The Panther Creek Timber Management Project
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)1 for Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-ORWA-N040-2017-0003-EA
Summer, 2018
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office Northwest Oregon District, Tillamook Field Office Yamhill County, Oregon
Responsible Agency: USDI - Bureau of Land Management
Responsible Official: Karen Schank Field Manager Tillamook Field Office 4610 Third Street Tillamook, OR 97141 (503) 815-1100
For Further Information, contact: Landon Rhodes Tillamook Resource Area 4610 Third Street Tillamook, OR 97141 (503) 815-1460
Introduction
The Tillamook Field Office, Northwest Oregon District Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has conducted an environmental analysis for the Panther Creek Timber Management Project (Panther Creek Project). In the Panther Creek Project, the BLM has analyzed three action alternatives, and a No Action alternative, which examine varying methods of conducting forest management activities on approximately 781 acres of BLM lands, which includes commercial timber sales, within the Panther Creek 6th-field subwatershed of the North Yamhill River watershed. The action alternatives include regeneration harvest and commercial thinning within the Harvest Land Base-Moderate Intensity Timber Area land use allocation, and commercial thinning within the Riparian Reserve land use allocation. The action will occur in forest stands in various conditions. Some stands are at or above the age which produces maximum average annual growth over the lifetime of the stand; some stands are within an age group that currently makes up a preponderance of acres within the Harvest Land Base in the Tillamook Field Office; other stands are underproductive due to disease infestations or they are stocked with less desirable commercial species; while still other stands are overly dense and in need of thinning to continue healthy growth
1 This unsigned FONSI is included here along with the Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA in order to provide the public the opportunity to review and comment on both documents. After a public comment period, the Tillamook Field Manager will consider comments received and if appropriate, will finalize and sign the FONSI. FONSI for EA# DOI-BLM-ORWA-N040-2017-0003-EA – Panther Creek Timber Management Project rates and to improve stand value and merchantability as well as the development of structural complexity. The Riparian Reserve stands proposed for treatments are overstocked with a single aged Douglas-fir overstory that lacks the structural layering characteristic of older stands, including large trees with complex crowns and shade tolerant tree species in the mid and understories.
All action alternatives also include construction, maintenance and improvement of roads and culverts, rock sourcing through quarry operations, planting native conifer and hardwood species following regeneration harvest and commercial thinning treatments, snag creation, Riparian Reserve post-harvest tree felling, and the treatment of a portion of the fuels created by the harvest operations.
The area where the Panther Creek Timber Management Project will occur is approximately 9 miles northwest of the town of McMinnville, Oregon. The project area includes BLM-managed lands within sections 17, 19, 29, 33 and 34 of Township 3 South, Range 5 West, and sections 13, 23, 24 and 25 in Township 3 South, Range 6 West, (Willamette Meridian) in Yamhill County, Oregon.
The analysis in this EA is site-specific and the proposed timber management activities have been designed to conform to the Northwestern and Coastal Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan.
The EA and unsigned FONSI will be made available for public review from August 10, 2018 through September 10, 2018. Comments received by the Tillamook Field Office of the Northwest Oregon District Office, 4610 Third Street, Tillamook, Oregon, 97141, on or before Septermber 10, 2018 will be considered in making the final decision for this project.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon review of the Panther Creek Timber Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA) and the supporting project record, I have determined that this project is not a major federal action and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively with other actions in the general area. No environmental effects meet the definition of significance in context or intensity as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27. There are no site-specific impacts that will require supplemental/additional information to the analysis done in the Western Oregon Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, March 2016 (RMP/FEIS). Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not needed. This finding is based on the following discussion:
Context. The proposed project is a site-specific action directly involving a total of approximately 781 acres of BLM administered land, along with actions occurring on various haul roads. These actions will affect about 6.7% of the 11,653 acre Panther Creek 6th field subwatershed and by themselves do not have international, national, region-wide, or state-wide importance.
The discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to the intended actions and is within the context of local importance. The EA details the effects of the action alternatives; none of the effects identified, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects, are considered to be significant and do not exceed those effects described in the RMP/FEIS.
Intensity. The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significance Criteria described in 40 CFR 1508.27. The discussions below apply to the proposed action contained within the Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA.
1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse: The effects of the timber management project are unlikely to have significant (beneficial and/or adverse) impacts (EA Section 3.2) for the following reasons:
Vegetation and Forest Resources (EA section 3.2): Effects to these resources will not have significant impacts because: 2 FONSI for EA# DOI-BLM-ORWA-N040-2017-0003-EA – Panther Creek Timber Management Project Regeneration harvest in the Harvest Land Base will contribute to the Salem Sustained Yield Unit Allowable Sale Quantity; begin to generally balance age class groupings within the project area, providing sustained-yield treatment opportunities into the future; and increase the productivity of stands currently infested with root rot disease and/or heavily composed of hardwood species and otherwise capable of growing conifers. Commercial thinning in the Harvest Land Base will contribute timber volume to the Salem Sustained Yield Unit Allowable Sale Quantity; increase the value and merchantability of stands for future harvest by increasing residual tree growth and providing large logs to the market; and enhance stand structural complexity and vegetative diversity. Variably spaced commercial thinning, underplanting of shade tolerant native conifer species, snag creation, and tree felling in portions of the Riparian Reserve will develop greater structural complexity and vegetative diversity in a reduced amount of time.
Wildlife Resources - (Includes ESA listed species and BLM Special Status Species): (EA section 3.3) Effects to this resource will not have significant impacts because:
ESA Listed Species All habitat for northern spotted owls that will be modified by the project has been surveyed to protocol and determined to be unoccupied. Per the survey protocol, spot check surveys will continue to occur until project implementation begins, and if occupancy is determined in the project area through these continued survey efforts, coordination with the USFWS will ensure no take as defined by the ESA will occur. The Haskins Creek site is the only spotted owl known site within the analysis area; it was last known to have been occupied in 2008. Proposed treatment will maintain existing habitat conditions within the nest patch and will improve the development of nesting-roosting habitat within the core area of this site, consistent with the ROD/RMP conservation measure guidance of Appendix A (ROD/RMP, p. 108). All habitat for the marbled murrelet that will be modified by the project will be surveyed to protocol by September 2018 and prior to any timber sale Decision for this project. If any occupied marbled murrelet sites are discovered during protocol surveys, or during project implementation, they will be protected by a change in the Land Use Allocation of the occupied stand to Late Successional Reserve (ROD/RMP, p. 52 and 98). Should any occupied marbled murrelet sites be discovered, the project will be evaluated and through a combination of daily time restrictions, restricting seasons of operation, and/or dropping treatment units, protection of the occupied marbled murrelet sites will be ensured. Although there will be potential for disturbance to spotted owls and/or marbled murrelets as a result of the project, there will be no disruption. Spotted owls and/or marbled murrelets, if present, may be distracted from their normal activity but the Panther Creek Project will not create a likelihood of injury or loss of reproduction.
BLM Special Status Species: (EA section 3.3) All habitat for the red tree vole and Bureau Sensitive (BS) mollusk species that may be affected by the project have been surveyed to protocol. Sites where Bureau Sensitive mollusk species were found during surveys have been excluded from the current project proposal. As such, the Panther Creek project will not impact known terrestrial mollusk sites and will not contribute to the need to list these species under the ESA. Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas, approximately 10 acres in size and including the best available habitat, were developed for all red tree vole nest sites found during surveys. These habitat areas have been excluded from the project. As such, the Panther Creek project will not impact known red tree nest sites.
Hydrology (EA section 3.4): Effects to these resources will not have significant impacts because: The project effects on water quality will comply with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) water quality standards.
3 FONSI for EA# DOI-BLM-ORWA-N040-2017-0003-EA – Panther Creek Timber Management Project Water quality will be maintained because logging, road construction/renovation, culvert replacement, road maintenance and timber haul project design features (EA section 2.4) and no-harvest buffers are expected to prevent sediment from reaching streams and causing sediment/turbidity that will exceed ODEQ water quality standards. The project will directly add large wood, through tree felling, to the Inner-Zone of the Riparian Reserve in some stream reaches where current in-stream large wood is lacking. This addition will improve channel morphology.
Fisheries Resources (Includes ESA listed fish species, BLM Special Status Species, and Magnuson-Stevens Essential Fish Habitat) (EA section 3.5): Effects to these resources will not have significant impacts because: Increases of sedimentation to Panther Creek from culvert replacements and log haul are not expected to have long lasting consequences to listed or Bureau status fish as the majority of spawning habitat in Panther Creek (78%) will be unaffected. Increases in turbidity will be short lived (up to 24 hours) and localized (two discrete pour points), limiting the adverse effect to spawning adults or rearing juveniles, if present, which will move away from high turbidity areas to low turbidity areas.
Soils (EA sections 3.6): Effects to this resource will not have significant impacts because: Fragile soil sites, including very steep areas, have been excluded from the action area. Project design features and Best Management Practices (EA section 2.4), including limiting operational- related compaction to 20% of the project area or less, have been incorporated to specifically reduce soil compaction and displacement, which in turn will reduce soil productivity loss associated with the project. Soils in the project area are very deep and resilient and are less susceptible to productivity losses resulting from timber harvest than are shallower soils. Project design features require the use of previously disturbed areas to the extent practicable which will reduce the area disturbed by harvesting equipment. Post-harvest slash piles will be small and dispersed in nature, limiting the affects to soil productivity to the footprint of the pile when burned and not affecting soil productivity at the unit or project scale.
Invasive Plants - (EA section 3.7): Effects to this resource will not have significant impacts because:
Invasive, Non-native Species (Executive Order 13112): (EA section 3.7) The current assemblage of invasive, non-native species that exist within the project area are generally not tolerant of shade and should they emerge on additional disturbed sites within the project area it is expected that they will not persist as the canopy becomes closed again. Project Design Features that include equipment washing, seeding of disturbed soils, monitoring, and additional post-harvest eradication treatment as needed are expected to limit new infestations of invasive species from becoming established. Gravel sources, which can be vectors for invasive plants, will be inspected prior to use to inventory potential invaders and inform post-harvest monitoring.
2. The degree to which the selected alternative will affect public health or safety. Public health and safety was not identified as an issue. The proposed projects are comparable to other timber management projects that include regeneration harvest, commercial thinning and density management which have occurred within the Northwest Oregon District with no unusual health or safety concerns. Impacts to water quality and storage capacity at Carlton Reservoir (City of Carlton’s public water supply) will be protected through project design features including the exclusion of very steep areas from timber harvest, the use of no-harvest buffers along streams, implementing water quality BMPs during road work activities, requiring self-contained sanitary facilities for operations within the reservoir’s watershed, and restricting the use of dust suppressants in the reservoir’s watershed to those that are non-oil-based.
4 FONSI for EA# DOI-BLM-ORWA-N040-2017-0003-EA – Panther Creek Timber Management Project 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. Per the 2015 protocol between Oregon BLM and Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (BLM-SHPO), pre field research did not indicate any historic or cultural resource area sites within the harvest units proposed in the Panther Creek project. BLM-SHPO survey protocol dictates that 20% of all high probability landforms within the Oregon Coast Range be surveyed after timber harvest has been implemented, as well as a sample of medium and low probability areas. This state protocol is the method in which Oregon BLM meets its requirements under national and state laws concerning cultural resources. There are no park lands, prime farm lands, or wilderness areas located within the project area. There are no federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project areas. There are no known wetlands within the proposed project area; however, if any are discovered during project implementation, there are project design features incorporated into the project to protect them (EA section 2.7).
There are no other known ecologically critical areas within or adjacent to the project area.
4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Scoping of the proposed projects resulted in four comment letters indicating that the level of concern is no greater than most other projects the BLM proposes. The response to substantive public comments is contained in section 7 of the EA.
The effects of the proposed projects on the quality of the human environment were adequately understood by the interdisciplinary team to provide an environmental analysis. A complete disclosure of the predicted effects of the proposed projects is contained within Section 3 of the EA.
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The proposed projects are not unique or unusual. The BLM has experience implementing similar projects in similar areas and have found effects to be reasonably predictable. There are no predicted effects on the human environment which are considered to be highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.
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 proposed project does not set a precedent for future actions that may have significant effects, nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Any future projects the BLM may undertake will be evaluated through the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process independent of this project.
7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The interdisciplinary team evaluated the proposed project in the context of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions (EA section 3.1.3). A complete disclosure of the effects of the Proposed Action is contained in Section 3 of the EA. Cumulative effects have been identified for Vegetation and Forest Resources (EA section 3.2), Wildlife Resources (EA section 3.3), Hydrology (EA section 3.4), Fisheries Resources (EA section 3.5), Soils Resources (EA section 3.6), and Invasive Plants (EA section 3.7). None of the identified cumulative effects were determined to be significant.
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or other objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The proposed project was assessed for its potential to contain important cultural properties and none were found (EA section 6.1). Therefore, the proposed projects will not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or other objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will the proposed projects cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. Project Design Features have been incorporated that will protect any cultural resource should they be discovered during project implementation (EA section 2.7).
5 FONSI for EA# DOI-BLM-ORWA-N040-2017-0003-EA – Panther Creek Timber Management Project 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Wildlife: All dispersal and suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl within the Panther Creek planning area that could be affected by the proposed action was surveyed to protocol and no occupancy was determined. The spotted owl will be affected by the removal (74 acres) of suitable habitat and (321 acres) of dispersal habitat, and modification (370 acres) of dispersal habitat. Those 370 acres where habitat modification will occur will continue to function as dispersal habitat after treatment.
All suitable and potential marbled murrelet habitat that will be affected by the Proposed Action within the Panther Creek planning area has been surveyed to protocol and no marbled murrelet occupancy has been determined. The proposed project will affect marbled murrelet habitat through the removal of suitable habitat (13 acres) and buffer habitat (14 acres) and the modification of suitable habitat (16 acres) and buffer habitat (64 acres).
Because the proposed action will result in effects to spotted owls and marbled murrelets through habitat removal and modification, informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, has occurred (EA section 4). The project (included in the form of timber sales) was submitted in a batched May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect Biological Assessment to the USFWS on November 11, 2017 and a Biological Opinion from USFWS was received on December 11, 2017 which concluded that actions including timber sales that are derived from the proposed Panther Creek Timber Management Project are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl or murrelet, and are not likely to adversely modify spotted owl or murrelet critical habitat.
Fisheries: The BLM determined that, based on the potential for inputs of sediment from timber and rock haul and culvert replacements, to streams with Upper Willamette steelhead presence and habitat, consultation with National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) is warranted (EA section 4). Consultation with NMFS on these potential effects of the proposed project on Special Status fish species was conducted programmatically through the Biological Assessment for Forest Management in Western Oregon in July of 2017. A Biological Opinion was received from NMFS in March of 2018 (NMFS reference Number WCR-2017-7574) which concluded that actions including timber sales that are derived from the proposed Panther Creek Timber Management Project are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Upper Willamette steelhead. Verification of consistency of the Panther Creek project to that Biological Opinion was received from NMFS on August 1, 2018.
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed projects do not violate any known Federal, State, or local law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. The EA and supporting Project Record contain discussions pertaining to the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species). State, local, and tribal interests were given the opportunity to participate in the environmental analysis process. Furthermore, the proposed projects are consistent with applicable land management plans, policies, and programs.
Prepared by: Landon Rhodes Date IDTeam Leader
Approved by: Karen M. Schank Date Tillamook Field Manager
6 FONSI for EA# DOI-BLM-ORWA-N040-2017-0003-EA – Panther Creek Timber Management Project
Panther Creek Timber Management Project Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment Number DOI-BLM-ORWA-NO40-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018
Northwest Oregon District, Tillamook Field Office Yamhill County, Oregon
T. 3 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 17, 19, 29, 33 & 34; T. 3 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 13, 23, 24 & 25, (W.M.)
Responsible Agency: USDI - Bureau of Land Management
Responsible Official: Karen Schank Field Manager Tillamook Field Office 4610 Third Street Tillamook, OR 97141 (503) 815-1100
For Further Information, contact: Landon Rhodes Tillamook Field Office 4610 Third Street Tillamook, OR 97141 (503) 815-1460
As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering economic use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Project Proposal ...... 5 1.2 Background and Selection of Action Area ...... 5 1.3 Planning Area Location ...... 6 1.4 Purpose and Need for the Project ...... 8 1.5 Decision Framework ...... 13 1.6 Land Use and Legal Conformance ...... 13 1.7 Scoping and Issue Development...... 15 1.7.1 Scoping ...... 15 1.7.2 Issue Development ...... 16 1.7.3 Issues Identified for Detailed Analysis ...... 16 1.7.4 Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 17 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 19 2.1 Alternative Development ...... 19 2.2 Alternatives Developed ...... 19 2.3 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 19 2.4 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 20 2.5 Alternative 3 (Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands) ...... 37 2.6 Alternative 4 (Regeneration Harvest of Healthy Stands 68-78 Years Old) ...... 38 2.7 Project Design Features ...... 40 2.8 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 49 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 50 3.1 Introduction ...... 50 3.1.1 Project Area, Planning Area and Analysis Area ...... 50 3.1.2 General Setting ...... 51 3.1.3 Consideration of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions within the Panther Creek Planning Area ...... 53 3.2 Vegetation and Forest Resources Issues ...... 54 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 55 3.2.2 Issue 1: What effect would regeneration harvest have on HLB age class adjustment within the Panther Creek planning area and how would this adjustment influence the balancing of age class groups and sustained-yield timber management within the planning area? ...... 59 3.2.2.4 Environmental Effects ...... 60 3.2.3 Issue 2: How much volume would Harvest Land Base treatments from each alternative contribute to the Salem Sustained Yield Unit Allowable Sale Quantity? ...... 65 3.2.3.4 Environmental Effects ...... 65 3.2.4 Issue 3: How would the alternatives improve the productivity of forest stands within the Harvest Land Base that are infested with Phellinus weirii or have a high percentage of hardwood species? ...... 66 3.2.4.4 Environmental Effects ...... 67 3.2.5 Issue 4: How would commercial thinning improve stand merchantability and value through commercial thinning treatments? ...... 68 3.2.5.4 Environmental Effects ...... 69 3.2.6 Issue 5: How would commercial thinning treatments in the Riparian Reserve improve stand diversity and contribute to the development of a shade tolerant understory? ...... 74 3.2.6.4 Environmental Effects ...... 75 3.2.7 Cumulative Effects-For All Vegetative and Forest Resource Issues ...... 76 3.3 Wildlife Resources ...... 77 3.3.1 Issue 6: Would the alternatives affect Bureau Sensitive terrestrial mollusk species or their habitats? If so, how? ...... 77 3.3.1.4 Affected Environment ...... 78 3.3.1.5 Environmental Effects ...... 80
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 2 3.3.1.6 Cumulative Effects ...... 87 3.3.2 Issue 7: Would the alternatives affect the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree Vole or their habitats? If so, how? ...... 88 3.3.2.4 Affected Environment ...... 88 3.3.2.5 Environmental Effects ...... 91 3.3.2.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 98 3.3.3 Issue 8: What effect would the alternatives have on marbled murrelets and their habitats, including Critical Habitat? ...... 99 3.3.3.3 Affected Environment ...... 100 3.3.3.4 Environmental Effects ...... 103 3.3.3.6 Cumulative Effects ...... 110 3.3.4 Issue 9: What effect would the alternatives have upon northern spotted owls and their habitat availability, including Designated Critical Habitat? ...... 112 3.3.4.4 Affected Environment ...... 112 3.3.4.5 Environmental Effects ...... 119 3.3.4.6 Cumulative Effects ...... 127 3.4 Hydrology ...... 129 3.4.1 Issue 10: What effect would sediment generated by road construction, renovation, and improvement, and haul, including all-season haul, have on meeting state Water Quality Standards for in- stream fine sediment and turbidity, including within public water supply source water areas? ...... 129 3.4.1.4 Affected Environment ...... 131 3.4.1.5 Environmental Effects ...... 133 3.4.1.6 Cumulative Effects ...... 139 3.4.2 Issue 11: What effect would commercial thinning treatments in the Riparian Reserve, including tree felling for addition of large in-stream wood in the inner zone, have on the channel morphology of project area streams via changes in actual in-stream wood and potential large wood recruitment? ...... 140 3.4.2.4 Affected Environment ...... 142 3.4.2.5 Environmental Effects ...... 143 3.4.2.6 Cumulative Effects ...... 144 3.5 Fisheries Issues ...... 144 3.5.1 Issue 12: What effect would sediment, and resultant turbidity, generated from the action alternatives (rock and timber haul, culvert replacements, and paving bridge approaches) have on special status fish species and/or their habitat? ...... 144 3.5.1.4 Affected Environment ...... 146 3.5.1.5 Environmental Effects ...... 148 3.5.1.6 Cumulative Effects ...... 150 3.6 Soils Resources ...... 151 Issue 13: How would ground-based harvesting systems, including the use of equipment specialized for use on steeper slopes, affect soil compaction and erosion? ...... 151 Issue 14: How would timber harvest and road building activities affect soil erosion? ...... 151 Issue 15: How would soil compaction from road building activities affect soil productivity?...... 151 3.6.3 Affected Environment ...... 152 3.6.3.1 Environmental Effects-All Issues ...... 155 3.6.3.2 Cumulative Effects-Proposed Action (All Issues) ...... 158 3.7 Botany and Invasive Plants ...... 159 3.7.1 Issue 16: Would road construction, harvesting and hauling cause the spread or new infestation of noxious and/or invasive weed species? ...... 159 3.7.1.4 Affected Environment ...... 160 3.7.1.5 Environmental Effects ...... 161 3.7.1.6 Cumulative Effects ...... 163 4. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION ...... 164 5. LIST OF PREPARERS...... 165 5.1 Opportunity for Public Review and Comment ...... 166
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 3 6. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DATA ...... 166 6.1 Issues not Analyzed in Detail ...... 166 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS TO EXTERNAL SCOPING AND BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENTS...... 174 8. LITERATURE CITED ...... 179
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 4 PANTHER CREEK TIMBER MANAGEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. INTRODUCTION
This environmental assessment (EA) documents the environmental analysis the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducted to estimate the potential site-specific effects on the human environment that may result from implementation of the Panther Creek Timber Management Project. This EA provides the BLM’s Authorized Officer (Tillamook Field Office Manager) with current information to aid in the decision-making process. It will also determine if there are significant impacts not already analyzed in the 2016 Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Western Oregon or if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. This EA complies with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and the Department of the Interior’s regulations on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (43 CFR part 46).
1.1 Project Proposal
The Tillamook Field Office (TFO) is one of five field offices within the BLM’s Northwest Oregon District. The TFO lands are within the Salem Sustained Yield Unit (SYU) as defined in the 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (RMP p. 6). The Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) target for the Salem SYU is 65 million board feet (mmbf) of timber per year (RMP p. 6). The Northwest Oregon District determined that the current TFO contribution toward the ASQ would be approximately 24.7 mmbf per year accomplished through both regeneration and thinning harvests.
The Tillamook Field Office is proposing forest management actions, including timber harvest, on approximately 781 acres of BLM-administered lands in the Panther Creek drainage of the North Yamhill River watershed. Forest management treatments consist of both commercial and non-commercial treatments in Harvest Land Base (HLB) and Riparian Reserve (RR) land use allocations, and include regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, riparian commercial thinning and tree felling, slash reduction treatments, and riparian underplanting. The prescriptions are tailored to the various site and stand conditions found throughout the Planning Area. Fire fuel loads resulting from management actions would be reduced through lop-and-scatter, pile and burn, or biomass removal techniques. The various forest management treatments would be accomplished through a combination of commercial timber sale contract(s) and service contracts.
The BLM is also proposing transportation management actions to facilitate harvest actions, which includes temporary and permanent road construction, road improvement, road renovation, timber haul, and road decommissioning (long-term closure). The BLM has identified roads that would be available for wet season haul, depending on road surface type and their current condition, and if adequate rock were added to the roadbed. A more detailed description of BLM’s Proposed Action, as well as other action alternatives considered is included in Chapter 2, Alternatives.
1.2 Background and Selection of Action Area
The Tillamook Field Office uses a systematized strategic planning process to help determine how and where to implement the 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan (RMP). The strategy organizes the Harvest Land Base within the Tillamook Field Office into Strategic Planning Areas generally based on 6th field subwatersheds. There are 15 planning areas within the TFO that contain BLM HLB acreage ranging from 522 to 3,697 acres with an average of 1,778 acres (a 16th planning area is composed of scattered tracts, totaling approximately 180 HLB acres, that do not fit within defined subwatersheds). The planning strategy is designed to help the TFO to meet RMP management objectives including managing forest stands to achieve continual production through a balance of growth and harvest, enhancing the economic value of timber in forest stands, developing diverse late-successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation and providing a variety of
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 5 forest structural stages distributed both temporally and spatially (RMP p. 59 & 63). Part of the Strategic Planning process involves projecting compiled current age class data for each planning area into the future under various treatment regimes in order to understand how to schedule harvests to reach relatively even age class distribution over time. Annually, the TFO staff will review all of the strategic planning areas and select the next area for project development by assessing the compiled data on age class and forest stand condition, the relative time elapsed since the last project cycle in the planning area, while also considering current opportunities and impediments that are unique to the planning areas. By using this strategy, harvest planning is coordinated across the full TFO HLB with planned returns to individual planning areas on an approximately 20 - 25 year cycle. Through this process, harvest planning is considered within the context of working toward the establishment of a relatively even distribution of age classes in the future, consistent with the modeling outcomes in the 2016 FEIS, while distributing effects over space and time. What this means, is that it is important to consider how current harvest scheduling will affect the planning area’s ability to contribute to meeting RMP objectives in the next, and subsequent planning cycles.
For this project, the TFO selected the Panther Creek area (hereafter referred to as the Panther Creek planning area or Panther Creek area), which is a subset of the Panther-Baker Creek Strategic Planning Area, for consideration of harvest actions to implement the RMP. Because the TFO had already begun preliminary planning work in just the Panther Creek portion of the Panther-Baker Creek Strategic Planning Area at the time the 2016 ROD was signed, the Field Office chose to continue with just the Panther Creek area mainly because the TFO had somewhat recently completed thinning treatments over most of the commercial aged stands in the Baker Creek portion of the planning area (2005-2008). The Panther Creek planning area is 11,653 acres and contains 2,213 acres of BLM land. Some basic facts regarding the planning area are: the BLM forest stands within the Panther Creek area are composed mostly of relatively homogenous even-aged Douglas-fir stands that originated after multiple fires in the mid- and late 1800’s and homesteading and grazing in the late 1800’s to about 1930. Younger stands are the result of clearcut timber harvest from the 1950’s – 1990’s. Some of the older stands were thinned in the 1960’s and 70’s. The oldest stand within the analysis area is approximately 180 years old. Scattered and small groups of old-growth trees occur in several areas throughout the analysis area. In areas of the northern Oregon Coast Range that have been affected by multiple fires, as this area has, forest stands begin to exhibit late-successional characteristics between 120-140 years old, depending on the availability of snags, large down wood and seed sources of shade-tolerant tree species. Currently there are approximately 232 acres of late-successional forest within the Panther Creek planning area. There are several areas where root disease is affecting growth and yield on considerable acreage. There are also scattered stands on BLM-administered lands that have appreciable concentrations of hardwood trees that would otherwise be suitable for conifer growth. An historic northern spotted owl nest site is in the northern portion of the planning area.
1.3 Planning Area Location
The Panther Creek planning area is approximately 9 miles northwest of McMinnville, Oregon, in the Panther Creek area of the North Yamhill River watershed (see Figure 1). The planning area includes BLM-managed lands within sections 17, 19, 29, 33 and 34 of Township 3 South, Range 5 West, and sections 13, 23, 24 and 25 in Township 3 South, Range 6 West, Willamette Meridian (WM), in Yamhill County, Oregon.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 6 Figure 1: Panther Creek Strategic Planning Area and Subwatersheds
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 7 The BLM-managed lands within the Panther Creek planning area are revested Oregon and California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands) and Public Domain lands within the Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA), which is a subset of the HLB LUA, Late Successional Reserve (LSR), Riparian Reserve1 (RR), and District-Designated Reserve (DDR) (see Table 1).
Table 1: Land Use Allocations on BLM Lands in the Panther Creek Planning Area
Land Use Allocation Acres Percent
Harvest Land Base-Moderate Intensity Timber Area 1,156 52%
Riparian Reserve 738 33
Late Successional Reserve 51 3
District Designated Reserve 268 12
The proposed projects presented in section 1.1 above would occur within the MITA, RR, and DDR land use allocations. The MITA land use allocation contains lands dedicated to long-term sustained yield timber management. The DDR land use allocation within this planning area contains current BLM infrastructure, including roads and rock quarries. The Proposed Action would include forest and associated transportation management actions within the MITA and DDR LUAs. The RR land use allocations’ objectives are to maintain and restore riparian function, maintain water quality, and contribute toward the conservation and recovery of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fish species. The Proposed Action would include forest management actions within the RR. Lands allocated as Late-Successional Reserve within the Panther Creek planning area are not included as part of the proposed project.
1.4 Purpose and Need for the Project
The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to develop Resource Management Plans (RMPs) to guide future on-the-ground projects on BLM-administered lands. Land use allocations and management direction contained in the RMP are designed to accomplish RMP objectives. The proposed Panther Creek Timber Management Project would use management direction from the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP to implement actions to meet the identified need for the project. The action would include the use of regeneration and thinning harvests to implement the project. Forest management that uses regeneration harvesting in order to manage for sustained yield timber production over time is a plan level decision made in the RMP.
The BLM’s professional land management staff of foresters, engineers, fish and wildlife biologists, soil scientists, botanists, and hydrologists used Forest Operations Inventory (FOI), site specific stand exam data, and other area specific factors including but not limited to spotted owl site locations, municipal water supply issues, previous harvest activity, legal access, and transportation issues to identify stands in the Panther Creek planning area that are appropriate for management at this time that could address the stated needs for action outlined below (See EA section 2.4 for locations and attributes of selected stands).
Of the 1,156 HLB acres in the planning area, the team identified 781 acres of forest stands (68% of the planning area) that, with commercial harvest, have the potential to address the needs outlined below. The proposal would regeneration harvest 395 acres of 49 to 120 year old timber (44% of stands 80+ years old and 33% of stands 40-79 years old), commercially thin 335 acres of 40 to 77 year old timber, and manage the density of 35 acres of riparian
1The 2016 NCO ROD/RMP classifies the Riparian Reserve land use allocation by subwatershed Class. Each subwatershed Class contains specific management direction. The Panther Creek subwatershed is a Class 2 subwatershed and management direction specific to Class 2 subwatersheds can be found in the EA section 1.4, Purpose and Need for the Project.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 8 reserve stands 40 to 77 years old through variable commercial thinning harvest. A total of 16 acres would be harvested for road right-of-way, of which, most would become permanent roads associated with commercial thinning units (acres would move from HLB to District-Designated Reserve). The remaining 375 acres of HLB in the planning area were not selected for the proposal for several reasons including: timber too young or small to be commercially viable (92 acres), older stands associated with an historic spotted owl site occupied within the last 10 years which will be carried over to the next planning cycle, increasing the balance of acres in the older age class groups to provide for future sustained yield timber volume in future entries (147 acres), intermediate aged stands associated with a landslide area near the city of Carlton’s municipal water supply reservoir (23 acres), intermediate aged stands that were thinned within the last 10 years in the Baker Creek project (58 acres), and acreage discrepancies between corporate land base data from the 2016 RMP and actual site-specific stream location resulting in more acres in RR vs. HLB (55 acres).
Needs for conducting commercial harvest (2016 ROD/RMP, pp. 59-60):
Com Harv 1) Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity. The Northwest Oregon District’s annual achievement of its ASQ is dependent upon the offering for sale timber volume in individual timber sales, which in aggregate, total the District’s ASQ. Because timber sale planning requires two to three years, the inability to proceed with a given sale in the District’s sale plan for any particular fiscal year has the potential to prevent the District from achieving its ASQ in that fiscal year. In the RMP analysis, BLM modeled a repeated cycle of regeneration harvest and regrowth within the Harvest Land Base that does not decrease over time (2016 PRMP/FEIS p. 1163-1227). Accordingly, every individual timber sale planned within the Harvest Land Base, like the proposed project, serves an integral function in contributing toward meeting the sustained yield objectives of the RMP. All commercial harvest in the Harvest Land Base contributes to meeting this need, including regeneration harvest and commercial thinning.
Com Harv 2) Adjust the age class distribution in each sustained-yield unit. As is the case throughout the TFO and the Salem SYU, BLM acres within individual planning areas are unevenly distributed and composed primarily of 40-79 and 80+ year old forest stands (Table 2). Relatively few acres are in the 0-39 age class group. The BLM acres within the Panther Creek planning area contain 1,156 acres of HLB allocation with 72% of the acres forested with stands between 40 and 79 years old. The TFO strategy seeks to redistribute age classes in the SYU by working to adjust age classes in each Strategic Planning Area over several planning cycles until the whole TFO HLB has a relatively even age class distribution. As the TFO HLB age classes become more balanced, and as other Field Offices also adjust age class distribution, the SYU age class distribution would become more balanced over time.
Table 2: Acreage by age class group for HLB
Age Groupings Salem SYU Tillamook Field Panther Creek Project Office Planning Area
Acres % of Total Acres % of Total Acres % of Total
12,496 12 2,284 8 57 5 0-39
52,966 53 13,281 50 836 72 40-79
80+ 34,808 34 11,286 42 263 23
Total 100,367 100 26,851 100 1,156 100
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 9 Only regeneration harvest can adjust age class by resetting it to 0 after harvest and the RMP does not specify a minimum age when regeneration harvest can occur. RMP growth and yield modelling assumed that in the future, after age class distribution is relatively balanced, that minimum harvest age would be 90 years old (PRMP/EIS p. 1213). Ninety years is approximately the age when Douglas-fir stands on reasonably good growing sites reach the point where the rate of growth begins to slow (culmination of mean annual increment) (McArdle et al, 1961), which is a time when regeneration harvest is considered under a long rotation sustained yield even-flow forest management scheme like the one the BLM uses. However, the RMP also assumes that regeneration harvest would occur in younger stands for the purpose of adjusting age classes to work toward a reasonably even age class distribution in the future, which would facilitate long-term sustained yield timber production. Seventy-two percent of the acres in the Panther Creek planning area are composed of 40-79 year old forest stands which, if healthy, are well suited for commercial thinning. The older stands within the group are still at least a decade or two away from the point in their growth cycle where growth rate culminates and, if thinned now would have enough time to beneficially respond to the thinning before being considered for regeneration harvest at the next planning cycle. However, because the preponderance of acres in the Panther Creek planning area are in the 40-79 year old age group it is necessary to regeneration harvest a portion of these stands now in order to begin transitioning this relatively young land base to a sustained yield regime based on long rotations, without excessively reducing the acreage available for near-term harvesting (2016 PRMP/FEIS p. 1216).
Com Harv 3) Manage insect and disease infestations. The root disease Phellinus weirii greatly reduces the productive capacity of heavily infected sites when stocked with susceptible species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir. Regeneration harvest of heavily infected sites and replanting with tree species less susceptible or immune, such as western hemlock, western redcedar, and red alder, would improve the site’s capacity to grow wood volume.
Com Harv 4) Convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site. Conifer trees in the Pacific Northwest, particularly Douglas-fir, grow much larger and are generally more valuable than hardwood species. Forest sites that are heavily stocked with hardwood trees that should otherwise be growing conifers are underproductive. Regeneration harvest and planting with conifer species would establish a forest stand with greater capacity for volume growth.
Com Harv 5) Improve stand merchantability and value. Commercial thinning of densely stocked stands reduces competition for growing space and allows for accelerated growth rates on the remaining trees. With increased growth, individual trees can attain larger size and greater value in a shorter period of time. Some trees can attain large sizes that fulfill market niches not serviced by smaller trees, such as peeler grade logs, large beams, pilings, etc.
Com Harv 6) Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity. Commercial thinning that includes unharvested retention areas (skips) and group selection openings (gaps) within homogenous, heavily stocked conifer stands can promote the development of more complex structural stands, especially if the gaps are replanted with conifer species other than the dominant overstory species.
Purposes for commercial harvest
● The proposed Panther Creek project includes 116 acres of forest stands that are over 80 years old and are beyond, at, or nearing, the point where their rate of growth is declining and should be considered for regeneration harvest consistent with RMP modeling assumptions. Regeneration harvesting at this time of the proposed stands 80 years old or older would address needs Com Harv 1 and 2 above.
● Within the proposed project area there are 150 acres of 46-68 year old forest stocked primarily with Douglas-fir, that are heavily infected with the Phellinus weirii root disease. Long term sustained yield of Douglas-fir stands that are infected with root disease is impractical and conversion to immune or less
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 10 susceptible species through regeneration harvesting and replanting should be considered. Regeneration harvesting and replanting of these stands would contribute to addressing needs Com Harv 1, 2 and 3 above.
● The Panther Creek project area also includes 18 acres of 60 year old forest that are heavily stocked with hardwood species thus reducing the productive capacity of those acres. Regeneration harvest of the stands heavily stocked with hardwoods and replanting with site adapted conifer trees would contribute to addressing needs Com Harv 1, 2 and 4 above.
● In order to begin reducing the age class imbalance in the 40-79 year age class group, the Proposed Action would regeneration harvest approximately 280 acres in the age group. As indicated above, 150 acres from the age class group that are infested with Pellinus would be regeneration harvested as would 18 acres that are heavily stocked with hardwood species. The proposed action also includes an additional 111 acres of regeneration harvest in discrete healthy forest stands that are 68-78 years old to reach 279 acres total which would reduce acreage within the age class group from 72% to approximately 48% of the total acres of HLB in the planning area. The regeneration harvest of these additional 111 acres would contribute toward addressing Com Harv 1 and 2. However, because healthy 68-78 year stands have not culminated and are still well suited to thinning which could improve stand merchantability and value as well as enhance the development of structural complexity, regeneration harvesting of them could present a conflict in alternative uses of these resources. Therefore, the BLM will also examine the effects of only thinning all 209 acres of these stands in Alternative 3 rather than regeneration harvesting them. An alternative that only thins healthy 68-78 year old stands will contribute toward addressing Com Harv 1, 5, and/or 6. Conversely, while there is an identified need to adjust age class distribution, the BLM recognizes that the process of balancing age classes will require time; and that there may be other harvest scheduling schemes that could accomplish age class balance over time that are still consistent with the assumptions that guided the RMP analysis. The BLM developed Alternative 4 to investigate whether an immediate reduction of more acres in the 40-79 age class group could also result in relatively balanced age class groups within the planning area over time, while remaining consistent with RMP assumptions and continuing to provide regeneration harvest opportunity within the planning area in subsequent planning cycles. Alternative 4 would regeneration harvest all 209 acres of healthy 68-78 year old stands that are currently included in the Proposed Action and thin none of them. Alternative 4 would contribute to addressing needs Com Harv 1 and 2.
● In order to contribute to addressing needs Com Harv 1 and 5, the Proposed Action alternative would thin approximately 98 acres of healthy 68 – 78 year old forest. Alternative 3 would also contribute to addressing needs Com Harv 1 and 5 by thinning all 209 acres of healthy 68-78 year old stands. After treatment under both alternatives, these acres would still be forested with stands that would be suitable for regeneration harvest at the next or subsequent planning cycle.
● One proposed 63 acre stand that is approximately 76 years old, well stocked and suitable for thinning, is within an historic northern spotted owl nest core area that has been occupied within the last 10 years. The RMP (Appendix A, p. 107) gives guidance to BLM managers to “reduce, avoid, or delay negative impacts to northern spotted owl known sites located in the Harvest Land Base… to the extent consistent with the management objectives and management direction for the Harvest Land Base”. Further, the guidance instructs BLM managers to “...give priority to maintaining...the existing nesting-roosting habitat in the 500- acre core area, or promoting the protection and development of habitat in the nest patch or 500-acre core use area, to the extent consistent with the management objectives and management direction for the Harvest Land Base.” (emphasis added, RMP, p. 108). This stand is in the process of developing nesting- roosting habitat and would benefit from commercial thinning that includes group selection openings that are replanted with shade tolerant conifer species as well as untreated skips, in order to increase vegetative species diversity and promote the development of structural complexity (RMP, p. 60). Due to its proximity to an historic owl site that has been occupied within the last 10 years, this stand would not be considered for regeneration harvest at this time. Commercial thinning of this stand that includes skips and gaps along with
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 11 replanting gaps with shade tolerant conifers would result in a more structurally complex stand and address needs Com Harv 1 and 6 above.
● The proposed project also includes approximately 174 acres of 40 - 49 year old fully stocked conifer stands that are now entering a growth phase where tree-to-tree competition is becoming intense and suppression mortality is imminent or underway. These are the types of stands that respond very well to commercial thinning and are just now reaching the point where the harvest would be commercially viable based on the amount of volume that could be removed. Commercial thinning of these dense young stands that are beginning to experience intense competition and mortality would contribute to addressing needs Com Harv 1 and 5 above.
Needs for treating Riparian Reserve stands (2016 ROD/RMP, Class II watershed p. 70, 72):
Riparian 1) Within the outer zone, thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies and multi-cohort stands …increase diversity of riparian species and develop structurally complex stands. Due to the history of stands that developed in the Panther Creek planning area, several stands along some perennial and intermittent streams are overly simplistic and lack structural diversity elements such as large trees with full, long crowns and shade-tolerant trees occupying the lower and mid-story positions.
Riparian 2) Within the inner zone, cut individual trees for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated with outer zone commercial thinning. Cutting and leaving individual trees within the inner and outer zone of riparian reserves would provide forest floor and stream channel structure that is currently lacking.
Purposes for Riparian Reserve treatments:
● The Panther Creek project proposes to conduct a variable thinning harvest on 35 acres in the outer zone of Riparian Reserve. The proposal also includes the underplanting of shade tolerant native conifers in order to diversify the species mix, as well as promote the development of structural layering. The reserved trees are expected to grow very large and develop large, long crowns. Riparian Reserve commercial thinning and underplanting would contribute to addressing need Riparian 1 above.
● The proposed project would cut and leave conifer trees totaling approximately 330 square feet of basal area within the inner zone of the Riparian Reserve along streams adjacent to the riparian commercial thinning areas and on the forest floor within the outer-zone commercial thinning areas. Cutting and leaving additional down wood in some portions of the inner and outer zones of the Riparian Reserve would contribute to addressing need Riparian 2 above.
Need for managing sediment inputs to improve water quality (2016 ROD/RMP, p. 80):
H2O Qual 1) Implement road improvements which reduce or eliminate chronic sediment inputs to stream channels. Gravel surface roads located near streams can deliver fine sediment to streams through surface level erosion, which increases with the intensity of vehicle traffic on those roads. Actions that divert surface runoff or trap sediment from entering stream channels can greatly reduce negative impacts to water quality. In areas where diverting or trapping road related sediment is infeasible, improving the road surface by paving at sediment source areas can nearly eliminate the delivery of fine sediment to streams by hardening the road surface and removing the potential for surface level erosion.
Purpose for management actions to improve water quality:
● The Panther Creek project proposes to install approximately 100 ditch relief culverts and several sediment catch basins. Several of the ditch relief culverts would disconnect ditchlines from stream channels in areas of chronic sediment input to streams. The proposed project would also pave
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 12 approximately 650 feet of gravel road approach to a bridge at a stream crossing on Von Road. This location is a chronic source of sediment, which cannot be alleviated by installation of cross drains or sediment catch basins due to physical constraints of topography. Paving of the bridge approach would reduce potential sediment inputs to a negligible level. Culvert and sediment trap installation along with limited paving on Von Road would address need H2O Qual 1 above.
1.5 Decision Framework
This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides the information needed for the Tillamook Field Manager to select a course of action to be implemented for the Panther Creek Timber Management Project. The Field Manager must decide whether to implement the Proposed Action alternative, one of the other action alternatives, or select the No Action Alternative.
The Field Manager will consider the extent to which each alternative responds to the decision factors listed below. The forthcoming Decision Record will document the Field Manager’s rationale for selecting a course of action based on the effects documented in the EA, and the extent to which each alternative responds to the following factors: ● How well the alternatives meet all of the purposes for the project that are relevant at the time of decision (not all needs for the project may occur in each timber sale decision area). ● The relative feasibility and cost effectiveness of on-the-ground implementation of the alternatives (an alternative must be practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint in order to be considered reasonable (CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981)). ● The nature and intensity of environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed action or alternatives and the nature and effectiveness of measures to resolve the issues and mitigate impacts to resources (see Scoping and Issue Development section below). ● Compliance with applicable laws and management direction from the RMP, including consideration of the assumptions used in the EIS that supports the RMP.
The decision will also include a determination of whether or not the impacts of the actions are significant to the human environment. If the impacts are determined to be within the range analyzed in the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement for Western Oregon (FEIS) (USDI 2016b), or otherwise determined to be insignificant, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be issued and the decision implemented. If this EA determines that the significance of impacts are unknown or greater than those previously analyzed and disclosed in the RMP/FEIS, then a project-specific EIS would be prepared.
1.6 Land Use and Legal Conformance
Conformance with Land Use Plans
The BLM signed a Record of Decision approving the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Resource Management Plan (2016 NCO ROD/RMP) on August 5, 2016. The Tillamook Field Office initiated and designed the Panther Creek Timber Management Project to conform to the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP.
Special Status Species Policy
The Panther Creek Timber Management Project is consistent with BLM Manual 6840 (USDI 2008a), the purpose of which is to provide policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM Special Status Species and the ecosystems upon which they depend on BLM-administered lands. BLM Special Status Species include those species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, as well as those designated as Bureau Sensitive by the Oregon/Washington State Director. The objectives of the BLM Special Status Species policy are: ● To conserve and/or recover ESA-listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA protections are no longer needed for these species; and
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 13 ● To initiate proactive conservation2 measures that reduce, or eliminate threats to Bureau Sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under ESA (USDI 2008d, Section .02).
Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (2011)
In June 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) finalized the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, which contains 33 Recovery Actions. Recovery Actions are recommendations that guide activities needed to accomplish the recovery objectives and ultimately lead to delisting of the species. Specifically, Recovery Action 32 (RA 32) in the Recovery Plan recommends “maintaining and restoring the older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests (USDI USFWS 2011, III- 67).” The intent of RA 32 is to maintain substantially all of the older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on federal lands to prevent further exacerbation of the competitive interactions between northern spotted owls (NSOs) and barred owls.
Also included in the Revised Recovery Plan is Recovery Action 10 (RA 10) which recommends that federal agencies “Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population” (USDI USFWS 2011, III-43).
The land use allocations, management direction, and guidance in the 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP/ROD constitute BLM’s contribution towards Recovery Actions 10 and 32 (USDI 2016c, p. 127). The Panther Creek Timber Management Project incorporated applicable RMP direction and guidance and is therefore consistent with the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI USFWS 2011).
Relevant Statutes and Regulations
The Proposed Action is designed to be in conformance with the direction given for the management of public lands in the Northwest Oregon District and the following: ● Oregon and California Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act). Requires the BLM to manage O&C lands for permanent forest production. Timber shall be sold, cut, and removed in accordance with sustained-yield principles for the purpose of providing for a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities. ● Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Defines BLM’s organization and provides the basic policy guidance for BLM’s management of public lands. ● National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Requires the preparation of environmental impact statements for major federal actions that may have a significant effect on the environment. ● Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Directs federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize species listed as “threatened or endangered” or adversely modify designated critical habitat for these listed species. ● Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA). Provides the principal framework for national, state, and local efforts to protect air quality. ● National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA). Requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of their federal or federally licensed undertakings on historic properties, whether those properties are federally owned or not. ● Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). Protects archaeological resources and sites on federally administered lands. Imposes criminal and civil penalties for removing archaeological items from federal lands without a permit.
2 Conservation: as applied to Bureau Sensitive species, is the use of programs, plans, and management practices to reduce or eliminate threats affecting the status of the species, or improve the condition of the species’ habitat on BLM-administered lands (USDI 2008d, Glossary p. 2).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 14 ● Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (as amended in 1986 and 1996). Protects public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. ● Clean Water Act of 1987 (CWA). Establishes objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water.
1.7 Scoping and Issue Development
1.7.1 Scoping
Scoping is the process the BLM uses to identify issues related to the proposal (40 CFR 1501.7) and determine the extent of environmental analysis necessary for an informed decision.
External Scoping
External scoping for the Panther Creek Timber Management Project (seeking input from people and organizations outside of the BLM) was conducted by means of sending a scoping letter on September 29, 2017 to 30 interested parties, government agencies, and nearby landowners on the Tillamook Field Office mailing list. The letter described the objectives and direction for the project and the preliminary findings of strategic planning and internal scoping as described below. In addition, a public scoping letter was also posted on the BLM’s ePlanning web page on September 29, 2017, and the project was included in the Northwest Oregon Districts’ Spring 2017 Project Update which is sent to approximately 100 individuals and organizations. Letters were also sent to the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians apprising them of the BLM’s proposal and seeking input regarding tribal concerns in and around the project area.
In response, we received four letters; from Doug Heiken representing Oregon Wild, from Andy Geissler representing American Forest Resources Council, from Tetra Tech representing the City of Carlton, Oregon and from Cheryl K. Pouley, the archaeologist for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde. A summary of the comments and the BLM responses are in Chapter 7 of this document. The scoping comment letters are available for review at the Tillamook Field Office, 4610 Third Street, Tillamook, Oregon.
Internal Scoping
In addition to external scoping, the TFO worked through an internal process to help develop the Panther Creek Timber Management project. In April 2014, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) developed an activity planning report that outlined a number of resource management projects that could be undertaken in the Panther Creek 6th field subwatershed. The potential project proposals were predicated on conforming to the 1995 Salem District RMP. The projects included commercial thinning/density management in the Adaptive Management Area (AMA) and Riparian Reserve land use allocations, road maintenance projects that included managing and reducing road related sediment inputs to streams, and riparian underplanting in forests near streams that lacked shade tolerant tree species, or were overly stocked with hardwood trees. The team also recommended management of unauthorized destructive OHV use by blocking skid trails and other areas where damage is occurring.
In August of 2016, the BLM signed the Record of Decision for the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP which replaced the 1995 RMP. In order to be in position to implement the 2016 RMP, the TFO updated its planning process to closely align with the objectives of the new RMP (see background section above). The new RMP changed the non-riparian reserve land use allocation in the Panther Creek subwatershed from AMA to HLB. With that change the objective outcomes for the landscape changed from management for the development of late-successional forest to primarily timber volume production. Much preliminary work was underway in Panther Creek at the time of the signing of the new RMP including stand exam surveys, wildlife and botany surveys, road evaluations, etc. in order to support project development and analysis. Because so much work was underway, the TFO found it prudent to continue to pursue project development in the Panther Creek planning area. In October of 2016 the TFO IDT revisited the activity planning effort and updated the project proposals to fit with the 2016
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 15 RMP. All of the preliminary work already completed or still underway remains valid and useful for development and analysis of this current project proposal.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 presented in Chapter 2 were developed to meet the Purpose and Need presented above by using information derived from external scoping as well as information from the TFO’s strategic planning process, such as acreages and current forest stand age class distribution. Stand exams and field reconnaissance were also used to assess forest condition, including current growth, structure, and health, as well as harvest opportunity.
1.7.2 Issue Development
The Code of Federal Regulation that governs the National Environmental Policy Act instructs that: “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” (40 CFR 1500.1 (b))
The issues considered here provide a basis for comparing the environmental effects of the proposed project with the current condition, inform alternative development, and will aid in the decision-making process. The issues are presented in the form of questions regarding the relationship between the alternatives and specific pertinent elements of potentially affected resources. Some of the issues raised will not be considered in detail because the project would have no possibility of significantly affecting the identified resource, are not amenable to scientific analysis, or are not useful to the decision maker in choosing between the alternatives. For those issues not analyzed in detail a brief explanation is included as to why further analysis is not included (see EA section 6.1). Specialist reports covering Silviculture (Vegetation and Forest Resources); Hydrology; Fisheries Resources; Wildlife Resources; Botany and Invasive Plants; Soils; Air Quality, Fire and Fuels; Carbon Storage; Recreation; and Visual Resources have been written and are part of the project record for this EA. The specialist reports are incorporated into the EA by reference and contain informational data and/or analysis for both those issues analyzed in detail and those that were not analyzed in detail. Acres or figures within these reports may be similar to, but not necessarily identical to, those in this EA. These differences are often due to rounding or, inclusion or exclusion, of portions of projects which may overlap. These differences are minor and do not affect the results of the analyses. The figures utilized in this EA are based on the best available information at the time of publishing.
Some issues that may be relevant to this project proposal were analyzed at a broader scale in association with the 2016 Coastal and Northwestern Oregon Proposed Resource Management Plan/ Final Environmental Impact Statement. This EA will focus on addressing those issues appropriate for analysis at the site specific level of environmental review, and will tier and incorporate by reference broader level NEPA analysis where appropriate.
1.7.3 Issues Identified for Detailed Analysis
Vegetation and Forest Resources
● Issue 1: What effect would regeneration harvest have on HLB age class adjustment within the Panther Creek planning area and how would this adjustment influence the eventual balancing of age class groups and sustained-yield timber management within the planning area? ● Issue 2: How much timber volume would the Harvest Land Base treatments from each alternative contribute to the Salem Sustained Yield Unit Allowable Sale Quantity? ● Issue 3: How would the alternatives improve the productivity of forest stands within the Harvest Land Base that are infested with Phellinus weirii or have a high percentage of hardwood? ● Issue 4: How would commercial thinning improve stand merchantability and value through commercial thinning treatments?
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 16 ● Issue 5: How would commercial thinning treatments in the Riparian Reserve improve stand diversity and contribute to the development of a shade tolerant understory?
Wildlife
● Issue 6: Would the alternatives affect Bureau Sensitive terrestrial mollusk species or their habitats? If so, how? ● Issue 7: Would the alternatives affect the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole or their habitat? If so, how? ● Issue 8: What effect would the alternatives have on marbled murrelets and their habitats, including Critical Habitat? ● Issue 9: What effect would the alternatives have upon northern spotted owl habitat availability, including Designated Critical Habitat?
Hydrology
● Issue 10: What effect would sediment generated by road construction, maintenance, renovation, improvement, and haul, including all-season haul, have on meeting state Water Quality Standards for in- stream fine sediment and turbidity, including within public water supply source water areas? ● Issue 11: What effect would commercial thinning treatments within the Riparian Reserve, including tree felling for addition of large wood in the inner zone, have on the channel morphology of project area streams via changes in actual in-stream wood and potential large wood recruitment?
Fisheries
● Issue 12: What effect would sediment, and resultant turbidity, generated from the alternatives (rock and timber haul, culvert replacements) have on special status fish species and/or their habitat?
Soils
● Issue 13: How would ground-based harvesting systems, including the use of equipment specialized for use on steeper slopes, affect soil compaction and erosion? ● Issue 14: How would the timber harvest and road building activities affect soil erosion? ● Issue 15: How would soil compaction from timber harvest and road building activities affect soil productivity?
Botany and Invasive Plants
● Issue 16: Would road construction, timber harvesting and hauling cause the spread or new infestation of noxious and/or invasive weed species?
1.7.4 Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Detail
The following issues were considered by the Panther Creek IDT but were eliminated from detailed analysis. Rationale as to why these issues were eliminated from detailed analysis can be found in EA section 6.1.
Wildlife
● What effect would timber management treatments have on Bureau Sensitive bat species (Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat) or their habitat? ● What effect would timber management treatments have on Bureau Sensitive purple martins and their habitats?
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 17 ● Would timber management treatments affect the ecological function of naturally occurring special habitats, which include seeps, springs, wetlands, ponds, and rock outcrops within the Panther Creek project area? ● What effect would timber management treatments have on bald eagle habitat or bald eagles using nests (including active nests and alternate nests) or communal winter roosting areas? ● How would timber management treatments impact habitat conditions for northern spotted owl movement and survival between and through large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat?
Hydrology
● What effect would regeneration harvest have on stream discharge in terms of low stream flows? ● What effect would regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and riparian commercial thinning treatments and road construction have on stream discharge in terms of peak stream flows? ● What effect would riparian commercial thinning treatments in the outer zone of the Riparian Reserve have on meeting state Water Quality standards for stream temperature? ● What effect would tree felling to supplement large in-stream wood in the inner zone of the Riparian Reserve under the Proposed Action have on meeting state Water Quality standards for stream temperature? ● What effect would sediment generated by regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and riparian commercial thinning treatments, fuels treatments, site preparation treatments, and rock quarry operations have on meeting state Water Quality standards and/or Total Maximum Daily Loads for in-stream fine sediment and turbidity? ● What effect would sediment generated by timber harvest and road-related activities have on water quality within Drinking Water Protection Areas for public water supplies?
Soils
● How would timber harvest and road building activities affect slope stability within the project area? ● How would post treatment logging residue reduction activities, which include mechanical piling and prescribed piling burning, affect soil productivity?
Botany and Invasive Plants
● How would known sites of the Bureau Strategic species Sclerophora peronella, found within the Panther Creek planning area, be affected by timber management treatments?
Recreation
● What effect would timber and rock haul have on the use of Nestucca Backcountry Byway Extensive Recreation Management Area?
Carbon Storage, Carbon Emissions, and Climate Change
● Would the project affect carbon storage, emissions, and by extension, climate change?
Air Quality, Fire and Fuels Management
● How would smoke from pile burning affect air quality? ● What effects would slash piles from fuels treatments have on fire risk?
Cultural Resources
● What effect would project activities have on cultural or archaeological resources?
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 18 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Alternative Development
Pursuant to Section 102 (2) (E) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Federal agencies shall “...study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.”
BLM has identified three action alternatives to analyze in detail, which include the Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action), Alternative 3 (commercial thinning of healthy stands 68-78 years old), and Alternative 4 (regeneration harvest of healthy stands 68-78 years old) along with the no action alternative (Alternative 1). The range of alternatives explores alternative means for meeting the purpose and need for the action described in section 1 of this EA.
2.2 Alternatives Developed
The alternatives were developed by BLM to be consistent with 2016 ROD/RMP management direction and meet the purpose and need of this project. Existing conditions, the expected effects of the alternatives, and the expected effects of taking no action are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this EA. Timber harvest treatment actions and some connected actions differ between the alternatives and are described below.
