Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Lower South Fork Mckenzie River Floodplain Enhancement Project

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Lower South Fork McKenzie River Floodplain Enhancement Project

USDA Forest Service

McKenzie River Ranger District Willamette National Forest

Lane County, OR

The project area encompasses approximately 784 acres, located off Forest Road 19 below Cougar Dam, approximately 4 miles east of the community of Blue River, Oregon (Figures 1 and 2). About 687 acres of the project area are located within the Cougar Creek-South Fork McKenzie River sub- watershed of the South Fork McKenzie River watershed and 97 acres are located within the Elk Creek-McKenzie River sub-watershed of the Quartz Creek-McKenzie River watershed. The project area is defined as the South Fork McKenzie River from the base of Cougar Dam to the confluence with the McKenzie River (approximately 4.2 miles). This area includes the main stem channel and all current and historic side channels and floodplain as well as some access roads and staging sites. Most of the project area is under Forest Service ownership, except for approximately 31 acres owned by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The legal location is: T16S, R4E, S23 and S24; T16S, R4.5E, S24 and S25; T16S, R5E, S19, S30, and S31; Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon.

Introduction The purpose of the project is to:

1. Restore to the extent practicable the physical, chemical, and biological processes that maintain a healthy, diverse, and resilient floodplain ecosystem. 2. Restore a hydrologically connected, well-functioning, complex channel network and floodplain. 3. Increase habitat availability, diversity, and quality for ESA-Threatened spring Chinook salmon and bull trout and other native aquatic and riparian species, including Pacific lamprey, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Pacific pond turtle, harlequin duck, and American beaver. There is a need to restore the broad alluvial valleys of the lower South Fork McKenzie River because: (1) existing conditions are severely degraded, as described in the following section, (2) the project area presents the opportunity to restore high value floodplain habitat, (3) and we are guided to restore aquatic and riparian habitat based on the Forest Plan, Northwest Forest Plan, Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans, and other important guiding documents.

This project also analyzes the recommendations of the Forest level travel analysis process and the accompanying travel analysis report known as the Willamette National Forest Road Investment Strategy (USDA, 2015). A high-level GIS-based analysis was done at the Forest level to evaluate both risk and need for every road in the project area. This project's interdisciplinary team (IDT) looked at

1 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact these recommendations as part of analysis for this project. Final recommendations made by the IDT and approved by the decision maker as part of this NEPA process would amend the Forest's long-term sustainable (minimum) road system as required by Travel Management direction (USDA, 2012). See Road Decommissioning and Storage in Section 2.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action for description of proposed transportation treatments. The Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the analysis of two alternatives to meet this need.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the analysis of two alternatives (action and no action) to meet this need.

Decision and Reasons for the Decision Based upon my review of all alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 will:

 Remove up to 54 acres (approximately 400,000-500,000 cubic yards) of artificial levees, fill, and riprap and other natural sediment deposits within the floodplain

 Redistribute sediment into approximately 49 acres of currently incised channels to raise stream bed elevation

 Place approximately 4,000-5,000 pieces of large woody material (12-48 inches diameter) throughout the floodplain and multiple channels

 Obtain approximately 2,000-3,000 pieces of large woody material from up to 94 acres of upland units (approximately 36 acres of thinning and up to 58 acres of 1-3 acre gaps)

 Obtain approximately 250-500 pieces of large woody material from up to 9 acres of wood staging sites

 Obtain approximately 1,500-2,500 pieces of large woody material from up to 54 acres of sediment removal areas within the floodplain

 Obtain up to 31 whole trees from near the banks of the South Fork McKenzie River to serve as key pieces

 Create up to 2 acres of new pond habitat

 Replace (upsize) five culverts and install one new culvert on Delta Campground Road

 Decommission approximately 0.6 miles of existing system roads and approximately 0.2 miles of non-system roads and store approximately 0.1 miles of existing system roads

 Construct approximately 3.6 miles of temporary road for equipment access and decommission after use

 Conduct up to 17 miles of post-project road maintenance

 Utilize approximately 9 acres of existing disturbed areas for equipment staging sites

 Rehabilitate and/or replant (with native species) up to 214 acres of disturbed area following project implementation

2 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

 Control noxious weeds within project area both prior to and after implementation

Decision Rationale I have decided to implement Alternative 2 because it fully addresses the purpose and need.

Compared to the no-action alternative, Alternative 2 will best help in restoring river function, habitat, and fish and wildlife productivity in the South Fork McKenzie River of the two alternatives.

Alternative 2 will increase large woody material levels, restore hydrologic connectivity to approximately 189 acres of floodplain, decrease average substrate size, and increase the diversity and complexity of available habitat throughout the project area. Alternative 2 will improve the condition of key riverine ecosystem processes in the project area, and place the lower South Fork McKenzie River on a path towards sustainable recovery. In the long-term, Alternative 2 will be beneficial to water quality, and will increase aquatic habitat complexity, suitability, and availability.

While concerns were raised during the 30-day EA comment period, scoping, and field trips, they are not considered key issues for the purpose of formulating fully developed alternatives. Additionally, project design elements were incorporated to reduce effects to resources (see Design Features for the Action Alternative, attached to this Decision Notice).

Another action alternative was considered but not developed because it will be very similar to Alternative 2 and will not provide enough contrast to be discernable from the impacts of the proposed action; contrast will be provided by the no action alternative.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated (Chapter 2.1 of the EA) address points raised by commenters. Alternatives Considered are also discussed on page 6 and in the Response to Comments section of this Decision Notice (DN). Concerns regarding navigability by boaters and rafters following implementation, suggested an Alternative that allowed for a navigable channel. The line officer with input from the IDT determined that such a design will not satisfy the Purpose and Need of the project.

