effects - Pileated Woodpecker & Primary Cavity Excavators Cumulative impacts are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Past timber harvesting on federal and private lands, as well as fire exclusion are the management actions that have had the greatest influence on habitat condition and availability for primary cavity excavators in the Johnnie planning area. However, the trend in clearcut harvesting on federal forest lands that caused concerns for decreasing populations of primary cavity excavators has been dramatically decreased by the NWFP. Currently, the primary type of timber harvesting occurring on federal lands in the planning area and watershed is commercial thinning with mitigations for snag recruitment. Ongoing and foreseeable future harvest in the Johnnie planning area is limited in scale and includes mitigations to ensure adequate snag levels are retained; thus, future impacts to primary cavity nesters are expected to be minimal. Given the current management approach to timber harvesting in this area, populations of primary cavity excavators are expected to stabilize and increase in the foreseeable future. Thus, due to the limited scale and magnitude of potential adverse impacts, in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there are no expected meaningful cumulative impacts to primary cavity excavators associated with action alternative. Alternative 1 would cause no direct or indirect impacts to this species group; thus, there would be no associated cumulative impacts. Determination of Effects - Pileated Woodpecker & Primary Cavity Excavators Because this project impacts less than 1% of suitable snag habitat and no old growth habitat will be affected, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and an increase in disturbance adjacent to snag habitat. The loss of habitat and increase in disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Johnnie project is consistent with the Forest Plan and NWFP, and thus continued viability of primary cavity nesters and pileated woodpeckers is expected on the Umpqua National Forest as the 100% PPC snag levels will be exceeded (USDA ,1990; 1994).
Landbirds Population declines of some landbirds have resulted in a Landbird Strategic Plan (USDA, 2000) that set management goals and actions for providing sustainable landbird habitat. A conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington was developed to guide land management planning efforts to help ensure functional ecosystems with healthy populations of landbirds (PIF, 1999). These plans and strategy documents are not regulatory, but provide management recommendations for reversing declining population trends and achieving stable or increasing trends within the next couple of decades. A Presidential Executive Order (signed January 10, 2001) required the Forest Service to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (signed January 17, 2001) to incorporate recommendations from these types of landbird conservation plans into forest planning. Relevant Standards and Guidelines
116 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The Forest Plan has no specific standards and guidelines for landbirds, other than for cavity nesters (discussed in the previous section), raptors (protected from human disturbance until nesting and fledging is complete), and TES species (e.g., northern spotted owl). Watershed Analysis Recommendations There are no specific recommendations for landbirds in the watershed analysis, but the recommendations to manage landscape patterns to approximate the natural disturbance regime are relevant to landbird populations. Existing Condition The planning area is located on the west-slopes of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon. The North American breeding bird survey has been used to monitor landbirds on an annual basis for many years (Sauer et al., 2009). The species listed in Table 34 are the focal species described in the USFS Landbird Strategic Plan that are suspected to occur within the Francis and Deadman sub-watersheds. Their preferred habitat attributes and forest condition are shown.
117 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 33. Focal Species in the USFS Landbird Strategic Plan
Forest Condition Habitat Attribute Focal Species
Old-growth/Mature Forest Large snags and trees, pileated (Multi-layered) Deciduous canopy trees, Mid-story woodpecker tree layers, Conifer cones brown creeper pacific-slope flycatcher varied thrush, red crossbill
Mature/Young Forest Closed Canopy hermit warbler (Multi-layered/Open mid-story Deciduous understory Hammond’s Understory Reinitiating) Forest floor complexity flycatcher Wilson’s warbler winter wren
Young/Pole Forest Deciduous canopy trees black-throated gray (Understory Reinitiating/Stem Deciduous sub-canopy/understory warbler Exclusion Hutton’s vireo
Early-Seral Forest Residual canopy trees olive-sided (Stand Initiation) Snags flycatcher Deciduous vegetation western bluebird Interspersion of shrubs/ orange-crowned Herbaceous openings warbler Nectar-producing plants mountain quail Rufous hummingbird
Riparian Instream and stream bank American dipper harlequin duck
Forest Inclusions/ High elevation meadows Lincoln’s sparrow Unique habitats Berry-producing shrubs band-tailed pigeon Large hollow snags Vaux’s swift Mosaic forest meadows blue grouse Alpine American pipit
The conservation strategy for the coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington (PIF, 1999) describes the conditions found within the proposed harvest stands as “pole forest - stem exclusion”, as described below (PIF, 1999): These forest conditions are structurally simple and characterized by an even aged, single-layered, closed-canopy with little or no understory development. Where understory vegetation exists, it is generally low growing and dominated by one or two shade-tolerant species. Stands may range from sapling trees with high foliage ratios that have attained canopy closure, to large pole trees that are densely stocked and have low foliage ratios and a high degree of canopy lift. These forest conditions are relatively depauperate in landbird species composition and richness. 118 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The conservation strategy identified two focal bird species for this forest type, black-throated gray warbler and Hutton's vireo. The black-throated gray warbler is associated with overstory deciduous trees and Hutton's vireo is associated with the understory shrubs. It also identifies the hermit warbler as a younger forest, closed-canopy associated species. Long-term (1966- 2007) and short-term (1980-2007) population trends for the Cascade Mountains show stable populations for the warblers, and increasing population trends for the vireo.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS The direct (short-term) and indirect (long-term) effects to land birds were analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Alternative 1 would have no direct effects to land birds because no thinning or roadside fuels break treatments, or other habitat modifying activities would occur. The proposed thinning, roadside fuels treatments, and temporary road construction associated with action alternative would change landbird habitat. There are potential beneficial indirect effects for a variety of landbirds associated with the action alternative. Thinning and gap creation would open up the forest canopy and result in an increase in the deciduous tree and shrub component, as well as ground vegetation. Insects that comprise a large component of the landbird prey base would respond favorably to these conditions. Recent studies are leading research scientists to conclude that commercial thinning in dense, young Douglas-fir plantations can increase diversity of breeding songbirds (Hayes et al., 2003; Hagar et al., 2004). Pileated Woodpeckers, Wilson’s Warblers and Hammond’s flycatchers can benefit from the increased habitat heterogeneity that would result from thinning. A variety of thinning intensities and patterns, ranging from no thinning to widely spaced residual trees, is recommended to maximize bird diversity at the landscape scale and structural diversity both within and among stands (Hagar et al., 2004). Reducing crown density and creating small openings in dense stands may maintain suitable habitat for the dusky flycatcher (Marshall et al. 2003). The proposed half-acre openings and temporary roads in alternative 2 would provide early seral habitat for species such as orange-crowned warbler, mountain quail and Rufous hummingbirds. Other species like brown creepers and winter wrens would likely respond negatively due to increased habitat fragmentation and forest floor disturbance (Vanderwel et al., 2007). Riparian buffers and the protection of unique habitats would limit effects to Pacific-slope flycatchers and varied thrush. Lincoln’s Sparrow would not be affected by the action alternative as their habitat falls within riparian buffers and would not be treated. Other mitigation action that would benefit landbirds: During treatment (harvest and burning) retain and protect all snags, and existing down wood greater than six inches diameter (on small end), to the extent practical from disturbances that might otherwise destroy the integrity of the substrate. All trees damaged during harvest operation, such as intermediate support trees or line damaged trees, would be retained to mitigate the decreased rate of snag recruitment caused by thinning and harvest activities. To reduce effects to nesting landbirds, burning of hand piles and machine piles would occur in the fall/winter months. Apply 98-foot no-cut buffers to all perennial streams. Wetlands would be protected from microclimate change or ground disturbance by applying the following: a 50-foot no-cut buffer; no yarding through the buffers or wetlands (cables ok); and not igniting fire in the buffers or wetlands during fuel treatment. Retain existing hardwood trees to the extent practical.
119 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
For the two focal species (black-throated gray warblers and Hutton’s vireo) associated with stem exclusion forest types, proposed thinning activities would reduce habitat quality in the short-term within the treated stands. Hayes et al. (2003) and Hagar et al. (2004) found that thinning young Douglas-fir in western Oregon caused localized declines in black-throated gray warblers and Hutton’s vireo over 5 years, but did not cause extirpations. The stands proposed for thinning treatment are even-aged Douglas-fir trees, generally single- layered and closed-canopy with little deciduous canopy trees. Approximately half of the stands have a deciduous sub-canopy and/or understory shrubs present. The black-throated gray warbler is a long-distance, neo-tropical migrant that breeds throughout coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington, primarily at low to moderate elevations (<3,500 ft). This species can be highly associated with this forest condition if there are deciduous canopy trees and deciduous sub-canopy/understory shrubs present. It is most abundant in young (40-80 years) stands with broadleaf trees (Gilbert and Allwine 1991) and in Douglas-fir/oak dominated forests at the interface of the Willamette Valley and Oregon Coast Range, with areas of relatively high oak cover (Morrison 1982). The conservation plan for this species is to retain deciduous trees and/or conduct thinning to open-up the canopy and allow for development of deciduous trees where appropriate (e.g., wet sites). Thinning should occur in patches and be variable-spaced rather than uniform to minimize negative effects of reduced overstory canopy closure by maintaining some areas with high canopy closure (e.g., no-cut areas). The Hutton's vireo, the other focal species for this stand type, is associated with the understory shrubs. Hutton’s vireo is a resident species that breeds throughout coniferous forests in western Oregon and Washington, primarily below 2,000 feet elevation and predominantly in coastal forests. A light thinning that allows for understory development yet retains a relatively dense overstory would provide suitable habitat for this species (Altman 2000). The proposed thinning would eventually develop a shrubby understory while still providing a relatively dense overstory canopy. This would result in indirect benefits to this species. Approximately 1,759 acres (290 acres commercial thinned, 581 acres non-commercial thinned, and 888 acres roadside fuel reduction would be thinned reducing the existing canopy closure to approximately 40 % canopy closure (See Forest Vegetation in this chapter). This reduction would have immediate short-term direct adverse effects to this species. The effect would last approximate 10 years. After harvest there would be an expected two percent gain in canopy closure per year after thinning (Chan et al. 2006). It would take approximately 10 years before the canopy would regain its current average canopy closure of approximately 65%. Within that time, the stand would be expected to have a well-developed understory of deciduous shrubby species favoring the Hutton’s vireo. Hagar et al. (2004) have recorded declines (but not extirpations) in both black-throated gray warblers and Hutton’s vireo after commercial thinning. Therefore, it is assumed that the action alternative would likely cause short-term declines in these species over the next five years, because timber harvesting and fuel reduction treatments would have a physically negative impact on deciduous shrubs and tree canopy closure shortly following the treatments. Over time however, shrubs and trees would respond positively to the more open and less dense stand conditions and begin to recover. As this recovery occurs, it is expected that both these species would benefit and begin to increase in local numbers over the next 20 years. To help lessen the short-term impact, deciduous hardwood trees would be retained where feasible. Given that approximately 52% of the acreage within proposed harvest units would remain untreated and that 37% of the sub-watersheds would provide similar habitat condition, potential short-term effects to habitat for the black-throated gray warblers and Hutton’s vireos are considered to be minor and inconsequential to the species.
120 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
DIRECT EFFECTS FROM DISTURBANCE The action alternative of thinning, temporary road construction or/reconstruction, and fuels treatments that would occur in the spring represent a potential direct impact to nesting landbirds from disturbance, potential for loss of nest structures and young that have not fledged. Direct effects from thinning and roadside fuel treatment activities on nesting birds may cause some localized disruption of nesting on 2,962 acres over several breeding seasons. Other short term (one or two days at a site) disturbance activities associated with action alternative that would temporarily displace individuals or their prey include creating slash piles, road maintenance and road reconstruction, rock pit use, and the similar and connected actions listed in Chapter Two for the action alternative.
The number of individuals or species potentially affected by proposed activities is unknown and is considered unquantifiable without reliable survey data and a known or restricted activity implementation plan. The proposed activities from this project are not expected to affect this group of species such that their ability to persist in the vicinity of the project area or throughout their ranges would be compromised.
Cumulative Effects Given the broad geographic range of some of these landbird species, it is difficult to determine the cumulative impact this and other projects would have on them. However, at the Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds scale, past timber harvesting in the subwatershed has resulted in approximately 37% of the 31,773 acre Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds in the stem exclusion stage. There are no foreseeable future activities in the subwatershed that would affect landbird habitat on federal land similar to this project in scale and effect. There is currently 1,700 acres of commercial thinning, 2,770 acres of PCT and 800 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented or is planned to be implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administered by the Forest Service that has or would cause similar indirect effects as described above. The action alternative would cumulatively add to those acres and expected effects. Approximately 4,300 of acres of 5-20 year-old stands in the sub-watersheds will be reaching the stem-exclusion successional stage over the next few decades, thus potential habitat for landbirds associated with stem-exclusion conditions is not expected to be limited in the near future. Forest management on private industry lands would continue to provide habitat for younger forest species and grass/forbs/shrub species. The direct and indirect effects of the action alternative are consistent with landbird conservation management strategies and would improve habitat conditions. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there are no consequential cumulative effects associated with the action alternative. Alternative 1 would cause no direct or indirect effects to landbirds and thus, no cumulative effects.
Determination of Effects - Landbirds No alternative considered for the Johnnie project would alter the population trends observed for these land bird species throughout Oregon, or the Cascades of Washington and Oregon as the effects of the alternatives are limited to small portions of the overall ranges of the species discussed. This is because of the small scale of disturbance related to their range associated with the action alternative.
121 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
SURVEY AND MANAGE WILDLIFE SPECIES The 1994 Forest Plan required protection of certain wildlife species that were referred to as “Survey and Manage/Protect and Buffer Species”. These species were identified because of viability concerns when implementing the Forest Plan. Survey and Manage species standard and guidelines provide additional benefits to amphibians, mammals, bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, lichens, and arthropod. These standard and guidelines contain four components, and priorities differ among them. Components 1 and 2 are pertinent to ground disturbing projects. They required surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities and to manage known sites. A component of the Forest Plan is to integrate adaptive management throughout the life of the Plan. Adaptive management is incorporated when new information becomes available, it should be used in the design or modification of activities and standard and guidelines. In the spirit of adaptive management the 1994, Forest Pan Environmental Impact Statement was amended. January 15, 2001 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for amendments to the Survey & Manage, Protection Buffer and other mitigation measures standards and guidelines (USDA/USDI, 2001) was published. This document provided new information regarding management of Survey and Manage/Protect and Buffer Species The FSEIS considered alternatives with an objective of continuing to provide the same level of protection intended by the 1994 Record of Decision. The amended 2001 Plan was to: (1) clarify required management; (2) remove unnecessary and duplicative or conflicting requirements; (3) add a process for changing species between categories; and, (4) add a process for adding or removing species from Survey and Manage, based on new information. Species would be removed when they fail to meet the three basic criteria for Survey and Manage: (1) does the species have suitable habitat in the Northwest Forest Plan area? (2) Is the species associated with late-successional or old-growth forest? (3) Does the reserve system and other standards and guidelines provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence? On December 26, 2001, the Douglas Timber Operators, Inc., and American Forest Resource Council filed a complaint against the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Douglas Timber Operators, et al. v. Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Civil No. 01-6378-AA (D. Oregon)). The complaint alleged that the January 2001 amendment to the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines “transferred more than 81,000 acres of timber-producing NWFP forest land into permanent reserves, resulting in a 7% reduction on the regional timber volume permitted under the 94 Northwest Forest Plan a loss of 51 million board feet (MMBF) of timber sales per year in perpetuity” and “added uncertainty.” The complaint also alleged that the 2001 Survey and Manage amendment is “in violation of substantive and procedural requirements of the Oregon and California and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (O&C Act), 43 U.S.C. § 1181a, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600, et seq., the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield (MUSY) Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C § 528-531, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701, et seq.” On September 30, 2002, “to avoid further costly litigation, and without admission of any liability or wrongdoing by either party” the parties signed a Settlement Agreement. The agreement required the BLM and Forest Service to consider an alternative that replaces the Survey and Manage mitigation requirements with existing Forest Service and BLM special status or sensitive species programs (SSSS program). Compiling with the terms of the Settlement Agreement an alternative was considered and selected. The Forest Service and BLM issued a new decision, The Record of Decision (2004 ROD) dated March 22, 2004, entitled “To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl” this decision eliminated the Survey and Manage requirement and move warranted species to the Regional Forester’s 122 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Sensitive Species List or as now known as the SSSS program. Established protocols and management recommendation for Survey and Management species were continued for those species that were moved to the sensitive species list. On January 10, 2006 the court ordered in favor of the plaintiff, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance the following: The Record of Decision dated March 22, 2004, entitled “To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl” (the 2004 ROD) is hereby set aside and enjoined all ground-disturbing activities under the 2004 ROD unless they comply with the 2001 ROD. The Johnnie 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 Measure 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 will not apply to: a. Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old: b. 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; c. 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 d. The portions of project involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and management requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under To correct deficiencies identified by the U.S. District Court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, (NEA v. Rey) No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash., Oct. 10, 2006) the agencies prepared the 2007 Final Supplemental to the 2004 To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (2007 ROD). On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007). In response, parties entered into settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement Agreement on July 6, 2011.
123 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The parties agreed that the 2001 ROD shall be construed in a manner consistent with the portion of the stipulation and order providing exemptions in NE A v. Rey. Per the 2011 Settlement Agreement, the 2006 Pechman Exemptions remain in force: “The provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006), shall remain in force. None of the following terms or conditions in this Settlement Agreement modifies in any way the October 2006 provisions stipulated to by the parties and ordered by the court in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04844-MJP (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006).” The Johnnie Project meets Exemption A, B and D because it entails no commercial harvest in fuel breaks, thinning only in stands less than 80 years old and replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system. Based on the preceding information regarding the status of surveys and site management for Survey & Manage wildlife species, the Johnnie Project and connected actions complies with 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 (2001 ROD), as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement. The species listed below were considered but not surveyed for because of the previously mentioned exemptions: Vertebrates (Great grey owl and red tree vole) and Mollusks (Megomphix hemphilli, Monadena chaceana, and Pristiloma arcticum crateris). Additionally Conservation Northwest v. Sherman, Case No. 08-CV-1067-JCC settlement agreement provide for a transition period for application of a new Survey and Manage list provide in Attachment 1 of this agreement. The agreement states: 1. For projects with signed Records of Decision, Decision Notices or Decision Memos from December 17 2009 through September 30 2012, the Agencies will use either of the following Survey and Manage lists: a) The list of Survey and Manage from the 2001 ROD (Table 1-1, Standard and Guidelines page 41-51), or b) The list of Survey and Manage species and associated species mitigation attached as Attachment 1 of the Settlement Agreement. The species of concern for this project are listed on both list and the effects and mitigation describe below will be the same. Relevant Standards and Guidelines Provide habitat for viable populations of all existing native and desired non-native vertebrate wildlife species and to maintain or enhance the overall quality of wildlife habitat across the Forest (USDA, 1990). Watershed Analysis Recommendations There are no specific recommendations for Survey and Manage species. Species The great gray owl and red tree vole are Survey and Manage wildlife species whose known or suspected range includes the Tiller Ranger District, according to the following documents: USDA and USDI, Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan v3.0, January 12, 2004, and Biswell, B., M. Blow, R. Breckel, L. Finley and J. Lint, 2002. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Arborimus longicaudus. These species are not included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list for the Umpqua National Forest (updated January 2008) or discussed elsewhere in this document. They are discussed briefly below for purposes of full disclosure.
124 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) The great gray owl is a Survey and Manage wildlife species whose known or suspected range includes the Tiller Ranger District, according to the following documents: USDA and USDI, Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan v3.0, January 12, 2004. This species is not included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list for the Umpqua National Forest (updated January 2008) or discussed elsewhere in this document. It is discussed briefly below for purposes of full disclosure. Nesting habitat for great gray owls is characterized as mature stands of timber with more than 60 percent canopy closure (Bull and Henjum 1990). Nesting suitable habitat includes large diameter nest trees, forest for roosting cover, and proximity [within 200 m] to openings that could be used as foraging areas (USDA/USAI Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan v3.0, January 12, 2004). Bull and Henjum (1990) recorded an average nest snag diameter of 31” DBH. Initially thought (in 1993) to be restricted to elevations above 4,000 feet, they are now found in western Oregon as low as 500 feet. They prey primarily on voles and pocket gophers that inhabit meadows or other grass/forbs openings. There are four sightings of great gray owls within the planning area, no known nest locations. The nearest known sighting is approximately 600 meters south of unit 148. The other three locations are approximately 1,200 meters southwest of units 13 and 36. The proposed commercial and precommercial thin units are young plantations that are approximately 20 to 80 years old and have no remaining suitable nesting habitat structure (large trees/snags) that meets the definition of habitat nor are they in close proximity to suitable foraging habitat. The roadside fuel break contain structural habitat that could function as nesting habitat. However, all proposed fuel activities are greater than 200 meter from suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no effect on the species, as no ground disturbing activities would occur. No surveys were conducted for the great gray owls for this project because proposed activities associated with the action alternative would not have negative impact on the species’ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements. Because the proposed thinning projects and fuel break activities or other connected actions associated with the action alternative would not affect large trees, snags, or mature forests that are near suitable meadow habitat that would potentially contribute to a reasonable assurance of species persistence within the planning area, and as such proposed activities would not be expected to cause a consequential negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site (Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl, V. 3.0, 2004). Therefore there would not be a negative effect on the owl’s nesting habitat. Further, there would be no impacts to meadow habitats; therefore, there would not be negative impacts to foraging habitat. Cumulative Effects: Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects to the great gray owl associated with the project.
Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus) The red tree vole is a Survey and Manage wildlife species whose known or suspected range includes the Tiller Ranger District, according to the following documents: Biswell, B., M. Blow, R. Breckel, L. Finley and J. Lint, 2002. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Arborimus longicaudus. This species is not included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list for the Umpqua National Forest (updated January 2008) or discussed elsewhere in this document. It is discussed briefly below for purposes of full disclosure.
125 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The Oregon red tree vole is endemic to moist coniferous forests of western Oregon and extreme northwest California. Its known and suspected range extends from the Columbia River south through western Oregon and from the Siskiyou Mountains south to the Salmon and Klamath Rivers in northern California. Active nests have been found in remnant older trees in younger stands, indicating the importance of legacy structural characteristics (Biswell et al. 2002). There 48 previous red tree vole locations within the planning area that are concentrated in four areas within the planning area. Two of these areas with high concentrations red tree voles are adjacent old growth stands to units 1,103 and 131. The proposed harvest units are previously clearcut plantations; they do not meet the definition of mature/old growth forest, nor do they contain remnant older trees. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative impact on the red tree vole because no trees would be cut. The action alternative proposed thinning would fall small diameter trees within these approximately 20 to 80 year-old plantations. The thinning units do not meet the stand criteria for suitable habitat (i.e. mature/old-growth forests, with QMD > 18” dbh) that would potentially contribute to a reasonable assurance of species persistence within the planning area, and as such proposed activities would not be expected to cause a consequential negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site (Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, V 2.1, 2002). The proposed fuel break treatment would occur within approximately 937 acres of suitable RTV habitat. However, the proposed activity will consist of felling small diameter trees and shrubs < 8” DBH and pile burning. As such this activity in not expected to have a meaningful adverse affect on RTV or their habitat (large old growth trees and overstory canopy closure. Based on the proposed logging systems, approximately 20 guyline trees of smaller co-dominant trees within potential suitable RTV habitat would need to be felled for safety reasons adjacent to skyline portions of proposed commercial harvest thinning units 1,166 and 168. The guyline trees would range in diameter from 16-24 inches dbh and would likely be used as foraging, not nest trees. Use of old-growth trees would be avoided if possible. Due to the relatively low amount of affected habitat the potential impacts are considered negligible to the species. The proposed action would indirect effect by accelerating the development of larger trees and reduce the risk of future loss of habitat to wildfire by making the stands more fire resilient. There are no direct or indirect effects associated with connected actions such as culvert replacement and temporary road construction because no mature/old growth or older trees are expected to be impacted. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impacts to red tree voles are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Past clearcutting of habitat (approximately 18,200 acres of Forest Service, BLM and private land) has had the largest cumulative impact to this species by removing late-seral habitat. Future clearcut harvesting on private land (est. 200-600 acres per year) would not impact late-seral habitat because this harvest would be occurring in second-growth plantations. The proposed action would not remove or meaningfully degrade suitable RTV habitat at the site scale or stand scale. Where habitat conditions exist prior to proposed activities, it is expected that they would remain following project implementation, project sites would retain dominant overstory trees as nesting structures, and subdominant trees to maintain canopy closures for predator protection. Thus, potential minor modification of habitat associated with these activities would be immeasurable and undetectable, and as such are considered to be insignificant effects and would not result in any meaning full cumulative impacts.
126 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The action alternative would add to the 1,773 acres of commercial thinning, 2,776 acres of PCT and 830 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administrated by the Forest Service which have caused similar effects as described above.
Mollusk There are three mollusk species that need to be considered in the 2001 ROD. Local populations of slugs or snails are often termed colonies. Densities of colonies vary from species to species and potentially stable colonies can occupy areas ranging in size from ten to hundreds of square feet. Most of the land mollusks are poor dispersers and do not move far from their natal sites. Mollusks have restricted home ranges and limited dispersal capabilities.
Two of these species: Monadena chaceana and Pristiloma arcticum crateris are considered as “rare” Categories 1B and 1A which states “manage all known sites and complete Strategic Surveys” the 2001 FSEIS provided for additional mitigations that require pre-disturbance survey for category A species and equivalent effort surveys for category B species. Equivalent effort surveys are to be completed prior to ground disturbing projects. Equivalent effort differ from practical pre-disturbance surveys in that for many of these species their characteristic make detection during such surveys less likely and, therefore, do not qualify as practical. Equivalent effort surveys are only designed to locate the species if it occurs in an identifiable condition during a reasonable survey time period (no more than two field seasons). Equivalent effort surveys are not expected to meet the description of “likely to determine the presence” of the species because the characteristics of these species make finding sites less certain. Refer the Biological Evaluation section for detailed analysis of these two mollusk species.
The 2001 FSEIS has placed Megomphix (Megomphix hemphilli) in “Category 1F”, which means that the species is considered “uncommon” and not “rare”. New information on this species may result in its removal from Survey & Manage or assignment to another category. Until that time, loss of some sites is not likely to change the level of rarity (USDA/USDI 1994a). Protection is only required for sites that were found on or before September 30, 1999.
Oregon Megomphix (Megomphix hemphilli) The Oregon Megomphix is a terrestrial snail species that occurs in moist conifer/hardwood forests at low to moderate elevations. Megomphix snails are most often found within the mat of decaying vegetation under sword ferns and big-leaf maple trees and near rotten logs or stumps. Most occupied sites are on well-shaded slopes and terraces, and many are near streams. There are currently three known locations of Oregon megomphix within the Johnnie Planning Area on the Tiller Ranger District. No known locations located within the proposed activities, all known location will be protected from disturbance. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects as no actions would take place. Direct impacts to this species from action alternative include injury or crushing from ground disturbing actions such as skidding equipment, temporary road construction, culvert replacement or falling trees from the thinning operation. Activities fuels reduction through piling and burning or underburning could also impact individuals if these activities occur while Oregon megomphix are dispersing or foraging. Indirect effects include environmental changes to the stand from opening up the canopy. This allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor which can
127 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest increase drying and reduce humidity on the forest floor, changing the microclimate of the understory. This results in a short-term negative impact to mollusks in general. Increased sunlight should initiate a long-term benefit to grass/forb and shrub layers, providing a more stable microclimate and increase in available hiding cover. Mitigation measures that protect coarse woody debris, leaf and needle litter and rock outcrops assure long-term viability within the project area and following management considerations outlined in the Conservation Assessment for this species (Duncan 2004). Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Past timber harvest, road building and prescribed fire may have degraded the quality of potential habitat in the planning area and watershed. The action alternative would add to the 1,773 acres of commercial thinning, 2,776 acres of PCT and 830 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administrated by the Forest Service which have caused similar effects as described above. The action alternative would result in movement of thinned stands toward a condition more favorable to Oregon megomphix and reduce the risk of future loss of habitat to wildfire by making the stands more fire resilient. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential negative cumulative impacts to the species associated with the action alternative. This is because of the small scale and duration of proposed and future potential habitat-modifying activities, and the expected long-term benefits of current and future projects on habitat conditions. The no action alternative would have no anticipated direct or indirect impacts on the species and thus, does not contribute to a cumulative impact.
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Regional Foresters are responsible for identifying and maintaining a list of sensitive species occurring within their Region. This list includes species for which there is a documented concern for viability in one or more administrative units within the species’ historic range (FSM 2670.22, WO Amendment 2600-95-7). These species may require special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing. The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.4) requires a biological evaluation to determine potential effects of proposed ground-disturbing activities on sensitive species. This evaluation analyzes the action alternative and their associated connected actions (Chapter 2) and potential effects on species population or their habitat. It makes recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating for adverse effects. It must include: (1) sensitive species that may be present; (2) identification of occupied and unoccupied habitat; (3) an analysis of the effects of proposed actions on species or their habitat; (4) a discussion of cumulative effects; (5) a determination of no effect, beneficial effect, or may affect; and, (6) recommendations for avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects if needed.
Table 34. Summary of ecological requirements for animal species on the Regional Forester's Federally Listed and Sensitive Species Lists for species with documented or suspected occurrence on the Umpqua National Forest (January 24, 2008).
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description and Information
Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Old growth conifer forests or younger forests with old growth remnant structures such as large trees, snags and down wood. Documented on Tiller Ranger 128 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description and Information District (TRD).
Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni Late successional conifer forests; larvae feeds on dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium) growing on pine and other conifers; documented on the TRD.
Coronis fritillary Speyeria coronis coronis Wide-ranging in many habitats; larvae feed on violet; suspected on Umpqua National Forest (UNF).
Mardon skipper Polites mardon Isolated populations in grassy lowlands or subalpine meadows; rocky serpentine meadows; larvae feed on grasses; suspected on the UNF. Siskiyou short-horned Chloealtis aspasma Grasslands, associated with elderberry grasshopper plants; may feed on grasses and forbs; Siskiyou mountains; Ranges from 4,000- 6,000 ft suspected on the Umpqua
Evening fieldslug Deroceras hesperium Low to mid-elevations; associated with a variety of low vegetation, litter, and debris; rocks may be used; documented on the UNF.
Salamander slug Carinacauda stormi Leaf litter; mature and old forests; some specimens found in Lane County; suspected on the UNF.
Oregon Shoulderband Helminthoglypta hertleini Rocky areas with deciduous leaf litter and/or woody debris, generally adjacent to
areas with grass or herbaceous vegetation. Documented on TRD.
Chace sideband Monadenia chaceana Rocky forested habitats are preferred, but can be associated with large woody debris
or leaf litter. Klamath province and southwestern Oregon Cascades. Documented on the TRD
Crater lake tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum Perennially wet areas in mature conifer crateris forests within 33 feet of open water. Generally in areas that remain under snow for long periods in the winter. Documented on the DLRD.
129 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description and Information
Red-Necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Winters on the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, breeds on freshwater lakes.
Consistently breeds only at Klamath Lake. One summer record for Diamond Lake (1931); extremely rare in winter away from the coast; would be a rare migrant on DLRD.
Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Freshwater lakes and ponds larger than 18 acres, with shallow margins and
emergent vegetation. Strongest Oregon nesting habitat association along lake and pond shorelines and islands.