When developing the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), the IDT selected stands within the Panther Creek Strategic Planning Area’s HLB and RR LUAs for commercial thinning, regeneration harvest, and riparian commercial thinning treatments to be consistent with the management direction within the 2016 ROD/RMP and to achieve the purpose and need of this project. The Proposed Action is detailed in section 2.4 below.
During the development of the Proposed Action, the Panther Creek IDT identified 209 acres of healthy, conifer- dominated stands aged 68-78 as having the ability to use management direction to meet the purpose and need for the project under both commercial thinning and regeneration harvest treatments, albeit to different degrees. To compare the effects between these treatment options in this stand age grouping, the Proposed Action would conduct regeneration harvest on 111 acres and commercial thinning on 98 acres of these stands; Alternative 3 would conduct commercial thinning on all 209 acres of these stands; and Alternative 4 would conduct regeneration harvest on all 209 acres of these stands.
Most connected actions of the project, which include but are not limited to commercial thinning in the RR land use allocation, new road construction, road renovation and improvement, logging systems, and project design features are the same under all action alternatives and will only be presented under the Proposed Action. Post- harvest road activities, site preparation, fuels treatments, and reforestation would differ between the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 only in the number of acres where activities would occur and will be presented under the Proposed Action and briefly discussed under Alternatives 3 and 4.
2.3 Alternative 1: No Action
The No Action alternative describes the baseline, against which the effects of the action alternative can be compared, i.e. the existing condition in the project area and the continuing trends in those conditions if the BLM does not implement the proposed project. Consideration of this alternative also answers the question: “What would it mean for the objectives not to be achieved?” The No Action alternative means that no timber management action would occur at this time. There would be no regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, or riparian forest commercial thinning. No roads would be renovated, improved, or constructed; no culverts would be installed or replaced. Only normal administrative activities and other uses (e.g. road use, programmed road maintenance, harvest of special forest products on public land) would continue on BLM lands within the project area.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 19 Selection of the No Action alternative would not constitute a decision to change the land use allocations of these lands. Selection of the No Action alternative would not set a precedent for consideration of future action proposals.
2.4 Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Regeneration Harvest
BLM proposes to conduct regeneration harvest within the MITA LUA on approximately 395 acres (in 20 individual units) in forest stands which are approximately 46 to 1203 years old. Most of the stands proposed for regeneration harvest are dominated by Douglas-fir, though several stands have components of western redcedar, western hemlock, grand fir, red alder, bigleaf maple, Pacific madrone, and Pacific dogwood (see Table 3). Stands proposed for regeneration harvest respond to specific Needs presented in EA section 1.4. In some cases, stands were selected for regeneration harvest to meet multiple aspects of the Purpose and Need. All stands selected for regeneration harvest would contribute to the Salem SYU Allowable Sale Quantity (Issue #2) and would adjust age classes within the Panther Creek planning area and the Salem SYU by resetting the stand age to 0 (Issue #1). More specifically, units 17-1, 17-2, 17-5, 19-1, 29-2, 33-1, 33-2, and 34-2 were selected for regeneration harvest as they have reached, or are near reaching, the age in the growth cycle at which the mean annual increment for volume is at its maximum. Units 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4, 25-5, 25-6, 25-7, and 25-8 have been selected for regeneration harvest as they are heavily infected by Phellinus weirii (laminated root rot) and unit 29-1 is stocked with considerable amounts of hardwood species, reducing their ability to be fully productive (Issue #3). Lastly, units 19-2, 29-1, and 33-2 are stands within the 68-78 age grouping, which contains a preponderance of acres within the Panther Creek planning area, and have been selected for regeneration harvest to assist in an eventual relatively even age class distribution in the planning area (Issue #2).
Regeneration harvest treatments would remove the majority of trees within each stand while retaining 5 to 15% of the pre-treatment live stand basal area4 (BA). BA retention levels would intentionally vary, from 5-15% BA, between each regeneration harvest unit. All trees that were established in 1850 or prior and are 40” dbh or greater would be reserved as part of the 5-15% BA retention5. Trees selected for retention would be spatially distributed in a variety of patterns throughout each regeneration harvest unit, and may include large clumps (generally .25 acre to 1 acre in size), aggregate groups (2-5 grouped trees) and/or dispersed as individuals. In general, reserve trees would be representative of the current stand composition. Where available, trees preferred for reservation would be large conifer trees, conifer trees with high intrinsic wildlife value (trees with multiple tops, trees with cavities), and minor conifer and hardwood species.
3 Unit 34-2 is a two-aged stand, containing a 180 year-old Douglas-fir co-dominant overstory with a 120 year old Douglas-fir cohort. All trees of the 180 year age class are over 40” dbh and would be reserved from harvest. 4 The cross-sectional area of all stems of a species or all stems in a stand measured at breast height (4.5 ft. above the ground) and expressed per unit of the land area, e.g. square feet per acre. 5 Unit 34-2 contains numerous (approximately 77) trees established prior to 1850 and 40” dbh or larger. All such trees would be reserved in this unit, which would result in a basal area retention of approximately 25% of the pre-harvest live stand basal area.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 20 Table 3: Proposed Regeneration Treatment Units-Grouped by Need for Treatment
Treatment Unit (Stands) Acres Age
Stands 80 Years and Older with Declining Growth Rates
17-1 45 86
17-2 13 112
17-5 4 109
19-1 12 88
29-2 6 81
33-1 5 114
33-3 16 84
34-2 15 120
Total 116
Stands Infested with Laminated Root Rot
25-1 24 63
25-2 7 64
25-3 17 46
25-4 8 62
25-5 50 49
25-6 10 64
25-7 17 49
25-8 17 68
Total 150
Stands Heavily Stocked with Hardwoods
34-1 18 60
Total 18
Stands 68-78 Years Old (Healthy)
19-2 96 70
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 21 29-1 5 75
33-2 10 78
Total 111
Commercial Thinning
BLM proposes to conduct commercial thinning in the MITA LUA on approximately 335 acres (in 15 individual units) in forest stands which are approximately 40-77 years old (see Table 4). These stands are fully stocked conifer stands and are at a density where trees are in competition for growing space. Stands selected for commercial thinning respond to specific Needs presented in EA section 1.4. All stands selected for commercial thinning would contribute to the Salem SYU Allowable Sale Quantity (Issue #2), and stand value and merchantability would be improved as retained trees would accelerate in growth and provide larger logs, which would command higher prices in the local marketplace in future entries (Issue #4). Additionally for unit 13-1, which is within a northern spotted owl nest patch and core area known to have been occupied within the last 10 years, commercial thinning would promote structural complexity by treating the overstory in a variably spaced manner and introducing tree species diversity through the underplanting of shade tolerant conifers.
Commercial thinning prescriptions would vary by unit, depending on current stand composition and desired post- treatment density targets, with all units resulting in a stand average relative density6 between 25% and 45% after treatment. The commercial thinning treatment would be a “thinning-from-below” to a pre-determined target stand average basal area where generally the smallest to medium sized trees are removed, leaving the largest, healthiest to continue to grow. In order to maximize site occupancy and provide the most growing space to the reserved trees the thinning would be relatively evenly spaced. Basal area targets would be developed to reduce current inter-tree competition to a level where the reserved trees would be relatively free of competition for the next 15- 30 years before the site is fully stocked again and tree growth begins to slow from competition for site resources.
In addition to the overall commercial thinning prescription, at least 5% of the stand would be left in untreated areas where all of the overstory trees would be retained and, in up to 10% of the stand, group selection openings would be created where 0-2 overstory trees per acre would be retained. Untreated areas would range in size from approximately 1 to 3 acres and group selection openings would range in size from approximately 1 to 4 acres and would be dispersed throughout each unit. Where possible, untreated areas would be strategically located adjacent to ecological features existing within these units (i.e. seeps, springs, rock outcroppings, surrounding high quality snags, concentrations of large down wood).
6 Relative density (RD) is a measure of crowding in a stand of trees, expressed as a percentage of density (based on number and size of trees) relative to a theoretical maximum density. Curtis Relative Density (RD) is calculated by dividing the basal area per acre by the square root of the quadratic mean diameter. Although not expressed as a percentage, Curtis Relative Density can be interpreted approximately as the percentage of the maximum possible Curtis Relative Density (RD 100). Curtis Relative Densities of 50-60 indicate stands are beginning to experience increasing competition. Other common ways of communicating density in a forest stand include trees/acre, basal area/acre, average spacing and crown or canopy closure.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 22
Table 4: Proposed Commercial Thinning Treatment Units
Average Target Average Treatment Average BA (ft2) Unit Trees/Ac.After Curtis RD Acres Age After Harvest Harvest1 After Harvest
13-1 63 76 50 175 35
13-2 25 42 75 155 35
17-3 11 73 55 175 35
17-4 17 71 50 175 35
17-6 5 77 55 170 35
19-3 6 70 51 200 35
19-4 11 49 71 155 35
19-5 60 48 76 155 35
23-1 4 76 35 195 35
24-1 17 68 38 190 35
29-3 38 71 40 190 35
29-4 24 40 75 155 35
29-5 19 48 61 165 35
29-6 27 47 68 160 35
29-7 8 44 65 160 35
Total 335
1 Trees per acre target represented here would be accomplished after the thinning and snag creation treatments.
Riparian Commercial Thinning
BLM proposes to conduct commercial thinning on 35 acres (in 6 individual units) in the RR LUA in forest stands which are approximately 44-68 years old (see Table 5). Stands proposed for commercial thinning are dense and are dominated by Douglas-fir in the overstory, with little to no shade tolerant understory. The objective of commercial thinning in these stands would be to develop large overstory trees with structurally complex crowns and to begin to establish multiple canopy layers through the underplanting of shade tolerant conifer species (Issue #5).
Riparian commercial thinning prescriptions would specifically target Douglas-fir and red alder (to a lesser extent) as the only species for removal, with all minor conifer and hardwood species being retained, and they would be
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 23 “thinnings from below,” which would remove trees from the smaller and intermediate size classes and leave the largest trees in the stand. While post-harvest trees per acre targets would range between 60-65 trees at the treated stand average level (after thinning and snag creation), density targets across a given unit would vary, where more trees would be reserved in some portions of a given unit and less in other portions. Riparian commercial thinning would be a moderate thinning, allowing for treatment objectives, which include establishing an understory and developing overstory trees with large, complex crowns, to be achieved.
Table 5: Proposed Riparian Commercial Thinning Units
Age Target Average Average BA Treatment Average Relative Unit Trees/Ac. After (ft2) After Acres Density After Harvest Harvest Harvest
19-5 RR 2 48 63 120 28
24-1 RR 4 68 60 225 44
25-5 RR 8 49 62 120 28
29-5 RR 4 48 62 145 32
29-6 RR 11 47 65 130 30
29-7 RR 6 44 60 120 28
Total 35
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 24 Figure 2: Overview of the Proposed Action
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 25 Yarding Methods
BLM developed a detailed logging systems plan for all treatment units (Panther Creek Logging Plan) designed to comply with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and project design features (PDFs), and be economically feasible, environmentally sound, and use equipment and logging systems known to be commonly available in the area. Of the total 781 harvest acres within the Panther Creek Project, it is estimated that 605 would be ground- based yarded, 174 acres would be skyline yarded, and 2 acres would be special yarding areas7.
Table 6: Estimated Harvest Acres by Yarding Method
Ground-Based Yarding Skyline Yarding Special Yarding
605 ac. 174 ac. 2 ac.
Snag Creation and Riparian Tree Felling
HLB and RR Snag Creation
Within regeneration harvest and commercial thinning units, 1 snag per acre8 would be created within one year of yarding the timber of the timber sale (2016 ROD/RMP, p. 61). Snags would be created from conifer trees greater than 20” dbh, or from trees of the largest size class available if trees greater than 20” are not present. Snags would be created by various means, including basal girdling, top girdling, and topping within the live crown and would be created in locations that would not present a safety hazard for continued stand management in the near future (see project design features). Within riparian commercial thinning units, 10 snags per acre would be created within one year of yarding the timber of the timber sale. Snags would be created in a similar fashion as within regeneration harvest and commercial thinning units, though within riparian commercial thinning units 5 snags per acre greater than 20” dbh and 5 snags per acre greater than 10” dbh would be created.
This snag creation would be accommodated for in the prescription of the commercial thinning and riparian commercial thinning units and the post-harvest trees per acre targets shown in Table 4 and Table 5 would be achieved after both thinning and snag creation.
Riparian Tree Felling
Following the 35 acres of riparian commercial thinning, trees approximately equaling 330 square feet of basal area would be felled from within treatment units and the inner zone of adjacent stands. Some trees would be felled within the inner-zone of the Riparian Reserve along streams that are adjacent to the riparian commercial thinning units to add in-stream wood (see Figure 2). Some trees would also be felled within the treatment units to add coarse wood. Trees identified for riparian tree felling would be conifer trees, and would range in size from 12” dbh to 32” dbh. Trees felled within the inner-zone would be directly felled into the stream channel to the greatest extent possible.
Reforestation and Underplanting
After harvest and site preparation, the regeneration harvest units that are not heavily infested with root rot disease (245 acres) would be planted with a mix of site adapted native tree species which consist of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, grand fir and possibly western white pine. Those regeneration harvest units that are heavily infested with root rot disease (150 acres) would be planted with disease resistant tree species including
7 Special yarding areas contain short pitches of slope exceeding 35% within ground-based units. Conventional ground-based machinery would not operate within these areas. Instead, trees would be directionally felled to a nearby road or areas of more moderate slope where ground-based machinery would process and/or transport the logs. 8 The number of snags created would be met at the harvest unit scale but potentially not at the acre scale. As an example, a 10 acre unit would have 10 snags created after harvest, which may be distributed on only 5 acres of the unit acres.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 26 western redcedar, western hemlock, and red alder. Exact planting densities would be determined for each unit after harvest, with densities ranging from 170 trees per acre to 436 trees per acre at a generally even spacing.
Within commercial thinning units, the portion of the stand within group selection openings, which would include up to 10% of the stand, would be planted with a mix of western hemlock and western redcedar. The planting of these species would introduce species variability into the stand, which is currently exclusively composed of overstory Douglas-fir, in an effort to improve the compositional diversity of this stand which is within a northern spotted owl core area (see EA section 1.4).
Within the 35 acres of Riparian Reserve commercial thinning treatments, underplanting would occur following harvest. Western redcedar and western hemlock would be the species underplanted due to their shade tolerant characteristics. Planting densities would be variable and would be focused to the portions of these units that would be the most conducive to understory tree survival and growth.
For several years after these trees are planted, maintenance activities would occur that would consist of clearing competing vegetation from the immediate vicinity around the planted trees (not the whole area between the trees), in order to provide the best chance for survival while maintaining a substantial portion of the native shrubs undisturbed
Road Work
Roads would be maintained, renovated, or constructed as shown in Table 7 to provide for project implementation and operation. Figure 3 shows the locations of proposed haul routes.
Table 7: Summary of Road Work
NEW CONSTRUCTION†
New Natural Surfaced Road Construction (Full decommission after use) 2.4 miles
New Rocked Surface Road Construction (Keep open, permanent) 0.7 miles
New Rocked Surface Road Construction (Decommission, long-term storage after use) 2.0 miles
IMPROVEMENT
Road Improvement, Paving (Permanent) 0.1 miles
RENOVATION
Road Renovation Natural Surface (Decommission; long-term storage after use) 0.2 miles
Road Renovation Rock Surface (Decommission, long-term storage after use) 0.1 miles
Road Renovation Rocked Surface (Keep open, permanent) 39.8 miles
†Road mileages are approximate based on GIS estimates and have not been measured on the ground. Regarding new road construction, experience indicates that actual mileages after layout are usually longer by 10-20% depending on topography.
New Road Construction
Approximately 5.1 miles of new road construction would be constructed over 38 separate segments. Of the 5.1 miles of newly constructed road 2.4 miles would be natural-surfaced temporary roads which would be fully decommissioned (de-compact surface, waterbar and seed or plant surface) and blocked following timber harvest and site preparation activities. 0.7 miles would be permanent rocked road and would be left open following timber
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 27 harvest. These roads are behind private industrial forest gates and are not accessible to the public. 2.0 miles would be permanent rocked road that would be decommissioned (install non-drivable waterbars) and blocked following timber harvest and site preparation activities. The new construction includes approximately 1,227 feet of construction within Riparian Reserves in 7 segments, of which 647 feet would be natural surfaced and fully decommissioned after use and 580 feet would be rocked and decommissioned after use.
Road Improvement
At the lower end of Von Road in section 19 of the project area, an approximately 650’ section of the road would be paved, which would incorporate the Panther Creek Bridge and up to approximately 300’ on either side (see Figure 6). Paving would be conducted prior to the haul of rock or timber along this portion of road.
Road Renovation
Approximately 40.3 miles of existing roads would be renovated as necessary. This would include some clearing and grubbing, brushing, blading, creating sediment catch-basins in ditchlines, culvert installation or replacement, and rocking where needed. Of the roads to be renovated, approximately 0.3 miles (which are currently undrivable) would be decommissioned and put into long-term storage after use by removing culverts and cross drains, waterbarring, and blocking access to all vehicle traffic, including OHV’s. The remaining approximately 39.8 miles of road to be renovated would be left open and would be maintained in a usable state.
Rock Sourcing Activities
Four existing rock quarries have been identified as potential rock source sites for use during project implementation, which include Eastline Quarry and Cedar Creek Quarry located on BLM administered lands within the Nestucca River watershed, and two quarries located on Weyerhaeuser owned land (see Figure 3). We expect rock needed for road surfacing, improvement, and renovation to be sourced from a combination of these sites, though, due to a variety of factors, the Purchaser may decide to use commercial pits from outside of the project area. Rock quarry activities would include blasting, rock crushing, rock loading, and rock hauling.
Administrative Access
The BLM does not currently have administrative access across several parcels of privately owned land, specifically in T. 3 S., R. 5 W., section 17, T. 3 S., R. 5 W., section 19 and T. 3 S., R. 5 W., section 34. To implement the Proposed Action, BLM would seek administrative access on these lands for use of existing haul routes or for the construction of new roads to access treatment units on BLM parcels. Access may be gained through a variety of mechanisms, which may include: amending existing reciprocal right-of-way agreements and/or acquiring a permanent easement.
Culvert and Cross Drain Activities
Through field examination, 28 existing stream crossing culverts have been identified for replacement (see Figure 2). Of these, 18 are on perennial 1st, 2nd, or 3rd order streams (streams with running water during all seasons), with the remaining 10 on intermittent 1st or 2nd order streams (streams with no running water for at least 3 months of the year). None of the streams are fishbearing. It is possible that additional culverts are identified during project implementation that may need to be replaced. In such a case, additional culvert replacements would be of the same type described above and would adhere to all Project Design Features listed in EA section 2.7. All stream crossing culvert replacements would be designed for 100-year flood events including allowance for bed load and anticipated floatable debris. Stream diversion and isolation techniques would be used when replacing the culverts if water is present.
Up to 100 new cross-drains would be installed to drain roadside ditches during wet weather and disconnect ditches from the stream network. The roadside ditches would not be routed to stream channels but would rather be routed to dense forest vegetation where the water would filter into the ground.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 28 Figure 3: Proposed Haul Routes and Rock Quarries
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 29 Site Preparation and Fuels Treatments
After harvest the BLM would conduct site preparation and fuels treatments, which would occur in the regeneration harvest areas, in group selection openings within commercial thinning units, and at landings throughout the harvest area. These treatments would include the combination of hand, machine, and landing piling and burning of vegetative material and logging slash to improve post-harvest planting activities and to reduce fire hazard associated with harvest activities.
Hand piling includes lopping of slash and piling the material and would occur in those regeneration harvest and group selection opening areas which are over 35% in slope. Hand piling would occur on up to approximately 98 acres. Machine piling would occur in ground-based harvested units within the regeneration harvest and group selection opening areas. Machine piling would be conducted from existing skid trails and roads to the greatest extent possible and would be allowed a single pass when operating off of skid trails and roads. Machine piling would occur on up to approximately 292 acres.
We expect that in total the project would use approximately 200-220 landings. For analysis purposes, it is expected that a landing pile would be produced at each landing and landing pile footprints would be approximately ¼ acre in size for regeneration harvest landings and 1/10 of an acre in size for a commercial thinning landing. Slash and non-merchantable material would be piled at these landings using machines. Depending on the quantity, type, and location, the material may be burned, hauled off for pulp or biomass use, or made available as firewood.
After site preparation, burning of piles, both at landings and within harvest units, would occur during moist periods to reduce the possibility of damaging soils around the piles and the chance of fire escaping into unwanted areas. Approximately 5% of the piles within each unit would be left unburned to provide for wildlife habitat.
Table 8: Site Preparation and Fuels Treatments for the Proposed Action
Harvest Type Total Acres Hand Pile Acres Machine Pile Landing Pile Acres Acres
Regeneration Harvest 395 98 292 29
Commercial Thinning 335 7 27 10
Total 730 105 319 39
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 30 Figure 4: Proposed Action-Section 13
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 31 Figure 5: Proposed Action-Section 17
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 32 Figure 6: Proposed Action-Section 19
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 33 Figure 7: Proposed Action-Section 25
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 34
Figure 8: Proposed Action-Section 29
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 35 Figure 9: Proposed Action-Sections 33 & 34
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 36 2.5 Alternative 3 (Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands)
Alternative 3 differs from the Proposed Action in the number of acres of regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, reforestation, site preparation, and fuels treatments and in the disposition of newly constructed road after commercial timber harvest has been conducted and will be the only features of Alternative 3 discussed below.
Regeneration Harvest
Under Alternative 3 the BLM proposes to conduct regeneration harvest within the MITA LUA on approximately 284 acres (in 17 individual units) in forest stands which are approximately 46 to 120 years old. Regeneration harvest under Alternative 3 would differ from the Proposed Action in that regeneration harvest would not be conducted in units 19-2, 29-1 and 33-2. All other aspects of the regeneration harvest treatment design would be consistent with those presented under the Proposed Action.
Commercial Thinning
The BLM proposes to conduct commercial thinning in the MITA LUA on approximately 446 acres (in 18 individual units) in forest stands which are approximately 40-78 years old (see Table 9). Commercial thinning under Alternative 3 would differ from the Proposed Action in that commercial thinning would be conducted in units 19-2, 29-1 and 33-2. All other aspects of the commercial thinning treatment design would be consistent with those presented under the Proposed Action.
Table 9: Alternative 3 Commercial Thinning Treatment Units which Differ from Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Unit Treatment Average Average BA Average RD Acres Age Trees/Ac. (ft2) After After Harvest After Harvest Harvest
19-2 96 70 51 175 35
29-1 5 75 55 170 35
33-2 10 78 72 157 35
Road Work
Under the Proposed Action, the BLM proposes to construct 2.4 miles of new, natural surface road, of which all would be fully decommissioned after harvest. Alternative 3 would also construct 2.4 miles of new, natural surface road but 1.7 miles would be fully decommissioned and 0.7 miles would be decommissioned.
Reforestation
Under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, the BLM would plant a mixture of species following regeneration harvest. Under Alternative 3, reforestation activities would occur on 284 acres as opposed to 395 under the Proposed Action. All other aspects of reforestation activities would be identical to those presented under the Proposed Action.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 37 Site Preparation and Fuels Treatments
As under the Proposed Action, site preparation and fuels treatments under Alternative 3 would be focused to regeneration harvest units, group selection openings within commercial thinning units, and landings. Due to the decrease in regeneration harvest of 111 under Alternative 3 compared to the Proposed Action, the BLM would conduct site preparation and fuels treatments on approximately 329 acres (see Table 10). All other aspects of site preparation and fuel treatment activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action.
Table 10: Site Preparation and Fuels Treatments under Alternative 3
Harvest Type Total Acres Hand Pile Machine Pile Landing Pile Acres Acres Acres
Regeneration 284 78 206 21 Harvest
Commercial 446 0 10 14 Thinning
Total 78 216 35
2.6 Alternative 4 (Regeneration Harvest of Healthy Stands 68-78 Years Old)
Alternative 4 differs from the Proposed Action in the number of acres of regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, reforestation, site preparation, and fuels treatments and will be the only features of Alternative 4 discussed below.
Regeneration Harvest
Under Alternative 4 the BLM proposes to conduct regeneration harvest within the MITA LUA on approximately 493 acres (in 19 individual units) in forest stands which are approximately 46 to 120 years old (see Table 11). Regeneration harvest under Alternative 4 would differ from the Proposed Action in the addition of 98 acres, as all healthy stands aged 68-78 would be regeneration harvested. All other aspects of the regeneration harvest treatment design would be consistent with those presented under the Proposed Action.
Table 11: Alternative 4 Regeneration Treatment Units Which Differ from Alternative 2-Proposed Action- Grouped by Need for Treatment
Treatment Unit (Stands) Acres Age
Stands 68-78 Years Old (Healthy)
17-3 11 73
17-4 17 71
17-6 5 77
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 38 19-3 6 70
23-1 4 76
24-1 17 68
29-3 38 71
Commercial Thinning
Under Alternative 4, the BLM proposes to conduct commercial thinning in the MITA LUA on approximately 237 acres (in 8 individual units) in forest stands which are approximately 40-77 years old. Commercial thinning under Alternative 4 would differ from the Proposed Action in that commercial thinning would not be conducted in stands aged 68-78, resulting in a reduction of 98 acres when compared to the Proposed Action. All other aspects of the commercial thinning treatment design would be consistent with those presented under the Proposed Action.
Reforestation
Under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 4, the BLM would plant a mixture of species following regeneration harvest. Under Alternative 4, reforestation activities would occur on 493 acres as opposed to 395 under the Proposed Action. All other aspects of reforestation activities would be identical to those presented under the Proposed Action.
Site Preparation and Fuels Treatments
As under the Proposed Action, site preparation and fuels treatments under Alternative 4 would be focused to regeneration harvest units, group selection openings within commercial thinning units, and landings. Due to the increase in regeneration harvest of 98 acres under Alternative 4 compared to the Proposed Action, the BLM would conduct site preparation and fuels treatments on approximately 544 acres (see Table 12). All other aspects of site preparation and fuel treatment activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action.
Table 12: Site Preparation and Fuels Treatments under Alternative 4
Harvest Type Total Acres Hand Pile Machine Pile Landing Pile Acres Acres Acres
Regeneration 493 98 395 33 Harvest
Commercial 237 0 9 9 Thinning
Total 98 404 42
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 39 2.7 Project Design Features
This section summarizes the project design features (PDFs) that would further reduce the project’s effects on the affected resources described in EA Chapter 3. Project design features would apply to all action alternatives.
The IDT selected or created these PDFs to implement management actions/direction and the principles of the design features and BMPs described in the RMP (ROD/RMP, p. 59-63, 68-74, 76-102; Appendix C, p. 143-167, 170-173,178-179). The IDT selected this set of PDFs based on its combined experience, training, professional judgment, field analysis of this project area, and familiarity with ongoing published research.
The identification of a PDF is the beginning of an iterative process that includes implementation and effectiveness monitoring to determine that the effects of the actions are within the range analyzed. The BLM would incorporate these PDFs into the project layout, contract requirements, and contract administration to ensure that the project is implemented as analyzed in this EA and that the risk of effects to the resources are no greater than those described in EA Chapter 3.
The design features below are organized by activity or benefiting resource.
Desirable Stand Features, Diversity and Protection
Design Features Common to All Treatment Types
● Retain trees that are both ≥40" DBH and that the BLM identifies were established prior to 1850, within harvest units, proposed new road locations and landings except where falling is necessary for safety or operational reasons and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or practically feasible. If such trees need to be cut for safety or operational reasons, retain cut trees in the stand. ● Avoid excessive incidental damage9 to retained trees in the stand, as determined by the Authorized Officer. ● Preferentially retain reserve trees that have unique characteristics or functions that are desired to persist in the stand. Examples include trees with forked tops or other complex branching patterns, trees with existing cavities, as well as uncommon canopy species. ● Preferentially retain desired tree species on site when possible to meet desired retention levels: merchantable hardwoods, western redcedar, and western hemlock. ● Where possible and relevant, retained trees would be spatially distributed in a strategic manner to provide for multiple resource objectives and protection (i.e. retaining trees around seeps and springs, large snags, or concentrations of large downed wood). ● Any plus trees (trees selected for genetic traits) and their reference trees, and bearing trees would be reserved from harvest. ● Understory conifers less than 7 inches DBH would be excluded from harvest. o Understory trees less than 7 inches DBH would be retained on site and damage to these trees would be avoided to the greatest extent possible during treatment operations. ● Pacific madrone and Pacific dogwood trees would not be slashed or felled during any site preparation or harvesting processes unless operationally necessary. All sizes and structural forms of these species would preferentially be left on site when possible.
Regeneration Harvest
● Retain 5 to 15% of the stand’s pre-harvest basal area in live trees. Trees would be retained in a variety of spatial patterns, including in large groups (¼ to 3 acres in size), small groups (2-4 trees) and as individuals dispersed throughout the unit.
9The standard for “damage” is bark damage, to the depth of the cambium layer, on more than 10 percent of the retained trees within the stand.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 40 ● In general and if available within the stand, trees selected for retention would be a combination of conifer species (Douglas-fir, grand fir, western redcedar, western hemlock), large bigleaf maple with complex multiple-stemmed crowns, underrepresented hardwood species (Oregon white oak, Pacific madrone, Pacific dogwood), trees with high intrinsic wildlife value (trees with forked-tops, hollow cavities, or mechanical damage), and/or trees surrounding high value snags or coarse wood.
Commercial Thinning
● Commercial thinning units would have 5% of the stand left in untreated areas. Untreated areas would range in size from approximately 1 to 3 acres and would be variably distributed throughout each unit. ● Up to 10 percent of the planned harvest unit would be in group selection openings10. Group selection openings would range in size from approximately 1 to 4 acres and would be variably distributed throughout each unit. ● Douglas-fir is the primary species targeted for harvest. In areas that require more than just Douglas-fir removal to achieve the desired treatment, species preference would be given. Species order for trees to remain on site is as follows: o hardwoods (red alder, bigleaf maple, Pacific madrone, Pacific dogwood, etc.) o western redcedar o western hemlock o grand fir o Douglas-fir
Commercial Thinning in the Riparian Reserve
● Leave trees would generally include the largest, healthiest trees but would also include trees with high intrinsic wildlife value (e.g., fork-topped trees, trees with large cavities). ● In general, Douglas-fir and red alder would be the only species harvested. All other species would be reserved to preserve species diversity, unless in road right-of-way, landings, or yarding corridors. ● To the extent practicable, non-merchantable understory trees would be retained and protected from damage, especially shade tolerant conifer species, during logging and site preparation.
Site Preparation, Reforestation, and Underplanting
● In regeneration harvest units and group selection openings within commercial thinning units, site preparation methods such as mechanical treatments (e.g., machine piling), manual treatments (e.g., brushing/slashing and hand piling), and prescribed burns (pile burning) would be employed to prepare newly harvested and inadequately stocked areas for the regeneration of desirable tree species. o Machine piling equipment would travel on previously used skid trails during dry soil conditions. In areas inaccessible from designated skid trails where the slope is less than 35%, machine piling equipment would be allowed one pass. o Manual treatments would occur in areas with slopes greater than 35%. o Site preparation treatments would not include the slashing of desired minor species such as Pacific madrone and Pacific dogwood, where present. ● Post reforestation stand maintenance and protection11 would continue for up to 5 years following planting as deemed necessary to allow for reforestation survival. ● After harvest, regeneration harvest units would be planted with a mixture of species appropriate to the site.
10 Group selection openings are defined as areas with ≤2 live trees ≥7” DBH per acre.
11Stand maintenance and protection promote the survival and establishment of trees and other vegetation by reducing competition from undesired plant species. Stand maintenance is generally performed manually by releasing (cutting surrounding competing vegetation) the seedling/sapling for 3-5 years following planting as needed.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 41 o Planting needs would be evaluated post-harvest to determine the exact planting densities required for each stand. In general, the BLM would plant approximately 170-436 trees per acre in regeneration harvest stands averaging approximately 350 trees per acre. o The sites would primarily be planted with a mixture of western redcedar, western hemlock, Douglas-fir and grand fir. To a lesser extent, western white pine and red alder would be intermixed where appropriate. ● Following commercial thinning in the RR, underplanting of shade tolerant conifer species would occur. Planting within stands would be variable based on site conditions following harvest but would generally include planting an average of 200 trees per acre at various spacing. ● The BLM would utilize genetically improved seedling stock when available for replanting units.
Snags and Downed Woody Debris
● In both regeneration harvest and commercial thinning units (MITA), 1 snag per acre would be created within 1 year of the completion of yarding within each unit. Snags would be created from green trees 20” dbh or greater, or would be created from the largest size class of trees if trees of 20” dbh are not available. o Snags would be created in a variety of fashions, including basal-girdling, top-girdling, and topping within the live crown. o Snags would not be created within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that would remain open after harvesting activities are complete. If it is not possible to create snags beyond the falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that would remain open after harvesting activities are complete, cut trees equivalent to the required number of snags and retain as down woody material within the harvest unit. o The creation of snags would be concentrated in the interior of retention clump areas in regeneration harvest units and in the interior of the untreated areas in commercial thinning units to increase the safety of continued post-harvest management activities. o Snags would be created from trees of any species, but would preferentially be created from conifer species. ● In commercial thinning units in the RR, 5 snags per acre greater than 20” DBH and 5 snags per acre greater than 10” DBH would be created within 1 year of the completion of yarding within each unit. ● Trees that need to be cut within 120 feet of perennial streams or 50 feet of intermittent streams for operational needs (roads, cable corridors, culvert replacement) shall be left on site or relocated for fish habitat or CWD needs. ● During harvest operations, and except for safety or operational reasons, the following snags and downed woody debris would be retained: o Snags > 20 inches DBH and snags 6-20” DBH and in decay class III, IV, or V. o Down woody material > 20” in diameter at the large end and >20 feet in length and down woody material 6-20” DBH at the large end and > 20’ in length in decay class III, IV, or V.
Riparian Tree Felling
● During riparian tree-felling, only Douglas-fir trees would be felled; they would range in size from approximately 12-32 inches dbh. The largest, healthiest trees within an area would not be treated. ● Trees would be selected singly and not in groups. ● The majority of trees to be felled would be located within 100 feet of the stream channel and selected so that when felled, the portion of the tree in contact with the stream channel would be at least 6 inches in diameter. ● Whenever possible, trees to be felled would be located outside the primary shade zone and provide minimal amounts of shade to the stream (e.g., north side of stream channel, area where topography minimizes vegetative shade, etc.). ● Trees would be felled into active stream channels only during the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) in-stream work window (July 15 – September 30) unless a waiver is obtained from ODFW by the BLM (BMP RST 01).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 42 ● Trees with a visible nest or potential nest platform or containing characteristics of obvious defect such as hollow cavities or forked/multiple tops would not be felled or damaged.
Water and Fisheries Resources
● When conducting commercial harvest, maintain a minimum 120-foot no-cut buffer on either side of perennial streams and a 50-foot no-cut buffer on either side of intermittent streams (Inner Zone of the Riparian Reserve). ● When conducting commercial harvest, maintain a minimum 25-foot no-cut buffer around all seeps, springs, and wetlands less than 1 acre in size. There are no known wetlands greater than 1 acre in size within any of the treatment areas, but if during layout any are identified, they would be protected by establishing a 100-foot no-cut buffer around the ordinary high water mark. ● Self-contained sanitary facilities are required within the portion of the Panther Creek watershed upstream of Carlton Reservoir whenever operations within an area would extend more than 14 days (BMP SW 03). ● When dust suppressants are used within the portion of the Panther Creek watershed upstream of Carlton Reservoir, they would be non-oil-based (BMP SW 10).
Rock Quarry Operation
● During quarry operations, the following restrictions would be applied. Seasonal restrictions for rock pits on Weyerhaeuser owned lands would be applicable only if the Purchaser were to be conducting the rock sourcing activities: o Weyerhaeuser Pit-West (T3S., R6W section 34): ▪ No rock blasting or crushing would occur until after August 31, 2019 ▪ During blasting, individual charges would be limited to 13,794 lbs o Weyerhaeuser Pit-East (T3S., R6W section 34): ▪ No rock blasting or crushing activities would occur until after August 31, 2019 ▪ During blasting, individual charges would be limited to 13,794 lbs ▪ No blasting would occur from April 1-September 15 ▪ Rock crushing would not begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would conclude 2 hours before sunset from April 1-September 15 o BLM Cedar Creek Pit (T3S., R6W section 5): ▪ During blasting, individual charges would be limited to 5,000 lbs ▪ Blasting would not begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would conclude 2 hours before sunset during the marbled murrelet breeding season (April 1-September 15) o BLM East Line Pit (T4S., R7W section 1): ▪ During blasting, individual charges would be limited to 3,688 lbs ▪ No blasting would occur from March 1-September 30 ▪ No rock crushing would occur from March 1-August 5. Rock crushing would not begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would conclude 2 hours before sunset from August 6- September 15. ● Quarries located within one site-potential tree height (220’) of streams would be limited to dry season operation (generally June 1 through October 15) or would have sediment control plans established prior to operations commencing.
Road Work
● New roads, landings, and excavated disposal material would be located on stable slopes that minimize sediment delivery to streams. Landings generally would not be located within 220 feet of streams (BMPs 01, 03). ● Road construction, renovation, and decommissioning activities that have a high potential to deliver sediment to streams (e.g., road grading near stream crossings, most ditch cleaning and shaping, etc.) would occur only during the dry season (generally June 1 through October 15).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 43 ● Road construction, renovation, decommissioning, maintenance, and storm-proofing activities that have a minimal potential to deliver sediment to streams because of activity type, location, and use of sediment control measures would occur primarily during the dry season and, on a case by case basis, during extended periods of dry weather outside of the dry season as demonstrated by periods of no flow in nearby intermittent streams. These activities may include mechanized felling of right-of-way timber, road brushing, placement and grading of spot rock, installation of culverts on non-flowing streams, installation of cross-drains, and other similar activities. ● Limited road maintenance activities that have a minimal potential to deliver sediment to streams because of activity type, location, and use of sediment control measures could occur any time of year, on a case- by-case basis, on roads identified as all-season haul routes. These activities may include placement and grading of spot rock, localized ditch cleaning associated with unstable cut banks, cleaning of sediment catch basins, and other similar activities. ● Road construction, renovation, decommissioning, maintenance, and storm-proofing activities that have a high potential to deliver sediment to streams would be suspended if projected forecasted rain would saturate soils to the extent that delivery of sediment to streams would be likely, regardless of the season (BMP R 81). ● All work required in live streams (culvert replacement or removal) would be limited to the ODFW in- stream work window (July 15-September 30 in the North Yamhill River watershed) or (July 1 through September 15 in the Nestucca River watershed) unless a specific waiver is requested by the BLM and received from ODFW and/or NMFS (BMPs R 48, 49). ● Asphalt paving over and adjacent to Von Road Bridge would be designed to limit the potential exposure of juvenile salmonids and /or their eggs in Panther Creek to petrochemicals and sediment from construction activities. To capture runoff (stormwater) from the paved surfaces, plan retention areas with organic substrate to filter oil based products from reaching streams. Segments of roads that drain through riparian vegetation (6-10 feet in width) do not require additional stormwater retention. Timing of these paving actions need to occur in extended periods of dry and warm weather, exhibited by the existing rock road surfacing materials (top 6 inches) being dry, and no rainfall predicted in the 48 hours post paving. ● Ditch cleaning would be limited to those that are no longer functional (BMP R 69-71). If ditch cleaning is necessary within the vicinity of any stream crossings, sediment control measures (e.g., application of seed, rock, wattles, sediment traps) would be used to minimize the potential for sediment delivery to streams and work would generally occur prior to the wet season (BMP R 69). Some localized ditch cleaning may be necessary during the wet season on all-season haul routes where ditch integrity has been compromised by unstable cut banks. Material would be placed on stable ground in locations where sediment delivery to streams would be minimized (BMPs R73, 74). ● Prior to the wet season, all decommissioned roads and all natural surfaced roads retained over the winter for the next operating season would be blocked to prevent vehicle use (BMP R 84). Blocking may include the strategic placement of boulders, logs, root wads, other various types of earthen barriers or gates. Large stumps created by road building or yarding activities would be retained and stockpiled to be used later to block skid trails and roads in areas that could be easily accessed by OHVs. Natural surface roads retained over winter would be stormproofed through the use of waterbars or other appropriate methods (BMP R 80, 85). ● Prior to haul on portions of Von Road and Rex Brown Road that have a high potential to deliver sediment to Panther Creek, and where otherwise needed, sediment control devices would be used in ditch lines near stream crossings. Sediment control devices include sediment traps, ditch-outs, rocking of ditch lines, straw bales, wattles, etc. Sediment control structures would receive frequent maintenance, and sediment would be removed upon the completion of all operations (BMP R 13). ● The lower 1.1 miles of Von Road (beginning at the bridge crossing Panther Creek) would be maintained such that surfacing rock would not fall below a minimum of 6 inches. ● Renovation of the northern 500 feet of project road # 43 would be kept to the minimum standard (width) necessary for a safe, operational road and shall avoid felling all larger overstory trees to the extent possible.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 44 Road Use/Haul
● Haul on natural surface roads would be limited to the dry season (generally June 1 – October 15) and blocked to prevent vehicle traffic outside the dry season (BMP R 085, 098). ● Haul would be permitted year-round on those portions of road shown in Figure 3 as all-season haul routes. ● Haul on the gravel portion of the Nestucca Access Road would be limited to the dry season (generally June 1 – October 15). If the gravel section of the Nestucca Access Road were to be paved prior to needed use, haul would be permitted year-round. ● Haul on all other roads not identified as all-season (see Figure 3) would occur during the dry season (generally June 1-October 15) and during extended periods of dry weather outside of the dry season as demonstrated by periods of no flow in intermittent streams along the haul route. ● Prior to the wet season, all roads designated for all-season use would receive inspection and maintenance, including (but not limited to) spreading of additional gravel as needed to assure that the surface is able to support hauling without infrastructure and/or resource damage, placement of sediment control measures to minimize sediment delivery to streams (e.g., bark bags, check dams, additional cross-drains), and maintenance and repair of stream crossing and cross drain culverts (BMPs R 77, 78, 93, 94, 97). ● Regardless of season, hauling would be suspended where the road surface is deteriorating due to vehicular rutting or standing water, or where turbid runoff is likely to reach stream channels. Hauling could resume when ditch flow subsides, or when conditions allow turbidity levels to return to normal wet weather background levels. ● Prior to haul across the Panther Creek Bridge on Rex Brown Road (and including Elk Creek Bridge on the Nestucca Access Road if not paved through the Nestucca Back Country Byway Project prior to project implementation[see EA section 3.1.3]), the bridge scuppers (i.e., drain holes) would be plugged (if applicable), and the bridge surfaces would be swept. At the conclusion of dry season haul, and before the onset of the wet season, the bridge surface would be swept again and the bridge scuppers unplugged.
Harvesting Operations: Criteria Common to All
● The Purchaser must submit a detailed operations plan for BLM approval prior to commencing any work. Details would include but are not limited to such items as: logging method, skyline corridor location, skid trail locations, felling method, harvest schedule, road construction schedule, and strategy for closing, decommissioning and overwintering of natural surfaced roads and trails prior to the beginning of the wet season. ● Yarding logs or construction of skid trails through low areas with moist, poorly drained soils would be avoided where practical. These areas may or may not be identified on the ground prior to logging operations. ● Whole tree yarding (yarding with tops and limbs attached) would be permitted as long as it can be done without causing unacceptable damage to the reserve timber and other resources. If it is found that unacceptable damage is occurring, trees would be required to be bucked and limbed as directed by the BLM. At least 25% of top and limb material would be required to be left on site for small coarse wood and soil nutrient purposes. While it is expected that this condition would be met in the course of typical felling and yarding activities (as limbs and needles break and are left on the forest floor during these activities), the BLM would monitor during harvest and would require the Purchaser to top and limb trees on site if sufficient amounts are not accumulating. ● Temporary logging roads, skid trails, and harvester/forwarder trails would be waterbarred where necessary and blocked before the fall wet season begins. Arrangements would be made to anticipate the beginning of significant rainfall so that the Purchaser can accomplish the required work before wet conditions preclude operations (BMPs TH 17, 19). ● To protect water quality, trees would be felled away from the Inner Zone of the Riparian Reserve. If a cut tree falls into the Inner Zone, the portion of the tree within the Inner Zone would remain in place.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 45 ● One-end suspension of yarded logs would be required at all times within the Riparian Reserve (BMPs TH 03, 05), except where full suspension is required (over streams, springs, seeps, and wetlands; on steep slopes [generally >60%] within 50 feet of streams).
Ground Based Yarding
● Ground-based skidding equipment (tracked and rubber-tired) would be limited to the extent of the approved skid trail. ● Ground-based skidding equipment would be limited to slopes of 35% or less, except when using previously constructed skid trails or accessing isolated ground-based harvest areas requiring short trails over steeper pitches (BMP TH 13). ● Specialized ground-based mechanized equipment (i.e. feller-bunchers, shovels, processors, etc.) would operate on disturbed skid trails to the extent possible. Where skid trails are not present, equipment would operate using the minimum number of passes necessary. ● Within the Harvest Land Base, specialized ground-based mechanized equipment (those machines specifically designed to operate on slopes greater than 35%) would be limited to slopes of 50% or less, except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground-based harvest areas requiring short trails over steeper pitches (BMP TH 14). ● Within Riparian Reserves, specialized ground-based mechanized equipment would be restricted to slopes of 35% or less or on short pitches of slopes up to 45%, and generally less than 50 feet in length, to access benches of lower gradient. ● The use of all ground based equipment within units would be limited to periods of low soil moisture when soils are resistant to compaction. A determination of soil compaction resistance would be made by BLM personnel and would consider site-specific soil characteristics (i.e. amount and size of coarse rock fragments and soil moisture) (BMP TH 11). ● Ground-based machinery used for timber harvest would not be operated within 50 feet of streams, except where machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream. ● Compaction impacts associated with skid trails within harvest units would be limited to 15% of the ground based harvest unit. Measurement would be accomplished by dividing the unit acreage by the length and width of the skid trails. Skid trail length would be measured either through GIS analysis of the Purchasers approved unit specific logging plans or manually in the field using GPS or other measuring device.
Cable Yarding
● Cable yarding would be done with a standing skyline system with the ability to maintain the cable stationary above or within reserve timber during the yarding process. ● Cable yarding would generally be utilized on slopes greater than 35% (or greater than 50% if working in conjunction with specialized ground-based mechanized equipment). ● In skyline corridors where the potential for erosion and sediment delivery to water bodies exists, erosion control measures would be installed such as waterbars, slash placement and seeding (BMP TH 06). ● To the greatest extent practicable, directionally fall trees to lead to minimize ground disturbance when moving logs to skyline corridors (BMP TH 02).
Landings
For analysis purposes landings are viewed in two ways: those that are newly constructed with associated impacts; and those that are located on previously disturbed landing sites or haul roads where use would have little additional impacts. ● Newly constructed landings would have clearing limits and impact areas kept to the smallest size necessary to reasonably conduct harvest operations, generally a 50 foot diameter ground disturbance area.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 46 ● Use of landings on existing landings or roads would not count to the 20% compaction limit criteria because they would be restricted to the road right-of-way clearing limits and stay within the limits of the road prism or existing landing limits. ● Landings would be designed to drain to stable, well-vegetated areas (BMP R 38).
Road, Skid Trail and Landing Construction, Reconstruction and Decommissioning
● New roads and landings would be located on stable locations and on areas outside of wetlands. Where practical, they would avoid Riparian Reserves and depressions with poorly drained soils. Newly constructed landings would generally not be located within 220 feet of streams (BMPs R 01, 03). ● Those newly constructed natural surface roads used during harvest activities that would be fully decommissioned would be left in an erosion-resistant condition. Full decommissioning would consist of decompacting, water-barring, seeding or planting with native species, and restricting OHV use (BMPs R 83, 84). ● Erosion and sediment control measures would be employed at stream crossings and other hydrologically connected areas to reduce erosion and sediment transport to water bodies, floodplains, and wetlands. Measures may include seeding and mulching bare soil surfaces, such as stream banks and stream-adjacent side-slopes after culvert work is completed or ditches cleaned and placing sediment trapping materials such as straw bales, wattles and/or bark filters in ditches or other places where sediment could be transported to streams (BMPs R 13, 63, 64). ● All culvert replacements would be designed for 100-year flood events including allowance for bed load and anticipated floatable debris (BMP R 86). They would be located on straight reaches of streams and installed at the natural stream grade (BMP R 16). Stream diversion and isolation techniques would be used when replacing stream crossing culverts. Access of mechanized equipment to channel banks and within the stream channel during this time would be kept to a minimum. If pumps are used, pump intakes would be placed on hard surfaces that would minimize turbidity (BMP R 23).
Special Status Species
● If any active marbled murrelet sites are discovered (as per the Pacific Seabird Group Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee protocol) prior to or during project implementation they would be protected by a change in the Land Use Allocation of the occupied stand to Late-Successional Reserve (RMP pages 52 and 98). Marbled murrelet occupied stand refers to all forest stands, regardless of age or structure, within 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) of the location of marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy and not separated from the location of marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy by more than 328 feet of non-forest. In such an instance, any proposed treatment units within the occupied stand would be reevaluated for consistency with the LSR LUA, which may result in units being dropped or seasonal and/or daily time restrictions being employed. ● If any active northern spotted owl sites are discovered prior to or during project implementation, the BLM would immediately coordinate with the USFWS to ensure there would be no take. During this coordination, if the project were determined to cause take to such a site, the project would be manipulated as necessary. ● If any T&E or BSS botanical or fungal species are discovered in or adjacent to treatment areas during project implementation, the BLM botanist would be notified. Site management of any T&E or BSS species found would be accomplished in accordance with BLM Manual 6840 (2008, IM-2009-039).
Special Habitats
● Where naturally occurring special habitats such as seeps, springs, wetlands, natural ponds and rock outcrops occur within treatment units, leave trees or untreated skips would be concentrated around these features to the extent practicable.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 47 Invasive/Non-Native Plants
● Prior to entering the project area each work season, or before returning to the project area after leaving it, all logging and construction equipment that would be used off of existing roads (with the exception of log trucks and pickup trucks used for daily personnel travel) would have all dirt and adhering vegetation removed by power washing. Prior to entering BLM managed lands, cleaned equipment would be inspected by the BLM at an agreed upon location prior to move-in. ● BLM would survey contractor selected gravel sources for possible invasive species to create a watch list of potential invaders for the project area. ● BLM would evaluate post-treatment ground disturbance (i.e. yarding corridors, constructed, renovated, and decommissioned roads, landings, etc.) to determine the need to seed or plant native vegetation to mitigate possible invasive species introduction. ● BLM would conduct post-harvest monitoring of treatment areas for a minimum of three years to identify new invasive plant infestations. Invasive plant treatments to reduce or eradicate new infestations would occur based on NEPA compliance and best management practices.
Recreation
● Felling, hauling, yarding, and fuels treatment activities would be prohibited during the weekends and holidays when operating between the Friday of Memorial Day weekend and Monday of Labor Day weekend. ● When active operations occur adjacent to publicly accessible roadways, traffic control devices such as flaggers or signage would be used, in accordance with OSHA standards.
Cultural Resources
● If any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) is discovered during project activities, all operations in the immediate area of such discovery shall be suspended until an evaluation of the discovery can be made by a professional archaeologist to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values.
Air Quality, Fire Risk, and Fuels Management
● All operations conducted during fire season declared by the State of Oregon would follow State law requiring operational firefighting equipment on site and available for use. ● A Prescribed Fire Burn Plan would be completed and signed by appropriate personnel, including but not limited to the agency administrator, prior to any prescribed pile burning (ignition). ● Prescribed burning would occur under atmospheric conditions that allow for the mixing of air to lessen the impact on air quality. All prescribed burning would be managed in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Oregon Smoke Management Plan administered by the Oregon Department of Forestry and the regulations established by the Air Quality Division of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. ● Prescribed burning may include landing pile or machine pile burning, swamper burning, or handpile construction and burning and may be used individually or in combination in areas where fuel loading is heavy or the fire risk is determined to be high. ● When hand, machine, or landing piles are identified by the Authorized Officer as the specified fuels treatment, the following requirements would apply: o Piles would be located as far as possible from large snags, green trees, and other reserved trees to minimize damage, and not be constructed on top of stumps or CWD. o Large woody debris greater than 12 inches in diameter would be retained on site and not piled. o Piles would be covered with 4 mil (.004 inch thick) polyethylene plastic. The plastic shall adequately cover the pile to ensure ignition and would be placed and anchored to help facilitate the consumption of fuels during the high moisture fall/winter burning periods.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 48 ● Landing, machine, and hand piles located on temporary roads, skid trails, or landings would be burned, chipped, or otherwise removed from these sites, typically within 18 months of unit harvest. Approximately 5% of hand and/or machine piles in each unit would be retained on site to provide habitat for wildlife species. ● Within 220’ of the red tree vole management area in Sec. 19, the piling of logging slash would be kept to a minimum. If slash piling is needed to ensure post-harvest planting, slash piles would be left unburned. ● Slash piles would be burned over a period of adequate seasonal moisture (when soil moistures are 20% or greater) to minimize the risk of fire and escape and resource damage (generally October through March). Slash piles would not be burned during the marbled murrelet critical breeding season (April 1-August 5) and should they be burned August 6-September 15, daily time restrictions would apply (ignition would be between 2 hours before sunrise and 2 hours before sunset). ● Where appropriate, post-harvest logging debris material may be made available for firewood sales.
2.8 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail
The BLM is required to include a discussion of all reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action. Reasonable alternatives include alternatives which are technically and economically feasible, and which meet the purpose and need for the project. The BLM may eliminate from detailed analysis any alternatives that are not reasonable. An alternative need not be analyzed in detail if:
• it does not meet the purpose and need,
• it is technically or economically infeasible,
• it is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area,
• its implementation is remote or speculative,
• it is substantially similar to an alternative being analyzed in detail, or
• it would have substantially similar effects to an alternative being considered in detail.
The IDT considered two other alternatives for analysis during the interdisciplinary process. These alternative were submitted in the form of public comments during scoping. The reasons why each alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis follows.
Develop an alternative that does not construct any new roads.
During scoping, one commenter requested the BLM to analyze an alternative that did not include new road construction because the commenter deemed there are already too many roads within the watershed that are having adverse effects on soil, water and wildlife. The commenter did not provide information on the current density of roads within the Panther Creek planning area, the relation of that density to the newly constructed roads proposed under the Panther Creek project or a discussion of specific effects based upon the current and proposed road densities. The IDT considered including an alternative in the Panther Creek Project that utilized only existing roads to facilitate regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and riparian commercial thinning treatments but determined that this alternative was inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area.
Under Alternative 2-Proposed Action, approximately 5.1 miles of new roads would be constructed, spread out across multiple treatments units in 38 separate segments. Each proposed newly constructed road segment was identified through the Panther Creek Logging Plan as necessary to operationally implement the Panther Creek project, within the context of adhering to included Best Management Practices and Project Design Features and considering logging systems and equipment types that are used and commonly available in northwest Oregon. The proposed newly constructed roads would access 348 of the 781 acres included in the proposed project, of which 336 acres are within the Harvest Land Base (HLB) land use allocation.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 49 The 2016 ROD/RMP directs the BLM to provide a transportation system that serves resource management needs (administrative/commercial) (2016 NCO ROD/RMP, p. 93) and to construct roads where needed to meet resource management objectives (2016 NCO ROD/RMP, p. 59). The management objectives of the HLB land use allocation are to “manage forest stands to achieve continual timber production that can be sustained through a balance of growth and harvest”. Implementing a project that did not construct any new roads would fail to achieve the objectives of the HLB on the 336 acres described above. As such, this alternative is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the Panther Creek area and therefore was not analyzed in detail.
Develop an alternative that conducts commercial thinning on all proposed stands
During scoping, one commenter requested the BLM to analyze an alternative that avoided regeneration harvest and conducted commercial thinning on all proposed stands. This alternative would conduct commercial thinning on 395 acres of stands that are included as regeneration harvest in Alternative 2-Proposed Action, in addition to the 335 acres of commercial thinning and 35 acres of riparian commercial thinning.
As detailed in EA section 1.4, the Panther Creek project’s Purpose is to conduct a total of 395 acres of regeneration harvest to respond to specific Needs of the project, which include: 1) providing ASQ volume to the Salem SYU target; 2) adjusting age-classes to work towards a reasonably even age class distribution in the future; and 3) managing stands that are infested with disease or are heavily stocked with hardwood and are, hence, underproductive. An alternative that conducts commercial thinning instead of regeneration harvest on these 395 acres does not have the ability to address all of the Needs presented above, as commercial thinning inherently cannot adjust age classes.
As such, an alternative which only conducts commercial thinning would not meet the Purpose and Need of the project and has been eliminated from detailed analysis.
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter of the EA describes the current condition and trend of the affected resources and the environmental effects of implementing the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2), and Alternatives 3 and 4 on those resources. The Environmental Effects portion of this chapter provides the analytical basis for the comparisons of the alternatives (40 CFR § 1502.16) and the reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences to the human environment of each alternative on the relevant resources. Impacts can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. The affected environment is described to the level of detail needed to determine the significance of impacts to the environment of implementing the action alternatives. The analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is organized by resource and then by Issue, and the Analysis Areas for actions proposed under this EA vary by resources.
3.1.1 Project Area, Planning Area and Analysis Area
The terms Project Area, Strategic Planning Area or Planning Area, and Analysis Area are used throughout this chapter. The following defines each term: ● The term Project Area is used to describe where action is proposed, such as units where regeneration harvest or commercial thinning are proposed and where road construction or road improvements are proposed. ● The term Strategic Planning Area or Planning Area is used to describe the overall area (see Figure 1) of consideration that was reviewed by the Panther Creek IDT for the development of the Panther Creek Project. ● Analysis Areas are the spatial scale used for effects analysis, which may vary by resource and include those areas that could potentially be affected by the action alternatives. In some cases, the Analysis Area
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 50 is confined to the Project Area, in some it is consistent with the Planning Area and in others the Analysis Area extends beyond the Planning Area. Under each Issue, an Analysis Area will be described.