Alternative 2 meets concerns raised by the public regarding recreation and other input and meets environmental standards and guidelines. For a complete discussion see the EA, Chapter 3, Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 Best Management Practices, Design Features and Monitoring This decision also includes implementation of Design Features and Best Management Practices as required by the Clean Water Act and as disclosed in the EA Design Features table (Chapter 2.4) or the attachment to this EA Design Features table (which is the same). The monitoring items that will be implemented include:

Operations: Contract administrators will monitor treatments during implementation to ensure contractors are in compliance with their contract. Contract elements monitored will include harvest specifications, bole damage to residual trees, down wood and snag retention, skid trail spacing and use of designated skid trails.

Road Management: McKenzie River Ranger District engineering personnel will monitor road management through contract administration and routine road maintenance inspections.

National Aquatic Best Management Practice Monitoring: The National Best Management Practices Program provides a standard set of core best management practices for the protection of water quality and consistent documentation of the use and effectiveness of the practices.

3 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

Post-implementation best management practices monitoring may include review of aquatic management zones, erosion prevention and control measures, ground-based yarding operation effects, and site treatment.

Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring: The Forest Supervisor’s Staff performs annual project monitoring at each Ranger District and compiles the results in the bi-yearly Forest Monitoring Report. Implementation of treatments from this project will be subject to Forest Plan Implementation monitoring. Other implementation monitoring elements may include temporary road decommissioning, snag and large down wood abundance, and any seeding or planting of vegetation.

Reforestation: Ensure stand is sufficiently stocked within five years. Forest Service Manual directs us to conduct first and third year stocking surveys to determine if the site can be certified.

Revegetation and Noxious Weed Control: Monitor revegetation efforts and control noxious weeds in the floodplain project area and along roads within upland units.

Dead Wood Habitat Monitoring: McKenzie River Ranger District wildlife personnel will monitor snag and large down wood habitat levels in units prior to wildlife tree and down wood enhancement activities. This will determine existing habitat levels and compare those with the amounts needed for mitigation and enhancement activities. Down wood habitat monitoring will consider the impacts from tree tipping in the upland stands to account and mitigate for whole tree removal.

Project Effectiveness Monitoring: McKenzie River Ranger District aquatics personnel have developed a robust effectiveness monitoring plan in cooperation with researchers from the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. The monitoring plan is designed to track achievement of the project objectives discussed in Chapter 1 of the EA. The full monitoring plan can be found in Appendix E of the EA.

Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered one other alternative. A comparison of these alternatives can be found below and in the EA in Chapter 2.7.

No Action Alternative 1 If the No Action Alternative is chosen, channel conditions in the 4.2 mile reach of the lower South Fork McKenzie River will remain in an impaired state due to the presence of levees, fill and riprap, which have led to armored stream bed and banks and the channelization and incision of the main stem river. The majority of the project reach will continue to function as a high energy transport reach, moving sediment, nutrients and organic material through the system, with little opportunity for storage. Channel incision is likely to continue, albeit slowly due to flow regulation from Cougar Dam combined with large average sediment sizes found in the project area. Sinuosity is likely to remain in its current straightened state or slowly decrease, as the high energy river maintains main stem channelization. The majority of the floodplain will remain hydrologically disconnected, resulting in a continued lack of off channel habitat. The system will continue to be sediment and LWM limited, resulting in poor spawning and rearing habitat and simplified geomorphic features (lack of pools and bars) throughout the project area, with the exception of the disturbed reference reach. Under the No Action Alternative, the biological community will continue to be limited by the impaired riverine

4 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact ecosystem processes. Based on a review of numerous ecological studies, relative to a well-functioning floodplain ecosystem, the South Fork will likely continue to provide:

 limited species diversity and abundance,  less than optimal ecosystem productivity,  limited available habitat,  lower quality habitat,  minimal thermal refugia and thermal diversity,  altered macroinvertebrate assemblages, and  limited suitable spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids.

See the EA Vegetation section for full discussion addressing Alternative 1 (No Action) effects and the Vegetation summary in Table 1: Summary Comparison of How the Alternatives Address the Purpose and Need.

Table 1 Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative Alternative Purpose & Unit of 2 Purpose & Need Proposed Activity 1 No Need Measure Proposed 1 Action Addressed1 Addressed Action

Floodplain Project Area Treatments

Sediment Removal Acres 0 None 54 1, 2, 3

Redistribution of Sediment into 1, 2, 3 Acres 0 None 49 Incised Channels

Large Woody Material 4,000- 1, 2, 3 Pieces 0 None Placement 5,000

Bank Tree Placement Trees 0 None 31 1, 2, 3

Pond Creation Acres 0 None 2 1, 2, 3

Culvert Installation, 1, 2, 3 Culverts 0 None 6 Replacement, and Cleanout

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 None 0.8 1, 2, 3

Connected Actions

Large Woody Material 1, 2, 3 Acres 0 None 94 Obtainment from Upland Units

Large Woody Material 1, 2, 3 Obtainment from Wood Acres 0 None 9 Staging Sites

Large Woody Material 1, 2, 3 Obtainment from Sediment Acres 0 None 54 Removal Areas