Foothill yellow-legged Rana boylii Ranges from northwest Oregon to Baja frog California. Found near streams and rivers. Low gradient reaches with sun-exposed bedrock and gravel/cobble substrates. Documented on NURD and TRD.
Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa Marshes, lakes and ponds with warm shallow water; Ranges from sea level to
5,000 ft elevation; suspected on the Umpqua but never documented after many surveys. Actinemys marmorata Northern Pacific pond Inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes or slow- marmorata turtle moving portions of rivers and streams. Large amounts of emergent logs, vegetation or rock are needed for basking and cover. Documented on all districts on the UNF.
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Nest in tree or snag cavities near high Cascade lakes and ponds. Uncommon spring migrant and common fall migrant. Nesting has been documented on DLRD.
Black swift Cypseloides niger Aerial; forages over forests and open areas. Nests behind waterfalls in wet cliffs. Forages over several square kilometers. Documented occurrence on NURD, DLRD.
American peregrine Falco peregrines anatum Vertical rock cliffs with ledges or potholes. falcon Often nests near prominent riparian habitat such as rivers or wetlands. Documented eyries on NURD, DLRD, and TRDs.
130 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description and Information
Yellow Rail Coturnicops Wet meadows and freshwater marshes. noveboracensis Considered a very local summer resident
of the Klamath Basin and a vagrant
elsewhere. Suspected on the Umpqua.
Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Open pine forests and oak woodlands near water; Primary cavity excavator;
Migrant in Douglas county; documented on DLRD in summer and fall.
White-headed Picoides albolarvatus Open ponderosa pine stands or mixed Woodpecker conifer forests dominated by ponderosa
pine; primary cavity excavator; Permanent
resident in upper reaches of Umpqua River basin western Cascade mountains crest.
Purple Martin Progne subis Aerial feeding habitat generalist, found in open areas and prefer open water source
nearby foraging habitat; Rare breeder in Douglas county (Sutherlin, Canyonville); suspected on the Umpqua.
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Nest on cliff face ledges or large trees in leucocephalus close proximity to large bodies of water. Documented nesting on DLRD, winters on TRD and NURD.
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus Swift, rocky, large streams or rivers. Nest under rock overhangs, vegetation or streamside debris. Late spring migrant or summer visitor. Documented on DLRD.
Pacific pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Open, arid habitats, oak and ponderosa pacificus pine forests. Roosts in caves, mines,
man-made structures, trees and snags.
Ground feeder. There are no records for this species on the Forest; however it is documented in Douglas County.
Pacific fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Uses caves, mines, buildings, bridges, vespertinus trees and snags. Aerial feeder, but can glean from foliage and ground. Critical habitat is maternal roosts.
Townsend’s big-eared Corynorhinus townsendii Uses caves for breeding and bat hibernaculum. Documented nursery
colony on the NURD
131 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description and Information
Pacific fisher Martes pennanti Late-successional forests. Associated with riparian areas. Large dead wood important, dens usually within cavities of large trees and snags. Documented on NURD,and TRD.
Wolverine Gulo gulo Remote, high elevation subalpine and alpine forests to above timberline. Found
in a variety of habitats, do not avoid open areas.
A pre-field review was performed to determine which sensitive species are most likely to be impacted by the proposed alternative. Table 35 provides a list of Region 6 sensitive wildlife species for the Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger District and Table 36 summarizes the presence or absence and potential impacts on these species and/or their habitat within or adjacent to the proposed timber harvest units and ground disturbance areas. It is based on the latest documented survey and occurrence data, scientific literature review and GIS analysis. Impact or effect determinations are made on each species, based on this review. If an impact or effect is anticipated, further analysis and discussion of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects is provided in the following sections.
Table 35. Sensitive Species pre-field review and summary
Sensitive Species Is species or habitat Is impact or effect Loss of viability or in or adjacent? expected? trend?
Northern spotted owl Yes, species and Yes – see discussion Impact to individuals habitat occur in the and habitat; LAA - project area. Consultation with USFWS required.
Johnson’s hairstreak Yes, conifers with Yes – see discussion Project may result in mistletoe are present death or injury to in project area. individuals but would not result in viability
concerns.
Coronis fritillary Yes, a variety of Potential – see Project may result in habitats is present discussion nearest death or injury to within the project location 62 mile south individuals but would area. of the planning area. not result in viability concerns.
Mardon skipper Suitable habitat within Yes – see discussion. Project may result in and adjacent to Nearest known death or injury to project. location is 47 miles individuals but would south of the planning not result in viability
area. concerns.
132 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Sensitive Species Is species or habitat Is impact or effect Loss of viability or in or adjacent? expected? trend? Siskiyou short-horned No suitable habitat No impacts, project is No grasshopper within or adjacent to below elevation range project. of 4,000 to 6,000 feet.
Evening fieldslug Suitable habitat within Presence assumed; Project may result in or adjacent to project. no conflict to species death or injury to with protection buffers individuals but would adjacent to perennial not result in viability wet areas. concerns.
Salamander slug Low probability, Low potential – see Project may result in species is present. discussion death or injury to individuals but would not result in viability concerns.
Oregon Shoulderband Suitable habitat within Yes- may impact Project may result in or adjacent to project individuals or habitat. death or injury to individuals but would
not result in viability concerns.
Chace sideband Suitable habitat within May impact Project may result in or adjacent to project individuals or habitat. death or injury to
individuals but would
not result in viability concerns.
Crater lake tightcoil Suitable habitat within Presence assumed; No, consistent with or adjacent to project no conflict to species conservation with protection buffers assessment and adjacent to perennial NWFP. wet areas. The project would result in no impact to species viability.
Red-Necked Grebe No suitable habitat No No, The project would within or adjacent to result in no impact to project. Nearest species viability. location is 50 mile southeast of planning area along Cascade crest.
Horned Grebe No suitable habitat No No, The project would within or adjacent to result in no impact to project. Nearest species viability. known location is 160 mile northeast of the 133 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Sensitive Species Is species or habitat Is impact or effect Loss of viability or in or adjacent? expected? trend? planning area.
Foothill yellow-legged Suitable habitat within Presence assumed; No, The project would frog and adjacent to no conflict to species result in no impact to project. with protection buffers species viability. adjacent to perennial
wet areas.
Oregon spotted frog No suitable habitat No conflict to species No, The project would Spotted frogs are a with protection buffers result in no impact to
marsh specialist with adjacent to perennial species viability. a strong requirement wet areas. for warmer waters.
Northern Pacific pond Suitable habitat within Yes – see discussion Project may result in turtle or adjacent to project. death or injury to individuals but would not result in viability concerns.
Bufflehead No suitable habitat No No, The project would within or adjacent to result in no impact to project. species viability.
Black swift No suitable No No, The project would habitat/waterfalls result in no impact to within or adjacent to species viability. project. Nearest know location 25 mile to the north east and west.
American peregrine No suitable nesting No No, The project would falcon habitat within or result in no impact to adjacent to project. species viability. Nearest known eyries is 8 miles to the east.
Yellow rail No, suitable habitat. No No, The project would Known location 52 result in no impact to
mile east of planning species viability. area inhabits larger lakes and marshes along the crest of the Cascade mountains. .
Lewis’s woodpecker No suitable habitat. No Impacts No, The project would Inhabits open pine result in no impact to
and oak woodlands. species viability.
134 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Sensitive Species Is species or habitat Is impact or effect Loss of viability or in or adjacent? expected? trend?
White-headed No suitable habitat. No impacts No, The project would woodpecker Inhabits pine and result in no impact to mixed conifer forest species viability.
near the crest of western Cascades mountains and eastern Oregon. Nearest location 40 miles to the east of planning area.
Purple martin No, habitat does not No No, The project would occur in planning result in no impact to
area. Nearest location species viability. 39 northwest of planning area.
Bald eagle Yes, habitat occurs in No No, The project would the project area along result in no impact to South Umpqua River. species viability.
Harlequin duck Remote possibility. Presence assumed; No, The project would Species not no conflict to species result in no impact to documented currently with protection buffers species viability or historically. Low adjacent to perennial potential habitat. wet areas.
Pacific pallid bat No, suitable arid No No habitat does not occur in planning area.
Pacific fringed myotis Yes, habitat occurs in Yes – see discussion Project may result in the project area. death or injury to individuals but would
not result in viability concerns.
Townsend’s big-eared Yes, habitat occurs in Potential – see Project may result in bat the project area. discussion death or injury to individuals but would
not result in viability concerns.
Pacific fisher Potential habitat Presence assumed, No, The project would occurs in late and old disturbance impacts result in no impact to forests adjacent to possible. species viability. proposed thinning units and within the shaded fuel break. 135 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Sensitive Species Is species or habitat Is impact or effect Loss of viability or in or adjacent? expected? trend?
Wolverine No suitable habitat No No, The project would within or adjacent to result in no impact to project. species viability.
AFFECTED WILDLIFE – DISCUSSION/DETERMINATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS A discussion of the affects of the proposed project on TES species follows. If it was determined that suitable habitat for a species does not occur in the proposed project area (Figure 2), it is concluded that the proposed action would have no potential to effect or impact those listed TES species, and the species will not be discussed further in this document. A No action proposal is expected to have no effect on federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species, and is expected to have no impact on sensitive species identified by the Regional Forester.
Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) The Johnnie project includes treatment within provincial home range (1.2 miles), core use area (500 acres), and the nest patch (70 acres). The intent of thinning dense vegetation is to create spacing between the trees and brush that allows a wildfire to burn through the area without causing catastrophic damage to the ecosystem or pose an unsafe challenge to firefighters. Reducing the wildfire hazard by thinning the dense vegetation would occur in three main ways: 1) Non-commercial treatment units (582 acres) will occur in even age Douglas-fir plantations. Trees will be thinned and evenly spaced, the dominate trees will be retained. Slash would be, piled, and burned. Current canopy closure is greater than 60%, after treatment canopy closure is expected to remain at or above 40%. 2) Commercial treatment units (266 acres), material too large to pile and burn or of adequate quality to be provided to a market, would be removed from the area. Commercial treatments would only occur in forested areas that are under 80 years in age and would retain the larger, more fire resilient trees. The objective is to reduce fuel loading and make stands/trees more fire resilient. 3) Roadside treatment (2,457 acres) would occur 300 feet on either side of the roadway. In order to ensure safe implementation of prescribed burning, this width may be adjusted up to 1,000 feet on either side of the road in areas identified for underburning. Within NSO owl cores fuel treatment would be limited to 150 feet of either side of the road. Other types of treatments may also be used, rather than burning, such as pruning the limbs of trees; chipping the smaller material, creating piles and or hauling off site. This treatment will occur in all forest age classes. Within NSO habitat no trees greater than eight inches DBH would be cut. There will be limbing of residual trees that would support latter fuels. There is no expected change in co-dominate or dominate tree canopy closure with NRF habitat. Dispersal only habitat will likely experience some reduction in canopy closure, but should still retain its functional condition.
136 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Other connected actions include: Install five new culverts. Replace nine culverts Clean 200 feet of ditch line and clean culvert basin Repair road at five locations, removing slide material and reconstruction road surface. Install one gate to control access.
The Northern Spotted Owl was listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1990 Critical Habitat was designated in 2012 (USDI 2012). The effects to Critical Habitat for this project was analyzed in a separate document prepared by Josh Chapman, Level One Biologist Umpqua National Forest (Informal conference FY2013. Batch One Ongoing Timber Sale and Fuels Projects in Proposed 2012 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat) and is incorporated by reference. They are associated with mature and old-growth coniferous and mixed conifer-hardwood forests that have structures and characteristics suitable for nesting, roosting and foraging (USDI, 2008). Nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF) for the spotted owl is strongly associated with late-successional forests containing large conifers with broken tops or cavities for nesting, multiple canopy layers for thermal regulation and protection from predation and adequate amounts of large dead wood on the forest floor to support populations of prey (Thomas et al., 1990). Northern Spotted Owls prey upon flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and woodrats (Neotoma spp.) preferentially, but they will consume other rodents (Zabel et al, 1995). There are no current surveys for owls within the action 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 18 potential NSO home ranges/territories located around activity centers based either on known historic or on predicted activity center locations (KPACs) within the action area (Figure 16). Of these 18 potential NSO home ranges/territories, 11 are based upon historic owl pair or resident single locations identified from surveys which occurred in the late 1990’s, and the remaining 7 home ranges were located as per USDI-USDA (2008). During the final location refinement required by USDI-USDA (2008), the Forest’s level one consultation team utilized the Forest’s 2008 NRF map (Davis and Lint, 2005). The analysis of spotted owl home range/territory condition was conducted using the 1.2-mile provincial home range radius (for the Oregon Cascades province) around each KPAC. The current condition of the spotted owl home ranges/territories associated with the KPACs within the action area is described in Table 37. The action area is defined as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR 402). For this consultation the action area includes all federal, state, and privately owned lands within 1.2 miles (median NSO home range radius for the western Cascades) of proposed treatment areas and all known or potential NSO home ranges that could be directly, indirectly or cumulatively impacted through the proposed actions. The NSO analysis area for the Johnnie proposed action covers about 39,294 acres, of which 22,117 acres (56%) are currently suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF) for the NSO (Figure 16).32 There are eighteen potential NSO home ranges within the analysis area33. Approximately 38,999 acres of the analysis area (99%) are considered dispersal habitat34. The federal government, USFS (29,615 acres), primarily administers Land ownership in the action area and BLM (4,175 acres) within the remaining 5,504 acres privately owned.
32 Davis, R.J., and K. M. Dugger. 2011. Chapter 3: Habitat Status and Trend in Northwest Forest Plan Status and Trends of Northern Spotted Owl Populations and Habitats From 1994 to 2008, R.J. Davis Technical Editor, in press as a General Technical Report 33 Potential NSO home ranges (a.k.a. territories) were generated through a spatial analysis described in USDI/USDA (2008).
137 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 36. Environmental Baseline: Action Area for Johnnie
Suitable Capable NSO NRF NSO NRF Protected Habitat Habitat Acres1 Unprotected Acres Acres Acres Umpqua National Forest (% Of Northwest Forest Plan Acres (% Total) (% Total) Total) (% Of Total)
1. Ownership
22,117 38,350 16,988 -All Ownerships 39,294 22,306 (57%) (56%) (98%) (43%)
-Private, State, and other 2,013 5,069 5,504 0 5,504 (100%) non-BLM Government (37%) (92%)
20,104 33,281 16,988 -Federal 33,790 16,802 (50%) (60%) (98%) (50%)
2. Land Allocations- Federal (hierarchal, no acres double-counted)
-Administratively 102 191 180 (94%) Withdrawn (53%)
-Late-Successional 5,947 9,955 10,006 Reserves (mapped) (59%) (99.5%)
- 100-Acre Spotted Owl 822 Core Areas in the 902 902 (100%) (91%) Matrix
-Riparian Reserves 3,570 (Matrix and AMA 5,889 5,770 (98%) (60%) acres only)
-Matrix/Adaptive 9,663 16,474 16,802 Management Areas (58%) (98%)
Notes: 1. Protected = land allocation with no programmed timber harvest.
138 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Figure 16. Johnnie Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Action Area
139 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat The 290 acres of commercial and 581 acres of non-commercial thinning occur within previously clear-cut regenerated stands 80 years of age or younger, with very little canopy separation and low levels of snags and downed wood. These stands are currently dispersal habitat, and would remain dispersal habitat post treatment, As post treatment canopy covers will remain above 40% and snags and downed wood will be maintained at low/mod tolerance levels (Figure 15) (DecAID, Mellen et al, 2009). The purpose of the treatments is to create fire resiliency, increase the growth and vigor of existing trees, and retain existing snags and downed wood to the greatest extent that is safe and practicable, while providing wood products to the community. The 2,091 acres of roadside treatment occurs on approximately 937 acres of suitable NSO NRF habitat, 888 acres of dispersal habitat and 260 acres of unsuitable NSO habitat. The proposed treatments would not result in a change of habitat type; however, the actions would degrade both dispersal and NRF habitat by modifying spotted owl habitat components at the site-scale. Activities include felling of individual hazard trees and snags, leaving on site to serve as down woody material. Prescribed burning and other fuel reduction activities such as; piling and pruning for fuel reduction could entail consumption of small understory trees/shrubs and small diameter coarse wood 6 inch or less. Activities such as theses would remove or meaningfully degrade owl habitat even at the site scale. At the stand scale, these activities would have no effect on the structure or function of owl habitat. Where NSO habitat conditions (dispersal and NRF) exist prior to proposed activities, it is expected that they would remain following project implementation: within NRF habitat, project sites would retain dominant overstory trees as nesting structures, and subdominant trees for roosting; would maintain canopy closures at or above 60% for thermal cove, predator protections and dispersal. Dispersal only habitat would retain canopy closures at or above 40%. The project would retain snags and logs to support the owl prey base. Activities are limited in scale and scattered in distribution, both spatially and temporally. NSOs remain on their home range throughout the year. As a result, NSOs have large home ranges that provide all the habitat components and prey necessary for the survival and successful reproduction of a territorial pair. In the western Cascades, a 1.2-mile radius circle around an owl activity center is used to represent the owl’s home range. The 40% NRF within this circle (1,182 acres) is considered the minimum acceptable amount of habitat for long-term owl survival. Home ranges contain three distinct use areas: 1) The nest patch, which research has shown to be an important attribute for site selection by NSOs. It includes approximately 70 acres of usually contiguous forest (300-meter radius around a nest center) (USDA/USDI, 2008); 2) The core area, which is used most intensively by a nesting pair. It varies considerably in size across the geographic range, but on average includes approximately 500 acres (800 meters radius around a nest center) and generally consists of a greater proportion of mature/old forest (USDA/USDI, 2008 and Courtney et al. 2004); and 3) The remainder of the home range, which is used for foraging and roosting and is essential to the year-round survival of the resident pair (USDA/USDI, 2008). As documented in USDA/USDI (2008) and based on conversations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel, any removal of NRF or dispersal-only habitat with the nest patch would likely cause adverse effects to, and may rise to the level of take of the NSO. Further, core areas with 50% or greater suitable NRF habitat and home ranges with at least 40% suitable NRF habitat are considered necessary to maintain NSO life history function (USDA/USDI, 2008). Table 38 summarizes the existing condition of NRF habitat for these home ranges and documents proposed treatment acres for the action alternative. Alternative 1 would not result in any loss or
140 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest degradation of habitat and is therefore represented by the existing suitable acres of NRF in Table 38. The Johnnie project would treat 1,759 of dispersal-only and 936 acres of NRF habitat. This represents modification of overall habitat conditions within some NSO home ranges (Table 38). Alternative 2 would not remove any NRF habitat however, would degrade the understory components of NRF and canopy density of dispersal-only habitat. Approximately 0.9 acres of NRF and 15.3 acres of dispersal habitat will be degraded by roadside fuel treatment within three NSO nest patches. Additionally within the NSO core areas 141.5 and 295 acres will be degraded by the proposed action, within NRF and dispersal respectively. A total of 868 acres of NRF and 1,544 acres of dispersal habitat degraded in eighteen NSO home ranges within the action area. There are three owl sites (0258, 0263 and RS Clayton) where degrading NRF and dispersal habitat would occur within the 300-meter nest patch radius. This management action may adversely affect NSOs through habitat degradation as described in USDA/USDI (2008). However to minimize the potential for adverse effects, all roadside fuel treatment will not exceed 150 feet from the roadside edge within the nest patch. Additionally the same three NSO sites currently have 50% or less suitable NRF within the 800- meter core area. The proposed project would degrade both NRF and dispersal-only habitat and as such management action may adversely affect NSOs through habitat degradation.
Table 37. Spatial Conditions for NRF Habitat for the Northern Spotted; Alternative 2
Acres of Dispersal Acres of Dispersal Dispersal Acres of Suitable Suitable Suitable NRF Degraded NRF Within Degraded NRF Spotted NRF NRF NRF Degraded 800 Degraded 300 Meter Within Degraded Owl Acres (% Acres (% Acres (% Within meter Within Nest 1.2 Mile Within Home 800 300 1.2 Mile Core 300 Meter Patch Site Home 800 Meter Range) Meter) Meter) Home Nest Range Core Range Patch FS 2065.9 415.3 68.9 91.1 236.3 Compute (71%) (83%) (98%) 0 1.60 0 0 1 FS 1596.6 325.6 53.2 51.4 46.4 Compute (55%) (65%) (76%) 0 0 0 0 2 FS 1339.3 301.9 55.0 92.2 103.4 Compute (46%) (60%) (79%) 13.5 14.0 0 0 3 RS 1606.2 321.4 63.7 134.5 276.8 Straight (55%) (64%) (91%) 7.4 1.6 0 0 Bud 0211 1471.2 316.0 64.9 42.7 59.8 (51%) (63%) (93%) 0 0 0 0 0223 1474.5 214.2 54.4 213.0 253.0 (51%) (43%) (78%) 8.2 28.9 0 0 0229 1467.0 274.7 59.7 35.3 20.9 (51%) (55%) (85%) 0 0 0 0 0252 1965.7 398.2 67.8 30.6 60.2 (68%) (80%) (97%) 0 0 0 0 0258 1367.3 234.7 52.2 184.6 386.1 (47%) (47%) (75%) 24.4 54.9 .5 .4 0261 1906.2 387.5 38.1 33.7 108.6 (66%) (78%) (54%) 0 0 0 0 0263 1503.9 250.4 46.3 214.5 362.8 (52%) (50%) (66%) 51.1 112.6 .4 14.9 0264 1771.5 332.1 59.9 59.6 231.4 (61%) (66%) (86%) 4.8 59.2 0 0 0497 1296.4 217.8 33.7 2.6 0.5 (45%) (44%) (48%) 0 0 0 0
141 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
0570 1719.3 229.6 46.0 23.1 62.6 (59%) (46%) (66%) 0 0 0 0 3998O 1708.6 259.3 44.5 5.7 32.8 (59%) (52%) (64%) 0 0 0 0 EST77 1975.0 378.5 58.5 25.5 142.6 (68%) (76%) (84%) 0 0 0 0 EST97 2064.4 415.9 68.7 91.5 237.5 (71%) (83%) (98%) 0 1.4 0 0 RS 1689.0 239.5 28.8 165.6 132.4 Clayton (58%) (48%) (41%) 36.9 20.8 3.7 1
Based on the proposed logging systems, three commercial thin units (units 1, 166, 168) would require approximately 20 guyline trees in adjacent NRF to be felled for safety reasons. The guyline trees would range in diameter from 16-24 inches dbh. Use of old-growth trees would be avoided, if possible. No guyline trees are proposed for felling within owl cores. Overall, guyline tree felling represents a minor direct degradation of NRF habitat at a limited scale. Guyline trees would not continue to function as potential nest or roost trees in these stands, but they would remain on site to serve as habitat for prey. Affected stands are expected to continue to function as NRF following project implementation. The proposed Johnnie project would have no effect on amount of available dispersal habitat within the action area; the current condition is 86%, well above the 50% threshold needed for maintenance of owl dispersal. The Johnnie project would modify the structure of dispersal habitat within 1,759 acres of dispersal-only and 937 acres of NRF habitat, but the stands would still function as dispersal habitat for the owl as defined by Thomas et al. (1990). Post-treatment tree diameters and canopy closure would still meet the definition of dispersal habitat. The direct effect of treatment would be an increase in the stand’s average tree diameters and a decrease in the stands’ average canopy closures to approximately 40% within thinning units. Thus, the direct impact to dispersal of NSOs is considered minor. There are also multiple potential indirect effects to spotted owls associated with this project. Dense, closed-canopy second growth forest without structural legacies (large trees and snags), is poor habitat for most owl prey species (Carey, 1995; Carey and Johnson, 1995; Carey and Harrington, 2001). It is also poorly suited for owl roosting, foraging, or nesting (Carey et al., 1992). This period of low structural diversity can last >100 years (Carey et al., 1999; Franklin et al., 2002) and can have profound effects on the capacity of the forest to develop biodiversity in the future (Carey, 2003). Thinning would accelerate the development of stand attributes that distinguish mature and late- seral vegetation by sustaining dominant tree growth. Thinning also would invigorate the growth of the shrub layer, stimulate the growth of advanced understory trees (Tappeiner, 1997), and affect changes in species composition that would provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal species (Muir et al., 2002). Thinning reduces competition among remaining trees and accelerates diameter growth of retained trees. Forest growth simulator and coarse wood dynamics models (FVS & FFE) used to forecast the effects of the silvicultural prescriptions showed that moderate to heavy thinning would accelerate successional development, while maintaining down wood at levels within normal ranges for these forest types (Mellen et al., 2009). Over time, the proposed silvicultural treatments are expected to enhance NRF habitat, improve habitat connectivity in the action area, and reduce the risk of loss of habitat due to stand-replacing wildfires. Consequently, the proposed action alternative would have an indirect beneficial effect to the spotted owl and their habitat in the long-term. Thinning may indirectly affect NSOs through changes to prey species habitat. However, the potential response to thinning varies by prey species and temporal scale; and there are some contradictory conclusions about prey responses to commercial thinning in current literature. 142 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Sakai and Noon (1993) reported that wood rats were not impacted by thinning, although some individuals may be more exposed in the disturbed area or may move away from the disturbed area over the short-term. Some minor changes in prey availability are likely because implementation of the proposed action would disturb prey habitat and cause animals to move around in the understory. Because some stands currently harboring dusky-footed wood rat would be opened up, spotted owl prey availability might even increase during and immediately after treatment. Thus, potential effects to this prey species, whether negative or positive would have a limited indirect impact on the NSO. Other prey species whose availability is expected to increase during and immediately after project implementation are deer mice, chipmunks and pine squirrels. The development of understory habitat resulting from proposed thinning would favor these and other associated species. The northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) is a known important prey species for the NSO within the action area. Some current literature indicates that northern flying squirrel abundance decreases following thinning (Carey, 2000; Bull et al., 2004; Lehmkuhl et al.; 2006; Hebers, 2007; Klenner and Wilson, 2010). Based on the above body of research, it is reasonable to expect some negative, indirect effects to spotted owls from the proposed thinning due to reduced availability of this prey, at least in the short-term. However, generally, the commercial and non-commercial units lack suitable habitat (large snags, dense multiple canopy layers) condition for this species, these units have are single layered with large components of hardwoods (17%) and pine (2%) species that contribute to the canopy. Minor impacts to this species are expected to occur from treatment activities within NRF habitat associated with that roadside fuel break treatment because mid and upper canopies will be retained (Wilson, 2010). Direct and Indirect Effects from Disturbance The proposed project may also have direct effects on NSOs through noise generating disturbances within close proximity to both known NSO activity centers and spatially suitable habitat that may support nesting owls.35 It is expected that some potential disturbance activities would occur during the March 1 through September 30 NSO breeding season. Activities occurring after the critical breeding period (March 1 through July 15) may disturb the NSO, but are not likely to disrupt NSO reproductive success. Timber harvesting and road construction associated activities (e.g. temporary road construction, culvert replacement, chainsaw, etc.) produce above ambient noise levels that have the potential to disturb nesting NSOs, and disrupt normal reproductive activities. Disturbance could cause nest abandonment, flushing of adults off eggs thereby exposing them to harm, depressed feeding rates and avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. Disturbance to NSOs was analyzed by buffering known and computer generated owl points with a 60-meter buffer. Any activities that overlap the 60-meter buffered NSO points had the potential to disturb nesting owls during their breeding season. It was determined none of proposed action or connected actions would have noise-related disturbance effects to nesting NSOs (Figure 17). Prescribed fire would be used to pile burn approximately 792 acres in the commercial and non- commercial units and unspecified number of acres within the 2,091 acre roadside treatment. These areas would be burned over a period of years and during multiple days within a year in the Johnnie area. The effects of smoke generated by prescribed burning on NSOs have not been studied. However, it is possible smoke can cause (NSO) adults to move off nest sites, therefore leaving eggs or young exposed to predation or resulting in lost feedings that can reduce the young’s fitness. NSOs are potentially affected by fire control activities and drifting smoke during burning. The threshold distance for disturbance from smoke is .25 miles for NSOs. The vast majority (99.5%) of proposed fuel treatment acres are located >.25 miles from the eighteen owl activity centers within the action area (Figure 17). A portion of Units 1(1.2
35 Determined by a spatial analysis of NRF conducted in accordance with procedures outlined by the USFWS (USDI/USDA. 2008) 143 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest acres pile burning) and 174 (1.8 acres pile burning) and 63 acres of roadside fuel treatment (undetermined treatment type) within this potential disturbance distance of .25 miles. Smoke- related disturbance during the critical breeding period could affect nesting owls at site 0258, 0263, 0264 and RS Clayton. It is not practical or desirable to place a March 1 to July 15 seasonal restriction on underburning. It is rarely dry enough to meet burn objectives in the winter (before March 1), and the risk of tree mortality and soil damage in the residual stand is high in the summer and fall (after July 15). Potential effects to owl site 0264 from burning the 1.2 acres within Unit 1, during the primary nesting season, would be minimized by requiring that prevailing winds be assessed prior to ignition to ensure that smoke would not be directed toward the activity centers. Thus, risk and consequences to the NSO are expected to be minimal. Unit 174 (1.8 acres pile burning), impacts associated with owl site 0263, and 63 acres of roadside fuel treatment, impacts associated with owl sites 0263, 0258 and RS Clayton, provide for greater options for implementation and will occur outside of the primary breeding season (March 1 to July 15). In July of 2011 the revised recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl was finalized (USDI, 2011). The Johnnie project will be is consistent with the revised recovery plan in that it conserves occupied and high value spotted owl habitat: 1. Maintain and restore the older and more structurally complex multilayered (Recovery Action 32) and that NRF will be retained at all known NSO sites (Recovery Action 10). Additionally the Johnnie project will provide defensible space and reduce fuel loading within adjacent plantations allowing opportunities to reduce the effects of catastrophic wildlife to NRF habitat within the watershed.
144 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Figure 17. Proposed Disturbance Activities Associated with the Johnnie Project
145 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects to spotted owls are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Past clearcutting of habitat (approximately 18,200 acres of Forest Service, BLM and private land) has had the largest cumulative impact to this species by removing NRF habitat. Future clearcut harvesting on private land (est. 200-600 acres per year) would not impact NRF habitat because this harvest would be occurring in second-growth plantations. The proposed action would not remove or meaningfully degrade owl habitat at the site scale or stand scale, the proposed action would have no effect on the structure or function of owl habitat. Where NSO habitat conditions exist prior to proposed activities, it is expected that they would remain following project implementation: within NRF habitat, project sites would retain dominant overstory trees as nesting structures, and subdominant trees for roosting; would maintain canopy closures at or above 60% for thermal cover and predator protections; and would retain snags and logs to support the owl prey base. Thus, potential minor modification of habitat associated with these activities would be immeasurable and undetectable, and as such are considered to be insignificant effects and would not result in any meaning full cumulative impacts. The action alternative would add to the 1,773 acres of commercial thinning, 2,776 acres of PCT and 830 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administrated by the Forest Service which have caused similar effects as described above. The proposed action would accelerate the development of larger trees and reduce the risk of future loss of habitat to wildfire by making the stands more fire resilient.