3.1.2 General Setting
Physical Setting
The Panther Creek planning area, which is comprised of the western portion of the Panther Creek 6th field subwatershed and those proposed treatment acres within the Haskins Creek and Baker Creek 6th field subwatersheds, totals 11,653 acres and is located on the eastern slopes of the Oregon Coast Range in the upper reaches of the North Yamhill River watershed (see Figure 1). The project area is characterized by moderately mountainous terrain, easing in relief as the project area approaches the Willamette Valley in the east. The planning area is mostly forested with conifers, and some hardwoods, of various age classes with most forest stands being younger than 130 years, though private residences and agricultural fields are present in the eastern portion of the project area and make up a majority of the non-forest land shown in Table 15. The planning area is dissected by numerous 1st to 3rd order streams, and several 4th and 5th order streams including Panther Creek, Silver Creek, Beaver Creek, and Fall Creek. Elevations range from approximately 2,300 feet above mean sea level in the southwestern corner of the project area to approximately 300 feet above mean sea level where Panther Creek exits the eastern edge of the project area. Precipitation totals vary across the project area, with an annual average of 80 inches at the crest of the Oregon Coast Range in the western portion to 50 inches on the edge of the Willamette Valley in the eastern portion. Most precipitation falls as rain in the months of November through May, although snowfall events can occur in the higher elevations.
Land Ownership and Land Use
Of the 11,653 total acres within the planning area 2,213 ac. (19%) are managed by the BLM, 5,967 ac. (51%) are owned and managed by private residential or company landowners, 3,273 ac. (28%) are owned and managed by private industrial timber companies, and 200 ac. (2%) are managed by the City of McMinnville or the City of Carlton (Table 13). Both historic and current land use objectives differ across these ownerships and have produced the current condition of forest ages or other non-forest land classes.
Table 13: Land Ownership within the Panther Creek Planning Area
Owner Acres Percent of Planning Area
BLM 2,213 19%
Private Residential or Company 5,967 51
Private Industrial Timber 3,273 28
Local Government 200 2
BLM Historic Land Use and LUAs
Historically, BLM lands within the project area were managed for timber production, with a combination of regeneration harvest followed by reforestation and commercial thinning, taking place from the early 1960s to the early 1990s. From the mid-1990s to present the BLM has conducted very little commercial forest management activities within the planning area, with approximately 51 acres being commercially thinned in the mid-2000s (see section 3.1.3). Currently, the BLM lands in the planning area are managed for multiple uses, including sustained yield timber production, wildlife habitat, water quality, fisheries, and recreation. These objectives are defined by the Northwestern and Coastal Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, which has allocated the BLM lands within the planning area as: Moderate Intensity Timber Area-managed primarily for sustained yield timber
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 51 production, Riparian Reserve-managed primarily for complex forest habitat, water quality, and fisheries, Late Successional Reserve-managed primarily for old forest habitats, and District Designated Reserve-managed primarily for transportation infrastructure and lands not capable of sustained yield timber production (Table 14).
Table 14: LUAs on BLM-Administered Lands within the Panther Creek Planning Area
% of BLM Lands in Planning LUA Acres Area
Moderate Intensity Timber Area 1,156 52
Riparian Reserve 738 33
Late Successional Reserve 51 3
District Designated Reserve 268 12
Total 2,213 100
Historic and Current Land Use on Non-BLM Lands
Both historically and presently, private industrial timber lands are managed for short rotation (40-50 year) timber production. As demonstrated in Table 15, stand ages on private industrial lands are generally evenly distributed from ages 0-75, with 1,965 acres within the pre-commercial age classes (0-35) and 1,211 acres within the commercial age classes (36-75). Private residential and company lands have a much more individualized history, which has resulted in a mosaic of forest types and non-forest land use types. Together, these parcels contain 4,490 ac. of forest land that are characterized by conifer dominated stands used for timber production found generally in the western portion of the project area, and small, mixed species woodlots that are not used for rotational timber production found generally in the eastern portion of the project area. In addition, 1,477 ac. of private residential and company lands are non-forest lands, used for agriculture, residential homes and lawns, or pasturelands. Lands managed by the City of McMinnville are managed for both timber production at rotation intervals of approximately 80-100 years and for water quality, as two municipal drinking supply reservoirs (McGuire and Haskins Reservoirs) are located just outside the project area. Similarly, the City of Carlton manages the 3 ac. Carlton Reservoir which supplies municipal drinking water to the city of Carlton.
Table 15: Estimated Forest Ages by Land Ownership within the Panther Creek Planning Area
Private Local Private Residential Government Age Classes BLM (ac) Industrial Total or Company (City of Timber Land McMinnville and Land City of Carlton)
0-30 119 1,965 2,576 191 4,851
40-70 1,375 1,211 1,914 3 4,503
80-100 599 83 0 3 685
110+ 118 0 0 0 118
Non-forest 2 14 1,477 3 1,496
Total 2,213 3,273 5,967 200 11,653
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 52 3.1.3 Consideration of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions within the Panther Creek Planning Area
Other BLM Projects Within the Project Area that May Have Bearing on the Panther Creek Timber Management Project
● Baker Creek Density Management and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project (Baker Creek Project): The Baker Creek Project included 647 acres of density management thinning, conducted through two timber sales, and 298 acres of snag and down wood creation. Approximately 58 acres of the Baker Creek density management units are located within the Panther Creek planning area in T. 3 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 29 & 33, which were treated in 2007 as part of the Baker Creek 1 timber sale. At the time of treatment, these stands were 41-52 years old and were thinned to approximately 61-72 trees per acre. Approximately 5 of the 58 acres were yarded using ground-based equipment and approximately 53 acres were yarded using a cable system. In addition to density management treatments, snag and down wood creation occurred on 209 acres within the planning area in T. 3 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 17, 19, 31 and 33 and T. 3 S., R 6 W., Sec. 13, 23, 24 and 25. Of the 209 total acres, 24 acres are proposed for treatment under the Panther Creek project while 185 acres are stands adjacent to those proposed. ● Walker Creek Terrestrial Restoration Project (Walker Creek Project): The Walker Creek Project is currently ongoing and includes 575 acres of density management thinning and snag and down wood development in 38 to 99 year old stands. None of the treatment acres are within the Panther Creek planning area, though approximately 121 acres would be hauled through the planning area on High Heaven Road. ● Panther Creek Bridge Repair: The Panther Creek Bridge on Von Road in T. 3 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 19 has recently been inspected and found in need of physical reinforcement to maintain the long-term structural integrity of the bridge. While specific implementation plans have not been developed at this time, it is assumed that actions would include reinforcing the bridge abutments where erosion has occurred and installing rip-rap along the stream bank to dissipate and redirect stream flow away from the bridge abutments. It is expected that this project would occur in the summer of 2018 or 2019. ● Panther Creek Slide and Revegetation Effort: In February of 1999, after a series of prolonged rainfall events, a natural slump-earthflow landslide occurred on BLM land in T. 3 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 19 of the project area. The toe of the landslide settled directly above Panther Creek and Carlton Reservoir. Over time, sediment from the slide was carried downstream and settled in Carlton Reservoir, restricting the reservoir’s carrying capacity. Directly following these events, the BLM revegetated the slide area by broadcast seeding the site with native vegetation. ● Nestucca Back Country Byway: The Nestucca Back Country Byway Project is a road maintenance and improvement project that is currently ongoing and includes road paving, road widening, and culvert replacements along the Nestucca Access Road, a haul route proposed for use under the Panther Creek Project. 2.7 miles of this road, which is currently gravel, is scheduled to be widened and paved in the summers of 2018 and 2019. In addition, multiple culverts along the Nestucca Access Road are scheduled to be replaced in the summers of 2019-2024. The Cedar Creek Quarry, which is proposed as a rock source for the Panther Creek Project, and its access road would be used simultaneously for the Nestucca Back Country Byway Project. ● Upper North Yamhill River Timber Management Project (Upper North Yamhill Project): The Tillamook Field Office has selected the Upper North Yamhill River strategic planning area to develop forest management activities. The planning area is located directly to the north of the Panther Creek planning area, and is made up of portions of the Upper North Yamhill River and Haskins Creek subwatersheds. Land use allocations present in the Upper North Yamhill River planning area include MITA, LITA, LSR, and RR. At this time, a combination of regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and riparian commercial thinning are being considered for inclusion as a project proposal.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 53 Continuing Land Use Assumptions Regarding Non-Federal Land Management
In order to adequately analyze the potential effects of the alternatives, especially cumulative effects, several key assumptions have been made regarding activities on private and local government lands in the vicinity of the action area that could affect the analysis. All of the private industrial timber lands are managed for timber production and we expect forest management and related activities would continue to occur on these lands. Timber harvest would continue to occur on a 40-50 year rotation following Oregon State Forest Practices Act rules (FPA). Recent LiDAR data and aerial imagery indicates that there are about 1,211 acres of forest stands 40 years old or older (approximately 10% of the planning area) remaining on private industrial forest lands within the planning area, and it is estimated that these acres would be harvested at an average rate of approximately 50-100 acres per year (based on observed age class distribution on this land type within the planning area). Logging debris piling and burning may occur in recently harvested units, control of competing vegetation would occur, possibly through the use of herbicides and harvested areas would be replanted with commercial conifer species. After harvest and reforestation there would be several decades of inactivity as forests grow back to merchantable condition. Riparian management areas would conform to FPA standards varying from 100’ on large fish bearing streams to no buffer at all on small non-fish bearing streams. Timber harvest to a targeted basal area, depending on stream-side conditions, may occur within the riparian management areas. Road maintenance, rock quarrying and hauling of logs and rock would also occur on private industrial forest lands in and near the project area.
As stated above, private residential and company lands are a mixture of forest stands of varying types and non- forest lands. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that current land uses would continue on these lands. Forest lands owned by private companies in the western portion of the project area would continue to be managed for short rotation (40-50 year) timber production while small woodlots located on private residential lands may continue to exist on the landscape or be converted into other land use types. Currently, LiDAR data and aerial imagery indicate that there are about 1,914 acres of forest stands 40 years old or older (approximately 6% of the project area) on private residential and company lands. Of these acres, approximately 1,100 are on lands used for timber production and it is estimated that these acres would be harvested at an average rate of approximately 50- 100 acres per year (based on observed age class distribution on this land type in the planning area). As with private industrial forest lands, associated timber harvest actions would continue as well, including log and rock haul, road maintenance, and rock quarrying. Private residential woodlots may continue to exist on the landscape or may be removed and established as a non-forest land use. Agricultural fields, private residences, and pasturelands, which together total 1,477 acres within the project area, would continue to be maintained in their current condition.
It is assumed that local government lands would continue to be managed for timber production, water storage, and water quality. Of the 200 acres of local government owned land within the planning area, the City of McMinnville owns approximately 180 acres, which are forest lands used for long rotation (80-100+ year) timber production. Currently, all of these forest stands are in the pre-commercial age classes (0-34 years) and it is assumed that clearcut harvest activities would not occur on these acres for the next 40 years, though commercial thinning activities may take place in some stands within the next decade. The City of Carlton owns 20 acres within the planning area, which includes the 3 acre Carlton Reservoir and an adjacent water treatment facility, which would continue to provide Carlton’s municipal drinking water at its current capacity.
3.2 Vegetation and Forest Resources Issues
Issue 1: What effect would regeneration harvest have on HLB age class adjustment within the Panther Creek planning area and how would this adjustment influence the balancing of age class groups and sustained-yield timber management within the planning area?
Issue 2: How much timber volume would the Harvest Land Base treatments from each alternative contribute to the Salem Sustained Yield Allowable Sale Quantity?
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 54 Issue 3: How would the alternatives improve the productivity of forest stands within the Harvest Land Base that are infested with Phellinus weirii or have a high percentage of hardwood?
Issue 4: How would commercial thinning improve stand merchantability and value through commercial thinning treatments?
Issue 5: How would commercial thinning treatments in the Riparian Reserve improve stand diversity and contribute to the development of a shade tolerant understory?
3.2.1 Affected Environment
Stand Composition/Current Condition
BLM stands in the Panther Creek planning area can be generally characterized as homogenous (uniform structure), even-age Douglas-fir stands with intermittent western redcedar and grand fir, and to a lesser extent, western hemlock, red alder, bigleaf maple, Pacific madrone, Pacific dogwood, and Pacific yew (Table 16). The stands under 70 years old are the result of clear cuts in the 1950’s through the 1970’s. The younger stands are plantations that were planted primarily with Douglas-fir. These stands typically are dense and exhibit small, interlocked crowns. The stands over 70 years old are predominately Douglas-fir resulting from fires and homesteading that occurred in the 1800’s to around the turn of the 20th century.
A majority of stands allocated as Riparian Reserves within the Panther Creek planning area are dominated by Douglas-fir, with some containing high concentrations of western hemlock and western redcedar. Many of the stands have large hardwood components that contribute to a more diverse, complex stand structure with higher vegetative diversity. Despite the Riparian Reserve being relatively structurally complex, there are outer zones of the riparian stands within the Panther Creek project area that are similar to their upland counterparts, consisting of a single age Douglas-fir monoculture with minimal understory or shade tolerant species. These densely stocked, homogeneous Douglas-fir stands have very little structural diversity and stand composition complexity.
Table 16: Current Stand Parameters of Proposed Panther Creek Stands
Quadratic Total Trees Basal Mean Ave. Species Total Curtis Canopy Unit Treatment per Area Diameter2 Ht. Composition by Age1 RD3 Cover % Acres Acre (ft2) (QMD) (ft.) Basal Area4 (in.)
DF-91% BLM-5% 13-1 63 76 177 268 16.6 66 125 84 WRC-3% RA-1%
DF-97% BLM-2% RA- 13-2 25 42 231 215 13.1 59 103 84 1%
DF-90% BLM-7% GF- 17-1 45 86 155 263 17.6 63 134 82 2% RA-1% WRC-trace
17-2 13 112 114 296 21.8 63 139 78 DF-100%
DF-80% GF-10% RA- 17-3 11 73 149 250 17.6 60 127 80 4% WRC-4% BLM-2%
DF-93% BLM-5% GF- 17-4 17 71 169 287 17.6 68 129 84 2%
17-5 4 109 79 293 26.2 57 157 73 DF-91% GF-9%
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 55 DF-89% GF-6% BLM- 17-6 5 77 142 240 17.6 57 126 78 5%
DF-76% WRC-17% 19-1 12 88 126 303 20.9 66 134 84 BLM-7%
DF-79% WRC-14% 19-2 96 70 226 302 15.6 76 119 89 BLM-4% RA-1% WH- 1% GF-1%
DF-79% WRC-14% 19-3 6 70 226 302 15.6 76 119 89 BLM-4% RA-1% WH- 1% GF-1%
DF-94% BLM-2% RA- 19-4 11 49 208 216 13.8 58 100 84 2% WH-1% WRC-1%
DF-92% BLM-7% 19-5 62 48 262 222 12.5 63 97 86 WRC-1%
23-1 4 76 113 354 24 72 142 83 DF-100%
24-1 21 68 162 297 18.4 69 134 84 DF-100%
25-1 24 63 176 253 16.3 63 132 83 DF-93% WH-7%
25-2 7 64 184 370 19.2 84 142 87 DF-88% RA-12%
25-3 17 46 233 211 12.9 59 96 84 DF-84% RA-16%
DF-81% RA-12% WH- 25-4 8 62 180 260 16.3 64 108 84 7%
DF-95% RA-4% BLM- 25-5 58 57 267 273 14.5 74 99 90 1%
DF-90% RA-6% WH- 25-6 10 64 275 329 14.8 85 119 90 4%
RA-43% DF-43% WH- 25-7 17 49 162 200 15.1 52 109 76 14%
DF-89% RA-6% WH- 25-8 17 68 184 257 16 64 114 85 5%
29-1 5 75 229 307 15.7 77 107 88 DF-96% BLM-4%
DF-79% BLM-13% RA- 29-2 6 81 144 312 19.9 70 143 82 5% GF-3%
DF-74% WRC-17% 29-3 38 71 184 320 17.9 76 123 88 BLM-6% GF-2% RA- 1%
DF-96% BLM-2% RA- 29-4 24 40 275 229 12.3 65 89 88 2%
DF-94% GF-2% RA-2% 29-5 23 48 211 260 15 67 102 87 BLM-1% WRC-1%
DF-95% WRC-3% RA - 29-6 38 47 213 219 13.7 59 106 84 1% BLM-1%
DF-95% RA-3% BLM- 29-7 14 44 171 213 15.1 55 105 82 1% WRC-1%
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 56 DF-94% BLM-4% 33-1 5 114 127 333 22 71 135 84 WRC-2%
33-2 10 78 221 261 14.7 68 103 83 DF-70% GF-30%
DF-83% RA-11% 33-3 16 84 227 240 13.9 64 82 83 GF-6%
DF-73% RA-20% BLM- 34-1 18 60 114 168 16.4 41 117 70 7%
34-2 15 120 128 281 20.1 63 127 77 DF-85% BLM-15
The current conditions of the Panther Creek Project area proposed for treatment. 1 Total Age (as of 2017) as Calculated by ORGANON. 2 Diameter of the tree with average basal area at breast height. 3 Curtis Relative Density (Curtis 1982). 4 DF= Douglas-fir, WH = western hemlock, RA=red alder, BLM= bigleaf maple, WRC=western redcedar, GF = grand fir
There are a total of 1,156 acres of BLM forest stands allocated to the HLB within the Panther Creek planning area. Of these 1,156 acres, stands aged 0-39 years old comprises approximately 5% of the planning area; stands aged 40-79 years old comprises approximately 72% of the total distribution; and stands aged 80+ years old comprise approximately 23% (Table 17).
Table 17: Current HLB Acres by Age Grouping of BLM Stands in the Panther Creek Planning Area
Age Group Acres % of Planning Area
0-39 57 5
40-79 836 72
80+ 263 23
Total 1,156 100
Shrub Component
The Panther Creek planning area is primarily comprised of sword fern (Polystichum munitum), dwarf Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon) and vine maple (Acer circinatum). The density of the shrub component layer varies inversely to the canopy cover percentage; in stands with high canopy cover percentage there is lower shrub cover due to low light availability on the bottom canopy layer. The density of the shrub component is an important consideration for reforestation where some shrubs can out compete newly planted tree seedlings.
Forest Health
Disease/Pathogens
Phellinus weirii, also referred to as laminated root rot (LRR) fungus, is present in varying degrees throughout the project area. LRR is a native root pathogen that is a natural part of many forest ecosystems (Thies 1984). The fungus is known to cause severe root and butt rot decay, and will reduce growth and often kill Douglas-fir, and grand fir. Western hemlock can be infected but rarely killed by the root disease, and western redcedar is seldom infected and almost never killed; hardwoods are not susceptible to LRR (Goheen, E.M. and Willhite, E.A. 2006;
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 57 Hadfield et al. 1986; Hansen, E.M. and Goheen, E.M. 2000). Disease centers occur throughout some units in well- defined discrete pockets as well as in a diffuse pattern where groups of one to several trees are affected throughout the infested area. The root rot disease spreads through root contact at a rate of approximately 1 foot per year and varies depending on the density of the forest; dense younger stands (up to 150 years old) seem to be more susceptible for rapid spread as the trees are closer together and have more root contact (Hansen, E.M. and Goheen, E.M. 2000).
LRR is the primary agent affecting the forest health of the stands in the project area. The actual level of infection in the stands is difficult to quantify as not all infested areas are readily identifiable, but the disease concentration is presumed to be present in less than 15% of the total proposed project area based on walkthrough exams, stand examination data, aerial imagery, and professional judgment. However, within individual stands where the disease is prevalent the level of infection can range from 24% to 71% based on LiDAR imagery showing open areas, understocked areas and several areas where hardwoods dominate forest patches (hardwoods are immune to the disease and likely filled in when the conifer stand fell apart due to disease). In total there are about 140 acres of stands that are highly affected showing about 52 acres or 37% of the area of these stands that are not growing healthy forest stands that would otherwise contribute to sustained yield management. These stands are primarily in Section 25, but serious infection also occurs in stands in Sections 29 and 34. Concentrated LRR creates gaps and canopy openings that significantly impact plant community composition by allowing hardwood species, shrubs, and understory tree species to occupy the site (Holah et al. 1993). If there is not an understory tree species present (such as western hemlock or western redcedar) prior to the trees being killed from LRR, the site is generally occupied only by shrub and pioneer hardwood species. Much of the hardwood component described and shown in the species composition and current stand parameters table of the Panther Creek project area (Table 16) are due to these LRR pockets and openings, especially in section 25. LRR also occurs in diffuse patterns where only one to a few trees may be killed in small clusters that are widespread throughout the forest. This pattern of LRR infection is more difficult to detect remotely and does not generally cause whole stands to be underproductive. Laminated root rot displays the more diffuse pattern of infection in stands in Section 19.
Unfortunately the stand exam data collected for the Proposed Action area does not accurately capture the level of root rot infection seemingly due to where the sample plot locations fell (for the most part between infection patches and outside of hardwood patches). In these cases more intensive sampling would be needed to accurately capture the disease and hardwood stand attributes. Because stand walkthroughs showed root rot infestation to be more extensive than the stand exam data suggested, the BLM used LiDAR imagery to estimate levels of infection of the more highly infested stands.
Density
Stand density is a term used to describe the degree to which a given site is used by growing trees or to express a volume of wood in an area. Relative density (RD) describes the level of competition among trees or site occupancy in a stand, relative to some theoretical maximum based on tree density, size, and species composition (Curtis 1982; Husch et al. Chapter 8; Reineke 1933). For this analysis, the BLM has chosen to use Curtis relative density as a measure of stocking and density in the commercial thinning alternatives. Curtis relative density is determined mathematically by dividing the stand basal area by the square root of the quadratic mean diameter. Basal area is the easily measured cross-sectional area of a single plant stem, of all stems of a species in a stand, or of all plants in a stand (including the bark) that is measured at breast height (about 4.5 feet up from the ground), and is often expressed as ft² per acre. Basal area retention will be the metric used to determine regeneration harvest density and is another density expression used in the EA. Basal area retention is also a metric used by ORGANON to create thinning treatment models for reaching desired relative densities. The quadratic mean diameter is the diameter of the tree of average per tree basal area (Curtis and Marshall 2000; Husch et al. Chapter 8). Curtis RD is used as a metric to describe density where RD 100 is the theoretical maximum density of a stand, and RD of 50-70 indicate stands are beginning to experience intense competition for available resources such as light and moisture. Further RD threshold guidance is given in Volume 3 of the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement: Western Oregon (PRMP/FEIS) (Curtis and Marshall 1986; Hayes et al. 1997; Chan et al. 2006; USDI BLM 2016).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 58 Based on stand exam data, the current stand densities of the Panther Creek proposed treatment units range from 41 to 85 RD with a total project area weighted average RD of 66. As discussed in the Disease/Pathogens section above, the stand exam data underestimates the laminated root rot infection on about 180 acres of the proposed treatment units and therefore overestimates the stand density in the infested stands. Stand density is closely tied to canopy cover and the stands in the Panther Creek project area show relatively closed canopies averaging approximately 85% canopy cover (weighted average). In those stands with heavy disease infections the canopy cover in and near root rot patches is greatly reduced to the 40-50% cover level. In the dense stands not infested by root rot light available to the lower crown is very limited and is reducing vigor. Vigor can be viewed as how relatively healthy a tree is as indicated by crown ratio. Crown ratio is the portion of the tree that supports live foliage compared to its total height (a tree with live foliage limbs all the way to the ground would have a 100% crown ratio). If canopy cover stays at this high percentage, crown ratio will continue to shrink and vigor will be reduced even further, which would in turn restrict radial growth of the tree stem.
3.2.2 Issue 1: What effect would regeneration harvest have on HLB age class adjustment within the Panther Creek planning area and how would this adjustment influence the balancing of age class groups and sustained-yield timber management within the planning area?
3.2.2.1 Analytical Assumptions
● HLB lands are to be managed for sustained yield timber production. The ASQ for the Salem SYU declared in the 2016 NCO ROD was calculated through vegetation modelling and represents the calculated sustained yield capacity of these lands. This modelling used the following general assumptions to calculate this sustained yield capacity and these assumptions will be used in the analysis of this issue:
○ Decadally, a combination of regeneration harvest and commercial thinning would be conducted to achieve the ASQ (2016 NCO ROD/RMP Table B-1, p. 132).
○ In the long-term, age-classes in the HLB would approach forest regulation and there would be roughly an equal number of acres in each 10-year age class up to the 100 year age class (2016 FEIS, p. 316-317).
○ Based upon the current imbalanced age class distribution in the HLB, to achieve age class regulation over time average stand ages for regeneration harvest selection would vary by decade for some time (during the first seven decades of implementation between 76 and 105 years old). After seven decades, forest regulation begins to be realized and average regeneration harvest stand ages level-off at 90-100 years old (2016 FEIS, p. 317).
● The HLB age classes in the Panther Creek planning area are currently imbalanced and reflect the age class imbalance at the Tillamook Field Office and Salem SYU spatial scales (see EA section 1.2). Balancing age classes over time in the Panther Creek planning area will establish the sustained yield capacity of the planning area, which contributes to the establishment of the sustained yield capacity of the Salem SYU as a whole.
● Only regeneration harvest resets the stand age to 0 years. A balanced age class distribution, and hence a sustained yield, is only achievable if continually throughout time all age-classes are roughly equal, including the 0 year age class (2016 FEIS, p. 317-318).
● The BLM would return to the Panther Creek planning area in 20-25 years (20 years was used for this analysis), after rotating through the other 15 HLB Strategic Planning Areas on the Tillamook Field Office (see EA section 1.2). The BLM would plan and implement treatments in one Strategic Planning Area every 1-2 years. With this assumption, it is not possible to balance each 10 year age class within the planning area, as a 20 year return interval inherently each entry skips one age class. Instead, the objective concerning age class distribution within the Panther Creek planning area is to balance age class groups, which are aligned with treatment types assumed under the 2016 FEIS vegetation modelling that are
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 59 detailed below. In balancing age class groups, the BLM can ensure the availability of treatment opportunities in each entry, which would provide the BLM the ability to contribute to the calculated sustained yield. As age group balancing begins to occur throughout time across each Strategic Planning Area, the individual 10 year age classes would begin to balance across the full TFO HLB. The relevant age class grouping and associated treatment assumptions include:
○ Stands aged 0 to 39 years are not old enough to support commercial treatments but play an important role for sustained yield management as they will provide future treatment options in successive entries as they transition through time into older age classes.
○ Healthy stands aged 40-79 years are preferred candidates for commercial thinning to increase stand value and merchantability in a long-rotation regime (100 years). These stands will provide future regeneration harvest opportunities in successive entries. But, due to the preponderance of acres in this age grouping, stands in this grouping could also provide opportunities for regeneration harvest to assist in the achievement of a balanced age class distribution and a sustained yield regime over time.
○ Stands aged 80+ years are candidates for regeneration harvest as they are either near, at or beyond the condition where the stands annual growth rate is beginning to slow.
3.2.2.2 Analytical Methodologies
● Using stand exam and BLM Forest Operations Inventory derived stand ages, total the Harvest Land Base acres within the Panther Creek planning area by the age groupings listed above.
● For the No Action Alternative, calculate the change in age class groupings over time with no regeneration harvest for four successive 20-year return intervals.
● For Alternative 2-Proposed Action, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 calculate the change in age grouping distribution immediately after regeneration harvest. Simulate treatments, using the above stated assumptions, for four successive 20-year return intervals. Each successive entry will treat with regeneration harvest 230 acres, which represents the number of acres that would be regeneration harvested each 20 year cycle if the Panther Creek planning area had an even age grouping distribution (i.e. regulated forest).
3.2.2.3 Analysis Area
The HLB within the Panther Creek Strategic Planning area, which totals 1,156 acres, was used as the analysis area for this Issue.
3.2.2.4 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, no timber harvest, including regeneration harvest treatment, would take place. As such, there would not be an immediate addition to the 0 year age class and age class distribution would remain in its current state, with 5% of the acres within the 0-39 year age grouping, 72% of the acres within the 40-79 year age grouping, and 23% of the acres within the 80+ year age grouping. In addition, no regeneration harvest would occur in any of the successive entries. Table 18 shows the effect of no regeneration harvest at this time to the age class and age grouping distribution and, hence, potential treatment opportunities at 20, 40, 60, and 80 years into the future. In general, age grouping distribution varies widely from one entry interval to the next, which carries consequences for available commercial thinning and regeneration harvest treatment opportunities found in each entry and the ability to establish a predictable sustained yield from the Panther Creek planning area.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 60 At 20 years, the 40-79 and 80+ age groupings would contain the majority of the HLB acres in the planning area (37% and 63% respectively), but the 0-39 year age grouping would contain less than 1% of the HLB acres. This lack of acres within this age grouping would continue to have consequences to treatment opportunities in successive entries and, as shown in Table 18, this would be the only future entry in which both regeneration harvest and commercial thinning treatment opportunities would be present under the No Action Alternative.
At 40 years 95% of the HLB acres would be within the 80+ age grouping (regeneration harvest grouping). Commercial thinning opportunities would be nearly nonexistent, with only 57 acres within the 40-79 year age group.
At the 60 year entry all HLB acres are within the 80+ age grouping and commercial thinning opportunities are not present. By the 80 year entry, all HLB acres within the Panther Creek planning area would be 100 years old or older. While in both of these entries regeneration harvest opportunities are present in stands older than 100 years, this treatment regime would diverge greatly from those assumed under the vegetation modelling used to calculate the Salem SYU ASQ, which, as stated above, assumed that after approximately 70 years of implementation, age classes would begin to be balanced between 0 and 100 years old and that regeneration harvest would be conducted at 90-100 year old.
In summary, under Alternative 1-No Action age grouping distribution would not be generally balanced within 80 years as stands are never reset to age 0 through regeneration harvest. Furthermore, age groupings would become much more imbalanced over time and by the 60 year entry, commercial thinning opportunities would not exist within the project area. This lack of balancing would not provide a predictable sustained yield within the Panther Creek planning area, and instead creates treatment opportunities that would vary widely from one entry to the next and do not align with the assumptions used to produce the sustained yield of these lands.
Table 18: BLM HLB Age Groupings for the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative at the Current Entry, 20 Year Entry, 40 Year Entry, 60 Year Entry, and 80 Year Entry
Age Class No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Group
Group % of Regen Group % of Regen Acres Planning Treatment Acres Planning Treatment Area Acres Area Acres
Current Age Group Distribution-Current Entry
0-39 57 5 0 57 5 0
40-79 836 72 0 836 72 279
80+ 263 23 0 263 23 116
Total 1,156 100 0 1,156 100 395
Age Group Distribution-20 Year
0-39 3 .03 0 398 34 0
40-79 428 37 0 344 30 80
80+ 725 63 0 414 36 150
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 61 Total 1,156 100 0 1,156 100 230
Age Group Distribution-40 Year
0-39 0 0 0 230 20 0
40-79 57 5 0 452 39 0
80+ 1,099 95 0 474 41 230
Total 1,156 100 0 1,156 100 230
Age Group Distribution-60 Year Entry
0-39 0 0 0 230 20 0
40-79 3 .03 0 625 54 0
80+ 1,153 99.07 0 308 27 230
Total 1,156 100 0 1,156 100 230
Age Group Distribution-80 Year Entry
0-39 0 0 0 230 20 0
40-79 0 0 0 460 40 0
80+ 1,156 100 0 466 40 230
Total 1,156 100 0 1,156 100 230
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Alternative 2-Proposed Action includes 395 acres of regeneration harvest that would reset those stands to age 0. 116 of these acres would come from the 80+ age grouping, while 279 acres would come from the 40-79 year age class grouping (Table 18).
With an immediate addition of 395 acres to the 0 year age class, the 0-39 year age group is adjusted from 5% to 39%. Inversely, as 279 acres are removed from stands aged 40-79, this age group is reduced from 72% to 50%. This redistribution of acres under the Proposed Action results in the age groupings being roughly balanced as soon as the 20 year entry, with 34% of the acres in the 0-39 year group, 30% within the 40-79 year group, and 36% in the 80+ group. As shown in Table 18, because age groupings are roughly balanced as soon as the 20 year entry, there is an ability to provide treatment options in both the commercial thinning and regeneration harvest groupings across each of the successive entries.
At the 40 year entry, 39% of the acres are within the 40-79 year age grouping and 42% of the acres are in the 80+ age grouping, providing ample commercial thinning and regeneration harvest opportunities. Furthermore, 20% of the stand acres are within the 0-39 year age groupings, ensuring the availability of future commercial thinning and regeneration harvest treatment acres across time. This general consistency continues into the 60 and 80 year
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 62 entries as well, with 54% and 40% of the acres within the 40-79 year age grouping and 27% and 40% in the 80+ age grouping respectively.
In addition, as soon as the 40 year entry the BLM has the ability to exclusively conduct regeneration harvest from the 80+ age class groupings. This is a direct result of generally balanced age class groupings that provide a continuous number of acres to these groupings throughout time.
In summary, under Alternative 2-Proposed Action, acres within age class groupings remain generally consistent throughout each of the 20 year return entries. With this general balancing of acres in each age grouping found in each entry, there are commercial thinning and regeneration harvest opportunities available every time the BLM returns to the Panther Creek planning area and the BLM would have the ability to transition regeneration harvest activities to the 80+ age class grouping, which aligns with the treatment regimes assumed by the vegetation modelling upon which the sustained yield was calculated.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning in Healthy Stands 68-78 Years Old
Alternative 3 includes 284 acres of regeneration harvest, 111 less acres than under the Proposed Action. Though Alternative 3 would not reset these 111 acres to 0 within the current entry, effects to future treatment opportunities are very similar to those of the Proposed Action.
As shown in Table 19, starting in the 20 year entry and continuing through each successive entry there are generally an even number of acres within the 40-79 and 80+ year age groupings (approximately 30% of the Planning Area’s acres within each of the treatment groupings in each entry). This would provide consistent commercial thinning and regeneration harvest opportunities each time the BLM returned to the Planning Area. Furthermore, and similar to the Proposed Action, the transition away from regeneration harvest in the intermediate aged stands (40-70) and primarily into the rotation aged stands (80+) occurs as soon as the 40 year entry and continues through each successive entry. As such, Alternative 3 would provide the BLM with a predictable sustained yield each return entry to the Panther Creek planning area and would transition regeneration harvest to the 80+ age class groupings.
Table 19: BLM HLB Age Groupings for Alternative 3 and 4 at the Current Entry, 20 Year Entry, 40 Year Entry, 60 Year Entry, and 80 Year Entry
Age Class Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Group Group % of Regen Group % of Regen Acres Planning Treatment Acres Planning Treatment Area Acres Area Acres
Current Age Group Distribution-Current Entry
0-39 57 5 0 57 5 0
40-79 836 72 151 836 72 360
80+ 263 23 133 263 23 133
Total 1,156 100 284 1,156 100 493
Age Group Distribution-20 Year
0-39 287 25 0 496 43 0
40-79 344 29 75 344 29 75
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 63 80+ 525 46 155 316 28 155
Total 1,156 100 230 1,156 100 230
Age Group Distribution-40 Year
0-39 230 20 0 230 20 0
40-79 341 28 0 550 47 0
80+ 585 52 230 376 33 230
Total 1,156 100 230 1,156 100 230
Age Group Distribution-60 Year Entry
0-39 230 20 0 230 20 0
40-79 517 45 0 726 63 30
80+ 409 35 230 200 17 200
Total 1,156 100 230 1,156 100 230
Age Group Distribution-80 Year Entry
0-39 230 20 0 230 20 0
40-79 460 40 0 460 40 0
80+ 466 40 230 466 40 230
Total 1,156 100 230 1,156 100 230
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest in Healthy Stands 68-78 Years Old
Alternative 4 includes 493 acres of regeneration harvest, which would adjust 98 more acres to age 0 than would the Proposed Action. Effects to age class group balancing and sustained yield within the planning area under Alternative 4 would differ in several ways as compared to the Proposed Action.
As shown in Table 19, age class groupings would remain generally balanced through the 20 and 40 year entry but would begin to become unbalanced in the 60 year entry. At the 60 year entry, the 80+ age class grouping would contain 200 acres (17% of planning area). In this entry, the BLM would regeneration harvest all of these 200 acres, as well as 30 acres from the 40-79 age grouping. This would have volume production consequences since the stands in the 40-79 age class would not produce as much volume per acre. In other words, it would require more than 230 acres of regeneration harvest to produce as much volume as the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 would produce from the harvest of 230 acres. This differs decidedly from the Proposed Action where regeneration harvest is conducted exclusively from the 80+ age class groupings as soon as the 40 year entry and diverges from the vegetation modelling from which the sustained yield was calculated that assumed, around this time, that regeneration harvest would be conducted exclusively from the 90+ age classes. Though slightly more nuanced, another divergence is seen in the 80 year entry where all 466 acres within the 80+ year age grouping would just have become 80 years old. While the assumption has been established that stands 80 years and older are stands available for regeneration harvest, it is only under Alternative 4 where regeneration harvest in this entry is exclusively conducted from stands just turning 80. Again, the consequences would be a reduction in available volume or the need to harvest more acres to achieve the same volume, when compared to the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, as stands just turning 80 years old would contain less volume than stands 90 and 100 years old.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 64 3.2.3 Issue 2: How much timber volume would Harvest Land Base treatments from each alternative contribute to the Salem Sustained Yield Unit Allowable Sale Quantity?
3.2.3.1 Analytical Assumptions
● The BLM estimates that commercial thinning treatments would contribute approximately 15 mbf (thousand board feet) per acre, regeneration harvest treatments would contribute approximately 45 mbf per acre, and harvest for new construction road right-of-ways would contribute approximately 60 mbf per acre towards the Salem SYU ASQ. These volume assumptions are derived from past timber sale volumes containing similar treatments as those proposed in the HLB, ORGANON modeling software, and professional judgement.
3.2.3.2 Analytical Methodologies
● Proposed commercial thinning and regeneration harvest acres for each alternative were multiplied by the estimated volume per acre to derive the estimated total volume.
3.2.3.3 Analysis Area
The HLB portion of the project area was used as the analysis area for this Issue.
3.2.3.4 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, no commercial thinning or regeneration harvest treatments would take place. With no treatment in the Harvest Land Base, no timber volume would be offered for sale. This alternative would contribute 0 mmbf to the Salem SYUs ASQ.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action there would be 395 acres of regeneration harvest that would yield approximately 17.8 mmbf (million board feet) of timber. This is based off the previously stated assumption that regeneration treatments proposed would yield approximately 45 mbf (thousand board feet) per acre. Under the Proposed Action, there would be 335 acres of commercial thinning treatment that would yield approximately 5.0 mmbf of timber. This is based off the previously stated assumptions that commercial thinning treatments yield approximately 15 mbf per acre. In addition, there would be 16 acres harvested for new construction road right of ways. Harvest volume would average 60 mbf/per, totaling .96 mmbf. Combined, it is expected that the HLB treatments under the Proposed Action would contribute approximately 23.76 mmbf toward the Salem SYUs ASQ.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning in Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Under Alternative 3 there would be 284 acres of regeneration harvest, 446 acres of commercial thinning and 16 acres of new road construction road. Combined, it is expected that the HLB treatments under Alternative 3 would contribute approximately 20.43 mmbf toward the Salem SYUs ASQ. This is a decrease of 3.33 mmbf as compared to the Proposed Action.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest in Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Under Alternative 4 there would be 493 acres of regeneration harvest, 237 acres of commercial thinning and 16 acres of new road construction. Combined, it is expected that the HLB treatments under Alternative 4 would contribute approximately 26.70 mmbf toward the Salem SYUs ASQ. This is an increase of 2.94 mmbf as compared to the Proposed Action.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 65 3.2.4 Issue 3: How would the alternatives improve the productivity of forest stands within the Harvest Land Base that are infested with Phellinus weirii or have a high percentage of hardwood species?
3.2.4.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Proposed treatment units 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4, 25-5, 25-6, 25-7 and 25-8 are heavily infested with Phellinus weirii or laminated root rot (LLR). Proposed treatment units 29-2 and 34-1 are heavily stocked with hardwoods on acres capable of conifer growth. Unit 25-7 has much hardwood in addition to LLR infection areas. ● LLR is a pathogen that spreads by root contact and expands out from infested areas at a rate of approximately one foot per year. LLR would continue to spread in stands that are currently infested. ● LLR reduces a stand’s ability to reach the full productive capacity as the disease leads to reductions in tree growth and increases in tree mortality. Regionally LLR reduces forest productivity 5-15% (Childs, 1963; Bier & Buckland, 1947; Buckland et al., 1954; Thies, 1983) and 40 -70% in infection centers within individual forest stands (Goheen & Hansen, 1993). ● Due to species morphology, growth rates, and biological limitations hardwood species such as red alder and bigleaf maple are not as productive in terms of timber yield as conifer species under a long rotation management regime. High percentages of hardwood species on conifer capable land reduce a stand’s ability to reach the full productive capacity, by volume, of a site. ● Gross yield of fully stocked healthy 60 year old western hemlock stands on site index 150 lands (similar to average stand in planning area) is approximately 13,800 cubic feet (Barnes, G. 1962). Western hemlock is used since it is a native commercial conifer that is resistant to LLR and has similar yields as Douglas-fir in the first 100 years. Gross yield is used here for comparative reasons and is not the same as final harvest volume, which subtracts the retention of reserve trees and includes defect and breakage associated with stand imperfection and harvest damage. The final harvest volume is what ASQ is based on, not gross yield. ● Gross yield of healthy 60 year old red alder on same acres as above is approximately 6,300 cubic feet (Worthington et al, 1960). Cubic foot volume is used for comparative purposes since alder is often sold as pulp or chips and not recorded in board feet. ● Red alder reaches its maximum height and volume growth at 70 - 90 years old. Western hemlock stands can continue to grow larger for several centuries.
3.2.4.2 Analytical Methodologies
● The BLM Forest Operations Inventory database was queried to identify those stands within the Panther Creek planning area that demonstrated potential for commercial treatment. ● Stand exams were conducted in those stands to gather information such as existing stand density, species composition and tree size and height. ● Stand specific field reconnaissance was conducted by BLM silviculturists to confirm stand exam data and identify stand attributes not readily gathered by the stand exam, such as areas of disease infestation. ● LiDAR imagery was used to detect and digitize areas where forest stand stocking is low in known laminated root rot stands. LiDAR was also used to digitize areas with heavy hardwood stocking on sites that are suitable for growing conifer trees. The areas of low stocking and hardwood stocking were calculated and compared to overall stand area to determine percent area affected. ● Most of the affected stands are 60-65 years old with some in the mid to upper 40’s. For analysis purposes yields of 60 year old stands are used. ● Growth and stocking reductions based on published accounts for Phellinus weirii effects were applied to heavily diseased stands and gross yields were compared to healthy fully stocked stand conditions. ● Gross yield was compared between acres stocked with red alder vs. western hemlock to assess the relative reduction in potential yield on hardwood stocked acres capable of growing conifers.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 66 3.2.4.3 Analysis Area
The proposed treatment units 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4, 25-5, 25-6, 25-7 and 25-8 total 139 acres of which approximately 52 acres (37%) are heavily affected by laminated root rot. Treatment units 25-7, 29-2, 34-1 total 41 acres of which 18 (44%) are heavily stocked with hardwoods, primarily red alder. Unit 25-7 is 17 acres and is included in both categories. Of the 17 acres in unit 25-7, 12 acres are either infested with root rot or heavily stocked with hardwoods. For analysis purposes, the BLM assumed that half of the affected acres were caused by root rot and the other half are stocked with hardwoods unrelated to root rot.
3.2.4.4 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
The stands within the analysis area all contain moderate to high concentrations of Phellinus weirii or laminated root rot (LRR) infection. In these infested stands, it is expected that without control or mitigation measures, the disease would continue to spread, negatively affecting the stand’s ability to maintain vigor and health. As trees succumb to the root rot and mortality increases, the hardwood and shrub components would increase. The overall productive capacity of these stands would decrease as highly valued conifers would be replaced by less valuable hardwood and shrub species. Since LRR continues to spread by root contact, the pathogen would continue to spread until root contact is limited and resistant species are re-introduced. Under the No Action alternative, full productive capacity of the stands would be delayed until future treatments are implemented to treat diseased and hardwood stocked areas of the stands.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Stands with high levels of hardwood stocking - 41 acres
By comparing the productive capacity of red alder at age 60 to that of site adapted conifer species (western hemlock and Douglas-fir have similar productive capacities at age 60) we find that if the stands were fully stocked with conifer species that the gross yield would be approximately 565,800 ft3 (13,800 ft3 x 41 acres) but with the 3 3 current stocking of 41 acres of hardwoods we would expect gross yield to be 430,800 ft , (13,800 ft x 23 acres 3 plus 6,300 ft x 18 acres) or about 24% less volume yield. Additionally, since red alder at age 60 is nearing its highest yield potential (yield curves show volume production flattening at about 80 years and then beginning to decline - Worthington et al 1960) we expect that in the next 20-25 years there would be less hardwood volume on the affected acres than exist today, whereas we would expect western hemlock to continue to be accelerating in gross yield for the next 20-25 years. What this means is that by regeneration harvesting now, yield from the current standing volume of hardwood would be realized and most of the potential for the conifers would also be realized. Deferring harvest may result in loss of hardwood yield, would maintain underproductive acres, and would delay the start of a new fully stocked conifer stand.
Stands heavily infected with laminated root rot - 139 acres:
Within the 139 acres of stands with heavy root rot infection there are at least 52 acres (37%) where stocking is severely affected, on par with the 40-70% forest productivity loss estimated by Goheen & Hansen (1993). If we apply the same metrics as above, 13,800 ft3 per acre gross yield for healthy western hemlock stands, we can expect that those 52 acres are yielding only 4,140 to 8,280 ft3 per acre. That translates into an overall yield reduction of between 15% and 26% for the entire 139 acres, or between 287,040 ft3 and 502,320 ft3.
If these stands are to continue unharvested for the next 20-25 years, we would expect that yield reduction would continue to decline as more of the trees in the stand become infected, causing reduction in growth, or die with subsequent loss of value as decay proceeds. The root disease would also continue to expand in area. The infection centers in the project area range on average between one and five acres. If we consider that the disease expands radially at a rate of one foot per year, a one acre infection center would grow to 1.37 acres over 20 years. A five acre infection center would grow to 5.8 acres in 20 years. Because the infection centers are irregularly shaped and
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 67 of varying size it is impossible to accurately project the number of additional acres that would become infested, but it is not unrealistic to believe that an additional 15 - 25 acres within the 139 acres of diseased stands could become infested causing additional loss of timber yield.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
The proposed treatments within the analysis area for this issue do not change between the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. As such, the effects of Alternative 3 are the same as those presented under the Proposed Action.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
The proposed treatments within the analysis area for this issue do not change between the Proposed Action and Alternative 4. As such, the effects of Alternative 4 are the same as those presented under the Proposed Action.
3.2.5 Issue 4: How would commercial thinning improve stand merchantability and value through commercial thinning treatments?
3.2.5.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Relative density is the relationship between the average tree size and the number of trees in a stand. It gives insight to inter-tree competition, stand development and individual tree form. It is also useful in predicting stand yield (Jack and Long, 1996). Some important density milestones are 25% (onset of competition and crown closure), 35% (lower limit of full site occupancy) and 60% (lower limit of “self- thinning”) (Long 1985).
● A relative density over 60% indicates that a stand is entering the “zone-of-imminent-competition- mortality” where trees self-thin and one can expect increased density-related mortality (Drew and Flewelling, 1979). Stands with high relative densities will also experience extreme reductions in growth rates and can be less resistant to outside stressors (e.g. drought, pathogens, forest insects, or fire). Avoiding high amounts of inner-tree competition is important to maintain tree vigor and consistent growth.
● Commercial thinning of healthy stands can increase growth of residual trees to rates greater than growth without thinning and is necessary to maximize tree size over the course of a rotation (Jack and Long 1996).
● Tree value and merchantability are increased through routine density management by means of pre- commercial and commercial thinning. Two indicators of tree value are tree size and amount of “clear wood” per tree (areas of the log that do not have knots formed by branches). Average tree size increases through thinning because each individual tree has more access to water, nutrients and sunlight. Clear wood develops as trees lose their lower branches as they compete for sunlight, which happens when the stand is at approximately 25% of its maximum relative density (Long, 1985). Prudent implementation of a density management plan can increase average tree size while simultaneously developing more clear wood per tree.
● There is a niche in the timber market within the Salem SYU area that favors large logs.
3.2.5.2 Analytical Methodologies
● The ORGANON Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Dixon, 2002) was used to model tree growth under a no-action alternative and for those stands proposed for commercial thinning.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 68 ● The simulated commercial thinning reduced relative density to 35% using Curtis’ RD in order to maintain full site occupancy and reduce competition. The no action alternative and the Proposed Action were compared after 25 years and 50 years.
● Stand QMD and diameter growth rate following the treatment were used as evaluation criteria to analyze the effects of commercial thinning. These were used to demonstrate the growth response of residual trees post-thinning.
3.2.5.3 Analysis Area
● The stands proposed for commercial thinning under Alternative 2-Proposed Action, which totals 335 acres, was used as the analysis area for this Issue.
3.2.5.4 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Commercial thinning harvests are a means to enhance economic value of timber in forest stands, but under the No Action Alternative no such treatments would occur in the Panther Creek project area. The weighted average Curtis RD moves from 70 to 75 within 25 years following the no treatment alternative where competition for resources becomes more intense and growth is slowed even further (Figure 10). Merchantability and value are not being increased with no action, as the densities in the stands are continuing to restrict growth and incremental volume of the timber in the stands. Suppression related mortality can be expected to continue and/or increase with no action.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 69 Figure 10: A comparison of the average relative densities between the No Action Alternative and commercial thinning under the Proposed Action
Zone of Imminent Mortality
Lower Level of Full Stocking
Onset of Competition
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would commercially thin 335 acres of 44-77 year old stands. Commercial thinning would enhance the merchantability and value by releasing trees from competition of available resources including light, nutrients, and water. Competition is especially intense in densely stocked homogeneous monocultures like the stands the BLM has selected for commercial thinning treatment. Here, competition will be discussed as relative density (RD) (Curtis 1982). Currently, all stands proposed for thinning have a relative density of 60% or above, the point where density-related mortality is expected (Figure 10). The Proposed Action would reduce all stands to a relative density of 35%. This would avoid self-thinning, bolster average tree diameter and increase growth rates (Figures 10, 11 and 12).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 70 Figure 11: A comparison of the quadratic mean diameter between the No Action Alternative and commercial thinning under the Proposed Action
The baseline of “no treatment” was used in Figure 11 to illustrate the benefits of reducing these competition factors to meet desired objectives. Thinning would extend the harvest rotation in each proposed stand, recovering the projected density related mortality and growth loss, making larger, high valued timber that would be available to the market within 25 to 50 years. The QMD of the stand would be substantially larger over the course of the planning horizon (Figure 11). The density would recover relatively quickly after the thinning and would begin to reach approximately 50 RD within 25 years, but could also be treated in 50 years, allowing for future management flexibility. By this point, the stands are reaching the age, density, structure, and ideal merchantability for future regeneration harvest.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 71 Figure 12: The average growth rate in the 5 years following commercial thinning under the Proposed Action, compared to the No Action Alternative
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
In this alternative, three stands that are currently proposed for regeneration will be commercially thinned to 35% maximum relative density (units 19-2, 29-1 and 33-2). Following treatment, these stands will experience “release,” as competition between trees is reduced and more resources are available to residual trees (Figure 13). This alternative will provide some ASQ volume from the commercial thinning, while increasing the value and merchantability in future harvests that is associated with increased tree size.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 72 Figure 13: The average growth rate in the five years following treatment under Alternative 3, compared to the No Action Alternative, for the units 19-2, 29-1, and 33-2.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Under Alternative 4, eight stands that are currently proposed for commercial thinning would be regenerated. The average tree harvested in each of these stands would be substantively smaller than if they were thinned and regenerated in the future (Table 20, Figure 14). Using a 25-year planning horizon, the stand average diameter increase ranges from 3.9 to 8.7 inches. Using a 50-year planning horizon, the stand average diameter increase ranges from 7.5 to 11.4 inches for these eight stands.
Table 20. A comparison of the quadratic mean diameter between the No Action Alternative and a commercial thinning under Alternative 4.
Unit Current QMD 25 years with 50 years with (inches) commercial thinning commercial thinning
17-3 18.8 23.7 27.8
17-4 18.9 24.4 29.0
17-6 18.9 23.7 28.0
19-3 17.0 23.1 27.9
23-1 24.8 28.6 32.3
29-1 16.4 27.5 30.3
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 73 29-3 19.4 25.9 30.4
33-2 15.0 23.7 26.4
Figure 14: A comparison of the quadratic mean diameter between the No Action Alternative and a commercial thinning under Alternative 4.
3.2.6 Issue 5: How would commercial thinning treatments in the Riparian Reserve improve stand diversity and contribute to the development of a shade tolerant understory?
3.2.6.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Douglas-fir dominated riparian stands that have little to no shade tolerant species in the understory will not develop an understory in the foreseeable future (next 50 years) due to high density of the overstory and the lack of shade tolerant seed sources. ● The reduction in overstory density produced by the thinning treatments would create growing space for the new cohort of shade tolerant trees that would be planted following the treatment. ● Applying a commercial thinning treatment that retains at least 30% of the original stand canopy cover percentage and at least 60 trees per acre would produce conditions in the stand that are conducive for creating a more complex forest structure and vegetative diversity.
3.2.6.2 Analytical Methodology, Techniques, and Data Use
● Trees per acre and quadratic mean diameter of riparian stands proposed for commercial thinning treatment in the RR were used to calculate relative density for current conditions (No Action Alternative) and post-thinning conditions (Proposed Action). ● A literature review was conducted to assist in reaching conclusions as to the effect of relative density on stand structural development over time.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 74 3.2.6.3 Analysis Area
The analysis area used for this issue consists of the stands proposed for commercial thinning in the Riparian Reserve in the Panther Creek project area.
3.2.6.4 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under the Alternative 1-No Action, riparian commercial thinning and shade tolerant tree species underplanting within RR stands would not take place. Increasing forest vegetative structural diversity and complexity over time would not be accomplished as the current Douglas-fir monoculture (single age structure) would continue to persist. Removing overstory trees and planting desired shade-tolerant species would not occur in this alternative, and so stand structural change, including large open-grown overstory trees and multiple canopy layers, is unlikely to develop within the next 50 years or more.
Table 21 shows the current condition of RR stands proposed for thinning under the Proposed Action, which include units 19-5 RR, 24-1 RR, 25-5 RR, 29-5 RR, 29-6 RR, and 29-7 RR. These stands currently have high RDs (59-79) and under the No Action, it is projected that RDs would increase over time. These ever-increasing RDs would continue, or intensify, the tree-to-tree competition currently found within these stands, which would have consequences to overstory crown structure. Overstory tree heights would increase as the individual trees compete for light but live crown heights and widths would not increase as trees would not have the space for radial crown expansion and would shed lower live branches due to a lack of light (Long, 1985).
In addition, the high RDs of the current stands would limit the development of the understory, even if a seed source were present. The present understory (which consists almost entirely of brush species) would continue to be highly suppressed, with the limiting factor being light. Occasional density independent mortality would occur, which would allow increased sunlight to reach the forest floor on a localized scale, but this occurrence would not be at a rate that would appreciably change stand canopy distribution. Furthermore, with very little available seed source from shade tolerant conifer species in adjacent stands, it is expected that brush species would become established in these openings.
In summary, under the No Action alternative, the compositional and structural diversity of these stands would not be improved but would continue to exist in a simplistic state, dominated by a highly dense Douglas-fir overstory. Individual trees would continue to have small live crowns, with little radial branch expansion and poor height to diameter ratios. A shade tolerant understory would not be introduced through underplanting activities and any understory development, even if seed sources were present, would be inhibited by high density of overstory trees.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action there would be immediate and long term effects to the overstory and understory vegetation in the riparian commercial thinning units. Table 21 shows the immediate effects of commercial thinning to the average trees per acre, basal area (measured cross-sectional area), quadratic mean diameter (diameter of the tree of average per tree basal area), and relative density (Curtis 1982).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 75 Table 21: Riparian Commercial Thinning Treatment Stand Conditions
Trees/Ac. QMD (in.) RD Unit (acres)
Before After Before After Before After
19-5 RR (2) 177 60 14.1 17 59 29
24-1 RR (4) 109 60 20.0 22 73 48
25-5 RR (8) 165 60 14.5 19 65 36
29-5 RR (4) 155 60 16.0 19 61 36
29-6 RR (11) 149 60 14.6 20 72 40
29-7 RR (6) 152 60 16.0 20 79 40
Most importantly, after thinning, RDs in these stands would be reduced (ranging between 29-48), which would create overstory canopy openings that would generally persist for at least 25 years, and would be expected to gradually return to pre-treatment conditions at year 50. For this period of time, these canopy openings would have an essential effect to the development of these stands, as the increase in light availability would lead to increased live crowns of the overstory trees and would allow underplanted trees to establish within the understory.
At the RDs found after thinning, overstory trees that are released would have better ability to retain lower limbs over time which would increase the live crown ratios of overstory trees, resulting in large crowns. Chan et al. (2006) found that crown recession did not occur in moderately and heavily thinned stands, suggesting increased longevity of lower branches compared with unthinned and lightly thinned stands. Franklin et al. (2002) attributed increased longevity of branches and increasing crown depth in old-growth forests to more open canopies and higher light conditions.
The stands in the RR selected for commercial thinning would be planted with at least 110, and up to 350 shade tolerant trees per acre following the thinning. The RDs following treatment would allow enough light to reach the forest floor for planted seedlings to become established (Waring and Running 2010). We expect that within 10 to 15 years the planted trees would start to develop a mid-story canopy. There would still be a gap between the top of the mid-story canopy and the bottom of the overstory canopy but there would be much more foliage in the mid- story than with no treatment. In 15 to 25 years, we expect the mid-story to be well developed, creating a third layer canopy in these stands.
Alternatives 3 and 4
The proposed treatments within the analysis area for this issue do not change between the Proposed Action and Alternatives 3 or 4. As such, the effects of Alternatives 3 and 4 are the same as those presented under the Proposed Action.