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 None 3.6 1, 2, 3

Road Maintenance Miles 0 None 17 1, 2, 3

5 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

Alternative Alternative Purpose & Unit of 2 Purpose & Need Proposed Activity 1 No Need Measure Proposed 1 Action Addressed1 Addressed Action

Staging Site Utilization and 1, 2, 3 Acres 0 None 9 Development

Replanting and Rehabilitation 1, 2, 3 Acres 0 None 214 of Disturbed Areas 1 The purpose of the project is to: (1) Restore to the extent practicable the physical, chemical, and biological processes that maintain a healthy, diverse, and resilient floodplain ecosystem; (2) Restore a hydrologically connected, well-functioning, complex channel network and floodplain; (3) Increase habitat availability, diversity, and quality for ESA-Threatened spring Chinook salmon and bull trout and other native aquatic and riparian species, including Pacific lamprey, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Pacific pond turtle, harlequin duck, and American beaver.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated EA Chapter 1.8 discusses comments that were received from the public suggesting alterations to the Proposed Action. The following are components of this discussion and, in part, are addressed in the preceding Decision Rationale.

Design Project to Maintain Boater Navigability An alternative was considered that will design the project in such a way as to not impede recreational boater access. We considered log jam placement along the channel margins and in areas outside of the main flow (i.e. thalweg) of the existing main stem channel. We ultimately determined that in order to meet the purpose and need (EA Section 1.2) the project design must incorporate: (1) raising the elevation of the incised main stem channel, (2) reducing the stream energy in the main stem channel that is causing the incision, (3) spreading the flow throughout multiple channels across the floodplain, and (4) placing thousands of pieces of large woody material. By raising the channel elevation and spreading the flow throughout multiple channels, the water depth will be shallower, making it difficult to pass over some areas in a boat in low flow summer conditions. The placement of thousands of pieces of large woody material will inherently add hazards to boating.

A design approach that does not raise the elevation and keeps wood out of the main stem channel, will concentrate stream energy in the main stem even more and will therefore increase channel incision. It was determined by the Responsible Official that an alternative focused on preserving an incised single-thread, navigable channel, free of large woody material obstructions, will not meet the purpose and need of the project and that this key issue is represented in the No Action Alternative.

Tribal Consultation The District consulted with the Klamath Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. On September 17, 2015 the Tribes were mailed a consultation package that included information about the proposed project location, Proposed Actions, and the purpose and need for the project. Additionally the consultation invited the Tribes to provide any comments or concerns regarding the proposed project. One comment was received from the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde expressing support for the project with an emphasis on maintaining or enhancing upstream and downstream passage for Pacific lamprey. They also cited a study that found that lamprey had a stronger response to large woody material placement than coho salmon, and that lamprey could be used as a response measure for large scale restoration activities in certain situations.

6 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

On July 25, 2016, the McKenzie River Ranger District hosted a field trip to the project site with a representative from the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. On September 21, 2016, the McKenzie River Ranger District hosted a field trip with two representatives from the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians.

On March 30, 2017, an additional consultation package with updated project information was mailed to the Klamath Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. No comments have since been received.

The Annual Meeting with Tribal Council members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians was held on April 19, 2017. This project was discussed and we received positive comments from tribal representatives.

Public Involvement and Scoping Scoping was conducted as part of the analysis process and was underway in 2014. Notice of the project proposal started with the 2014 winter Forest Focus quarterly schedule of proposed actions (SOPA) located on the Willamette National Forest website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/willamette/landmanagement/projects

The McKenzie River Ranger District had an open house to the public on May 31, 2017, during the meeting this project got positive comments by the public.

The McKenzie River Ranger District interdisciplinary team listened to all input and addressed as many concerns and comments as possible during development of the Environmental Assessment. The scoping process for the Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement project is described on page 24 of the EA. Eight letters with comments were received during scoping. Response to comments are addressed in the EA Section 1.8 and associated documents are available in the analysis file at the McKenzie River Ranger District office.

Questions on specific topics are briefly discussed and resolved in the EA in Table 2: Concerns or Non- key Issues Summary and in the resource effects for the proposed action in Chapter 3. In addition, these issues were used to clarify and refine the proposed action, including the project design features, and to frame the analysis for this project. Such considerations are meeting requirements for snag creation for wildlife, timber hauling opportunities throughout the year with resource protection guidelines, and creation of complex early seral habitat for wildlife. The comments that suggested the consideration of other alternatives are discussed in the above section and EA Chapter 2.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated.

Response to 30-day Comment Request: The Draft EA was released for a 30-day comment period on January 10th, 2018. We received 1 comment letter from Oregon Wild. This letter expressed concern over large logs with root wads attached being pulled from Northern Spotted owl Critical Habitat and residual down and dead wood in the wood source units. There was also concern over future long term maintenance of the restored river reach, as well as the NEPA process. The response to comments can be found on the project webpage in the document titled “South Fork response to comments on the Draft EA”.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Input: The draft and final EA were submitted to the USACE for review. They requested that temperature control operations at Cougar Dam and the Cougar Downstream Passage Project should be included in the cumulative effects analysis. These changes were incorporated into the final draft of the EA.

7 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

Finding of No Significant Impact The following is a summary of the project analysis to determine significance, as defined by Forest Service Handbook 1909.15_05. “Significant” as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity of the expected project effects.