Effects Determination Given the information above, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects associated with this project “may affect and are likely to adversely affect” the NSO. There are three owl sites (0258, 0263 and RS Clayton) where degrading NRF and dispersal habitat would occur within the 300- meter nest patch radius (Table 37). This management action may adversely affect NSOs through habitat degradation as described in USDA/USDI (2008) impacting NSO prey species and foraging behavior. Additionally NSO may be displaced when thinning activities occur within the nest patch, though information provided in studies is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions about the effects of thinning on NSOs (USDI 2011). However to minimize the potential for adverse effects, all roadside fuel treatment will not exceed 150 feet from the roadside edge within the nest patch. Additionally the same three NSO sites currently have 50% or less suitable NRF within the 800- meter core area Table 37. The proposed project would degrade both NRF and dispersal-only habitat and as such, management action may adversely affect NSOs through habitat degradation affecting NSO prey species and foraging behavior USDA/USDI (2008). To protect nesting northern spotted owls, prescribed fire operations would be prohibited from March 1 to July 15 with ground base portion of unit 174 (1.8 acres) and roadside fuel treatment within .25 mile radius of NSO sites 0263, 0258 and RS Clayton, (Figure 17). Prescribed fire use is proposed during the critical nesting season for the NSO, thus potential smoke disturbance effects associated with this project are considered a possibility. However, if conditions are suitable, burning may occur in the late breeding season (July 15 to September 30) or prior to breeding season (March 1). Proposed pile burning, in Unit 1(1.2 acres), are located within the smoke disturbance distance. This potential impact would be minimized by requiring that prevailing winds be assessed prior to ignition, to ensure that smoke would not be directed toward the NSO site 0264 to the northwest. Thus, potential effects associated with burning are considered insignificant.
146 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
No other proposed harvest activities, fuel treatment, or connected actions would have noise- related disturbance effects to nesting NSOs (Figure 17) thus, potential noise disturbance effects associated with this project are considered insignificant. Johnson’s Hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni) Preferred habitat is late successional and old-growth coniferous forests that contain mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium (dwarf mistletoes). The species lays its eggs on the mistletoe and the larvae feed on all exposed parts of the host plant. Adults feed on flower nectar (including Oregon grape, Pacific dogwood, ceanothus, pussy paw, and rubus species) and nectar of the mistletoe. Range is local and scarce throughout Pacific Northwest. Primary threats to this species include logging of late successional forests, spraying of insecticides, and potential hybridization with another species of butterfly. A detailed summary of habitat associations, life history traits, range/distribution etc. are documented in a species fact sheet on the Forest Service-Bureau of Land Management Pacific Northwest Interagency Special Status /Sensitive Species Program website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning- docs/20050906-fact-sheet-johnsons-hairstreak.doc. There are no known occurrences of this species within the planning area. The closest documented observation of the Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly is a larva collected in 2009 approximately 14 miles to the east of the planning area boundary within the Buckeye Creek drainage. None of the proposed harvest units is preferred habitat for this butterfly, but conifers with mistletoe are present in some units that are adjacent to late-seral stands; thus, species presence within the harvest units is possible and species presence in adjacent late- successional forests is assumed. Direct and Indirect Effects: The No Action alternative would not impact this species because no trees would be removed. The action alternative would not remove late successional or old-growth forests, thus potential negative project impacts to this butterfly and its habitat are believed inconsequential to the species. The proposed thinning units are 80 year or younger Douglas-fir plantations not the butterfly’s preferred late successional forest habitat. The roadside fuel break treatment would include approximately 937 acre of late successional forest (preferred habitat), since some smaller trees selected for cutting or affected by burning are likely infected with mistletoe and would be fell/destroyed, the action alternative could directly impact low quality potential habitat for the species. There is also a potential for direct impacts to individual eggs or larvae, if they were occupying mistletoe brooms during tree felling or during burning operations. Because the thinning units are not preferred habitat and fuels reduction actions concentrate on small trees (less than 8 inches) and brush components, due to the general lack of observed mistletoe in these smaller trees, this potential impact is not considered likely to occur at a frequency of consequence to the species. The action alternative would also be expected to have indirect beneficial impacts to the Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly by accelerating movement of the mid-seral thinned stands toward preferred late successional habitat conditions. Additionally, thinning in all stands would result in a reduction of canopy cover and subsequent increases in grass, forbs, and shrubs in the understory. This could benefit adult butterflies by providing additional food sources in the planning area. Increasing structural and vegetative diversity would be expected to enhance habitat quality for this species in the planning area in the short and long-terms.
Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impacts to the Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Past clearcutting of habitat (18,200 acres of Forest
147 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Service, BLM and private land) has had the largest cumulative impact to this species by removing late-seral habitat. Future clearcut harvesting on private land (est. 200-600 acres per year) would not affect Johnson’s hairstreak habitat because this harvest would be occurring in second-growth plantations. Reasonably foreseeable impacts on late-successional forests on federal administered lands are limited in scale and magnitude, and would not be expected to meaningfully reduce the ability of the planning area to support the Johnson’s hairstreak. The proposed action would not remove or meaningfully degrade Johnson’s hairstreak habitat at the site scale or stand scale. Where habitat conditions exist prior to proposed activities, it is expected that they would remain following project implementation. Current and reasonably foreseeable actions in the planning area would not include spraying of insecticide. The action alternative would add to the 1,773 acres of commercial thinning, 2,776 acres of PCT and 830 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administrated by the Forest Service which have caused similar effects as described above. The proposed action would accelerate the development of larger trees and reduce the risk of future loss of habitat to wildfire by making the stands more fire resilient and enhance foraging habitat with the development of the understory within thinning units.. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential negative cumulative impacts to the species associated with the action alternative. The no action alternative has no noteworthy impacts and as such, no meaningful cumulative impact. Impacts Determination: Following consideration of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The no action alternative would have no impact on this species. Coronis Fritillary (Speyeria coronis coronis) They are found in a variety of habitats, including conifer forests and grasslands where violets (Viola spp.), the principle food source of larvae, are present (Scheuering 2006). Adults would feed on a variety of other flower species nectar. Habitat associations described by Pyle (2002) are lower elevation canyons and grasslands as well as mid-montane meadows and forest margins and openings. Loss of grassland or montane meadow habitat is the primary threat to this species. Populations are globally secure, but may be rare in parts of its range, especially the periphery, as in eastern Douglas County where this species has been found. Additional life history information and habitat associations are documented in a species fact sheet: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/sfs-iile-speyeria-coronis- coronis.doc. There are no known documented observations of this species in or adjacent to the project area or elsewhere on the Umpqua National Forest. However, the Coronis fritillary is suspected on the Forest and the project area contains potential suitable habitat for the butterfly. Natural meadows and other forest openings may be the best potential habitat for the species within the Johnnie planning area. Coronis fritillaries have been documented in Douglas County (Opler et al. 2006). Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 1 would have no impact on this species. The action alternative, direct impacts to individuals or habitat (violets) could occur during timber harvest, temporary road construction and associated fuels treatments. However, protection of wetlands, streams, rocky outcrops, and directional felling of trees away from dry meadows and other unique habitats would mitigate this potential impact in areas believed to be most suitable for the species. Because the proposed treatment areas are not preferred habitat and due to the general lack of understory (flower producing nectar) in these stands, this potential impact is not considered likely to occur at a
148 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest frequency of consequence to the species. Other connected actions associated with the action alternative will have no measurable effect to the Coronis fritillary. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impacts to the coronis fritillary butterfly are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis sub-watershed scale. Past management, actions that reduced habitat diversity may have lowered the quality of existing habitat for this butterfly within the Johnnie planning area. However, the sub-watersheds still encompass a broad variety of habitat conditions: 5% grass/shrub, 15% open small trees, 37 mid seral forest, 43% late seral forest and as such, the area is believed to contain adequate suitable habitat to support the species where it exists. Current and foreseeable actions that would affect meadows or grassland habitat are limited in scale, would be restorative in nature, and are expected to have no measurable impacts on this butterfly or its habitat within the sub-watersheds. No alternative would add to the cumulative impacts to grasslands or meadows, which are most important to this species. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential negative cumulative impacts to the Coronis fritillary associated with the no action or action alternative. Impacts Determination: The action alternative would result in the loss of some nectar producing flowers through harvest, therefore it is determined that the action alternative may affect individuals or habitat but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the Coronis fritillary. This is because of the small amount of impact to nectar producing flowers throughout the range of the species. The No Action alternative wouldn’t have any impact to individuals or habitat for this species. Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon) The Mardon skipper is a small (<1”) tawny-orange butterfly with a hairy body (Kerwin and Huff 2007). Larvae feed on native bunchgrasses including Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), while adults feed on a variety of flower nectar sources. It is a Federal candidate for listing under the ESA due to habitat destruction or degradation of its obligate grassland habitats, encroachment of non-native vegetation, and successional loss of grasslands to forest (USDI 2004). Mardon skipper were not observed during field reconnaissance for this project. However, there are limited amounts of suitable grassland habitat containing Idaho fescue within the planning area; therefore it is assumed the species occurs within the planning area. Pupae of this species hibernate during the winter season. Direct and Indirect Effects: The No Action alternative wouldn’t have any direct or indirect effects to species or habitat (grassland habitats or nectar producing flowers). No meadows with the potential to have Idaho fescue in them would be impacted due to timber harvest or other fuel treatment actions associated with the action alternative. However, direct impacts to individuals or habitat nectar producing flowers could occur during timber harvest, temporary road construction and associated fuels treatments would have short-term impact to nectar producing flowers. Project design features such as protection of wetlands, streams, rocky outcrops and directional felling of trees away from dry meadows and other unique habitats would mitigate this potential impact in areas believed to be most suitable for the species. Because the proposed treatment areas are not preferred habitat and due to the general lack of understory (flowers producing nectar) in these stands, this potential impact is not considered likely to occur at a frequency of consequence to the species. Other connected and similar actions associated with the action alternative will have no measurable effect to the Mardon Skipper. Cumulative Effects:
149 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The cumulative impacts to the butterfly are analyzed at the planning area scale. Past management, actions that reduced habitat diversity may have lowered the quality of existing habitat for this butterfly within the Johnnie planning area. However, the sub-watersheds still encompass a broad variety of habitat conditions: 5% grass/shrub, 15% open small trees, 37% mid seral forest, 43% late seral forest and as such, the area is believed to contain adequate suitable habitat to support the species where it exists. Current and foreseeable actions that would affect meadows or grassland habitat are limited in scale, would be restorative in nature, and are expected to have no measurable impacts on this butterfly or its habitat within the sub- watersheds. No alternative would add to the cumulative impacts to grasslands or meadows, which are most important to this species. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential negative cumulative impacts to the Mardon Skipper associated with the no action or action alternative. Determination of Effect In considering the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the species because of the minor potential for disturbing this species and their habitat during project activities. The No Action alternative wouldn’t have any impact to individuals or habitat for this species. Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium) The evening fieldslug is a medium sized slug (>.5” long), associated with perennially wet meadows in coniferous forests in microsites containing herbaceous vegetation edging water or under damp litter (Burke and Duncan 2005). They feed on microorganisms and plant matter. Threats to this species include loss or degradation of wetland habitat, especially activities that alter moisture regimes on the edges of wet meadows, as well as fire of any severity (Burke and Duncan 2005). Because of the apparent need for stable environments that remain wet throughout the year, suitable habitat may be considered to be limited to moist surface vegetation and cover objects within 30 m. (98 ft.) of perennial wetlands, springs, seeps, and riparian areas. Water levels in many streams in western Oregon may fluctuate too much and too quickly, to provide streamside habitat with constant enough moisture conditions for this species (USDI, BLM 1999). Additional life history information, habitat associations, and conservation measures are documented in the Conservation Assessment for the species: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20050900-moll-evening- fieldslug.doc. A sighting of this species was documented in 1995, closely adjacent to the North Umpqua River, approximately 15 miles to the north of the planning area. Additionally, two sighting were located in 2007, approximately 15 miles to the south of the planning area. The Johnnie planning area and proposed harvest units contain wet meadows and a variety of riparian habitats and thus, contain potential habitat for the slug. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct impacts to the species. All perennial wet areas will be buffered with a 50-foot no disturbance buffer and up to 98 feet adjacent to perennial stream. Therefore, thus, limited short-term impacts to potential habitat could occur under the action alternative. Additionally, it is possible that proposed activities in these areas could disturb or destroy eggs or individual slugs, if they were occupying these areas during project implementation. A total of 13 acres of habitat could be impacted at 9 sites that may provide suitable habitat for this species or .26% of the available habitat within the Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds Directional felling of trees away from meadows and other unique habitats, down wood and hardwood retention requirements and protection of rocky areas are all project design features 150 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest that would mitigate and afford protection for the highest quality potential suitable habitat for this species.. Due to these project design features and the low likelihood of species occurrence in the planning area (based on extensive surveys on the District), and the limited scale of proposed activities in suitable habitat, it is considered unlikely potential impact would occur at a frequency of consequence to the species. Cumulative Effects: As described above, actions that result in wetland loss and/or alteration in the hydrologic regime of wetland ecosystems represent the primary threat to this species. Ongoing and foreseeable activities that would degrade or remove suitable habitat or further limit the areas potential to support the species are considered to be limited due to protections provided via standards and guidelines for management of wetlands and Riparian Reserves on public lands (USDA/USDI, 1994). Additionally, occupied sites on Forest Service lands must be managed in compliance with the Conservation Assessment (Burke 1998,revised Duncan 2005) and as such, are expected to sustain existing populations and support species persistence. Thus, due to expected long-term beneficial habitat impacts, the limited scale and magnitude of potential adverse direct habitat impacts and the low likelihood of species impacts actually occurring, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential cumulative impacts to the Evening fieldslug associated with any action alternative. The no action alternative has no noteworthy impacts and as such, no meaningful cumulative impact. Impacts Determination: In considering the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the species because of the minor potential of disturbing this species during project activities and the required protection of the highest quality potential habitat for the slug. The No Action alternative would have no impact on this species. Salamander Slug (Carinacauda stormi) The salamander slug is a predatory slug, thus they prefer habitats with an abundance of other slugs to predate on. Threats to this species include activities that lead to a loss of microhabitat through desiccation resulting from alteration of moisture regimes (including fire) or loss of deciduous leaf cover which also alters microhabitat moisture. Salamander slugs can be found in areas of the Oregon western slope Cascades, where Douglas-fir is a dominante overstory species and minor tree species include western hemlock and vine maple. Additional information about this species is documented in a species account: http://web.or.blm.gov/mollusks/images/Gliabates_oregonia.pdf. There are no known documented observations of this species in or adjacent to the Johnnie planning area. Specimens were collected on the Willamette National Forest in Lane County in 2010, approximately 89 miles north of the project area boundary. All specimens were collected in Douglas-fir–western hemlock forests where needle litter was almost exclusively Douglas-fir at the microsite. Forest age class did not seem to be a factor in detecting this species, as detections occurred in forests 25 years to over 150 years old. This species appears to prefer areas of high moisture content. Areas where down wood would retain pockets of moisture and where vine maple leaves would form a layer to hold moisture were preferred habitat. This species was found almost exclusively in semi-saturated to fully saturated duff between the recent year’s needle-duff layer and the compacted needle-duff layers of previous years (approximately 2.5 to 5 cm below the needle-duff layer surface) and where the ground cover was almost exclusively free of a moderate shrub vegetation layer or moss. This species was not detected in stands where incense-cedar or western redcedar were the dominate species or where the dominate ground cover was moderate shrub vegetation, 151 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest such as western swordfern, salal and heavy moss layers. Though it has been found at the margins of small streams, this species is not associated with seeps or wetlands, but rather in areas where water can collect or areas that will become saturated as the rainy season develops. In addition, this species has not been documented outside of the wet season. The salamander slug is suspected on the Umpqua National Forest and the project area contains marginal potential suitable habitat for the species. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct impacts to the species or their habitat. The action alternative would not remove mature or old forests assumed to be the best potential suitable habitat for the species within the planning area. However, proposed timber harvest, PCT, fuels treatments and associated activities would nonetheless modify forest stands that may be potential habitat for the salamander slug. Reduction in canopy closures and damage to the understory shrub layer from thinning and partial consumption of forest understories, leaf litter and duff via prescribed fire, all represent direct habitat impacts that would reduce the quality of slug habitat in treated areas in the short-term. These potential habitat impacts, are considered to be inconsequential to the species because proposed activities would not impact areas believed to be the best habitat for the species; proposed harvest units all retain substantial unthinned areas in riparian habitats, etc. that would serve as habitat refugia; and the scale of the impact is limited relative to the availability of potential habitat in the planning area. Additionally, if salamander slugs were occupying potential habitat during project implementation, it is possible that individuals could be displaced, injured or killed. However, based on lack of historic or current species observations in the planning area or anywhere on the Umpqua National Forest, and the perceived low likelihood of species presence in proposed harvest units, it is considered unlikely that this potential impact would occur at a frequency of consequence to the species. Cumulative Effects: As described above, cutting of late and old forests is the past management action that likely had the greatest influence on this species and its habitat in the planning area. Current and reasonably foreseeable actions that would impact late-successional and other forest habitat within the area are limited in scale and magnitude, and would not be expected to meaningfully reduce the ability of the planning area to support the salamander slug. Although the salamander slug is suspected on the Umpqua National Forest, as stated above, there is a presumed low likelihood that this area is a “source” breeding habitat for the species. Thus, due to the limited scale and magnitude of potential adverse direct habitat impacts and the low likelihood of species impacts actually occurring, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential cumulative impacts to the salamander slug associated with the action alternative. The no action alternative has no noteworthy impacts and as such, no meaningful cumulative impact.
Impacts Determination: In considering the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the species because of the minor potential of disturbing this
152 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest species during project activities. The no action alternative would have no impacts to the species, since no ground disturbing activities would occur. Oregon Shoulderband (Helminthoglypta hertleini) The Oregon Shoulderband is medium sized snail (15-26 mm) with a pale golden brown shell with a darker band bounded between two equally sized lighter bands. This species has been documented in the Klamath Geological Province, including Jackson, Siskiyou and parts of Douglas counties (USDI, BLM, 1999). This species has been found on the Tiller Ranger District. They are found on the lower portions of talus slopes and in and around rocky outcrops. They feed on foliage, feces, fruit, old leaves, leaf mold and fungi. During the summer and winter, when climatic conditions are not conducive for foraging, they will burrow down into rock crevices as protection from desiccation, protection, and potential impacts from wildfire (Weasma and Duncan 2004). Vegetation types where the species has been located include dry conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forests as well as oak communities often adjacent to areas with substantial grass or seasonal herbaceous vegetation. Forest canopy cover moderates the extremes in environmental conditions and may provide additional moisture to the site in the form of condensation drip. No strong riparian association has been identified for this species (Duncan, 2004). It is tolerant of drier conditions than other mollusks and can be found in open woodlands, meadows, and road edges. There are currently six known locations of Oregon Shoulderband within the Johnnie Planning Area on the Tiller Ranger District. All current known sites fall outside areas proposed for treatment, all sites will protected from disturbance. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects as no timber harvest would take place. Direct impacts to this species from action alternative include injury or crushing from log skidding equipment or falling trees from the thinning operations. Activities fuels reduction through piling and burning or underburning could also impact individuals if these activities occur while Oregon Shoulderband are dispersing or foraging. Indirect effects include environmental changes to the stand from opening up the canopy. This allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor which can increase drying and reduce humidity on the forest floor, changing the microclimate of the understory. This results in a short-term negative impact to mollusks in general, although probably not a large impact to this species. Increased sunlight should initiate a long-term benefit to grass/forb and shrub layers, providing a more stable microclimate and increase in available hiding cover. Mitigation measures that protect coarse woody debris, leaf and needle litter and rock outcrops assure long-term viability within the project area and following management considerations outlined in the Conservation Assessment for this species (Duncan, 2004). Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale area scale. Past timber harvest, road building and prescribed fire may have degraded the quality of potential habitat in the planning area and watershed. The action alternative would add to the 1,773 acres of commercial thinning, 2,776 acres of PCT and 830 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administrated by the Forest Service which have caused similar effects as described above. The proposed action would accelerate the development of larger trees, reduce the risk of future loss of habitat to wildfire by making the stands more fire resilient, and enhance foraging habitat with the development of the understory within thinning units. The proposed action has limited potential negative impacts as described above. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential negative cumulative impacts to the species associated with the action alternative. This is because of the small scale and duration of
153 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest proposed and future potential habitat-modifying activities, and the expected long-term benefits of current and future projects on habitat conditions. The no action alternative would have no anticipated direct or indirect impacts on the species and thus, does not contribute to a cumulative impact. Impacts Determination: Following consideration of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but Will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Although the project is within the known range of the species, and habitat is present, due to protective project design features and mitigations, the action alternative would be expected to cause a consequential negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site. The no action alternative would have no impact to individuals or habitat for this species. Chace Sideband (Monadenia chaceana) This species is endemic to northern California and southwest Oregon and has been found on the Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger District. The Chace sideband is medium sized snail (18-26 mm) with a brownish yellow shell comprised of 5.2-5.8 whorls (Weasma and Duncan, 2005). They are found on the lower portions of talus slopes and in and around rocky outcrops. They feed on foliage, fruit, mold, and fungi. During the summer and winter, when climatic conditions are not conducive for foraging, they will burrow down into rock crevices as protection from desiccation, protection, and potential impacts from wildfire (Weasma and Duncan, 2005). Vegetation types include dry conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forests as well as oak communities. There are currently 25 known Monadenia chaceana locations within the Johnnie Planning Area. All current known sites fall outside areas proposed for treatment, all sites will be protected. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct effects as no timber harvest would take place. Direct impacts to this species from action alternative include injury or crushing from ground skidding equipment or falling trees from the thinning operation. Fuels reduction activities such as piling and burning or underburning could also impact individuals if these activities occur while Chace sideband are dispersing or foraging. Indirect effects include environmental changes to the stand from opening up the canopy. This allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor, which can increase drying and reduce humidity on the forest floor, changing the microclimate of the understory. This results in a short-term negative impact to mollusks in general. Increased sunlight should initiate a long-term benefit to grass/forb and shrub layers, providing a more stable microclimate and increase in available hiding cover. Mitigation measures that protect coarse woody debris, leaf and needle litter and rock outcrops assure long-term viability within the project area and follow management considerations outlined in the Conservation Assessment for this species (Duncan, 2004). Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. The action alternative would add to the 1,773 acres of commercial thinning, 2,776 acres of PCT and 830 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administrated by the Forest Service which have caused similar effects as described above. The proposed action would accelerate the development of larger trees and reduce the risk of future loss of habitat to wildfire by making the stands more fire resilient and enhance foraging habitat with the development of the understory within thinning units Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential negative cumulative impacts to the species associated with the action alternative.
154 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
This is because of the small scale and duration of proposed and future potential habitat- modifying activities, and the expected long-term benefits of current and future projects on habitat conditions. The no action alternative would have no anticipated direct or indirect impacts on the species and thus, does not contribute to a cumulative impact. Impacts Determination: Following consideration of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but Will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Although the project is within the known range of the species, and habitat is present, due to protective project design features and mitigations, the action alternative would be expected to cause a consequential negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site. The no action alternative would have no impact to individuals or habitat for this species. Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris) This species is found sparsely distributed throughout the Oregon Cascades, at moderate to high elevations, ranging from 2,750 - 6,400 feet (Duncan, 2004). Habitat is defined as perennially moist situations in mature conifer forests and meadows among rushes, mosses and other surface vegetation or under rocks and woody debris within 33 feet of open water in wetlands, springs, seeps and streams. It generally occurs in areas which remain under snow for long periods in the winter. Riparian sites which experience periodic flooding or large fluctuations in water level are not suitable habitat for this species. Loss or degradation of wetland habitat leading to loss of populations at sites occupied by the Crater Lake Tightcoil is considered the major threat to the species. Loss or degradation of wetland habitat leading to loss of populations at sites occupied by the Crater Lake Tightcoil is considered to be the major threat to the species. Activities that compact soils or snow, disturb ground vegetation and/or litter, remove woody debris, alter temperature and/or humidity of the microsite, or alter the water table could be harmful to the habitat of this species. These activities include water diversions and improvements, livestock grazing and timber harvesting activities (Duncan, 2004). Conservation measures for this species include minimizing temperature and humidity fluctuations in perennial wet areas. This includes maintaining natural understory vegetation and organic litter and coarse woody debris on the ground. Additional life history information, habitat associations, and conservation measures are documented in the Conservation Assessment for the species: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20050713-moll-crater-lake- tightcoil.doc Two-visit protocol surveys for terrestrial mollusks were conducted on approximately 870 acres adjacent to Johnnie thinning units within the Johnnie planning area. The Crater Lake tightcoil was not detected during these surveys and has not been documented in the planning area, in the watersheds, or on the Tiller Ranger District. The closest known species occurrence is on the Diamond Lake Ranger District approximately 26.7 air miles to the northeast. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects as no habitat modification would occur. Under action alternative thinning, roadside fuel treatment and temporary road building would open up the stands, allowing more light to penetrate, changing the microclimate of the understory. However, perennial streams would be buffered by 98 feet and un-surveyed perennial wetlands considered to be suitable habitat for the species would be buffered by 50 feet to reduce potential impacts to the species and changes to habitat conditions. These buffer widths meet or exceed the Conservation Assessment recommendation for 33-foot buffers on perennial waters and would minimize direct and indirect impacts to the species from microclimate changes all proposed activities would retain the dominate tree canopy. As detailed 155 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest below, a limited amount of ground disturbance would occur in proximity to streams, thus, there would be potential direct impacts to the species and habitat associated with these actions. No direct impacts to the species are expected to actually occur under the action alternative with the implementation of project design features, the Crater Lake tightcoil has not been detected on the Tiller RD and most of the planning area falls outside of the species expected elevation range of 2,750 - 6,400 feet (Duncan 2004). Under the action alternative, skyline cable corridors, (approximately 14) would be needed in unit 168, and occasionally individual trees would have to be felled within no-harvest buffers to allow for passage of the cable (trees would be left on site). The skyline corridors would intersect approximately 2,300 feet of stream or .005% of the stream habitat within the Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds. Mitigations detailed in Chapter 2 would limit the amount of this type of disturbance to the greatest extent practical. Due to the limited and scattered nature of tree felling for skyline cable corridors, no meaningful changes in riparian stand structure or alteration of microclimate are expected; thus, there would be no substantive negative impacts to potential habitat. Due to the limited scale and duration of this potential impact, consequences to habitat quality are minor. The action alternative also entails road maintenance, road reconstruction, temporary road reconstruction and obliteration, as well as additional culvert replacements (connected actions) in proximity to streams. All of this activity occurs on previously compacted and disturbed sites that are considered low quality potential habitat. None of these activities would meaningfully degrade the existing quality of potential habitat due to BMP listed in Chapter 2. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Past timber harvest, road building and prescribed fire, which occurred in proximity to perennially wet areas, may have degraded the quality of potential Crater Lake tightcoil habitat in the planning area and watershed. Ongoing and foreseeable activities that would degrade or remove suitable habitat or further limit the areas potential to support the species are considered limited due to protections provided via standards and guidelines for management of wetlands and Riparian Reserves on public lands (USDA/USDI, 1994). Additionally, occupied sites on Forest Service lands must be managed in compliance with the Conservation Assessment (Burke, 1998, revised Duncan, 2004) and as such, are expected to sustain existing populations and support species persistence. Following consideration of the incremental impacts of the action alternative when added to past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions, it is determined that there are no consequential negative cumulative impacts associated with the action alternative. This conclusion is based on the low probability of this species occurring within the planning area (based on numerous project level surveys resulting in no known sites), the small scale, and duration of proposed and future potential habitat-modifying activities. The no action alternative has no noteworthy impacts and as such, no meaningful cumulative impact to Crater Lake Tightcoil. Impacts Determination: In considering the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the species because of the minor potential of disturbing this species during project activities. The No Action alternative would not result in any impact to this species or their habitat. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) The Oregon populations of this species inhabit sections of low-gradient streams and rivers with exposed bedrock and gravel/cobble bars below about 2,700 feet elevation. Adult frogs congregate along gravel/cobble bars of rivers to breed and lay eggs between March and June. Eggs are deposited in streams in slow-moving water or backwater locations. Breeding is
156 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest documented in larger streams, but not in smaller tributaries, which may be used as foraging or dispersal habitat. Eggs take 5-37 days to hatch and larvae take 3-4 months to metamorphose (Fellers, 2005). Tadpoles feed on algae they scrape off rocks and plants and tend to stay close to the egg-laying site unless disturbed. Overwintering appears to occur within streams/rivers and along stream/river edges under various loose substrates (e.g., woody debris, rocks, etc.) and in seeps along the stream margin (Rombough, 2006). Population Trends: Little is known about population trends for this species in Oregon. However, a negative population trend is strongly implicated by the retrospective survey of Borisenko and Hayes (1999) revisiting historic Oregon sites. Less than half the sites were occupied. In particular, they failed to detect the species in many northern and southeastern locations of their historic range in Oregon, suggesting these range margins are particularly vulnerable to losses. Threats: There appear to be three main land-use threats that may impact individuals or populations at occupied sites: 1) stream habitat loss or alteration from water impoundments that inundate habitats or alter natural flow regimes, causing fluctuations in water levels and altering water temperatures; 2) introduced species such as smallmouth bass and bullfrogs due to predation and competition; 3) stream habitat loss or alteration from agricultural practices including re-routing stream channels and fluctuations in water levels caused by irrigation. Other activities have unknown impacts, but are perceived as threats: siltation of streams from forest or road management, grazing, mining and water impoundments; applications of or run-off from chemicals, such as herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers; recreation, including wave action from jet boat wakes, may degrade banks used by these frogs. Management Considerations: Considerations for maintaining local populations include maintaining stream habitat conditions, especially suitable flow regimes. Reducing the impacts of water-releases from dams, grazing, mining, recreation, agro-chemicals, introduced predators and competitors, road and forest management are all important considerations. The timing of activities to avoid the breeding season is also a consideration for this species’ management. The above information and additional life history information, habitat associations, and conservation measures are documented in the Conservation Assessment for the species: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/ca-ha-rana-boylii-2007-08- 21.doc
The foothill yellow-legged frog occurs in the project area. The South Umpqua River is known breeding habitat for this species and the lower reaches of Deadman, Sam, and Francis Creek is potential habitat. No proposed harvest units are in close proximity to suitable habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects: The No Action alternative would have no direct impacts on yellow-legged frogs or their habitat. The action alternative would thin within 2,000 feet and roadside fuel treatment would 100 feet of yellow-legged frog habitat. Due to the distance between habitats in South Umpqua River relative to normal frog movements, it is believed there is a no likelihood that potential direct impact would occur to this aquatic species from the proposed actions. The required 98-feet no-harvest buffers on perennial streams and other BMPs would substantially limit potential indirect impacts from minor amounts of sediment to the aquatic system from harvest, road work, and connected actions associated with the action alternative (see “Effects on Stream Sedimentation” in this chapter). Due to the limited scale and duration of proposed sediment delivery activities, none of the potential habitat impacts would be consequential to the species. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis subwatershed scale. Past road building, timber harvest, and other management activities that occurred in and in close proximity 157 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest to South Umpqua River in the planning area are the primary contributors to a cumulative impact for this species. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects in proximity to streams would be expected to have minor impacts on potential habitat for the species similar to those described above. Due to the limited extent of potential indirect effects that would occur and low likelihood of any consequential direct impacts to the frogs, following consideration of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, it is determined that there are no consequential negative cumulative impacts associated with the action alternative. The no action would have no meaningful cumulative impacts to the species. Impacts Determination: In considering the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the species because of the minor potential of disturbing this species during project activities. The No Action alternative would have no impact on this species. Northern Pacific Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata marmorata) This highly aquatic turtle occurs in streams, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. It spends much of its life in water, but requires terrestrial habitats for nesting. It overwinters in mud bottoms of lakes or ponds or in upland habitats adjacent to water bodies. Nesting occurs from May to mid-July in soils with scant vegetative cover. Nests are usually within 100 meters of water, but occasionally up to 400 meters. Pond turtles are long-lived, with an estimated life span of 50 to 70 years. In drier regions where stream habitats dry up in the summer, they were documented to use upland habitats an average of 50 meters from stream channels (Rathbun et al. 2002). Reese and Welsh (1997) documented overwintering on the average about 200 meters, but as far as 500 meters from river systems, and mainly on north and east facing slopes. Threats: The greatest single threat to the pond turtle is habitat destruction, alteration and fragmentation (Ashton et al., 1997; NatureServe, 2007). Habitat impacts can be caused by conversion of wetlands to farmland, water diversions and dams, channelization, mining, logging, and urbanization. Associated with habitat fragmentation is the effect on genetic isolation. Lack of genetic variability may be a significant threat to the continued survival of populations in Oregon and Washington and are discussed in detail by Holland (1991). Other threats include: motor vehicle traffic, human recreation activities in occupied habitat, chemical spills, exotic predators, grazing, fire, and drought. Additional life history information and habitat associations are documented in a species fact sheet: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/sfs-vert-hr-Actinemys- marmorata-marmorata-2007-10-05.doc There are numerous documented observations of pond turtles in the planning area. Most of these sites are along the South Umpqua River. However, suitable habitat exists in the lower reaches of Deadman, Sam, and Francis Creek and sumps/ponds are considered to be the best potential habitat for the species within the planning area boundary. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on the species, as no ground disturbing activities would occur. The direct and indirect effects of the action alternative are analyzed at the scale of units, which are within the vicinity of potential turtle habitat. Potential habitat occurs along the South Umpqua River and the lower reaches of Deadman, Sam, and Francis Creek and sumps/ponds. Approximately 64 acres (28 acres CT and 36 acres PCT) within portions of six units (units 13, 35, 36, 73, 221, and 228) are within 500 meters of known site or suitable habitat within the planning area. None of the proposed units contain suitable nesting habitat. However, it is possible that turtles will overwinter within the 64 acres that include portion of the proposed thinning units. Generally, these units have southern aspect with shallow 158 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest leaf litter, not the best representation of overwintering habitat. Given the high amount of suitable forest structure (3,119 acres) along South Umpqua River and 95% of the unit acres that contain potential overwintering habitat are greater than 200 meters (the average dispersal distance for turtles), the likelihood that these units are actually used for overwintering is considered low. Within the roadside fuel break, 393 acres are within 500 meters, 116 acres of those acres are within 200 meters of known sites, or 13% and 5% respectively of the potential wintering habitat. Most pile burning will occur outside of the period that turtles will be overwintering. Therefore, direct impact to turtles would be from thinning activities (cutting small tree /shrubs and mechanical removal of slash that would occur during the winter months, as with harvesting activities could extend into the late fall, but would likely cease by winter. Thinning and roadside fuel reduction may indirectly affect this overwintering habitat by opening up the canopy. This would potentially lower the suitability for these stands to function as overwintering habitat for the next 5 to 10 years, until tree crowns expand and canopy closure increases to above 50%. After thinning there would be an expected 2% gain in canopy closure per year after thinning (Chan et al. 2006). The proposed impact would be spatially distributed over multiple years. Other proposed connected actions are not expected to result in effects to turtles or their habitat. There no known impacts to nesting habitat within the planning area. no proposed actions are expected to occur within potential nesting habitat. Considering the limited scale and duration of proposed activities, none of the potential habitat impacts would be consequential to the species. Cumulative Effects: The biggest effects to the turtle are related to historic human exploitation, habitat loss from dams, and agricultural and urban development (Nature Serve, 2007). The action alternative produce a small-scale impact, which is not expected to add cumulatively to the past effects that have caused concern for this species. There no known impacts to nesting habitat within the planning area. When considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that the action alternative would not contribute to a potential cumulative direct impact or consequence to this species. The no action alternative has no noteworthy impacts and as such, no meaningful cumulative impact. Impacts Determination: Following consideration of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects it is determined that the action alternative “may impact individuals or habitat, but are not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the species” because of the low probability that the turtles are using the area, the small scale of impact in relation to available habitat and limited duration of impact due to winter related restrictions. The No Action alternative would not impact this species. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) The Harlequin Duck is a medium sized diving duck, with males being identified by their small bill and very distinctive white markings on the face and head, with white stripes on the neck, chest and wings. The female has a similar small bill, with a dusky brown body and small white ear spots (Stone, 2007). Harlequins summer along fast flowing mountain streams and rivers adjacent to forests and winter along rocky coastal shores (Stone, 2007). Their diet is aquatic invertebrates in their breeding habitats while the feed on snails, limpets and mussels off coastal rocks. They are ground nesters who generally nest less than 17 feet away from water. Threats to Harlequins include degradation of breeding streams through damming, human disturbance, logging, roads, and ocean pollution, including oil spills. A harlequin duck was observed during breeding season approximately 15.5 mile north of the planning area on the North Umpqua River in 2007.