3.2.7 Cumulative Effects-For All Vegetative and Forest Resource Issues
Within the Panther Creek planning area, the BLM has implemented recent timber management projects. Baker Creek I and Baker Creek II are two timber sales from the Baker Creek Density Management and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project and Environmental Analysis (Baker Creek Project). Approximately 58 acres of Baker Creek
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 76 density management thinning has taken place within the Panther Creek planning area. There was no stand-age- resetting regeneration harvesting completed in the Baker Creek timber sales. The thinned stands were completed under the guidance of the Salem District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (1995) with different objectives. The majority of the Baker Creek units were thinned relatively lightly (maintaining RD of approximately 40 across the landscape) and will still coincide well with the current management directives of the 2016 NCO RMP.
Stands treated in section 25 of the Baker Creek Project have very similar stand conditions as those proposed in this project in section 25. Section 25 units in Baker Creek were thinned heavily and underplanted with disease resistant species to reduce potential P. weirii disease spread. There was a fair amount of wind-thrown trees as predicted in the Baker EA which may have reduced the inoculum on the site further. The recent Section 25 treatment combined with the proposed Section 25 treatment discussed above would cumulatively reduce the Phellinus pathogenetic impact on the landscape for both project areas beyond that discussed by each project. The reduced disease on the landscape would allow for increased forest health, value, and merchantability.
Thinning completed in past timber treatments, as well as with the proposed commercial thinning treatments, increases the merchantability of timber in the BLM lands. There is a niche demand for logs of larger size classes beyond those available from private industry logging. That demand creates the increased merchantability and value that will be produced by the BLM past and foreseeable future thinning treatments. The treatment mix of regeneration and commercial thinning will cumulatively increase the merchantability and value of the trees being managed.
From the Tillamook Field Office strategic planning effort outlined in section 1.2, it is assumed that the BLM will be returning to this project area on an approximate 20-25 year rotation. These reasonably foreseeable returns will allow for treatments that will further balance age class distribution, allowing and promoting sustainable timber yield in perpetuity. Many thinned stands will be reaching the thresholds for regeneration harvest while others will be thinned or scheduled for regeneration harvest in a future entry to reach desired management objectives.
3.3 Wildlife Resources
3.3.1 Issue 6: Would the alternatives affect Bureau Sensitive (BS) terrestrial mollusk species or their habitats? If so, how?
3.3.1.1 Analytical Assumptions
● For the purposes of this analysis, the project biologist considered forested stands younger than 35 years old non-habitat; stands 35-79 years old lower quality habitat; and stands 80 years and older as higher quality habitat for Bureau Sensitive terrestrial mollusks. ● Regeneration harvest removes terrestrial mollusk habitat. ● Thinning can degrade terrestrial mollusk habitat by reducing canopy cover, disturbing forest litter, and destroying or removing coarse woody debris. ● For analysis purposes acres impacted by new road construction were grouped with regeneration harvest acres as the effects to terrestrial mollusks from each action are similar. ● Conservation measures to reduce impacts associated with timber harvest include maintaining habitat conditions at sites where BS mollusks have been located. ● Areas of existing habitat, 2 - 3 acres in size, are required to maintain terrestrial mollusk species richness, abundance, and habitat suitability at the site (Jordan and Black, 2012; Dyck 2001).
3.3.1.2 Analytical Methodologies
● Identify, categorize, and total all forest stands in the analysis area into terrestrial mollusk habitat types, using the above stated assumption. ● Conduct terrestrial mollusks surveys to protocol in all stands identified as higher quality habitat and proposed for treatment.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 77 ● Calculate the total change of habitat types within the analysis area as a result of the Proposed Action.
3.3.1.3 Analysis Area
The analysis area used in the analysis for Bureau Sensitive terrestrial mollusks and their habitats includes the Panther Creek planning area, as described in EA section 3.1.1. This area represents that portion of the landscape that, should Bureau Sensitive terrestrial mollusk species be using the area, they could experience impacts from the proposed project. Additionally for the purposes of this analysis, it was considered an appropriate representative of that portion of the landscape containing the project to supply a context upon which habitat conditions for the larger population can be characterized.
3.3.1.4 Affected Environment
The Panther Creek planning area is within the range and/or contains habitat for three terrestrial mollusk species that are on BLM’s Special Status Species list as Bureau Sensitive (BS) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2015), which include the Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia), the crowned tightcoil (Pristiloma pilsbryi) and the Columbia sideband (Monadenia fidelis Columbiana). All three species are known to occur upon lands managed by the BLM Tillamook Field Office. These species are generally associated with the organic duff and litter layer and moss on the floor of cool forested areas containing coarse woody debris, sword ferns, and woody shrub species.
The three terrestrial mollusk species being analyzed here have only been encountered a very few times on BLM lands managed by the Tillamook Field Office despite a history of approximately 11,000 acres of protocol mollusk surveys being conducted.
The Puget Oregonian is a terrestrial snail that occurs from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, through the Puget Trough of Washington and into the Oregon Coast Range, south to about McMinnville, in Yamhill County Oregon. According to the BLM’s regional database (GeoBOB) and available Forest Service data, there are 282 known sites within the range of the Puget Oregonian. Of the 282 sites, ten are within Oregon, with four of them within the Tillamook Field Office. Three of these four sites were discovered during pre-project surveys and are within 200 feet of a Panther Creek treatment unit, within T. 3 S., R. 5 W. section 19. The remaining one site is within 2.5 miles of the Panther Creek project area. These are the only known records in the Coast Range.
The Columbia sideband is a terrestrial snail sub-species most commonly located in the Columbia Gorge in Skamania County, Washington and around Mount Hood in the Oregon Cascades. However, recent surveys have found the sub-species within the Oregon Coast Range, within Yamhill and Tillamook Counties. A total of 21 sites are known within Oregon and Washington, 16 of which are in Oregon, with 6 located on lands managed by the BLM’s Tillamook Field Office (Fallon and Jepsen 2015). Five of these 6 sites are located on the east side of the Coast Range and were located during pre-project surveys conducted for the Panther Creek project; three sites are located within T. 3 S., R. 5 W., section 19 and two sites are located within T. 3 S., R. 5 W., section 17. The sixth known site for this sub-species on lands managed by the BLM’s Tillamook Field Office is located on the west side of the Coast Range summit approximately 9 miles southwest of the nearest Panther Creek treatment unit. Discovery of these sites represented a considerable range extension of what was thought to be an Oregon Cascades and Columbia River Gorge sub-species.
The crowned tightcoil is a very small terrestrial snail that is associated with dense thickets of salal, rotten decaying leaves and areas of persistent moisture. This species was not located during pre-project surveys for the Panther Creek project.
Terrestrial Mollusk Habitat within the Proposed Panther Creek Treatment Units
All of the BLM forested stands proposed for treatment are greater than 35-years-old (the 40-year age class within BLM’s FOI database) and therefore considered to be terrestrial mollusk habitat, albeit of varying habitat qualities. Of the approximately 781 total acres proposed to be treated with riparian commercial thinning, commercial
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 78 thinning and regeneration harvest treatments, 120 acres (15%) are currently 80-years-old or older and likely providing higher quality mollusk habitat while, 661 acres (85%) are currently less than 80-years-old and likely providing lower quality mollusk habitat.
Mollusk Surveys and Known Sites
The BLM 2016 ROD/RMP contains the following Management Objective: “Implement conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau Sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for the ESA listing of these species.” It also contains the following Management Direction to help achieve this objective: “Implement conservation measures to mitigate specific threats to Bureau Sensitive species during the planning of activities and projects. Conservation measures include altering the type, timing, location, and intensity of management actions.” (USDI – BLM 2016, ROD/RMP page 95)
Pre-project mollusk surveys for the Panther Creek Project were conducted using the current terrestrial mollusk survey protocol “Survey Protocol For Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan”, Version 3.0 (Duncan et al 2003). These surveys were conducted in two protocol survey efforts. The first effort was conducted in the fall of 2012 and spring of 2013 and surveyed 850 acres in support of a project within the Panther Creek planning area that the BLM considered developing under the 1995 RMP. These 850 acres included the full Forest Operations Inventory polygon of proposed stands that were being evaluated for commercial thinning at that time which were terrestrial mollusk habitat that had the potential of being impacted by the developing project. The BLM subsequently decided to postpone project development in the Panther Creek project area at that time as the 2016 ROD/RMP was nearing publication but the survey efforts conducted then were used in support of this project as they remained valid. The second survey effort conducted specifically in support of the current project occurred during the spring of 2017 and fall of 2017 on a total of 105 acres that represent the full Forest Operations Inventory stand of proposed units under this project that were not surveyed during the first survey effort and are suitable mollusk habitat with the potential of being impacted from the proposed project. Of the total 955 acres surveyed, approximately 459 of these acres are within currently proposed treatment units. Together, these surveyed acres represent some of the best mollusk habitat within or near the proposed project areas including all proposed treatment units over 80 years of age and approximately 61% of the total acres proposed for treatment.
Surveys resulted in locating two Bureau Sensitive mollusk species (both terrestrial snails); the Puget Oregonian was located at three sites (T. 3 S., R. 5 W. section 19) and numerous specimens of the Columbia sideband were located at five sites (T. 3 S, R. 5 W. sections 17 and 19). For unknown reasons and based on the survey results discussed above, the BLM lands within these two parcels (T. 3 S., R. 5 W. sections 17 and 19) seem to represent considerable “hot pockets” of terrestrial mollusk species diversity relative to the other lands managed by the BLM Tillamook Field Office. Of the total of eight sites located, six of the sites occur in proposed regeneration harvest units that would be destroyed by the harvest.
In order to mitigate specific threats to the sites where Bureau Sensitive mollusks were found, the IDT considered site-specific factors such as the location of the known site relative to the treatments being proposed, and the type of treatment being proposed (regeneration harvest or thinning). The IDT used available science to determine that retaining 2-3 acre of existing habitat would be necessary to maintain suitable habitat conditions at these known sites within regeneration harvest units until such time that the new stands again become suitable habitat. The BLM expects that as more becomes known about the Bureau Sensitive mollusk species that these acres would be available for harvest in subsequent planning cycles. The BLM expects that by maintaining the existing habitat around these sites, the specific threats to these sites would be adequately mitigated for the foreseeable future.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 79 3.3.1.5 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under Alternative 1- No Action the current habitat condition described above for any Special Status terrestrial mollusk species within the Panther Creek project areas would be unaffected for the near future. If no actions are taken in the Panther Creek planning area now, it is likely that actions would again be considered in the near future. Left untreated, all proposed treatment units would continue to provide mollusk habitat under the No Action Alternative. In most treatment units proposed for commercial thinning (RR and HLB), the level of competition among the trees would remain high, and competition-related mortality would slowly increase, especially in the younger stands. These coarse woody debris (CWD) additions (snags and down logs) would be expected to come mainly from the smaller-diameter trees that slowly die from suppression. Although most of this CWD would be smaller diameter trees, mollusk habitat quality would slightly increase over time with the anticipated increased levels of coarse woody debris within the untreated stands. As the untreated stands continue to mature, future isolated windthrow events and forest gaps such as those created by Phellinus weirii (a laminated root rot) infestations would create a greater diversity of available micro-habitats and organic duff and litter layers would continue to develop thereby improving mollusk habitat conditions over time.
In the acres proposed for Regeneration Harvest, these acres would not be removed from a condition to provide mollusk habitat within the Analysis Areas. Similar to the processes described for stands proposed to be thinned, a general diversification of the stands proposed for regeneration would be expected by the BLM as the stands continue to mature. Stands proposed for Regeneration Harvest which are currently infected with Phellinus weirii would not be managed by applying timber-harvest treatments to remove susceptible species and be replanted with tree species less susceptible or immune to improve site productivity. In general these stands would have a long- term potential of providing a greater diversity of available micro-habitats in the form of forest gaps including a diverse shrub layer, abundant hardwood species, and ample CWD; many of these micro-habitats include those required by Special Status mollusk species.
Overall, under the No Action Alternative, mollusk habitat in younger stands would continue to be lower quality where it is currently lower quality (661 acres) and continue to be higher quality where it is currently higher quality (120 acres). Over time, as duff, moss and shrub layers continue to develop, down woody debris inputs continue and overstory canopies continue to mature and diversify, all of the proposed treatment units would eventually provide a greater diversity of available micro-habitats and become higher quality mollusk habitat. The BLM would not expect the No Action Alternative to result in any loss of population viability for the Special Status mollusk species analyzed or contribute to the need to list under the ESA.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
As a group, forest snails depend on various forest attributes including shadiness and humidity, a stable microclimate, adequate calcium content, diverse vegetation, a sufficient amount of litter and coarse woody debris, and habitat continuity. These habitat dependences, coupled with limited mobility with which to escape unfavorable conditions, suggest that silvicultural activities and associated microhabitat changes would negatively impact snails and slugs at logged locations (Jordan and Black 2012).
Jordan and Black (2012) identified five general ways in which timber harvest can impact terrestrial mollusks and their habitats:
1. Increases in microclimate extremes
Reductions in canopy cover lead to increases in microclimate extremes in snail habitat. The microclimate of canopy gaps and clearcuts is characterized by increased soil temperatures, air temperatures, wind velocity, and short-wave radiation; enhanced rates of evaporation; and decreased relative humidity compared with undisturbed forest. Additionally, daily differences (i.e., maximums minus minimums) of these variables is greater in canopy gaps than in intact forest, resulting in consistently greater microclimate variability in cleared habitat. Since
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 80 terrestrial mollusks are particularly vulnerable to elevated temperatures and reduced humidity, and since desiccation is a major cause of snail mortality, the hot, dry conditions found in canopy gaps can have serious negative effects on mollusks, decreasing population densities, and even resulting in local extirpation of less abundant species.
2. Changes in forest vegetation and litter
Logging is well-known to alter natural successional processes and influence the diversity, abundance, and composition of forest vegetation over both the short and long-term. Such changes, in turn, alter the composition, abundance, and chemistry of litter reaching the forest floor. Leaf-litter is an important food and habitat resource for terrestrial mollusks, providing essential nutrients and offering protection during drought and winter. Although traditional forestry practices often favor the establishment of simple stand structures that produce coniferous wood, a number of studies show that snails are dependent on litter from deciduous trees and have higher abundances in forests with strong broadleaf components. Thus, conifer plantations managed to reduce competition from hardwoods are expected to be unsuitable to many mollusk species.
3. Reductions in coarse woody debris
Coarse woody debris is an important structural component of natural forests and a critical habitat resource for terrestrial mollusks. If logging slash is left on site, tree harvest can result in a dramatic initial increase in coarse woody debris available to mollusks. However, timber harvest with no slash retention directly reduces the abundance of coarse woody debris on the forest floor by removing branches, limbs, and bark and can be detrimental to mollusk habitat.
4. Soil compaction and other changes in microhabitat structure
The use of heavy equipment in logging can affect snails and their habitat via direct mortality, soil compaction, and damage to (or removal of) the organic layer. Changes in litter structure, decreases in litter depth and volume, decreases in air space, penetration of soil into the litter, and physical impacts of treading by humans, logging equipment and vehicles have detrimental impacts on mollusk communities. Mechanisms by which invertebrates are impacted include direct destruction (crushing) of individual animals by foot or machinery contact, and (more significantly) changes in microhabitat structure, such as disturbance or removal of ground vegetation, litter, decaying logs, or rocks.
5. Population fragmentation and changes in genetic population structure
By altering and fragmenting habitats, logging can cause large breaks or barriers in formally contiguous snail habitat. Since terrestrial mollusks generally have low dispersal potential, isolated populations may result. Small and fragmented populations are generally at greater risk of extinction from normal population fluctuations due to predation, disease, and changing food supply, as well as from natural disasters such as floods or droughts. Small populations are also threatened with extinction from a loss of genetic variability and reduced fitness due to the unavoidable inbreeding that occurs in such small populations.
New Road Construction
In addition to the actual tree harvest operations which would impact terrestrial mollusks and their habitats summarized above, the project includes approximately 2.7 miles of new permanent rocked road construction; 2.4 miles of new temporary natural surfaced road construction; a total of approximately 40 miles of road renovation as well as construction of landings (acres of permanent new road construction are included with regeneration harvest totals in the analysis below). Road construction results in open spaces void of trees, vegetation, leaf litter, and woody debris, all of which are important habitat components for terrestrial mollusks. The construction of new permanent rocked roads would result in the new roadways effectively being made unsuitable to special status mollusk species in the long-term, as well as likely acting as barriers to movements and dispersal between snail populations. The impacts to terrestrial mollusks and their habitats resulting from the proposed temporary natural
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 81 surfaced road construction would be considerably less and much shorter-lived than the construction of new permanent rocked roads. Newly constructed natural surfaced roads would be decommissioned after use including sub-soiling, the spreading of woody debris and may include planting with trees and native grasses where needed or beneficial. As additional forest litter and debris accumulates on the temporary roadbeds, the BLM would expect mollusk habitat to continue to rehabilitate overtime.
Terrestrial Mollusk Habitat within the Analysis Area
A total of approximately 45% (5,297 acres) of the Analysis Area is currently providing mollusk habitat of varying qualities (Table 22); approximately 7% (813 acres) of the Analysis Area is currently providing high-quality mollusk habitat while 38% (4,484 acres) is currently providing low-quality habitat. The Proposed Action would treat approximately 7% (370 acres) of the total mollusk habitat within the Analysis Area with commercial thinning treatments (HLB and RR), and approximately 7% (411 acres) of the total habitat by regeneration harvest treatments. Approximately 8% (370 acres) of the currently existing lower quality mollusk habitat within Analysis Area would be treated with commercial thinning treatments. Approximately 15% (120 acres) of the higher quality mollusk habitat and approximately 1% (291 acres) of the lower quality mollusk habitat within Analysis Area would be treated by regeneration harvest treatments. The amounts of total mollusk habitat (BLM and non- federal) within the Analysis Area currently and post-project are displayed on Table 22.
Table 22: Total Acres of Mollusk Habitat within the Analysis Area - Currently and Post-project
Total Habitat Total Habitat BLM (BLM and non- (BLM and non- Habitat federal) within federal) currently that would Mollusk Regeneration the Analysis Thinned 1 within the be removed Habitat Type Harvest Area Post- Analysis Area within the project (% of Analysis Analysis (% of Analysis Area) Area Area)
Higher Quality 813 693 120 0 120 Habitat 2 (7%) (6%)
Lower Quality 4,484 4,193 291 370 291 Habitat 3 (39%) (36%)
6,356 6,767 Non-Habitat 4 0 0 0 (54%) (58%)
Total 411 370 11,653 411
1Thinned includes both Commercial Thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA and Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA 2 Higher Quality Mollusk Habitat is defined as forest 80-years-old and older 3 Lower Quality Mollusk Habitat is defined as forest greater than or equal to 35-years-old but less than 80-years-old 4 Mollusk Non-habitat is defined as non-forest or forest less than 35-years-old
Impacts to Special Status Terrestrial Mollusk Known Sites
The areas excluded from harvest around BS terrestrial mollusk known sites, which total approximately ten acres, would effectively protect the microclimate conditions necessary for the identified Puget Oregonian and Columbia
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 82 sideband at those sites from the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed timber harvests. These microclimate conditions include maintaining shade, soil moisture, relative humidity, as well as hardwoods, shrubs, ferns, moss and the current CWD and organic duff and litter layers. As such, these mollusk species of concern would persist at these sites. Protecting these known sites would ensure compliance with the ROD/RMP Management Objective/Direction noted above.
Terrestrial Mollusk Habitat within the Proposed Panther Creek Treatment units
The Proposed Action would treat approximately 370 acres with commercial thinning treatments (HLB and RR), and approximately 411 acres by regeneration harvest treatments. All of these treatment units are greater than 35- years-old (the 40-year age class within BLM’s FOI database) and therefore considered by the BLM to be terrestrial mollusk habitat albeit of varying habitat qualities. All the 370 acres proposed to be treated with commercial thinning treatments are currently less than 80-years-old and therefore likely providing lower quality mollusk habitat; of the 411 acres proposed to be treated by regeneration harvest treatments, 120 acres are currently 80-years-old or older and likely providing higher quality mollusk habitat while 291 acres are currently less than 80-years-old and likely providing lower quality mollusk habitat (Table 23).
Table 23: Acres of Mollusk Habitat impacted by Alternative 2 of the Panther Creek Project
Regeneration Mollusk Habitat Type Thinned 1 Harvest
Higher Quality Habitat 2 120 0
Lower Quality Habitat 3 291 370
Non-Habitat 4 0 0
Total 411 370
1Thinned includes both Commercial Thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA and Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA 2 Higher Quality Mollusk Habitat is defined as forest 80-years-old and older 3 Lower Quality Mollusk Habitat is defined as forest greater than or equal to 35-years-old but less than 80-years-old 4 Mollusk Non-habitat is defined as non-forest or forest less than 35-years-old
Commercial Thinning Treatments (HLB and RR)
The Panther Creek project includes 370 acres of proposed commercial thinning treatments; ranging in age from 40 to 77-years-old, all of these acres are currently considered by the BLM to be Lower Quality mollusk Habitat. The project would adversely affect mollusk habitat by: reducing canopy cover, altering the forest vegetation, litter, and levels of down woody debris, as well as increasing soil compaction within portions of the proposed treatment units.
Depending on the intensity of treatment (percent canopy retained, with or without unthinned clumps retained, or group selection openings creation), the removal of overstory trees can alter soil temperature, air temperatures, wind velocity, evaporation rates, and relative humidity levels, all of which affect the microclimate on the forest floor. During warm and dry periods terrestrial mollusks become inactive and seek refuge below ground or in large semi-decayed wood to prevent drying out and death. Within those portions of the commercial thinning units (up to 10% of the unit) treated with group selection openings (ranging from 1 to 4 acres in size, and containing two or fewer live trees ≥7” DBH per acre) mollusk habitat would be the most drastically impacted, while the bulk
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 83 of the general commercial thinning treatment areas would be less impacted. Each commercial thinning unit would also have 5% of the stand left in untreated areas ranging in size from approximately 1 to 3 acres. Portions of commercial thinning treatments, which retain more overstory trees, are less impactful to mollusk habitat, compared to group selection opening treatments, due to the fact that more overstory green trees help moderate conditions (temperature and humidity) on the forest floor. Those portions of the treatment units proposed for Riparian Reserve commercial thinning, totaling approximately 35 acres, would have 60 to 65 trees per acre after treatment (estimated 56 to 67 % canopy cover). Those stands within the HLB where commercial thinning would be implemented, totaling approximately 335 acres would have 50 to 105 trees per acre after treatment (estimated 65 to 71% canopy cover).
Results from studies of microclimate changes (taken 3-4 years post-harvest) between various thinning densities compared to unthinned stands seem to indicate that light thinning prescriptions (approximately 80 TPA post- harvest) did not appreciably differ from unthinned stands in terms of air and soil temperatures as well as relative humidity. Stands that received more intense prescriptions (40 TPA post-harvest) tended to have higher air temperatures than unthinned stands, but similar soil temperatures and relative humidity levels as the stands treated with the 80 TPA prescription. Patch openings tended to have higher soil and air temperatures and lower relative humidity than the thinned stands (40 and 80 TPA prescriptions) as well as unthinned stands. There was considerable overlap in temperatures and humidity between the lighter thinned stands and unthinned stands, suggesting that these stands provide a wide range of microclimates (Chan et. al., 2004). Impacts from the proposed commercial thinning treatments would be most extreme during and directly after harvest, with effects ameliorating through time as shrub layers recover, duff layers rebuild and canopy cover increases.
Unthinned stands naturally have long periods in a given year when the climate is too warm and dry for terrestrial mollusk activity. Therefore, within the units or portions of the units receiving lighter thinning prescriptions there may only be a slight change in the average time when conditions in the thinned stands are unsuitable for mollusk activity compared with the unthinned stand condition. Unsuitable conditions would presumably occur on the cusps of the dry weather in the early summer and later fall, and would be most realized in the up to 10% of the commercial thinned harvest units that would be in group selection openings ranging in size from approximately 1 to 4 acres. Group selection openings are defined as areas with ≤2 live trees ≥7” DBH per acre. Most notably in these group selection openings, ground conditions could be changed (made drier and warmer) to a point where they are unfavorable to terrestrial mollusks for a longer portion of a given year, perhaps by as much as 6-8 weeks as the hottest, most inhospitable portion of summer is effectively extended due to a disturbed duff layer and a reduction in overstory tree and brush species. This extended summer effect could reoccur for an estimated 10 years post-treatment depending on weather, topography and site conditions with the adverse effects of the thinning ameliorating through time as shrub layers recover, duff layers rebuild and canopy cover increases.
Douglas-fir is the primary species targeted for harvest during thinning operations with hardwoods (red alder and bigleaf maple) being maintained as a component of the treated stands. With hardwoods and hardwood leaf litter being an important habitat element of some mollusk species including those being analyzed, this would help reduce the adverse impacts of the thinning treatments.
In addition to the reduction of the canopy cover, the 35 acres of proposed Riparian Reserve commercial thinning includes site preparation for underplanting within those portions of the units where needed. Site preparation could involve the lopping and scattering of slash, and depending upon the concentrations, hand piling of at least a portion of the slash. Site preparation would remove material that aids in maintain a cool, moist microclimate that mollusks rely on. The fact that not all slash created by the treatments would be removed and existing CWD would remain on site would help alleviate some of the adverse impacts associated with site preparation. Underplanting of shade tolerant species within proposed Riparian Reserve commercial thinning treatment units would benefit mollusk habitat in the future by creating a more diverse assortment of microclimate habitat types and increasing the stands ability to capture and store moisture.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 84 Regeneration Harvest Treatment Units
The Proposed Action would treat approximately 411 acres by regeneration harvest treatments. As displayed on Table 23, 120 acres are currently 80-years-old or older and likely providing higher quality mollusk habitat while 291 acres are currently less than 80-years-old and likely providing lower quality mollusk habitat. The project would adversely affect mollusk habitat by: reducing canopy cover, altering the forest vegetation, litter, and levels of down woody debris, as well as increasing soil compaction within portions of the proposed treatment units. Although the projects design features such as the Coarse Woody Debris Provisions discussed below may help some of the acres treated with regeneration harvest recover more quickly from the proposed timber harvest operations, based upon BLM’s assumptions discussed above, the 411 acres proposed to be treated by regeneration harvest treatments would be removed from a condition to function as mollusk habitat for a period of approximately 35 years.
Coarse Woody Debris Provisions (Snags and Down Wood)
Coarse Woody Debris (especially down woody material) is a valuable components of mollusk habitat. The Proposed Action includes design features to maintain snag and down wood habitats on the landscape such as but not limited to, retaining all existing coarse woody debris, creating snags and felling trees in riparian areas associated with Riparian Reserve thinning treatments (see Project Design Features EA Section 2.7). These design features would help offset some of these adverse effects to mollusk habitat both in the near term and over time.
General Harvest Activities
In addition to road construction activities discussed above, timber harvest activities, especially ground-based harvesting can have direct adverse impacts upon mollusks and mollusk habitat by crushing individuals, soil compaction, breaking apart later decay stage coarse wood and/or disrupting the duff layer on the forest floor. The degree to which some of these impacts to the forest floor and mollusk habitat are realized can influence the time necessary for the treated areas to recover from the timber harvest operations. A number of Project Design Features or Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the ROD/RMP would help minimize these adverse impacts including limiting the amount of designated skid trails to ≤ 15 percent of the harvest unit area (BMP TH 08); and restricting non-road, in unit, ground-based equipment used for harvesting operations to periods of low soil moisture (BMP TH 11).
Conclusion
A total of 955 acres of mollusk habitat were surveyed to protocol in support of the Panther Creek project with approximately 459 of these acres are within currently proposed treatment units. Together, these surveyed acres represent some of the best mollusk habitat within or near the proposed project areas, including all proposed treatment units over 80 years of age and approximately 61% of the total acres proposed for treatment. Mollusk surveys resulted in two special status terrestrial mollusk species being located - Puget Oregonian and Columbia sideband; the areas excluded from timber harvest around these sites would effectively protect the microclimate conditions necessary for the identified special status mollusk known sites from the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed timber harvests.
As shown on Table 22, post-harvest the amount of higher quality habitat within the Analysis Area would be reduced by the proposed regeneration harvest from an estimated 813 acres to 693 acres. The Proposed Action would also remove, through regeneration harvest, 291 acres of current lower quality habitat, maintaining 4,193 acres of lower quality habitat within the Analysis Area. The habitat quality of approximately 370 acres of this remaining 4,193 acres of lower quality habitat would be adversely impacted by the proposed Panther Creek commercial thinning treatments; design features have been incorporated to reduce these adverse impacts. However, within portions of these thinned acres, habitat conditions could be compromised (made unfavorable) to terrestrial mollusks especially during hotter, drier summer conditions which could be extended by as much as 6 to 8 weeks immediately post-harvest. This extended summer effect could reoccur for an estimated 10 years post-
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 85 treatment depending on weather, topography and site conditions with the adverse effects of the thinning ameliorating through time as the habitat conditions recover. With approximately 693 acres of higher quality habitat and 3,823 acres of lower quality habitat not being impacted by the project, the BLM expects that a total of 4,516 acres (85%) of existing terrestrial mollusk habitat within the Analysis Area would continue to function as terrestrial mollusk habitat.
In summary, given the protocol survey effort with all known sites for Special Status Mollusk Species being protected by excluding them from the harvest areas; an estimated 85% of the existing mollusk habitat within the Analysis Area continuing to function as terrestrial mollusk habitat without being impacted; and habitat conditions on those 370 acres thinned expected to recover in approximately 10 years, the BLM would not expect the Proposed Action to contribute to the need to list the any Special Status Species mollusk species under the ESA.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within three units which total 111 acres; under Alternative 3 these three units (19-2, 29-1 and 33-2) would be commercially thinned rather than regeneration harvested as under Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 3 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: the decommissioning of 0.7 miles of newly constructed natural surface road that would be fully decommissioned under Alternative 2; a reduction of 113 acres of site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and a reduction in 111 acres of reforestation activities. The BLM would expect all other impacts to mollusks and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 3 to be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 includes an approximate 28% reduction in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (300 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 411 acres under Alternative 2); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 3 to be correspondingly and proportionally reduced from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 3 includes an approximate 35% increase in the amount of commercial thinning from that within Alternative 2 (446 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 335 acres under Alternative 2); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 3 to be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those described for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 3, a total of 111 acres within units 19-2, 29-1 and 33-2 would receive a commercial thinning treatment rather than a regeneration harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. Rather than being removed from a condition to function as mollusk habitat for a period of approximately 35 years or more as described resulting from regeneration harvest, the mollusk habitat within these three treatment units would be adversely affected by commercial thinning. Under the commercial thinning of Alternative 3, post-harvest these acres would be expected by the BLM to continue to function as mollusk habitat albeit with some short-term adverse impacts resulting from the commercial thinning operation; the impacts resulting from thinning upon mollusk habitat are discussed within the analysis of Alternative 2. For the reasons described above, being less than 80-years-old these three units are assumed by the BLM to be providing lower quality mollusk habitat.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy Stands 68-78 Years Old
Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within seven units which total 98 acres; under Alternative 4 these seven units (17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3) would be regeneration harvested rather than commercially thinned as under Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 4 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: an increase of 102 acres of site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and an increase of 98 acres of reforestation activities. The BLM would expect all other impacts to mollusks and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 4 to be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 86 Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 26% increase in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (411 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 509 acres under Alternative 4); the BLM would expect those adverse impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 4 (including connected actions such as site preparation and fuels reduction activities) to be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 28% decrease in the amount of commercial thinning from those identified impacts described Alternative 2 (335 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 237 acres under Alternative 4); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 4 to be correspondingly and proportionally decreased from those described for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 4, a total of 98 acres within units 17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3 would receive a regeneration harvest treatment rather than a commercial harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. Regeneration harvest treatment as proposed under Alternative 4 would result in the 98 acres within these units, which are currently lower quality habitat, being removed to a condition of mollusk non-habitat for a period of approximately 35 years or more; the impacts resulting from regeneration harvest upon mollusk habitat are discussed within the analysis of Alternative 2.
3.3.1.6 Cumulative Effects
The only past, present, or reasonably foreseeable BLM Action with potential of impacting mollusk habitat is the (past) Baker Creek Density Management and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project (the Baker Creek Project) which occurred in 2007 and of which 58 acres of density management thinning is included in the analysis area. In addition to density management treatments, snag and down wood creation occurred on 209 acres within the General Wildlife Analysis Area.
BLM assumes that the 58 acres of the Baker Creek project’s density management thinning within the Analysis Area had similar impacts on mollusk habitat as those described as a result of the commercial thinning (HLB and RR) proposed as a part of the Panther Creek Project and included in this analysis. The BLM also assumes that since the Baker Creek treatment occurred more than ten years ago that the effects have ameliorated to the point of being negligible and would not contribute cumulatively to effects from the action alternatives.
Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable non-BLM Actions
The BLM assumes that the vast majority of the industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies would continue to harvest timber on a 40-50 year rotation following Oregon State Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules which equates to an average harvest of 50 to 100 acres per year (based on observed age class distribution on this land types in the Analysis Area). Within the Analysis Area, there are an estimated 3,200 acres of mollusk habitat on non-BLM land with approximately 97% of this currently providing lower quality habitat (Table 22).
Conclusion
The enduring adverse impacts of that portion of the BLM’s past Baker Creek project that involved Density Management upon mollusk habitat are assumed by the BLM to be currently contributing negligible adverse impacts to mollusk habitat conditions within the Analysis Area, while the beneficial impacts to the quality of mollusk habitat currently within the Analysis Area resulting from that portion of the Baker Creek project that involved snag and down wood creation are expected by the BLM to last for a number of additional decades and increase in value as the created CWD advances through the natural stages of decay. The vast majority of the industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies, would continue to timber harvest on a 40-50 year rotation; this would continue to remove primarily lower quality mollusk habitat at an estimated average rate of approximately 50 to 100 acres per year. While the action alternatives may temporarily reduce the quality of mollusk habitat on up to 446 acres (Alternative 3) through commercial thinning within the Riparian Reserve Harvest Land Base LUAs, and remove mollusk habitat on up to
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 87 509 acres (Alternative 4) through Regeneration Harvest as described above, BLM asserts these actions would not result in adverse impacts to any known sites for Special Status Mollusk Known Sites and the project’s cumulative impact would not result in any loss of population viability for the Special Status mollusk species analyzed or contribute to the need to list under the ESA.
3.3.2 Issue 7: Would the alternatives affect the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree Vole or their habitats? If so, how?
3.3.2.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Forested stands within the analysis area ages 0-79 years were categorized as non-habitat; stands aged 80- 104 years were categorized as lower quality habitat; and stands aged 105 years and greater were categorized as higher quality habitat. ● Using the Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole Version 3.0, 2012 is an effective way to establish occupancy. ● Establishing Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas around known sites, consistent with management direction within the RMP, eliminates effects to known sites of red tree voles.
3.3.2.2 Analytical Methodologies
● Identify, categorize, and total all forest stands within the analysis area in red tree vole habitat types, using the above mentioned assumptions. ● Conduct transect and climbing surveys to protocol to establish red tree vole occupancy. ● Develop management areas, following RMP management direction, to include all known red tree vole sites established through surveys. ● Calculate the total change of habitat types as a result of each alternative.
3.3.2.3 Analysis Area
The Analysis Area used in the analysis for this issue includes the Panther Creek planning area, as detailed in EA section 3.1.1. This area includes that portion of the landscape that, should red tree voles be using the area, they could experience impacts from the proposed project. Additionally, for the purposes of this analysis, it was considered by the BLM as an appropriate representation of that portion of the landscape containing the project to supply a context upon which habitat conditions for the population can be characterized.
3.3.2.4 Affected Environment
The red tree vole is an arboreal rodent that rarely comes to the ground and may live its entire life on a few acres of forest. It is strongly associated with mature and late-successional Douglas fir forest with optimal habitat being old-growth forests. Old-growth forests commonly provide trees that exhibit epicormic branching (dense clusters of branches growing directly adjacent to the tree stem), large branches, and trees with cavities, all of which provide stable support for red tree vole nests and protection from storms (Gillesberg and Cary 1991). The tall, multi-layered canopies of old growth retain humidity and intercept fog, which functions as a climatic buffer and a source of free water. Additionally, multi-layered canopies have higher levels of vertical canopy diversity which aids in the protection of red tree voles from predators. Sites with large numbers of nests tend to occur in stands with large trees, multiple layered canopies and more canopy structure based on Geographic Biotic Observations System (GeoBOB) data, field observations, and administrative reports. Some recent studies have shown that red tree voles are also sometimes found in younger forests, especially if they contain a component of older trees or are located near stands of mature forest. At this time it is uncertain what role younger forests play in the general health of the red tree vole populations, especially in the northern mesic zone where the Panther Creek project is located.
Red Tree Vole Habitat within the Analysis Area
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 88 Table 24 illustrates red tree vole habitat quantities and qualities by ownership within the Analysis Area. Forest stands (or portions of stands) greater than 105-years-old (the 100-year age class within BLM’s FOI database) are expected by the BLM to contain higher quality red tree vole habitat. Higher quality habitat refers to stands where red tree voles are most likely to occur due to the presence of key habitat features such a larger crowns including heavier branching and clusters of epicormic branching. Stands greater than 80-years-old but less than 105-years- old are expected to contain lower quality habitat. Lower quality habitat generally refers to stands where red tree voles may be present, if key habitat elements, such as two or more super-dominant conifer trees12 per acre are existing, or if the stands are located in proximity to stands of higher quality habitat. Red tree vole presence is not as likely in stands of lower quality habitat compared to higher quality habitat, especially if key habitat features are lacking or the stands are not located in direct proximity to higher quality habitat.
In the analysis to characterize the red tree vole habitat within the Analysis Area, stands less than 80-years-old were considered non-habitat however, studies have shown that red tree voles may use younger forests, and to a limited degree, this was found to be true within a few younger stands surveyed in support of the Panther Creek Project, either with transect surveys or 100-meter search surveys conducted per the protocol subsequent to locating a red tree vole nest. Panther Creek surveys detected active and/or inactive red tree vole nests within three stands aged less than 80-years-old; these stands were aged approximately 44, 69 and 77-years-old. Without exception, the portions of the three younger stands found to contain active and/or inactive nests were located directly adjacent to older stands containing active red tree nests; the trees within the younger stands found to contain vole nests were located within 200 feet or less of the adjacent older stands which were aged at approximately 88, 130 and 180-years-old; all of these older stands contain large trees which are likely even older than the estimated stand age. Given past survey results, and extensive field review of the stands within the Analysis Area, stands younger than 80-years-old were not considered red tree vole habitat in the broad-scale analysis of characterizing the available habitat within the Analysis Area. The three stands less than 80-years-old that were found to contain active red tree vole nests are considered by the BLM to be anomalies and are only suitable based on the fact that they are located directly adjacent to older stands also containing active red tree nests. Given the uneven distribution of higher and lower quality vole habitat within the Analysis Area (discussed below), the vast majority of the stands identified as being “non-habitat” are not located adjacent to stands of higher or lower quality vole habitat which could influence its possibility of being used by red tree voles. Recent studies (Price et al 2015) suggest that tree voles from remnant stands of old forest are acting as source populations from which tree voles populate adjacent young forests. Of the 26 trees identified during surveys for the Panther Creek Project which contained red tree vole nests (19 active and 7 inactive), 4 trees containing nests (3 active and 1 inactive) were found in stands less than approximately 85-years-old that are directly adjacent to older habitat which also contained active vole nests.
As seen in Table 24, the Analysis Area is strongly dominated by early-seral forest stands that are not red tree vole habitat. The identified higher and lower quality red tree vole habitat (totaling 7% of the Analysis Area) is distributed very unevenly throughout the Analysis Area; the 309 acres of higher quality habitat, all of which are located on BLM land, and the majority of the lower quality habitat (84% of which is located on BLM land) is all located within six sections of land which can be grouped into three general areas. The remaining portions of the Analysis Area, which is spread across all or parts of 18 sections of land contain no higher quality habitat and very little lower quality habitat. Much of the higher and lower quality red tree vole habitat within the Analysis Area is highly fragmented by recent clearcuts and young plantations (non-habitat) located on private and/or federal land; this situation is further exacerbated by the checkerboard ownership patterns within the area. Given the amount of fragmentation within the Analysis Area and the fact that red tree voles are poor dispersers, large portions of the Analysis Area are not currently providing large, contiguous blocks of higher quality habitat which are necessary
12 Superdominant conifer trees have the following characteristics that provide foundations for vole nests: large limbs, palmate branch clusters, well developed crowns, cavities, broken tops, forked trunks, multiple leaders, or dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) brooms. Superdominant trees typically have crowns that extend above the general stand canopy and have large branches in the upper canopy of the dominant trees in the stand (Curtis et al. 1998). Superdominant trees may be remnant trees from an earlier cohort, or they may be trees from the dominant cohort that were more open grown and have become much larger than the rest of the trees in the stand. (Huff et.al. 2012)
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 89 for red tree voles to maintain gene flow and healthy metapopulation13 dynamics. As stated within the Analytical Assumptions of the Planning Criteria for BLM’s Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon (USDI BLM 2014)(Page 192): Higher amounts of habitat and higher degrees of connectivity, greater patch cohesion, and larger mean patch size will be indicative of better habitat conditions for the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole at a landscape scale.
Table 24: Acres of Red Tree Vole Habitat within the General Wildlife Analysis Area
BLM Total Non-BLM Percent of Analysis RTV Habitat Type Land Area Land Acres
Higher Quality Habitat 1 309 0 309 2.7%
Lower Quality Habitat 2 416 81 497 4.3%
Non-Habitat 3 1488 9359 10847 93.1%
Total 2213 9440 11653 100%
1 Higher quality RTV habitat refers to stands greater than 105-years-old; stands where red tree voles are most likely to occur due to the presence of key habitat features. 2 Lower quality RTV habitat generally refers to stands greater than or equal to 80-years-old but less than or equal to 105-years-old; stands where red tree voles may be present, if key habitat elements, such as two or more super-dominant conifer trees per acre are existing, or if the stands are located in proximity to RTV occupied stands of higher quality habitat. 3 RTV Non-habitat generally refers to stands less than 80-years-old or non-forest. Red tree voles may be present, if the stands are located in proximity to RTV occupied stands of higher quality habitat.
Panther Creek Pre-Project Red Tree Vole Surveys
Per Management Diection in the BLM’s 2016 NCO ROD/RMP (pg.101), red tree vole pre-project surveys are required for proposed projects within the range of the North Oregon Coast DPS of the red tree vole north of Highway 20 that could degrade or remove red tree vole habitat; projects located within stands less than 80-years- old are exempt from this pre-project survey requirement. Given implementation of an individual project often can and does get delayed for a number of possible reasons, stands with ages a few years younger (2-4) than 80-years- old are routinely considered and evaluated for red tree vole surveys in order to ensure compliance with RMP direction. :
In addition to the RMP Management Direction above, the BLM's Manual Section 6840, which addresses the Bureau’s Special Status Species Policy, states the BLM is responsible for the following: ● "Inventorying BLM lands to determine which BLM special status species occur on public lands, the condition of the populations and their habitats, and how discretionary BLM actions affect those species and their habitats." ● "District Managers and Field Managers are responsible for implementing the BLM special status species policies and program within their area of jurisdiction by conducting and maintaining current inventories of BLM special status species on BLM-administered lands."
13 Metapopulation: a group of populations that are separated by space but consist of the same species. These spatially separated populations interact as individual members move from one population to another.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 90 All proposed treatment stands were assessed for red tree vole habitat. Field reviews as well as 2011 LiDAR imagery, 2016 Aerial Photos, BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory data and stand exam data were used to determine if stand conditions triggered protocol surveys.
In March 2017, a total of 401 acres were surveyed by red tree vole transect surveys (Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole Version 3.0, 2012 (Huff et. al. 2012)) in support of the Panther Creek project. Of the 401 total surveyed acres, 324 acres were surveyed for stands proposed for treatment (the full Forest Operation Inventory stand was surveyed at this time, and included the HLB and RR portions of these stands). These 324 acres include all proposed stand acres 76 years of age or older (all stands that are or would become 80 years old or older during implementation of the proposed project). Additionally 77 acres of older stands not proposed for treatment, but directly adjacent to proposed treatment units, were surveyed. These stands were selected for surveys to fully understand the potential affect to RTVs from the proposed project as active RTV sites in untreated stands have the potential to be affected by the treatment of directly adjacent stands, as well as to obtain additional information on red tree vole occupancy within the general area and to maintain potential operational flexibility as project planning progressed. Of these 77 acres, 18 are within the Riparian Reserve, 27 are within the Late Successional Reserve, 28 are within the Harvest Land Base, and 4 acres are within District Designated Reserve.
A combination of the results of these red tree vole transect protocol surveys, subsequent 100-meter searches conducted per the protocol, as well as additional trees selected by BLM wildlife biologists, resulted in a total of 47 trees being identified to be climbed and surveyed for sign of red tree vole nests per the survey protocol. These 47 trees were located across six different sections of land within the Analysis Area (T. 3 S., R. 5 W. sections 17, 19, 29 and 34, and T. 3 S., R. 6 W. sections 13 and 23). Climbing surveys conducted in November 2017, resulted in 26 trees being identified which contained red tree vole nests (19 active and 7 inactive); at least 14 of these nest trees contained multiple red tree vole nests. These identified red tree vole nest trees were all located within T. 3 S., R. 5 W. section 19 or T. 3 S., R. 6 W. section 13 with nine of the trees identified as containing active or inactive red tree vole nests being located within areas proposed for treatment.
Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas
Consistent with the guidance contained within the Management Recommendations for the Oregon Red Tree Vole Version 2.0, (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000) and the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP a total of seven Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas totaling 80.4 acres have been established which encompass all 26 identified red tree vole nest trees. Established Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas encompass all identified active or inactive nest trees buffered by at least 220 feet (1 site potential tree height) and include a minimum of 10 acres of the best habitat within the area. Per the NCO ROD/RMP, these Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas are allocated to the Late-Successional Reserve Land Use Allocation as the occupied sites identified as a result of BLM red tree vole surveys are within the range of the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole north of Highway 20. (NCO ROD/RMP, p. 4). All of the habitat within these Habitat Areas has been excluded from proposed timber management treatments. Per the RMP, prior to the establishment of the seven Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas totaling 80.4 acres, these acres were located within the following LUAs: ● Late Successional Reserve: 24.6 Acres ● Riparian Reserve: 15.5 Acres ● District Defined Reserve: 3.6 Acres ● Harvest Land Base: 36.7 Acres (19 acres within stands proposed for treatment (these areas are now excluded from the project) and 18 acres within stands not proposed for treatment under this project)
3.3.2.5 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under the No Action Alternative none of the management activities proposed under the Action Alternatives would occur at this time or within the foreseeable future. None of the identified impacts resulting from
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 91 implementation of the Action Alternatives would occur and the current conditions within and near the areas containing identified special habitats would be unaffected now and into the foreseeable future.
Based upon the fact that no impacts have been identified from the No Action Alternative, red tree voles would not experience any cumulative effects under the No Action Alternative.
The BLM expects that left unthinned, the proposed treatment units would become increasingly dense and uniform; this would generally delay the development of forest characteristics and features beneficial to red tree voles such as large well developed crowns including large heavy branches and epicormic branching. As the level of competition among the trees remains high, crown development (live crown ratio, crown expansion, and branch growth) would decrease, diameter growth rate would be expected to continue to decline, and competition-related mortality would increase. Understory development would also be expected to be limited because of stand densities as well as a general lack of shade tolerant species in the overstory to provide a seed source in most stands. Any conifers which may exist in the understory (i.e. saplings and seedlings) of some stands would be expected to decline in vigor and exhibit a very slow growth rate, with some possibly falling out of the stands because they are no longer able to survive under the increasing overstory shade.
Eventually disturbances such as windthrow, root disease, insect attack, or possibly fire would influence the character of the stands and introduce more structural diversity into the ecosystem thus affecting red tree vole habitat within these stands. The majority of the stands would continue to not provide adequate nesting platforms for red tree voles (such as epicormic branching) due to their dense, uniform structure which does not allow adequate amounts of light to reach the tree boles. A naturally functioning forest system in this area would normally include western redcedar and/or western hemlock in the overstory that would provide a source of shade tolerant seed that could take advantage of the additional light provided by canopy openings from disturbances and thus provide a vertically diverse stand structure, which as previously mentioned, provides protective cover to red tree voles from predators. However, because there is a limited seed source for shade tolerant conifers within or near many of the treatment units because of the lack of hemlock or cedar in the overstory, the development of complex multi-layered stands would take considerably more time (a century or more) than would occur with active establishment of an understory layer as would occur on a portion of the acres under the Proposed Action. This statement is based on past experience with 120 year old stands within the vicinity of the proposed treatment units that were thinned 40 years ago and despite the opening of the canopy, did not develop a second canopy layer due to the lack of hemlock or cedar in the overstory (forestry objectives 40 years ago did not include underplanting thinnings).
Eventually the No Action alternative would result in a complex, multi-layered, old forest system with more, smaller trees, with less crown development but with a higher amount of coarse wood (although of smaller piece size). It is not clear that when the proposed treatment stands eventually do attain old forest characteristics through the No Action alternative whether the overall animal species composition and abundance would be appreciably different than would occur under the Proposed Action but the BLM expects, for reasons stated above, that it would take longer to attain the assemblage of species associated with those types of forest.
Under the No Action alternative, habitat for red tree voles would remain poor and, based on evidence of nearby single layered, simple structured stands that are 40 to 50-years-old and exhibit very few potential arboreal rodent nest structures, would continue to be poor beyond five decades. Over a longer period, as stochastic events (storms, disease, drought etc.) slowly change the structural characteristics of the stands, habitat would improve.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Impacts to Known RTV Sites
The Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas have been excluded from proposed timber management treatments. The project would include the renovation of an existing natural surface road (road number P43) which as currently planned, has approximately 500 feet located running through the Red Tree Vole Habitat Area which was established within
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 92 T3S, R5W section 19. Renovation of that portion of this existing road located within the Red Tree Vole Habitat Area would include a PDF to renovate the road to the minimum standard (width) necessary for a safe, operational road. Road renovation would not involve the felling of any known red tree vole nest trees and would avoid felling all larger overstory trees to the extent possible; post-project this roadway would be decommissioned. Post-harvest burning of slash piles would be avoided near these Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas (within 240 feet), although where it cannot be avoided in rare situations where piled fuels are determined by the BLM to be a fire hazard, burning would not occur beneath trees within the Habitat Areas or where heat and smoke would penetrate the crowns. Therefore, the smoke and heat produced by the burning of slash piles would not be expected by the BLM to directly affect red tree voles or trees within the Habitat Areas.
Considering all suitable habitat potentially impacted by the Panther Creek Project has been surveyed to protocol and all identified red tree vole nests protected through the delineation and management of Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas, BLM expects that the Proposed Action would not impact any red tree vole sites.
Impacts to Red Tree Vole Habitat
All proposed treatment units were assessed for red tree vole habitat type and harvest type. The results of this assessment are displayed in Table 25.
Table 25: Acres of Red Tree Vole Habitat impacted by Alternative 2 of the Panther Creek Project
Regeneration RTV Habitat Type Thinned 1 Harvest
Higher Quality Habitat 2 37 0
Lower Quality Habitat 3 79 0
Non-Habitat 4 276 370
Total 395 370
1Thinned includes both Commercial Thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA and Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA 2 Higher quality RTV habitat refers to stands greater than 105-years-old; stands where red tree voles are most likely to occur due to the presence of key habitat features. All units containing higher quality habitat were surveyed for RTVs. 3 Lower quality RTV habitat generally refers to stands greater than or equal to 80-years-old but less than or equal to 105- years-old; stands where red tree voles may be present, if key habitat elements, such as two or more super-dominant conifer trees per acre are existing, or if the stands are located in direct proximity to stands of higher quality habitat containing active red tree vole nests. All units containing lower quality habitat were surveyed for RTVs. 4 RTV Non-habitat generally refers to stands less than 80-years-old or non-forest. Red tree voles may be present, if the stands are located in direct proximity to stands of higher quality habitat containing active red tree vole nests. All treatment units less than 80-years-old are exempt from the requirement for RTV surveys; a portion of these younger stands were in fact surveyed especially when they were located adjacent to stands containing older habitat or when including them with survey areas helped make logical survey units.
Regeneration Harvest
Under Alternative 2, regeneration harvest would remove a total of 37 acres of higher quality red tree vole habitat which is distributed into four treatment units (17-2, 17-5, 33-1 and 34-2); this represents 12% of the higher quality RTV habitat within the Analysis Area. Additionally 79 acres of lower quality habitat also located in four treatment units (17-1, 19-1, 29-2 and 33-3) would be removed through regeneration harvest; this represents 16% of the lower quality RTV habitat within the Analysis Area. All of this habitat, totaling 116 acres, was surveyed for red tree voles and found to contain no active or inactive red tree vole nests. These 116 acres of red tree vole
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 93 habitat represent 14% of the red tree vole habitat within the Analysis Area (higher and lower habitat qualities combined). Additional regeneration harvest is proposed within 276 acres of red tree vole non-habitat (stands less than 80-years-old) which range in age from approximately 46 to 78-years-old; although stands less than 80-years- old are exempt from the requirement for RTV surveys, a portion of these younger stands were in fact surveyed for red tree voles especially when they were located adjacent to stands containing older habitat or when including them with survey areas helped make logical survey units.
Regeneration harvest within the eight treatment units containing a total of 116 acres of red tree vole habitat would result in removing it from a condition to be considered red tree vole habitat and possibly used by red tree voles for a period of approximately 80 years, the time it would possibly take for the new plantation to mature to a point that it may again function as habitat. Similarly, the proposed regeneration harvest within 276 acres of current, red tree vole non-habitat (stands less than 80-years-old) would serve to “reset the clock” on these acres for a period of approximately 80 years, until they could possibly function as red tree vole habitat in the future. Given that 5 to 15% of the basal area would be retained within the regeneration harvest units, including all trees established in 1850 or prior and are 40” DBH or greater, depending upon the retained trees’ distribution and survival, as well as the condition of the surrounding forested stands, the time needed to recover to a point that the regenerated treatment units could again function as red tree vole habitat may be reduced by a decade or two. Regeneration harvest of all of these acres, whether they are currently higher or lower habitat quality habitat or non-habitat (younger than 80-years-old) would result in the proliferation of high-contrast forest edges, increased fragmentation, and at least immediately after harvest and for a period of a few decades following, areas characterized by non-forested openings or very early-seral stage plantations within the Analysis Area. Swingle and Forsman have shown that red tree voles can and do at least occasionally move short distances across small forest openings or across small logging roads that were less than 25 meters wide but did not observe that tree voles move across large areas of non-forest. Given the fact that red tree voles are poor dispersers, it has been suggested that large non-forest openings act as barriers to red tree vole dispersal (Swingle and Forsman, 2009). Post-harvest, some of the proposed regeneration harvest units, most notably portions of treatment units 19-1 and 19-2 which are directly adjacent to a recently established red tree vole management area, known to contain active vole nests, may act as barriers to red tree vole movements.
Total acres of red tree vole habitat within the Analysis Area currently and post-project are displayed on Table 26. Alternative 2 of the Panther Creek Project increases the percentage of total Analysis Area classified as red tree vole non-habitat from 93.1% to 94.1%.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 94 Table 26: Total Acres of Red Tree Vole Habitat within the Analysis Area - Currently and Post-project
Total Habitat Total Habitat (BLM and non- BLM Habitat (BLM and non- federal) RTV Habitat Regeneration removed federal) within Thinned 1 currently Type Harvest within the the Analysis within the Analysis Area Area Post- Analysis Area project
Higher Quality 37 0 309 37 272 Habitat 2
Lower Quality 79 0 497 79 418 Habitat 3
Non-Habitat 4 276 370 10,847 n/a 10,963
Total 395 370 11653 116
1Thinned includes both Commercial Thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA and Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA 2 Higher quality habitat refers to stands greater than 105-years-old; stands where red tree voles are most likely to occur due to the presence of key habitat features. 3 Lower quality habitat generally refers to stands greater than or equal to 80-years-old but less than or equal to 105-years-old; stands where red tree voles may be present, if key habitat elements, such as two or more super-dominant conifer trees per acre are existing, or if the stands are located in direct proximity to stands of higher quality habitat. 4 Non-habitat generally refers to stands less than 80-years-old or non-forest. Red tree voles may be present, if the stands are located in direct proximity to stands of higher quality habitat.
Commercial Thinning (HLB and RR)
Under Alternative 2, Commercial Thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA would be implemented on 35 acres, and Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA would be implemented on 335 acres. The forested stands within these thinning units are all 77-years-old or less and therefore currently considered to be non-habitat for the red tree vole.
Given the current management objectives of the Riparian Reserve LUA, any future silvicultural treatments within these areas would include those to benefit water quality and fisheries; under the current ROD/RMP, it is unlikely that future Regeneration Harvest would be proposed on these acres. Any potential beneficial impacts of riparian commercial thinning upon the development of RTV habitat would likely be more long-lasting (relative to commercial thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA) due to the management objectives for the Riparian Reserve LUA.
Given the current management objectives of the Harvest Land Base LUA, future silvicultural treatment proposals within these areas would include those to produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity which could likely include Regeneration Harvests at various points in the future. Any long-term beneficial impacts of commercial thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA upon the development of future red tree vole habitat, and/or the length of time these benefits would be realized, would be speculative due to the management objectives for this LUA.
The proposed thinnings, both in the RR and HLB LUAs, could result in slowing the development of suitable red tree vole habitat. Swingle and Forsman (2009) suggest that thinning of young conifer forest could have
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 95 detrimental effects on red tree vole habitat speculating that decreased connectivity between individual tree crowns may be the reason. Decreased connectivity between individual tree crowns increases the likelihood that voles would need to travel down tree boles, along the forest floor in order to disperse to nearby trees, resulting in increased opportunities for predation to occur. While the BLM considers proposed levels of thinning to be relatively moderate, the thinnings would nonetheless result in a variably spaced canopy where in some portions of the stands, there would be several decades before crowns are again interconnected enough to allow tree voles to travel from tree to tree. However, as the thinned stands continue to mature and the crowns of the retained trees have expanded and become more massive (30-50 years), the quality of the vole habitat would likely be better than had the stands not been thinned. A relatively variable spaced thinning would encourage increased crown development and heavier branching which would provide stable potentially suitable nest sites. Although the Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA would include at least 5% of the stand being left in untreated areas where all of the overstory trees would be retained, and heavier thinning or gap-creation in up to 10% of the stand, retained trees within the majority of the Commercial Thinning would be relatively evenly spaced in order to maximize site occupancy and provide the most growing space to the reserved trees. Riparian Reserve commercial thinning prescriptions would differ from the HLB commercial thinning treatments in that there would be less emphasis placed on assuring even spacing. The underplanting with shade tolerant species (primarily western hemlock and western redcedar) within the Riparian Reserve commercial thinning units would also be expected by the BLM to further improve future red tree vole habitats by increasing vertical canopy diversity, resulting in increased levels of protective cover from predators.