Context This decision is consistent with similar activities implemented by the Willamette National Forest, which lead toward achieving the goals, objectives and requirements identified in the Forest Plan for the management areas within the project area, while meeting the purpose and need of the EA. These requirements are fully described in the Willamette Land and Resource Management Plan, Chapter IV and as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision Standards and Guidelines. This project is limited in scope and duration. The project includes 13.5% (687/5081 acres) of the Cougar Creek-South Fork McKenzie River 6th Field Sub-watershed and 0.5% (97/20673 acres) of the Elk Creek-McKenzie River 6th Field Sub-watershed. The project includes the lower 4.2 miles of the South Fork McKenzie River and its surrounding floodplain, from the base of Cougar Dam to the confluence with the McKenzie River. The project was designed to minimize environmental effects through project design and the design features outlined on pages 45 to 51 of the EA. I find that the effects of the project are not significant, as disclosed throughout the Environmental Consequences sections of the EA (Chapter 3), and will have a negligible effect at the watershed, District, and Forest scales.

Intensity The following factors were considered to evaluate intensity.

1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the whole the effects will be beneficial.

The Environmental Assessment provides sufficient information to determine that this project will not have a significant impact, adverse or beneficial, on the land and its natural resources. As described in the EA under the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives section, adverse effects and the reasons they are not expected to be significant include:

 Threatened and Endangered, and Sensitive Species and other Wildlife - Alternative 2 will remove or degrade a small amount of young managed forest habitat in the Elk Creek- McKenzie River and Cougar Creek-South Fork McKenzie River Sub-watersheds, and adversely affect species that use this habitat. Because there are no other reasonably foreseeable actions that will remove young managed forest habitat in the sub-watersheds and because old growth forest habitat in the watersheds will not be affected, the Proposed Action is expected to maintain the viability of all wildlife species that utilize this habitat.

o Because viability is being maintained at the 6th Field sub-watershed Alternative 2 will not contribute to a loss of viability at the larger 5th-Field watershed or Forest-wide scale. Alternative 2 will create a small amount of early seral habitat and benefit species such as elk and some migratory birds that prefer this habitat. These benefits will occur at the site-scale, but there will not be meaningful benefits to the species at the watershed scale due to the small amount of habitat affected. Alternative 2 may affect northern spotted owls and spotted owl habitat but it’s not likely that it will

8 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

adversely affect them or jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. There will be no effect to spotted owl critical habitat (EA Chapter 3.4).

 Botanical Species - The botany Biological Evaluation determination for sensitive vascular plants, lichens, and bryophytes is ‘no impact’. For sensitive fungi it is ‘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’. Known sites of botanical Sensitive and Survey and Manage species are buffered in Alternative 2 (EA Chapter 3.8).

 Aquatic Resources (Hydrology and Fisheries) - The analysis shows that Alternative 2 will increase large woody material levels, restore hydrologic connectivity to approximately 189 acres of floodplain, decrease average substrate size and increase the diversity and complexity of available habitat throughout the project area. The Proposed Action will improve the condition of key riverine ecosystem processes in the project area, and place the lower South Fork McKenzie River on a path towards sustainable recovery. In the short-term, this project will disturb 214 acres of river channel, riverbanks, and riparian vegetation. Project design features will mitigate these effects, but there will likely be short term localized effects to turbidity (1-2 years) and water temperature (1-5 years). In the long-term, this project will be highly beneficial to water quality, and will increase aquatic habitat complexity, suitability, and availability. All applicable aquatic and riparian standards and guidelines will be met with the project design features. (EA Chapter 3.1).

o Alternative 2 was evaluated for effects on ESA-listed fish species bull trout, Upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon and their designated Critical Habitat. Potential project effects on population, habitat, and non-habitat indicators were evaluated in Chapter 3.1 of the EA and in the Aquatic Restoration Biological Assessment (ARBA). The Proposed Action May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect Bull Trout and Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook Salmon and their designated Critical Habitat. The Proposed Action is not likely to jeopardize these species or adversely modify Critical Habitat. The Proposed Action will have short-term impacts but long-term benefits to Essential Fish Habitat.

o This project is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (see Appendix C of the EA).

 Soils - Alternative 2 will lead to a series of short-term negative effects to the soils resource in the project area (such as soil displacement and soil compaction) due to ground disturbance related to mechanical equipment operation during wood harvest and restoration activities. The expected level of impact will be minimized by following project design criteria related to wet weather equipment operation, storm management practices, erosion control practices and site restoration practices. Implementation of Alternative 2 will also lead to a series of short and long-term beneficial effects such as increased floodplain water storage capacity, expansion of floodplain wetted area at a range of flows and water table rise in the reconnected floodplain. The benefits are expected to begin in the first year after project implementation and up to equilibrium (from one to ten years) but will last for the long-term (decades) (EA Chapter 3.3).

2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

Considering the remoteness of the project in relation to local and regional population centers and the measures taken to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act (EA Chapter 3.11), the Clean Water Act as discussed in Appendix A page 3, and Design Features and Monitoring including the use of Best

9 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

Management Practices during implementation (EA Chapter 2.4), the likelihood of the project affecting the public's health and safety is low.

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

The areas proposed for ground-disturbing activities have been surveyed and evaluated for the presence of heritage resources. Areas with historic or cultural resources were avoided, buffered, or otherwise protected from the disturbing effects of restoration and harvest operations and yet-to-be discovered sites uncovered during project implementation will result in suspension of operations until appropriately addressed by the district archaeologist (Appendix A, page 176 and concurrence letter from SHPO in the project record).