159 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no impact to individuals or habitat for this species. Potential suitable nesting habitat exists adjacent to South Umpqua River and Deadman and Dumont Creeks. All proposed thinning units are greater than 2,000 feet from potential stream habitat. All roadside fuel break actions will at least 100 feet from potential stream habitat, well beyond the less than 17-foot distance from water that Harlequin’s typically nest. Therefore, there would be no direct effects from the action alternative. The indirect effect to water quality or stream flow as a result of any harvest or fuels reduction activities to any creeks or rivers are minimal (see aquatic section in this chapter), therefore, there would be no indirect effects to Harlequin Ducks as a result of any action alternative. Other connected and similar actions associated with the action alternative will have no effect to the Harlequin Duck. There is also no evidence to suggest that Harlequin Ducks nest in the planning area therefore there would be no impact to the Harlequin Duck as a result of the Johnnie Timber Sale project Cumulative Effects: The action and no action alternatives have no noteworthy impacts and as such, no meaningful cumulative impact. Impacts Determination: In considering the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts it is determined that the action and no action alternatives would have no impact on this species. Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) The Pacific Fisher is a small carnivore (6-13 lbs.) with brown fur, a long bushy tail, and occasional white markings on their chest. They are found primarily in low to mid elevation coniferous forests. They require large live trees, snags and downed logs for denning and resting, along with abundant physical structure near the ground for their small mammal prey (Aubry and Lewis, 2003; Powell et al, 2003). Fishers generally avoid clearcuts and forested habitats with less than 40% canopy cover (Aubry and Lewis, 2003). Fisher are believed to have been extirpated from Oregon in the early 1950’s by a combination of trapping (for their pelts), poisoning from predator control measures, and a loss of habitat because of timber harvest and human development. From 1961-1981 fishers were reintroduced to the southern cascades, approximately 16 miles east of the planning area along the Rogue-Umpqua Divide from populations in south-central British Columbia and northern Minnesota to control porcupine populations, which were damaging forest plantations in the area (Aubry and Lewis, 2003). Fisher captured in southwestern Oregon was more genetically similar to fisher in British Columbia and Minnesota than to fishers captured in the northern Siskiyou Mountains of California (Aubry and Lewis, 2003). In a study of radio-collared fisher on the Rogue River National Forest and Crater Lake National Park approximately 30 miles to the east of the planning areas fisher were found to prefer stands of unmanaged forests (with no signs of past timber harvest); they denned primarily in live and dead Douglas-fir and incense-cedar; and preferred trees with mistletoe brooms for resting (Aubry and Raley, 2006). Scat collections showed that diet consisted of mainly larger rodents (primarily various squirrel species), as well as rabbits, but also included insects, skunks, and porcupines (Aubry and Raley, 2006). Fishers in this study rarely used habitat above 5,100 ft, and the authors did not consider habitat above that elevation to be suitable for denning or resting (Aubry and Raley, 2006). The fisher has been petitioned to be listed under the ESA three times in the past 16 years. In June of 2005, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service found the fisher in the West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) warranted to be listed but was precluded by other higher priority listings (USDI, 2004b). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the primary threat to the
160 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest fishers and their habitat include: destruction or modification of its habitat including activities like timber harvest, fuels reduction activities, large scale forest disease or insect outbreaks, or stand replacing fire; over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; disease or predation; and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms including the Northwest Forest Plan (USDI, 2004b). Fishers travel large home ranges and have even larger home ranges in the winter when food is scarce (≥ 50-150 miles).There are no definitive occurrences of this species within the planning area. The closest documented sighting is a 1980 at the time of release for reintroduction, approximately 15 miles southeast of the planning area boundary. Direct and Indirect Effects: The no action alternative would have no direct effects to fisher as no thinning or fuels reduction activities would take place. Indirectly, a stand replacement wildfire that may result if no action is taken to reduce fuels would degrade or eliminate suitable habitat for the fisher. The action alternative should have limited direct effects because this species prefer stands of unmanaged forests with large trees and down wood. The proposed thinning stands are young (80 years old or less) manage stands that lack large diameter trees and snags. Roadside fuel reduction will occur within approximately 937 acres of late-seral habitat, however this habitat is located along major forest roads and are generally avoid by fisher. Fisher may disperse through the proposed treatment areas but generally, these stands do not provide suitable habitat for natal denning or foraging. Potential direct effects would likely be from disturbance associated with thinning or fuel reduction activities if fishers were foraging in adjacent mature stands. However, this species is very mobile and could disperse away from activities causing disturbance, additionally disturbance would be localized and disturbed spatially over time within the 31,773 acre Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds. Considering the fishers’ very large home range (50 to 150 miles) and the limited impacts, the effects are considered inconsequential to the species. The action alternative would also be expected to have indirect beneficial impacts to the pacific fisher by accelerating movement of the mid-seral thinned stands toward preferred late successional habitat conditions. Increasing structural and vegetative diversity would be expected to enhance habitat quality for this species in the sub-watersheds in the short- and long-terms. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects to fisher are analyzed at the Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds. Cutting of late and old forests (18,200 acres of Forest Service, BLM and private land) has had the largest cumulative impact to this species by removing late-seral habitat. Future clearcut harvesting on private land (est. 200-600 acres per year) would not affect Fisher habitat because this harvest would be occurring in second-growth plantations. Reasonably foreseeable impacts on late-successional forests on federal administered lands are limited in scale and magnitude, and would not be expected to meaningfully reduce the ability of the watersheds to support fisher. The proposed action would not remove or meaningfully degrade fisher habitat at the site scale or stand scale. Where habitat conditions exist prior to proposed activities, it is expected that they would remain following project implementation. The action alternative would add to the 1,773 acres of commercial thinning, 2,776 acres of PCT and 830 acres of roadside fuel treatment that has been implemented within the sub-watersheds on lands administrated by the Forest Service which have caused similar effects as described above. The proposed action would accelerate the development of larger trees and reduce the risk of future loss of habitat to wildfire by making the stands more fire resilient. Thus, when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, it is determined that there would be no consequential negative cumulative impacts to the species associated with the action alternative. The no action
161 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Impacts Determination: Following consideration of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The no action alternative would have no impact on this species. Pacific Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes vespertinus) This bat is often described as a cave-dwelling bat (Verts and Carraway, 1998; Cristy and West 1993). However, fringed myotis are known to roost in rock crevices, bridges, buildings, large trees, and snags (Cross et al., 1996; Weller and Zabel, 2001). They mate from September to February and females form maternity colonies of up to several hundred individuals, which are usually in caves, but may occur in large hollow trees (Pat Ormsbee, pers. com.). Females produce only one young, usually born between late June and early July (Verts and Carraway, 1998). Weller and Zabel (2001) documented that habitat use by this species is influenced by the availability of large (>12 inch dbh), tall snags for roosting. Preliminary data from a study in the central western Oregon Cascades (Arnett and Hayes, 2002) suggests a similar response by Myotis spp. and also a numerical response related to snag and roost tree availability. Roosts tended to be near stream channels (Weller and Zabel, 2001), which are used for travel and foraging corridors, and also occurred in portions of stands that had lower canopy closures (probably easier roost access and sun exposure / micro-climate relationships). Fringed myotis often utilized snags in semi-open areas and forest edges (Cross et al., 1996) and seemed to prefer snags to green trees for roosting. This species of bat uses multiple trees or snags as roost sites (Weller and Zabel, 2001) and have been documented to use up to five different sites during an 18-day period (Cross et al., 1996). Fringed myotis commonly feed on insects along forest edges and stream corridors. It is an aerial forager, but is known to glean insects from foliage or the ground. Beetles, moths, and spiders, make up a large portion (approximately 94%) of their diet (Verts and Carraway, 1998). The species is believed to migrate in the fall, but little is known about the magnitude of movements or the migratory destination (O’Farrell and Studier, 1980). There are no known maternity colonies for this species on the Umpqua. The closest documented observation of the fringed myotis is 25 miles southwest of the planning area. Rock crevices, bridges, and older forests adjacent to proposed harvest units are considered the best potential habitat for the species in the project area. Direct and Indirect: The No Action alternative wouldn’t have any direct impacts. Thinning and roadside fuel reduction activities and other associated connected actions (refer to Chapter Two, Connected and Similar Actions) during project implementation could cause disturbance to bats if they were roosting under bridges, in rock crevices or in large snags/trees adjacent to treatment areas, haul routes, etc. This type of disturbance could temporarily displace individual bats from affected roost sites. Additionally, felling of trees or snags during logging, road construction and burning operations may cause injury or death to roosting bats. However, the trees/snags proposed to be felled generally do not meet the description of typical roost trees. Most roost sites are described as large snags or trees with thick or loose bark or that provide cavities and have good solar exposure. The proposed thinning of plantations lack large snags and trees, no large tree/snags are prescribed to be fell within the roadside fuel break. Therefore, impacts to roost habitat should be limited in scale; potential habitat impacts would be inconsequential to the species. Although smaller snags would afford protection during harvest activities, road construction and during burning operations, it is likely that some may have to be felled for safety reasons, or may fall accidentally from logging activities resulting in a potential impact to bats. 162 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Based on the proposed logging systems, approximately 20 guyline trees would need to be falled in mature stands for safety reasons. The guyline trees would range in diameter from 16-24 inches dbh, theses trees would not be considered preferred roost sites. Use of old-growth trees would be avoided if possible. Guyline trees would not continue to function as potential roost trees in these stands. Within the Deadman/Francis sub-watersheds there is approximately 13,563 acres of mature stands > 100 years old at an average of 80 trees per acre > 16 dbh the impacts on roost habitat from felling 20 mature guyline tree would be .002% of the available habitat. Thinning young-growth stands has not been shown to change moth (a forage species) abundance substantially (Muir et al. 2002). However, hardwood shrub densities were higher in thinned stands than in unthinned young-growth stands. These hardwoods (e.g., chinquapin and oceanspray) are important food sources for moths. Muir et al. (2002) recommends maintaining a variety of stand types and densities across the landscape to promote a diversity of plant species and associated fauna. The action alternative meets this recommendation. Based on the available data, the action alternative and associated connected actions would not have a major negative effect on the bat or its prey species. Thinning would also result in the accelerated development of large diameter trees but a slight delay in attainment of desired future large snag levels, and as such represents both an indirect beneficial impact and a minor negative impact on future habitat (Coarse Wood Section, Figure ). Because proposed activities would not remove nesting/roosting structures and occurrence of the species in proximity to the potentially disturbing activities is believed to limited, consequences of this potential impact to the species are considered minor. Additionally, the limited felling of snags (for safety) associated with harvest activities represents a minor habitat impact. This potential impact is considered inconsequential to the species because it is limited in scale and is not expected to modify the most suitable habitat for the species within the planning area (i.e. old-growth trees and snags, rocky areas). Cumulative Effects: Impacts to cave and rock habitat for this species- past, present, and future, are believed to be non-existent or negligible. Cutting of late and old forests is the past management action likely had the greatest influence on this species and its habitat in the watershed. Current and reasonably foreseeable actions that would impact late-successional and other forest habitat within the area are limited in scale and magnitude, and would not be expected to meaningfully reduce the ability of the watershed to support the fringed myotis bat. The action alternative would have limited habitat and species impacts, but when considered in the context of past, present, and foreseeable actions, the action alternative would be expected to result in a meaningful adverse cumulative impact to the species. Alternative 1 would have no noteworthy direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on this species. Impacts Determination: Following consideration of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The no action alternative would have no impact on this species. Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) These bats use caves, abandoned mines, deep rock crevices, shaded rock overhangs, boulder talus, bridges, and buildings for roosting, birthing, and rearing of young. These bats breed during the late fall and early winter. Birthing occurs from April-July and maternal colonies are usually in areas with southerly exposures or caves/mines that tend to trap pockets of warm air. Fledging of young occurs around September and nursing colonies begin to disperse.
163 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Hibernation usually begins in November and lasts until April. Hibernacula and maternal roost sites are the most sensitive to human disturbances. There are no known nursery colonies or winter hibernacula for this bat in or closely adjacent to the Johnnie planning area. There are no documented observations of the species in the planning area. The closest documented sighting is 16 mile to the southeast of the planning area boundary. However, this bat is located in all cardinal direction from the planning area. Potential habitat for the species within Johnnie project occurs under bridges and in rocky habitats. Direct and Indirect Effects: As detailed above for the fringed myotis, there are the potential impacts from felling of trees, snags and disturbance from heavy equipment operation in proximity of roost sites. Because proposed activities would not remove nesting/roosting structures and occurrence of the species in proximity to the potentially disturbing activities is believed to limited, consequences of this potential impact to the species are considered minor. Additionally, the limited felling of snags (for safety) associated with harvest activities represents a minor habitat impact. This potential impact is considered inconsequential to the species because it is limited in scale and is not expected to modify the most suitable habitat for the species within the planning area (i.e. old-growth trees and snags, rocky areas). Cumulative Effects: Past management actions are believed to have had limited impacts on cave habitats that support this species. Nursery colonies and winter hibernacula are protected on both Forest Service and BLM lands and as such current and foreseeable management actions are also expected to have relatively minor impacts on the species and its habitat. The contribution of this project toward a cumulative impact to the species is negligible and would not be expected to reduce the project areas ability to support this species or be of any meaningful consequence to the species. Alternative 1 would have no noteworthy direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on this species. Impacts Determination: Following consideration of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, it is determined that the action alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. The no action alternative would have no impact on this species.
SOIL PRODUCTIVITY The maintenance of soil productivity during forest management activities is critical to maintaining a healthy forest. Consequently, soil productivity is addressed in the Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) with several standards and guidelines. The primary focus of this analysis centers on past and predicted soil disturbances and the maintenance of ground cover.
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The most relevant standards and guidelines from the Umpqua Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) related to soil productivity (USDA Umpqua NF 1990a) include: Soil Productivity S&G #1, p IV-67: Requires that the combined total amount of unacceptable soil conditions in proposed activity areas (compaction, displacement of surface soil and severe burning) would not exceed 20 percent, including areas in roads and landings. 164 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Soil Productivity S&G #2, p IV-68, S&G #13, p IV-71: Requires maintenance of effective ground cover to prevent loss of topsoil through erosion. Soil Productivity S&G #3, p IV-68: Requires maintenance of ground cover for surface organic material (defined as litter, duff and wood) to maintain long-term soil productivity of the site. Soil productivity S&G # 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12 and other North West Forest Plan requirements also apply and are described in this section or are listed as best management practices, project design features, management requirements and monitoring in Chapter Two. Soil Suitability - Exceptions to harvesting only on suitable (regeneration) lands shall be documented during NEPA (S&G #6, LRMP IV-44). Soil Productivity Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices were developed to limit management related impacts to soil tilth, soil carbon, surface organic matter, and large woody material to a level that provides protection of the soil hydrology, soil biology and flora and fungi, soil stability and erosion, and soil fertility.
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS All proposed commercial and pre-commercial thinning units were previously regeneration harvested and are under 80 years of age. Past timber harvest activities in the Johnnie planning area utilized a combination of highlead, skyline, and tractor methods. Approximately ninety percent of the planning area occurs on gentle to moderately steep slopes under 55%. This ground was historically harvested by tractor yarding. Tractor harvest during this period typically disturbed about 30-40% of the ground, and required cutting skid trails into the slope when slopes exceeded 35%. The effects of tractor yarding were reduced after 1985 by restricting ground skidding to designated skid trails over approximately 15% of the area harvested. During this period, skid trails were designated away from streams and saturated soils. Soil interpretations for the planning area were made using the Umpqua Soil Resource Inventory (SRI, USDA, 1976), field review, and further refined with GIS (Table 38, Figure 18). The SRI inventory provides landscape-scale soils information on broadly mapped areas (average size = 250 acres) that have distinctly unique geology, landform and soils that affect the growth and development of forest vegetation. This information was reviewed for each landform and provides useful information for sale planning. The geology of the planning area is associated with rock units of the Western Cascades, consisting of a complex mixture of volcanic units. Over seventy percent of the Johnnie Planning Area is within very deep, gentle dormant earth flow terrain and deep, very gentle benches and terraces with a high erosion hazard. Table 38. Stream and road densities (mi/mi-2) by landforms making up the Johnnie Planning Area.
Stream Road Erosion Planning UNITS Density Density Hazard Landform % mi/mi-2 mi/mi-2
VERY DEEP, GENTLE DORMANT EARTH FLOW 71% 1,13,34,35,36,103,161,228 4.2 4.0 High DEEP, VERY GENTLE BENCHES AND TERRACES 2% 1,103,161,166,174 3.2 6.2 High MODERATELY DEEP, GENTLE SIDESLOPES 26% 13,35,36 4.0 4.8 Moderate SHALLOW TO DEEP, VERY GENTLE ALLUVIAL FLATS <1% N.A. 14.4 5.6 Low SHALLOW, MODERATELY STEEP ROCKY SLOPES <1% 34,166 3.3 4.8 Low 165 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Forty-five percent of the proposed harvest and fuel treatments, and half the temporary roads would occur on the Very Deep, Gentle Dormant Earth Flow and Deep, Very Gentle Benches and Terraces. This landform represents almost three-quarters of the planning area. Drainage patterns are moderately expressed (4 streams per square mile) with moderate to deeply incised irregular dissection. Mass wasting hazard is rated low to moderate in clearcuts and roads. Surface water erosion potential is high. Twenty three acres of the Dormant Earth Flow have been mapped as unstable and unsuitable for timber management activities and three acres are unplantable and unsuitable. These landforms have deep to very deep soils that have moderate to high water storage capacity and low to moderate surface runoff. They are underlain by weathered bedrock with moderate to low storage capacity. Precipitation delivery to these areas primarily contributes to base flows. Streams in this landform are typically deeply incised relying on large down wood and cobbles to stabilize the streambed. Stream banks are generally unstable and prone to soil creep, raveling, and small failures. There is a high risk for rill and gully erosion with a very high turbidity hazard if surface water runoff is not effectively dispersed and becomes concentrated along roads, and skid trails. The minimum effective ground cover prescription for the gentle dormant earth flows is 85% and effective dispersal of surface water runoff is critical. Grass competition can be high where the forest floor is opened up to light. Brush competition is considered moderate. The windthrow hazard in this landform is often considered to be high.
166 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Figure 18: Soil landforms in the Johnnie Thin Planning Area. Fifty-five percent of the proposed harvest, fuel treatments, and half the temporary roads would occur on the Moderately Deep, Gentle Sideslopes and Shallow, Moderately Steep Rocky Slopes. This landform represents about a quarter of the planning area. Drainage patterns are 167 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest moderately expressed (4 streams per square mile) with shallow to moderate incised irregular dissections. Mass wasting hazard is rated moderate in clearcuts and roads. Surface water erosion potential is low to moderate. Twelve acres of the Moderately Deep, gentle sideslope have been mapped as unstable and unsuitable for timber management activities and forty-eight acres are unplantable and unsuitable. This landform has shallow to moderately deep soils low water storage capacity and moderate to low surface runoff. It is underlain by bedrock that varies from massive to highly fractured and have low to moderate storage capacity. Precipitation contributes to base and peak flows. Streams in this landform are moderately incised flowing over a bedrock and cobble streambed. There is a low risk for rill and gully erosion, but a moderate to high turbidity hazard if surface water runoff is not effectively dispersed and becomes concentrated along roads, and skid trails. The minimum effective ground cover prescription for the gentle dormant earth flows is 65%. Brush competition can be high where the forest floor is opened up to light. Brush competition and windthrow hazard is considered low. The desired condition for soils is to keep cumulative impacts of compaction and displacement to less than 20% of the treatment area and to maintain at least 65% to 85% effective ground cover of stable surface organic material for soil productivity and erosion control.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS The direct and indirect effects are discussed at the scale of the treatment units. Direct effects would occur immediately as a result of thinning, fuels treatment, and road work while indirect effects would occur in the future as a result of potential wildfires. Under Alternative 1, legacy soil displacement and compaction would remain unchanged at around 25% to 30% of the treatment units from legacy compaction and displacement. Alternative 2 would utilize and restore a portion (approximately 15%) of the existing skidtrails, landings and abandoned roads within the proposed harvest area. The project design features for compaction using subsoiling has the direct effect of reducing disturbance, improving water infiltration, and decreasing the risk of erosion. Following harvest and subsoiling, all units in the action alternative would meet soil standards and guidelines for acceptable levels of soil disturbance for both compaction and effective ground cover, thus complying with soils S&G #1 and erosion risk S&G #2 (LRMP p 67-68). Any runoff that becomes concentrated will have a high potential for delivering sediment to streams. Maintaining large down wood and effective ground cover (85% in earth flow and 65% on the moderate to gentle sideslopes) are essential elements of this sale. Road reconstruction under Alternative 2 includes gravelling, ditch-cleaning, culvert additions and replacements and road reshaping. Only two stream-crossing sites are proposed: a culvert would be added to a small intermittent stream on the 2810 road where the water currently drains down ditchline and another on a small intermittent stream on the 2810-200 would be replaced due to damage. If KV funding allows, work done at the end of the 2800-300 road would correct the diversion of a stream, through the addition of a culvert or recontouring the road. These actions would improve the effective dispersion of surface water runoff before it can become concentrated surface flow. Under the no action alternative potential wildfires are expected to burn at a higher intensity with a long duration than would be expected under a more current fire return interval. Harvest and fuels treatment areas in the very deep, gentle dormant earth flow and deep, very gentle benches and terraces are highly resilient and expected to recover soil permeability, tilth, and ground cover in less than two years under either alternative. Legacy soil compaction would remain as a long-term effect (>50 years) if not treated. De-compacting damaged soil through subsoiling temporary roads, landings, and skid trails would increase the soils permeability, and help to disperse surface water runoff to decrease erosion delivery potential. However, full
168 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest recovery of soil productivity on these sites is a biological process that would require more time (10+ years). All stands would be logged with tops attached; this will prevent the majority of harvest-derived fuels from remaining in the units. Some units would be strategically treated by light understory burning or by grapple piling and burning, further reducing surface fuels. The amount of slash required to adequately protect the soil from compaction and displacement of ghost trails used by harvesters and processors would be evaluated by the operator. The implementation of yarding with tops attached would be dependent, the amount of down woody material, site conditions, the operator and equipment used. Together, harvest and fuel treatments would be expected to maintain approximately 75% to 90% effective ground cover. Effective ground cover (EGC) is defined as all herbaceous or dead woody materials, synthetic materials and rock fragments >0.75” diameter that cover the surface of the ground and prevent soil surface erosion (LRMP IV-68). Minimum ground cover recommendations have been prescribed to address both the risk of soil erosion (LRMP IV-68 S&Gs #2 and #3) and the need to maintain soil organic matter for long-term site productivity. Carbon (standing and down woody material, litter, soil organic matter) is a critical element to site productivity and soil development. Most plant available nutrients are retained by the organic fraction in the upper ten inches of forest soils. Fine roots and mycorrhizal fungi activity occurs at the litter-soil interface and in the surface two inches of soil. Fine root development plays an important role in soil carbon sequestration (Lal 2005) and long-term soil fertility. Forest soils that are low in organic matter are also less productive. Increased carbon storage in forest soils can be achieved through forest management including site preparation, and fire management. The moderately deep, gentle sideslopes and shallow, moderately steep rocky slope would have a lower resiliency to reduced ground cover than would the earth flow, bench and terrace landforms. Under the worst case scenario all predicted soil disturbances under Alternative 2 meet all long- term soil productivity standards and guidelines. There would be no adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with connected actions outside an acceptable range.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Johnnie planning area is in a moderate severity fire regime dominated by soils that are relatively resilient to disturbance. The action alternative is within the parameters of acceptable disturbance and therefore would not add to any past soil impacts that result in any adverse cumulative effects to soil. The action alternative, along with other present, recent past and reasonably foreseeable timber sale thinning and fuels management activities may potentially reduce the risk of severe wildfire effects to soils locally, and result in a beneficial cumulative effect. Conversely, because Alternative One has the potential to result in severe soil effects from a wildfire, it may continue to add to adverse soil impacts in the Johnnie Planning Area, but because there is no action taken, no cumulative effects can occur. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION Erosion and sedimentation are geomorphic processes that shape the physical appearance of the landscape and strongly influence aquatic ecosystems. Sedimentation36 rates to streams are typically inconsequential on a year to year basis but can spike several orders of magnitude during large storm events. Land management has the potential to accelerate erosion rates and the volume of sediment entering streams and wetlands.
36 Sedimentation pertains to the deposition of settling of rock and soil materials in an aquatic environment. 169 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Within the planning area sediment enters the aquatic environment through mass wasting, surface erosion and fluvial erosion.
MASS WASTING Mass wasting is the dominant mechanism of sediment production within temperate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest (Naimen et al., 1990), which includes Johnnie planning area. The potential mass wasting processes within the planning area include rapid-shallow landslides such as debris avalanches and in-channel debris flows, and slow-moving deeper-seated forms of mass-movement that include rotational slumps, earth flows, and soil creep. Topography has a strong influence on the form of a landslide.
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES LRMP soil standard and guideline 5 (IV-68). Prepare a risk and hazard analysis when the potential exists for triggering slope mass-movements as a result of proposed land management activities. The project analysis will address how the proposed activities plan to meet soil standards and guidelines. Project design features (or alternatives) will be developed and evaluated when detrimental soil conditions are expected as a result of the proposed action (LRMP S&G 10 pp. IV-71). NWFP RF-2e. For each existing or planned road, meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives by minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of stream flow and interception of surface and subsurface flow (USDA/USDI, 1994). NWFP RF-3a. Meet ACS objectives by reconstructing roads and associated drainage features that pose a substantial risk (USDA/USDI, 1994). NWFP RF-4, Existing stream crossings determined to pose a substantial risk to riparian conditions would be improved to accommodate at least a 100-year flood. Crossings would be maintained to prevent diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing failure (USDA/USDI, 1994).