A common response of Douglas-firs to thinning and exposing the tree boles to more solar radiation is an increased occurrence of epicormic branching, which may occur as soon as 10 years post-thinning. Red tree voles commonly use clusters of epicormic branching as nest sites. Within the commercial thinning units within the Riparian Reserve LUA, ten trees per acre would be treated for snag creation (5 >20” DBH and 5<20” DBH) immediately after harvest, with one snag per acre (>20” DBH) created in the Commercial Thinning units within the Harvest Land Base LUA. At least a portion of these snags would be created by techniques such as topping or top-girdling within the live crown, which allow at least of portion of the treated trees to go on living with a distorted growth form; these growth forms often with complex branching or cavities, offer an increased potential to function as a future red tree vole nest locations. Again, these potential beneficial impacts of thinning would likely be more long-lasting in the 35 acres of proposed commercial thinning in the Riparian Reserves due to the long-term management objectives for this LUA.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within three units which total 111 acres; under Alternative 3 these three units (19-2, 29-1 and 33-2) would be commercially thinned rather than regeneration harvested as under Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 3 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: the decommissioning of 0.7 miles of newly constructed natural surface road that would be fully decommissioned under Alternative 2; a reduction of 113 acres of site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and a reduction in 111 acres of reforestation activities. BLM expects all other impacts to red tree voles and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 3 to be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 includes an approximate 28% reduction in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (284 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 395 acres under Alternative 2); BLM expects those impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 3 to be correspondingly and proportionally reduced from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 3 includes an approximate 35% increase in the amount of commercial thinning from that within Alternative 2 (446 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 335 acres under Alternative 2); thus BLM expects that those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 3 would be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those described for Alternative 2.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 96 Under Alternative 3, a total of 111 acres within units 19-2, 29-1 and 33-2 would receive a commercial thinning treatment rather than a regeneration harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. Rather than “resetting the clock” on habitat development on these acres and removing them from a condition to function as red tree vole habitat for a period of up to approximately 80 years as described within the analysis of Alternative 2 as a result of regeneration harvest, the red tree vole habitat within these three treatment units would be adversely affected by commercial thinning. Under the commercial thinning of Alternative 3, BLM expects that post-harvest these acres would continue to function as red tree vole habitat albeit with some short-term adverse impacts resulting from the commercial thinning operation; the impacts resulting from thinning upon red tree vole habitat are discussed within the analysis of Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 3, the 95 acre unit 19-2 would receive a commercial thinning treatment rather than a regeneration harvest treatment. Post-harvest, under Alternative 3, unit 19-2, portions of which are directly adjacent to and/or relatively near a recently established Red Tree Vole Habitat Area known to contain active vole nests, would not likely be so apt to act as barriers to future red tree vole movements as it may under Alternative 2. Although unit 19-2 is only 70-years-old and therefore considered to be red tree vole non-habitat, it could currently or in the near future be used by red tree voles most notably based on the fact that portions of the unit are located in direct proximity to or near stands of higher quality habitat known to be occupied by red tree voles. Although RTV Habitat Areas, including the one adjacent to unit 19-2, were designed to retain adequate habitat for expansion in the number of active nests at that site, based on its proximity, BLM expects thinning rather regeneration harvesting unit 19-2 would likely provide increased opportunity for future expansion of the red tree vole population with the adjacent Red Tree Vole Habitat Area despite the short-term adverse impacts associated with thinning.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of 68-78 Year Old Stands
Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within seven units which total 98 acres; under Alternative 4 these seven units (17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3) would be regeneration harvested rather than commercially thinned as under Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 4 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: an increase of 102 acres of site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and an increase of 98 acres of reforestation activities. BLM expects that all other impacts to red tree voles and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 4 would be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 26% increase in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (392 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 493 acres under Alternative 4); BLM expects those adverse impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 4 (including connected actions such as site preparation and fuels reduction activities) would be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 28% decrease in the amount of commercial thinning from those identified impacts described Alternative 2 (335 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 237 acres under Alternative 4); BLM expects that those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 4 would be correspondingly and proportionally decreased from those described for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 4, a total of 98 acres within units 17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3 would receive a regeneration harvest treatment rather than a commercial harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. Regeneration harvest treatment as proposed under Alternative 4 would serve to “reset the clock” on habitat development on these acres and result in the 98 acres within these units being removed to a condition of red tree vole non-habitat for a period of up to approximately 80 years, until they could possibly function as red tree vole habitat in the future; the impacts resulting from regeneration harvest upon red tree vole habitat are discussed within the analysis of Alternative 2.
Although not located directly adjacent to any red tree vole known known sites or recently established Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas, two of these units proposed for regeneration harvest under Alternative 4 (24-1 and 19-3) are
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 97 relatively close to two recently established Red Tree Vole Habitat Areas (within 210 and 400 feet respectively). The potential adverse impacts of regeneration harvest upon red tree voles and red tree vole habitat are discussed within the analysis of Alternative 2; these impacts include the proliferation of high-contrast forest edges, increased fragmentation, and at least immediately after harvest and for a period of a few decades, non-forest openings acting as barriers to red tree vole dispersal. BLM asserts these potential adverse impacts would likely have the highest potential of being realized as a result of regeneration harvest within these two units because of their proximity to sites known to be occupied by red tree voles.
3.3.2.5 Cumulative Effects
The only past, present, or reasonably foreseeable BLM Action identified within the General Wildlife Analysis Area, with potential of impacting red tree vole habitat is the (past) Baker Creek Density Management and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project (the Baker Creek Project). Approximately 58 acres of the Baker Creek density management units are located within the Panther Creek General Wildlife Analysis Area in T.3S., R.5W., Sections 29 & 33, which were thinned in 2007. At the time of treatment, these stands were considered to be non-habitat for red tree voles (41-52 years old) and were thinned to approximately 61-72 trees per acre. In addition to density management treatments, snag and down wood creation occurred on 209 acres within the General Wildlife Analysis Area in T. 3 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 17, 19, 31 and 33 and T. 3 S., R 6 W., Sec. 13, 23, 24 and 25. Of the 209 total acres, 24 acres are proposed for treatment under the Panther Creek project while 185 acres are stands adjacent to those proposed for treatment.
The BLM assumes that the 58 acres of the Baker Creek project’s density management thinning within the Analysis Area had similar impacts on the development of red tree vole habitat as those described as a result of the commercial thinning proposed as a part of the Panther Creek Project and included in this analysis. This includes the short-term adverse impacts to red tree vole habitat, however, as the thinned stands continue to mature and the crowns of the retained trees have expanded and become more massive (30-50 years), the BLM biologist asserts that the quality of the vole habitat would likely be better than had the stands not been thinned. The vast majority the 58 acres of the Baker Creek project’s density management thinning within the Analysis Area is located within the Harvest Land Base LUA; any long-term beneficial impacts of past thinning projects within the Harvest Land Base LUA upon the development of future red tree vole habitat, and/or the length of time these benefits would be realized, would be speculative due to the management objectives for this LUA. The BLM contends that because the 58 acres of the Baker Creek project’s thinning within the Analysis Area was completed within areas considered to be non-habitat for red tree voles and any benefits of the thinning would be speculative due to the management objectives for this LUA, the enduring impacts of the Baker Creek project upon red tree vole habitat conditions within the Analysis Area are negligible.
The portion of the Baker Creek project that involved Wildlife Habitat Enhancement (snag creation), resulted in potential beneficial impacts to the quality of red tree vole habitat currently within the Analysis Area; at least a portion of these snags were created by techniques such as topping or top-girdling within the live crown, which allows for at least of portion of the treated trees to go on living with a distorted growth form; these growth forms, which often produce complex branching or cavities, offer an increased potential to function as a future red tree vole nest locations. The BLM assumes these potential beneficial impacts would continue to last for a number of decades.
Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable non-BLM Actions
As described in the Assumptions Regarding Non-Federal Land Management in EA section 3.1.3, almost all non- federal lands within the Analysis Area are managed for forest production. The BLM assumes the vast majority of the industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies would continue to timber harvest on a 40-50 year rotation following Oregon State Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules. The BLM estimates these industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies would be harvested at an average rate of approximately 50 to 100 acres per year (based on observed age class distribution on this land types in the Analysis Area). The vast majority of these non-BLM harvested
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 98 stands would be considered to be red tree vole non-habitat; within the Analysis Area, there are an estimated 81 acres of red tree vole lower quality habitat on non-BLM land and no acres of higher quality habitat (Table 24). This represents less than 1% of the non-federal land within Analysis Area being in a condition to be considered red tree vole habitat. Red tree voles may be present in stands considered to be non-habitat, if the stands are located in proximity to RTV occupied stands of higher quality habitat. However, given the uneven distribution of higher and lower quality vole habitat within the Analysis Area (discussed above), the vast majority of the stands identified as being “non-habitat” are not located adjacent to stands of higher or lower quality vole habitat which could influence its possibility of being used by red tree voles. Because there currently is so little red tree vole habitat on non-federal land within the Analysis Area, the BLM expects the cumulative impacts to red tree vole habitat conditions as a result of non-BLM Actions to be negligible.
Cumulative Effects: Conclusion
The enduring adverse impacts of that portion of the BLM’s past Baker Creek project that involved Density Management within the Analysis Area, upon red tree vole habitat are assumed by the BLM to be currently contributing negligible adverse impacts to red tree vole habitat conditions, while the beneficial impacts to the quality of red tree vole habitat currently within the Analysis Area resulting from that portion of the Baker Creek project that involved snag creation are expected by the BLM to last for a number of additional decades. The vast majority of the industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies, would continue to timber harvest on a 40-50 year rotation; because there currently is so little red tree vole habitat on non-federal land within the Analysis Area, impacts to red tree vole habitat conditions as a result of non-BLM Actions are considered to be negligible.
Beyond the Panther Creek Project, the BLM has identified no past, ongoing, present and/or reasonably foreseeable projects within the Analysis Area which would adversely, cumulatively impact red tree voles or red tree vole habitat.
3.3.3 Issue 8: What effect would the alternatives have on marbled murrelets and their habitats, including Critical Habitat?
3.3.3.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Using the 2003 Pacific Seabird Group (PSG)’s Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in Forests: A Revised Protocol for Land Management and Research as is an effective way to establish murrelet presence and/or occupancy. ● Maintaining a post-harvest canopy cover at or above 40% within units being thinned containing murrelet buffer habitat would generally maintain the components of the forest to minimize environmental changes within adjacent murrelet suitable habitat, prevent loss of habitat from wind throw, not overly fragment habitat, increase the amount of interior forest habitat, and potentially help reduce predation. ● Despite a general intent to reserve all large trees containing potential murrelet nesting structure within the harvest units, regeneration harvest would remove murrelet habitat from a condition to function as murrelet suitable habitat for an estimated 50 to 75 years. ● A total of 35 acres of forest greater than 100-years-old which were not field inspected are assumed to contain trees with murrelet nesting structure and therefore be murrelet suitable habitat.
3.3.3.2 Analytical Methodology
● All proposed treatment units as well as most areas within 726 feet of a treatment unit were thoroughly inspected for any trees containing potential marbled murrelet nesting structures (murrelet habitat). Habitat evaluations included the use of 2011 LiDAR imagery, 2016 Aerial Photos and Google Earth.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 99 Habitat evaluations on BLM Lands also included the use of BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) data, and Panther Creek stand exam data, where available, as well as field review. ● The BLM project biologist calculated whether there would be a potential for murrelet disturbance and/or disruption by applying activity-specific disturbance and disruption distances to the project areas. ● The BLM project biologist calculated the total change of habitat types within the analysis area as a result of each alternative.
3.3.3.3 Analysis Area
The analysis area used includes all proposed treatment units and all lands within 0.25 miles of a treatment unit, which represent the area, if inhabited by murrelets, the BLM assumes could potentially be disturbed or disrupted by the proposed timber management treatments.
3.3.3.3 Affected Environment
Approximately 43% of the lands within the analysis area (2,213 acres) are managed by the BLM; 51% (2,650 acres) are privately owned (private individuals or private industry); and 6% (291 acres) are managed by local governments (City of McMinnville or the City of Carlton) (Table 27).
Table 27: Land Ownership within the Panther Creek Marbled Murrelet Analysis Area
Percent of Marbled Land Owner Acres Murrelet Analysis Area
BLM 2,213 43%
Private Company or Individual, or Private 2,650 51% Industrial Forestland
Local Governments 291 6% (Cities of McMinnville & Carlton)
Total 5,154 100%
Murrelet Habitat within the Analysis Area
The analysis area contains a complex mixture of forest stands, with the majority being early-seral plantations not contributing to the amount of marbled murrelet habitat available. Aside from a few acres of forestland within the analysis area owned by the City of McMinnville in T3S, R6W section 13 (SWNW), which is located directly adjacent to the Nestucca Access Road and BLM’s ownership, and is stocked with large Douglas-firs with extensive crown and limb development, non-federal lands are generally not in a condition to function as habitat for marbled murrelets. On BLM lands within the analysis area, there are a few stands of high-quality marbled murrelet suitable habitat as well as a few stands containing minimally suitable habitat (stand with low densities of individual or small clumps of residual old-growth trees and/or large second-growth trees with murrelet nesting structures).
Recent clearcuts and young plantations are scattered throughout the analysis area. BLM assumes these areas may decrease the suitability of any marbled murrelet habitat nearby by increasing fragmentation and creating high contrast edges. As young clearcuts age and berry producing shrubs become established, their usage by murrelet nest predators, such as Steller’s jays may increase (Malt and Lank 2009). The increased time that predators spend
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 100 foraging for berries and insects in open stands may also result in more time for the location of murrelet nest sites in an adjacent stand (USDI, USDA 2015).
For the purposes of this analysis, an estimation of the amount of marbled murrelet habitat within the analysis area was completed in two phases.
The first phase included a habitat evaluation of all the proposed treatment units as well as most areas within 726 feet of a treatment unit. It included the use of 2011 LiDAR imagery, 2016 Aerial Photos and Google Earth. This phase of the evaluations on BLM Lands also included the use of BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) data and Panther Creek stand exam data. This process was followed up by a thorough field inspection of the areas for any trees containing marbled murrelet nesting structures (murrelet habitat); the area included in the first phase of this habitat evaluation is approximately 3,334 total acres or 64.7% of the analysis area.
The second phase of this habitat evaluation primarily addressing stands beyond 726 feet of a treatment units on BLM and non-BLM lands, included the use of 2011 LiDAR imagery, 2016 Aerial Photos and Google Earth. This phase of the evaluations on BLM Lands also included the use of BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) data and Panther Creek stand exam data. In this phase of the habitat evaluation, stands greater than 100-years-old were identified and considered to be suitable murrelet habitat unless a site-specific habitat evaluation conducted by the BLM determined otherwise.
Marbled Murrelet Habitat Definitions
For the purposes of this analysis, the following marbled murrelet habitat definitions were used (USDI USFWS and BLM 2017).
Murrelet Suitable Habitat: A general term that encompasses both minimally suitable and high-quality suitable habitats. Where site-specific habitat data obtained through field inspection is available, it is possible to distinguish between minimally suitable and high-quality suitable habitats.
● Minimally suitable habitat: Forested areas with a low density of murrelet nesting structure, usually in young forests (example: 60 to 80-years-old). Specifically, any 5-acre portion (using a 5-acre moving circle) of the analysis area that contains 1-5 trees with nesting structure.
● High-quality suitable habitat: Ranges from numerous potential nesting structures in large blocks of forest that contain multi-layered multi-species canopies, numerous large trees, and high canopy cover down to any 5-acre portion (using a 5-acre moving circle) of the analysis area that contains at least 6 trees with nesting structure.
Murrelet Nesting Structure: Marbled murrelet nesting structure is a conifer tree with all of the following characteristics (which are not always visible from the ground):
● A DBH of at least 19.1” and a height greater than 107 feet (average DBH 65”)
● A nest platform at least 32.5 feet above the ground (average height of nest branch 138’) (a nest platform is a relatively flat surface at least 4” wide (average 11” x 22”), with nesting substrate (e.g., moss, epiphytes, duff)(average depth 1.2”), and an access route through the canopy that a murrelet could use to approach from below the nest and land on or near that platform.
● A tree branch or foliage, either on the tree with potential structure or on an adjacent tree, which provides protective cover over the platform (average 78% cover within 28”- 39” of platform)
Murrelet Buffer Habitat: The 300 feet of forest adjacent to murrelet habitat that is taller than approximately 100 feet (approximately one half the height of a site potential tree in the range of the murrelet within the action area).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 101 Murrelet Non-habitat: Any area that is not suitable habitat or buffer habitat.
Field review during the first phase of the murrelet habitat evaluations resulted in the identification of 225 acres of marbled murrelet suitable habitat of various qualities (both minimally suitable and high-quality suitable habitat) which were within 726 feet of proposed units. All but a few acres of this habitat was located on BLM land. The second phase of the murrelet habitat evaluations, resulted in the identification of an additional 35 acres of forest greater than 100-years-old on BLM land which was reasoned to have the highest likelihood of containing trees with murrelet nesting structure and being murrelet suitable habitat. Therefore, there is an estimated total of 260 acres of marbled murrelet suitable habitat within the Marbled Murrelet Analysis Area; all of this habitat but a few acres is located on BLM land.
Murrelet Habitat within and near the proposed treatment units
There are a total of approximately 16 acres of murrelet suitable habitat within treatment units proposed for commercial thinning (HLB and RR). Commercial thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA is proposed within one acre (unit 24-1) and commercial thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA is proposed in 15 acres (units 19-5 and 24-1). There are 13 acres of murrelet suitable habitat within treatment units proposed for regeneration harvest (unit 34-2). Additionally, there are a total of approximately 78 acres of murrelet buffer habitat (the 300 feet of forest adjacent to murrelet habitat) within proposed treatment units; approximately 3 acres of this buffer habitat is within a proposed commercial thinning unit in the Riparian Reserve LUA (unit 24-1); approximately 61 acres of buffer habitat is within proposed commercial thinning units within the Harvest Land Base LUA (units 19- 4, 19-5, 13-1, 13-2, 23-1 and 24-1); and approximately 14 acres of buffer habitat is within proposed regeneration harvest units in the Harvest Land Base LUA (units 34-1, 34-2 and 19-2).
Proximity to Known Marbled Murrelet Sites and Marbled Murrelet Surveys
The nearest known marbled murrelet sites (Elk Creek) are located approximately 8 to 9 miles west of the nearest Panther Creek treatment unit. There are no currently known occupied murrelet sites within the vicinity of any of the proposed treatment units or haul routes.
Using the habitat evaluation, a total of 39 murrelet surveys were conducted according to the 2003 PSG Protocol (Evans et al 2003) at seven survey sites during the 2017 survey season (May 1 through August 5th). During the 2017 marbled murrelet survey season, (July 13, 2017) murrelet presence-only behavior, including three separate audio detections of murrelets, was recorded during a survey conducted within T. 3 S., R. 6 W. section 24 (NWNW); occupying behaviors were not observed. Subsequent protocol surveys at this survey site on August 1 and 4, 2017 detected audio wingbeats and/or heard two fast-flying birds traveling through the stand but the surveyor was unable to confidently identify the species of bird (Turnstone Environmental Consultants Inc. 2017). Based on these 2017 presence-only murrelet observations, and per the protocol, the number of survey visits were increased at this survey site during the 2017 and 2018 survey seasons. PSG Protocol murrelet surveys are scheduled to continue and complete the two-year survey protocol during the 2018 survey season at the seven Panther Creek survey sites, including the survey site with the murrelet presence-only behavior detected during the 2017 survey season.
As described above as the second phase of the murrelet habitat evaluations under Murrelet Habitat within the Analysis Area, a total of 35 acres were identified which the BLM assumed to have the highest likelihood of containing trees with murrelet nesting structure and being murrelet suitable habitat. These acres are distributed on BLM land in several relatively small patches of forest greater than 100-years-old, beyond 726 feet of a treatment unit but within 0.25 miles. These 35 acres of assumed suitable marbled murrelet habitat within the Analysis Area were not surveyed.
Designated Critical Habitat
None of the proposed treatment units are located within designated marbled murrelet Critical Habitat, however within the analysis area, there is a single 52-acre, isolated stand of designated marbled murrelet Critical Habitat
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 102 (Critical Habitat Unit #OR-02-e) (USDI 2011); per the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP, this 52-acre stand of forests is also designated as being within the Late Successional Reserve (LSR) Land Use Allocation (LUA). It is located within T. 3 S., R. 6 W., section 13. It contains numerous scattered, large old-growth Douglas-firs throughout the stand, many of which contain multiple, potential murrelet nesting platforms as well as numerous additional trees with canopy heights greater than one-half the site-potential tree height; this parcel of murrelet Critical Habitat is high- quality murrelet habitat.
Despite not being located within murrelet Critical Habitat, portions of two of the Panther Creek Project’s proposed thinning units (units 13-1 and 13-2) are located very near or directly adjacent to the 52-acre, isolated polygon of murrelet Critical Habitat described above; in a few places there is little, if any unthinned buffer between a proposed thinning unit and the patch of Critical Habitat. Approximately 23 acres of this 52-acre, isolated stand of designated marbled murrelet Critical Habitat are located within 300 feet of a proposed thinning unit.
3.3.3.4 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
BLM expects that under the No Action Alternative, the development of suitable murrelet habitat within the proposed treatment units would continue as the natural development of large platform structures suitable for murrelet nesting continues. However, given the tight growing conditions present within most of the stands analyzed, large branches suitable for murrelet nesting would develop at a very slow rate (perhaps taking a century or more).
Within most proposed treatment units, stand density would continue to increase. Development toward mature or late-successional forest conditions in these stands would continue at a relatively slow rate unless some form of natural disturbance occurs that creates openings in the units. Disturbance events and endemic levels of insects and disease would be an agent of stand development, but would not be expected to result in accelerated development of mature or late-successional structure with any degree of certainty. As the level of competition among the trees remains high, crown development (live crown ratio, crown expansion, and branch growth) and diameter growth rate would decrease; this would have an adverse impact on the development of suitable murrelet nesting structures. Competition-related mortality would increase, resulting in a gradual increase in coarse woody debris recruitment, mainly from the smaller-diameter trees. Suppression mortality may trigger additional beetle activity, speeding canopy gap creation. Until canopy gaps are created, existing conifer understory would be expected to decline in vigor; understory tree, shrub and vegetation levels would remain low or further decline; and diameter growth rates of overstory trees would be expected to continue to decline. In general, the BLM assumes a very simple homogenous stand structure lacking suitable murrelet nesting structures would continue for many decades within most areas proposed for treatment.
Under the No Action Alternative the 35 acres of selected stands within the Riparian Reserve LUA would not be treated with commercial thinning to support ROD/RMP objectives and direction of promoting the development of large, open grown trees (which are more likely to contain suitable murrelet nesting structures); multi-layered canopies and multi-cohort stands; diverse understory plant communities; and hardwood vigor and persistence. With all of the Riparian Reserve stands proposed for commercial thinning currently having less than 8% of the stand basal area from hardwood or shade tolerant species, the vast majority consist of a very homogenous, dense, single-age Douglas-fir monocultures with minimal understory or shade tolerant species. In general, BLM expects under the No Action Alternative, most Riparian Reserve stands proposed for commercial thinning treatment would continue to exhibit very simple stand structures lacking murrelet suitable nesting structures for many decades.
Based upon the fact that no impacts have been identified from the No Action Alternative, marbled murrelets would not experience any cumulative effects under the No Action Alternative.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 103 Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Impacts to Known Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites
The nearest currently known occupied marbled murrelet sites (Elk Creek) are located approximately 8 to 9 miles west of the nearest treatment unit. Given that the nearest known site is well outside of the disturbance distance (0.25 mile) and the distance in which murrelets could be impacted due to habitat modification (300 feet), there would be no impacts to any known sites as a result of the Proposed Action.
Since the Panther Creek project area is located within a band of land that ranges from approximately 29 to 34 miles from the ocean (within 35 miles of the ocean), if any occupied marbled murrelet sites are discovered during protocol surveys scheduled to be completed by August 2018 or prior to project implementation, they would be protected by a change in the Land Use Allocation of the occupied stand to Late-Successional Reserve (ROD/RMP p. 52 and 98). Should any occupied marbled murrelet sites be discovered, the project would be evaluated and through a combination of daily time restrictions, restricting seasons of operation and/or dropping treatment units, protection of the occupied marbled murrelet sites would be ensured.
Impacts to Murrelet Habitat
BLM assumes the Panther Creek Project would have adverse impacts upon suitable marbled murrelet habitat. At a minimum, all areas containing suitable murrelet habitat within 726 feet of a proposed regeneration unit or within 330 feet of a proposed thinning unit will be surveyed to protocol.
Commercial Thinning (HLB and RR)
There are approximately 16 acres of murrelet suitable habitat within treatment units proposed for commercial thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA (one acre in unit 24-1) or Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA (15 acres in units 19-5 and 24-1). Per RMP management direction, commercial thinning treatments within the Riparian Reserve would be designed to maintain at least 60 trees per acre. Within commercial thinning treatment units, a minimum of 40% canopy cover would remain in the stand, post-treatment. Similar as to within regeneration harvest units, the general intent within thinning units is to reserve all of the trees that contain murrelet nesting structure. However a relatively small percentage of these trees may ultimately need to be felled for safety and/or operational purposes such as being located in close proximity to a landing or road construction location. Additionally, most if not all, of the identified trees with potential murrelet nesting structure contain multiple suitable nesting structures; it is possible that a small percentage of these structures could be damaged during harvest operations. Although there is potential for some adverse impacts to habitat quality (felling or damage to a portion of the trees with nesting structure), post-harvest, BLM expects these acres of murrelet suitable habitat within thinning treatment units to maintain enough murrelet nesting structures and the microclimates and protective cover necessary to conserve nesting structure at sufficient levels to allow for continued nesting (USDI USFWS & BLM 2017).
In addition to thinning within treatment units containing suitable murrelet habitat, some project thinning units are located directly adjacent to or near surveyed suitable murrelet habitat; the project does not necessarily include a no-harvest buffer between the adjacent suitable habitat and the thinning unit. The 300 feet of forest adjacent to murrelet habitat that is taller than approximately 100 feet is referred to as buffer habitat. Thinning directly adjacent to these patches of suitable murrelet habitat (within the buffer habitat) would have potential for adverse physical impacts upon trees with suitable nesting structures and/or their ability to function as nest trees. This could result in degrading the buffer habitat that could lead to fragmentation of forested areas that increase predation, modify microclimate, or increase potential wind throw of nest trees.
The Panther Creek project proposes to thin a total of approximately 64 acres of buffer habitat; approximately 3 acres of this thinning is within the Riparian Reserve LUA (designed to maintain at least 60 trees per acre) and approximately 61 acres is within the Harvest Land Base LUA (retaining a post-harvest minimum of 40% canopy cover). Because the canopy cover is expected by the BLM to be maintained at or above 40% within the vast
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 104 majority of the acres thinned, the BLM expects that the silvicultural treatments within this buffer habitat would generally maintain the components of the forest to minimize environmental changes within the adjacent murrelet suitable habitat, prevent loss of habitat from wind throw, not overly fragment habitat, increase the amount of interior forest habitat, and potentially help reduce predation at the nest (USDI USFWS BLM 2017).
BLM field review has determined that the vast majority of the trees containing potential murrelet nesting structures within and near commercial thinning treatment unit 19-5 are very marginal in habitat quality; during the last harvest rotation approximately 50 years ago, these dispersed large Douglas fir trees were retained as seed trees and they were not removed once the new stand was established. They are now surrounded by and contained within a 48-year-old Douglas fir plantation proposed for commercial thinning. Where beneficial, within this thinning unit, conifer trees growing directly adjacent to the larger trees with potential murrelet nesting structure (under the drip line or within approximately 15 feet) would be removed to reduce competition and favor the continued, long-term health of these larger trees; this Design Feature could result in long-term potentially beneficial impacts upon the survival and development of these trees.
Given the current management objectives of the Harvest Land Base LUA, future silvicultural treatment proposals within these areas would include those to produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity which could likely include Regeneration Harvests at various points in the future. Any long-term beneficial impacts of commercial thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA upon the development of future marbled murrelet habitat, and/or the length of time these benefits would be realized, would be speculative due to the management objectives for this LUA.
Riparian commercial thinning treatments would also be conducted within approximately 35 acres of the outer portions of some of the project area’s Riparian Reserves. These selected areas are proposed in areas where the BLM has determined that thinning would be beneficial in meeting management objectives. Except for approximately one acre in unit 24-1 which contains a few individual trees with murrelet nesting structure (minimally suitable murrelet habitat), the riparian commercial thinning treatment units do not contain any trees with potential murrelet nesting structure. Approximately 3 acres of these Riparian Reserves treatment are located within the outer portion of a 300 foot buffer surrounding minimally suitable murrelet habitat (buffer habitat). It would be speculative to state how long it will be until these Riparian Reserve stands proposed for commercial thinning to develop into suitable murrelet habitat, however, the thinning of these acres would promote the development of suitable murrelet habitat sooner than without treatment as it would promote general stand health and increased crown development. These potential beneficial impacts of thinning treatments within the Riparian Reserves would be more likely realized and more long-lasting than commercial thinning treatments within the Harvest Land Base LUA due to the long-term management objectives for the Riparian Reserves LUA.
Regeneration Harvest
There are 13 acres of suitable murrelet habitat within treatment units proposed for regeneration harvest (unit 34- 2). Post-harvest these acres would be removed from a condition to function as murrelet suitable habitat for an estimated 50 to 75 years. While the general intent is to reserve all of the large trees containing potential murrelet nesting structure within the harvest units as a portion of the RMP’s 5 to 15% basal area retention requirements for regeneration harvest within the MITA LUA or as required by the RMP for trees established prior to 1850, a relatively small percentage of these large trees may ultimately need to be felled for safety and/or operational purposes such as being located in close proximity to a landing or road construction location. Additionally, most if not all of the identified trees with potential murrelet nesting structure contain multiple suitable nesting structures; it is possible that a small percentage of these structures could inadvertently be damaged during harvest operations.
In addition to the direct removal of suitable habitat through regeneration harvest, portions of three project regeneration harvest units (units 19-2, 34-1 and 34-2) are located within approximately 300 feet of a stand of suitable murrelet habitat which will be surveyed to protocol. Regeneration harvest adjacent to suitable habitat (within 300 feet – within buffer habitat) would have adverse impacts upon the murrelet habitat because the treatment would increase the presence of high-contrast edges and general fragmentation. After regeneration
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 105 harvest within buffer habitat these areas would no longer help minimize environmental changes within the adjacent murrelet suitable habitat, or help prevent loss of suitable habitat from wind throw. Fragmentation of the forested landscape is related to higher levels of Steller’s jays, a known predator of murrelets. Locally, openings attract Steller’s jays; increases in murrelet nest predation have been documented when openings are supporting berry production. The increased time Steller’s jays spend foraging for berries and insects in open stands may also result in more time for location of a murrelet nest site in an adjacent stand (USDI USFWS BLM 2017). The Panther Creek project proposes regeneration harvest within approximately 14 acres of buffer habitat.
Post-harvest Murrelet Habitat within the Analysis Area
The BLM estimates there are currently a total of 260 acres of marbled murrelet suitable habitat within the Marbled Murrelet Analysis Area; with the exception of a few acres, all of this habitat is located on BLM land. Post-harvest (after the removal of 13 acres of suitable habitat by regeneration harvest) there would be an estimated 247 acres of suitable habitat within the Analysis Area. Of this 247 acres, approximately 16 acres would have been thinned by proposed Panther Creek thinning treatments within the Riparian Reserve LUA or Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA. Although there is potential for some adverse impacts to habitat quality (felling or damage to a portion of the trees with nesting structure) to this habitat within thinning treatment units, post-harvest, BLM expects these 16 acres of thinned murrelet suitable habitat to continue to function as suitable habitat.
Impacts to Marbled Murrelets due to Disturbance and Disruption
Definitions Pertaining to Marbled Murrelet Disturbance and Disruption Distances
For the purposes of this analysis, the following definitions pertaining to marbled murrelet disturbance and disruption distances were used (USDI USFWS and BLM 2017).
Disturbance Distance: The outward distance from the project boundary within which the action may affect murrelets, if present, to be distracted from its normal activity. For most activities which generate noise above the ambient noise level or create a general disturbance associated with the Panther Creek Project (use of chainsaws, heavy equipment, rock crushing), the disturbance distance is assumed to be 0.25 mile during the entire breeding season (April 1 – September 15). The disturbance distance for blasting is assumed to be 1.0 mile during the entire breeding season.
Disruption Distance: The distance from the project boundary outward within which the action is likely to cause a murrelet, if present, to be distracted to such an extent as to disrupt its normal behavior and create the likelihood of injury or loss of reproduction. The disruption distance is a subset of the disturbance distance. Most activities which generate noise above the ambient noise level or create a general disturbance associated with the Panther Creek Project (use of chainsaws, heavy equipment), the disruption distance is assumed to be 330 feet during the critical breeding season (April 1 – August 5). The disruption disturbance distance for rock crushing is assumed to be 360 feet during the critical breeding season and 0.25 miles for blasting during the entire breeding season.
Implementation of the Panther Creek project would generate noises above the ambient noise level. As discussed in the Affected Environment section, this noise level could cause disturbance to murrelets within a 0.25 miles (use of chainsaws; heavy equipment for road construction, road repairs, and culvert replacements). The Analysis Area used to analyze the impacts of the proposed project upon murrelets includes all of the stands within 0.25 miles of a treatment unit and therefore include all stands with a potential for being disturbed or disrupted through implementation of the proposed treatments.
The potential for disturbance impacts to murrelets exist where activities that generate noise above the ambient forest level occur near breeding murrelets during the murrelet nesting season (April 1 to September 15). Site- specific information (e.g. topographic features, project length or frequency of disturbance to an area) could factor into effects. The potential for noise or human intrusion-producing activities to create the likelihood of injury to murrelets is also dependent on the background or baseline levels in the environment. In areas that are continually
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 106 exposed to higher ambient noise or human presence levels (e.g. areas near well-traveled roads and campgrounds), murrelets are probably less susceptible to small increases in disturbance because they are accustomed to such activities. Murrelets do occur in areas near human activities and may habituate to certain levels of noise (USDI - USFWS, BLM 2017).
Marbled murrelet suitable habitat, including scattered individual trees (minimally suitable habitat) and various sized patches or stands of high-quality suitable habitat, is located within 0.25 miles of the proposed treatment units. However, as discussed in the Affected Environment section (Proximity to Known Sites and Surveys) the seven murrelet survey sites being surveyed in support of the Panther Creek Project are surveying a total of 225 acres of murrelet habitat. This habitat encompasses all the identified murrelet habitat within the treatment units, all murrelet habitat within the 330 feet disruption distance of treatment units and all murrelet habitat within at least one-quarter mile of the project area boundary that is contiguous with the project area. Protocol murrelet surveys are scheduled to continue and complete the two-year survey protocol during the 2018 survey season at these seven Panther Creek survey sites. Upon the completion of these surveys, any occupied marbled murrelet sites which are discovered would be protected by a change in the Land Use Allocation of the occupied stand to Late-Successional Reserve.
As stated, there are an estimated 35 acres of unsurveyed murrelet habitat located within 0.25 miles of the proposed treatment units; all of this unsurveyed habitat is beyond the 330 feet disruption distance from the proposed treatment units. The project does not include any daily time restrictions or seasonal restrictions to limit operations during the murrelet breeding season. Because at a minimum, all areas suitable murrelet habitat within the 330 feet disruption distance of a proposed harvest unit will be surveyed to protocol and determined to be unoccupied, there would be no potential for disruption to nesting murrelets (i.e. if a murrelet was present, it would be distracted to such an extent as to disrupt its normal behavior and create the likelihood of injury or loss of reproduction). However, because there would be unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat within 0.25 miles, there would be a potential for disturbance to nesting murrelets (i.e. a murrelet, if present, could be distracted from its normal activity).
Proposed activities, which include habitat alteration treatments and associated road construction, yarding, loading, hauling, site preparation, brushing, piling, scarification and coarse woody debris and snag creation, that generate noise above local ambient levels may disturb murrelets and interfere with essential nesting behaviors.
The effects to murrelets from disturbance are largely unknown, although effects such as increased energetic expenditure, elevated stress levels, and susceptibility to predation have been documented in other wildlife; BLM assumes murrelets would be affected as well. For these reasons disturbance is considered a threat to the species. Summary studies on effects of disturbance have not documented any nest failure, abandonment, or chick mortality directly attributed to noise disturbance.
Murrelet reactions to noise, and/or temporary increases in predation due to human presence at or in the immediate vicinity of murrelets could include one or more of the following: a nesting adult flushes and leaves the eggs exposed to predation, an adult aborts a feeding attempt potentially reducing the fitness of the young, or a juvenile prematurely fledges potentially reducing their fitness due to having sub-optimal energy reserves or flight ability before leaving the nest. A murrelet that may be disturbed when it flies into the stands for other reasons than nest exchange or feeding young is presumably capable of moving away from disturbance without a substantial disruption of its behavior. Murrelets feed at sea and only rely on forest habitat for nesting. Therefore, BLM assumes forest management or other forest activities during the murrelet breeding season (April 1 – September 15) may affect murrelets that are nesting.
In the late breeding period (August 6 – September 15), potential effects from disturbance decline because all breeding murrelets have established a nest, most are finished incubating and either have completed nesting (about half of the chicks have fledged) or adult murrelets are still feeding the chick. Adults still tending their young in the late breeding period are heavily invested in chick-rearing, and it is during the crepuscular periods, which are defined as two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset, when most food deliveries to the young are made.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 107 The project includes site preparation and fuels management which would entail the piling of logging slash either hand or with a machine. Approximately 95% of these piles would be treated with post-harvest pile burning, to prepare the site for underplanting and/or reduce fuels at the site. Unlike the Panther Creek Project activities which only generate noise above the ambient noise level or create a general disturbance (use of chainsaws, heavy equipment), and have an assumed disruption distance of 330 feet during the critical breeding season (April 1- August 5th) and a disturbance distance of 0.25 mile during the entire breeding period (April 1 – September 15), the disruption distance associated with the possibly dense and persistent smoke of burning is assumed to be 0.25 miles during the critical breeding season (April 1- August 5th) and a disturbance distance of 1.0 mile during the entire breeding period (April 1 – September 15) (USDI USFWS and BLM 2017). BLM does not anticipate pile burning to have any potential for adverse disruption impacts to nesting murrelets, due to a design feature prohibiting burning during the critical breeding season (April 1- August 5th). However during the late (non- critical) breeding season, burning may occur with daily time restrictions to help minimize the potential for adverse impacts (it would begin at least two hours after sunrise and end at least two hours before sunset); since there is unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat within 1.0 mile disturbance distance of the pile burning locations, disturbance may occur should piles be burned during the late (non-critical) breeding season (USDI USFWS and BLM 2017).
In addition to timber management treatments and other activities including the use of chainsaws, heavy equipment for road construction, road repairs, culvert replacements and pile burning discussed above, the Panther Creek Project also includes interdependent rock sourcing activities necessary to supply rock for project implementation including blasting, rock crushing, rock loading, and rock hauling. Four existing rock quarries have been identified as potential rock source sites for use during project implementation, which include Eastline Quarry (T4S., R7W section 1) and Cedar Creek Quarry (T3S., R6W. section 5) both located on BLM administered lands within the Nestucca River watershed; and two quarries located on Weyerhaeuser owned land (T3S.,R6W section 34). The interagency Level 1 Team (terrestrial subgroup) for the North Coast Planning Province has determined blasting has a potential disturbance distance of 1.0 mile and a potential disruption distance of 0.25 mile if conducted during the marbled murrelet breeding season (April 1 to September 15). Rock crushing has a potential disturbance distance of 0.25 miles if conducted during the murrelet breeding season (April 1 to September 15) and a potential disruption distance of 120 yards during the critical breeding season (April 1 to August 5). Considering these disturbance/disruptions distances and based upon the presence and/or location of unsurveyed marbled murrelet relative the various quarries, as well as concerns for the spotted owl, project design features relative to the use of these quarries have been incorporated to help minimize potential impacts. There is no murrelet habitat within the 0.25 blasting disruption distance and any blasting conducted at the Cedar Creek Quarry during the marbled murrelet breeding season (April 1 – September 15) would incorporated daily time restrictions (activities must begin at least two hours after sunrise and end at least two hours before sunset); although there would be no potential for disruption at this site, there would be potential for disturbance during the murrelet breeding season. No blasting would be conducted at the Weyerhaeuser Eastern Quarry during the entire marbled murrelet breeding season (April 1 – September 15), although rock crushing could be conducted at this site but would include daily time restrictions during the entire murrelet breeding season; although there would be no potential for disruption there would be potential for disturbance during the murrelet breeding season at this site. There is no murrelet habitat within the 1.0 mile disturbance distance of the Weyerhaeuser Western Quarry and therefore no daily or seasonal restrictions on rock crushing or blasting; there is no potential for disruption/disturbance at this site. At the East Line Quarry there would be no blasting during entire spotted owl breeding seasons (March 1 - September 30) which overlaps the murrelet breeding season; rock crushing would be allowed during the murrelet late breeding season (after August 5) with daily time restrictions; although there would be no potential for disruption at this site there would be potential for disturbance during the murrelet late breeding season. BLM considers this potential for disturbance impacts resulting from the rock sourcing activities to be minor; murrelets, if present, may be distracted from their normal activity but the rock sourcing activities associated with the Panther Creek Project would not create a likelihood of injury or loss of reproduction.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 108 Designated Critical Habitat
Within areas designated as marbled murrelet Critical Habitat, Physical or Biological Features (PBFs) that the USFWS determined to be essential to murrelet’s conservation include the following: (1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms (PBF1); and (2) forested lands of at least one half site potential tree height regardless of continuity within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms (PBF2), and that are used or potentially used by murrelets for nesting or roosting (USDI - USFWS 2011c, p. 61607).
The Panther Creek project includes thinning within two units (units 13-1 and 13-2) located directly adjacent to critical habitat (in a few places there is little, if any unthinned buffer between the thinning unit and the patch of Critical Habitat); post-treatment canopy cover within these units would be reduced to a minimum average of 40%. Timber harvest could result in degrading the buffer habitat that could lead to fragmentation of forested areas that increase predation, modify microclimate, or increase the potential for wind throw of Critical Habitat (PBF1) nest trees or other trees with a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height (PBF2). Approximately 23 acres of forest proposed to be thinned is within 300 feet of a this Critical Habitat and is therefore considered to be murrelet buffer habitat. Because post-treatment the canopy cover average is expected to be maintained at or above 40% within these thinning units, BLM expects the treatments to generally maintain components of the forest to minimize environmental changes within the adjacent murrelet suitable habitat, prevent loss of habitat from wind throw, not overly fragment habitat, increase the amount of interior forest habitat, and potentially help reduce predation at the nest(s) should they be present (USDI – USFWS and BLM, 2017).
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy Stands 68-78 Years Old
Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within three units which total 111 acres; under Alternative 3 these three units (19-2, 29-1 and 33-2) would be commercially thinned rather than regeneration harvested as under Alternative 2. Two of these units (29-1 and 33-2) have been determined by the BLM to be murrelet non-habitat, while a portion of one unit (19-2) is located within approximately 300 feet of a stand of suitable murrelet habitat and therefore considered to be murrelet buffer habitat. Additionally, Alternative 3 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: the decommissioning of 0.7 miles of newly constructed natural surface road that would be fully decommissioned under Alternative 2; a reduction of 113 acres of site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and a reduction in 111 acres of reforestation activities. The BLM would expect all other impacts to marbled murrelets and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 3 to be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 includes an approximate 28% reduction in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (284 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 395 acres under Alternative 2); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 3 to be correspondingly and proportionally reduced from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 3 includes an approximate 35% increase in the amount of commercial thinning from that within Alternative 2 (446 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 335 acres under Alternative 2); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 3 to be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those described for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 3, a total of 111 acres within units 19-2, 29-1 and 33-2 would receive a commercial thinning treatment rather than a regeneration harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. Rather than being adversely impacted by a regeneration harvest treatment, as described within the analysis for Alternative 2, including increasing the presence of high-contrast edges and general fragmentation on the landscape which is related to higher levels of Steller’s jays, a known predator of murrelets, these stands would be thinned, resulting in impacts as described within the analysis for Alternative 2. With the exception of a few acres within Unit 19-2 that are located within approximately 300 feet of a stand of suitable murrelet habitat and therefore providing buffer habitat, the vast majority of these 111 acres, being less than 80-years-old and containing no trees with murrelet nesting structures, are considered to be marbled murrelet non-habitat. Under Alternative 3, because post-
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 109 treatment the canopy cover average within the buffer habitat within unit 19-2 is expected by the BLM to be maintained at or above 40%, the treatment is expected to generally maintain components of the forest to minimize environmental changes within the adjacent murrelet suitable habitat, prevent loss of habitat from wind throw, not overly fragment habitat, increase the amount of interior forest habitat, and potentially help reduce predation at the nest(s) should they be present in the future (USDI – USFWS and BLM, 2017).
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Stands 68-78 Years Old
Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within seven units which total 98 acres; under Alternative 4 these seven units (17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3) would be regeneration harvested rather than commercially thinned as under Alternative 2. With the exception of a few acres within Units 23-1 and 24-1 that are located within approximately 300 feet of a stand of suitable murrelet habitat and is therefore providing murrelet buffer habitat, the vast majority of these 98 acre to be regeneration harvested under Alternative 4 are less than 80-years-old, contain no trees with murrelet nesting structures and are not located near identified stands of murrelet suitable habitat are considered to be marbled murrelet non-habitat. In addition to the changes in treatment types on these 98 acres, Alternative 4 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: an increase of 102 acres of site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and an increase of 98 acres of reforestation activities. The BLM would expect all other impacts to marbled murrelets and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 4 to be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 26% increase in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (395 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 493 acres under Alternative 4); the BLM would expect those adverse impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 4 (including connected actions such as site preparation and fuels reduction activities) to be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 28% decrease in the amount of commercial thinning from those identified impacts described Alternative 2 (335 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 237 acres under Alternative); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 4 to be correspondingly and proportionally decreased from those described for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 4, a total of 98 acres within units 17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3 would receive a regeneration harvest treatment rather than a commercial harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. These stands would receive a regeneration harvest treatment, resulting in impacts as described within the analysis for Alternative 2 including increasing the presence of high-contrast edges and general fragmentation on the landscape which is related to higher levels of Steller’s jays, a known predator of murrelets. With the exception of a few acres within Units 23-1 and 24-1 `that are located within approximately 300 feet of a stand of suitable murrelet habitat and therefore providing buffer habitat, the vast majority of these 98 acres, being less than 80-years-old and containing no trees with murrelet nesting structures, are considered to be marbled murrelet non-habitat.
As a result of the Alternative 4 regeneration harvest within this buffer habitat within Units 23-1 and 24-1, post-treatment these areas would no longer help minimize environmental changes within the adjacent murrelet suitable habitat, or help prevent loss of suitable habitat from wind throw. Regeneration harvest adjacent to suitable habitat (within buffer habitat) could also have adverse impacts upon the murrelet habitat because the treatment would decrease the amount of interior forest habitat and increase the presence of high-contrast edges and general fragmentation which is related to higher levels of Steller’s jays, a known predator of murrelets.
3.3.3.6 Cumulative Effects
As described below, cumulative effects to marbled murrelets as a result of implementing the Proposed Action have been identified when combined with effects from projects listed in the Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable section (activities on non-BLM lands). These identified direct impacts to marbled murrelets with the potential for adding cumulative impacts include the potential for disturbance during the murrelet breeding season.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 110 BLM considers these identified cumulative effects to be minor based because the Panther Creek Project would not result in the potential for disruption.
Cumulative Effects to Habitat
Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable BLM Actions
The only past, present, or reasonably foreseeable BLM Action potentially involving “habitat modification” identified within the Marbled Murrelet Analysis Area, is the (past) Baker Creek Density Management and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project (the Baker Creek Project). The Baker Creek project did not involve any effects to murrelets or their habitat therefore there are no cumulative effects associated with the project.
Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable non-BLM Actions
As described in the Assumptions Regarding Non-Federal Land Management within the Panther Creek General Wildlife Analysis Area Section above, almost all non-federal lands within the Marbled Murrelet Analysis Area are managed for forest production. BLM assumes that on the vast majority of the industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies, would continue to timber harvest on a 40- 50 year rotation following Oregon State Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules. As noted above, aside from an identified few acres of forestland within the Analysis Area owned by the City of McMinnville in T3S, R6W section 13 (SWNW), non-federal lands within the MMAA are generally not in a condition to function as habitat for marbled murrelets. Because there currently is so little marbled murrelet habitat on non-federal land within the Analysis Area, BLM considers cumulative impacts to murrelet habitat conditions as a result of non-BLM actions to be negligible.
Cumulative Effects from Disruption or Disturbance
Because there is unsurveyed suitable murrelet habitat within 0.25 miles of the project, there would be a potential for disturbance to nesting murrelets as a result of the Panther Creek Project (i.e. a murrelet, if present, could be distracted from its normal activity).
No additional Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable BLM Actions have been identified with potential of disrupting or disturbing the estimated 35 acres of unsurveyed murrelet habitat within the Marbled Murrelet Analysis Area. However, the BLM assumes that forest lands owned and managed by private companies, individual landowners or by private industrial timber companies would generally continue to be managed on a 40- 50 year rotation following Oregon State Forest Practices Act rules (FPA). Other activities conducted by these non-BLM landowners would include log and rock haul, road maintenance, fuels management and plantation management. It is also assumed that management of local government lands would continue to include forest management. It is possible that a portion of these activities would occur with the disturbance or disruption distances for that particular activity of the estimated 35 acres of unsurveyed murrelet habitat within the Marbled Murrelet Analysis Area; if conducted during the murrelet breeding season, (April 1 to September 15), these activities would have potential to disturb or disrupt nesting murrelets.
The Panther Creek project would not result in disruption to nesting murrelets based on the facts that all the identified murrelet habitat within the treatment units, and all murrelet habitat within the 330 feet disruption distance of treatment units has been surveyed and pile burning includes the design feature prohibiting burning during the critical breeding season (April 1- August 5th). Although there would be potential for disturbance during the murrelet breeding season as a result of blasting at the Cedar Creek Quarry, and rock crushing at the Weyerhaeuser Pit (East) and East Line quarry, this potential has been minimized through the incorporation of daily time restrictions; there would be no potential for disruption of murrelets during rock quarry operations. Therefore, the potential for cumulative disturbance impacts resulting from the Panther Creek project (including the interdependent rock sourcing activities) are considered to be minor. Murrelets, if present, may be distracted from their normal activity but the Panther Creek Project would not create a likelihood of injury or loss of reproduction.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 111 Cumulative Effects to Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat
The only marbled murrelet critical habitat within the Analysis Area is a 52-acre, isolated patch of marbled murrelet critical habitat (Critical Habitat Unit #OR-02-e) (USDI 2011) located in T3S, R6W section 13 (WM). Beyond the Panther Creek Project, no past, ongoing, present and/or reasonably foreseeable future BLM or non- federal projects have been identified within the Analysis Area which would impact marbled murrelet critical habitat.
3.3.4 Issue 9: What effect would the alternatives have upon northern spotted owls and their habitat availability, including Designated Critical Habitat?
3.3.4.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Using the Protocol For Surveying Proposed Management Activities That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls (as revised on January 9, 2012) is an effective way to establish spotted owl presence and/or occupancy. ● Unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise, forested stands younger than 40 years old were considered non-habitat; stands 40 to 79 years old were considered dispersal habitat; stands 80-109 years old were considered foraging habitat; and stands 110 years old or older were considered nesting and roosting habitat for northern spotted owls. ● By maintaining a post-harvest, canopy cover of at least 40% within thinned stands, they would continue to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat post-treatment. ● Regeneration harvest units would be converted to a condition of “non-habitat” for spotted owls for an estimated period of approximately 40 years when it would then be in a condition to function as dispersal habitat, or approximately 80 years when it would then be in a condition to function as foraging habitat.
3.3.4.2 Analytical Methodology
● Spotted owl habitat evaluations were conducted for all the Panther Creek proposed treatment units. ● Calculate the total change of habitat types within the analysis area as a result of each alternative.
3.3.4.3 Analysis Area
● The analysis area for this issue includes all proposed treatment units and all those lands within 1.5 miles of those treatment units.
3.3.4.4 Affected Environment
The Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area (NSOAA), encompasses 22,389 acres which includes all lands within a 1.5 miles of the perimeter of the proposed treatment units. The 1.5 mile buffer represents the provincial median annual home range radius for spotted owls within the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province. Since the stands proposed for treatment are spread throughout nine sections of land, rather than one specific area, the overall Analysis Area is actually larger than one spotted owl provincial home range (4,520 acres in the Oregon Coast Range). Nevertheless, the Analysis Area includes all lands in which a spotted owl, if present in the area, would conduct its activities that provide important habitat elements for nesting, roosting, and foraging; this Analysis Area represents that portion of the landscape that should spotted owls be using the area they could experience impacts from the proposed timber management treatments.
Designated Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat is a term defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) identifying specific geographic areas containing features essential to the conservation of a threatened or endangered species. It is designated by USFWS to provide for the conservation and eventual recovery of listed species and may require special
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 112 management considerations or protection. Spotted Owl Critical Habitat was designated by USFWS in 2012 (USDI 2012b). There is no Spotted Owl Critical Habitat within the 22,389 acre Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area including within any of the proposed treatment units; none of the alternatives of the Panther Creek project would be expected by the BLM to have any direct, indirect or cumulative impacts upon Spotted Owl Designated Critical Habitat and it will receive no further analysis or discussion.
Land Ownership and Land Use within the Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area
Of the 22,389 total acres within the Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area, 4,561 acres (20.4%) are managed by the BLM; 7,826 acres (51%) are owned and managed by private companies or individual landowners; 6,662 acres (29.8%) are owned and managed by private industrial timber companies; and 3,340 acres (14.9%) are managed local governments (City of McMinnville or City of Carlton) (Table 28). Both historic and current land use objectives differ across these ownerships and have produced the current condition of spotted owl habitats or other non-forest land classifications within the Analysis Area.
Table 28: Land Ownership within the Panther Creek Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area
Land Owner Acres Percent of NSO Analysis Area
BLM 4,561 20.4 %
Local Governments 3,340 14.9 % (Cities of McMinnville or Carlton)
Private Industrial Forestland 6,662 29.8 %
Private Company or Individual (Woodlots, 7,826 35.0 % Residential or Agricultural)
Totals 22,389 100 %
Northern Spotted Owl Habitat within the Analysis Area
In order to estimate the quantity and quality of spotted owl habitat within the NSOAA on BLM and non-BLM lands, 2011 LiDAR imagery, 2016 Aerial Photos and Google Earth imagery were used. Habitat evaluations on BLM Lands also included the use of BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) data, and Panther Creek stand exam data where available, as well as field review. Table 29 displays the estimated acres of various spotted owl habitat classifications by the various landowners within the Panther Creek NSO Analysis Area.
It is important to note the difference in the “Analysis Area” scale vs the site-specific project scale when evaluating habitat qualities and the potential impacts of the proposed project. Even on BLM land where we have considerably more stand information than on non-BLM land, it is not always possible to determine definitively what forest stands are foraging or nesting/roosting habitat for spotted owls. Using the BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory data, age, species composition, and number of canopy layers are useful in helping evaluate stand structural conditions but such important features as snag and coarse wood presence and relative structural defect of trees are not indicated by the data. Likewise, the presence of a developing understory is not indicated by the data unless it has been recently surveyed and is of an age and density that it is becoming a relevant component of the stand. Furthermore, it is difficult at the Analysis Area-scale to factor in important elements such as stand size and consider the context of the nature of the surrounding or contiguous landscape which can more effectively be considered at the site-specific project scale.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 113 Therefore, using parameters such as age and average stand diameter as a surrogate for owl habitat suitability on BLM lands and primarily LiDAR and aerial photos on non-BLM does not always work well in these northern Coast Range lands with high human disturbance histories. What we do know with relative certainty is, based on on-the-ground observation, none of the proposed treatment units contain the structural elements that are found in spotted owl higher quality (roosting or nesting) suitable habitat despite the fact that a few of the stands are estimated to be very near or over 110-years-old, and one stand, 15 acres in size, contains components estimated to be 180 and 119-years-old (unit 34-1). Where appropriate these site-specific habitat determinations were carried forward and factored into the Analysis Area-scale analysis.
Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) including both down logs and snags, is an important component of spotted owl habitat and the habitat for their prey species. Snags, especially higher quality large snags, are currently lacking within and near most of the areas proposed for treatment as well as generally throughout the Analysis Area. According to snag sampling data within proposed treatment units, there is average of approximately 3.4 snags per acre, of which, less than 1% are higher quality large snags (>20” DBH and 50’ tall). According to the snag sampling data, all units but two (25-2 and 33-3) contain no snags greater than 20” DBH and 50’ tall. Between 2004 and 2006, the BLM implemented a CWD creation project on a total of approximately 222 BLM acres within portions of the Spotted Owl Analysis Area. A total of 651 trees were treated to enhance wildlife habitat and promote the development of mature or late-seral habitat, including habitat for the spotted owl and their prey species. A total of 158 Douglas firs were felled and retained to create down woody debris and 493 Douglas firs were treated by a variety of methods (basal-girdling, top-girdling or topping) to create snags. Of the total 222 acres which received CWD enhancement treatments, a total of approximately 24 acres are located within four units currently proposed for thinning or regeneration harvest treatments (units 17-2, 17-5, 19-1 and 24-1) while the remaining 198 acres are located within areas not currently proposed for timber harvest.