There are no parklands, prime farmlands, or federal wild and scenic river corridors affected by the project (Appendix A, page 179). Segment 3 of the South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River corridor and a designated Oregon State Scenic Waterway is in the project area, and the effects determined to not be significant, and are documented on Pages 140 -142 and Appendix A p. 176 of the final EA.

4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

The degree of controversy, with regard to effects on the quality of the human environment, is limited and considered not significant based on comments received during the scoping period (EA pages 26- 32). Differing opinions do not indicate controversy.

This project is based on the best available scientific information and site-specific data. The methodologies used to estimate the effects disclosed in the Environmental Consequences section of the Environmental Assessment are widely used in similar environmental analyses and have been reviewed by the research and academic communities. I am not aware of any credible, peer-reviewed scientific questioning of the methods used in this analysis, nor its results (EA, Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, Chapter 3).

5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

McKenzie River Ranger District has experience with the types of activities to be implemented by this project. Similar types of in stream restoration, wood source harvest activities, fuel treatments, road work and other connected or similar actions have occurred on this district, this forest, and other National Forests. Samplings of these projects on this district and this forest have been monitored and have been shown to meet the amended Willamette Forest Plan standards and guidelines. In addition, the analysis in this document shows no impacts to the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks that have been identified in Environmental Impacts of the analysis (EA Chapter 3).

6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because the proposed restoration project and associated activities have been well-established land management practices on the McKenzie River Ranger District and the Willamette National Forest. The effects of

10 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact this project are within the standards and guidelines analyzed in the amended Willamette Forest Plan and are applicable only to the project area.

7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.

The environmental consequences analysis sections of this EA evaluates the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions for the various resources affected by this action. Also, I have reviewed for significance EA Appendix E, for Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis, which describes management activities that have occurred, along with ongoing and future actions. See EA sections on: Vegetation (Trees) page 100; Botany pages 155, 157, 158 and 160; Wildlife pages 118, 122, 123-125, 129, 130 and 132; Aquatic Resources (Hydrology and Fisheries) pages 92 and 93 Fire and Fuels page 161; Soils page 111; and Recreation, Scenery pages 140, and 153. I have reviewed the impacts of those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA and find that this action will not have a significant cumulative impact on the environment.

8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources.

This action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. An appropriate review has been conducted by this undertaking. Through project re-design, all known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) were protected by avoidance, resulting in a determination of “No Effect”. Documentation was provided to SHPO and copies were retained on file in the Forest and District Heritage files. Because cultural resources will not be affected by this action there will be no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix A of the EA).

9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for bull trout and with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon was completed under two programmatic consultation documents in 2013. For bull trout the consultation document is titled “Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington, and portions of California, Idaho, and Nevada (ARBO II).” For spring Chinook salmon the document is titled “Reinitiation of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Programmatic Conference and Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II).” Under ARBO II, the effects determination for spring Chinook salmon and bull trout is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect both species and their designated Critical Habitat (due to short-term impacts during implementation), but not likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify Critical Habitat in the long-term. The ARBO II allows for some take (defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect”) of both species. The take limitations for each species are identified in the ARBO II.

The project is covered by two consultations for the northern spotted owl: 1. ARBO II for the floodplain work (May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect), 2. Formal consultation for the upland unit thinning that resulted in a May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) Biological Opinion

11 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

(FWS reference 01EOFW00-2017-F-0555) signed August 31, 2017. No Take is likely to occur, and this project will not jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl population. Viability for the northern spotted owl will be maintained throughout the project area. The Proposed Action will not preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls, and the landscape will still provide suitable and dispersal spotted owl habitat post-treatment.

10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Laws imposed for the protection of the environment provided the framework for the 1990 Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. From the documentation provided in the EA, the project file, and Other Findings Required by Law (below), I find that the proposed activities do not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law imposed for the protection of the environment.

Finding After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and specialist reports, I have determined that Alternative 2 will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations National Forest Management Act (NFMA) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 1976: NFMA reorganized, expanded, and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests and is implemented through direction in each forest plan.

This decision to implement actions listed under Alternative 2 in the beginning of this document, is consistent with the intent of the 1990 Willamette’s Forest Plan long term goals and objectives listed on pages IV-2 to IV-44.

The project was designed in conformance with Matrix lands which were set aside in the Northwest Forest Plan (p. C-39) which amends the Willamette’s Forest Plan, to be areas where most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities are conducted (USDA, 1994). Standards and guidelines for the matrix are designed to provide for important ecological functions such as dispersal of organisms, carryover of some species from one stand to the next, and maintenance of ecologically valuable structural components such as down logs, snags, and large trees. In the Northwest Forest Plan (p. B-2), the matrix allocation will also add ecological diversity by providing early-successional habitat (USDA, 1994). The Willamette National Forest Plan (p. IV-5) goals for timber management are to “provide a sustained yield of timber for commercial products”, and to “enhance the amount of timber provided in the future through increased growth rates and by reducing the loss from fire, insects, and disease” (USDA, 1990).

The project was designed in conformance with Riparian Reserves which are “areas where riparian- dependent species receive primary emphasis” (USDA, 1994, p. B-12). The reserves are a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) which was developed to restore and maintain the long-

12 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

term ecological health of the watershed and aquatic ecosystems. (See Appendix C in the EA for Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy)

This decision is also consistent with all applicable Acts and Regulations including: National Environmental Policy Act; National Forest Management Act; Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision forthe Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; 1990 (as amended), Endangered Species Act; Clean Air Act; Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act); National Historic Preservation Act; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and Wetlands; Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species); Executive Order 13186: Migratory Birds; Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation; Energy Requirement and Conservation Potential; Prime Lands; National Fire Plan; General Water Quality Best Management Practices Handbook; Oregon State Best Management Practices (BMPs); Oregon Smoke Management Plan; NW Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy-Evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy; and the Programmatic Agreement among the USDA, Forest Service Pacific Northwest (Region 6), The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officerregarding Cultural Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service (EA, Appendix A).