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS Slope and soil stability was field verified for the Johnnie units. A total of 44 acres (Figure 19) were delineated as potentially prone to landslide and slope failures and unsuitable for timber harvest. These areas are considered unsuitable for timber production and therefore excluded from timber harvest. All unstable areas are located outside of the units where harvest would be prescribed. Earth flow terrain is gently-sloping and weakly-dissected terrain where soils are finely textured, fairly deep, and poorly drained (Swanson and Swanston, 1976). Approximately 45% or the proposed harvest in Johnnie occurs within the dormant earth flow terrain (Table 43, Figure 19). Common management concerns in these areas are seasonally saturated soils, ponded water, or shallow subsurface water flow and piping. Past clearcutting has not activated movement of the dormant earth flow features in the planning area, but the network of old skid roads tended to redirect runoff, which has caused some development of localized stream down cutting. All areas of concern have received a no harvest prescription would not be entered. There would be no direct indirect of cumulative effects from harvesting on the remaining stable earth flow. Stream crossings represent potentially critical sites for mass wasting when culverts are undersized to pass large flows or become plugged by some combination of sediment and wood debris. Under these circumstances, water can divert down the road where it might exit the road in a steep area causing a rapid-shallow landslide. Under Alternative 2, two stream-crossing 170 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest sites are proposed: a culvert would be added to a small intermittent stream on the 2810 road where the water currently drains down ditchline and another on a small intermittent stream on the 2810-200 would be replaced due to damage. Improperly functioning (plugged) cross drains or an insufficient number of cross drains are a chief cause of road fill failures (USDA Forest Service, 1999). When road fills become saturated and fail, rapid-shallow landslides can occur. Roads that cross active earth flows often become buckled and slumped. Road grading, reconstruction, and maintenance would improve drainage on all roads that were identified in the Johnnie Roads Analysis. Road reconstruction under Alternative 2 includes gravelling, ditch-cleaning, culvert additions and replacements and road reshaping. The desired condition is improved road drainage and stream crossings with less risk of mass wasting triggered by roads, and is intended to meet ACS objectives through improved road drainage and stream crossings that in turn results in less risk of mass wasting, and is in keeping with ACS objective #5 of restoring the sediment regime. Roads that are not maintained develop ruts and carry runoff for several hundred feet down the road surface to where it is finally dumped as concentrated runoff onto fill slopes. Maintaining a well graded road bed is critical for effect dispersal of runoff before it can concentrate and cause erosion with leads to road damage and slope failures. Road reconstruction under Alternative 2 includes gravelling, ditch-cleaning, culvert additions and replacements and road reshaping. Only two stream-crossing sites are proposed: a culvert would be added to a small intermittent stream on the 2810 road where the water currently drains down ditchline and another on a small intermittent stream on the 2810-200 would be replaced due to damage. If KV funding allows, work done at the end of the 2800-300 road would correct the diversion of a stream, through the addition of a culvert or recontouring the road. Currently half this streams’ flow is diverted to a ditch relief culvert where it is creating a gully connected to the natural stream. This in-channel work would cause direct and indirect turbidity effects. A total of approximately 1600 feet of existing abandoned non-system roads would be reconstructed as temporary roads, then obliterated after use. Another 325’ of existing non-system road would be used then obliterated; none of these roads cross stream channels.
171 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Figure 19. Unstable Soils and Soils of Concern for Johnnie Units
172 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects would occur as an immediate result of the proposed road work; such work can result in immediate changes to slope stability due to changes in water routing. Indirect effects are defined as those that occur over a longer time period as a result of longer-term changes to slope stability caused by chronic road problems, thinning, and potential future fires. The action alternative is not expected to result in any adverse short-term direct effects or longer- term indirect effects to the aquatic environment as a result of mass wasting. The unstable soils were removed from the timber harvest base. The risk of activating any new mass movement in the earth flow terrain as a result of the thinning and logging under the action alternative has been diminished. Moreover, since all the units now proposed for thinning have been previously clearcut and broadcast burned, and since these past intensive treatments did not activate the dormant earth flow features, it is very unlikely that the less-intensive thinning would either. For these reasons, the thinning in earth flow terrain under the action alternative is not expected to trigger any new mass movement within the units or in downslope locations. The likelihood of additional mass wasting taking place in the planning area as a result of some future severe wildfire event is considered negligible. Alternative 1 would not increase the short- term fire hazard because no new fuel would be created. The culvert upgrades of one priority stream crossing and two relief culverts, along with road reconstruction, and maintenance would result in beneficial effects to the aquatic environment. Such modifications to the existing road network would decrease the risk of mass wasting and would meet the desired condition of less road-related mass wasting. The duration of these culvert replacements are expected to last for up to 20 or more years assuming some level of road maintenance would occur. However, the overall extent of these beneficial effects to the watershed is limited due to the small amount of road actually treated. Alternative 1 would not result in any beneficial effects of reducing the existing mass wasting potential of high priority stream crossings.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Since there are no adverse direct or indirect effects of increased mass wasting under the action alternative, there would be no chance of this alternative resulting in any adverse cumulative effects to the aquatic environment.
SURFACE EROSION Surface erosion occurs when mineral soil is exposed to the erosive forces of water, wind and gravity. This occurs in forest environments when the protective surface layer of duff and other materials such as wood and rock is removed or displaced and exposes mineral soil to erosive forces. Activities such as dragging trees across the ground during yarding, burning activity- created fuels, road building, reconstruction, or decommissioning, and timber haul on existing dirt or gravel roads, can all result in soil conditions that concentrate surface water flow that can move soil and deliver sediment to the aquatic environment.
RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The most relevant standard and guidelines from the Umpqua Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) related to soil productivity (USDA, Umpqua NF, 1990a) include: Soil standard and guidelines #2 and #3 (LRMP IV-69) requires a minimum amount of effective ground cover (EGC) in order to meet acceptable levels of surface soil loss resulting from gravity, water, or wind action and to maintain soil productivity. Acceptable levels of ground cover must exist within the first year following the end of a ground disturbing activity. The action alternative 173 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest would maintain 85% effective ground cover in riparian reserves, along drainage ways, in areas mapped as conditionally unsuitable, and on steep slopes greater than 65%. In all other disturbance areas a minimum of 65% effective ground cover would be maintained on the gentle to moderately step side slopes and 85% on the gentle earth flow landforms. This minimum effective ground cover requirement is included as a project design feature for the action alternative as listed in Chapter Two. If adequate ground cover is not present, certified weed free mulch or hydro-mulch would be applied with as needed with adequate erosion control measures, prior to November 1. Soil standard and guideline #11 (LRMP IV-71) requires monitoring during and immediately following the implementation of prescribed burning to assess the adequacy of EGC during underburning with adjustments as needed to meet the requirements. Soil standard and guideline #13 (LRMP pp. IV-71) requires all areas of soil disturbance to have erosion control measures (effective ground cover and erosion control structures) in place by the beginning of the rainy season. During the rainy season (November 1 - April 30), no more than ½ acre of exposed soil, including landings, skid trails, and temporary roads would exist at any time without erosion control that is effective in preventing sediment from reaching streams or any concentrated surface flow in excess of one cubic foot per second (cfs). Soils standard and guideline #16 ((LRMP IV-72) requires the identification of erosion control in existing developed areas where pre-existing surface erosion is on-going.
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS The proposed thinning units that are located on slopes less than 55% were originally clearcut using large dozers that displaced, compacted, and exposed the soil. Tractor yarding that occurred on slopes of 35 to 55% required cutting skid trails and roads into the slope. When swales were crossed with tractors, subsurface flow was often intercepted and brought to the surface. New surface flow can result in the extension of new stream channels and the production of large quantities of surface erosion that can continue until eventually stabilized. For the most part, slopes and streams affected by these skid trails have had time to adjust and have stabilized. The units located on steeper terrain were originally clearcut using a highlead37 logging system where entire log lengths were dragged either down or uphill without any part of the log suspended off the ground. Highlead yarding often displaced large amounts of soil that ended up at the bottom of slopes and in streams, along with large amounts of large woody debris. Most of the old surface erosion from the historic highlead logging has subsided with the recovery of ground cover and stream flow, thus restoring site productivity. Existing roads are another source of surface erosion that leads to sedimentation of streams. Road inventories in the planning area revealed an overall low level of road prism erosion. When erosion is occurring it is mostly due to lack of or broken down aggregate and a lack of road maintenance in the planning area. Regular road maintenance is critical to keeping the levels of road-related surface erosion in check. However, road maintenance has declined sharply in the last two decades because fewer timber sales have occurred to help accomplish road maintenance and appropriated funds to do road maintenance have also declined. Annual road maintenance is limited to main use roads. The desired condition is to reduce total compaction (legacy plus predicted) to no more than 20% of an area (LRMP S&G 1, pp. IV68), and to reduce long-term chronic surface erosion
37 Highlead logging was used up until the mid-1970’s. The system lacked a tall tower and typically lacked the ability to suspend any portion of the log off the ground. It has been replaced by skyline logging which typically gets one end of the log off the ground. 174 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest associated with system roads, legacy skid trails, and future wildfire in keeping with ACS objective #5, which calls for the restoration of sediment regimes.
DIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects are defined as the short-term effects of sedimentation that might occur within planning area streams as an immediate result of the proposed road work, timber haul, logging and treatment of activity fuels with fire. Roads are a source of surface erosion that leads to sedimentation of streams. Grading and graveling dirt roads in the action alternative would help to decrease erosion by more effectively dispersing surface water before it becomes concentrated as runoff over road surfaces. The potential benefit from increased road maintenance in the project planning area includes reducing the potential for sediment delivery over the next ten years from roads after the sale has closed and traffic is reduced. Road reconstruction under Alternative 2 includes gravelling, ditch-cleaning, culvert additions and replacements and road reshaping. Only two stream-crossing sites are proposed: a culvert would be added to a small intermittent stream on the 2810 road where the water currently drains down ditchline and another on a small intermittent stream on the 2810-200 would be replaced due to damage. If KV funding allows, work done at the end of the 2800-300 road would correct the diversion of a stream, through the addition of a culvert or recontouring the road. Currently half this streams’ flow is diverted to a ditch relief culvert where it is creating a gully connected to the natural stream. This in-channel work would cause direct and indirect turbidity effects. A total of approximately 1600 feet of existing abandoned non-system roads would be reconstructed as temporary roads, then obliterated after use. Another 325’ of existing non-system road would be used then obliterated; none of these roads cross stream channels. Alternative 1 would not result in surface erosion processes due to ground-disturbing activities. However, this alternative would not implement road maintenance or upgrade culverts. In addition, roads that are currently not accessible that have existing culverts would not be inactivated or decommissioned. At present these existing culverts cannot be maintained and would be at higher risk for failing. The no action alternative would have the potential to create short term surface erosion.
INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects are defined as the effects of delivery of sediment from surface erosion to streams within the planning area that can continue to contribute large spikes of fine sediment for several years or longer. Indirect effects are also defined as effects that could occur downstream in if a substantial storm event should occur immediately following the ground disturbance. Based on the analysis described below in the cumulative effects section it is reasonable to assume that the projected amounts of sediment associated with the action alternative are unlikely to result in an indirect adverse turbidity spike downstream of the planning area. This is because the amount of predicted surface erosion associated with the action alternative is not expected to exceed the capacity of the local streams to properly store, route, and transport their burden of sediment. Based on sediment analysis and turbidity monitoring records between 1982 to the present, any spikes of sediment into the system would be expected to recover within one to two years. Without the restoration projects that include road decommissioning, road inactivation and culverts upgrades, the no action alternative has the potential to increase surface erosion. However, long term indirect effects are not expected to be measurable.
175 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS When considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities the effect of implementing either action alternative would result in lower sediment delivery potentials than occurred in 1989. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that no adverse cumulative effects from sediment delivery would occur to water quality or fisheries as a result of implementing Alternative 2. Given the limited indirect effects of Alternative 1 and the lack of action, no cumulative effects would occur.
CLIMATE CHANGE Guidance for considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate change where provided by Rationale for Project-Scale Effects Conclusions on Climate Change (R6 Memo January 14, 2011); Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis (Washington Office Memo January 13, 2009); and Executive Order 13514 of October 5, 200938.
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE PROJECT AREA Projected effects of future climate change to the Johnnie Planning Area include (BASC 2010, Ryan et al. 2010): • Decreased forest growth in warmer climates; • Water availability would decrease where rivers are fed by snowpack; • Earlier aquifer recharge with earlier base flow discharge to streams • Increased insect outbreaks • Increased danger of wildfire
As forest carbon storage increases, there is a potential for greater loss of carbon stores from forest fires, and insect outbreaks. Climate change threatens to amplify these risks by increasing the frequency of these disturbances. As climate change increases the frequency of disturbance, many forests could release substantial amounts of carbon to the atmosphere over the next 50-100 years. Climate change could also increase soil decomposition, leading to carbon losses from a part of the ecosystem that we consider to be relatively stable. At the landscape level over the long term, disturbance would not cause a net loss of forest carbon as long as the forest regenerates. But if the frequency and/or severity of fire disturbance increase substantially, long-term carbon storage at the landscape scale would be reduced because the fraction of the landscape with large older trees (that have high carbon stores) would decline (Ryan et al., 2010). The timing of annual snowpack discharge will also be effected by predicted changes in climate. Regional warming of the past several decades has affected the shape of the annual hydrograph, with the temporal center (mid-point of total annual streamflow) of the hydrograph occurring earlier in the season and reduction of minimum flows (Jefferson et al., 2006). Continued warming is predicted to lead to loss of snowpack and continued decline in minimum flows.
38 Executive Order 13514—Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 194 /Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Presidential Documents 176 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
The Johnnie Planning Area is located within the transitional snow zone. The action alternative would allow more snow to accumulate in some small openings due to the reduction in canopy; however snowpack’s are projected to be greater under the no-action alternative due to continued loss of canopy due to potential wildfire. Young stands use more water which could offset any increases in minimum stream flows due to canopy loss. Most recent studies on the interaction between climate change and invasive plants conclude that climate change is likely to favor invasive plant species to the detriment of native plant species for individual ecosystems (Chornesky et al., 2005; Climate Change Science Program, 2008; Dukes and Mooney, 1999; Hellmann et al., 2008; Pyke et al., 2008). In some studies, invasive plant species have demonstrated increased growth rates, size, seed production, and carbon content in the presence of elevated CO2 levels (Rogers et al., 2008; Rogers et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2000; Ziska, 2003). Warming climates may remove elevation barriers to invasive plant distribution that currently exist (Tausch, 2008). Many invasive plants are species that can thrive in the presence of disturbance and other environmental stressors, have broad climatic tolerances, large geographic ranges, and possess other characteristics that facilitate rapid range shifts. The predicted changes in climate are thought to contribute additional stressors on ecosystems, including those on National Forests, making them more susceptible to invasion and establishment of invasive plant species (Joyce et al. 2008). Predicted conditions may also make management of invasive species more difficult. Some current treatments used on invasive plants may be less effective under conditions of climate change scenarios and/or elevated CO2 (Hellmann et al., 2008; Pike et al., 2008; Ziska, Faulkner and Lydon, 2004). Predicting how climate change would affect invasive plants, and invasive plant management, at the local or even regional scale is more difficult to deduce than are these general indications. Anticipated changes in the climate for the Pacific Northwest (e.g. more rain, less snow, warmer temperatures (Mote, 2004; Mote et al., 1999; National Assessment Synthesis Team, 2000) or elevated CO2 may not be realized at a local area, particularly within the time frame of this analysis. Growth of invasive plants under elevated CO2 conditions would also be influenced by environmental conditions such as soil moisture, nutrient availability, and the plant community in which the invasive species occurs (Cipollini, Drake and Whigham, 1993; Curtis, Drake, and Whigham, 1989; Dukes and Mooney, 1999; Johnson et al., 1993; Taylor and Potvin, 1997). The complex interaction of multiple and uncertain variables make site-specific predictions speculative.
EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT AREA ON CLIMATE CHANGE This proposed action would affect 266 acres of forest by commercially thinning smaller trees from the stand, retaining a residual stand of about 50 percent of the original stand by basal area. This scope and degree of change would be minor relative to the amount of forested land being the Johnnie Planning Area as a whole. Currently, there are no Federal statutes, regulatory standards, or policy direction on the significance of such effects on which to weigh the alternatives. As greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with the Johnnie alternatives (Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, January 13, 2009 WO memo).
177 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
178 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
BOTANY
UNIQUE HABITATS Unique habitats, also referred to as “special habitats”, are small, highly localized plant communities that are distinctive from surrounding coniferous forest. Examples include dry to wet meadows, rock outcrops, talus slopes, rocky balds, forested wetlands associated with springs and seeps, and hardwood inclusions. These sites exhibit high diversity of vascular plants, mosses, and lichens, and provide habitat for a range of wildlife species. Approximately 85% of the plant species diversity of the Western Cascades is found in these habitats (Hickman 1976). Management activities in unique habitats are guided by the Umpqua National Forest Plan (Prescription C5-1) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, and by policy and direction found in Forest Service Regulations.
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS There are no inventoried unique habitats mapped within the second growth plantation units in the analysis area. There are wetlands within one commercial thin unit and one precommercial thin unit that haven’t been inventoried as Unique and Mosaic. These wetlands will be protected with wetland buffers, as described in the Aquatics section
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects of unique habitats are those that could occur within the habitats or their immediate surroundings during implementation. Indirect effects are those that could occur later in time or beyond the immediate area of today’s existing unique habitats. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would result in no short-term direct effects to unique habitats because no activities would occur in or near them. These habitats would indirectly be at increased risk from uncharacteristic wildfire under the no action alternative due to dense stand conditions that would remain unmanaged. Alternative 2 Currently, prescription C5-1 states that no timber harvest is permitted within 150 feet of inventoried openings; natural meadows, rock outcrops, talus slopes, or other natural openings with high wildlife values, such as hardwood stands. Vegetation manipulation or structural improvement may occur if it is designed to enhance wildlife (LRMP IV-200). This prescription was developed to protect unique habitats from edge effects associated with clearcut logging that was originally anticipated within the Umpqua Land and Resource Management Plan. The level of disturbance associated with thinning in second growth stands is much less than that of clearcutting, and all thinning prescriptions in the action alternative leaves between 40-80 trees per acre. Fuels created by thinning activities would be treated by grapple piling, hand piling, and burning. The existing water table levels in the wetlands are not expected to be negatively affected by the proposed thinning and the associated connected actions since the wetlands would be buffered and the partial harvest of trees adjacent to the buffers is not expected to change ground water levels to any measurable degree. Therefore, the action alternative would be consistent with objective #7 of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which calls for the maintenance of water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.
179 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Based on the above, there are no anticipated direct or indirect effects on Unique and Mosaic Habitats.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The scope of analysis for cumulative effects to unique habitats are all unique habitats in the project area and the timeframe is 10 years, which is an estimate of the time needed for the overall ecosystem to respond to proposed management. Since 1990, as directed by the 1990 Forest Plan, unique habitats have been protected and treatments, if they occurred, have been designed to enhance unique habitats during regeneration harvest and commercial thinning within the planning area. Since the action alternatives do not include thinning or road building in unique habitats, and this direction has also existed for unique habitats for the past decade, there would be no direct impacts contributing to cumulative effects to unique habitats from implementing this project. There are no other on-going or planned future ground disturbing activities within the next five to ten years in or adjacent to these. The spread of invasive plants in the planning area has been indirectly facilitated, in part, by road building associated with past timber harvest and the maintenance of roads. The potential exists for eventual expansion of weeds into unique habitats from road use. On-going noxious weed control activities and design criteria described in the Invasive Plant section would minimize the potential for invasion of high priority weeds. Unique habitats are a small component of the planning area, therefore the proposed activities under the action alternative have limited potential to add to cumulative weed infestations in unique habitats within the planning area.
AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY As disclosed in this section, no measurable effects to the wetlands or wet meadows are expected from any of the proposed activities in the action alternative including road work, thinning, yarding, and burning activities. Consequently, the water tables associated with the wet meadows and wetlands would not be affected and this is consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective #7. Because unique habitats would be avoided during implementation of any proposed activities, plant species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands would be maintained or enhanced, and areas of native plant diversity would remain well-distributed, supporting elements of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Objectives #8 and #9).
INVASIVE PLANTS/NOXIOUS WEEDS Relevant Standards and Guidelines Invasive plant species are alien plant species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (USDA, Forest Service 2005). Noxious weeds are plant species designated as such by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and being new to or not common to the United States or parts thereof. Noxious weeds currently infest 420,000 acres of National Forests and Grasslands in the Pacific Northwest Region (USDA, Forest Service 2005). The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision (October, 2005) adds a set of standards to Forest Plans in Region
180 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Six. The ROD includes standards, such as the following, for the Pacific Northwest Region that would apply to the project area:
Actions conducted or authorized by the Forest Service that would operate outside the limits of the road surface (including public works and service contracts), require the cleaning of all heavy equipment (bulldozers, skidders, graders, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering National Forest System Lands. This standard does not apply to initial attack of wildfires, and other emergency situations. Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, on National Forest System Lands. If State certified straw and mulch are not available, individual Forests should use materials that meet “weed-free” standards. Develop a long-term site strategy for restoring/re-vegetating treated infestations of invasive plants.
Native plant materials are the first choice in re-vegetation for restoration and rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not likely to occur.
The USDA National Strategy for Invasive Species Management (USDA, Forest Service 2001) is predicated on the four following elements:
. Prevention – Stop invasive species before they arrive. . Early detection and rapid response – Find new infestations and eliminate them before they become established. . Control and management – Contain and reduce existing infestations. . Rehabilitation and restoration –Reclaim native habitats and ecosystems.
National policy states that preventing the introduction and establishment of noxious weed infestations is a high priority for the agency. It also directs the Forest Service to determine the factors, which favor the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and design management practices to reduce the risk of spread. The Executive Order on Invasive Species, signed by President Clinton on February 3, 1999, states that federal agencies will use relevant programs and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species, and not authorize or carry out actions that are likely to cause the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has determined and made public documentation that shows that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm and all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. Other management guidelines for noxious weeds on the Umpqua National Forest come from the 2005 Umpqua National Forest Noxious Weed Prevention Guidelines, 2003 Umpqua National Forest Integrated Weed Management Project Environmental Assessment, the 1988 EIS and ROD for Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation and the 1989 Mediated Agreement, the 1990 Forest Plan, as amended, the Forest Service Manual, and letters of Regional policy. The health of native plant communities throughout the Pacific Northwest is at risk due to noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plants. Introduced plant species thrive in new ecosystems for various reasons including a lack of predators and allopathic (plants with natural 181 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest pesticides) abilities. As a result, weeds are capable of outcompeting native plants, ultimately altering the structure and lowering the diversity of native plant communities. The frequencies of fire can also be changed. Further, different soil organisms predominate under different kinds of vegetation. Replacement of native plant communities with weed species can be expected to change soil microbial populations and nutrient cycling processes. Weeds are introduced by a variety of agents, most notably highway and off-road vehicles, construction equipment, and wind. They can also be moved by water, animals, and humans. Most weeds take advantage of disturbed areas such as roadsides, trails, logged units, rock quarries, mined sites and areas such as roadsides, trails, logged units, rock quarries, mined sites and areas around human structures. Established populations serve as seed sources for further dispersal, especially along road, power line, and trail corridors. Roads are considered the first point of entry for exotic species into a landscape, and roads serve as corridors along which plants move farther into the landscape. The Umpqua National Forest has classified its noxious weeds into four categories, including high priority species, lower priority species, detection species, and other weeds of interest (Table 39).
182 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 39. Umpqua National Forest Noxious Weed List.
Common Name Scientific Name Forest Total Acres Distribution Rating
High-Priority Species
False brome Brachypodium sylvaticum A 6 CG
Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus A 78 TL
Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa A 32 DL, TL
Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa A 37 DL. TL
Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis A 72 DL, TL
Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea A 186 TL, NU, DL
Scotch broom Cystisus scoparius A >750 All, particularly CG
Portuguese broom Cystisus striatus A 1 NU
French broom Genista monspessulana A 1 NU
English ivy Hedera helix A 2 NU
Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris A 7 TL, NU, DL, CG
Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum A 1 CG
Giant knotweed Polygonum sachalinense A 1 DL
Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta A 1 TL, NU
Gorse Ulex europaeus A 1 NU,TL
Lower-Priority Species
Meadow knapweed Centaurea x pratensis B >1,000 All, particularly NU
Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare B >1,000 All
Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B >1,000 All
St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum B >5,000 All
Armenian Blackberry Rubus armeniacus B >500 All, particularly TL
Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea B >1,000 All
Medusahead rye Taeniatherum caput-medusae B >200 NU, TL, DL, CG?
Detection Species
183 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Common Name Scientific Name Forest Total Acres Distribution Rating
Biddy-biddy Acaena novae-zelandiae D 0
Wooly distaff thistle Carthamnus lanatus D 0
Russian knapweed Centaurea repens D 0
Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale D 0
Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus D 0
Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum D 0
Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. D 0 dalmatica
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria D 0
Milk thistle Silybum marianum D 0
Spanish broom Spartium junceum D 0
Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris D 0
Spiny cocklebur Xanthium spinosum D 0
Other Weeds of Interest
Common burdock Arctium minus O 0 TL, NU
Poison hemlock Conium maculatum O 0
Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum O All leucanthemum
Chicory Cichorium intybus O All?
Wild carrot Daucus carota O >1,000 All?
Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum O <100 All
Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea O <100 TL, DL, NU
Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare O 1 TL, DL
Surveys have been completed as part of the regular noxious weed program monitoring throughout the project area since the Tiller Complex of fires in 2002. Three noxious weed species are documented in the NRIS database in the project area: Scotch broom, yellow starthistle, and meadow knapweed. Tiller data not in NRIS includes a malta thistle site and a number of tansy ragwort sites. Sulfur cinquefoil is known to occur near the project area. Although no site documentation exists, there is Armenian (formerly Himalayan) blackberry, St. Johnswort and bull thistle throughout the project planning area.
Scotch broom is an aggressive shrub that occupies scattered sites on the district. Seed pods split ejecting the seeds some distance from the plant and facilitating its spread. Seeds of 184 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Scotch broom remain viable in the soil for some 50 years. Current treatment methods consist of hand pulling or cutting. Scotch broom is particularly abundant on the 2810-200 road and its spurs. Treatment prior to project activities are underway will help to control the spread of scotch broom. Sulfur cinquefoil is perennial with well-developed root-stocks. Sulfur cinquefoil is found in disturbed areas along road sides and in pastures but colonies of sulfur cinquefoil can be found in undisturbed areas. Current treatment methods consist of hand pulling or cutting stem below 2”. None has been found in the project area. Malta thistle is an annual or biennial that infests roadsides, waste areas and pastures. It occupies scattered sites in the district. Current treatment consists of hand pulling. It has been found on the 2810-100 road system in oak savannahs. Populations responding to past treatment are now greatly reduced, but may increase following fuels treatments. Armenian blackberry is an aggressive woody shrub that occupies the roadsides in the project area. Armenian blackberry was widely planted in the United States and has escaped cultivation. It is quite abundant, particularly on the 2810-100 and 2810-110 road spurs, and on lower elevations of 2810 and 2810-200 roads. It is expected that roadside fuels treatments and canopy opening in thinning units (both commercial and precommercial) will encourage the growth of blackberry. Current treatment in the district has been mainly hand pulling or cutting. Bull thistle, a biennial, is widely established throughout the district. It is an aggressive competitive weed and will readily occupy bare, open, disturbed ground. This plant occupies scattered sites throughout the project area and will no doubt increase in abundance after the salvage project. There is no treatment plan currently available to control this species. Canada thistle is a colony forming perennial from deep and extensive horizontal roots. It is an aggressive weed that is difficult to control. Breaking up roots by plowing only serves to increase the number of plants. This plant was found in several localized site in the project area. Treatment includes pulling up the plants, and multi-year monitoring to pull new emergents from belowground rhizomes. Medusahead rye is an extremely aggressive winter annual grass native to the Mediterranean region. This plant has become predominant on millions of acres of semi-arid rangeland displacing both native and other invasive species. Its mat forming habit contributes to diminished moisture and higher fire danger. This plant is found patchily distributed in meadows within the project area. There is no treatment plan available to control the species though fire has been used successfully in some areas. Meadow knapweed is a perennial and infests roadsides, waste areas, fields and pastures. Multiple sites occur in the project area with varying abundance. There is currently no treatment plan available to control this species. Solarization may be effective for small, localized populations. Mowing or pulling may help control some current populations. St. Johnswort is an aggressive perennial that reproduces largely by seed. It has been reported that disturbance promotes development of St. Johnswort populations presumably from a well- developed seed bank. This plant is widely established throughout the district and the project area and there is no viable treatment available to reduce populations. Tansy ragwort is a biennial or short-lived perennial. Tansy ragwort is toxic to cattle and horses. This plant is found scattered throughout the project area. Current treatment consists of hand pulling or cutting. Biological control agents targeting this species have also been dispersed to various sites on the Forest. Biocontrols have not been effective, particularly at higher elevations (>3000 ft.). It is thought that the biocontrol (fleabeetle) cannot overwinter in the transient snow zone. Based on monitoring information at adjacent timber sales in the last 3 years, there is a
185 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest high risk of tansy infesting skid roads, skyline corridors and landings in the project area post- harvest.
Table 40. Noxious weeds known to occur in the project area
UMPQUA DOUGLAS ODA COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME NF CO. STATUS STATUS STATUS
Armenian blackberry Rubus armeniacus B B B
Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius B B B
Meadow knapweed Centaurea pratensis B B B
Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea B B B
St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum B B B
Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare B B B
Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B B B
Taeniatherum caput- Medusahead rye B B B medusae
Carduus Italian thistle B B A pycnocephalus
Sulfur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta B B A
Douglas County Status Definitions:
A: weeds that occur in small enough infestations that eradication or containment is possible in the county. Some of these weeds are not yet known in Douglas County but their presence in adjacent counties makes future occurrence likely.
B: weeds that are common and well established in Douglas County. Eradication at the county level is not likely. Containment is possible in some cases and is encouraged. Where these are not feasible, biological control agents may be introduced to slow the spread or the invaders. Intensive control is recommended on small isolated infestations. Eradication is not likely or feasible on widespread infestations, but control, especially along travel routes is encouraged. In other areas biological control agents may be introduced to reduce the spread of the infestations.
T: These noxious species are priority weeds “targeted” for control at the county level. All “T” list weeds are found on the “A” or “B” list.
186 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Oregon Department of Agriculture Status Definitions:
A: Weeds of known economic importance which occur in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication/containment possible; or which are not known to occur, but their presence in neighboring states makes future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent
B: Weeds of economic importance which are regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties.
Umpqua NF Status Definitions:
A: an aggressive, non-native species of limited distribution on the Forest at this time. Where feasible, intensive control or local eradication is recommended.
B: an aggressive non-native species that is too widely distributed on the Forest to be effectively treated by currently available intensive control methods. Biological controls are the recommended management tool, although small isolated infestations may be subject to intensive control methods.
D: 'Detection Weed". An aggressive, non-native species that is not currently known to exist on the Forest but whose current distribution and ecological requirements suggest potential for movement onto the Forest. Recommended treatment for Forest sites is intensive control and elevated to either "A" or "B" status.
O: other non-native species of interest. These species are not currently on any list. Some of these species are known to displace native vegetation. Other species are toxic or have thorny appendages. These species would be tracked as time and budgets allow. Occurrences determined to be causing specific resource damage may be subject to treatment.
The desired future condition is to continue preventing new invasive plant populations or spread of existing infestations in an effort to retain healthy native plant communities and restore damaged ecosystems in the planning area and throughout the forest.
Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action has a high risk to directly impact noxious weed spread in the project area through disturbance associated with timber harvest activities. Ground based logging will create soil conditions that promote weed germination and establishment. The movement of equipment into and out of the project area has the potential to spread noxious weeds both within the project area and to other locations on the forest. With the implementation of standards and guidelines outlined in the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants, and Record of Decision 2005 and required mitigation measures detailed below, the risk of introducing or spreading invasive plants is greatly reduced.