Spotted Owl Non-habitat
Spotted owl non-habitat was characterized as either being non-forest within the Analysis Area (current land uses other than forest - i.e. reservoirs, agricultural or residential lands) or forestland currently stocked with stands less than 40 years of age. Areas with these characteristics are typically not used by spotted owls and permanently or temporarily cause forest fragmentation and increase the amount of high-contrast edge on the landscape.
Spotted Owl Dispersal Habitat
Spotted owl dispersal habitat is comprised of conifer and mixed mature conifer-hardwood habitats with a canopy cover greater than or equal to 40 percent and conifer trees greater than or equal to 11 inches average diameter at breast height (DBH) with open space beneath the canopy to allow spotted owls to fly. It consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy cover to provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities (USDI 2011a, page A-10). Generally, non-territorial spotted owls use dispersal habitat to roost, forage, and survive until they can establish a nest territory. Juvenile owls also use dispersal habitat to move from natal areas.
For the purposes of this analysis, dispersal habitat includes those acres of forestland within the Analysis Area generally greater than or equal to 40-years-old but less than 80-years-old, unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise.
Spotted Owl Suitable Habitat
Habitat important for spotted owl recovery consists of forested stands used for nesting, roosting or foraging. Features that typically support nesting and roosting in the North Coast Province include a moderate to high canopy cover (60-90%); a multi-layered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees with average diameter at breast height (DBH) of greater than 30 inches; a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large accumulations of
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 114 fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly. Forested stands with high canopy closure also provide thermal cover and protection from predators (USDI 2011a, page A-10).
For the purposes of this analysis, spotted owl suitable habitat within the Analysis Area was characterized as either being foraging habitat or nesting/roosting habitat. Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to those of nesting and roosting habitat, but such habitat may not always support successfully nesting pairs (USDI 2011a, page A-10). For the purposes of this analysis, foraging habitat is generally greater than or equal to 80-years-old but less than 110-years-old, unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise. Spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat is generally greater than or equal to 110-years-old, also unless a site-specific habitat evaluation determines otherwise.
Table 29: Estimated Acres of Spotted Owl Habitat by landowner within the Panther Creek Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area (NSOAA)
Owner Non- Non-habitat Dispersal Foraging Nesting and Totals habitat Forest 2 Habitat 3 Habitat 4 Roosting Habitat 5 (% of non-forest 1 (% of (% of (% of (% of NSOAA) NSOAA) (% of NSOAA) NSOAA) NSOAA) NSOAA)
4,561 BLM 15 451 2,857 586 652 (20.4%)
17,828 Non-BLM 2,757 8,731 5,456 488 396 (79.6%)
Total 2,772 8,313 1,074 22,389 9,182 (41.0%) 1,048 (4.7%) Acres (12.4%) (37.1%) (4.8%) (100%)
1 Acres of non-forestland within the Analysis Area (current land uses other than forest – i.e. reservoirs, agricultural or residential lands) 2 Acres of forestland within the Analysis Area less than 40-years-old 3 Acres of forestland within the Analysis Area generally greater than or equal to 40-years-old but less than 80-years-old, unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise. 4 Foraging Habitat; acres of forestland within the Analysis Area generally greater than or equal to 80-years-old but less than 110-years-old, unless a site- specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise. 5 Nesting or Roosting Habitat; acres of forestland within the Analysis Area generally greater than or equal to 110-years-old, unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise.
Northern Spotted Owl Habitat within the Treatment Units
In 2016 and early 2017, spotted owl habitat evaluations were conducted for all the Panther Creek proposed treatment units. This habitat evaluation included the use of 2011 LiDAR imagery, 2016 Aerial Photos and Google Earth as well as BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) data, and Panther Creek stand exam data, as well as field review. All units were determined by the BLM to be either spotted owl dispersal habitat or spotted owl foraging habitat; the total acres of spotted owl habitat proposed for treatment by the Panther Creek Project are displayed by treatment type on Table 30.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 115 Table 30: Total Acres of Spotted Owl Habitat Proposed for Treatment by the Panther Creek Project (Alternative 2)
Dispersal Roosting or Proposed Treatment Foraging Habitat Total Acres Habitat Nesting Habitat
Commercial Thinning (HLB and RR) 370 0 0 370
Regeneration Harvest 321 74 0 395
Total Acres 691 74 0 765
Although none of the units proposed for treatment contain spotted owl roosting or nesting habitat, there is spotted owl foraging habitat within four proposed treatment units (units 17-1, 17-2, 17-5 and 19-1) totaling 74 acres; the ages for these four units, as calculated by ORGANON range from 86 to 112-years-old. As a result of tree climbing conducted in support of red tree vole surveys in the BLM parcel of land containing three of these units (T3S, R7W section 17; units 17-1, 17-2, 17-5) there is a considerable known northern flying squirrel population currently within the parcel. Northern flying squirrels comprise 50 percent or more of the prey in spotted owl diets across much of Oregon and Washington (Wilson and Forsman, 2013); the known presence of this flying squirrel population helps support the determination that these three units are currently in a condition to function as spotted owl foraging habitat.
With the exception of the four proposed treatment units mentioned above which contain spotted owl foraging suitable habitat, all proposed treatment stands were determined by the BLM to contain dispersal habitat of varying qualities, with the older stands likely providing higher quality dispersal habitat and younger stands likely providing low to marginal quality dispersal habitat. In a few situations site-specific habitat evaluations considered factors other than just stand age; site-specific characteristics such as small stand size, homogenous stand structure, and/or the context of a stand’s relative isolation given the nature of the contiguous landscape (high degree of fragmentation, agricultural and/or very strong dominance by early-seral stage) led to a determination that a few stands more likely function as dispersal habitat rather than suitable habitat despite an estimated age of over 80-years-old, as used in the “Analysis Area” scale analysis discussed above. In particular, units 29-2 (81-years-old); unit 33-1 (114-years-old); 33-3 (84-years-old); and unit 34-2 (containing components estimated to be 180 and 119-years-old) were all determined by the BLM to more likely function as spotted owl dispersal habitat rather than suitable habitat.
Proximity to Spotted Owl Known Sites
The Haskins Creek spotted owl site (historically also called the Panther Creek site or the Kutch-Panther site) is the only known spotted owl site within the Panther Creek Spotted Owl Analysis Area. It is also the closest spotted owl known site to any Panther Creek proposed treatment unit. The last known owl site center (nest tree) for the Haskins Creek site is approximately 200 feet from unit 13-1. The site was originally discovered in 1995 when a pair of spotted owls were detected numerous times in the Panther Creek drainage on BLM land (and was named as such) but after a change in pairing, the activity center was relocated into the Haskins Creek drainage on McMinnville Water and Light land. This site represented an alternate site center for the Haskins Creek site with the original center (the natal site for the female) being approximately 1.5 miles to the Northwest also on lands managed by McMinnville Water and Light.
Through surveys conducted by the BLM or cooperating neighboring landowners, this site is known to have a long, although not recent, history of spotted owl occupancy. The years of this site’s known occupancy include (at
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 116 least) 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008; a pair of spotted owls detected in 2008 was the last known spotted owl activity at the Haskins Creek site. There has been some spotted owl survey effort at this site for every year since its discovery except possibly 1996 (most years surveyed to protocol although not all). Many past years’ surveys at this site resulted in the detections of a resident spotted owl pair, often accompanied by young of the year. Interestingly in 2004, the male of the pair occupying this site was identified as originally being banded as a juvenile in 1999 at a spotted owl site located 46.6 miles directly to the south (T11S, R6W). Owl surveys conducted annually from 2009 through 2016 did not detect any spotted owls at this site. Barred owls are and have been, very routinely seen and/or heard throughout Panther Creek spotted owl survey area which includes the Haskins Creek spotted owl known site’s 1.5 mile Provincial Home Range.
Beyond the Haskins Creek spotted owl site, the next closest spotted owl known site (Kutch Creek – MSNO 0008) is approximately 4 miles to the north, outside of the Panther Creek Spotted Owl Analysis Area. With the last confirmed spotted owl being detected within the Kutch Creek site’s 1.5 mile Provincial Home Range being in 2004, it is considered to be historic in nature.
For purposes of assessing a project’s potential impacts upon the spotted owl or a spotted owl known site, lacking more specific information, circles centered on spotted owl nest sites or activity centers that approximate the median core areas and home range areas of spotted owls monitored in radio-telemetry studies is the currently accepted methodology. The circles serve as proxies for the area where the amount and configuration of habitat within those radii that has been shown to affect occupancy, survival, reproduction, and related fitness (USDI- USFWS and BLM 2017); the following summarize the Nest Patch, Core Area and Home Range circles used in the analysis of the Haskins Creek Owl Site: ● Nest Patch (300 meters; 70 acres): A nest patch is the area where a spotted owl is likely to select a nest tree or trees. It is usually located in the best available habitat likely to facilitate spotted owl nesting by providing suitable nest trees and rearing of young immediately after leaving the nest tree, prior to dispersal. It encompasses 300 meters (radius circle) or at least a 70 acre area delineated around the best contiguous habitat (generally on BLM land) for a known or potential owl activity center. For the purpose of this analysis, habitat conditions for a 300 meter radius circle are considered rather than the best contiguous habitat. ● Core Area (0.5 mile radius circle; 500 acres): A core area is a 0.5 mile (radius circle) around a known or potential spotted owl site (approximately 500 acres), which delineates the area most heavily used for nesting, roosting, foraging and rearing young. It has been defined as that portion of a spotted owl breeding season home range that received disproportionately high use for nesting, roosting and foraging. Ideally, the threshold which the literature indicates is necessary for successful reproduction is 50% or more of the Core Area is suitable spotted owl habitat. ● Home Range (1.5 miles radius circle; 4,524 acres): The home range represents a minimum area for spotted owls to carry out all life history needs, particularly during the nesting season. A 1.5 mile radius circle represents the provincial median annual home range radius for spotted owls within the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province. Ideally, the threshold which the literature indicates is necessary for successful reproduction is 40% or more of the home range is suitable spotted owl habitat.
The current habitat conditions of the Haskins Creek Spotted Owl Site’s 70 acre Nest Patch, 500 acre Core Area and 4,524 acre Home Range, as well as the Panther Creek Project’s proposed treatments within these areas are displayed on Table 31.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 117 Table 31: Current habitat condition of the Haskins Creek Spotted Owl Site’s Nest Patch, Core Area and Home Range
Nest Patch Core Area Home Range
(70 acres; 300 meters, 984 feet) (500 acres; 0.5 miles) (4,524 acres; 1.5 miles)
Threshold is 100% Suitable Threshold is 50% Suitable Threshold is 40% Suitable Habitat within Habitat within the NP Habitat within the Core the HR
Acres Acres Acres Non Acres Acres Non Acres Acres Suitable; Non Acres habitat Suitable; habitat Acres Suitable; Dispersal Foraging habitat Dispersal Foraging Dispersal (%) Foraging or (%) or NR (%) (%) or NR (%) (%) NR (%) (%) (%)
Current Condition 9 34 27 2074 138 212 152 1833 (40.5%) 614 (13.6%) (27.6%) (42.4%) (30.4%) All (12.9%) (48.6%) (38.6%) (45.8%) Ownerships1
1 Approximately 43% of NP is BLM ownership; 33% of the Core Area is BLM ownership; and 27% of HR is BLM ownership
As shown on Table 31, the Haskins Creek owl site, currently has an estimated 13.6% suitable habitat within the 1.5 mile provincial median annual home range; the threshold is 40% suitable habitat within the home range. It has an estimated 30.4% suitable habitat within the 0.5 mile Core Area; the threshold is 40% suitable habitat within the Core Area. Within a 300 meter radius circle, representing a 70 acre Nest Patch, it has an estimated 27 acres of suitable habitat. Ideally, these areas would be close to or above thresholds which the literature indicates is necessary for successful reproduction (suitable habitat was approximately 40% or more in the home range and 50% or more in the core area with adequate habitat in the nest patch to support a nesting pair) (USDI USFWS and BLM, 2017). Based upon ownership patterns and past harvest operations, the ability of this site’s territory to support spotted owl occupancy, survival, and reproductive success has been most strongly influenced by operations occurring on non-federal land. Given, quantity and quality of existing habitat, the Haskins Creek owl site has a limited current ability to provide adequate suitable habitat and connectivity to support a viable spotted owl site.
Pre-project Spotted Owl Surveys
In 2016 and early 2017, spotted owl habitat evaluations were conducted for all the Panther Creek proposed treatment units, as well as for all the forestland within 1.5 miles of the treatment units; 1.5 miles represents the provincial median annual home range radius for spotted owls within the Oregon Coast Range Physiographic Province. This habitat evaluation on BLM and non-BLM lands, included the use of 2011 LiDAR imagery, 2016 Aerial Photos and Google Earth. Habitat evaluations on BLM Lands also included the use of BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) data, and Panther Creek stand exam data where available, as well as field review.
Northern Spotted Owl surveys were conducted according to the Protocol For Surveying Proposed Management Activities That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls (as revised on January 9, 2012) (USDI-USFWS 2012a). Per the survey protocol, and in coordinating with neighboring landowners, all habitat within the survey area (within
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 118 1.5 mile of the treatment units) where protocol surveys may elicit a response from a resident owl or pair of owls (i.e., nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat) was surveyed during the 2016 and 2017 survey seasons.
Spotted owl surveys conducted in support of the Panther Creek Project during the 2017 survey season completed the 2-year survey protocol (USDI - USFWS 2012a). During the first visit of NSO surveys in 2017 (conducted in March of 2017), there was one unknown Strix detection within the 500-acre core area of the Haskins Creek Spotted Owl site; the surveyor was unable to determine if the owl detection was a spotted owl or barred owl. Subsequent follow-up efforts and remaining five protocol survey visits conducted in 2017, did not detect any northern spotted owls or additional unknown Strix; barred owl detections were recorded on multiple occasions. As a result of the unknown Strix detection and in an effort to obtain additional information, on 5/24/17, an acoustic monitoring unit was installed at the site of the March 2017 unknown Strix detection and left in place recording audio data for approximately 2 weeks; it recorded no spotted owls.
In coordination with USFWS, in order to verify the Haskins Creek spotted owl site status and ensure no northern spotted owl incidental take (as defined by the ESA) results from the Panther Creek Project, in 2018 the BLM will be conducting six spotted owl survey visits to survey stations located within the 1.5 mile Home Range of the Haskins Creek Owl site; additionally per the survey protocol (USDI USFWS 2012a), three spotted owl spot check survey visits will be conducted at survey stations within the areas surveyed for spotted owls in support of the Panther Creek Project that are located outside the 1.5 mile Home Range.
Barred owls
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified competition from barred owls as one of the main threats to the northern spotted owl’s continued survival (USDI 2016).
Barred owls are very routinely heard and seen throughout Panther Creek spotted owl Analysis Area and were most recently detected on several occasions during surveys conducted by BLM contractors in 2017. Barred owls are highly successful habitat generalists that compete with spotted owls for territory space. Their home ranges are considerably smaller than those of the spotted owl and broadly overlap, however with little overlap of core areas. One study in the central Oregon Coast Range found that both barred owls and spotted owls prefer riparian forests older than 120 years but that spotted owls are more likely to be found on steeper slopes than the barred owl. Barred owls have been found to feed on mammals about 66% of the time (compared to the spotted owls 95%) with twice as many prey items being terrestrial (moles, rabbits, mice) vs. arboreal (flying squirrels, red tree voles). Flying squirrels make up over 53% of the spotted owl diet vs. about 25% for the barred owl. However, prey competition between the two owls is the most intense for flying squirrels, especially during the non-breeding season. This is most likely because many of the terrestrial prey items that barred owls will feed on that spotted owls won’t, such as amphibians, reptiles, crayfish, terrestrial mollusks, and insects are not available during winter months.
3.3.4.5 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
The BLM expects that under the No Action Alternative, the development or improvement of suitable spotted owl habitat within the proposed treatment units would continue as the natural processes of maturation or successional progression would continue. Those acres of spotted owl foraging or dispersal habitat proposed to be removed through regeneration harvest would continue to function in their current capacities under the No Action Alternative. Those acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat proposed to be commercial thinned within the RR and HLB LUAs would not be impacted but would continue to function without short-term adverse impacts to habitat quality or the potential for long-term beneficial impacts.
Under the No Action Alternative, within most proposed treatment units, stand density would continue to increase. Development toward mature or late-successional forest conditions in these stands would be expected by the BLM to continue at a relatively slow rate unless some form of natural disturbance occurs that creates openings in the
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 119 units. Disturbance events and endemic levels of insects and disease would be an agent of stand development, but would not be expected to result in accelerated development of mature or late-successional structure with any degree of certainty. As the level of competition among the trees remains high, crown development (live crown ratio, crown expansion, and branch growth) and diameter growth rate would decrease. Competition-related mortality would increase, resulting in a gradual increase in coarse woody debris recruitment, mainly from the smaller-diameter trees. Suppression mortality may trigger additional beetle activity, speeding canopy gap creation. Until canopy gaps are created, existing conifer understory would be expected to decline in vigor; understory tree, shrub and vegetation levels would remain low or further decline; and diameter growth rates of overstory trees would be expected to continue to decline. In general, a very simple homogenous stand structure would be expected to continue for many decades within most areas proposed for treatment.
Under the No Action Alternative, stands proposed for Regeneration Harvest which are currently infected with Phellinus weirii (a plant pathogen causing laminated root rot), would not be managed by applying timber-harvest treatments to remove susceptible species and replant with tree species more tolerant or immune to improve site productivity. In areas heavily infected with Phellinus weirii, most notably within T3S, R6W section 25, it would be expected by the BLM that without the proposed control or mitigation measures, the disease would continue to spread, negatively affecting the stand’s ability to maintain vigor and health. As highly susceptible tree species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir succumb to the root rot and mortality increases, tolerant species such as western redcedar and resistant hardwood and shrub components would increase. The overall health of the stands would decrease as Douglas-firs would continue to decline and slowly be replaced by less susceptible or resistant tree and shrub species. Since P. weirii continues to spread by root contact, the pathogen would continue until that root contact is limited and resistant species are re-introduced.
Under the No Action Alternative the 35 acres of selected stands within the Riparian Reserve LUA would not be treated with commercial thinning treatment to support ROD/RMP objectives and direction of promoting the development of large, open grown trees; multi-layered canopies and multi-cohort stands; diverse understory plant communities; and hardwood vigor and persistence. With all of the Riparian Reserve stands proposed for commercial thinning treatments currently having less than 8% of the stand basal area from hardwood or shade tolerant species, the vast majority consist of a very homogenous, dense, single-age Douglas-fir monocultures with minimal understory or shade tolerant species. In general, under the No Action Alternative these simple stand structures would be expected by the BLM to continue for many decades within most Riparian Reserve stands proposed for commercial thinning treatment.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Impacts to Spotted Owl Habitat
Northern Spotted Owl Habitat within the Treatment Units
In 2016 and early 2017, spotted owl habitat evaluations were conducted for all the Panther Creek proposed treatment units. All units were determined by the BLM to be either spotted owl dispersal habitat or spotted owl foraging habitat; the total acres of spotted owl habitat proposed for treatment by the Panther Creek Project by treatment type are displayed on Table 30.
Commercial Thinning (HLB and RR)
Alternative 2 of the Panther Creek project proposes to thin approximately 370 acres with either commercial thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA (approximately 335 acres) or commercial thinning units within the outer portions of some of the project area’s Riparian Reserves (approximately 35 acres). All of these acres are currently in a condition to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat.
Because post-harvest, a minimum of 40% canopy cover would remain in these thinned stands, they all would continue to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat post-treatment. However, in the short term (approximately the first 15 years after thinning) these stands would decline in suitability for flying squirrels and tree voles due to
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 120 the reduced mid-story cover provided by stem density of the pre-thinning stand. This potential reduction in prey would negatively affect the post-harvest stands suitability as spotted owl habitat. Some of these adverse impacts resulting from the thinning would be partially offset by project design features such as snag creation and the retention of unthinned clumps. Although short-term adverse impacts to the quality of the dispersal habitat resulting from the thinning would be anticipated, post-harvest the thinned acres would be expected by the BLM to continue to function as dispersal habitat albeit with a diminished habitat quality for an estimated 15 years. Adverse impacts from the proposed commercial thinning treatments (HLB and RR) would be most extreme during and directly after harvest, with effects ameliorating through time as the retained trees respond the thinning treatments and the canopy cover increases as crowns expand. A common response of Douglas-firs to thinning and exposing the tree boles to more solar radiation is an increased occurrence of epicormic branching, which may occur as soon as 10 years post-thinning. Arboreal rodents (spotted owl prey) commonly use clusters of epicormic branching as nest sites.
Given the current management objectives of the Harvest Land Base LUA where the development or maintenance of suitable and/or dispersal spotted owl habitat is not a primary project objective, future silvicultural treatment proposals within these areas would include those to produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity which could likely include Regeneration Harvests at various points in the future. Any long-term beneficial impacts of commercial thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA upon the development of future spotted owl habitat, and/or the length of time these benefits would be realized, would be speculative due to the management objectives for this LUA.
Given the current management objectives of the Riparian Reserve LUA, any future silvicultural treatments within these areas would include those to benefit water quality and fisheries; under the current ROD/RMP, it is unlikely that future Regeneration Harvest would be proposed on these acres. Any potential beneficial impacts of thinning upon the development of higher quality spotted owl habitat would therefore likely be more long-lasting within this LUA as opposed to the Commercial Thinning treatments within the Harvest Land Base LUA due to the management objectives for Riparian Reserve LUA. While negative effects on arboreal rodents (the primary prey items for spotted owls), would be expected by the BLM for approximately 15 years within these thinned stands, after 15 years habitat complexity would increase and as mid-story occlusion increases from understory plantings and development, habitat for flying squirrels would improve thus potentially increasing foraging opportunities for spotted owls. With increased stand complexity these stands are likely to develop into a condition resembling suitable owl habitat sooner than if no treatments were to occur although given their placement on the landscape surrounded by fragmented MITA (Harvest Land Base) lands, in the long-term these acres would more likely function as owl dispersal habitat than as nesting, roosting or foraging habitat.
In summary, all thinned stands would continue to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat post-treatment. The proposed action would have adverse impacts on spotted owl habitat for approximately 15 years by potentially reducing the habitat suitability of arboreal rodents that are the primary prey items for spotted owls. After approximately 15 years, spotted owl habitat quality would increase as the treated stands respond to the thinning treatment and habitat quality for arboreal rodents improves thus increasing foraging opportunities for spotted owls.
Regeneration Harvest
Alternative 2 of the Panther Creek project proposes to regeneration harvest a total of approximately 395 acres of spotted owl habitat. Approximately 321 of these acres are currently in a condition to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat, and approximately 74 acres are foraging habitat (see Table 30). Post-harvest none of these acres proposed to be treated with a regeneration harvest would continue to function in their current capacity as dispersal or foraging habitat because only 5 to 15% of the pre-harvest basal area would be retained. Regeneration harvest units would be converted to a condition of “non-habitat” for spotted owls for an estimated period of approximately 40 years when it would then be in a condition to function as dispersal habitat, or approximately 80 years when it would then be in a condition to function as foraging habitat. The project design features to retain green trees (5 to 15% of the pre-harvest basal area) and CWD legacies (snags and down wood) within the
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 121 regeneration harvest treatment units would likely result in treatment units becoming better owl habitat sooner than if no green trees and CWD legacies were retained within the regeneration harvest units.
In addition to the 395 acres of habitat removal resulting from the proposed regeneration harvest, the project’s proposed regeneration harvest would also increase general fragmentation of the remaining forest habitat within the Analysis Area. This would generally decrease patch sizes and connectivity on the landscape, potentially adversely impacting the habitat value of the remaining forest habitats.
Coarse Woody Debris Provisions (Snags and Down Wood)
Coarse Woody Debris (both snags and down woody material) are crucial habitat components for spotted owls and their prey species. The Proposed Action includes design features to maintain snag and down wood habitat features on the landscape such as but not limited to, retaining all existing coarse woody debris, creating snags and felling trees in riparian areas associated with Riparian Reserve thinning treatments (see Project Design Features EA Section 2.7). These design features would help offset some of the adverse effects to the habitat of spotted owls and their prey species both in the near term and over time.
Post-harvest Spotted Owl Habitat within the Spotted Owl Analysis Area
The estimated acres of spotted owl habitat within the Panther Creek Spotted Owl Analysis Area (NSOAA), currently and post-harvest of the proposed Panther Creek timber management treatments are displayed on Table 32.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 122 Table 32: Estimated Acres of Spotted Owl Habitat within the Panther Creek Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area (NSOAA), currently and post-harvest of the proposed Panther Creek timber management treatments (Alternative 2)
Owner Current Non- Current Current Current Current Post- Post- Post- Post-harvest Post-harvest Totals habitat non- Non- Dispersal Foraging Nesting harvest harvest harvest Foraging Nesting or forest 1 (% of habitat Habitat 3 Habitat 4 or Non- Non- Dispersal Habitat 4 Roosting (% of NSOAA) Forest 2 (% Roosting habitat habitat Habitat 3 Habitat 5 NSOAA) of NSOAA) ( % of (% of Habitat 5 non-forest (% of NSOAA) NSOAA) 1 (% of Forest 2 (% of NSOAA) (% of NSOAA) (% of NSOAA) (% of NSOAA) NSOAA) NSOA A)
BLM 15 451 2,857 586 652 15 843 2,536 6 512 652 4,561
(20.4%)
Non- 2,757 8,731 5,456 488 396 2,757 8,731 5,456 488 396 17,828 BLM (79.6%)
Total 2,772 (12.4%) 9,182 8,313 1,074 1,048 2,772 9,574 7,995 6 1,000 1,048 (4.7%) 22,389 Acres (41.0%) (37.1%) (4.8%) (4.7%) (12.4%) (100%) (42.8) (35.7%) (4.4%)
1 Acres of non-forestland within the Analysis Area (current land uses other than forest – i.e. reservoirs, agricultural or residential lands) 2 Acres of forestland within the Analysis Area less than 40-years-old 3 Acres of forestland within the Analysis Area generally greater than or equal to 40-years-old but less than 80-years-old, unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise. 4 Foraging Habitat; acres of forestland within the Analysis Area generally greater than or equal to 80-years-old but less than 110-years-old, unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise. 5 Nesting and Roosting Habitat; acres of forestland within the Analysis Area generally greater than or equal to 110-years-old, unless a site-specific habitat evaluation considering factors such as stand structure and size and/or the context of the surrounding landscape determines otherwise. 6 A total of 366 of these acres of dispersal habitat would have been treated with a thinning treatment (RR and HLB) and would be expected to continue to function as dispersal habitat, albeit in the short-term, (for an estimated 15 years) with a diminished habitat quality.
Impacts to Spotted Owl Known Sites
The Haskins Creek spotted owl site (historically also called the Panther Creek site or the Kutch-Panther site) is the only known spotted owl site within the Panther Creek Spotted Owl Analysis Area.
The current and post-harvest habitat condition of the Haskins Creek Spotted Owl Site’s Nest Patch, Core Area and Home Range are displayed on Table 33.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 123 Table 33: Current and Post-harvest habitat condition of the Haskins Creek Spotted Owl Site’s Nest Patch, Core Area and Home Range
Nest Patch Core Area Home Range
(70 acres; 300 meters, 984 (500 acres; 0.5 miles) (4,524 acres; 1.5 miles) feet) Threshold is 50% Suitable Threshold is 40% Suitable Threshold is 100% Suitable Habitat within the Core Habitat within the HR Habitat within the NP
Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Non Dispersal Suitable; Non Dispersal Suitable; Non Dispersal Suitable; habitat Habitat Foraging habitat Habitat Foraging habitat Habitat Foraging (%) or NR (%) or NR (%) or NR (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Current 9 34 27 138 212 152 2074 1833 614 Condition (12.9%) (48.6%) (38.6%) (27.6%) (42.4%) (30.4%) (45.8%) (40.5%) (13.6%) All Ownerships1
Proposed 0 26 0 0 77 0 0 188 0 Thinning2
Proposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 72 Regeneration Harvest
Post-Harvest 9 34 27 138 212 152 2074 1771 542 Condition (12.9%) (48.6%) (38.6%) (27.6%) (42.4%) (30.4%) (45.8%) (39.1%) (12.0%) All Ownerships1
1 Approximately 43% of NP is BLM ownership; 33% of the Core Area is BLM ownership; and 27% of HR is BLM ownership 2 Proposed thinning includes both Commercial Thinning within the Riparian Reserve LUA and Commercial Thinning within the Harvest Land Base LUA. Although short-term adverse impacts to NSO Dispersal Habitat resulting from thinning would be anticipated, post-harvest the thinned acres would be expected by the BLM to continue to function as dispersal habitat albeit with a diminished habitat quality for an estimated 15 years.
As shown on Table 33, the Haskins Creek owl site, currently has an estimated 13.6% suitable habitat within the 1.5 mile provincial median annual home range; the threshold is 40% suitable habitat within the home range. It has an estimated 30.4% suitable habitat within the 0.5 mile Core Area; the threshold is 40% suitable habitat within the Core Area. Within a 300 meter radius circle, representing a 70 acre Nest Patch, it has an estimated 27 acres of suitable habitat. Ideally, these areas would be close to or above thresholds which the literature indicates is necessary for successful reproduction (suitable habitat was approximately 40% or more in the home range and 50% or more in the core area with adequate habitat in the nest patch to support a nesting pair) (USDI USFWS and BLM, 2017). Based upon ownership patterns and past harvest operations, the ability of this site’s territory to support spotted owl occupancy, survival, and reproductive success has been most strongly influenced by recent
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 124 harvest operations occurring on non-federal land. Given, quantity and quality of existing habitat, the Haskins Creek owl site has a limited current ability to provide adequate suitable habitat and connectivity to support a viable spotted owl site.
Through the thinning of 26 acres of dispersal habitat within the Nest Patch, 77 acres within the Core Area and 188 acres within the Home Range; and the removal of 62 acres of dispersal habitat within the Home Range and 72 acres of foraging habitat within the Home Range, the proposed harvest activities would have an adverse effect on the amount and connectivity of habitat within the home range of the Haskins Creek spotted owl site. As discussed above, given the current habitat conditions present within the Haskins Creek owl site are already below the thresholds which the literature indicates is necessary for successful reproduction; the proposed action would further diminish the current limited ability of the site to provide suitable habitat and connectivity to support a viable spotted owl site into the future.
Potential for Disturbance
Implementation of the proposed timber management treatments would generate noises above the ambient noise level. Additionally, the project includes site preparation and fuels management which would entail the piling of logging slash either hand or with a machine. Approximately 95% of these piles would be treated with post- harvest pile burning, to prepare the site for underplanting and/or reduce fuels at the site. The interagency Level 1 Team (terrestrial subgroup) for the North Coast Planning Province has determined these proposed activities have a potential disturbance distance of 0.25 miles (use of chainsaws; heavy equipment for road construction, road repairs, culvert replacements and burning) if conducted during the spotted owl breeding season (March 1 to September 30).
In coordination with USFWS, to ensure no northern spotted owl incidental take (as defined by the ESA) results from the Panther Creek Project, in 2018 the BLM will be conducting six spotted owl survey visits to survey stations located within the 1.5 mile Home Range of the Haskins Creek Owl site; additionally per the survey protocol (USDI USFWS 2012a), three spotted owl spot check survey visits will be conducted at survey stations within the areas surveyed for spotted owls in support of the Panther Creek Area that are located outside the 1.5 mile Home Range.
Because of the fact that the Panther Creek Project including all habitat within its spotted owl survey area (within 1.5 mile of the treatment units) where protocol surveys may elicit a response from a resident owl or pair of owls (i.e., nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat) has been and will continue to surveyed for spotted owls per the survey protocol and found to be unoccupied by spotted owls, no disruption or disturbance impacts to spotted owls as a result of the Panther Creek timber management treatments would be anticipated. If any active northern spotted owl sites are discovered, the BLM would immediately coordinate with the USFWS to ensure there would be no take as defined within the ESA. During this coordination, if the project were determined to cause take to such a site, the project would be manipulated as necessary.
In addition to timber management treatments and other activities including the use of chainsaws, heavy equipment for road construction, road repairs, culvert replacements and pile burning discussed above, the Panther Creek Project also includes interdependent rock sourcing activities necessary to supply rock for project implementation including blasting, rock crushing, rock loading, and rock hauling. Four existing rock quarries have been identified as potential rock source sites for use during project implementation, which include East Line Quarry (T4S., R7W section 1) and Cedar Creek Quarry (T. 3 S., R. 6 W., section 5) both located on BLM administered lands within the Nestucca River watershed; and two quarries located on Weyerhaeuser owned land (T. 3 S., R. 6 W., section 34). The interagency Level 1 Team (terrestrial subgroup) for the North Coast Planning Province has determined blasting has a potential disturbance distance of 1.0 mile if conducted during the spotted owl breeding season (March 1 to September 30) and a potential disruption distance of 0.25 miles during the critical breeding season (March 1 to July 7) and 100 yards during the late breeding season (July 8 to September 30). Rock crushing has a potential disturbance distance of 0.25 miles if conducted during the spotted owl breeding season (March 1 to September 30) and a potential disruption distance of 120 yards during the critical breeding season
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 125 (March 1 to July 7). Considering these disturbance/disruption distances and based upon the presence and/or location of unsurveyed spotted owl habitat relative to the various quarries, as well as concerns for the marbled murrelet, project design features relative to the use of these quarries have been incorporated where beneficial to help minimize potential impacts. All spotted owl habitat within the 1.0 mile disturbance distance of the Weyerhaeuser’s Eastern and Western Quarries will be surveyed to protocol by August 31, 2019; there would be no potential for spotted owl disturbance or disruption as a result of using these two quarries. There is no spotted owl habitat within the 0.25 mile disruption distance of the Cedar Creek Quarry so there would no potential for spotted owl disruption as a result of using this quarry however there is unsurveyed spotted owl habitat within the 1.0 mile disturbance distance for blasting so there would be a potential of disturbance during the breeding season. At the East Line Quarry there would be no blasting during the entire spotted owl breeding seasons (March 1 - September 30) and no rock crushing from March 1-August 5; there would be potential for disturbance resulting from rock crushing during the late spotted owl breeding season. This potential for disturbance impacts resulting from the interdependent rock sourcing activities are considered to be minor; spotted owls, if present, may be distracted from their normal activity but the disturbance resulting from the rock sourcing activities would not create a likelihood of injury or loss of reproduction.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy Stands 68-78 Years Old
Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within three units which total 111 acres; under Alternative 3 these three units (19-2, 29-1 and 33-2) would be commercially thinned rather than regeneration harvested as under Alternative 2. Being less than 80-years-old, these three units were determined to be providing spotted owl dispersal habitat. Additionally, Alternative 3 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: the decommissioning of 0.7 miles of newly constructed natural surface road that would be fully decommissioned under Alternative 2; a reduction of 113 acres of site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and a reduction in 111 acres of reforestation activities. The BLM would expect all other impacts to spotted owls and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 3 to be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 includes an approximate 28% reduction in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (284 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 395 acres under Alternative 2); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 3 to be correspondingly and proportionally reduced from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 3 includes an approximate 35% increase in the amount of commercial thinning from that within Alternative 2 (446 total acres under Alternative 3, compared to 335 acres under Alternative 2); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 3 would be expected to be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those described for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 3, a total of 111 acres within units 19-2, 29-1 and 33-2 would receive a commercial thinning treatment rather than a regeneration harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. Rather than being removed from a condition to function as spotted owl habitat for a period of approximately 40 years as described resulting from regeneration harvest, the spotted owl dispersal habitat within these three treatment units would be adversely affected by commercial thinning. Under the commercial thinning of Alternative 3, post-harvest these acres would be expected to continue to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat albeit with some short-term adverse impacts resulting from the commercial thinning operation; the impacts resulting from thinning upon spotted owl dispersal habitat are discussed within the analysis of Alternative 2.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy 68-78 Years Old Stands
Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 2 by the types of treatments proposed within seven units which total 98 acres; under Alternative 4 these seven units (17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3) would be regeneration harvested rather than commercially thinned as under Alternative 2. Being less than 80-years-old, these seven units were determined by the BLM to be providing spotted owl dispersal habitat. Additionally, Alternative 4 would differ from Alternative 2 in several connected actions, which would include: an increase of XXX acres of
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 126 site preparation and fuels reduction activities; and an increase of 98 acres of reforestation activities. All other impacts to spotted owls and their habitats resulting from the various components of Alternative 4 would be expected by the BLM to be the same as those described in the impacts analysis for Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 26% increase in the total amount of regeneration harvest from that in Alternative 2 (395 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 493 acres under Alternative 4); The BLM would expect those adverse impacts resulting from regeneration harvest under Alternative 4 (including connected actions such as site preparation and fuels reduction activities) to be correspondingly and proportionally increased from those identified impacts described for Alternative 2. Alternatively, Alternative 4 would result in an approximate 28% decrease in the amount of commercial thinning from those identified impacts described Alternative 2 (335 total acres under Alternative 2, compared to 237 acres under Alternative); the BLM would expect those impacts resulting from commercial thinning under Alternative 4 to be correspondingly and proportionally decreased from those described for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 4, a total of 98 acres within units 17-3, 17-4, 17-6, 19-3, 23-1, 24-1 and 29-3 would receive a regeneration harvest treatment rather than a commercial harvest treatment as under Alternative 2. Regeneration harvest treatment as proposed under Alternative 4 would result in the 98 acres within these units being removed to a condition of spotted owl non-habitat for a period of approximately 40 years; the impacts resulting from regeneration harvest upon spotted owl habitat are discussed within the analysis of Alternative 2.
3.3.4.6 Cumulative Effects
Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable BLM Actions
The only past, present, or reasonably foreseeable BLM Action identified within the Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area, with potential of impacting spotted owl habitat is the (past) Baker Creek Density Management and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project (the Baker Creek Project). The Baker Creek Project included a total of 647 acres of density management thinning, and 298 acres of snag and down wood creation. Approximately 326 acres of the Baker Creek density management units are located within the Panther Creek Northern Spotted Owl Analysis Area in T. 3 S., R. 5 W., Sections 29, 33 and 33; T.3S., R.6W., Sections 25, 35 and 36; and T.4S., R.6W., Section 1, which were thinned in 2007. At the time of treatment, these stands were considered to be dispersal habitat for spotted owl voles (41-62 years old); maintaining a canopy cover of greater than 40%; post- treatment all of these acres continued to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat. In addition to density management treatments, snag and down wood creation occurred on 209 acres within the General Wildlife Analysis Area in T.3S., R.5W., Sections 17, 19, 31 and 33 and T.3S., R6W., Sections 13, 23, 24 and 25. Of the 209 total acres, 24 acres are proposed for treatment under the Panther Creek project while 185 acres are stands adjacent to or near those currently proposed for treatment.
BLM assumes that the 326 acres of the Baker Creek project’s density management thinning within the Analysis Area had similar impacts on dispersal habitat as those described as a result of the Commercial Thinning proposed as a part of the Panther Creek Project and included in this analysis. This includes the short-term adverse impacts (approximately the first 15 years after thinning) to spotted owl dispersal habitat, with the adverse impacts being most extreme during and directly after harvest, and the effects ameliorating through time as the retained trees respond the thinning treatments and the canopy cover increases as crowns expand. After approximately 15 years, spotted owl habitat quality would increase as the treated stands respond to the thinning treatment and habitat quality for arboreal rodents improves thus increasing foraging opportunities for spotted owls. Given the harvest of the Baker Creek project was conducted in about 2007 or shortly thereafter, the current adverse impacts of the Baker Creek project upon spotted owl habitat conditions with the Analysis Area are considered to be negligible.
The vast majority of the 326 acres of the Baker Creek project’s density management thinning within the Analysis Area is located within the Harvest Land Base LUA. Given the current management objectives of the Harvest Land Base LUA, future silvicultural treatment proposals within these areas would include those to produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity which could likely include Regeneration
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 127 Harvests at various points in the future. Any long-term beneficial impacts of past thinning projects within the Harvest Land Base LUA upon the development of future spotted owl habitat, and/or the length of time these benefits would be realized, would be speculative due to the management objectives for this LUA. Because any benefits of the thinning would be speculative due to the management objectives for this LUA, the future impacts of the Baker Creek project upon spotted owl habitat conditions are assumed by the BLM to be negligible within the Analysis Area.
That portion of the Baker Creek project that involved Wildlife Habitat Enhancement (down wood and snag creation), resulted in potential beneficial impacts to the quality of spotted owl habitat currently within the Analysis Area. These potential beneficial impacts to spotted owl habitat would be expected by the BLM to continue to last for a number of decades.
Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable non-BLM Actions
As described in the Assumptions Regarding Non-Federal Land Management within the Panther Creek General Wildlife Analysis Area Section above, almost all non-federal lands within the Spotted Owl Analysis Area are managed for forest production. BLM assumes that on the vast majority of the industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies, would continue to timber harvest on a 40- 50 year rotation following Oregon State Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules. Within the Analysis Area, there currently is an estimated total of 6,340 acres spotted owl habitat on non-BLM land; approximately 5,456 acres (86%) of this is dispersal habitat, approximately 488 acres (8%) is foraging habitat, and approximately 396 acres (6%) is nesting or roosting higher quality suitable habitat (Table 29).
Cumulative Effects to Habitat: Conclusion
The enduring adverse impacts of that portion of the BLM’s past Baker Creek project that involved Density Management within the Analysis Area, upon spotted owl habitat are assumed by the BLM to be currently contributing negligible adverse impacts to spotted owl habitat conditions. The BLM expects the beneficial impacts to the quality of spotted owl habitat currently within the Analysis Area resulting from that portion of the BLM’s Baker Creek project that involved down wood and snag creation to last for a number of additional decades. The vast majority of the industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies, would continue to timber harvest on a 40-50 year rotation.
Cumulative effects to northern spotted owls as a result of implementing the Proposed Action have been identified. These cumulative impacts include impacts to spotted owl habitat as a result of the harvest proposed by the Panther Creek project and the assumed harvest levels on industrial timberlands and timberlands owned by private individuals or smaller private companies.
The project’s acres of proposed treatment are consistent with the modelled outputs resulting from the analysis conducted for the 2016 BLM RMP (2016 NCO ROD/RMP Table B-1, p. 132); because of this, the cumulative impacts of the proposed Panther Creek project upon Northern Spotted Owls and their habitats including Designated Critical Habitat would be within those disclosed in the FEIS for the 2016 BLM RMP.
Cumulative Effects to Spotted Owls as a Result of Disruption or Disturbance
Because the proposed timber management treatments would have no impacts upon spotted owls as a result of disruption or disturbance, there would be no disruption or disturbance cumulative effects as a result of the proposed timber management treatments. Although there would be no potential for disruption to spotted owls resulting from the interdependent rock sourcing activities conducted at existing rock quarries identified as potential rock source sites, there would be the potential for disturbance during the late (non-critical) breeding season resulting from rock crushing at BLM’s East Line Quarry and as a result of blast during the entire breeding season at Cedar Creek Quarry. This potential for disturbance impacts (including cumulative impacts) resulting from the interdependent rock sourcing activities are considered to be minor; spotted owls, if present, may be
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 128 distracted from their normal activity but the disturbance resulting from the rock sourcing activities would not create a likelihood of injury or loss of reproduction.
3.4 Hydrology
3.4.1 Issue 10: What effect would sediment generated by road construction, renovation, and improvement, and haul, including all-season haul, have on meeting state Water Quality Standards for in- stream fine sediment and turbidity, including within public water supply source water areas?
3.4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Roads can deliver up to 90% of the total sediment production from forestry activities. Sediment sources from roads are described in more detail in the 2008 FEIS, which is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM, 2008, pp. 343-346). ● The distance that sediment travels along roadways depends upon a number of factors, including the underlying geology, age of road since construction, road gradient, road drainage, and ground cover. Sediment yields from older roads with undisturbed ditches are much smaller than sediment yields from newer roads or roads with disturbed ditches. Maintenance of ditch lines can increase sediment yields, but grading gravel roads does not by itself substantially increase sediment delivery to streams (Luce & Black, 2001). ● Vegetative cover and surface roughness on cut and fill slopes and in ditchlines decrease the basic erosion rate for road erodibility. ● Road tread surfacing affects the basic erosion rate for road erodibility. For this analysis, sediment delivery from paved roads was not estimated because the action alternatives would not affect sediment delivery from paved roads. ● Road traffic and wet weather haul on natural and gravel surfaced roads increases the basic erosion rate for road erodibility. Reid and Dunne (1984) and Foltz (1996) found that sediment generation on roads with heavy log truck traffic was many times higher than on roads without heavy traffic. The generation and delivery of fine sediment may be dependent on many factors including the quality of aggregate used (Foltz, 1996), traffic level (Bilby, 1985; Bilby, Sullivan, & Duncan, 1989), 3-day total precipitation, and the length of ditch draining to a stream crossing (Mills, Dent, & Robben, 2003). Only 15% of the stream crossings sampled by Mills, Dent, & Robben (2003) showed a significant increase in turbidity during wet season haul, illustrating that not all wet season haul route crossings contribute to increased turbidity, but increased turbidity is dependent on road condition and design as well as antecedent conditions (e.g., how much rainfall occurred prior to haul). ● The road drainage system design affects sediment delivery to streams, which includes the road prism shape, proximity of the road to the stream channel, and length of road draining directly to a stream at crossings. ● The application of BMPs can substantially reduce sediment delivery from roads. The 2016 FEIS contains a discussion on the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs and is incorporated by reference (USDI BLM, 2016, pp. 403-405). ● Roads near ridges have little direct effect on sediment delivery to streams. ● Road segments that have stream connection pathways such as roadside ditches have potential to deliver road surface sediment to streams (Jones, Swanson, Wemple, & Snyder, 2000). Road segments not connected to streams by ditch lines or gullies or having more than 25 to 100 feet of filtering forest floor duff and vegetation between them and a stream are usually not at risk of delivering sediment to streams (Western Watershed Analysts, 1999). Concentrated sources of sediment are effectively filtered by somewhat wider buffers (200 feet). Field observations of project area roads by BLM staff indicate that sediment travel distance within the project area is generally 25 feet or less with a few instances of sediment travelling up to 50 feet. ● Below culverts, sediment travel distance in streams decreases with increasing roughness, such as debris and obstructions (Brake, Molnau, & King, August 10-14, 1997).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 129 ● In 1st and 2nd order (i.e., headwater) streams, fluvial transport accounts for about a third of long-term sediment transport with other mechanisms, such as episodic debris flows, making up the remainder. Due to limited stream flow, high surface roughness, and other factors, 70 to 80% of fine sediment is stored in headwater streams between episodic events (Benda, Hassan, Church, & May, 2005). ● The replacement of stream crossing culverts delivers fine sediment to streams. Foltz, Yanosek, & Brown (2008) found that less than 0.1 yd3 of sediment was generated by the removal of culverts in Idaho and Washington. Turbidity was highest immediately below the stream crossing, decreased by an order of magnitude within several hundred feet, and returned to background levels within a half mile. However, given the difference in the nature of streamflow and geology between the study areas and our project area and the difference in the nature of projects, our best professional judgment is that culvert replacements on smaller, non-fish-bearing streams would produce up to 0.25 yd3 of sediment per culvert but that turbidity would return to background levels within several hundred feet. In order to provide a margin of safety, the BLM assumes that turbidity would return to background levels within 1,000 feet. ● Median annual sediment yield in the Willamette River Basin (including the Panther and Baker Creek 6th field subwatersheds) is approximately 0.07 yd3 per acre (Wise & O'Connor, 2016). Median annual sediment yield in the Northern Oregon Coastal Drainages (including the Headwaters Nestucca and Elk Creek-Nestucca River 6th field subwatersheds) is about 0.15 yd3 per acre. Sediment yields are partly tied to the characteristics of the underlying ecoregion including geologic parent material and precipitation rates.
3.4.1.2 Analytical Methodologies
● Identify all proposed haul route roads by surface type and maintenance level within a 200-foot sediment delivery distance to streams. This includes outsloped roads with diffuse drainage within 25 feet of a stream, as well as, roads that drain to a discrete point within 200 feet of a stream (e.g., stream crossing, ditch relief culvert, lead off ditch, etc.). ● Use the GRAIP-Lite Modeling Protocol as Adjusted for the Panther Creek Timber Management Project (2017) to estimate sediment delivery from the road network to streams under the alternatives.
3.4.1.3 Geographical and Temporal Scales
The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to turbidity and fine sediment consists of catchments within the four 6th field subwatersheds (Baker Creek, Panther Creek, Elk Creek-Nestucca River, and Headwaters Nestucca River) that contain substantial portions of proposed natural and gravel surfaced haul routes (Table 34).14 There would be no measurable change to in-stream fine sediment or turbidity from road-related project activities beyond the boundaries of these subwatersheds. Although some road work and hauling would occur within the boundaries of the Haskins and Upper Willamina Creek 6th field subwatersheds, the limited extent of road-related activities and width of vegetated stream buffers would prevent measurable effects to in-stream fine sediment or turbidity in these subwatersheds. As such, this issue will not be analyzed in detail within these subwatersheds.
Short-term effects to in-stream fine sediment and turbidity would be greatest during culvert replacement activities and hauling, when road-related sediment is being generated. Therefore, the short-term timeframe for analysis is the temporal extent of these activities. Within 2 years of the completion of all road work, in-stream fine sediment would return to pre-project levels. As such, the long-term timeframe for analysis of this issue is 2 years after the completion of all road work.
14 In the case of the Elk Creek-Nestucca River subwatershed, the 2.7-mile gravel surfaced section of the Nestucca Access Road is scheduled to be paved prior to implementation of the Action Alternative. However, the following analysis will also analyze the effects to water quality from project-related activities under the current, gravel-surfaced condition.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 130 3.4.1.4 Affected Environment
Sediment occurs naturally in stream systems and is an important component of channel substrate. Turbidity (an indirect measure of sediment suspended in the water column) in streams is also natural and tends to be extremely low during the summer dry season and relatively high during the first few fall/winter storms (i.e., beginning of the wet season), returning to a clear condition between substantial rain events during the wet season.
However, excessive sediment in streams simplifies habitat by filling in pools and embedding rougher substrates (filling in the interstitial spaces between pieces of gravel), which has important biological and ecological consequences. Sedimentation can reduce stream habitat variability which reduces aquatic animal productivity and species diversity. Upstream reaches with excessive sediment become sediment source areas for downstream reaches.
Oregon has developed state Water Quality Standards for turbidity and in-stream fine sediment in order to protect the beneficial uses of the State’s water. Within the analysis area, the most sensitive beneficial uses include cold- water aquatic life (including salmonid spawning and rearing), drinking water (water supply), and water contact recreation (ODEQ, 2005). Oregon’s standard for turbidity states that activities other than limited-duration, essential activities may not result in more than a 10% increase in turbidity above background levels. No numeric thresholds for in-stream fine sediment have been developed; however, narrative criteria prohibits the formation of bottom deposits that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life.
Within the analysis area, several waterbodies are listed by the ODEQ as water quality limited due to sediment (ODEQ, 2014). Panther Creek is listed as water quality limited for turbidity, and parts of the Nestucca River are listed as water quality limited for sedimentation.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has not established a Total Maximum Daily Load for sediment in Panther Creek to date. Panther Creek from Carlton Reservoir to the headwaters was listed for high turbidity, and turbidity has resulted in numerous shutdowns to the City of Carlton’s public water supply (ODEQ, 2014). Although Panther Creek has not been inventoried for aquatic habitat conditions, other streams in the North Yamhill (Fairchild and Coast Creeks) and Willamina Creek watersheds (Willamina Creek) have been inventoried and exceed the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife’s (ODFW) benchmark of <20% fine sediment in riffles. In 2002, ODEQ established a Total Maximum Daily Load for the Nestucca River watershed for fine sediment (ODEQ, 2002). The Nestucca River from Powder Creek to its headwaters was listed for excessive fine sediment, with the goal of keeping streambed area fines in riffle and glide reaches below 20%. Sediment targets are to be achieved through establishment of system potential riparian vegetation and channel morphology. While not all streams within the Nestucca River watershed have excessive fine sediment, the Total Maximum Daily Load applies to all waterbodies within the watershed and affects all streams within the Elk Creek-Nestucca River and Headwaters Nestucca River 6th field subwatersheds. Recent stream habitat data collected in the upper Nestucca River watershed indicates that the average percentage of in-stream fines in riffles and glides meets the goal of the Total Maximum Daily Load (Mico & Mico, 2007; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2002).
The Proposed Action would utilize about 45 miles of gravel and natural surfaced roads with approximately 70 stream crossings. Approximately, 20% would be of perennial streams with the remainder being intermittent. Using the GRAIP-Lite model, we estimate that under current low-traffic conditions, these roads deliver approximately 7.4 yd3 of fine sediment to streams per year – 4.4 yd3 of which is stored in headwater streams and reservoirs and 3.0 yd3 of which is transported through the stream network. Table 34 shows modeled sediment delivery to streams and transport through streams from the proposed haul roads under baseline conditions by catchment and presents the percentage of estimated total sediment transport through the catchment that this comprises.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 131 Table 34: Modeled Sediment Delivery to Streams for Proposed Haul Routes under Baseline Conditions.
Ratio of Baseline Sediment Estimated Sediment Baseline Transport from Mean Transport Sediment Proposed Haul Sediment from Subwatershed/Catchment Delivery from Routes to Mean Delivery at Proposed Name Proposed Haul Sediment Catchment Haul Routes (yd3 per Delivery at Mouth from Routes to year) Catchment All Sources Catchment Mouth from All Mouth Sources
Baker Creek 1,215 yd3/yr 1.5 yd3/yr 0.1 yd3/yr <0.1%
Upper Baker Creek 256 yd3/yr 0.1 yd3/yr <0.1 yd3/yr <0.1%
Headwaters Baker Creek 267 yd3/yr 1.3 yd3/yr <0.1 yd3/yr <0.1%
Rainbow Lake (within 208 yd3/yr 1.2 yd3/yr 0.4 yd3/yr 0.2% Headwaters Baker Creek)
Berry Creek 255 yd3/yr 0.1 yd3/yr <0.1 yd3/yr <0.1%
Elk Creek – Nestucca River1 1,756 yd3/yr 0.1 yd3/yr <0.1 yd3/yr <0.1%
Cabinet Creek – Fan Creek – 786 yd3/yr 0.1 yd3/yr <0.1 yd3/yr <0.1% Nestucca River1
Headwaters Nestucca River 1,890 yd3/yr 1.0 yd3/yr 0.4 yd3/yr <0.1%
Cedar Creek – Nestucca River 503 yd3/yr 0.5 yd3/yr 0.4 yd3/yr 0.1%
Ginger Creek – Nestucca River 405 yd3/yr <0.1 yd3/yr <0.1 yd3/yr <0.1%
Headwaters Nestucca River 306 yd3/yr 0.4 yd3/yr 0.0 yd3/yr 0.0%
McGuire Reservoir (within 285 yd3/yr 0.4 yd3/yr 0.2 yd3/yr 0.1% Headwaters Nestucca River)
Panther Creek 1,214 yd3/yr 4.3 yd3/yr 2.4 yd3/yr 0.2%
Middle Panther Creek 487 yd3/yr 1.8 yd3/yr 1.2 yd3/yr 0.2%
Upper Panther Creek 310 yd3/yr 3.0 yd3/yr 1.2 yd3/yr 0.4%
Carlton Reservoir (within 147 yd3/yr 0.3 yd3/yr 0.1 yd3/yr 0.1% Upper Panther Creek)
1 Assumes that the gravel portion of the Nestucca Access Road will be paved before project implementation. If it were still gravel surfaced at the time of project implementation, the baseline sediment delivery would be 0.5 yd3 per year.
Rock placement and grading occur infrequently on the proposed gravel surfaced haul roads, with ditch cleaning occurring on a limited basis at locations where a cut slope has failed and slid into the ditch.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 132 The BLM has identified approximately 28 stream crossing culverts that are undersized or in fair to poor condition. Undersized and improperly sited stream crossing culverts erode stream banks, incise channels downstream, deliver sediment to streams at elevated rates, and are at an increased risk of plugging or failing during high flows.
A large proportion of the road network is hydrologically connected to streams because it lacks a sufficient number of ditch relief culverts, contributing fine sediment directly to streams. Poor spacing between ditch relief culverts contributes to high flow rates in ditches – promoting ditch erosion and delivery of fine sediment to streams.
A portion of the project area falls within the City of Carlton’s Drinking Water Protection Area. The Drinking Water Protection Area consists of the Panther Creek subwatershed upstream of the intake on Panther Creek at Carlton Reservoir and encompasses an area of approximately 2,100 acres (ODEQ; Oregon Health Division, 2000a). Much of this area is considered sensitive because of its high soil erosion potential or location within 1,000 feet of streams.
In February 1999, after a series of prolonged rainfall events, a natural slump-earthflow landslide occurred on BLM-administered land in T3S-R5W-S19. The toe of the slide settled directly above Panther Creek and Carlton Reservoir. Over time, heavy loads of sediment were transported by a small intermittent stream flowing through the slide, which emptied into Panther Creek. High and persistent turbidity levels were then carried downstream into Carlton Reservoir, resulting in turbidity levels in the Reservoir which were above the capabilities of the City’s filtration system to treat and depositing enough sediment to severely reduce the capacity of the Reservoir (Worrel, 1999).
A small portion of the project area falls within the portion of the City of McMinnville’s Drinking Water Protection Area that lies in the Nestucca River watershed. The Drinking Water Protection Area consists of the 1,900 acres of the Nestucca River watershed upstream of the intake at McGuire Reservoir (ODEQ; Oregon Health Division, 2000b). Much of this area is considered sensitive because of its high soil erosion potential, high permeability, high runoff potential, or location within 1,000 feet of streams.
Carlton Reservoir on Panther Creek acts as a sediment sink for sediment generated higher in the stream network and reduces sediment delivery to the lower reaches of Panther Creek. McGuire Reservoir and Rainbow Lake on the Nestucca River and Baker Creek, respectively, likewise reduce potential sediment transport to the lower reaches of their stream networks.
Using modeling research by Wise & O’Connor (2016), we estimated the amount of sediment delivered to the mouth of each 7th field catchment on an annual basis in order to provide context for the following analysis (Table 34).