Administrative Review The Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project was subject to pre-decisional administrative review (objection) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218, Subpart B. The 45-day objection period began on March 711' 2018. The notice of objection was published in the Eugene-Register Guard, the newspaper of record on that date. Only individuals or organizations who submitted specific written comments (36 CFR 218.2) during the designated opportunity for public participation (scoping or 30- day comment period) were allowed to object (36 CFR 218.5). No objections were received.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

The project will be implemented in phases depending on funding availability, beginingn shortly after signing.

For more information concerning the Lower South Fork McKenzie River Floodplain Enhancement Project, contact Dean Schlichting at 541-822-7214 during normal business hours. The environmental documents are available on the Willamette National Forest web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43959

-�ss Date McKenzie River District Ranger Willamette National Forest

Attachments:

• Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Proposed Actions (Alternative 2) Maps 1-4 • Design Features forAction Alternative

13 Lower South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Figure 1 Map of Alternative 2 Proposed Action

15 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Figure 2 Map of Alternative 2 Proposed Action – Upper Project Area

16 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Figure 3 Map of Alternative 2 Proposed Action – Lower Project Area

17 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Figure 4 Northwest Forest Plan Management Allocations in wood source units and wood staging sites.

18 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Design Features for Action Alternative The following design criteria is to ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, laws, regulations and other policies.

Objective Design Feature Location

Forest and Stand Structure

Plant native trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses within areas Enhance stocking levels and in need of revegetation after treatment. Plant at a higher 1Ga, 1Gb, 1Gc, 1 increase vegetative diversity density in the more disturbed areas exhibiting bare mineral 1Gd, 1Ge soil.

Provide higher quality early seral Minimize planting of gaps beyond .25 miles from a road. 1Ga, 1Gb, 1Gc, 2 habitat and reduce planting 1Gd, 1Ge costs

During project layout and implementation, protect 3 Maintain structural diversity identified trees with raptor nests and those with unusual All upland units structure such as broken tops.

Protect residual stand and reserve trees to the best extent 4 Minimize damage during harvest All upland units possible from treatment damage.

Botanical Resources

Reduce spread of noxious Require equipment that will be used off the road prism be 5 All project areas weeds cleaned prior to starting work Reduce spread of noxious Monitor and treat weeds before and 5 years after both the All project areas 6 weeds floodplain project area and the upland units Reduce spread of noxious Use weed free materials (rock, fill, straw, mulch, seed) for All project areas 7 weeds restoration Use genetically local native seed for seeding disturbed All upland units Reduce spread of noxious 8 areas to reduce potential for weeds to take over open weeds ground in upland units Revegetate disturbed areas in floodplain project area to Floodplain project Reduce spread of noxious outcompete weeds and start providing shade for water. area 9 weeds Monitor plantings for 2 years and supplement where necessary. Unit 10 of upland 10 Protect species of interest Move temporary spur to avoid known Fungus population units

Soils, Hydrology, and Aquatic Resources

All guidelines listed in the ARBO II must be followed, Reduce impacts to ESA-listed Floodplain project 11 unless a variance has been approved by the Level 1 fish and wildlife and habitat area Team.

Turbidity requirements listed in all applicable permits will Floodplain project 12 Reduce impacts to water quality need to be met during implementation of in-stream area activities.

All landings, temporary haul roads, and primary skid roads Reduce compaction and 12 should be subsoiled (to a depth of 18 to 24 inches) at the All project areas undesirable soil damage completion of project activities.

19 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Objective Design Feature Location

Existing landings, temporary haul roads, and old primary Reduce compaction and 13 skid roads will be utilized as much as possible prior to All project areas undesirable soil damage disturbing new areas.

Minimize erosion and Construction or maintenance of roads will not be done 14 All project areas sedimentation when soils are saturated or run-off occurs.

Minimize erosion and Native surfaced roads will be restricted from hauling when 15 All project areas sedimentation soils are saturated or run-off occurs.

Any project activity such as culvert replacement that must occur within fish-bearing streams will comply with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) seasonal restrictions on in-stream work activities (July 1st – August 15th). If a waiver to these dates is required the district Minimize potential impacts to fisheries biologist will need to review the proposal and Floodplain project 16 fish seek a waiver from ODFW, NMFS, and the USFWS if it is area warranted. Best Management Practices (BMP’s), including placement of sediment barriers, provision of flow bypass, and other applicable measures, will be included in project design as necessary to control off-site movement of sediment. All haul roads will be maintained in stable condition. Wet weather haul will be monitored by the District Road Manager, Fisheries Biologist, and/or Hydrologist. When 17 Prevent sedimentation necessary, haul may be suspended during rainfall to All project areas prevent off-site movement of sediment into drainage courses. Dust abatement of road surfaces will be used if roads become excessively dusty during the summer. If lignin sulfate is used for dust abatement, one application will occur during the dry season (July/August/September) at a dilution rate of 50% lignin sulfate and 50% water. Lignosulfonate will remain on the road surface and not go over road edge. During blading, small berms could be Reduce contamination to 18 created or wattles used at stream crossings to assist with All project areas aquatic areas keeping palliatives on the road surface. A 1-foot no- application buffer on the edge of gravel will be used if road width allows. Lignosulfonate will not be applied when raining and when possible, a 3-day forecast of clear weather will follow application. Ground-based equipment used for yarding, processing, or other project activities will operate only when soils are Reduce off-site movement of relatively dry where water is not pooling. Stop work if any 19 All project areas sediment into drainage courses trenching, or rutting is detected. Operations will be suspended before rainfall or precipitation results in off-site movement of sediment into drainage courses. All equipment trails need to be pre-located and pre- approved. Skid trails will be located outside drainages, Prevent undesirable soil seeps, springs and/or concave landforms, which could 20 All project areas damage accumulate and transport overland flow and sediment. Existing skid trails that meet the needs of the yarding system should be used wherever possible.