187 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Mitigations, Standards, and Guidelines: Require the cleaning of all equipment and vehicles prior to entering National Forest System land for all project roads. Use weed free straw and mulch. In areas at high risk for weed establishment or spread, treat weeds before project implementation. Apply native seed mix to disturbed areas such as around newly replaced culverts and along major skid roads for competitive ground cover. Monitor and treat weed populations after the project is completed to reduce spread or new infestations.
Cumulative Effects
None are expected for most project activities if the above guidelines, standards and mitigations are followed. Invasive plant populations should be reduced or held stable if invasive plant treatments and competitive re-vegetation are implemented.
Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Survey and Manage (Rare & Uncommon Plant, Lichen, and Fungi) Species
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES There are two species known or suspected to occur on the Forest that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii is listed as threatened and has been documented on the Tiller Ranger District on the Umpqua National Forest. This species occurs in low-elevation upland prairies and is primarily known from Willamette Valley grasslands although there are isolated occurrences documented throughout the Umpqua basin as well. Plagiobothrys hirtus is listed as endangered and is confined to low-elevation wetlands in the vicinity of Sutherlin in northern Douglas County. It has not been documented on the Forest to date. Because the project is far removed from known populations of Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Plagiobothrys hirtus and since there is no potential habitat for either species within the Rail2 Planning Area, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with any of the alternatives and connected actions: therefore, the implementation of any of the alternatives would have “No Effect” on these listed species.
SENSITIVE SPECIES It is Forest Service policy to “ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired plant or contribute to… trends towards Federal listing of any species” (FSM 2672.41). There are currently 37 vascular plant species, 11 fungi, 3 lichens, and 25 bryophytes listed as Sensitive on the Umpqua National Forest (Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List, USDA Forest Service 2008).
188 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
VASCULAR PLANTS There is a documented occurrence of Iliamna latibracteata (wild hollyhock) near the project area on Dumont Creek. There is potential habitat for Iliamna and 2 other vascular plants in the project area (Table 41).
BRYOPHYTES There are no documented occurrences of sensitive Bryophytes in the project area. There is potential habitat for 4 sensitive bryophyte species in the project area (Table 41).
LICHENS There are no documented occurrences of sensitive lichens in the project area. There is potential habitat for 1 sensitive lichen species in the project area (Table 41).
FUNGI Because of their unique biology and ecology, pre-project surveys for fungi are generally considered to be of limited usefulness. Fruiting (i.e. mushrooms) occurs unpredictably so repeated visits over the course of several years would be necessary to establish whether or not a species is present. In addition, the mushroom represents only the fruit of the organism that is otherwise comprised of loose mats of underground thread-like filaments that are known as mycelium. Some species fruit only underground making detection even more difficult. There is potential habitat for 4 fungi species within the project area (Table 41).
Table 41. Sensitive/Threatened/Endangered Plants Known or Suspected to occur on the Umpqua National Forest.
Sensitive Prefield Field Scientific Name Risk Assesment List Review Survey
(Habitat (Species Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Present?) Located?)
Threatened or Endangered Species
1 LUPINUS SULPHUREUS SSP. KINCAIDII D N NI NI
2 PLAGIOBOTRYS HIRTUS S N NI NI
Bryophytes
1 ANASTROPHYLLUM MINUTUM S N NI NI
2 ANDREAEA SCHOFIELDIANA S N NI NI
3 BLEPHAROSTOMA ARACHNOIDEUM D Y N NI NI
4 BRYUM CALOBRYOIDES S N NI NI
5 CALYPOGEIA SPHAGNICOLA D N NI NI
189 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
6 CEPHALOZIELLA SPINIGERA S Y N NI NI
7 CODRIOPHORUS DEPRESSUM S N NI NI
8 ENCALYPTA BREVICOLLA VAR. CRUMIANA S N NI NI
9 ENCALYPTA BREVIPES S N NI NI
10 ENTOSTHODON FASCICULARIS S N NI NI
11 GYMNOMITRION CONCINNATUM S N NI NI
12 HARPANTHUS FLOTOVIANUS S N NI NI
13 HELODIUM BLANDOWII D N NI NI
14 LOPHOZIA GILLMANII S N NI NI
15 MARSUPELLA EMARGINATA VAR. AQUATICA S N NI NI
16 MEESIA ULIGINOSA S N NI NI
17 POLYTRICHUM SPHAEROTHECIUM S N NI NI
18 PORELLA BOLANDERI S N NI NI
19 SCHISTOSTEGA PENNATA D Y N NI MIIH
20 SCHOFIELDIA MONTICOLA S N NI NI
21 SPLACHNUM AMPULLACEUM S N NI NI
22 TETRAPHIS GENICULATA S Y N NI NI
23 TOMENTYPNUM NITENS D N NI NI
24 TREMATODON ASANOI S N NI NI
25 TRITOMARIA EXSECTIFORMIS D N NI NI
Lichens
1 LOBARIA LINITA D Y N NI NI
2 PSEUDOCYPHELLARIA MALLOTA D N NI NI
3 RAMALINA POLLINARIA S N NI NI
Fungi
1 BOLETUS PULCHERRIMUS D N NI NI
2 CORTINARIUS BARLOWENSIS D N NI NI
3 DERMOCYBE HUMBOLDTENSIS S N NI NI
190 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
4 GASTROBOLETUS VIVIDUS S Y N NI MIIH
5 PSEUDORHIZINA CALIFORNICA D Y N NI MIIH
6 GYMNOMYCES FRAGRANS S Y N NI MIIH
7 RAMARIA AMYLOIDEA D Y N NI MIIH
8 RAMARIA SPINULOSA VAR. DIMINUTIVA S N NI NI
9 RHIZOPOGON EXIGUUS S N NI NI
10 RHIZOPOGON INQUINATUS S N NI NI
11 STAGNICOLA PERPLEXA S N NI NI
Vascular Plants
1 ADIANTUM JORDANII S N NI NI
2 ARABIS SUFFRUTESCENS VAR. HORIZONTALIS S N NI NI
3 ARNICA VISCOSA D N NI NI
4 ASPLENIUM SEPTENTRIONALE D N NI NI
5 BOTRYCHIUM PUMICOLA S N NI NI
6 CALAMAGROSTIS BREWERI S N NI NI
7 CALOCHORTUS UMPQUAENSIS D N NI NI
8 CAREX CRAWFORDII S N NI NI
9 CAREX DIANDRA S N NI NI
10 CAREX LASIOCARPA VAR. AMERICANA S N NI NI
11 CAREX NARDINA D N NI NI
12 CAREX VERNACULA S N NI NI
13 COLLOMIA MAZAMA D Y N NI MIIH
14 CYPRIPEDIUM FASCICULATUM D N NI NI
15 ELATINE BRACHYSPERMA S N NI NI
16 ERIOGONUM VILLOSISSIMUM D N NI NI
17 EUCEPHALUS VIALIS S N NI NI
18 FRASERA UMPQUAENSIS D Y N MIIH NI
19 GENTIANA NEWBERRYI S N NI NI
191 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
20 ILIAMNA LATIBRACTEATA D Y N MIIH NI
21 KALMIOPSIS FRAGRANS D N NI NI
22 LEWISIA COLUMBIANA VAR. COLUMBIANA D N NI NI
23 LEWISIA LEEANA S N NI NI
24 OPHIOGLOSSUM PUSILLUM D N NI NI
25 PELLAEA ANDROMEDIFOLIA S N NI NI
26 PERIDERIDIA ERYTHRORHIZA S N NI NI
27 PINUS ALBICAULIS D N NI NI
28 POA RHIZOMATA S N NI NI
29 POLYSTICHUM CALIFORNICUM D N NI NI
30 ROMANZOFFIA THOMPSONII D N NI NI
31 ROTALA RAMOSIOR S N NI NI
32 SCHEUCHZERIA PALUSTRIS VAR. AMERICANA D N NI NI
33 SCHOENOPLECTUS SUBTERMINALIS D N NI NI
34 UTRICULARIA MINOR D N NI NI
35 UTRICULARIA OCHROLEUCA S N NI NI
36 WOLFFIA BOREALIS S N NI NI
37 WOLFFIA COLUMBIANA S N NI NI
S Suspected to occur on the Umpqua National Forest
D Documented occurrence on the Umpqua National Forest (as of 2007)
NI No Impact
MIIH May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
WOFV Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
BI Beneficial impact.
DIRECT , INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: There are no Threatened or Endangered plant species in the project area therefore there are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to those species. There is potential habitat for Sensitive species in the general project area, but no sensitive species were found in treatment units, nor are the precommercial and commercial treatment units likely habitat for sensitive species. There are no anticipated direct or indirect effects on 192 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest sensitive species as a result of this project for either the no action or proposed action alternatives, therefore there are also no cumulative effects to sensitive species.
SURVEY AND MANAGE (OTHER RARE OR UNCOMMON SPECIES) Other Rare or Uncommon plant species that were not considered sensitive at the time were identified under the Northwest Forest Plan (as amended, USDA and USDI 2001) for additional consideration (Table 42, from 2001 list, minus sensitive spp.). These species are thought to be associated with old-growth or late-successional forest and are considered to have conservation concerns. There is one occurrence of the moss Buxbaumii viridis in the project area, although it is not in any treatment unit. All the commercial and precommercial thin units are less than 80 years old, thus unlikely to provide suitable habitat for Buxbaumii or other rare or uncommon plants or fungi. Roadside mechanical fuel treatments are not considered ground disturbing although some ground disturbance may result from prescribed burning of fuels. Surveys were not completed for rare or uncommon species in Table 42, nor are their habitats considered to be present. DIRECT , INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: No anticipated direct or indirect effects are anticipated for Other Rare or Uncommon species as a result of this project for either the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives, therefore there are also no cumulative effects to Other Rare or Uncommon species.
Table 42. Other Rare or Uncommon Species
Other Rare or Uncommon Species Category Umpqua
Fungi
Acanthophysium farlowii (Aleurodiscus farlowii) B Albatrellus avellaneus B K Albatrellus caeruleoporus B K Albatrellus ellisii B S Albatrellus flettii B K Alpova alexsmithii B Alpova olivaceotinctus B Arcangeliella camphorata B Arcangeliella crassa B Arcangeliella lactarioides B
Asterophora lycoperdoides B S Asterophora parasitica B Baeospora myriadophylla B
Balsamia nigrens (Balsamia nigra) B S Boletus haematinus B Bondarzewia mesenterica (Bondarzewia montana) B K
193 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Bridgeoporus nobilissimus (Oxyporus nobilissimus) A Cantharellus subalbidus D K
Catathelasma ventricosa B S Chalciporus piperatus (Boletus piperatus) D S Chamonixia caespitosa B Choiromyces alveolatus B K Choiromyces venosus B S Chroogomphus loculatus B ? Chrysomphalina grossula B S Clavariadelphus ligula B K Clavariadelphus occidentalis (Clavariadelphus pistillaris) B K
Clavariadelphus sachalinensis B S Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus B K Clavariadelphus truncatus (syn. Clavariadelphus borealis) B K Clavulina castanopes var. lignicola (Clavulina ornatipes) B Clitocybe senilis B Clitocybe subditopoda B Collybia bakerensis B S Collybia racemosa B S Cordyceps ophioglossoides B Cortinarius barlowensis B ?
Cortinarius boulderensis B K Cortinarius cyanites B Cortinarius depauperatus (Cortinarius spilomeus) B Cortinarius magnivelatus B Cortinarius olympianus B K Cortinarius speciosissimus (Cortinarius rainierensis) B Cortinarius tabularis B Cortinarius umidicola (Cortinarius canabarba) B Cortinarius valgus B K
Cortinarius variipes B Cortinarius verrucisporus B Cortinarius wiebeae B Craterellus tubaeformis (syn. Cantharellus tubaeformis) D K Cudonia monticola B ?
Cyphellostereum laeve B Dermocybe humboldtensis B ? 194 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Destuntzia fusca B K Destuntzia rubra B ?
Dichostereum boreale (Dichostereum granulosum) B Elaphomyces anthracinus B Elaphomyces subviscidus B K Endogone acrogena B Endogone oregonensis B S Entoloma nitidum (Rhodocybe nitida) B Fayodia bisphaerigera (Fayodia gracilipes) B Fevansia aurantiaca (Alpova aurantiaca) B Galerina atkinsoniana B K
Galerina cerina B Galerina heterocystis E K Galerina sphagnicola E Gastroboletus imbellus B ? Gastroboletus ruber B S Gastroboletus subalpinus B K Gastroboletus turbinatus B S Gastroboletusvividus B
Gastrosuillus amaranthii E Gastrosuillus umbrinus B
Gautieria magnicellaris B Gautieria otthii B Gelatinodiscus flavidus B S Glomus radiatus B Gomphus bonarii B
Gomphus clavatus F K Gomphus kauffmanii E ?
Gymnomyces abietis B Gymnomyces nondistincta B
Gymnopilus punctifolius B S Gyromitra californica B ? Hebeloma olympianum (Hebeloma olympiana) B Helvella crassitunicata B S Helvella elastica B K Hydnotrya inordinata B Hydnotrya subnix B 195 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Hydropus marginellus (Mycena marginella) B Hygrophorus caeruleus B
Hygrophorus karstenii B Hygrophorus vernalis B Hypomyces luteovirens B Leucogaster citrinus B ?
Leucogaster microsporus B K Macowanites chlorinosmus B Macowanites lymanensis B Macowanites mollis B Marasmius applanatipes B
Martellia fragrans B S Martellia idahoensis B S Mycena hudsoniana B S Mycena overholtsii B K Mycena quinaultensis B S Mycena tenax B S Mythicomyces corneipes B S Neolentinus adhaerens B Neolentinus kauffmanii B Nivatogastrium nubigenum B K
Octavianina cyanescens B S Octavianina macrospora B Octavianina papyracea B Otidea leporina B K Otidea smithii B S Phaeocollybia attenuata D S Phaeocollybia californica B S Phaeocollybia dissiliens B Phaeocollybia fallax D K
Phaeocollybia gregaria B Phaeocollybia kauffmanii D S Phaeocollybia olivacea D S Phaeocollybia oregonensis (syn. Phaeocollybia carmanahensis) B Phaeocollybia piceae B Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva B S Phaeocollybia scatesiae B 196 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Phaeocollybia sipei B Phaeocollybia spadicea B
Phellodon atratus (Phellodon atratum) B Pholiota albivelata B Podostroma alutaceum B Polyozellus multiplex B K Pseudaleuria quinaultiana B Ramaria abietina B S Ramaria amyloidea B ?
Ramaria araiospora B K Ramaria aurantiiseccescens B ?
Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa B Ramaria celerivirescens B K Ramaria claviramulata B Ramaria concolor f. marrii B Ramaria concolor f. tsugina B Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa (Ramaria fasciculata var. B K sparsiramosa) Ramaria coulterae B K Ramaria cyaneigranosa B K Ramaria gelatiniaurantia B Ramaria gracilis B
Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana B Ramaria largentii B ?
Ramaria lorithamnus B Ramaria maculatipes B S Ramaria rainierensis B Ramaria rubella var. blanda B Ramaria rubribrunnescens B K Ramaria rubrievanescens B K Ramaria rubripermanens D K
Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva B ? Ramaria stuntzii B K Ramaria suecica B S Ramaria thiersii B Ramaria verlotensis B Rhizopogon abietis B S Rhizopogon atroviolaceus B K 197 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Rhizopogon brunneiniger B K Rhizopogon chamaleontinus B S
Rhizopogon ellipsosporus B S Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus B K Rhizopogon exiguous B ?
Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus B K Rhizopogon inquinatus B ?
Rhizopogon truncatus D K Rhodocybe speciosa B Rickenella swartzii (Rickenella setipes) B Russula mustelina B
Sarcodon fuscoindicus B K Sedecula pulvinata B Sowerbyella rhenana (Aleuria rhenana) B Sparassis crispa D K Spathularia flavida B K Thaxterogaster pavelekii B Tremiscus helvelloides (syn. Phlogiotis helvelloides) B K Tricholoma venenatum B Tricholomopsis fulvescens B S Tuber asa B
Tuber pacificum B Tylopilus porphyrosporus (Tylopilus pseudoscaber) D Lichens
Bryoria pseudocapillaris B Bryoria spiralifera B Bryoria subcana (syn. Alectoria subcana) B Bryoria tortuosa, OR Western Cascades Province A S Bryoria tortuosa, OR Klamath Province D S Buellia oidalea E
Calicium abietinum B S Calicium adspersum E S Cetrelia cetrarioides E Chaenotheca chrysocephala B K Chaenotheca ferruginea B K Chaenotheca furfuracea F K Chaenotheca subroscida E ? 198 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Chaenothecopsis pusilla E ?
Cladonia norvegica C
Collema nigrescens, in WA and OR, except in OR Klamath Physiographic F K Province Dendriscocaulon intricatulum A S Dermatocarpon luridum E ? Fuscopannaria saubinetii E ?
Heterodermia sitchensis E Hypogymnia duplicata (syn. Hypogymnia elongata) A S Hypogymnia vittata (Hygomnia vittiata) E Hypotrachyna revoluta (syn. Parmelia revoluta) E Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum E ?
Leptogium cyanescens A ? Leptogium teretiusculum E ?
Microcalicium arenarium B S Nephroma bellum F K Nephroma isidiosum E Nephroma occultum A K
Niebla cephalota (syn. Desmazieria cephaolta, Ramalina cephalota) A Pannaria rubiginosa E ?
Peltigera pacifica E K Platismatia lacunosa E S
Pseudocyphellaria perpetua A Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis A ?
Stenocybe clavata E Teloschistes flavicans A Tholurna dissimilis, south of Columbia River B Usnea hesperina B Usnea longissima (Cat A in Jackson, Josephine and Curry Ctys.) F K Bryophytes
Brotherella roellii E
Diplophyllum plicatum B S Herbertus aduncus B Iwatsukiella leucotricha B Kurzia makinoana B Marsupella emarginata var. aquatic B ?
Orthodontium gracile B Racomitrium aquaticum E S 199 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Rhizomnium nudum, in Oregon B ? Schistostega pennata A K
Tetraphis geniculate A K Tritomaria exsectiformis B K
Tritomaria quinquedentata B Vascular Plants
Botrichium minganense, in Oregon A K Botrichium montanum A Coptis asplenifolia A ? Coptis trifolia A ? Coriydalis aquae-gelidae A ?
Cypripedium fasciculatum C K
Cypripedium montanum C K Galium kamtschaticum, Oregon Western Cascades Province A ? Platanthera orbiculata var. orbiculata C ? Eucephalus vialis A K
Categories of Rare or Uncommon Species:
Relative Rarity Pre-Disturbance Surveys Pre-Disturbance Surveys Not Status Undetermined Practical Practical
Rare Category A Category B Category E
• Manage All Known Sites • Manage All Known Sites • Manage All Known Sites
• Pre-Disturbance Surveys • N/A • N/A
• Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys
Uncommon Category C Category D1 Category F
• Manage High-Priority Sites • Manage High-Priority Sites • N/A
• Pre-Disturbance Surveys • N/A • N/A
• Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys • Strategic Surveys
S… Suspected to occur on the Umpqua National Forest K… Known to occur on the Umpqua National Forest
200 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
FUELS Economics Benefit/Cost Analysis Table 43 estimates the costs on the high end by alternative. Both the underburn and grapple piling acres are for the maximum number of acres that could be treated.
Table 43: Estimated Brush Disposal Treatment Costs39 By Alternative ACRES COST Treatment Cost/Ac No Action No Action Action Action Hand Pile/burn 720 0 582 $0 $419,040 Grapple 520 0 358 $0 $186,160 Pile/burn Fuels Surveys 40 0 1048 $0 $41,920 Burn landings 170 0 80 $0 $13,600 Total Est. $0 $660,720
Costs
Existing Condition Prior to modern timber harvest and land clearing, fire had been the fundamental ecosystem process creating stand and landscape patterns within the analysis area. The considerable variation in fire frequency, intensity and extent is typical of what Agee (1993) describes as the moderate/mixed severity fire regime. Page 141 of the Deadman/Francis Watershed Analysis (WA) recommendations state that priorities are based and ranked in part on fire regime. Page 146, item number 20 discusses that forests in the watershed evolved with fire as a fundamental process, and that thoughtfully applied prescribed fire can be the best tool for restoring ecosystem functions (Deadman/Francis WA, 1997). This planning area consists primarily of a moderate severity regime (Regime III), characterized by infrequent fires (25-100 yrs. apart) that are generally partial stand replacement, and that may also have considerable areas of both high and low intensity. There is also a component of low severity regime (Regime I). This regime includes oak woodlands, ponderosa pine, and east-side Douglas-fir. Fire occurs frequently and is of low severity. The time between fires is less than 35 years. High frequency and low severity fires are more common on south than on north aspects. Fire regime condition classes (FRCC) are coarse-scale measures of the degree of departure observed from the natural fire regime in three broad classes: low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2) and high (FRCC 3). Low departure is considered to be within the natural range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside of that range. This departure results in changes to one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, fire severity and pattern; or other associated disturbance processes. In both FRCC 2 and FRCC 3, one or more fire return intervals have typically been missed. Areas of high departure increase the risk of losing key ecosystem components due to fire effects. The FRCC analysis based on the Deadman/Francis Creek subwatershed
39 Does not include roadside hazardous fuels treatment costs. 201 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest identifies three fire regime condition classes; areas of high departure (FRCC 3),40 areas of moderate departure (FRCC 2), and areas of least departure (FRCC 1). Overall, the fire regime condition classes indicate the natural fire regimes have been altered from their historical ranges. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate to high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by more than one return interval in many areas. Vegetation attributes have been moderately to highly altered from their historical range.
Table 45 shows the current FRCC ratings of the various pre-commercial and commercial thinning stands and roadside areas. It also displays the acres of proposed surface and crown fuels treatments to improve fire conditions.
Table 44. Action alternative FRCC ratings within planning area
Improved Fire Conditions
Units within Approx. Approx. the FRCC Current Acres of Acres of FRCC (Comm. Thin & Surface Improved Rating Precommercial Fuel Crown Fire Thin) Reduction Condition (Action (Action Alternative) Alternative)
1, 13, 35, 36,
1 103, 161, 166, 152.8 168 152.8
1, 34, 65, 68, 78, 127, 131,
137, 142, 147, 2 154, 13, 35, 120.2 131, 161, 166, 444.3 168, 174, 228
1, 34, 137, 142, 3 13, 35, 36, 103, 131 177.2 149.4
Roadside See text for 2349 2349 (FRCC 1, 2, road numbers and 3)
Factors that influence fire behavior in the planning area are ridge exposure to the dominant wind patterns and the canyons that open to these directions, the potential influence of east winds and potential fuel moistures and loadings. More complex mortality patterns tend to occur in and above the thermal belt (a band at which temperatures tend to be higher and humidity lower, especially at night). East wind events are infrequent; when they occur they may affect fuel moistures, rates of spread, fireline intensity, and mortality.
40 The Umpqua National Forest is currently updating the FRCC mapping for the forest. This mapping has not yet been completed as of the completion of this analysis. 202 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Aggressive fire suppression policies and increased focus on alternatives to burning have reduced the amount of fires that have burned across the landscape. Interruption of natural fire regimes has a direct effect on ecosystem species composition and sometimes on species persistence. Changes in long term soil productivity, stand structure and function, forest health, and biological diversity also occur due to the exclusion of fire. Current forest conditions in the Johnnie planning area consist of dense second growth stands with a fairly continuous canopy. Prescribed fire can promote ecosystem health by restoring natural ecological processes. With fire as a part of the ecosystem, stand composition is dynamic.
Current risk from fire to the planning area is comprised of two main variables. The first and most obvious is surface fuel loading which is a result of dead and dying woody debris. The second is forest structure including continuous canopies, canopy base height/ladder fuel via subcanopy structure, and crown bulk density. Existing forest structure is composed of fairly dense, even aged continuous canopied stands with some understory development and moderate surface fuel loading.
Figure 20. Pre-harvest Fuels Condition (Fuel Model 10)
Plots taken in several stands indicate the surface (pre-harvest) fuel loading ranges from 6.0 to 24.5 tons per acre. High slash depth is 1.29-1.5 feet; desired is 0.3-0.5 feet. Bulk depth (compacted fuels) is 0.85-0.99 feet; desired is 0.19-0.33 feet. These plots do not include breakage, live fuel loading or ladder fuels (limbs), each of which would contribute to surface fuels upon logging. Harvest predictions from the Fire Fuels Extension of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS-FFE) state that we can expect another 32.2-34.4 tons/acre of >6 inch fuels to be generated during harvest operations. The planning area has a light to moderate brush layer, which would contribute a moderate amount of slash to existing surface fuels. Existing surface fuels throughout the planning area are continuous enough to carry ground fire in most locations. Ladder fuels exist in many areas, which allow fire to enter the crowns. Ladder fuels may contribute to post-harvest fuel loads. Canopy closure in these stands may contribute to sustained crown fire.
The Umpqua’s Hazard Reduction Standards were developed as a tool to use when determining the level of fuels treatment needed to protect the Forest resources in any given area from the threat of wildfire.41 The majority of the planning area lays within the high-risk zone as defined in
41 Forest Residue Management Group. Umpqua National Forest Hazard Reduction Standards. Addendum to LRMP 1990. 203 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest the Standards. This risk zone takes into account the private land, the tour route, winter range habitat, and the area’s historical fire occurrence. Weather, topography, fuels and predicted fire behavior are also factored into the Standards. The Standards recommend the following post-treatment fuel loadings in the 0-9 inch size class fuels: 0-1/4 inch: < 1 ton per acre ¼-1 inch: 4-8 tons per acre 1-9 inch: 7-12 tons per acre
For a high-risk zone, the Standards state that 85-100% of the planning area acres are to be treated for fuels hazard reduction purposes. Predicted fuel loadings were calculated from areas in and around Johnnie. Post-harvest stands are estimated to be at least 32 tons per acre and all would exceed the Hazard Reduction Standards for 0-9 inch fuels. These predictions do not account for the additional loading that would result from the ladder fuels in some stands. Most of the Johnnie area is within the wildland urban interface (WUI), and adjacent to private land. Fuels would be treated by several means over 85-100% of the planning area. Utilization methods of fuels reduction may also be used to reduce fuels. The main objective is to reduce fuels in the 0-8 inch size category to 12-21 tons per acre, with a fuelbed depth of 0.3-0.5 feet. The Johnnie Project Area is composed of the following fuel models (FM):
FM 1– Representative of grass meadows or openings. Fuel loading in the 0-3 inch diameter fuels is less than 1.5 tons/acre. Less than one-third of the area contains trees or shrubs. Fire spreads quickly in this fine fuel when it is cured or nearly cured. Example – open oak savannah areas. FM 5 – Representative of timber plantations and natural regeneration between two and 10 feet tall. Shrubs or grass in the understory can carry the fire. Fuel loading in the 0-3 inch diameter for live and dead fuel is less than 3.5 tons/acre. Example – precommercial thinning units. FM 8 – Mature short-needle conifer stands with light fuel loading in the 0-3 inch diameter fuels. This profile can be found in stands that were or were not previously harvested. Fire spread is generally slow with low flame lengths. Heavy fuel concentrations (jackpots) can flare up. Fuel loading in the 0-3” diameter for live and dead fuel is less than 5 tons/acre. Example – areas along 2810 road with light understory shrubs or regeneration. FM 10 – Representative of mixed conifer stands with heavy concentrations of large down wood, > 9” diameter. Fuel loading in the 0-3 inch diameter for live and dead fuel is less than 12 tons/acre. Ground fire behavior is higher in intensity than fuel models 8 because of the heavier fuel loading and the ladder fuels. Torching of trees (fire in the crowns of trees) occurs more frequently. Example – commercial thin units. The following fuel models explain the state of fuels post-harvest: FM 11 – Light slash load resulting from light to moderate partial cuts or harvests which yard tops of trees attached to the last log. Fuel loading in the 0-3” diameter for live and dead fuel is <12 tons/acre. The continuity of the slash can increase fire behavior. FM 12 – Moderate slash loads resulting from moderate or heavy partial cuts. Fuel loading in the 0-3” diameter for live and dead fuel is < 35.6 tons/acre. Fire behavior can be rapidly spreading, especially with red needles still on the branch wood (i.e. red slash).
Fuel loadings in some portions of the planning area approximate Fuel Model (FM) 8. In this timber model, fires are slow burning with low flame lengths. Fire may encounter “jackpots” of heavier fuels, in which case fire behavior would intensify. Fires burning under extreme weather conditions would also exhibit increases in intensity.
204 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Pre-harvest fuel surveys in other areas approximate FM 10. This is a timber model in which fires would burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater intensity than other timber models, due to the heavier loading of dead material on the forest floor. Crowning, torching and spotting are more frequent in this fuel situation, and can lead to control difficulties.
A pre-harvest fire was modeled using current (pre-harvest) fuel loading information. Estimates were for current stand conditions on an August day with the following 97th percentile weather parameters: 81 degrees Fahrenheit, 20 foot wind speeds 7 mph, and 2% one-hour fuel moisture. Fire size at discovery was 3.7 acres. Outputs included 6 ft. flame lengths, fireline intensity of 993 btu/ft/sec, and 9.1 ch/hr surface rate of spread. Scorch height was 45 ft and mortality was estimated at 53%. Spotting distance was 0.1 mi, and probability of ignition was 100%.
For direct attack by hand, maximum flame lengths of 4 ft, fireline intensities of 100 btu/ft/sec, and variable rates of spread are required. The fire behavior of this modeled fire is such that containment efforts would require indirect attack, which means the fire would continue to grow in size until it could be contained. The ladder fuels complicate initial attack because they extend from the base of many trees to the crown’s live fuel base height; torching trees would be expected. If wind speeds increased, the fire could transition to a crown fire, with rates of spread of 34.7 chains per hour.
When these stands and roadside areas are thinned, the additional contribution to the fuels on the forest floor converts these stands to a slash FM 11 or 12. In FM 11 fuels, fires are fairly active in the slash and herbaceous material intermixed with the slash. In FM 12 fuels, fires spread rapidly, with high intensities that are capable of spotting. Fires that start are generally sustained until some kind of change in fuels is encountered.
Fire behavior in untreated FM 12 fuels depends on many variables. An example of potential fire characteristics based on the same 97th percentile weather would be a fire with flame lengths of 13.6 feet, a fire line intensity of 1646 btu per foot per second (btu/ft/sec) and a rate of spread of 31 chains per hour (ch/hr). This fire, too, would likely escape initial attack.
In contrast, stands with untreated FM 11 fuels would exhibit the following fire behavior characteristics under the same weather parameters: 14.1 chains per hour rate of spread, flame length of 5.7 ft., and a fireline intensity of 252 btu/ft/sec. A fire in this FM would be lower in intensity, though flame lengths are still high enough to produce 27 ft. scorch heights. Post-harvest fuels treatments in both model 11 and 12 stands are designed to reduce flame lengths, rates of spread, intensity, scorch height and mortality. Initial attack would then be possible, which would minimize final fire size. Desired Condition Fuels management seeks to find a level of fuel loading and structure that would allow disturbance (i.e. fire) to move through a stand without completely resetting forest function and structure; in other words, so that future fire effects would emulate the effects of a moderate severity fire regime.