3.4.1.5 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no road construction or improvement/renovation of existing roads, replacement of stream crossing culverts, installation of new ditch relief culverts, haul associated with proposed treatments, or increase in road maintenance on proposed haul routes at this time; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to turbidity or in-stream fine sediment. Sediment delivery from undersized, failing, or improperly sited stream crossing culverts and road segments connected to the stream network due to a lack of ditch relief culverts would continue to occur as described in the Affected Environment.
The proposed gravel surfaced haul routes would continue to contribute fine sediment to streams at their current rates. Table 34 shows the baseline sediment delivery and transport from proposed haul route roads that would continue to occur under the No Action Alternative.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 133 Road maintenance activities such as rock placement, grading, and ditch cleaning and shaping would continue to occur along the proposed gravel surfaced haul routes on an as-needed basis. The delivery of fine sediment from road maintenance activities would continue at current rates.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Construction of New Temporary and Permanent Roads
Under the Proposed Action, the construction of new roads would not have effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment. Soil-disturbing construction activities would occur during the dry season. No new stream crossings would be installed, and most new roads would be built along ridgetops and at least 200 feet from streams.
With the use of road construction and design PDFs and BMPs including locating roads on stable slopes and away from the Riparian Reserve, when possible (BMPs R 01, 03); placing seasonal restrictions on construction activities (BMP R 62); suspending activities when forecasted rain has the potential to cause sediment delivery to streams (BMP R 66); end hauling excavated material to stable locations outside the Riparian Reserve (BMPs R 08, 11); designing proper drainage features (BMPs R 10, 30-47); and using sediment control measures to reduce sediment delivery to streams (BMPs R 13, 63-65), these buffer widths would be sufficient to prevent road construction-related sediment from entering streams.
Upon completion of operations, all new temporary roads would be fully decommissioned (BMP R 83). This would include a combination of ripping to break up soil compaction (BMP R 91), waterbarring (BMP R 82), blocking to eliminate vehicle access (BMP R 84), and planting, as needed. Over time, the hydrologic function of these areas would return to that found in the surrounding stand. The new permanent roads within the Riparian Reserve would be placed in long-term storage, which entails removing culverts, waterbarring, and blocking to eliminate vehicle access.
Due to their location on the landscape, their distance from streams, their post-project status (as decommissioned or in long-term storage), and the incorporation of PDFs and BMPs in road design and construction, the construction of new roads would not measurably affect turbidity or in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater.
Renovation, Improvement, and Maintenance of Existing Roads
Under the Proposed Action, the renovation and improvement of existing roads and maintenance activities associated with increased truck traffic on gravel surfaced haul routes would result in indirect effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment that would last less than 24 hours after the storm event following the activity and would occur primarily at the beginning of the wet season. These activities include grading near stream crossings and ditch shaping and cleaning. The use of PDFs and BMPs including limiting most road renovation and improvement activities to the dry season or other extended periods of dry weather (BMP R 62), implementing sediment control measures and requiring their frequent maintenance (BMPs R 13, 63-65), suspending activities when conditions make sediment delivery likely (BMP R 66), and limiting ditch cleaning to those that are no longer functional (BMPs R 70, 71) would reduce sediment delivery to streams from road renovation and improvement activities.
Road maintenance would occur on portions of 45 miles of roads. Rock placement and grading would be likely to occur one to two times during the implementation period of the Proposed Action, with ditch cleaning continuing to occur on a limited basis. Most road maintenance activities would occur during dry conditions. The placement and grading of spot rock, localized ditch cleaning associated with unstable cut banks, cleaning of sediment catch basins, and other similar activities would be allowed on a case-by-case basis during the wet season on all-season haul routes with implementation of the PDFs above.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 134 For road renovation, improvement, and maintenance activities, the use of the PDFs and BMPs discussed above would reduce effects to water quality, and these activities under the Proposed Action would not result in a measurable increase in turbidity or in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater.
Replacement of Stream Crossing Culverts
Under the Proposed Action, the replacement of stream crossing culverts would result in direct effects to turbidity and fine sediment. This would result in the deposition of sediment within the channel and the disturbance of stream banks. The use of PDFs and BMPs, including restricting work to the ODFW-defined in-stream work window (BMPs R 48, 49), diverting streamflow around work areas (BMP R 23), slowly rewatering work areas, and stabilizing and seeding disturbed soils (BMPs R 13, 63-65) would reduce the amount of sediment and disturbance and their associated impacts to water quality.
For perennial streams, most turbidity would occur immediately after rewatering but would be expected by the BLM to return to background levels within 24 hours (Foltz, Westfall, & Kopyscianski, 2013; Foltz, Yanosek, & Brown, 2008). Turbidity would be elevated for several hundred feet but would completely return to background levels within 1,000 feet. Some sediment deposition would likely occur along the margins of the active channel and in pools, but this material would start to be remobilized and flushed from the system during the beginning of the wet season, with project-related sediment being completely removed within 1-2 years. For intermittent streams, the sediment generated by culvert replacement activities would be stored in the channel near the crossing until the beginning of the wet season, when the majority of natural sediment transport occurs (Bilby, Sullivan, & Duncan, 1989). Due to naturally high sediment transport at this time of year, any increase would not be measurable.
Most stream crossing culvert replacements would occur on headwaters streams, which can store up to 70 to 80% of the delivered sediment (Bilby, Sullivan, & Duncan, 1989; Benda & Dunne, 1987; May & Gresswell, 2003b).
Culvert replacements in individual 7th field catchments would produce from 0.3 to 4.0 yd3 of sediment per catchment. About two-thirds of this sediment would be stored in headwater stream channels and reservoirs and only one-third would contribute fine sediment to downstream reaches. Put in perspective, this represents an increase of no more than 0.7% for all catchments compared to the total amount of sediment generated by all sources in these catchments on an annual basis. The replacement of stream crossing culverts above Carlton and McGuire Reservoirs would deliver fine sediment to these waterbodies. 0.2 yd3 of fine sediment would be delivered to Carlton Reservoir and <0.1 yd3 would be delivered to McGuire Reservoir, representing a 0.1% increase over the baseline condition for the reservoir catchments.
The proper placement and sizing of culverts (BMPs R 16, 18, 21) would decrease long-term channel erosion and improve transport of large woody material and bedload.
Due to the fact that culvert replacements would be distributed across a large geographic area; the majority of sediment would be stored in headwater streams; that new stream crossing culverts would be better able to facilitate flood flows and the movement of large woody material and bedload; that new stream crossing culverts would reduce chronic sediment delivery; and that the implementation of PDFs and BMPs would reduce erosion and sediment delivery to streams during culvert replacement activities, the replacement of stream crossing culverts under the Proposed Action would meet state Water Quality Standards for turbidity and in-stream fine sediment. Localized increases in turbidity and in-stream fine sediment would be short-term (24 hours for turbidity and from several months to 2 years for in-stream fine sediment) and would not be measurable beyond the stream reach scale. A long-term, though unmeasurable, reduction in turbidity and in-stream fine sediment would occur at the catchment scale.
Installation of New Ditch Relief Culverts and Asphalt Paving
The BLM would install approximately 100 new ditch relief culverts. The installation of new ditch relief culverts under the Proposed Action would result in indirect effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment by
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 135 disconnecting road segments from the stream network. Sediment modeling using GRAIP-Lite estimated that the installation of additional culverts would reduce long-term sediment delivery from the proposed haul route to streams by <0.1 to 1.4 yd3 per 7th field catchment per year. Put in perspective, this represents a reduction in sediment of <0.1 to 0.2% compared to the total amount of sediment generated by all sources in these catchments on an annual basis. The installation of 3 ditch relief culverts and a sediment catch basin on Rex Brown Road would have the single largest impact and reduce chronic sediment delivery to Panther Creek at the bridge location by 0.8 yd3 per year (92%). Similarly, paving the bridge approaches on Von Road at Panther Creek would reduce chronic sediment delivery at that location by 0.1 yd3 per year (58%). The installation of additional culverts under the Proposed Action would result in a non-measurable, long-term reduction in turbidity and in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater.
Haul on Natural Surface and Gravel Surfaced Roads
Increased truck traffic associated with timber haul under the Proposed Action would result in direct effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment along gravel surfaced haul routes. Effects to streams adjacent to or crossing dry or extended dry season routes would generally occur at the beginning of the wet season. Effects to streams adjacent to or crossing all-season routes would primarily occur at the beginning of the wet season but would continue throughout the remainder of the wet season.
Under the Proposed Action, increased traffic on gravel surfaced haul routes would increase sediment delivery by <0.1 to 0.3 yd3 per 7th field catchment within most catchments during the implementation period (Table 35). Due to the high retention of sediment in headwater streams and reservoirs, sediment transport through the stream network would increase by <0.1 to 0.2 yd3 per catchment in most catchments. Put in perspective, these sediment transport amounts represent an increase of less than 0.1% in most catchments compared to the transport of sediment from all sources in each catchment. Less than 0.1 yd3 of fine sediment caused by increased traffic above Carlton and McGuire Reservoirs would be delivered and captured by the reservoirs.
Table 35: Comparison of Modeled Sediment Delivery and Transport to Streams under Haul Conditions under the Proposed Action.1
Proposed Action – Proposed Action – Ratio Proposed Action – Change in of Increased Sediment Subwatershed/ Catchment Change in Sediment Transport from Haul to Name Sediment Delivery Transport to Sediment Transport at During Haul2 Catchment Mouth Catchment Mouth from During Haul2 All Sources2
Baker Creek 0.5 yd3 (33%) 0.1 yd3 (90%) <0.1%
Upper Baker Creek 0.1 yd3 (193%) 0.1 yd3 (197%) <0.1%
Headwaters Baker Creek 0.2 yd3 (17%) -0.1 yd3 (-10%) 0.0%
Rainbow Lake (within 0.2 yd3 (19%) 0.1 yd3 (24%) 0.1% Headwaters Baker Creek)
Headwaters Nestucca River 0.3 yd3 (34%) 0.2 yd3 (54%) <0.1%
Cedar Creek – Nestucca 0.3 yd3 (53%) 0.2 yd3 (53%) 0.1% River
Headwaters Nestucca River <0.1 yd3 (12%) 0.0 yd3 (0%) 0.0%
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 136 McGuire Reservoir (within 0.1 yd3 (11%) <0.1 yd3 (11%) <0.1% Headwaters Nestucca River)
Panther Creek 0.2 yd3 (4%) 0.1 yd3 (5%) <0.1%
Middle Panther Creek <0.1 yd3 (3%) <-0.1 yd3 (-1%) 0.0%
Upper Panther Creek 0.1 yd3 (5%) 0.1 yd3 (7%) 0.1%
Carlton Reservoir (within <0.1 yd3 (4%) <0.1 yd3 (5%) <0.1% Upper Panther Creek) 1 Catchments with less than a ±0.1 yd3 change in sediment delivery or transport under the Proposed Action are generally omitted from the table. For the complete table, refer to the Hydrology Specialist Report (2018). 2 Numbers in parentheses indicate percentage change in sediment delivery compared to the No Action Alternative (baseline condition). Negative numbers represent a decrease in sediment delivery/transport.
For streams adjacent to or crossing dry season or extended dry season haul routes, small contributions of fine sediment would occur during and immediately after summer storms. Most increases in turbidity would occur at the beginning of the wet season when loose sediment is rapidly flushed out by storm events. Turbidity would be highest immediately below stream crossings and would return to background levels within 1,000 feet. The implementation of PDFs and BMPs, including the suspension of haul if sediment delivery is likely to occur; the use of sediment control measures (BMPs R 13, 26, 63, 94); requiring that bridge scuppers be plugged, bridge surfaces be swept, and a lift of rock be laid at the gravel hauling approach to the Rex Brown Road bridge during portions of the haul season, if needed; and installing additional ditch relief culverts (BMPs R 39-47) would reduce the delivery of fine sediment to streams.
For streams adjacent to or crossing all-season haul routes, continued use of these roads throughout the wet season would not allow for the armoring effect that normally occurs on a road network. As a result, a continuous supply of fine sediment would be generated at rates much greater than those found during the dry season (Reid & Dunne, 1984). These conditions would be controlled to the extent practicable through the implementation of the PDFs and BMPs described above. Prior to the wet season, all-season haul routes would receive maintenance such as the spreading of additional gravel and placement of additional sediment control measures (BMPs R 93, 94, 97).
Due to the fact that the modeled estimates of sediment delivery are conservative in nature; that PDFs and BMPs would be used to reduce sediment delivery below modeled levels; that most sediment would be stored in headwater streams or transported during times of naturally high turbidity; that increased turbidity would be short- term (24 hours) and localized in nature (within 1,000 feet); and that any increases in sediment transport would represent at most a 0.1% change from the catchment’s annual sediment yield, increased truck traffic on haul routes under the Proposed Action would not result in measurable increases in turbidity or in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater.
Table 36: Comparison of Modeled Sediment Delivery and Transport to Streams from All Road-Related Project Activities among the Alternatives.1
Proposed Action – Ratio of Proposed Action – Proposed Action Increased Sediment Change in Sediment –Change in Transport from Subwatershed/ Catchment Transport to Sediment Implementation to Name Catchment Mouth Delivery During Sediment Transport at During Implementation2 Catchment Mouth from Implementation2 All Sources
Baker Creek 3.0 yd3 (202%) 0.1 yd3 (90%) <0.1%
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 137 Upper Baker Creek 0.2 yd3 (193%) 0.1 yd3 (197%) <0.1%
Headwaters Baker Creek 2.7 yd3 (211%) <-0.1 yd3 (-10%) <0.1%
Rainbow Lake (within 2.7 yd3 (229%) 1.2 yd3 (278%) 0.6% Headwaters Baker Creek)
Headwaters Nestucca 0.6 yd3 (65%) 0.2 yd3 (54%) <0.1% River
Cedar Creek – Nestucca 0.3 yd3 (53%) 0.2 yd3 (54%) 0.1% River
Headwaters Nestucca River 0.4 yd3 (80%) 0.0 yd3 (0%) 0.0%
McGuire Reservoir (within Headwaters Nestucca 0.4 yd3 (80%) 0.1 yd3 (72%) <0.1% River)
Panther Creek 4.5 yd3 (95%) 2.3 yd3 (98%) 0.2%
Middle Panther Creek 0.3 yd3 (19%) 0.1 yd3 (7%) <0.1%
Upper Panther Creek 4.1 yd3 (141%) 2.2 yd3 (199%) 0.7%
Carlton Reservoir (within 0.8 yd3 (258%) 0.2 yd3 (214%) 0.1% Upper Panther Creek) 1 Catchments with less than a ±0.1 yd3 change in sediment delivery or transport under the Proposed Action are generally omitted from the table. For the complete table, refer to the Hydrology Specialist Report (2018). 2 Numbers in parentheses indicate percentage change in sediment delivery compared to the No Action Alternative (baseline condition). Negative numbers represent a decrease in sediment delivery/transport.
In conclusion, under the Proposed Action, effects to turbidity and fine sediment would occur primarily through the replacement of stream crossing culverts, increased haul on gravel surfaced roads, and the installation of additional ditch relief culverts. Due to the fact that PDFs and BMPs would minimize sediment delivery from the replacement of stream crossing culverts and haul; that most sediment delivery to streams would occur during times of naturally high turbidity and dispersed over a wide area; that most sediment would be stored high in the stream network; that the installation of additional ditch relief culverts would reduce post-project sediment delivery from roads; and that the amount of sediment delivered to and transported through streams by the Proposed Action would constitute at most 0.7% of any catchment’s or 0.2% of any subwatershed’s annual sediment yield, the Proposed Action would not increase turbidity or in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater. Water quality under Oregon’s state Water Quality Standard for turbidity and the Statewide Narrative Criteria would be maintained, and water quality under the Nestucca Bay Sedimentation Total Maximum Daily Load would be maintained in those catchments within the Headwaters Nestucca River subwatershed.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Under Alternative 3, 0.7 mile of the 2.4 miles of new natural surface road would go into long-term closure rather than being fully decommissioned. As discussed under the Proposed Action, both of these final road statuses would maintain water quality by placing roads in a stable state and ensuring that they are hydrologically disconnected from the stream network. The renovation, improvement, and maintenance of existing roads, replacement of stream crossing culverts, and installation of new ditch relief culverts would have the same effects as under the Proposed Action. Sediment delivery to streams from increased truck traffic on gravel surfaced roads would be similar to that under the Proposed Action.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 138 Under Alternative 3, effects to turbidity and fine sediment from road-related activities would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 would not increase turbidity or in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater. Water quality under Oregon’s state Water Quality Standard for turbidity and the Statewide Narrative Criteria would be maintained in all catchments, and water quality under the Nestucca Bay Sedimentation Total Maximum Daily Load would be maintained.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Under Alternative 4, the construction of new roads, renovation, improvement, and maintenance of existing roads, replacement of stream crossing culverts, and installation of new ditch relief culverts would have the same effects as under the Proposed Action. The effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment from increased truck traffic on gravel surfaced roads would be the same as the Proposed Action within all catchments except Upper Panther Creek. Within the Upper Panther Creek catchment, the additional truck traffic related to increased acres of regeneration harvest would result in 0.3 yd3 more sediment being transported through the stream network compared to the Proposed Action. However, the effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment at the reach or catchment scale would still be similar to those analyzed under the Proposed Action.
Under Alternative 4, effects to turbidity and fine sediment from road-related activities would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Alternative 4 would not increase turbidity or in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater. Water quality under Oregon’s state Water Quality Standard for turbidity and the Statewide Narrative Criteria would be maintained in all catchments, and water quality under the Nestucca Bay Sedimentation Total Maximum Daily Load would be maintained.
3.4.1.6 Cumulative Effects
Effects of Past Actions
Early timber sales conducted up until the 1990s resulted in widespread and persistent negative impacts. They involved a large number of poorly designed roads, little to no tree retention in regeneration harvest areas, and riparian harvest. These activities caused increased turbidity and in-stream fine sediment.
Forest practices have changed over the last few decades. Best management practices on both federal and state/private lands have been developed to reduce the impact of ground disturbing activities and sediment delivery to streams. Past actions also include the replacement of undersized culverts in order to restore access to historic fish habitat, restore sediment regimes, and improve the movement of coarse wood through the stream network.
Effects of Other Present Actions
Present actions in the analysis area include private timber harvest and road maintenance activities. These activities occur at approximately the same rate and scale as in the past, leading to similar amounts of ground disturbance, road maintenance, and haul. Timber harvest and road work associated with BLM’s Night Walker Timber Sale is scheduled to occur from 2018 through 2020. This will include commercial thinning and associated road work in the Headwaters Nestucca River catchment. The Walker Creek Terrestrial Restoration EA states that any increase in stream sediment from this timber sale would be “immeasurable and of inconsequential magnitude.”
Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the analysis area include private timber harvest, timber and rock haul from the North Yamhill Timber Management Project, and road work and haul associated with the Nestucca National Backcountry Byway Project. Future private timber harvest in the analysis area will continue to occur at approximately the same rate and scale as in the past, leading to similar amounts of ground disturbance, road maintenance, and haul. There is no proposed action yet for the North Yamhill Timber Management Project, and any discussion about its effects to streams in the Cedar Creek-Nestucca River catchment would be speculative. Road construction activities and haul associated with the Nestucca Backcountry Byway Project will occur
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 139 throughout the Headwaters Nestucca River subwatershed beginning in 2018 and continuing through 2025. Relevant activities from this project include haul from the Nestucca Access Road to the Cedar Creek Quarry (and vice versa) and replacement of the stream crossing culverts on Cedar Creek, Ginger Creek, and at Fairdale Crossing under the Nestucca Access Road. The Nestucca National Back Country Byway Project EA states that haul and replacement of the stream crossing culverts would result in short-term, localized increases in turbidity and fine sediment, but these activities would not result in long-term measurable increases for these parameters. In 2017, the BLM found that serious stream bank erosion has occurred against the western footing of the bridge crossing Panther Creek on Von Road. A future project (likely implemented in 2019) will be developed to help stabilize the affected stream bank and redirect flow away from the bridge footing.
Effects of the Proposed Action and Cumulative Effects
Actions resulting in cumulative effects to turbidity would be limited to those that occur close in time and space due to the fact that effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment under the Proposed Action would occur within 1-2 years and 1,000 feet of project activities. Given these restrictions, cumulative effects to turbidity and in- stream fine sediment would be limited to that caused by activities at stream crossings on haul route roads used simultaneously by the Proposed Action and other actions. Due to the presence of ditch relief culverts that disconnect roads from the stream network and the use of PDFs and BMPs for BLM actions, there would be no cumulative effects to turbidity from haul beyond those already analyzed under the Proposed Action. Water quality under Oregon’s state Water Quality Standard for turbidity would be maintained.
The magnitude and season of haul for concurrent truck traffic associated with timber harvest on private lands is impossible for the BLM to predict, and its effects cannot be quantitatively discussed here. The effects of haul associated with the North Yamhill Timber Management Project are also currently impossible to quantify. Activities associated with the Nestucca National Back Country Byway Project will contribute 0.1 yd3 per year of fine sediment to streams in the Cedar Creek-Nestucca River catchment, a portion of which would settle in pools and along the margins of stream channels. The replacement of the Cedar Creek, Ginger Creek, and Fairdale stream crossing culverts will result in the delivery of up to 2.5 yd3 of fine sediment each to Cedar Creek, Ginger Creek, and directly to the Nestucca River, some of which will settle in the streambed immediately below the road crossing. The Proposed Action would contribute 0.2 yd3 of fine sediment in this entire catchment. Due to the sediment transport capacity of these streams, the combined total of 2.8 yd3 in Cedar Creek, 2.5 yd3 in Ginger Creek, and 7.8 yd3 in the Nestucca River (includes sediment from Cedar and Ginger Creeks) would be flushed from the stream network by fall/winter rains within 2 years of the completion of haul and would not contribute to a measurable increase in in-stream fine sediment at the catchment scale or greater. Although the Proposed Action would not use any of the same haul routes as the Night Walker Timber Sale, hauling on haul routes under both actions would contribute sediment to streams within the Headwaters Nestucca River catchment. However, analysis of the Proposed Action found that these roads would contribute very little sediment to higher order streams (<0.1 yd3). This is similar to the conclusion reached in the Walker Creek Terrestrial Restoration Project EA. Additionally, any sediment delivered to streams from these roads would be captured by McGuire Reservoir. As a result, there would be no cumulative effects to fine sediment in the Headwaters Nestucca catchment as a result of these actions. Water quality under Oregon’s Statewide Narrative Criteria and the Nestucca Bay Sedimentation Total Maximum Daily Load for those catchments within the Headwaters Nestucca River subwatershed would be maintained.
3.4.2 Issue 11: What effect would commercial thinning treatments in the Riparian Reserve, including tree felling for addition of large in-stream wood in the inner zone, have on the channel morphology of project area streams via changes in actual in-stream wood and potential large wood recruitment?
3.4.2.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Both large wood pieces (that are stable in the stream for decades) and smaller wood pieces (that are transportable and serve to accumulate into jams) are important in the creation and maintenance of channel form. The size of a stable wood piece is a function of stream width – the wider the stream, the larger in
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 140 diameter and length the wood piece needs to be (Beechie, Pess, Kennard, Bilby, & Bolton, 2000). For most streams in the analysis area, a 20-inch diameter log would be a stable wood piece (USDI BLM, 2016, p. 284). ● Three major sources of wood to streams include riparian tree fall, channel migration and erosion, and tributary inputs from debris flows (USDI BLM, 2008, pp. 376-384, 781-797). ● Wood accumulation rates vary over time with some episodic input resulting in large accumulations (e.g., landslides after a fire) and other periods of in-channel wood decay and flushing resulting in little wood in the channel. May and Gresswell (2004) estimated a debris flow recurrence interval of up to 357 years for headwater basins in the Oregon Coast Range. ● Trees closer to the stream have a higher probability of falling into and interacting with the stream. The further away from the channel a tree is, the lower the probability of it ending up in the stream channel. Johnston et al. (2011) found that while source distance varied, approximately 90% of large wood entered the study streams from within 60 feet at 90% of sites. In 2013, the Interagency Regional Executive Team released a series of technical summaries by a Science Review Team which found that up to 95% of instream wood comes from distances ranging from 82 to 148 feet from the edge of the stream bank (Spies, Pollock, Reeves, & Beechie, 2013). McDade (1987) found in forests between 80 and 200 years old that 90% of large wood contributed by near-stream processes originated from within approximately 70 feet of the stream channel. ● Modeling research suggests that in coastal Oregon, the application of a 33-foot no-harvest buffer along streams is adequate to maintain 93% of potential in-stream wood over a 100-year period following a single-entry thinning (Benda, Litschert, Reeves, & Pabst, 2016). In this study, the application of this buffer in combination with felling 12% of the volume of wood removed toward the stream resulted in the maintenance of virtually all potential in-stream wood. Wider no-harvest stream buffers increased the amount of in-stream wood maintained. ● Trees on steeper slopes have a higher probability of falling into the stream, and, in general, trees tend to fall toward the stream channel (Sabota, Gregory, & Van Sickle, 2006). Steeper, more highly dissected watersheds will likely have a greater proportion of wood coming from upslope sources than will watersheds that are less dissected or steep (Martin & Benda, 2001). ● Some small in-stream wood that is not entrained in a debris jam is flushed from the system during high flows. The remaining large pieces of in-stream wood are depleted at an average rate of 1.5 percent per year (Murphy & Koski, 1989). ● Poage and Tappenier (2002) estimated that riparian stands develop under naturally low densities with little self-thinning – ranging from 40 to 60 TPA. Therefore, most existing stand densities in previously harvested riparian stands are believed to be artificially high. ● Current stand densities in these areas can be 3 to 4 times higher than those likely found there prior to harvest, when the previous stands were of a similar age. This suggests that the available source of small functional wood is currently much higher than what existed in these areas naturally. ● Use of a no-thin Inner Zone and a thinned outer zone would still result in residual stand densities that are higher than what is believed to have been present in these areas historically.
3.4.2.2 Analytical Methodology
● Identify the stream reaches adjacent to commercial thinning treatment units where large in-stream wood would be added by tree felling in the Inner Zone of the Riparian Reserve and delineate large in-stream wood treatment units. ● Determine the number of trees to fell for each large in-stream treatment unit based on factors including current large in-stream wood levels, stream order, presence of fish, stand QMD, and Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife aquatic habitat benchmarks. ● Using tree locations and stand QMDs, estimate the basal area and wood volume per acre felled toward streams within each large in-stream wood treatment unit. Basal area per acre thinned must be less than 15 square feet. ● Using ORGANON, calculate the volume of wood removed per acre for each commercial thinning treatment unit.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 141 ● Calculate the proportion of the volume of wood removed through commercial thinning treatments to the volume that would be felled into streams. ● Using said proportion, the width of the no-harvest buffer, and the layout of the commercial thinning treatment units (e.g., thinning on one side or both sides of a stream), determine the minimum increase/decrease in large in-stream wood volume over the simulated century.
3.4.2.3 Geographical and Temporal Scales
The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects consists of the Upper Panther Creek 7th field catchment; it contains all proposed riparian commercial thinning treatment units and areas in which large wood would be added to streams by tree felling within the Riparian Reserve. These are the only proposed activities that would affect channel morphology through the recruitment of potential large wood or changes in actual in-stream wood levels.
Short-term effects to channel morphology would be greatest immediately following tree felling toward streams and continue for several years as channels adjust to additions of large wood. Therefore, the short-term timeframe for analysis is 5 years after the completion of tree felling toward streams. Commercial thinning treatments within the outer zone of the Riparian Reserve would result in changes to potential large wood recruitment over much longer periods of time (i.e., 100 years). As such, the long-term timeframe for analysis of this issue is 100 years after the completion of all commercial thinning treatments.
3.4.2.4 Affected Environment
Large wood is an important channel-forming component in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest (Moore, Jones, Dambacher, & Stein, 2017). Large wood affects the scour and deposition of bedload, substrate distribution, pool frequency and depth, and the presence and accessibility of side channels and off-channel habitats, provides overhead cover for aquatic organisms, and protects banks by reducing stream energy (Dolloff & Warren, 2003). In headwater streams, small wood can retain large amounts of fine sediment and prevent transport to downstream reaches (Benda & Dunne, 1987; Benda, Hassan, Church, & May, 2005). The 2016 FEIS contains a detailed discussion on the functional importance of large in-stream wood as it relates to both small, headwater streams and larger, fish-bearing streams, as well as, the sources and transport of large wood. Those discussions are incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM, 2016, pp. 283-285).
Across western Oregon, past timber harvest, valley floor roads, fire, and other management actions within the analysis area removed large amounts of large in-stream wood on both headwater and larger streams (Beechie, Pess, Kennard, Bilby, & Bolton, 2000; Dolloff & Warren, 2003). Past timber harvest of riparian stands and replanting at high densities has resulted in the replacement of structurally-complex stands with large diameter trees to young, dense stands with small diameter trees. This results from high tree densities and competition, limiting the ability of these riparian stands to provide functional wood to streams.
Although streams in the Upper Panther Creek catchment have not been inventoried for aquatic habitat conditions, other streams in the North Yamhill (Fairchild and Coast Creeks) and Willamina Creek (Willamina Creek) watersheds have been inventoried and do not meet the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife’s (ODFW) benchmarks for large woody debris, which include at least 20 pieces of large woody debris, 3 “key pieces”, and 39 yd3 of wood per 328 feet of stream channel. Large woody debris is defined as pieces that measure at least 6 inches in diameter by 10 feet in length, and “key pieces” are those that measure at least 2 feet in diameter by 33 feet in length. Field visits by BLM staff revealed that while some small headwater streams in the project area have an abundance of large wood, many show signs of having been “cleaned” via broadcast burning or other means during historic timber harvest and likely do not meet ODFW benchmarks.
Headwater streams on private lands in the analysis area are clear cut without any stream buffers which creates a pulse of organic material in the form of logging slash but negatively affects current and future large wood recruitment to stream channels.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 142 3.4.2.5 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no removal of trees through commercial thinning treatments in the Riparian Reserve and no addition of large wood to streams through tree felling; therefore, there would be no effects to potential large wood recruitment or large in-stream wood levels. Disturbance, mortality, and subsequent large wood recruitment to streams would continue to occur within the analysis area’s structurally homogenous stands at their current rates. The infrequency of shade tolerant conifer species such as western hemlock and western redcedar would continue to limit their recruitment, and those species would remain uncommon and unable to contribute wood to streams.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would result in effects to channel morphology through changes in potential large wood recruitment to some streams and direct additions of large wood by tree felling. Any potential large wood source areas with a high risk of slope instability were removed from the project. For the stands proposed for riparian commercial thinning treatments, virtually all wood is recruited from within 131 feet of the stream. No-harvest buffers would maintain at least 95% of potential large wood by preserving all source areas within 120 feet of perennial streams and 50 feet of intermittent streams (Spies, Pollock, Reeves, & Beechie, 2013; Benda, Litschert, Reeves, & Pabst, 2016). Of the remaining 5% of potential large wood recruitment outside the no-harvest buffers, approximately 50% would remain after thinning, with retention being up to 74% in one unit.
Up to 15 square feet of basal area (average of 8 square feet) would be felled into streams for each acre in the outer zone of the Riparian Reserve that was thinned. This would result in approximately 330 square feet of basal area being felled. With felled trees being 12 to 32 inches DBH, from 220 to 360 trees would be felled into streams, adding approximately 18,000 cubic feet of wood. Adjusting the modeling results from a study by Benda et al. (2016) that examined the effects of stream buffers and tree tipping on large wood in streams adjacent to harvested stands, we estimate that the Proposed Action would result in a 0.5 to almost 10% increase in large in-stream wood over a century to affected reaches. Some tree felling would occur adjacent to the riparian commercial thinning units, and some would happen along lower stream reaches where the BLM interdisciplinary team identified a lack of in-stream wood.
The addition of large wood directly to streams would encourage natural channel morphological processes including improved scour and deposition, substrate distribution, pool formation and development, and connectivity with side channels. In small, headwater streams, it would increase the retention of fine sediment and reduce transport to downstream reaches.
Underplanting the Riparian Reserve with shade-tolerant conifers under the Proposed Action would have the indirect effect of increasing long-term potential large wood recruitment. The establishment of shade-tolerant conifers in the Riparian Reserve would provide a seed source and help ensure that Douglas-fir stands are succeeded by other conifers rather than shrubs (Hibbs & Bower, 2001; Nierenberg & Hibbs, 2000).
Conclusions
Under the Proposed Action, direct effects to in-stream large wood would occur through felling trees toward streams in the Riparian Reserve. Indirect effects to potential large wood recruitment would occur through thinning in the Riparian Reserve and underplanting Douglas-fir stands with shade-tolerant conifers. Due to the implementation of no-harvest buffers; that thinning would retain approximately half of the potential large wood within treatment units; that tree felling toward streams would contribute to immediate increases in in-stream wood and up to a 10% increase in large in-stream wood over a century; and that potential large wood recruitment would be maintained over 100’s of years through the establishment of shade-tolerant conifers, the Proposed Action would maintain potential large wood recruitment and contribute to immediate increases in in-stream wood within
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 143 the Upper Panther Creek 7th field catchment. This would maintain channel morphology and be an improvement over the No Action Alternative.
Alternative 3 and 4
Commercial activities within the Riparian Reserve under Alternatives 3 and 4 are the same as those of the Proposed Action. As such, the effects to stream channel morphology from these activities are the same as those disclosed under the Proposed Action.
3.4.2.6 Cumulative Effects
Effects of Past Actions
In the Upper Panther Creek catchment, past timber harvest, fire, and other management actions by private landowners and the BLM removed large amounts of large in-stream wood on both headwater and larger streams. Past timber harvest of riparian stands and replanting at high densities has resulted in the replacement of structurally-complex stands with large diameter trees to young, dense stands with small diameter trees.
Effects of Other Present Actions
Approximately 43% of the land base within the Upper Panther Creek catchment is federally administered by the BLM, and the remainder is managed as private industrial forestland. Although we cannot know for certain what private industry will do, it is possible that some private lands would be harvested concurrent with the Proposed Action. Timber harvest on private lands is subject to the Oregon Forest Practices Act, which requires Riparian Management Areas that vary in width depending on fish presence/absence and stream size. Although these areas do not maintain all potential large wood production, they do contribute to increasing amounts of large wood within riparian areas in the catchment. Riparian stands outside of these Riparian Management Areas would continue to be dominated by relatively small, young trees and would be periodically clear cut.
Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
Most private lands in the catchment are likely managed on a 40 to 50 year rotation, and therefore, private lands outside of Riparian Management Areas would be harvested twice within the long-term timeframe for analysis. Some areas of potential large wood recruitment would be maintained within Riparian Management Areas while much of the area along small streams and non-fish-bearing streams would continue to have reduced potential large wood recruitment. Although not all potential large wood recruitment would be maintained, increasing amounts of potential large wood would be available to streams.
Effects of the Proposed Action and Cumulative Effects
Under the Proposed Action, tree felling from the Inner Zone of the Riparian Reserve and underplanting in the Outer Zone with shade-tolerant conifer species would result in both immediate increases in large in-stream wood and long-term increases in potential large wood recruitment. The beneficial effects of the Proposed Action in combination with the maintenance of Riparian Management Areas on private forest lands would result in increasing amounts of potential large wood recruitment and in-stream wood within the Upper Panther Creek catchment. This would enhance natural channel morphological processes including improved scour and deposition, substrate distribution, pool formation and development, and connectivity with side channels, as well as, the retention of fine sediment in small, headwater streams.
3.5 Fisheries Issues
3.5.1 Issue 12: What effect would sediment, and resultant turbidity, generated from the action alternatives (rock and timber haul, culvert replacements, and paving bridge approaches) have on special status fish species and/or their habitat?
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 144 3.5.1.1 Analytical Assumptions ● Sediment occurs naturally in stream systems and is an important component of a stream’s channel substrate. In large quantities, fine sediment can affect fish directly by increasing turbidity and inhibiting foraging and breathing functions, or indirectly by embedding in stream substrates thereby reducing macroinvertebrate productivity, or smothering developing fish embryos and fry within redds. Fine sediment in streams can affect fish habitat by filling interstitial spaces in gravel substrate, reducing oxygen flow to incubating eggs, and by physically preventing newly-hatched fish from emerging. In suspension, fine sediment reduces visibility, reduces foraging ability, and impairs oxygen uptake in gill membranes (Waters 1995). ● Thresholds for lethal and sub-lethal effects on fish from increases in sediment delivery have not been well established at the scale of watersheds or greater. Cederholm et al. (1981) concluded that there was a 2 percent decrease of egg to emergence survival of salmonids for each 1 percent increase in fine sediment over natural levels at the watershed scale. Suttle et al. (2004) suggests there is no threshold below which fine sediment is harmless to fish, and the deposition of fine sediment in the stream channel (even at low concentrations) can decrease the growth of salmonids, resulting in sub-lethal effects. ● The generation of sediment and turbidity from proposed timber and rock haul, road maintenance and culvert replacements are the only actions that would affect SSF species. ● Direct effects to SSF species and their habitat from generated sediment and turbidity would only occur within the Panther Creek 6th field subwatershed. ● The small amounts of potential sediment generated from the proposed action in the Elk Creek Nestucca River, Headwaters Nestucca River, Haskins Creek, Baker Creek, Upper Deer Creek and Upper Willamina Creek 6th field subwatersheds, with the use of BMP’s, would not have a measurable effect to SSF species or their habitat (see Panther Creek Fisheries Specialist Report). ● Adult spring chinook salmon are not believed to be present in the Yamhill River basin (ODFW 1992). Juvenile spring chinook salmon may be present over 6 miles downstream from the project area (Streamnet 2017). As such, no effects to this species are anticipated. ● Von Road Bridge approaches are a chronic source of fine sediments to Panther Creek.
3.5.1.2 Analytical Methodology
● Use results of Hydrology issue analysis (see section 3.4) to inform location and amount of sediment that may enter streams as a result of hauling, road maintenance, and culvert replacement operations. ● Evaluate the potential for sediment inputs to affect SSF species based on expected occurrence of fish or their habitat relative to sediment input locations, and the expected level of sediment input.
3.5.1.3 Analysis Area
The analysis area, where actions with direct potential to affect SSF or their habitat would occur consists of the 1.6 mile segment of Panther Creek and is depicted on Figure 12. This stream segment is located within the North Yamhill River 5th field watershed which is tributary to the Willamette River on the east side of the Coast Range. The extent of spawning and rearing habitat in this watershed is also provided in figure 12 to provide context of the analysis area.
Fish species and/or fish habitat with special status that occur within the analysis area of the proposed Panther Creek TS are shown in Table 37 below.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 145 Table 37: Special Status (SS) Fish and Fish Habitat located within the Analysis Area (Panther Creek)
Species or Habitat, Watershed Status Critical Magnuson-Stevens Act Habitat in (MSA) Project Essential Fish Habitat Area* (EFH) in Project Area Upper Willamette steelhead trout ESA - No No (UW Steelhead), Yamhill Threatened Coho (introduced population), MSA-EFH No Yes-Designated Yamhill Pacific lamprey, Yamhill Bureau NA NA Sensitive
*There is no Critical Habitat in the analysis area, this habitat receives consideration separate from the species listed when present.
The objectives for management of special status fish depends on which policy or Act they are managed under.
Endangered Species Act - To conserve and/or recover ESA-listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA protections are no longer needed for these species.
Bureau Sensitive - To initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under the ESA.
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) - Each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act. Essential Fish Habitat only relates to habitat and not to the species of fish dependent on the habitat.
3.5.1.4 Affected Environment
Fish Species
Within the Panther Creek 6th field watershed of the North Yamhill Watershed, Steelhead, Coho and Pacific Lamprey are assumed to be present in Panther Creek to the base of the dam that forms Carlton Reservoir (figure 12). Additional details on each of these species and their habitat are available in the fisheries specialists report.
Habitat Conditions
Spawning and rearing habitat in the Yamhill drainage is quite different from other areas in the Coast Range. Streams such as Panther Creek change from gravel substrates to a higher proportion of fine sediments as these streams work their way out of the Coast Range to the lower gradients on the Willamette Valley floor. The change from fine sediments in the lower watershed to gravel substrates limits the amount of area available for spawning for steelhead, Coho and Pacific Lamprey, which all require gravel substrates. The habitats considered spawning and rearing habitat (ODFW, Streamnet) are located from RM 6.5 to 10 in Panther Creek (figure 12). The lower portions of these streams are considered rearing and migration corridors (ODFW, Streamnet).
Turbidity in the Yamhill subwatersheds that make up the project area is high during fall rains and during winter storms. Observations by staff of the city of Carlton who operates the water intake located on Panther Creek have observed turbidities of 80 to 100 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU) at the treatment plant during large storms (Worrel, D. 1999).
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has not conducted aquatic habitat surveys on streams in the analysis area. As a result, specific data for Panther Creek is not available, however, data is available on similar streams
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 146 located both to the north (North Yamhill River) and to the east (Coast Creek) and will be used as a surrogate for the streams located within the analysis area. Coast Creek and the North Yamhill River are of similar size, drain similar elevations, and have similar geology, so data from these streams will be used to approximate habitat conditions in Panther Creek (ODFW 1993, 2001, 2002). Stream sediment conditions within the analysis area of Panther Creek are thought to be similar to these stream segments.
Sediment levels in Panther Creek are based on visual observations of these streams and interpretation of stream data from ODFW defined above. The stream habitat data from Coast Creek found that 17% of the habitat was considered undesirable for sediment in riffles, 24% was desirable, and 59% was in between. The amount of gravel in riffles for this same stream reach found that 5% of habitat was considered undesirable, 66% fell mid- range, and 29% was considered desirable.
ODFW and NMFS define the percentage of sand, silt, and organics from sedimentary parent material (soils origin in watershed) in stream riffles in fish bearing streams to be at a desirable level if they make up less than 10% (ODFW) or 12% (NMFS) of the wetted stream area in riffles (spawning and egg incubation areas). Undesirable levels of these fine sediments are set at >20% (Appendix A-ODFW benchmarks).
ODFW defines the percentage of gravels from sedimentary parent material (soils origin in watershed) in stream riffles in fish bearing streams to be at a desirable level if they make up more than 35% of the wetted stream area in riffles (spawning and egg incubation areas). Undesirable levels of gravels are defined at < 15% (Appendix A- ODFW benchmarks).
LiDAR coverage of Panther Creek shows extensive gradients of 1-5 % adjacent to the project actions in the Panther Creek watershed. Gradients in this slope range are commonly used for spawning by SSF.
The City of Carlton’s water intake reservoir intercepts sediment that would otherwise move through the stream system in addition to blocking access to SSF habitat upstream (see Figure 12).
3.5.1.4 Geographical and Temporal Scales
Within the analysis area, actions including rock and timber haul (including winter haul adjacent to and over SSF) on gravel roads are proposed. On Von Road, year-round haul of timber is anticipated over a 3-year period. A mile of this road segment is within 1,000 feet and much of it (0.55 miles) is within 200 feet of Panther Creek, which it crosses at the Von Creek Bridge. Panther Creek Road is gravel between the Nestucca Access Road and pavement located 0.33 miles north of Rex Brown Road; this road segment would be used for year-round haul. Rex Brown Road would have up to 3 years of extended dry season haul, and 0.19 miles of the road is within 1,000 feet of Panther Creek, including a bridge over SSF.
A total of 13 culverts are to be replaced in tributaries to Panther Creek that drain to the 1.6 mile analysis reach for SSF and their habitat. These culvert replacements are anticipated to occur over a 1 to 2 year period. A portion of the sediment generated by the replacement of these culverts (2.2 cubic yards) is anticipated to move into Panther Creek via 2 stream systems (Figure 12); within a few hundred feet of these sites, some of the sediment may be stored for up to 2 years (Panther Creek Hydrology Specialist Report).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 147 Figure 12: Proposed Action at Panther Creek
3.5.1.5 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no road construction or improvement/renovation of existing roads, replacement of stream crossing culverts, installation of new ditch relief culverts, haul associated with proposed treatments, or increase in road maintenance on proposed haul routes; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to turbidity or in-stream fine sediment and their associated affects to SSF or their habitat. Sediment delivery from undersized, failing, or improperly sized stream crossing culverts and road segments connected to the stream network due to a lack of ditch relief culverts would continue to occur. The proposed gravel surfaced haul routes would continue to contribute fine sediment to streams at their current rates and the approaches to Von Road Bridge would remain a chronic source of fine sediment to Panther Creek. As such no changes in effects to SSF or their habitat would occur in addition to those already occurring.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 148 Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Within the analysis area, effects to SSF and their habitat are anticipated. Within this segment two specific sites may have effects to habitat for SSF from culvert replacements and, in addition, SSF may be affected by turbidity from both culvert replacements and haul within this reach.
Sources of turbidity (haul and culvert replacement) comprise the first source, which would be generated by haul on the three roads adjacent to the analysis area (Von Road, Panther Creek Road and Rex Brown Road). The second source is a culvert replacement in Von Road approximately 100 feet from Panther Creek. The timing of sediment reaching Panther Creek from haul would be tied to the first rains in the fall as sediment generated over the dry season is mobilized from roads and ditches into Panther Creek. The use of Von Road and Panther Creek Road for year-round haul would also be a source of turbidity commensurate with the amount of haul and rain events outside dry season, as discussed EA section 3.4.1.5. The culvert replacement on Von Road would be anticipated to increase turbidity in Panther Creek during construction and again when fall rains begin.
Effects to SSF from turbidity would be limited to short-term (up to 24 hours for culvert replacements and generally less than 4 hours from haul) site specific effects to short reaches of fish habitat downstream of the crossings on Von Road, Panther Creek Road and Rex Brown Road due to sediment generated from hauling and the culvert replacement 100 feet from Panther Creek. SSF may experience short-term direct negative effects as a result of proposed wet season hauling, at the onset of fall rains and from a culvert replacement due to localized increase in turbidity in the stream channel. Generally, fish would be expected by the BLM to move away from high turbidity to areas of low turbidity or would reduce their activity during periods of elevated turbidity (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). These localized increases in turbidity in most cases would be within a few hundred feet of their source and are not anticipated to be measurable 1,000 feet downstream (hydrology specialists report).
Sediment (2.2 cubic yards) generated from the 13 culvert replacements located in Upper Panther Creek 7th field watershed is anticipated to move into Panther Creek in 2 specific locations. This sediment, once it reaches Panther Creek, would be anticipated to settle into pools and riffles due to the low stream gradient within a few hundred feet. The amount of sediment settling at each of these sites would be dependent on factors at the time of input, including stream flow, total amount, and sediment size (larger sized sediment particles settle faster). It is anticipated that sediment, once in pools and riffles, would remain there until higher stream flows mobilize it downstream over a 1 to 2 year period. The timing of sediment inputs is also an important factor that may influence how much sediment generated by the Proposed Action is stored in this stream segment at any given time, as culvert replacements occurring in year 1 of project implementation would not be present at the same time as sediment sources created from haul in Year 3.
Effects to SSF and their habitat from sediment sources (culvert replacements and haul) total 2.5 cubic yards, which may reside in SSF habitat in Panther Creek for up to 2 years. As discussed in the analytical assumptions, any increase in sediments may affect SSF as turbidity, and sediment can affect the ability of eggs to mature and the ability of fry to emerge from the gravel. A reduction to the invertebrate community (fish food) is also possible. The effects of turbidity and sediment in stream substrates on SSF are not limited to the examples here. There are a wide range of potential effects. As effects are limited to specific sites approximately 6% (500 feet) of the 1.6 mile analysis reach may be affected for up to 2 years. GIS data (LiDAR) from the areas downstream of both of these input points reveals these areas are low gradient (1-5 % slope) and probable spawning locations. Analysis of data from Coast Creek found that approximately 27% is riffle habitat. Assuming that percentage is the same on Panther Creek there would be 2,280 feet of this habitat type and up to 22% may be affected out of the 1.6 miles of spawning habitat in the Panther Creek analysis reach. This would leave 78% of the spawning habitat within the analysis reach unaffected. Adult selection of spawning habitat also plays a role in the potential of an area being used in any given year (Mull 2005). The combination of gravel, sediment concentration and localized down welling appears to affect choice of spawning areas. As these adult fish select a place to spawn, areas that may have impacts (i.e. higher sediment, lack of down welling) would likely be passed over as a spawning location, reducing the potential of impacts to eggs or fry.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 149 Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Under Alternative 3, 111 acres would be thinned rather than regeneration harvested. The slightly reduced timber haul from thinning rather than regeneration harvest would have similar effects as under the Proposed Action. Sediment delivery to streams from decreased truck traffic on gravel surfaced roads would be similar to that under the Proposed Action. As such effects to SSF from turbidity and fine sediment from road-related activities would be similar or slightly less than those described in the Proposed Action.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Under Alternative 4, the change from thinning 98 acres to regeneration harvest of these stands would slightly increase the amount of timber haul, though all other actions would remain the same as the Proposed Action. The effects to turbidity and in-stream fine sediment from increased truck traffic on gravel surfaced roads would be the same as the Proposed Action within all catchments except Upper Panther Creek. Within the Upper Panther Creek catchment, the additional truck traffic related to increased acres of regeneration harvest would result in 0.3 yd3 more sediment being transported through the stream network compared to the Proposed Action. The effects to SSF have the potential to slightly increase over the Proposed Action, however the timing and location of those effects would remain the same as those analyzed under the Proposed Action.
3.5.1.6 Cumulative Effects
Effects of Past Actions to SSF
Timber harvest and associated road building activities have occurred throughout much of the analysis area. Early timber sales conducted up until the 1990s resulted in widespread and persistent negative impacts. They involved a large number of poorly designed roads, little to no tree retention in regeneration harvest areas, and riparian harvest (including the clearcutting of headwater tributaries). These activities caused increased turbidity and in-stream fine sediment which had negative effects to SSF. Prior to the 1970s many stream culverts were placed without regard to fish passage, limiting distribution of SSF to their habitat.
Forest practices have changed over the last few decades. Project design features and best management practices on both federal and state/private lands have been developed to reduce the impact of ground disturbing activities and sediment delivery to streams. Past actions also include the replacement of undersized culverts in order to restore access to historic fish habitat (mid 1990’s to present), restore sediment regimes, and improve the movement of coarse wood through the stream network. An example in the project area is the replacement of a failing culvert on Von Road with the current bridge in 2002 to meet both fish passage and 100 year flow requirements.
Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions on SSF
Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Panther Creek analysis area include private timber harvest. Future private timber harvest in the analysis area will continue to occur at approximately the same rate and scale as in the past, leading to similar amounts of ground disturbance, culvert replacement, and haul on gravel surfaced roads. In 2017, the BLM found that serious stream bank erosion has occurred against the western footing of the bridge crossing Panther Creek on Von Road. A future project (likely implemented in 2019) will be developed to help stabilize the affected stream bank and redirect flow away from the bridge footing. As a portion of this work is anticipated to be conducted instream (protection of bridge footing and in-channel work redirect flow off this abutment), these actions are anticipated to increase turbidity during construction work and again when stream substrate is mobilized in response to the new instream structures during larger flows.
Actions in the Panther Creek watershed that overlap temporally and geographically with the Panther Creek Project include potential haul of timber from private or industrial landowners and the planned work on Von Road Bridge.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 150 Effects of the Action Alternatives and Cumulative Effects to SSF
The effects to SSF and their habitat from sediment depend on the conclusions in Hydrology analysis of sediment and turbidity sources identifies both the time frames and amounts of sediment predicted from the action alternatives and other actions occurring in the same time or location. Actions that are separated spatially and therefore cannot affect SSF (sediment generated above Carlton’s reservoir) would not lead to cumulative effects. As described in each of the action alternatives, site level impacts up to several hundred feet in length may occur from sediment settling into gravel substrates downstream of sediment sources from culvert replacements and haul in adjacent to Panther Creek. Work on Von Road Bridge would add another site of turbidity and sediment that would be cumulative in its effects to SSF and their habitat, if its fix occurs in the same time frame as the actions described under the action alternatives. Site level effects to SSF would include increased turbidity and potential effects to stream substrate for up to 2 years similar to effects described above.
Beneficial effects
Installation of ditch relief culverts in the Middle and Upper Panther Creek catchments would reduce the spatial and temporal extent of effects to in-stream fine sediment in Panther Creek under all action alternatives. The long term nature of these improvements links both the additional cross drains in the Panther Creek project with the sediment reduction from multiple road sites. While all action alternatives have a modest increase in road related sediment from haul, the addition of cross drains reduces the total delivered to Panther Creek. The direct effect of sediment reduction from cross drains in the action alternatives are accounted for in the hydrology sediment analysis, however the long term reduction in road related sediment below that of the no action alternative, has the indirect effect of reducing overall sediment contributed to the watershed and stream segments where SSF habitat is located. Paving the approaches to Von Creek Bridge has the similar effect of reducing a chronic source of road related sediment far beyond the time frame of the action alternatives for both BLM and other users during future hauling activities.
3.6 Soils Resources
Issue 13: How would ground-based harvesting systems, including the use of equipment specialized for use on steeper slopes, affect soil compaction and erosion?
Issue 14: How would timber harvest and road building activities affect soil erosion?
Issue 15: How would soil compaction from road building activities affect soil productivity?
3.6.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Impacts to the soil resource would occur no matter what method is used to cut and extract timber from the proposed units. The 2016 NCO ROD/RMP allows specialized mechanical equipment to operate on “slopes less than 50% except when using previously constructed trails or accessing isolated ground based harvesting areas” (TH 14). Steep slope logging is quickly becoming utilized by logging contractors in the Pacific Northwest due to higher jobsite safety and lower logging costs.
● Existing excavated and terraced skid trails from the previous logging entry exist in many of the units that have slopes greater than 50%. These terraced trails are generally perpendicular to the slope and are excavated and benched. Slopes of the terraced skid trails are generally low gradient, and several of these trails are directly accessible from ground yarding harvest units.
● Erosion is a natural process that occurs throughout the landscape. Timber harvest and road building activities create conditions such as concentrated overland run-off from soil compaction, the altering of the groundwater regime through timber removal, directing water flow via road construction and associated ditch lines and creating areas of displaced soil by general operational necessity or incident that can increase soil erosion rates.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 151 ● The USDA Glossary of Soil Survey Terms defines soil productivity as “the capability of a soil for producing a specified plant or sequence of plants under specific management”. Forest soil productivity is generally defined by the volume of trees that can be grown over a specific period of time on a particular site. Forest management operations can impact soil productivity by the construction of new roads that remove soils from forest production, and localized timber harvest impacts that can create an excessive increase in bulk density (compaction) and displaced soils which can impact and constrict root growth, limit the hydrologic function as well as alter hydrologic drainage patterns.
3.6.2 Analytical Methodology
● All skyline units were assessed for the possibility of using specialized equipment or existing terraced skid trails for timber harvest. Ultimately, the logging contractor, and the type of equipment they bring to the jobsite will determine the logging plan that they can achieve.
● GRAIP lite modeling provided from the TFO hydrologist will identify areas within the road network that are of high concern for increased erosion and sediment delivery. Cross drains, water bars, and other sediment control devices will be placed at these identified areas per recommendation of the hydrologist and road engineer.
● Logging system transportation networks (skid trails and skyline corridors) are required to have erosion control measures in areas where “potential for erosion and delivery to waterbodies, floodplains and wetlands exist.” (TH 06 & TH 16) Due to the size of riparian buffers and the Western Oregon RMP’s planning criteria that “the analysis area for concentrated and diffuse sources of sediment delivery will be restricted to within 200 feet of stream channels” (WORMP Planning Criteria pg. 85), most units will not be capable of delivering sediment to waterbodies; however, all soils within the planning area are rated as having potential soil erosion class as moderate in areas where slopes are less than 30% and “very severe” in slopes greater than 30%. All skyline corridors with continuous soil displacement will need to have erosion control measures. Ground harvest skid trails will be rated by overlaying the proposed logging plan over a LiDAR derived digital elevation model where slope gradients are divided into the 6 classes and joined with the corresponding soil erosion class from table C-6 of WORMP Appendix C of BMP’s to determine water bar spacing in operational trails.
● Utilize logging plan developed by Timber group as well as any proposed new road construction to estimate the amount of ground impact that will be produced from the proposed projects. Estimated impacts in acres are calculated using the following formulas:
○ New road construction-(30 feet width x length)/43,560
○ Skid trails-(10 feet width x length)/43,560
○ Skyline corridors-(4 feet width x length)/43,560
○ Harvester/forwarder trails-(8 feet width x length)/43,560
○ Constructed landings- 0.18 acres per landing for an estimated 100 foot diameter landing size in thinnings and 0.25 acres per landing for an estimated 118 foot diameter landing in regeneration harvest units.
3.6.3 Affected Environment
Existing Conditions
Geology
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 152 The units of the Panther Creek Proposed Action overlay 3 defined geologic units of Oregon. A majority of the units overlay mafic intrusions (Ti) formed during the Oligocene era approximately 30 million years ago and the remainder of the units are located on marine sedimentary formations of the Tuffaceous siltstone and sandstone (Tss) and Yamhill formations formed during the middle to late Eocene era accordingly.
Soils and Productivity
Soil productivity can be defined as the capacity of soil to support plant growth and biological activity, and federal law requires the BLM to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality and value of all resources, including soils (Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976). Forest soil productivity is generally measured by the volume of timber that a site can produce over time (site index), but other factors such as understory forest plant community development, and site specific hydrologic and soil functions should be considered as well.
The most productive part of the soil medium occurs near the surface, at the contact between the forest litter and the mineral soil. This layer is frequently only a few inches thick but it contains most of the soil nitrogen, potassium, additional nutrients, and mycorrhizae that must be present for a site to be productive. Protecting the soil resource by minimizing the area of significant impact (road construction, primary skid trails and constructed landings) is essential to maintaining soil productivity and sustainable forest management.
All proposed units are within Yamhill County, Oregon and soil data was compiled via use of the Yamhill County Soil Survey, UC Davis California Soil Resource lab SoilWeb Earth, and the USDA NRCS website.
Soils within the proposed units of the project area are primarily silt loams, with some finer textured silty clay loams in section 17, 33 and 34. The most prominent soil series within the Panther Creek proposed units as mapped by NRCS are a Klistan-Harslow-Hemcross Complex and Hembre silt loams, which account for over 50% of the defined NRCS soils in the proposed units. In general, project soils are moderately deep to deep and highly productive, with NRCS site index values ranging from 117 to 127 on a 50 year basis. Stand exam data conducted for the BLM for this project has site index productivity ranging from 87 to 158, with a majority of the units having site index values greater than 130. Site index values for Douglas-fir in the Coast Range of Oregon can range from a site index of 50 in low quality growing sites to 160 in sites with optimal growing conditions. All soils are rated highly resilient and have an inherent ability to restore functional and structural integrity over time after a disturbance. These soils are well drained, have a low resistance to soil compaction, are highly erodible and are highly susceptible to rutting hazards.