20 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Objective Design Feature Location

All skid trails and landings should be water-barred, after use or before significant rainfall, to provide adequate drainage. Water bar location should occur where local Provide adequate drainage and terrain facilitates effective drainage of the skid trail or 21 avoid unnecessary soil All project areas landing while avoiding unnecessary soil disturbance. disturbance Water bars should be keyed-in to the cut bank and have a clear outlet on the downhill side that directs runoff away from water courses.

All areas of exposed soil, such as landings, skid trails, and decommissioned roads will be seeded with sterile seed, 22 Prevent sedimentation native grasses, or weed free mulch unless agreed to All project areas otherwise. Disturbed areas within the floodplain will also be replanted with native vegetation. Temporary roads will be decommissioned after completion of project activities. Removal of temporary roads may include: blocking the entrance, removal of culverts, out- Reestablish hydrologic and 23 sloping the road surface, pulling back displaced material All project areas geologic processes onto the road way, installation of water bars, re-vegetation of the road prism, and/or the sub soiling of compacted surfaces when necessary. Protect and enhance riparian No trees will be obtained from Riparian Reserves within 24 All upland units features upland wood source units. No excavation of materials is allowed within the designated “avoidance area” in the Strube Ponds area. Protect water quality and Outside of the avoidance area, excavation areas must be Floodplain project 25 minimize impacts to fish isolated from waterbodies. A contaminant response plan area must be developed prior to implementation and initiated immediately if contaminants are found. Wildlife No seasonal operating restrictions are needed. The project area is annually surveyed for the northern spotted owl by 26 Protect Northern Spotted Owl All project areas the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, and there are no activity centers within disturbance distance. Monitor implementation of Unit 1, which will have ~36 acres thinned to maintain a minimum canopy cover of Protect Northern Spotted Owl 30%, with five 3-acre gaps, and two 2-acre unthinned 27 Upland Unit 1 Critical Habitat skips which have concentrations of legacy trees and large snags. Ensure that the prescription for this unit in Critical Habitat is met as planned. Ensure that the current large snag, defective tree, and Provide snags and downed 28 existing downed wood habitat that is not an operational All project areas wood safety hazard is protected to the greatest extent feasible. The amount of downed wood left will meet or exceed Provide snags and downed Forest Plan standards and guidelines of 240 lineal feet or 29 All upland units wood 2 down trees/acre. It is also expected that the units will have at least one large snag/acre. Reduce impacts to and Refer to Appendix H Pacific Pond Turtle Design Criteria for Floodplain project 30 maximize benefits to Pacific detailed survey and implementation guidelines area Pond Turtle

21 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Objective Design Feature Location Conduct Cougar peregrine site monitoring during the years of operation to ensure they do not use nest sites that are Reduce disturbance to peregrine Floodplain project 31 located within disturbance distance of the project area. falcons area Conduct at least two protocol surveys in 2018 from a viewpoint that overlooks the broader project area. If bald eagles are detected in the project area before or Reduce disturbance to bald during implementation, the wildlife biologist should be 32 All project areas eagles notified to re-assess the impacts of this project, and a wildlife sighting form should be completed. If osprey or other raptors are detected in the project area before or after implementation, the wildlife biologist should be notified to assess the impacts of this project on nesting. Reduce disturbance to nesting If potential for adverse effects exists, project modifications 33 All project areas osprey and other raptors may be needed. All contracts associated with this project will include provisions to provide required species protection measures in the event of an active nest within the project operating area. If TES wildlife species are found in future field work or during activities associated with this project, the wildlife biologist should be notified. If potential for adverse effects exists, project modifications may be needed and 34 Protect TES wildlife species All project areas reinitiation of consultation for the northern spotted owl may be required. All contracts associated with this project will include provisions to provide required protection measures in the event of TES species discovery. At the end of each calendar year, the administrative units will complete a project implementation and monitoring form to show actual levels of effect. This form should be Fulfill monitoring requirements 35 forwarded to the USFWS to fulfill the monitoring report All project areas by the USFWS requirements. Monitoring completes the regulatory requirements of the ESA by documenting actual effects to the subject species. Along the south- and southwest-facing aspects of created ponds and newly created slow-moving side channels, Provide Pacific Pond Turtle, leave portions of riparian/wetland buffer areas unplanted in Floodplain Project 36 pond-breeding amphibian, and a more open, early successional habitat condition. Area native bee habitat Maintain openings with native vegetation over time as needed.

Heritage Resources

Project activities planned outside of the area defined in the Protect previously unidentified 37 heritage resource inventory schema must be coordinated All project areas heritage resources with the Zone Archaeologist prior to initiation.