The reduction of fire hazard on the landscape includes consideration of two main components; changes to forest structure and dead and down fuel loading. The desired forest structure includes a range of conditions that reduce the likelihood of fire to reach tree canopies, and reduces the ability of fire to spread throughout the tree crowns.
205 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Fuels management of post harvest slash is concerned with the manipulation of fuels via utilization, or by rearrangement or removal, either mechanically or by fire. Fuels activities for hazard reduction purposes are intended to reduce the size, cost, and damage from wildfire. The overall objective is to treat fuels in the planning area to the extent necessary to reduce fuel loadings to an acceptable level of risk relative to potential fire behavior. Fuels activities may also be carried out for other resource objectives, which may include those identified for ecosystem restoration, silviculture site preparation, snag creation or forest health.
Figure 21. Desired Fuels Condition (Fuel Model 8)
Figure 22. Current and Desired Canopy Structure
The photos in Figures 21 and 22 somewhat represent the desired outcome of fuels treatment, that being reduced occurrence of ladder fuels, greater spacing between tree canopies, and lighter surface fuel loadings. These photos may also represent the desired post-treatment condition along roadsides.
The objective of the fuels treatments is to treat the activity slash to modify fire behavior. Methods to achieve this objective include thinning and harvest of small openings, and the use of fire and mechanical manipulation of surface, understory and overstory fuels. For the Johnnie planning area, the desired fuels profile upon completion of post-harvest activities would be:
Decreased crown closure and crown continuity to lessen the potential of fire carrying through the crowns. (Fire that reaches the crowns of trees that torch in this scenario has fewer opportunities to move from crown to crown due to the presence of gaps that break up crown continuity.)
206 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Reduction of ladder fuels that would otherwise facilitate tree torching into the crowns and that would also raise the height to live crown. Decreased residual 0-9 inch fuels such that fires would remain on the ground (i.e. lessen potential for trees torching). Reduction of fuel bed depth via yarding tops attached and treating residual fuels. This would break up the horizontal continuity of surface fuels, making surface fire effects patchier in nature. This would also decrease residence time that could cause tree mortality or allow ignition and consumption of coarse down woody material greater than nine inches. Understory vegetation that would vary in density and vertical and horizontal continuity. Increased crown index, which is the 20-foot wind speed needed to support an active or running crown fire. (As a stand becomes denser, active crowning occurs at lower wind speeds, and the stand is more vulnerable to crown fire.)
Roadside Fuels Treatment Primary motivation for treating fuels in the Johnnie Project Area is based on the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and the Douglas County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The Tiller WUI surrounds private land along the South Umpqua River, the town of Tiller, and several groups of homes and structures. These areas are considered WUI and because they are in Douglas County, they are part of the Douglas County CWPP.
Proposed hazardous fuels treatments within the WUI in the Johnnie Planning Area include creating shaded fuel breaks 300 feet on each side of existing roads 2810 and its spurs (900, 100, 110, 200, 229, 210, 300) and the 2827 road and its spurs (300, 200, 013). Total project size is approximately 2349 acres along 39.7 miles of road. This project is designed to reduce stand density by thinning and burning along these roads (HP burning).
Current stand conditions are such that fire suppression efforts could be hampered by the heavy vegetation and undergrowth. Potential fire behavior may prohibit direct attack by hand. The desired condition is a Fuel Model 8 (an open stand with limited ground fuel); previously described.
Desired fire behavior characteristics are flame lengths <4 feet, fireline intensity of <100 btu/ft/sec, and variable rates of spread. One potential effect of thinning in these roadside stands is that temperatures and wind speeds may become higher, and humidity may be lower, during fire season. One potential result of these effects can be increased fire behavior. However, underburning these areas would offset these potential effects for a period of time, until re-entry for fuel break maintenance is required.
Figure 23. Roadside Fuels Pre and Post-Treatment
207 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Stand density after treatment would vary, but the intent is to create vegetative spacing that would enhance stand conditions, slow burning ground fires and produce low flame lengths. After treatment surface fuel loadings would fall within a range of 12-21 tons per acre in the 0-3 inch fuels (Umpqua National Forest Hazard Reduction Standards), with variable loadings in the 3+ inch size classes. Current fuel loadings in the 0-3 inch fuels range from 3.3 to 19.1 tons per acre; stand density reduction activities in these roadside stands would add to that loading, especially in the 1-7” size class fuels, via the addition of the ladder fuels and small trees to the forest floor.
No new road construction is associated with the roadside project. Best management practices would be implemented (EA Chapter Two) to minimize impacts to roadside soils, avoid seasonal restrictions in owl habitat, and reduce the likelihood of spreading noxious weeds. There would be no reduction of stream channel shade, and water quality would not be affected. Trees >8 inches would not be cut, and snags would not be cut unless they pose a safety risk to workers or firefighters. Canopy base height would be raised to a minimum of 8 feet via pruning.
The methods of treatment in this multi-year project may include thinning, pruning, and hand piling and burning. These fuels treatments require subsequent years to allow for prescriptions to be met. Also, maintenance of the treatment areas may be required in the future to retain effectiveness of the fuel breaks.
Effects Analysis The environmental effects discussed below display how fuel loadings, fire behavior characteristics and fire effects would differ between the two Johnnie alternatives over the short term (10 years) after harvest. Direct Effects For fire and fuels, direct effects are those that would occur in the short term. The action alternative affects the stand structure and forest structure across the landscape. Any change to surface fuels would slow the spread of ground fire and allow firefighters to suppress any fire starts quickly. Changes to the canopy at the stand and landscape scale can affect the potential of a ground fire reaching tree crowns and spreading through the canopy as crown fire. That may result in higher intensity fire that puts resources at risk.
Crowning Index42 was assessed using FVS-FFE on all stands. Crowning Index is a measure of crown fire hazard that estimates the minimum necessary wind speed (at 20 feet above the surface) to sustain a crown fire. The lower the index value, the lower wind speed required to sustain a crown fire and thus the higher potential fire hazard. No Action Alternative Decay rates for the predicted loading of the 0-9” fuels were calculated. The 0-3 inch fuels are the primary “carriers” of fire, and the 3-9 inch fuels contribute more to the residence time of a fire.43 The results are an estimate of how the fuels may change over time (i.e. natural decay) and how long it would take them to fall within the Umpqua’s Standards should the fuels not be treated. Overall, it would take over 10 years for untreated fuels to decay to the point that they meet the Hazard Reduction Standards.
42 Crowning Index (CI)) is used to measure the propensity of a stand to sustain a crown fire, defined respectively as the 20 foot wind speed (higher value represents a lower hazard) necessary to sustain and initiate a crown fire (see glossary).
43 The length of time fire burns in an area of concentrated fuels is known as residence time. 208 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Existing crown fire hazard in the no action alternative is considered high and would remain high for at least the next 10 years, after which it would begin to decrease over the longer term as trees lose lower limbs and continue to grow, creating space between the understory/brush layer and the canopy’s base. FVS-FFE shows we can currently expect that a crown fire could be maintained by wind speeds of 20-25 mph in several stands, which is considered in the higher hazard range. After approximately 50 years, the stands would improve somewhat, and would move into a moderate hazard category. Essentially, the higher the crown index, the lower the chance of a sustained crown fire.
Without pre-commercial and commercial thinning and fuels treatments (i.e. the no action alternative), a fire occurring under typical summertime weather conditions would likely result in a mosaic pattern of under story, partial-stand replacing and stand replacement fire (i.e. a mixed severity fire). However, crowded continuous canopy stand conditions would increase the risk of sustained crown fire across the planning area. Both canopy and surface fuel loadings are such that in more extreme weather situations increases in fire intensity can be anticipated, and both riparian and upland areas could be affected.
Surface fuel loadings would remain high and continue to grow at a slow, steady rate. Varying size classes would be added to the forest floor from needle cast, falling branches, wind throw and dead or diseased trees. Natural decay would continue at its present rate until an event such as a wind storm or bark beetle infestation occurs; a considerable increase in fuels from such an event could delay the point at which the total fuel loading can be considered less of a hazard than it is currently.
Until tree growth is such that lower limbs are shed, trees in the planning area would continue to provide ladder fuels for fires to torch into crowns and contribute to crown fire conditions; many of the trees currently have branches extending to the ground. The brush layer would also continue to provide a means for fire to transition from the ground to the canopy. Fire starts may also spread to or from the adjacent private lands with relative ease. A wildfire in an untreated area could be somewhat difficult to contain and control.
In conclusion, the direct effect of the No Action Alternative is characterized by fire behavior that would likely require indirect attack suppression efforts.
Action Alternative The action alternative reduces the potential for crown fire to carry or initiate within treatment units. Crown fires require a combination of wind speed and canopy continuity to sustain combustion. The action alternative would thin and remove trees and fuels from the stands, reducing canopy continuity and the potential for crown fire spread. Harvest activities would break or trample ladder fuels that provide the means for fire to reach tree crowns from the forest floor. Fuel treatment areas would ultimately reduce the potential of crown fires to initiate from the ground by reducing fire intensity and residence times. The action alternative would decrease crown fire hazard, as measured by the crown index, immediately following harvest.
Existing crown fire hazard is considered high and would remain so if no action were taken. The treatments in the action alternative would reduce the hazard to a moderate or low rating for an extended period of time before the effectiveness begins to taper off. Figure 24 shows the average crowning index before and after harvest. The low values of the existing condition (2011 bars) represent a high crown fire potential. The treatments outlined in the action alternative would reduce the crowning index hazard to moderate or low immediately following harvest (2012 bars). Any index >25 would denote a lower crown hazard rating, and any index value < 25 is considered a higher hazard rating; several commercial thinning stands currently fall within this higher rating. 209 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
60 50 40 Crown 30 Index 20 Windspeed 10 2011 Cr.Index
0 2012 Cr.Index
1
13 34 35 36
103 161 168 174 228 Average Units
Figure 24. Crown Index Pre- and Post-harvest
Most stands would have a reduction in ladder fuels and an increase in the height to live crown. This may reduce the potential for ground fires spreading into the crowns. Based on these changes to stand structure, treated areas would better withstand potential crown fire conditions.
Harvest treatments typically generate higher surface fuels from slash accumulation. These increased surface fuel loads elevate fire risk in the short-term. The action alternative would treat surface fuels within all of the treatment units. Treatment of surface fuels also reduces the intensity and residence time of ground fires, thus reducing the potential to kill residual trees, consume large fuels, or spread to crowns. The action alternative may include yarding trees to a 3 inch diameter minimum top on all harvest acres to remove much of the ≥3 inch material from the forest floor. This material may be left on the landing for firewood gathering or burned at the landing. Some of this material is expected to remain within treated areas as tops break during yarding operations. The action alternative would treat approximately 1048 acres of harvest units and 2349 acres of roadside fuels, which would help to reduce surface fuels strategically across the landscape. Fuel treatments are prescribed to lessen the risk of fire to and from private property, to reduce risk in areas more susceptible to fires, and are spatially distributed to reduce overall risk of spread. Should a wildfire occur in portions of commercially thinned stands not receiving fuels treatment, it can be expected that effects to soil, duff or litter layers would occur to a greater extent than it would on unharvested stands.
Overall, fire effects would be the most severe in harvested and untreated (for fuels) stands for a period of time up to 10 years or more as the slash decays naturally over time. Thus, there is a greater risk of negative fire effects to botany sites and wildlife habitat over the short term where no fuels treatment is conducted as compared to treated areas.
In conclusion, the direct effect of the Action Alternative is characterized by decreased fire behavior in areas receiving fuels treatments (3397 acres). Overall, by treating 85-100% of the slash, the Action Alternative is expected to result in a decrease in fire behavior that could allow for direct attack suppression efforts.
210 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Table 45. Summary of Fuels Treatment Acres and Effects No Action Action Treatment Alternative Alternative Effects type Acres Acres Grapple Pile 0 358 Beneficial - reduced 0-3” surface fuels & Burn both for the short-term (up to 5 years) and the long-term (greater than 5 years) and increased stand resiliency to potential wildfire effects. Hand Pile & 0 2457 Beneficial - reduced 0-3” surface fuels Burn both for the short-term (up to 5 years) and the long-term (greater than 5 years) and increased stand resiliency to potential wildfire effects.
Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those that would occur at the landscape scale and later in time.
No Action Alternative In the no action alternative, the indirect effects to surface, ladder and crown fuels would be similar to those stated above for direct effects. The main difference is in the period of time involved (>10 years). The structure of the stands would change in terms of understory and ladder fuels; over time canopy base height would raise and the continuity of the ladder fuels would begin to break down. As trees die, small canopy openings would be created that would allow sunlight to reach the forest floor. This would in turn promote growth of brush or younger trees in the understory. Surface fuel loadings, however, would still be such that they pose a risk to the stands as they continue to both build and decay within the Johnnie stands. Mortality that doesn’t occur as a result of fire moving through the ladder fuels may instead occur due to the prolonged residence time of fire in the surface fuels, especially as those fuels accumulate at the bases of trees. Prolonged surface fire at the bases of trees can cause mortality by heating and scorching trees.
The risk of a fire starting in the planning area and spreading into private land would still be moderately high for the longer term. If mortality occurs (fire or insects), the resulting increase in fuel loadings could become a threat for both upland and riparian reserve lands in the vicinity, and could extend fire risk another five to ten years or more.
Under the no action alternative, this area would remain at a moderately high risk for losses to key ecosystem processes from wildfire, therefore FRCC would not improve. Action Alternative Thinning and fuels treatment in the Johnnie stands would help reduce the current risk of landscape-scale fire and improve the fire resiliency of the stands over the longer term. After fuels treatment, stands would resemble a FM 8, and crowns would be discontinuous. Together these conditions would allow future fires to move through the stands without completely consuming surface or canopy fuels.
Treated stands would exhibit the following surface fire behavior characteristics under the same weather parameters as used for pre-harvest fire behavior predictions: 5.1 chains per hour rates of spread, fireline intensity of 23 btu/ft/sec, and flame lengths of 1.9 feet. A fire in this fuel
211 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest model would be lower in intensity, and an engine crew could successfully contain the fire at 0.8 acres within 1½ hours of the onset of initial attack.
Canopy spacing is increased and canopy bulk density is reduced in the action alternative, which would in turn reduce the amount of fuel available to future crown fires that may move into the area. The effect of this would be that fire could still torch trees, but would have a more difficult time moving from crown to crown. Fire would be expected to drop out of the crowns and be confined to the surface fuels where direct attack can be carried out.
In treated stands, the fire risk is lowered immediately and would continue for the foreseeable future. After fuels treatments are completed, the fuel loading on the forest floor will slowly accumulate again, but it will take more than 10 years (or a major disturbance event) to build to the levels that would substantially increase the fire risk to the stands.
Ladder fuels, in the form of low branches on overstory trees, will be removed during harvest activities, primarily through breakage. Ladder fuels that may remain include understory trees and brush that survive logging operations. These fuels are not expected to contribute to future fire growth until such time as the brush layer has regrown and young understory trees are tall enough to facilitate a fire’s move from the ground to the crowns of the overstory trees.
Under the action alternative, the treated stands (approx. 3397 acres), encompassing approximately 9% of the Deadman/Francis Creek subwatershed, would be on a trajectory toward changing from FRCC 3 and 2 to FRCC 2 and 1. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for fuels is the approximate 35,711 acre Deadman/Francis Creek subwatershed, and is of sufficient size to characterize landscape-level fire behavior and events.
In the last several years there has been about 1,473 acres of pre-commercial thinning (PCT) within the subwatershed. Pre-commercial thinning reallocated growing space to fewer individual trees, increased the horizontal distance between tree crowns, and increased the vertical distance between tree crowns and the existing ground fuels. Many of these stands were also hand piled, lop and scattered, and/or pruned to further separate surface and canopy fuels and reduce surface fuel loadings. These past practices have reduced fuel loadings over about 4% of the subwatershed, reducing the risk of stand loss to potential wildfires, and changing the baseline surface fuel conditions of the managed stands, especially in those stands that were hand piled post-harvest.
The no action alternative would not contribute to this beneficial cumulative effect of reducing fuels across the landscape, as no treatment would occur. As the forest ages and current suppression policies remain in place, fuels would continue to build over the landscape. In most cases fires would be extinguished before any beneficial effects of the fire are realized. Fires that escape control have the potential to become partial or stand replacement events; this would be especially true if a long period of time lapses before an event occurs. Effects detrimental to short or long-term forest health from such fires include loss of portions of the duff/litter layer and other nutrient sources, moderately to severely burned soils, some level of loss of winter range habitat, and degraded water quality where Riparian Reserves are affected. As the potential for an uncontrollable fire builds, the potential threat to the wildland urban interface (WUI) also grows, and fire effects become more severe.
This project would result in 1 timber sale, scheduled to occur within the next 3-4 years. This project would have the beneficial cumulative effect of reducing surface and standing fuels, reducing fire risk, increasing stand resiliency to fire, and moderating future fire behavior 212 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest potential on about 3,397 acres (about 7%) of the Deadman/Francis Creek subwatershed. The proposed fuels work in this planning area would continue to improve the FRCC at the watershed scale.
213 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
214 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
HERITAGE RESOURCES RELEVANT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The affected environment for heritage resources falls within the areas of proposed activities with the potential to affect those resources (timber harvest, fuels treatment, road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning, subsoiling, landing construction, etc.). Forest Plan goals and objectives and Cultural Resource (Heritage) Standards and Guidelines are listed in Chapter IV, pages 28-30 of the Umpqua National Forest LRMP. All applicable Standards and Guidelines have been met through the inventory and evaluation of any historic or prehistoric heritage resources. All historic properties eligible to the Register of Historic Places have been avoided. A heritage resource inventory was conducted as part of the compliance process of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Johnnie Forest Management Project reconnaissance report has been completed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as required. SHPO concurrence with the Specialist’s conclusions has been received. The Johnnie cultural resources inventory and monitoring meets the criteria for Case- by Case Review required by the Programmatic Agreement44 among the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Cultural Resources Management in the State of Oregon (PA). The Umpqua National Forest sent a cover letter with the quarterly copies of the Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) to each of the Tribes. Each quarter, the cover letter highlights new projects and projects that may be of interest to the Tribes; the Johnnie Forest Management Project was identified as a new project when the project was first initiated. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians were contacted by letter. Other contacts in the form of phone calls, letters, and opportunities to participate in public tours and public meetings, and meetings at Tribal offices were also utilized to interact with the Tribes. No interest in this project was expressed by any of the tribes. Under the treaties with the Tribes, no trust resources or reserved treaty rights are given for the lands managed by the Umpqua National Forest. Therefore, no effects to trust resources or reserved treaty rights would occur with any of the alternatives.
EXISTING AND DESIRED CONDITIONS – HERITAGE RESOURCES The potential exists for unidentified heritage resources in the Johnnie project area, especially in areas where heavy shrub cover made surveying difficult. Mitigation measures described in Chapter 2 would protect undiscovered heritage resources, lowering the potential for effects to these resources. Overall, proposed project activities have met the criteria of historic properties avoided for known heritage resources. Standard contract provisions would provide for protection of heritage resources discovered during project implementation.
44 The Stipulation III (B)1 Programmatic Agreement is between the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, and the United States Forest Service, Region 6. 215 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
INDIRECT EFFECTS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – HERITAGE RESOURCES Based on the results of the heritage surveys, review and mitigation of known resources, mitigation of undiscovered sites, and consultation with tribes, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the known heritage resources as the result of implementing any of the proposed Johnnie Forest Management Project alternatives, because all known sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places occur outside of the area affected by the project. The No Action alternative would have no direct or cumulative effect on any heritage resources. Indirectly, a wildfire may have the potential to burn or damage existing heritage resources, especially if the fire was of high intensity under Alternative 1.
216 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Specifically Required and Other Disclosures Smoke Management/Air Quality
45 Standards for ambient air quality are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are designed to protect human health and welfare. Air quality can be impacted by the presence of particulate matter and other pollutants produced by both prescribed burning and wildfire.46 Although smoke from wildfire is considered a natural event by the EPA‘s Natural Events Policy (air quality standards do not apply), smoke generated from prescribed burning must meet federal and state air-quality standards set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA, Section 160). All activities associated with this project would be implemented to meet standards in the CAA.
The Forest Service is required to file a burn plan with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and would comply with its strict standards for air quality. ODEQ would not provide approval for burning when atmospheric conditions exist that may result in an inversion or other atmospheric conditions that would cause air-quality violations. ODEQ strictly regulates burning; as such, there is very little likelihood that the effects to air quality from the action alternative would exceed air quality standards, even when combined with other burning and pollution sources.
The Regional Haze Rule was designed by the EPA to call on states to establish goals for improving visibility in mandatory Class I areas and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment to these areas. At this time, Oregon does not yet have a State Implementation Strategy (SIS) to deal with regional haze or visibility impairment, and no standards currently exist.
Because prescribed burning is not a stationary source of pollutants, and because no burning associated with this project is within a non-attainment area, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and the conformity provisions (see Glossary) of the CAA are not applicable. Other air-quality impacts that may occur related to prescribed burning include: temporary and localized loss of aesthetic qualities due to visibility reduction, reduced visibility on roads causing potential safety issues, health problems for sensitive people (i.e., asthma), and human discomfort. These impacts may occur at pollutant levels that are within air-quality standards. Smoke impacts to safety, human health or visibility that occur within air-quality standards are termed “nuisance smoke”. In addition, due to concerns over potential effects to northern spotted owls in the vicinity of Unit 30, no burning would occur unless prevailing winds ensure that smoke would not be directed towards the NSO center to the north (see Wildlife Management BMP section in Chapter Two).
The closest Class I airsheds are the Diamond Peak Wilderness Area (30 mi. NE) and Crater Lake National Park (30 mi. east). The closest Class II airsheds are the Boulder Creek (17 mi. NE) and Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness areas (17 mi. east). Burning would not impact these airsheds during the July 1 to September 15 restricted period. At the time of year burning would be conducted, smoke produced would not reach these areas as sufficient heat is needed to loft smoke to the heights necessary to carry the smoke those distances. That heat would not likely be produced, as a cooler burn would be required to protect residual trees and CWD. Tiller is the main population center that could be affected by the smoke from these stands. Burn planning would require favorable winds that would carry smoke away from the town.
45 Ambient air quality is defined under the Clean Air Act of 1963 as the air quality outside of industrial site boundaries. 46 Although prescribed burning affects air quality in ways similar to wildfire, it offers some advantages over wildfire. Prescribed burning plans are developed and implemented to minimize impacts on the airshed by the consideration of atmospheric conditions, season of burn (e.g., burning is restricted between July 1 to September 15 under the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan), fuel and duff moisture, diurnal wind shifts, ignition techniques and rapid mop-up. 217 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Utilizing burning techniques that minimize consumption in the smoldering phase of combustion can directly influence emissions production. Early season (spring, early summer) burning can lessen emissions output by reducing primarily 0-3 inch fuels and leaving the majority of the duff and litter layer and larger woody material intact; these are the fuels that tend to generate the most emissions from the smoldering phase of combustion.
Through the plans and techniques described above, the health standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would likely be met. Prior to any burning, data is entered into a smoke management software program that can estimate emissions given certain weather, burn prescription and site parameters. This software is part of the Oregon Smoke Management Program, and is also used to record and document burn information for the State of Oregon.
WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS Floodplains are associated with perennial streams and vary from only a few feet to much larger areas depending on the size of the stream and the topography of the streambanks and surrounding area. Alternative 2 proposes thinning and fuel treatments in riparian areas. Alternative 2 would also include general road maintenance activities, and reconstruction of stream crossings. Most of these actions would be improvements over the existing condition by reducing erosional risks. No new occupancy of project floodplains would occur; road work would occur within the original locations. No effects to floodplains associated with timber harvest under Alternative 2 would occur since perennial streams would receive no-cut buffers. No adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to floodplains are expected to occur. The environmental effects of road reconstruction within the floodplain are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Umpqua National Forest LRMP and have been evaluated and declared in the LRMP Final EIS (March 1990). Since the activities in this project follow those Standards and Guidelines, this activity will not be declared separately for this sale. Potential impacts to wetlands are described under unique habitats in the terrestrial section and under Riparian Reserves in the aquatic section of Chapter 3. Alternative 2 is consistent with objective 7 of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which calls for the maintenance of water table elevations in meadows and wetlands. Given the design features and mitigation incorporated into Alternative 2, no adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to wetlands are anticipated under the Johnnie project action alternative. INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS No project activities occur in an Inventoried Roadless Area. No Inventory Roadless Areas are being considered or proposed in or near the project area. POTENTIAL WILDERNESS AREAS Section 1909.12, Chapter 70 of the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) addresses lands suitable for possible designation as potential wilderness areas. Areas of potential wilderness are identified using inventory criteria found in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71. This inventory of potential wilderness is not a land designation, nor does it imply or impart any particular level of management direction or protection. The inventory is not an evaluation of potential wilderness, as described in Chapter 72, or a preliminary administrative recommendation for wilderness designation, as described in Chapter 73. The inventory of potential wilderness areas does not change existing administrative boundaries.
218 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
No potential wilderness areas were identified within the Johnnie planning area boundary because this area does not meet the criteria of 1 and 3, or 2 and 3 as described in section 71.1: 1. Areas contain 5,000 acres or more. 2. Areas contain less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria: 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. 3. Areas do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, except as permitted in areas east of the 100 meridian. No potential wilderness areas were identified within the Johnnie project area boundary for the following reasons: . There are no areas within the project area boundary that contain 5,000 acres or more that do not contain forest roads; therefore criteria 1 and 3 are not met. . No elements of criteria 2 are met by or in the Johnnie project area.
There are no areas, therefore, within the Johnnie planning area that qualify for potential wilderness based on FHS 1909.12.
PRIME FARMLANDS, RANGELANDS, FORESTLANDS, AND PARKLANDS No prime farmlands, rangelands, forestlands or parklands exist within the planning area; therefore; no direct, indirect or cumulative effects would occur. CONFLICTS WITH PLANS, POLICIES, OR OTHER JURISDICTIONS Implementation of any of the alternatives would not conflict with the plans or policies of other jurisdictions, including the Tribes. This project would not conflict with any other policies, regulations, or laws, including the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Effects to air quality and compliance with the Clean Air Act are described in this chapter. POTENTIAL OR UNUSUAL EXPENDITURES OF ENERGY Alternative 2 would require expenditures of fuel for workers to access the Johnnie Timber Sale Project for use of power equipment and to utilize the logging systems. Alternative 1 would require no expenditure of fuel. No other direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are expected to occur with the action alternative. CONSUMERS, CIVIL RIGHTS, MINORITY GROUPS, AND WOMEN Contracting procedures would ensure that projects made available to contractors through this project would be advertised and awarded in a manner that gives proper consideration to minority and women-owned business groups. Because of this consideration, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to consumers, civil rights, or minority groups with implementation of any of the alternatives.
219 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. This order directs Federal agencies to address environmental justice by identifying and disclosing the effects of the proposed activities on minority and low-income populations. The effects of the alternatives on the economic conditions of the State and county are disclosed in the Economics section of this chapter. According to 2006 statistical data for Douglas County, about 7% of the population is made up of minorities. Unemployment and poverty in the county is higher than the State average. The project occurs well away from any large population center that would be directly affected by the project. Several small communities are located along the haul routes, some of which may see an increase in business during logging operations and an increase in traffic. The ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities may also contribute to log truck traffic; overall, this increase in traffic may be measurable, but would not be comparable to the logging that occurred in the area in the late 1980s. No other adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these communities are expected to occur. The stands that would be thinned have some recreational value, as described in the recreation section. Where there is dispersed recreation, the effects to those recreating in the area would be greatest. Minority groups or low-income groups that use these areas may be impacted during logging operations by the increase in log truck traffic. These groups may choose to recreate elsewhere. Adverse impacts to these groups would end when logging and other connected actions are completed. The action alternative imposes no other additional hardships on minority or low-income communities; therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to environmental justice with any action alternative. Alternatives would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any low-income or minority populations that utilize the area for recreation.
RECREATION and VISUALS Relevant Standards and Guidelines The project area is evenly divided between Management Area 10 (MA10), and Management Area 11. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification for the area is Roaded Modified (RM) with approximately 968 acres of Roaded Natural (RN). According to the LRMP, the large majority of the project area has a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Maximum Modification. There are small areas designated by the Forests VQO of Modification, and smaller areas of Partial Retention. The VQO of maximum modification allows management activities of vegetative and landform alterations to dominate the landscape. In areas with a VQO of modification, management activities may visually dominate the landscape; however, roads and visible remnants from logging such as slash and stumps, etc should remain visually subordinate to the landscape. Management actions in areas with a VQO of partial retention are to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. The project area has no potential wilderness areas or designated Inventoried Roadless Areas. Visual Standards and Guidelines are listed on pages IV 19 – to IV 26 in the LRMP. There are no inventoried sensitivity level 1 or 2 (visually sensitive) routes, water bodies, or use areas in the project area. Existing and Desired Conditions – Recreation and Visuals Management area 10 provides for the production of timber on a cost efficient, sustainable basis consistent with other resource values.
220 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Currently there is a motorized tour route within the project area. This tour route is called the Canyonville-Myrtle Creek tour route and provides a scenic loop / drive opportunity for the forest user. There are no designated hiking trails within the Johnnie planning area. Other recreation activities include; dispersed camping, hunting, fuel wood cutting, and Christmas tree harvesting. Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects – Recreation and Visuals Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the recreation experience due to no changes in the current conditions. Alternative 2 would have some direct effect on the visual opportunities along the tour route. Currently many of the designated view points are overgrown, this alternative would have some direct improvements on visibility opportunities within the Johnnie planning area. Management activities will be visible from parts of the Canyonville-Myrtle Creek tour route in the short term. This visual disturbance will be short term and is consistent with the management prescription for the area. The LMRP states in Chapter IV page 26 “The appearance of non- viewsheds (those areas not seen from important travel routes and use areas, particularly in Management units 10, 11, and 12) will be heavily altered to the extent that definite human-made patterns will dominate the landscape. The Visual Quality Objective that dominates the acreage of the project and the thinning units is maximum modification. This designation does not distinguish distance zones, and instead includes all zones with a site specific analysis of suggested range openings (acres) and a maximum percentage of created openings at one time at 33%. Management prescriptions for the project meet these objectives. A small acreage of thinning units fall within the VQO of modification. The suggested range of opening size in the foreground (0-500’) is up to 1.5 acres and a maximum percentage opening of 15%. Middleground (500’+) has a suggested site specific analysis for range of opening size and a maximum percentage of created openings at any one time at 25%. Background also has a suggested site specific analysis for range of opening size and a maximum percentage of created openings at any one time at 30%. There will be short term visual effects, specifically during project implementation, but these effects will diminish quickly and likely reverse as line of site distances increase after thinning and more opportunities for scenic viewing will occur. In addition, the Johnnie project thinning activities are likely to increase other recreational opportunities such as hunting, wildlife watching, and general nature viewing.
221 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
222 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
CHAPTER 4 Consultation with Others
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement for the Johnnie Forest Management Project began with the mailing of the scoping notice in June, 2011 to approximately 65 members of the public. The scoping notice described project components and queried interest in one of two field trips to be held. The field trips were scheduled for June 27th, with the second scheduled for July 9th 2011. Four individuals attended the first fieldtrip and no one attended the second fieldtrip. Two comment letters were received, both during the formal scoping period. An additional letter was received prior to predecision notice and comment period. The Tribal governments (Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Confederated Tribe of the Grand Ronde Indians, and the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians) were sent a letter describing the project and soliciting issues. The Johnnie Forest Management Project record contains a detailed scoping summary that describes Forest Service outreach efforts, the scoping comments received for the project, and how the Forest Service addressed scoping comments in the Johnnie Forest Management Project EA.
AGENCY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION The regulatory agencies charged with overseeing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), were consulted and communicated with as appropriate during the planning process. No formal consultation was required with NMFS, as this project is expected to have no effect to ESA aquatic species.
223 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM The following people are members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) that participated in the preparation or review of all or part of this environmental assessment:
Amy Rusk Hydrologist Bev Reed/Terri Brown Fire/Fuels Specialist Chris Kelly Archaeologist David Baker Co-Project Lead/Botanist Patrick Murphy Co-Project Lead/Silviculturist Chuck Borg Logging Systems Specialist Greg Orton Soil and Climate Change Specialist Julie Merritt Forest Bridge Engineer Rob Cox Wildlife Biologist Linda Spencer Forest Roads Manager Mike Gebben Geographic Information Systems Specialist Bob Nichols Fisheries Biologist Steve Nelson Economics
In addition, the following people assisted in developing the proposal or in the editing and review of this document:
Donna Owens District Ranger, Line Officer Donni Vogel Environmental Coordinator Joyce Thompson Planning and Products Staff Officer Josh Chapman Forest Wildlife Biologist Pete LaDuke Forestry Technician Joel Detlef Forestry Technician Terri Brown Fire Management Officer
224 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
GLOSSARY OF TERMS Crown fire is a forest fire that advances with great speed jumping from crown to crown of trees ahead of the ground fire burning in surface fuels. Hand pile burning is accomplished with hand crews where slash is piled in relatively small piles and burned under moist conditions. Lop and scatter is a fuel treatment where hand crews use chainsaws to cut and scatter activity fuel to a depth of 12 inches or less. Fuels closer to the ground would either decay faster, or if burned, would produce lower flame lengths and make fires easier to control. Machine piling is done by a small excavator that picks up and piles slash in large piles, which are later burned during moist conditions. Resilience is the capacity of a system to undergo change and still retain its basic function and structure. In other words, it’s the capacity to undergo some change without crossing a threshold into a different…regime. (Walker 2008) Underburning is the burning of logging slash after a thinning where slash is burned in place rather than being redistributed by machines or hand crews. Crown or canopy base height is the lowest point to which branches reach. Fuel loading refers to the amount of fuel present in terms of weight per unit area. Fuels are expressed by size and by hours required to dry. . 0” – .24” or 1 hour fuels . .25” – .99” or 10 hour fuels . 1.0” – 2.99” or 100 hour fuels . ≥3.0” or 1000 hour fuels
Fire Regime – describes the historic role of fire on the landscape. Fire regimes for Oregon and Washington are from the 1999 National Fire Strategy and are redefined for Region 6 based on common severity type and the frequency of that expression on the landscape.
Fire regime Frequency Severity group for R6 (Fire return interval)
I 0-35 years Low severity (underburn)
II 0-35 years High severity (stand-replacing)
III A < 50 years Mixed severity
III B 50-100 years Mixed severity
III C 100-200 Mixed severity years 225 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
IV A 35-100 years High severity (stand-replacement), juxtaposed
IV B 100+ years High severity (stand-replacing), patchy arrangement
IV C 100-200 High severity (stand-replacement) years
V. A 200-400 High severity years (stand-replacing)
V B 400+ years High severity (stand-replacing)
V C No Fire
V D Non-forest
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) describes the degree of departure of current vegetation from the historic fire regime (Hann, et.al. 2003).
FRCC 1 . Fire regimes near historic range (departure is no more than one return interval) . A low risk of losing key ecosystem components . Vegetation attributes are functioning within historical range FRCC 2 . Fire regimes have been moderately altered from historical range; moderate changes in fire size and intensity has resulted . Moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components . Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered . FRCC 3 . Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range; dramatic changes in fire size and severity has resulted . Severe loss of ecosystem components . Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered
226 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
REFERENCES Agee, J. K. &. Skinner, K.C. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. Elsevier, B.V. www.elsevier.com/locate/ Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Agee, J. K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. Vol. 72, pp. 24-34. Agee, J. K. 2002. Fire behavior and fire-resilient forests. Fire in Oregon forests: risks, effects, and treatment options. Oregon Forest Resources Institute. Agee, James K. 2002. The scope of the problem. Fire in Oregon forests: risks, effects, and treatment options. Oregon Forest Resources Institute. http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/prbo/orwapif/ Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Prepared for: Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. March 1999. http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/prbo/orwapif/ Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. GTR- INT-122. Ogden, Utah. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Anderson, L. S., J. P. Perkins, J. T. Thrailkill, N. J. Poage & J. C. Tappeiner (2005) Silvicultural approaches to develop northern spotted owl nesting sites, central coast ranges, Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 20, 13-27. Andrews, L.S., J.P. Perkins, J.T. 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. Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White and others. 2004. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Final report to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 179pp. Anthony, R.G., Forsman, E.D., Green, G.A., Witmer, G. & S.K. Nelson. 1987. Small mammal populations in riparian zones of different-aged coniferous forests. The Murrelet 68, 94– 102. Arnett, E. & J.P. Hayes. 2002. Influence of landscape characteristics on abundance and use of habitat by bat communities in the central Oregon Cascades. Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research Program - CFER annual report. Corvallis, OR p.51-53. Ashton, D.T., A.J. Lind, and K.E. Schlick. 1997. Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) Natural History. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Aubry, K. B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennant) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation. 114(1): 79-90. BASC. (2010) Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate.Retrieved from http://www.dels.nas.edu/basc/ Beschta, R. L., J. R. Boyle, C. C. Chambers, W. P. Gibson, S. V. Gregory, J. Grizzel, J. C. Hagar, J. L. Li, W. C. McComb, T. W. Parzybok, M. L. Reiter, G. H. Taylor & J. E. Warila. 1995. Cumulative effects of forest practices in Oregon: literature and synthesis. ed. O. D. o. Forestry. Salem, Oregon. Bate, Lisa J. 1995. Monitoring woodpecker abundance and habitat in the central Oregon Cascades. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 116 p. M.S. thesis Bilby, R. E. & J. W. Ward (1989) Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with increasing size of stream in Western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 118, 368-378.
227 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Biswell, B., M. Blow, R. Breckel, L. Finley & J. Lint, 2002. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole,Arborimus longicaudus. Attachment to U.S.D.A.-Forest Service and U.S.D.I.- Bureau of Land Management Memorandum 1630/1736-PFP [BLM-OR931]P, 1920/2600 [FS], BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-037). Version 2.1. October Bolander, P. 1999. Dust palliative selection and application guide. Project Report 9977-1207- SDTDC., 20. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center . Boyd, J., B. Naylor, & M. Rowland, August 2010, Nutrition modeling for westside elk, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, La Grande, OR Brady, N. C. 1990. The nature and properties of soils. New York: Macmillan. Brown, E. R., tech. ed. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. Vol. 1 and 2. USDA Forest. Service., Pacific Northwest Region Publication R6-F&WL-192-1985. 634 pp. Brown, G., A. R. Gahler & R. B. Marston. 1973. Nutrient losses after clear-cut logging and slash burning in the Oregon coast range. In Water Resources Research, 1450–1453. Brown, R. C. 1991. Effects of timber management practices on elk. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Resources Branch Technical Report No. 10. Bull, E.L, T.W. Heater, & A. Youngblood. 2004. Arboreal squirrel response to silvicultural treatment for dwarf mistletoe control in northeastern Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 19:133-141 Bull, E.L. & M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR- 265. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39 p. Bull, E.L. &. C. Meslow 1977. Habitat requirements of the Pileated Woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 75, N0. 6 June 1977. p335-337. Burke, T.E. 1998. Conservation Assessment for Deroceras hesperium, Evening fieldslug. Revised by N. Duncan 2005. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning- docs/20050900-moll-evening-fieldslug.doc Carey, A.B. & C.A. Harrington. 2001. Small mammals in young forests: implications for management for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management 154:289-309. Carey, A.B. & M.L. Johnson. 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old- growth forests. Ecological Applications 5:336-352. Carey, A.B. 1995. Spotted owls ecology: theory and methodology - a reply to Rosenberg et al. Ecology 76(2):648-652. Carey, A.B. 2000 Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecological Applications 10: 248-257. Carey, A.B. 2003. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: Inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry 76(2):127-136. Carey, A.B. et al. 1999. Ecological scale and forest development: squirrels, dietary fungi, and vascular plants in managed and unmanaged forests. Wildlife Monographs, No. 142. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1999. Carey, A.B., S.P. Horton,& B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and landscape character. Ecological Monographs. 62, 223-250. Chan, Samuel S.; David Bailey, Margaret; Karnes, Daniel; Metzger, Robert; Kastner, Walter W., Jr. 1997. The Role of Silviculture in the Active Management of Riparian Zone Vegetation in the Oregon Coast Range: A Partnership between Researchers and Managers. Communicating the role of silviculture in managing the national forests: Proceedings of the National Silviculture Workshop. 1997 May 19-22; Warren, PA.: Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-238. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 190-197.
228 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Chan, S. S., D. J. Larson, K. G. Maas-Hebner, W. H. Emmingham, S. R. Johnston & D. A. Mikowski (2006) Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted in Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. NRC Canadian Journal of Forest Resources, 36, 2696-2711. Chornesky, E.A.; A.M. Bartuska; G.H. Aplet; K.O. Britton; J. Cummings-Carlson; F.W. Davis; J. Eskow; D.R. Gordon; K.W. Gottschalk; & R.A. Haack. 2005. Science priorities for reducing the threat of invasive species to sustainable forestry. BioScience 55(4): 335-348. Cipollini, M.L., B.G. Drake, & D. Whigham. 1993. Effects of elevated CO2 on growth and carbon/nutrient balance in the deciduous wood shrub Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume (Lauraceae). Oecologia 96: 339-346. Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, & L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004. Christner, J. 1981. Changes in peak streamflows from managed areas of the Willamette National Forest. 28. Eugene, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Willamette National Forest. Cipollini, M.L., B.G. Drake, & D. Whigham. 1993. Effects of elevated CO2 on growth and carbon/nutrient balance in the deciduous wood shrub Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume (Lauraceae). Oecologia 96: 339-346. Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H.; J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, & J.M. Scot (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 873 pp Curtis, P.S., B.G. Drake, and D.F. Whigham. 1989. Nitrogen and carbon dynamics in C3 and C4 estuarine marsh plants grown under elevated CO2 in situ. Oecologia 78: 297-301. Cristy, R.E. & S.D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-308. 27pp. Crookston, N.L. 1997. Suppose: An Interface to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. In: R. Teck, M. Moeur, and J. Adams. 1997. Proceedings: Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference. February 3-7,1997. Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-373. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Cross, S.P., H. Lauchstedt & C. Harmes. 1996. Characterizing forest roost sites of some bats of special concern occurring in Roseburg and Medford BLM Districts. Final Report – Department of Biology. Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, OR. 47pp Dale, Lisa, April 2010. The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. www.wflcweb.org Davis, R. and J. Lint. 2005. Chapter 3: Habitat Status and Trend. In Lint, Joseph, tech. coord. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan the first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-648. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 176 p. Dose, J. J. & B. B. Roper. 1994. Long-term changes in wetted low-flow channel widths within the South Umpqua Watershed, Oregon., 993-1000. Water Resources Bulletin.
229 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Dukes, J.S. & , H.A. Mooney 2004. Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by invasive species. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 77: 411- 437.
Duncan, N. 2004. Conservation Assessments for Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris), Oregon Shoulderband (Helminthoglypta hertleini), and Chace Sideband (Monadenia chaceana). USDA For. Serv. and USDI BLM. Roseburg, OR. Executive Order 13514—Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 194 /Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Presidential Documents. FEMAT. 1994. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. Foltz, R. B., N. S. Copeland & W. J. Elliot (2009) Reopening abandoned forest roads in northern Idaho, USA: quantification of runoff, sediment concentration, infiltration, and interrill erosion parameters. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2542-2550. Franklin J.F. , T.A.Spies, R. Van Pelt, A.B. Carey, D.A. Thornburg, D.R. Berg, D.B. Lindenmayer, M.E. Harmon, W.S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible,& J. Chen. 2002. Disturbance and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:) 399-423. Franklin J.F., F. Hall, W. Laudenslayer, C. Maser, J. Nunan, J. Poppino, CJ. Ralph, & T. Spies 1986. Interim definitions for old growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. Res. Note. PNW-RN-447. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15p. Garman S.L., J.H. Cissel, and J.H. Mayo. 2003. Accelerating development of late-successional conditions in young managed Douglas-fir stands: A simulation study. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-557. Gebert, Krista M., and Charles E. Keegan III, Sue Willits, Al Chase, April 2002. Utilization of Oregon’s Timber Harvest and Associated Direct Economic Effects, 1998. Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-532. Gilbert, F.F. & R. Allwine. 1991. Spring bird communities in the Oregon Cascade Range. Pp. 145-158 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff (tech. coords.). Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-285. Graham, R.T. S. Mcaffrey & T.B. Jain 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p. Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain, & J.R. Tonn.1999.The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Hagar, J., Howlin, S. & Ganio, L. 2004. Short-term response of songbirds to experimental thinning of young Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 199: 333-347. Hagar, J.C., W.C. McComb, & W.H. Emmingham. 1996. Bird communities in commercially thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(2):353–366.
230 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Hann, Wendel, Havlina, Doug, Shlisky, Ayn, et al. 2003. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy Fire Regime Condition Class website .USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management [frcc.gov] Harr, D., A. Levno & R. Mersereau (1982) Streamflow Changes After Logging 130-Year-Old Douglas Fir in Two Small Watersheds. Water Resources Research, 18, 637-644. Harr, R. D. & R. L. Fredricksen. 1988. Streamflow after patch logging in small drainages within the Bull Run Municipal Watershed, Oregon. In Res. Pap. PNW-RP-268. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Harr, R. D. 1979. Effects of timber harvest on streamflow in the rain-dominated portion of the Pacific Northwest. In Proceedings from a workshop on scheduling timber harvest for hydrological concerns, 45. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Hayes, J.P., J.M. Weikel, & M.M.P. Huso. 2003. Response of birds to thinning in young Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications: Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 1222–1232. Hellamann, J.J.; J.E. Byers; B.G. Bierwagen; & J.S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3): 534-543. Hebers, J., & W. Klenner. 2007. Effects of logging pattern and intensity on squirrel demography. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1670-1682 Hicks, B., R. Beschta & D. Harr (1991) Long-term changes in streamflow following logging in Western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resources Bulletin, 27. Hood, S. M. 2010 Mitigating old tree mortality in long-unburned, fire-dependent forests: A synthesis. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR-238 Holaday, S. 1992. Summertime Water Temperature Trends in Steamboat Creek Basin Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Holland, D. C. 1991. A synopsis of the ecology and status of the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Prepared for the USFWS, National Ecology Research Center, San Simeon Field Station. Irwin, L.L., D.F. Rock, & G.P. Miller 2000. Stand structures used by northern spotted owls in managed forests. Journal of Raptor Research. 34(3):175-186 IMPLAN 2000. IMPLAN Professional, Version 2.0, June, 2000. Social Accounting and Impact Analysis Software. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Stillwater, MN Jefferson, A., G. Grant, & T. Rose. 2006. Influence of volcanic history on groundwater patterns on the west slope of the Oregon High Cascades, Water Resources Research, 42, W12411, doi:10.1029/2005Wr004812. Johnson, H.B., H.W. Polley, & H.S. Mayeux. 1993. Increasing CO2 and plant-plant interactions: effects on natural vegetation. Vegetatio 104/105: 157-170. Johnston, N. T., S. A. Bird, D. L. Hogan & E. A. MacIsaac (2011) Mechanisms and source distances for the input of large woody debris to forested streams in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forestry Resources, 41, 2231-2246. 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, 2621-2642. Jones, J. A. & G. E. Grant (1996) Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resource Research, 32, 974-959.
231 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Jones, J. A. & D. A. Post (2004) Seasonal and successional streamflow response to forest cutting and regrowth in the northwest and eastern United States. Water Resources Research, 40, 19. Keisker, D. G. 2000. Types of wildlife trees and coarse woody debris required by wildlife of north-central British Columbia., ed. B. C. M. o. Forests. Kerwin, A.E. and R. Huff. 2007. Conservation Assessment for the Mardon Skipper (Polities mardon). Version 1.0. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning- docs/ca-iile-poma-2007-05-16.doc Kruzic, L.M. 1998. Ecology of juvenile coho salmon within the upper South Umpqua River basin, Oregon. Mater's thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. Lal, R. 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecology & Management. 220 (2005) 242-258. Larkin J.L., J.J. Cox, M.W. Wichrowski, M.R. Dzialak, & D.S. Maehr 2004. Influences on release-site fidelity of translocated elk. Restoration Ecology, 12: 1, pp. 97-105 Lehmkuhl, J.F., K. D. Kistler, J. S. Begley, & J. Boulanger .2006. Demography of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior forests. Ecological Applications: Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 584-600. Lindh, B.C. and P.S. Muir. 2004. Understory vegetation in young Douglas-fir forests: Does thinning help restore old-growth composition? Forest Ecology and Management 192: 285-296. Lindo, Z. & S. Visser (2003) Microbial biomass, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization, and mesofauna in boreal conifer and deciduous forest floors following partial and clear-cut harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33. Lint, J., technical coordinator. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan – the first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. PNW-GTR-648, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Luce, C. H. (1997) Effectiveness of Road Ripping in Restoring Infiltration Capacity of Forest Roads. Restoration Ecology, 5, 265-270. MacDonald, L. H., A. W. Smart & R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. In EPA/910-9-91- 001. Seattle, WA.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, & A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 Pp. Maxwell, W. G. & Franklin R. Ward. 1980. Photo series for quantifying natural forest residues in common vegetation types of the Pacific Northwest. GTR-PNW-105. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest, Forest and Range Experiment Station. McDade, M. H., F. J. Swanson, W. A. Mckee, J. F. Franklin & J. V. Sickle (1990) Source distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 20, 326-330. Mellen-Mclean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, And Tina 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. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml Messier, M., J. Shatford & D. Hibbs (2011) Fire exclusion effects on riparian forest dynamics in southwestern Oregon. Forest Ecology Management, 264, 60-71. Montgomery, D. R. (1994) Road Surface Drainage, Channel Initiation and Surface Instability. Water Resources Research, 30, 1925-1932.
232 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Montgomery, D. R., B. D. Collins, J. M. Buffington & T. B. Abbe (2003) Geomorphic Effects of Wood in Rivers. American Fisheries Society Symposium. Morrison, M.L. 1982. The structure of western warbler assemblages: ecomorphological analysis of the black- throated gray and hermit warblers. The Auk 99:503-513.Group, University of Washington, Seattle. Mote P. 2001. How and why is Northwest climate changing? : JISAO/SMA Climate Effects Group, Box 35435, Univ. of Wash. 98195
Mote, P.W. and 18 co-authors. 1999. Effects of climate variability and change: Pacific Northwest. A report of the Pacific Northwest Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. JISAO/SMA Climate Effects Group, University of Washington, Seattle. Muir, P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner II, 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. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR–2002-0006. 76 pp. Murphy, M. L. & 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., T.J. Beechie, L.E. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D. O’Connor, P.L. Olson, & E.A. Steel. 1990 Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2000. Climate change effects on the United States: The potential consequences of climate variability and change. US Global Change Research Program. Washington, D.C. 154pp. NWCC 2008. Annual Fire Report, Pacific Northwest Area, 2008. Northwest Interagency Coordination Center. http://www.nwccweb.us/index.aspx NWCC 2010. Annual Fire Report, Pacific Northwest Area, 2010. Northwest Interagency Coordination Center. http://www.nwccweb.us/index.aspx ODEQ. 2003. Designated Beneficial Uses, Umpqua Basin. ODEQ. 1998. Final 2002 303(d) Database. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. ---. 2003. Designated Beneficial Uses, Umpqua Basin. ---. 2006. Umpqua basin total maximum daily load (TMDL) and water quality management plan (WQMP). ed. O. D. o. E. Quality. Medford, Oregon. O’Farrell, M.J. and E.H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. Mammalian Species 137:1-5. Ohmann, J. L., & K. L. Waddell. 2002. Regional patterns of dead wood in forested habitats of Oregon and Washington. pp 535-560. In: Laudenslayer, William F., Jr.; Valentine, Brad; Weatherspoon, C. Philip; Lisle, Thomas E., technical coordinators. Oliver C.D. and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 520 pp. Opler P.A. 1999. A field guide to western butterflies. Peterson Field Guide. Hughton Miffin Co. New York, New York. 540 p.
233 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2006. Umpqua basin total maximum daily load (TMDL) and water quality management plan (WQMP). ed. O. D. o. E. Quality. Medford, Oregon. Oregon Department of Forestry 2012. Log Price Information, Regions 2 & 3 – Coos (Coos, Curry, Douglas Counties & Roseburg Market). Oregon Department of Forestry. Available at: http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/TIMBER_SALES/ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2006. Umpqua basin total maximum daily load (TMDL) and water quality management plan (WQMP). ed. O. D. o. E. Quality. Medford, Oregon. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1979. Oregon Visibility Protection Plan. OAR 340-200-0040. Oregon Department of Forestry. 1995. Oregon Smoke management Plan. Amended. ORS 477.515. OLMIS 2012. Oregon Labor Market Information System. Oregon Employment Department. www.olmis.org Local Area Employment Statistics, Douglas County, 2012. OMB A-94. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-94. October 29, 1992, revised 1999. Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. Ormsbee, Pat. 2003. Personal Communication,10-17-2003. Bats Peterson, D., M. Johnson, J. Agee, T. Jain, D. McKenzie & E. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States. ed. U. F. Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PIF. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. 111 p. Pyke, C.R.; R. Thomas; R.D. Porter; J.J. Hellmann; J.S. Duke; D.M. Lodge; & G. Chavarria. 2008. Current practices and future opportunities for policy on climate change and invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3): 585-592. Powell, D. C., V. A. Rockwell, J. A. Townsely, J. Booser, S. P. Bulkin, T. H. Martin, B. Obedzinski & F. Zensen. 2001. Forest Density Management. ed. USDA. Pacific Northwest Region. Prescott, C. E. (2002) The influence of the forest canopy on nutrient cycling. Tree Physiology, 22, 1193-1200. Pyle. R.M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia. A field guide to all the species of Washington, Oregon, and surrounding territories. Seattle Audubon Society. 420.pp. Reinhardt, E.D., Keane, R.E., Calkin, D.E., Cohen, & J.D. 2008. Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256, 1997-2006 Ragon 2003. Pers. Comm. Rathbun, G. B., N. J. Scott, & T. G. Murphey. 2002. Terrestrial habitat use by Pacific pond turtles in a Mediterranean climate. Southwestern Naturalist 47(2):225–235. Reese, D. A., & H. H. Welsh. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles, Clemmys marmorata: implications for management. pp 352-357 in J. Van Abbema, editor. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles--an International Conference. State University of New York. Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, & 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.
234 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, & M. A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of roads on elk: Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press. Roper, B. B. 1995. Ecology of Anadromous Salmonids within the Upper South Umpqua River Basin, Oregon. Doctoral Thesis. University of Idaho. Rogers, Jr., H.H.; D.H. Gjerstad ; G.B. Runion; S.A. Prior; A.J. Price; E. Van Santen; & H.A. Torbert III. 2005. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on invasive weed species in managed terrestrial ecosystems of the southeastern U.S. Southeastern Regional Center, National Institute for Global Environmental Change, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. 4 pp.
Rogers, Jr., H.H.; G.B. Runion; S.A. Prior; A.J. Price; H.A. Torbert III; & D.H. Gjerstad. 2008a. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on invasive plants: comparison of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L. and C. esculentus L.). Journal of Environmental Quality 37: 395-400. Ryan M.G., M. E. Harmon, R. A. Birdsey, C. P. Giardina,L. S. Heath, R. A. Houghton, R. B. Jackson, D. C. McKinley,J. F. Morrison, B. C. Murray, D. E. Pataki, & K. E. Skogl. 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for U.S. forests. Ecology, No. 13 (spring 2010). Ryan, R.L. Social Science to improve fuels management: “A synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuels management”. GTR-NC-261. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 58 p. Sakai, H.F.;& Noon, B.R. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in northwestern California Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):373-382. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD Scott, Joe H. & Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models; A comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. RMRS-GTR-153. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr153 Scheuering, E. 2006. Fact Sheet for the Coronis Fritillary (Speyeria coronis coronis). January 10, 2006. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/sfs-iile- speyeria- coronis-coronis.doc Schwendeman, T. 1981. Dust Control Study. ed. USDA. USDA Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, USFS Region 1. Smith, S.D.; T.E. Huxman; S.F. zitzer; T.N. Charlet; D.C. Housman; J.S. Coleman; L.K. Fenstermaker; J.R. Seemann; & R.S. Nowak. 2000. Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive species success in an arid ecosystem. Nature 408:79- 82. Sollins, P., C. C. Grier, F. M. McCorison, K. Cromack, Jr., R. Fogel & R. L. Fredriksen (1980) The Internal Element Cycles of an Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Ecosystem in Western Oregon. Ecological Monographs, 50, 261-285. Sollins, P. & F. M. McCorison (1981) Nitrogen and Carbon solution chemistry of an old growth coniferous forest watershed before and after cutting. Water Resources Research, 17, 1409-1418. Stockmann, Keith, and James Burchfield, Dave Calkin, Tyron Venn, 2010. Guiding preventative wildland fire mitigation policy and decisions with an economic modeling system. Forest Policy and Economics. 235 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
Storck, P., T. Kern & S. Bolton (1999) Measurement of differences in snow accumulation, melt, and micrometeorology due to forest harvesting. Northwest Science, 73, 87-101. Stone, T 2007. Species Fact Sheet for the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus). September 14, 2007. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning- docs/sfs-vert-bi-Histrionicus-histrionicus-2007-09-14.doc Swanson, F. & D. Swanston, 1976, Timber harvesting, mass erosion, and steep land forest geomorphology in the Pacific Northwest: in, Donald R. Coates, ed., Geomorphology. Tappeiner et al, 1997. Density, ages and growth rates in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 27:638-648). Tausch, R.J. 2008. Invasive plants and climate change. (May 20, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/invasive-plants.shtml Taylor, K., & C. Potvin. 1997. Understanding the long-term effect of CO2 enrichment on a pasture: the importance of disturbance. Canadian Journal of Botany 75(10): 1621-1627. Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, & J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. A Report by the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Portland, Oregon. 427pp. Thomas, J.W., H. Black, Jr., R.J. Scherzinger, & R.J. Pedersen. 1979. Deer and Elk. Chapter 8 In: J.W. Thomas (tech. ed.). Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553 Thomas, R. B. & 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, 3393-3403. USDA. 1990a. Standard and Guideline Procedures for Watershed Cumulative Effects and Water Quality., ed. U. N. F. USDA Forest Service. Roseburg, OR: Umpqua National Forest. ---. 1990b. Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and FEIS., ed. P. N. R. USDA Forest Service. Roseburg, OR.: Umpqua National Forest. ---. 1995. Dumont Creek Watershed Analysis. ed. U. F. Service. Tiller, OR: Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger District. ---. 1996. Buckeye/Zinc Watershed Analysis. ed. U. F. Service. Tiller, OR: Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger District. ---. 1997a. Deadman/Francis Watershed Analysis. ed. U. F. Service. Tiller, OR: Umpqua National Forest, Tiller Ranger District. ---. 1997b. Monitoring records (1993-1997) for unacceptable soil conditions, effective ground cover, and lanrge wood material following skyline and tractor harvest, and broadcast burning in clearcut, thinned and unmanaged stands., ed. U. F. Service. Roseburg, OR: Umpqua National Forest. ---. 1999. Roads Analysis - Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. ed. U. F. Service. Washington Office. ---. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan. Washington, DC. 21pp ---. 2008. Regional Forester’s special status species list. Pacific Northwest Region, July, Portland, Oregon.
236 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
USDA Forest Service. 1976. Umpqua National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. Pacific Northwest Region. Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, OR. USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Portland, OR.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest (Region 6). Referred to as R6 2005 FEIS. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Referred to as R6 2005 ROD http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/FEIS.htm USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, January 13, 2009 WO memo. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Informal conference FY2013. Batch One Ongoing Timber Sale and Fuels Projects in Proposed 2012 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat. Umpqua National Forest October 24,2012. USDA Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Oregon Agricultural Experimental Station. 1973. Soil Survey, South Umpqua Area, Oregon. Umpqua National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. Pacific Northwest Region. Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, OR. USDA/USDI. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-succesional and old-growth species within the range of the northern spotted owl., ed. U. B. o. L. M. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C. ---. 1994b. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl: Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old- growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. ---. 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, Oregon. ---. 2004. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan. ---. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy ---. 2010. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy. ed. USDI. B. o. L. M. USDA Forest Service. USDI. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 10:1796-1838. January 15, 1992. USDI. 2008a. Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. xii + 142pp. USDI. 2008b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; final rule. 50 CFR Part 17, Federal Register, August 13, 2008. Pages 47326- 47522. USDI. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Contributors: Kelley, R., S. Dowlan, N. Duncan, and T. Burke. June of 1999. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/Field_Guide/Terrestrial_Mollusk/Terrestri al_Guide.pdf
237 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for the Mardon Skipper (Polities mardon). http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20040719-mardon- skipper.pdf USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Form for Martes pennanti, Fisher. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning- docs/20040816-fisher.pdf USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 2008. Methodology for estimating the number of northern spotted owls affected by proposed federal actions. Version 2.0. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Vanderwel, M.C., J.R. Malcolm, and S.C. Mills. 2007. A meta-analysis of bird responses to uniform partial harvesting across North America. Conservation Biology 21(5):1230– 1240. Verts, B.J. & L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. Univ. of California Press, Berkley, CA. 800pp. Weasma, T.R. 1998. Conservation Assessment for Helminthoglypta hertlieni, Oregon Shoulderband. Reconfigured by N. Duncan, 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/20050713-moll-oregon- shoulderband.doc Weller, T.J. & C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed myotis day roosts in northern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(3):489-497 Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones & G. E. Grant (1996) Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 32, 1195-1207. White, D.E., T. Atzet, P.A. Martinez & L.A. McCrimmon. 2002. Dead wood and fire relationships in southwestern Oregon western hemlock forests. In W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., P.J. Shea, B.E. Valentine, C.P. Weatherspoon and T.E. Lisle (Ed.). Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests, 2-4 November 1999, Reno, Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181:479-487 Wisdom, M.J., B.K. Johnson, M. Vavra, J.M. Boyd, J.M. Boyd, P.K. Coe, J.G. Kie, A.A. Ager & N.J. Cimon. 2005. In, Wisdom, M.J. (technical editor). 2005. The Starkey Project, A synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence, KA. 252 p. Wilson, T. 2010. Limiting factors for northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) in the Pacific Northwest: a spatio-temporal analysis. Disseration, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio. Ziska, L.H. 2003. Evaluation of the growth response of six invasive species to past, present and future atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Experimental Botany 54(381): 395-404. Ziska, L.H., S. Faulkner, & J. Lydon. 2004. Changes in biomass and root:shoot ration of field-grown Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), a noxious, invasive weed, with elevated CO2: implications for control with glyphosate. Weed Science 52:584- 588
238 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest
239 Johnnie Forest Management Project Tiller Ranger District Umpqua National Forest