If cultural resources are encountered during the course of this project, earth-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find must be suspended, in accordance with federal Protect previously unidentified regulations, and the Zone Archaeologist notified to 38 All project areas heritage resources evaluate the discovery and recommend subsequent courses of action. Therefore, contract provision B(T)6.24 for TS, or H clauses for PW must be included in all project contracts. Consult with Zone Archaeologist prior to any Protect previously unidentified 39 decommissioning or subsoiling of newly created spur All project areas heritage resources roads.

22 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Objective Design Feature Location Changes to any treatment areas will require coordination Protect previously unidentified 40 with the Zone Archeologist to protect know or unknown All project areas heritage resources heritage resources. Roads Best Management Practices (BMPs), including placement of sediment barriers, provision of flow bypass, and other 41 Prevent sedimentation All project areas applicable measures, will be included as necessary to control off-site movement of sediment. For any perennial stream crossing culvert replacement, a 42 Prevent sedimentation specific dewatering plan shall be included with the contract All project areas design provisions. All road reopening and temporary road building will occur 43 Prevent sedimentation when soils are relatively dry to avoid potential surface All project areas erosion of exposed soil.

All temporary roads shall be made hydrologically stable if 44 Prevent sedimentation All project areas not being used during extended periods of wet weather.

At the completion of project activities, reopened roads shall be closed (stored) and new temporary roads shall be Protect road infrastructure and decommissioned. Closed roads and decommissioned 45 All project areas aquatic resources roads shall be placed in a hydrologically stable condition and closed to vehicle travel to reduce potential for surface erosion and sedimentation. On segments of decommissioned roads in between fill removals, de-compact the road surface to a depth of 18- 46 Prevent sedimentation All project areas 22” to ensure infiltration of surface runoff and add waterbars, as needed, to divert surface drainage.

Protect stream banks, erosion Decommissioning shall include a minimum of 2:1 slope 47 All project areas control pullback on all perennial and intermittent stream crossings.

Suspend ground-disturbing activity if projected forecasted rain will saturate soils to the extent that there is potential for movement of sediment from the road to wetlands, floodplains and waters of the state. Cover or temporarily Reduce sediment delivery to stabilize exposed soils during work suspension. Upon 48 All project areas stream network completion of ground-disturbing activities, immediately stabilize fill material over stream crossing structures. Measures could include but not limited to erosion control blankets and mats, soil binders, soil tackifiers, slash placement. Recreation Reduce impacts to recreating On Road 19, log haul should be avoided on weekends Floodplain project 49 public when possible. area Post advance notice when disruption may impact recreational opportunities at the impacted site and the Rd. Reduce impacts to recreating Floodplain project 50 19 entrance bulletin board. Work with recreation specialist public area prior to project activities to ensure appropriate sites are posted. Scenic Quality

23 Lang Dam Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Objective Design Feature Location

The MA in the floodplain project area is 6c (Wild and Scenic Rivers-Recreation). Scenery management objectives are defined by a VQO of Partial Retention Foreground (0-300ft). This includes areas adjacent to rivers and trails as identified in the Forest Plan. The following design criteria will ensure that VQO is maintained consistent with Forest Plan and are also listed as conditions for the State Scenic Waterway permit: (1) all logs placed shall have exposed ends roughened or broken in such a way as to appear natural; (2) existing native vegetation shall be retained to the maximum extent Floodplain project 51 Minimize visual impacts possible - where it must be removed to complete project, area re-plant with native vegetation to screen disturbed areas within 5 years; (3) erosion control measures shall be used to ensure no soil is left exposed after project is completed; (4) debris, silt, chemicals, or other materials shall not be discharged into or allowed to reach the waters within the Scenic Waterway; (5) man-made materials (e.g. cables, pulleys, etc.) must be removed once project is completed; (6) the contractor must use straps when a cable/choker/block needs to be placed on a tree that is used as an anchor so as to not girdle the tree and kill it. Gaps should appear natural and subordinate to the natural 52 Minimize visual impacts All upland units landscape No trees will be cut in the Delta Old Growth Grove for use Delta Old Growth 53 Minimize visual impacts in log jam construction. Tree tipping is acceptable as they Grove look natural when tipped. Limit layers of horizontal parallel logs to two or less where Delta Old Growth 54 Minimize visual impacts possible (small log jam designs) Grove Hand pile brush / natural debris onto log jam structures Delta Old Growth 55 Minimize visual impacts after construction where possible Grove Log jam structures Integrate brush or small trees with limbs attached into jog 56 Minimize visual impacts constructed with jam structures during construction where possible excavators Use trees with limbs attached for log jam structures All log jam 57 Minimize visual impacts whenever possible structures “Munch” or “rough-up” bucked ends of placed trees where All log jam 58 Minimize visual impacts possible to create a more natural texture and appearance structures Vary angles at which logs are placed during log jam All log jam 59 Minimize visual impacts construction to avoid geometric, grid-like appearance structures Existing native vegetation shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. Where it must be removed, re- Floodplain project 60 Minimize visual impacts plant with native vegetation to screen disturbed areas area within 5 years. Erosion control measures shall be used to minimize exposed soil after the project is complete. No chemicals, Floodplain project 61 Minimize visual impacts or other synthetic materials shall be discharged into or area allowed to reach the water. Fire and Fuels If large accumulations of slash (vegetation) are created, 62 Reduce post-treatment fuels All project areas reduce concentrations by scattering slash.