BLM and Salem District Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC)
The BLM Oregon Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) is defined in BLM’s TPCC manual H- 5251-1 as “a land classification system used to partition all public lands within the Sustained Yield Unit (SYU) boundary of BLM administered land. These partitions are classified based on the physical and biological capability of the site to support and produce forest products on a sustained yield basis, using operational management practices.”
This classification system was developed in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s to determine the suitability of long term sustainable harvest on BLM managed forest land based on the harvesting and reforestation practices at the time. Since the creation of the TPCC database, harvesting techniques and reforestation goals have changed significantly, as well as how the BLM plans and manages their forests, making some TPCC classifications somewhat obsolete due to a change in forest management practices; however, most of the TPCC classification at the time was field checked and reviewed at the local level, so much of the areas that are categorized as fragile or reforestation problems are areas that should be looked at with increased scrutiny based on the planned forest management activities of this planning effort combined with the limitations of the landscape identified within the classification system.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 153 Proposed units were cross referenced with the TPCC layer, and all highly fragile and non-suitable soils were identified and field checked to determine validity, and soils that were determined by the BLM to be non-suitable were removed from the project.
A majority (78%) of the TPCC classification within the remaining units that are being considered for stand treatment are rated as non-problem (NP, 227 acres), or are rated as fragile soils due to soil moisture issues that were created from excessive logging damage from previous logging entries (FSR2, 416 acres). These FSR2 soils have recovered from previous logging impact and will be changed to NP. 18% of the proposed units are TPCC rated as having reforestation issues due to light (RLR1 149 acres). The following are the management concerns and recommended practices and restrictions for the majority of the planning units as it pertains to TPCC.
● Non-problem (NP): 643 acres (78%) There are no specific management concerns or recommended practices in TPCC units classified as non-problem
● Reforestation problem due to light (RLR1): 149 acres (15%) These are sites that have the potential for hardwood and brush species to limit tree seedling survival or growth by restricting available light. All recommended practices will be handled via combination of project design features and silvicultural prescriptions.
Existing Site Conditions and Past Activities
The Panther Creek planning area is approximately 11,653 acres in size with approximately 90% of the planning area being forested by lands managed by the BLM (2,213 acres), Industrial forest (4,540 acres) or small private woodlots (3,699 acres). Almost all of the forest stands within the planning area have been logged at sometime within the last 100 years.
The existing conditions of the soil resource were determined using past records, the Yamhill County Soil Survey, historical air photographs, GIS data, LiDAR data and field inspections. LiDAR bare earth and historical air photo analysis shows that most of the steeper ground in this area was logged via the construction of terraced skid trails that ran generally perpendicular to the slope, and that aggressive yarding techniques (a high amount of skid trails) was the standard logging procedure of the day, particularly in section 19 and 25.
In the fall of 2016 and throughout 2017 the proposed units were field checked to determine soil characteristics, as well as to estimate the degree of historical soil disturbance remaining from previous forest management activities. Onsite assessment included random shovel tests and visual observations along unit inspection routes, as well as locating and visiting historically impacted areas that were identified in old air photos and LiDAR to conduct formalized soil disturbance monitoring to specifically determine the current condition of areas that had been impacted in the past. While there is some visual evidence of historic skid trails and other logging impact within the area, almost all sampled sites with historic visual impact or impact identified in older air photographs were not in a detrimental state in terms of compaction, and bulk densities throughout the soil profile appeared similar to the surrounding intact forest floor via field observation, and were shown primarily to be in a recovered state. There were a few areas where historic forest management activities had lasting negative impacts on the soil resource, but these areas were few, and were all in landings, access roads or in some terraced skid trails, which are small and localized in nature and many will be reused in this proposed project. It was also noted that there are impacts in this area from public use and access in the form of riding horses or off road driving. The off road driving impacts are not excessive and generally occur on historic logging roads. It is estimated that the current amount of detrimental soil disturbance within units are 46 acres (6%), with 38 acres being composed of existing roads and 8 acres impacted from historical logging activities.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 154 3.6.2 Analysis Area and Temporal Scale
For the purposes of this analysis, determination of direct, indirect and cumulative effects on soil quality standards will be applied to the individual harvest units proposed for treatment within the Panther Creek project area due to the localized impact of timber harvesting activities.
The temporal scale is dependent on the specific issue being addressed, with no one scale being appropriate for all issues. The analysis may need to evaluate the effects of proposed management over all seasons for several days, years or decades.
The temporal scales can be defined as long and short-term. For this evaluation, short-term effects are those that occur approximately within the first 10 years following proposed management activities. Long-term effects are those that occur approximately after 10 years or more following proposed management activities.
3.6.3 Environmental Effects-All Issues
Alternative 1-No Action
No new management-induced detrimental direct and indirect impacts would occur in the Panther Creek planning area. There would be no compaction or displacement beyond the currently existing levels, and any existing impact from previous entries would continue to recover.
No cumulative effects to soils would take place as no soil disturbance activities would take place. With no new activities, no new management-induced detrimental cumulative impacts would occur in the Panther Creek Planning Area.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
Detrimental Soil Disturbance and Long Term Soil Productivity
Timber Harvest
The Proposed Action identifies 758 acres for timber management activities on BLM managed land within the planning area; of which, 582 acres are proposed to be ground based yarded and 174 acres are proposed to be skyline yarded. A certain amount of soil impact is inevitable when conducting logging operations, but the most detrimental ground disturbing activities that occur in forest management actions takes place in yarding corridors, skid roads, constructed roads and constructed landings. While soil disturbance will occur throughout the harvest units, project design features are designed to limit the level and amount of disturbance within units to less than the RMP allotted 15% of the harvest unit area (BMP TH 08). For the purpose of analysis, BLM assumes that all detrimental soil impact within harvest units not calculated for damaging impacts to be small and localized in nature, and will not meaningfully add to the amount of calculated detrimental soil impacts.
The units proposed for ground based logging would occur generally on slopes of less than 35%. Although there are some areas within the proposed ground harvest units that have slopes that exceed 35%, these areas have been identified and would not pose a logging problem (see EA section 2.4, Yarding Methods).
Ground based yarding systems have a higher degree of soil impact than skyline systems due to utilizing heavy ground based equipment to forward logs to landing areas as well as the possible use of ground based equipment to harvest timber. Ground based harvest systems can be many varying combinations of mechanical processes that severs the tree from the stump and transports it to a landing area. Traditional ground based harvest systems relied on chainsaws to cut and buck logs and grapple skidders to forward logs to landings. Over the last 10-15 years, the use of cut-to-length (CTL) harvesting systems have increased, as more and more logging companies are acquiring harvester/forwarder equipment to do CTL harvesting. The ground based yarding system with the most potential to detrimentally impact the soil resource is whole-tree harvesting, where a feller-buncher cuts the entire tree and
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 155 bunches them into bundles of trees that are then skidded to landings. Whole-tree harvesting has the potential for more soil disturbance than other ground based logging systems due to the lack of ability for feller-bunchers to create a slash mat to operate on, the necessity for non-boom mounted machines to travel over a higher percentage of the unit to access trees to be harvested, and the removal of the entire tree from the stand, leaving little remaining coarse wood. The use of feller-bunchers that meet the criteria of project design features (tracked, boom mounted) would be allowed to operate in ground harvest units based on the following reasons:
1. The observed impacts of timber sale activity on similar soil types on BLM managed land within the area.
2. The requirement of skid trail and logging layout approval by a BLM Contract Administrator.
3. The recovery rate observed in units that had been previously impacted in previous entries.
The areas most impacted by ground based logging are generally located within designated skid roads where logs are transported to landing areas, as well as the landing areas themselves, where there can be moderate to severe amounts of topsoil and organic matter displacement and moderate to severe soil compaction. A properly designed skid trail system with a minimum of 150 foot spacing between skid trails and restricting equipment to operating on a single lane generally has an area extent of ground disturbance of approximately 5-8% of a harvest unit dependent upon size and shape of the unit. Utilizing the length of planned forwarding trails designed by the Timber Layout logging plan and assuming skid trail widths to be 12 feet in width, it is estimated that 37 acres of soils within the tractor harvest units would be comprised of detrimentally impacted skid trails (4.8%).
Skyline yarding has a lesser degree of unfavorable impact to the soil resource than does ground yarding, as all heavy equipment necessary to accomplish skyline yarding operations are restricted to operate on constructed roads and landings. The most damaging impacts to soils in skyline yarding units occur in roads constructed to access the skyline yarding unit and in discontinuous strips in approved yarding corridors. Utilizing the length of planned yarding trails designed by the Timber Layout logging plan and assuming compaction and displacement impacts within skyline yarding trails to be 4 feet in width, it is estimated that approximately 7 acres of soils within the skyline harvest units would be comprised of detrimentally impacted yarding corridors (1%). Road construction impacts to soils related to skyline harvest are calculated in the direct impacts in the road construction section.
Recent developments over the last decade in the technological advancements of ground harvest mechanized equipment in the logging industry have made it possible to harvest and forward logs on slopes much steeper than has been done in the past. Known as steep slope or winch assist logging, this type of utilization of specialized ground harvest equipment has been a growing trend in the logging industry. Contractors are interested in moving towards more utilization of steep slope winch assist logging methods due to higher production rates, less operating costs and most importantly, improved safety.
Specialized ground-based equipment is not defined in the RMP, but in general, logging equipment that is designed to operate on steeper slopes has features such as self-leveling cabs, wider and extended tracks and some form of winch assist technology that transfers the vehicle’s load balance and assists in tractive force. Mechanical equipment types that are modified to operate on steeper terrain include feller-bunchers, shovels and CTL (Cut to length) harvester/forwarder operations, with the CTL systems seeming to be the most prevalent in use within the area based on personal observation.
The RMP BMP’s limit non-specialized mechanized equipment to slopes of less than 35% (RMP BMP TH13) and allows specialized ground-based equipment to operate on slopes up to 50% if they are able to do so without causing excessive environmental degradation to the soil resource (RMP BMP TH14). The BMP TH14 stipulation will constrain the BLM at the local level in being able to properly consider use of specialized logging equipment in logging scenarios where slopes are greater than 50%. Until this BMP is modified, specialized ground based equipment will be limited to operation on slopes of less than 50%.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 156 The BLM estimates that 28 constructed landings and multiple roadside landings (approximately 188) will be needed to accomplish the Proposed Action. Soils within constructed landing areas are detrimentally impacted by compaction and displacement by forest management activities such as landing construction, log transport to landings, and log processing and loading at landings. Project design features limit landing sizes to the minimal area necessary to safely conduct operations. Landings constructed in regeneration harvest units are calculated to be ¼ acre in size, and constructed landings in commercial thinning units are calculated to be 1/10th of an acre in size. BLM estimates that the total area of detrimental impact by landing construction to be approximately 6 acres. Roadside landing impacts are not calculated to have impacts to soils within the units due to most ground impacts occurring within the Right-of-Way clearing limits of existing, renovated, improved or constructed roads which are already calculated as detrimentally disturbed ground within the proposed units.
The forest management activities proposed for this planning effort would directly increase soil disturbance within the activity areas; however, through project planning and implementation of PDFs and BMPs, BLM assumes the aerial extent and degree of disturbance within harvest units is expected to remain within the accepted BLM’s 2016 NCO RMP management direction that “limits the increase of detrimental soil disturbance to 15 percent of any given treatment unit”.
Road Construction, Renovation, Maintenance and Decommissioning
Approximately 2.0 miles of new temporary road construction and 2.9 miles of permanent road construction is planned under the Proposed Action. Utilizing a 30 foot clearing limit for new road construction, it is estimated that road construction will add approximately 18 acres of highly disturbed soils within the planning area.
All newly constructed temporary roads are to be fully decommissioned after use. Road decommissioning would restore some of the hydrologic function as well put the roads in a more erosion resistance state, but BLM expects full recovery of these road surfaces to take decades.
There will be no additional detrimental soil impacts from the proposed road maintenance and renovation activities such as brushing, blading, drainage improvements, and surfacing on existing dedicated roads.
Fuel Treatments-Mechanical Piling and Burning
Fuel treatment activities that may affect soils under the Proposed Action alternative include the piling of fuels into slash piles via mechanical methods and the subsequent burning of those piles. BLM assumes mechanical pile burning would increase the amount of machine traffic within the stand and the probability of increased levels of soil compaction and displacement. BLM’s concern of soil compaction and disturbance via mechanized piling would be alleviated with the use of smaller, low ground pressure and wider tracked equipment, or by the piling of slash during the timber felling process, as well as utilizing the RMP’s relevant BMP’s. The Proposed Action plans for 395 acres to be regeneration harvested, which would create a large amount of logging slash that will need to be managed in order to effectively replant/regenerate stands. Whole tree yarding operations would concentrate slash to within the landing areas, conceivably piling all the slash that is generated from the project within a small area, but alleviating the need for mechanical piling within treatment units. Design features require piling machinery to utilize existing trails and stay on slopes less than 35% and to operate in dry soil conditions to prevent detrimental soil disturbance, and to keep burning piles small in size and with fuels having diameters of less than 12” in diameter. In studies that were conducted and summarized by the US Forest Service in General Technical Report PSW-GTR-241 “Fuel Reduction Practices and Their Effects on Soil Quality”, impacts to soil from pile burning are greatly minimized by limiting fuel size to less than 12 inches, and to burn during periods where soil moistures are greater than 20%.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Alternative 3 would convert 111 acres that are proposed for regeneration harvest to commercial thinning and would change 0.7 miles of new construct road from being fully decommissioned to long-term storage.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 157 Direct effects to soils in Alternative 3 would be similar to the Proposed Action in that the transportation network needed to extract logs would be the same in both scenarios. BLM expects Alternative 3 would be slightly less impactful than the Proposed Action in fuel piling and burning impacts as there is less slash that would need treatment in the commercial thinning units.
Putting 0.7 miles of road into long-term closure would equate to approximately 2 acres of area that would not get decompacted post treatment, as these roads would be reused in the following stand entry, and would most likely be fully decommissioned after that. BLM assumes all new road construction (18 acres) would be detrimentally impacted soils in this analysis regardless of post-harvest road treatment.
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Alternative 4 would convert 98 acres that is proposed for commercial thinning into a regeneration harvest. Direct effects to soils in Alternative 4 would be similar to the Proposed Action in that the transportation network needed to extract logs would be the same in both scenarios. BLM assumes Alternative 4 would be slightly more impactful than the proposed action in fuel piling and burning impacts as there is more slash created in regeneration harvests; however, adhering to pile burning BMP’s of keeping fuel sizes small and burning during periods of higher soil moisture will minimize piling and burning impacts.
3.6.4 Cumulative Effects-Proposed Action (All Issues)
Detrimental Soil Disturbance and Long Term Soil Productivity
Timber Harvest and Fuel Piling: Soil Productivity
Approximately 19% of the land within the Panther Creek planning area is managed by the BLM. BLM expects that forest management activities on BLM managed forests within the planning area will continue, although future planning efforts in the Panther Creek area may be decades away. Impacted soils in BLM managed forest stands that will not be operated in (Riparian Reserves and LSR) will continue towards recovery except for permanent roads, and stands that do receive treatment would have short term additional soil impacts that would begin to move towards recovery after stand treatment. For the purpose of analysis, BLM assumes that existing soil impacts on BLM managed land in the planning area to be similar to the estimated 5.6% of highly impacted soils that exist within the planning units, calculated to be an estimated 124 acres of soils in a highly impacted condition on BLM managed property within the Panther Creek planning area.
Most of the long-term, cumulative addition of soil disturbance for this project would occur as the result of new road and landing construction (approximately 26 acres) and in skid roads and skyline corridors used to forward logs out of the unit (approximately 44 acres). Some of the newly constructed roads, all constructed landings and possibly some skid trails within units will be de-compacted after use. Road, landing and skid trail de-compaction following timber harvest would reduce impacted soils bulk densities, improve moisture infiltration and minimize risk of overland flow of water, and increase air spaces within the soil profile; however, BLM assumes a portion of the soil function and soil productivity within these decommissioned surfaces would be adversely impacted for several decades.
The effect of compaction on forest stand site productivity have shown short-term responses to the residual/regenerating forest stand ranging from negative to indeterminate to positive (Ares et al. 2005, Froehlich et al. 1986, Gomez et al. 2002, Miller et al. 2001, Parker et al. 2007, Ponder et al. 2012). The net response of forests to soil compaction depends on (1) the degree of compaction, as determined by a variety of soil properties and machinery specifications; (2) the areal extent of compaction; (3) soil texture—e.g., compaction may improve soil water availability and vegetation growth in sandy soils, and (4) soil resilience, or the time required for recovery.
Currently, approximately 44 acres (5.8%) of the soils within the proposed harvest area are highly disturbed soils, with approximately 37.5 acres in existing roads and 6.5 acres in other historical impacts from previous logging
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 158 entries (terraced skid trails, skid trails and historic temporary logging roads). BLM estimates that 70 acres of detrimental soil disturbance will result from implementation of the Proposed Action, and that the 6 acres of historical impacts from previous logging entries will be reutilized during implementation of the Proposed Action. Therefore, BLM estimates that the Proposed Action will cumulatively add another 64 acres (8.4%) of highly disturbed soils associated with the planning units. On a planning area scale, the addition of 64 acres of impacted soils would result in an estimated 2.8% increase in highly disturbed soils on BLM managed lands within the Panther Creek Planning Area.
Organic Matter and Nutrient Removal
Analyzing for a cumulative effect in regards to nutrient removals from timber harvest within the Panther Creek planning area is impossible to determine at this time. BLM assumes that private timberland within the planning area will continue to be managed for timber production, and will be managed as single aged stands on a short rotational basis; however, any immediate nutrient deficiencies on private land would most likely be augmented with the addition of nutrients through fertilization.
3.7 Botany and Invasive Plants
3.7.1 Issue 16: Would road construction, harvesting and hauling cause the spread or new infestation of noxious and/or invasive weed species?
3.7.1.1 Analytical Assumptions
● Invasive plants are non-native plant species whose introduction causes economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Noxious weeds are a subset of invasive plants with formal federal or state designations. Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) designates invasive species as noxious weeds through the Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2017. ● BLM has documented more than 100 invasive and 25-listed noxious weed species on lands administered by the Northwest Oregon District BLM. ● Invasive plant species have a wide variety of distribution patterns, spread strategies, and responses to integrated pest management strategies. ● Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) invasive species are those which currently do not occur within the Northwest Oregon District, but which have the potential to invade. This category includes over one hundred known species. ● For common invasive plant species the combination of “light and disturbed soil provide favorable conditions for invasive plant seed germination and plant establishment” (FEIS p. 424). ● Regeneration harvest activities create higher light levels than commercial thinning (2014 Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria, p. 90). ● Ground-based yarding has a higher probability of spreading invasive plants/noxious weeds within treatment units than cable yarding due to the machinery used within the treatment stand during ground based yarding operations.
3.7.1.2 Analysis Area
The analysis area includes the Panther Creek Project Area, and specifically focuses on the treatment units and areas where new road construction would occur. This encompasses all proposed treatment units and new road construction and includes a representative area suitable for determination of existing invasive plant species with the potential to occur within the project area.
3.7.1.3 Analysis Methodology
● BLM botanist uses the BLM 9015 Manual to develop a risk assessment for invasive species currently within the analysis area.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 159 ● BLM determines risk based on Factor 1: the likelihood of species spreading to the project area (none, low, moderate, or high) in conjunction with Factor 2: consequence of long-term establishment (low, medium, or high) in the project area. Information used in this assessment includes current presence and abundance of invasive species. ● BLM looks at the risk associated with the specific planned logging methods and harvest levels in the same manner as the PRMP/FEIS Planning Criteria (p. 92), where these factors are given a weighted value. The amount of exposed mineral soil changes depending on the logging methods (cable vs ground based) and the post-harvest light levels are dependent on the harvest level (thinning vs regeneration). Cable yarding would receive a three (moderate soil disturbance) and ground-based would receive a five (high soil disturbance). The harvest level thinning/density management would receive a one (low light levels) and regeneration harvest would receive a five (high light levels). By multiplying out the likelihood of soil disturbance (based on the logging method) by the post-harvest light level (based on the treatment type), one can generate a Susceptibility level (Low, Moderate or High) for the different areas within the proposed project. This helps us focus on areas of higher risk of spread specific to the project area.
Cable harvest (3) x Thinning (1) = 3 Low Susceptibility
Cable harvest (3) x Regeneration (5) = 15 Moderate Susceptibility
Ground harvest (5) x Thinning (1) = 5 Low Susceptibility
Ground harvest (5) x Regeneration (5) = 25 High Susceptibility
Survey Techniques
In addition to database searches, known site maps, records, and/or habitat examinations a contract was completed for 1,780 acres of botanical surveys in the Panther Creek project area between July 2013 and September 2013 to determine the presence invasive weed species. The survey method used was intuitive controlled surveys, performed by traversing through and around survey units, with survey effort greatest in habitats most likely to contain special status plant species. The contractor collected plant population data for any ODA listed noxious weed species.
Survey Results
The contractor mapped five acres of invasive species scattered mostly along roadsides. These species included Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), geranium species (Geranium lucidum and G. robertianum), perennial peavine (Lathyrus latifolius), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Other invasive species found in the area that had trace amounts documented were tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). The contractor documented roadside non-native coverage to range from 5-35% within the road prism, and documented trace levels up to 1% non-native coverage within all stands. All species documented are on the ODA 2017 Noxious weed “B list”, which are regionally abundant but limited in some counties. Based on the current distribution of these species, they are classified as Class C Weeds in the 9015 Manual. See Appendix A of Botanical Specialist Report for the Invasive Species Cover Summary.
3.7.1.4 Affected Environment
Existing vegetation within the Panther Creek project area consists of 40-119 year-old conifer over-story with scattered pockets of hardwoods, an understory of common shrubs and scattered populations of grasses and forbs. Current stand canopy cover ranges from 70-90% across the planning area (Table 16). A comprehensive plant species list from the proposed project area is located at the Tillamook Field Office located in Tillamook, Oregon at 4610 3rd St.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 160 Ground surveys show a variety of habitats are represented throughout the project area (substrates, rock features, elevations, slopes, aspects, water, and topography). Botanical surveys completed show that most invasive plant species found were located along existing roadways, covering 5-35 percent of the road prism and total approximately five acres by invasive species such as scotch broom, blackberry, and geranium. All the invasive plant species present in the project area and in the surrounding watershed are designated as “B Listed” species on the ODA 2017 noxious weed list and rank as Class C Weeds in the 9015 Manual, due to the distribution of established infestations throughout Western Oregon. Because they are present in and adjacent to the project area, newly formed seed is readily available and/or an established seed bank is present. These invasive species are prevalent throughout Western Oregon and proliferate easily through vectors such as human traffic, animal movement, wind, and water. Some degree of invasive plant introduction or spread is probable through these existing vectors.
3.7.1.5 Environmental Effects
Alternative 1 - No Action
BLM expects no appreciable increase in populations of invasive species identified to occur under the “No Action” alternative. Plant communities within the project area would continue to be dependent on ecological processes currently in place. The BLM and other landowners would continue to maintain major paved or rocked access routes within the project area for vehicular use by forestry workers and public. Road maintenance activities such as applying additional rock, grading, mowing competing vegetation, culvert replacement, pulling ditches, and reshaping the roadways all cause some degree of ground disturbance. Infestations located within the road prisms would increase in numbers the year following road use disturbances, but then decrease as continued maintenance occurs or as native vegetation reclaim the road prism.
The botanical survey contractor estimated the current non-native species cover to be only one percent of the forested stands, the area outside of the road prisms. Due to this, establishment of invasive plant species located outside of the road prism and within the project area would be minimal due to the lack of sunlight and lack of mineral soil disturbances and low species presence.
Effects Common To All Action Alternatives - Alternative 2, 3 & 4
Any management activities that include ground-disturbing operations with heavy equipment can facilitate the spread of invasive plants. Prevention practices are normally included in management actions to help limit the introduction and spread of invasive plants through these vectors. Examples of forest management activities associated with the Panther Creek Timber Management project that could cause soil disturbance and influence the spread of invasive plant species are timber harvest, new road construction, road decommissioning, road maintenance, and culvert replacements, ground based skidding operations, skyline cable logging operations, and transportation vehicles. Project design features are included to reduce the likelihood of invasive plant establishment and spread as a result of project activities.
Any operations associated with roadwork (construction, renovation, maintenance, and culverts) increases the susceptibility for new invasive species and spread due to major ground disturbance and the possibility of introducing new species with the gravel. BLM would survey contractor selected gravel sites to prepare a watch list of species that are not already present in the project area. The PDF for three years of annual post- implementation monitoring would increase chances of detecting any new infestations early and allow for timely treatment to prevent establishment and spread. By having the contractor implement the PDFs for washing ground- disturbing equipment before bringing it onto BLM lands, BLM concludes the likelihood of introducing new species is reduced.
All action alternatives include 35 acres of Density Management in riparian areas. These acres would have a low susceptibility of invasive plant spread because canopy cover is estimated to remain at 56-67% following treatment. Under all action alternatives, 16 acres of ROW clearing would increase light levels and would have a
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 161 high susceptibility of invasive plant spread due to the associated ground disturbance from roadwork in the cleared ROW.
The remaining 730 acres of planned timber harvest are a combination of commercial thinning and regeneration harvest units that varies by alternative. Differences in acres of harvest type by alternative are detailed in Table 38. In areas planned for timber harvest the amount of expected exposed mineral soil changes depending on harvest method, with ground based methods having a higher potential of ground disturbance than cable based methods. Using the methodology described above, the project botanist generated the susceptibility level for the different harvest areas within the proposed project. The high susceptibility areas occur within regeneration harvest units and in newly constructed road corridors that increase the light levels through canopy removal and utilize ground- based harvest methods which provide a potential vector of invasive plant spread from harvest equipment operating within the unit. Cable yarding methods within regeneration harvest units reduce the susceptibility to moderate because movement of heavy equipment across the landscape is limited, so it is not acting as a vector throughout the unit. By implementing the PDFs of washing ground disturbing equipment prior to entering the project area, seeding in areas of high soil disturbance and implementing post-harvest monitoring to determine additional treatments needed, BLM assumes there would be a reduced risk of long term spread and establishment by invasive plant species. Monitoring in these areas would be a priority to determine the need for follow up treatment. Where establishment of invasive species does occur and treatment is not implemented species could persist during the early seral stages of stand development, depending on the species present and tree planting density, but BLM assumes these populations would decline back to baseline percent cover levels as tree canopies close and they compete for light with native vegetation across the project area.
Alternative 2-Proposed Action
In addition to Density Management and ROW clearing, timber harvest would occur on 730 acres. Regeneration harvest with cable yarding would occur on 98 acres resulting in moderate susceptibility to invasive plant spread due to increased light levels and the expected degree of soil disturbance. Regeneration harvest with ground-based yarding would occur on 297 acres resulting in high susceptibility of invasive plant spread due to increased light levels and the expected degree of soil disturbance. Commercial Thinning would occur in 335 acres, which only plan to reduce canopy cover to 56-71%, compared to the current canopy cover of 70-90%. For the invasive plant species documented in the project area, maintaining more of an established over story and having less light reach the ground helps to prevent establishment within the stand. Due to the smaller increase in light levels associated with thinning these areas would have low susceptibility to the spread of invasive plant species when harvested by ground or cable (PRMP/FEIS Planning Criteria, p. 91). Monitoring would still occur in priority locations such as landings and areas of high soil disturbance. Overall this alternative rates as moderate risk because the invasive species present on site that have potential to spread due to project activities are regionally abundant and PDFs would be implemented to monitor and treat any new infestations.
Alternative 3-Commercial Thinning of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Harvest activities and connected actions for this alternative would occur over the same number of total acres and would have similar impacts as the proposed action alternative (Alt 2). Under this alternative the BLM would increase the total Commercial Thinning areas to 446 acres and would reduce the Regeneration Harvest to 284 acres. This reduces the areas with moderate and high susceptibility of invasive plant introduction and increases the number of low susceptibility acres. This change does not affect the overall risk rating of moderate because of the species currently present on the landscape, but the BLM expects less post-harvest spread due to the increased acres that would maintain a canopy closure of 56-71% (Silviculture Report, Table 9A & 11A).
Alternative 4-Regeneration Harvest of Healthy 68-78 Year Old Stands
Harvest activities and connected actions for this alternative would occur over the same number of total acres and would have similar impacts as the proposed action alternative (Alt 2). Under this alternative the BLM would increase the total Regeneration harvest to 493 acres and would reduce the Commercial Thinning areas to 237
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 162 acres. This change does not affect the overall risk rating of moderate because of the species currently present on the landscape, but the BLM expects more post-harvest spread due to the increased acres in Regeneration Harvest units.
Table 38: Susceptibility Levels of Invasive Plant Spread in Commercial Thin and Regeneration Harvest Areas by Alternative
Harvest Method Susceptibility Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 x Harvest level Level Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
Cable harvest (3) 3 Low 56 8% 76 10% 56 8% x Thinning (1)
Ground harvest (5) x Thinning 5 Low 279 38% 370 51% 181 25% (1)
Cable harvest (3) x Regeneration 15 Moderate 98 13% 78 11% 98 13% (5)
Ground harvest (5) x 25 High 297 41% 206 28% 395 54% Regeneration (5)
3.7.1.6 Cumulative Effects
Existing Condition
The invasive plant species documented within the Panther Creek project area are regionally abundant and widespread throughout western Oregon. In addition, many of our common invasive plant species known from Northwestern Oregon District are not shade tolerant and generally do not persist in forest settings because they become out-competed for light as native tree and woody shrub densities increase, in response to timber management. However, these species are able to maintain populations along the managed road systems due to the management of competing vegetation and road grading which maintain sunlight exposure.
Effects of Other Present and Foreseeable Actions
Many forest management activities and natural events within western Oregon create soil disturbance, increase available light, and increase soil temperatures, all of which will influence the spread of invasive plant species. These activities and events include forestry management actions, farming, road construction, landslides, floods, windstorms, and recreational activities. Activities that do not necessarily create disturbance but influence the spread of weed seeds include; vehicle use and recreational activities. Other sources of seed dispersal include wildlife migration, water movement, plant dehiscence, and wind. These activities and natural events have occurred in the past, and will be ongoing in the present and foreseeable future of the Panther Creek planning area.
Future projects in the watershed will most likely include timber harvest by other landowners, recreation, and road maintenance, all of which have the ability of introducing and spreading invasive plant species. Integrated pest management will also likely occur in the area, as populations of priority species are located. BLM does not anticipate any adverse effects from the establishment of non-native species that occur within or near the project area.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 163 Effects of the Proposed Action
No appreciable increase in invasive plant infestations is expected with the “No Action” alternative. The action alternatives rank as moderate risk ratings for the long-term establishment of invasive plant species because of species already present in the project area, though with the incorporation of project design features the likelihood of introducing new invasive species is not anticipated.
The invasive plant species known to occur within the Panther Creek project area (such as Scotch broom, geranium & blackberry) are regionally abundant and widespread throughout western Oregon. Per BLM, the overall risk rating for the long-term establishment of these species and consequences of adverse effects on this project area is moderate because;
1) Species present in the project area are locally abundant and with the incorporation of project design features, the BLM does not anticipate the likelihood of the introduction of new invasive species. Moreover, generally any spread of non-native species present would increase in the years immediately following disturbance but then are expected to decline as native vegetation increases in density and size in the project area.
2) BLM would evaluate areas of soil disturbance (i.e. yarding corridors, decommissioned roads, landing margins, etc.) post-harvest to determine the need to seed or plant native vegetation to prevent invasive/non-native plant introduction.
3) BLM would evaluate selected gravel sites to develop a watch list of new invaders that could become present in roadwork areas.
4) In addition, BLM would monitor the project area annually for three years post-harvest for additional invasive plant infestations. Monitoring would provide for the early detection of new or expanding invasive plant infestations and allow a rapid response to implement treatments, if needed. The Tillamook Field Office has an integrated non-native plant management plan in place for the control of non-native plant species and is active in its control of Oregon listed noxious weeds.
The likelihood (moderate) and consequence (moderate) of adverse effects according to the 9015 manual for this project rates out as a Moderate risk rating, which recommends moving forward with the project while implementing preventative management measures and monitoring efforts already included in the project design features of this project.
Relation of Proposed Action Effects and Cumulative Effects
Invasive plant infestations within the watershed are expected to rise and fall through the implementation of soil disturbing projects and other natural events. The BLM does not anticipated any adverse effects from the spread of these non-native species that occur within or near the project area due to their ubiquitous nature across the landscape. These infestations are in the midst of the larger infestation that occurs throughout western Oregon.
With the implementation of the proposed project, invasive plant species could increase within the project area in areas of high soil disturbance but would remain localized and return to baseline pre-project levels as the tree canopies close and native vegetation reestablishes. BLM does not anticipated any adverse cumulative effects from the establishment of invasive plant species within the Panther Creek Timber Management project area, as a whole or within any adjacent watershed.
4. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
Coordination
Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 164 During the formal scoping period in October 2017, contacts were made with 30 agencies, organizations, and individuals that may have interest in the Panther Creek Project. For more information on internal and external project scoping, see section 1.7.1. Three comments letters were received by the BLM during this formal scoping period. Letters were received from Oregon Wild, American Forest Resources Council, and the City of Carlton. These comments, and BLM’s response to these comments, can be found in EA Chapter 7.
Tribal Coordination
In October of 2017, letters were sent to the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde and the Siletz Tribe asking if the proposed Panther Creek Project would conflict with tribal interests in the area or if they had any specific concerns regarding the project. The BLM received a comment letter from the Grand Ronde Tribes’ Cultural Resources Office on December 18, 2017. The letter expressed the Grand Ronde Tribes interest in reviewing the EA and recommended that the BLM conduct post-harvest surveys, as detailed by the 2015 BLM-SHPO survey protocol. As discussed in EA section 6.1 (under the Cultural Resources heading), the BLM would incorporate these recommendations and would conduct surveys to protocol following project implementation. The BLM did not receive a response from the Siletz Tribe.
ESA Consultation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The northern spotted owl would be affected by this project through the modification of 58 acres of suitable habitat and 700 acres of dispersal habitat. The marbled murrelet would be affected by this project through the modification of 29 acres of suitable habitat and 78 acres of buffer habitat. In addition to habitat modification there is a potential for disturbance to both of these species. Due to these identified impacts, which are described further in section 3.3 of this EA, formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is warranted.
Endangered Species Act consultation with the USFWS on the Panther Creek Project has occurred. The project was included in a batched 2018-2019 May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect Biological Assessment submitted to the USFWS on November 11, 2017. A Biological Opinion was received from the USFWS on December 11, 2017. If Alternative 4 is selected, reinitiation of consultation would be required.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Consultation on the Panther Creek Project has occurred with the use of WCR-2017-7574, a Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by NMFS on March 9, 2018. Notification to NMFS of the Panther Creek Project occurred on July 12, 2018 and on August 1, 2018 a verification of consistency was received by the BLM from NMFS. This Opinion, titled “Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat for the Programmatic Forest Management Program for Western Oregon” covers all timber sale and related actions.
5. LIST OF PREPARERS
This section lists the members of the Panther Creek Project IDT team, who developed the Panther Creek Timber Management Project and this Environmental Assessment.
Table 39: List of Preparers
Resource Name
Botany/Invasive Plant Species Heidi Christensen/Ian Grinter
Cultural Resources Fred Greatorex
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 165 Engineering Janet Satter
Environmental Coordinator/NEPA Andy Pampush Compliance/Writer-Editor
Fire/Fuels Yanu Gallimore
Fisheries Matt Walker
Hydrology/Water Quality Chris Robinson
IDT Lead/Writer-Editor Landon Rhodes
Logging Systems Janet Satter
Recreation Dan Davis
Visual Resources David Moore
Silviculture Clint Gregory/Matt Wilson/Dan Deane-McKenna
Soils Chris Sween
Wildlife Steve Bahe
5.1 Opportunity for Public Review and Comment
The EA and draft FONSI will be made available for public review from August 10, 2018 to September 10, 2018 and posted on the BLM’s NEPA Register webpage at: https://tinyurl.com/PantherCreekEA. Written comments should be addressed to Karen M. Schank, Field Manager, Tillamook Field Office, 4610 Third Street, Tillamook, Oregon, 97141. Emailed comments may be sent to Landon Rhodes at: [email protected].
6. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DATA
6.1 Issues not Analyzed in Detail
The following Issues were generated during external and internal scoping of the Panther Creek Project. These issues were considered by the Panther Creek IDT and were found to not warrant detailed analysis as they would not assist the Decision Maker is making a reasoned choice between the Alternatives. Each Issue not Analyzed in Detail is presented below, along with a rational as to why it was not selected for detailed analysis. The rational is presented as a summary. Further supporting information is included in resource specific specialist reports, which are incorporated into the EA by reference.
Wildlife
What effect would timber management treatments have on Bureau Sensitive bat species (Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat) or their habitat?
Two species of bats are Bureau Sensitive (BS) in the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP and may be within or near the Panther Creek planning area, which include the Townsend’s big-eared bat and the fringed myotis. These species are known to inhabit coniferous forests, and they may forage near riparian areas, open areas, and along forest edges and roads. Additionally, they can utilize large hollow trees for roosting and caves, abandoned mines, old buildings, bridges, rock crevices and cliff faces for roosting, hibernating, and maternity colonies.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 166 The project area does not contain any caves, abandoned mines, old buildings, or cliffs. The project area does contain several bridges which would be used for rock and log haul, though no known bat hibernacula and/or maternity colonies are known to exist under these bridges. As such, the BLM expects there to be no adverse impacts to hibernacula and/or maternity colonies from proposed project activities. Some of the proposed treatment units contain a small amount of roosting habitat in the form of larger snags. According to snag sampling within the treatment units there are approximately 3.4 snags per acre, of which less than 1% are the large, sound snags that provide high quality bat roosting habitat (greater than 20” dbh and 50’ tall).
The project’s design features would protect, to the greatest extent possible, all snags 20” dbh and greater, which would greatly reduce direct or indirect adverse impacts to bats which may result from the project. Additionally, the project would create 1 snag per acre (20” dbh or greater) in the HLB portion of treated stands and 10 snags per acre (5 snags 20” dbh or greater) in the RR portion of the treated stands which could develop into snags used as bat roosting sites in the future.
The regeneration harvest and thinning treatments would be expected to immediately improve the quality of bat foraging habitat by lowering stand densities and creating forest edge, which provides physical space for bats to forage and increases insect activity for bats to forage on.
Ultimately, we expect that the project would not negatively affect the forest bat populations and may improve habitat conditions for these species. Furthermore, we do not expect the project to contribute to the need to list the Townsend’s big-eared bat or the fringed myotis under the ESA. This issue will not be analyzed further in this EA.
What effect would timber management treatments have on purple martins and their habitats?
Purple martins are a Bureau Sensitive species which occur in the planning area. Purple martin nesting habitat includes recent clearcuts, burned areas or very early seral stage stands containing large snags with suitable cavities. They forage over open fields, rivers, wet meadows, lakes, and other open areas.
The vast majority, if not all the stands within the proposed treatment units are too densely stocked to currently provide nesting or foraging habitat for the purple martin. It is possible, although considered unlikely, that a few snags containing abandoned woodpecker cavities could be located within or near proposed treatment units and be suitable for martin nesting; for such snags to function as suitable martin nesting habitat they would likely need to be located directly adjacent to a BLM property line and a recent private clearcut or young plantation, or be located in an area with very poor stocking levels such as a forest gap created by a Phellinus weirii (a laminated root rot) infestation.
Project design features would protect large, high-quality snags (20” dbh and greater) to the greatest extent possible and the proposed treatments would create 1 snag per acre in the HLB and 10 snags per acre in the RR (5 snags 20” dbh or greater), potentially improving purple martin nesting habitat into the future. Additionally, regeneration harvest and thinning treatments would improve purple martin foraging habitat by reducing stand densities and creating high-contrast edges and areas that are more opened.
We expect that the project would not negatively affect purple martin populations and may improve habitat conditions into the future. Furthermore, we do not expect any of the action alternatives to contribute to the need to list the purple martin. This issue will not be analyzed further in this EA.
Would timber management treatments affect the ecological function of naturally occurring special habitats, which include seeps, springs, wetlands, and rock outcrops within the Panther Creek project area?
During field review BLM specialists identified several special habitats in or adjacent to proposed treatment units, which include seeps, springs, small wetlands, and rock outcrops. In total 37 seeps/spring and small wetlands were identified. 32 of these special habitats occur within the inner-zone of the Riparian Reserve and would be included in established no-harvest buffers. 5 of these special habitats are located within proposed treatment units. Project design features would protect these special habitats by requiring the placement of a 25 foot no-harvest buffer. In
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 167 addition, two rock outcrops were identified. One is located in unit 19-2 and was excluded from the proposed treatment unit, while the other, located in unit 29-6 which is proposed for commercial thinning by skyline (cable) harvest methods, would be protected by the placement of a small unthinned clump of trees (which would be approximately 0.1 acre in size and would count towards the 5% of untreated area within commercial thinning units) and avoided during logging corridor approval processes during project implementation.
With such design features, the ecological function of the naturally occurring special habitats found within the Panther Creek project would remain intact and this issue will not be analyzed in detail.
What effect would timber management treatments have on bald eagle habitat or bald eagles using nests (including active nests and alternate nests) or communal winter roosting areas?
Bald eagles generally nest within two miles of large, permanent water bodies (Isaacs and Anthony 2011) in stands containing large trees with open branching patterns and generally forage along larger streams with anadromous fish runs. There are no known nest sites within the planning area, though portions of the Panther Creek project are within two miles of Haskins Creek and McGuire Reservoirs, which are water bodies that could support bald eagle use within the vicinity. Due to the nature of these stands, which lack the features (large trees with open branching patterns) used by bald eagles as nest trees, the planning area is expected to provide very marginal habitat quality. Though bald eagles are often observed by BLM staff west of the planning area, along the Nestucca River, they have not been observed in the planning area.
The proposed project has some potential to disturb bald eagles that may be dispersing through the area during project implementation, but, given the high mobility of bald eagles, it would be expected that these individuals would be highly capable of moving away from such disturbance.
Based on the fact that there are no known bald eagle nests within the planning area, that habitat conditions within the proposed treatment units are poor, and that any dispersing birds using the area would be able to temporarily relocate during project implementation, impacts to bald eagles are considered to be negligible. As such, this issue will not be analyzed further.
How would the timber management treatments impact habitat conditions for northern spotted owl movement and survival between and through large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat?
While the Panther Creek planning area is not within or directly between large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, it is located just outside the southeastern edge of the Nestucca River Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), which is owl Critical Habitat and a large block of nesting-roosting habitat. The Nestucca LSR is approximately 45 miles north of the next large block of owl habitat.
Analysis for this issue was conducted in the 2016 FEIS, and analysis is appropriate at this landscape scale. The Panther Creek project is located within a spotted owl “not dispersal-capable” landscape due to the fact that an insufficient percentage of dispersal habitat (30-40%) is distributed across the landscape (i.e. within the 15.5 mile radius or approximately 754 square miles used in this analysis). The effects of the proposed alternatives tiers to the analysis conducted in the 2016 FEIS. Specifically, the FEIS found that, currently, north-south movement between these blocks is not “dispersal-capable” due to a lack of dispersal habitat (2016 FEIS Figure 3-183, p. 943). The FEIS also concluded that under the Proposed RMP, this area would be nearing a capability of supporting north-south movement of owls by 2043. The most impactful alternative of Panther Creek project (Alternative 4) would remove 493 acres of dispersal habitat, through regeneration harvest. It is expected that reforestation on these acres would result in the stands returning to functional dispersal habitat within 40 years. These acres of proposed regeneration treatment are consistent with the regeneration harvest acres assumed in the FEIS (NCO ROD/RMP Table B-1, p. 132) and, as such, the effects of proposed treatments to owl movement and survival between large blocks of nesting-roosting habitat would not have significant effects beyond those already analyzed in the FEIS. This issue will not be analyzed further.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 168 Hydrology
What effect would proposed regeneration harvest under the Proposed Action have on stream discharge in terms of low stream flows?
The 2016 FEIS concluded that timber harvest under the Proposed RMP would not have a measurable effect on low stream flows at the subwatershed or watershed scale due to the maintenance of riparian vegetation and the limited extent of the Harvest Land Base. This discussion is incorporated here by reference (USDI BLM, 2016, pp. 408-409). Under the action alternatives, at the stand level, there are no stands within regeneration harvest units that are older than 130 years, and plantations that are contributing to reduced low flows would be replaced by the same, resulting in no change from current conditions. When considering lands under all ownerships, forest management on BLM-administered lands over time would lead to a slight increase in low stream flows at the catchment scale due to the hydrologic recovery of reserved lands, green tree retention in the Harvest Land Base, and the dispersed nature of treatment units. In addition, although unquantifiable, the maturation of Riparian Management Areas on private and local government lands would lead to further increases in low flows. However, the scattered nature and limited extent of BLM-administered lands at the landscape scale means that the proposed treatments under all action alternatives would not result in a measurable effect on low stream flows at the subwatershed or larger scales. For more detailed information, refer to the Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA Hydrology Specialist Report (2018). In conclusion, effects to low stream flows under the action alternatives would be slightly beneficial at the catchment scale and indiscernible at the subwatershed scale, and this issue will not be analyzed in detail.
What effect would proposed regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and riparian commercial thinning treatments and road construction under the action alternatives have on stream discharge in terms of peak stream flows?
All catchments in which harvest treatments and road construction would occur under the action alternatives are rain-dominated, and there is little evidence that timber harvest or road construction can elevate peak stream flows in the rain-dominated hydroregion (Grant, Lewis, Swanson, Cissel, & McDonnell, 2008). The 2008 FEIS includes a more detailed discussion of the effects of timber harvest and road construction in rain-dominated watersheds and why they were not analyzed in detail (USDI BLM, 2008, p. 352-354), which is incorporated here by reference. There would be no effects to peak stream flows under the action alternatives, and this issue will not be analyzed in detail.
What effect would proposed riparian commercial thinning treatments in the outer zone of the Riparian Reserve under the action alternatives have on meeting state Water Quality standards for stream temperature?
The effects of commercial thinning in the Outer Zone of the Riparian Reserve under the action alternatives on effective shade and stream temperature is not analyzed in detail, because, regardless of project-specific or site- specific information, there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects beyond those disclosed in the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement. The FEIS concluded that a limited number of perennial and fish- bearing stream reaches would be susceptible to shade reductions that could affect stream temperature if the BLM were to apply thinning treatments in the Outer Zone of the Riparian Reserve in areas with less than 40% canopy cover in the Inner Zone. This condition does not exist in the Inner Zone of project area streams, and they would not be susceptible to shade reductions under the action alternatives.
What effect would proposed tree felling to supplement large in-stream wood in the inner zone of the Riparian Reserve under the action alternatives have on meeting state Water Quality standards for stream temperature?
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 169 No more than site-level changes to effective shade would occur with the implementation of PDFs (Hydrology Specialist Report, 2018). These site-level changes would not approach the 3% threshold (calculated for 0.25-mile perennial and fish-bearing stream reaches and summed by mile) that the FEIS determined represents a risk of stream temperature increases (FEIS, p. 371). As such, no effects to effective shade or stream temperature at the stream reach scale or greater would occur, and this issue will not be analyzed in detail.
What effect would sediment generated by proposed regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and riparian thinning treatments, fuels treatments, site preparation treatments, and rock quarry operations under the action alternatives have on meeting state Water Quality standards and/or Total Maximum Daily Loads for in-stream fine sediment and turbidity?
Due to the width of vegetated buffers (120 feet on either side of perennial streams and 50 feet on intermittent streams) and the implementation of BMPs and PDFs, there would be no measurable changes to in-stream fine sediment or turbidity at the stream reach scale or greater due to timber harvest activities, silvicultural and fuels treatments, or rock quarry operations. For more information on buffer widths and specific water quality BMPs and PDFs that would be implemented, refer to the Hydrology Specialist Report (2018). This issue will not be analyzed in detail.
What effect would sediment generated by proposed timber harvest and road-related activities under the action alternatives have on water quality within Drinking Water Protection Areas for public water supplies?
This issue will not be analyzed in detail because the relevant effects of these activities on public water supplies are analyzed in detail in Issue #10.
Soils
How would timber harvest and road building activities affect slope stability within the project area?
Mass movement is a natural process in which the mechanics and rates of slope movement are controlled by many factors: slope gradients, depth to bedrock, structural bedrock properties and moisture content in the soil profile are some of the many factors that determine the potential for slope movement risk and slope failures. Timber harvest and road building can greatly increase the probability of slope failure if conducted without proper planning and done in high risk areas. Using LiDAR, BLM Northwest Oregon District Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) data, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Statewide Landslide Information Database, aerial photos and field reconnaissance, all areas showing signs of slope instability have been excluded from the project. Project design features that limit conventional ground based harvesting to gentler slopes and require at least one-end suspension of logs during yarding have been incorporated into all action alternatives and have the effect of further minimizing the risk of slope failure resulting from the proposed project.
Because of these project design features and the proposed treatment units do not contain areas of high slope failure risk, this issue will not be analyzed further.
How would post treatment logging residue reduction activities, which include mechanical piling and prescribed pile burning, affect soil productivity?
The action alternatives would manage slash created by harvest operations to facilitate post-harvest reforestation and to reduce the risk of fire. Slash would be managed by piling and then burning vegetative material such as tree tops, branches, and brush. High intensity fire can negatively impact the physical, biological, and chemical properties of soils and reduce soil productivity.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 170 Project design features would require small, dispersed piles that would be burned during the wetter seasons (October-March) when soil moistures are high, keeping the intensity of fire low which would limit detrimental impacts to soil properties. Effects to soil from pile burning would not extend outside of the pile footprint and would, thus, not affect the soil productivity at both the unit or project area scale. This issue will not be analyzed further in this EA.
Botany and Invasive Plants
How would know sites of the Bureau Strategic species Sclerophora peronella, found within the Panther Creek project area, be affected by timber management treatments?
All proposed treatment units were surveyed to protocol for T&E and BSS vascular plant, lichen, and bryophyte species and no sites were found. Surveys did locate and document one Bureau Strategic species, Sclerophora peronella (ORBIC 2016), in two locations within the planning area, one of which is outside of proposed treatment units and one which is in a unit proposed for commercial thinning (unit 29-5). No management or protection measures are required for strategic species (IM-OR-2015-028). As such, this issue will not analyzed in detail.
Recreation
What effect would timber harvest operations and haul have on the Nestucca Backcountry Byway Extensive Recreation Management Area?
A portion of the Nestucca Backcountry Byway Extensive Recreation Management Area (Byway) is located in sections 13 and 24 of the Panther Creek planning area, and includes the road prism of the paved Nestucca Access Road running through these sections. This portion of the Byway is used for recreational driving and is the primary access route for recreational users through the project area. Recreationists use and access the Byway most during the weekend days and afternoon and evening hours.
Two units (units 13-1 and 24-1) are adjacent to the Byway in sections 13 and 24. Several short spurs in these units would be constructed so that harvest activities would not be conducted within the Byway. During tree felling activities within the adjacent portions of these units, flaggers would be required to control traffic, which would result in short delays (less than 1 hour). Additionally, log and rock truck traffic in association with the proposed project would increase the likelihood that persons traveling for recreational opportunities would encounter a large truck during a weekday visit.
Several project design features have been included in the project to reduce the impact of harvest and hauling activities on recreational driving within the Byway. During tree felling operations, the purchaser would be required to provide additional signage along the Nestucca Access Road, alerting motorists of active operations and of potential driving delays. Also, hauling of timber, rock and large equipment on the Byway would be limited to weekdays between Memorial Day and Labor Day, which would reduce the possibility of road conflicts during the times of highest recreational use within the area.
Based upon the incorporated project design features, recreationalists would continue to have the ability to use and access the Nestucca River Backcountry Byway. This issue will not be analyzed further in this EA.
Carbon Storage, Carbon Emissions and Climate Change
Would the proposed project affect carbon storage, emissions, and by extension, climate change?
The effects of the proposed timber harvest project on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions is not analyzed in detail, because, regardless of project-specific or site-specific information, there would be no reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the proposed project beyond those disclosed in the 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement of the 2016 Proposed RMP.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 171 On August 5, 2016 the BLM issued the 2016 ROD/RMP revising the 1995 Salem District RMP. The 2016 ROD/RMP was based on the analysis conducted in the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement: Western Oregon (PRMP/FEIS). The 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzed the effects of timber harvesting and prescribed burning on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon storage, and the potential impacts of climate change on major plan objectives.
The effects of the action alternatives on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions tiers to the analysis in the FEIS. As described below, the proposed project is consistent with the ROD/RMP, and the proposed project is not expected to have significant effects beyond those already analyzed in the FEIS. While analysis of the project- specific and site-specific conditions could give greater specificity to the analysis in the FEIS, there is no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the proposed project beyond those disclosed in the FEIS. The analysis in the FEIS addressed the effects on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions of implementing the entire program of work for timber resources based on high quality and detailed information (FEIS, p. 165-180; 1295-1304). The information available on project-specific and site-specific conditions, while more specific, is not fundamentally different from the information used in the FEIS analysis of effects on carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions, and thus cannot reveal any fundamentally different effects than that broader analysis.
The FEIS upon which the 2016 ROD/RMP was based examined the most recent science regarding climate change, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis in Volume 1 on pages 165 to 211 are relevant to this project and are incorporated by reference.
The key points from 2016 FEIS analyses include (FEIS, p. 165): ● Net carbon storage would increase. ● Annual greenhouse gas emissions would increase although annual emissions would remain less than 1 percent of the 2010 statewide greenhouse gas emissions. ● Climate change increases the uncertainty that reserves will function as intended and that planned timber harvest levels can be attained, with the uncertainty increasing over time. ● Active management provides opportunities to implement climate change adaptive strategies and potentially reduce social and ecological disruptions arising from warming and drying conditions.
The FEIS concluded that the approved RMPs support the state of Oregon’s interim strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (FEIS, p. 173). Both the state of Oregon’s strategy and Federal climate change strategies have goals to increase carbon storage on forest lands to partially mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from other sectors of the economy. Neither the state of Oregon nor the federal government have established specific carbon storage goals so quantifying BLM’s contribution to that goal is not possible. Assuming no changes in disturbance regimes such as fire and insects (acres affected and severity of impact) from the recent past, timber harvesting is the primary activity affecting carbon storage (FEIS, p.169).
The FEIS estimated the effects of implementing actions consistent with the Northwestern and Coastal Oregon RMP as follows:
Table 40: FEIS Carbon Storage and GHG Estimates
Current 2033 2063
Carbon Storage 336 Tg C 404 Tg C 482 Tg C
Greenhouse Gas 123,032 Mg CO2e/yr 256,643 Mg CO2e/yr 230,759 Mg CO2e/yr Emissions
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 172
The carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions analysis was based on assumptions concerning the level of management activity: ● The FEIS assumed an average annual harvest level of 278 MMbf per year (205 MMbf from the Harvest Land Base and 73 MMbf from non-ASQ related harvest) over the entire decision area (FEIS, p. 307). The expected annual harvest for the Northwest Oregon District is 150 MMbf (118 MMbf from the Harvest Land Base and 32 MMbf from non-ASQ related harvest).
● Activity fuels treatments are aligned with the harvest program with estimated acres of prescribed fire treatment type provided by the Woodstock model (FEIS, p. 1300). The decadal average of activity fuels prescribed burning for the first 20 years of the RMP would be an estimated 64,806 acres over the entire decision area (FEIS, p. 362). For the Northwest Oregon District, the expected decadal average activity fuels program covers 26,486 acres.
The amount of activity fuels prescribed burning is the primary driver of greenhouse gas emissions (FEIS, p. 178). Greenhouse gas emissions would increase substantially largely due to the projected increases in activity fuels prescribed burning. The FEIS assumed no change in the natural fuels prescribed burning program from the recent past. Greenhouse gas emissions analyzed included those from prescribed burning and harvest operations (FEIS, p. 174).
There is no new information or changed circumstances that would substantially change the effects anticipated in the 2016 FEIS. This is because: 1. The harvest levels remain within the range of that analyzed in the FEIS. The Northwest Oregon District expected annual harvest is 118 MMbf from the Harvest Land Base and 32 MMbf from non-ASQ related harvest. 2. The acres of activity fuels prescribed burning and expected tonnage consumed remains within the range analyzed in the FEIS. The Northwest Oregon District expected decadal average activity fuels prescribed burning is still within 26,486 acres.
Air Quality, Fire and Fuels Management
What would be the contributions of particulate emissions from pile burning activities within the planning area? How would these contributions affect air quality in adjacent communities?
Burning piles produces smoke (particulate emissions) that affects air quality. The effect on air quality comes from the amount, location and the duration of the smoke produced. Hand piles and machine piles are small in size and usually burn for just a few hours. Landing piles usually are larger and may sometimes burn for a day or more. All burning associated with the project would only occur in accordance with the Oregon State Implementation Plan and Oregon Smoke Management Plan, which is a plan developed between Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that enforces the Clean Air Act. The objectives of the smoke management plan are, among other things, to prevent smoke resulting from prescribed burning on forestlands from being carried to or accumulating in smoke sensitive receptor areas or other areas sensitive to smoke, and to provide maximum opportunity for essential forestland burning while minimizing emissions. The city of McMinnville, approximately 4 air miles from the nearest unit, is the nearest smoke sensitive area. We expect that prescribed burning would cause short term impacts to air quality in the immediate vicinity (approximately ¼ mile) of the burn area that would persist for one to three days but, based on adherence to the Smoke Management Plan, we do not expect these impacts to affect McMinnville or any other adjacent community. As such, we expect that the effects to air quality would be inconsequential and, therefore, this issue will not be analyzed further.
How would timber harvest and site preparation (i.e. prescribed pile burning) change fuels profiles within the planning area? How would this change affect the potential for wildfire ignitions in the planning area?
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 173 This issue was considered, but not analyzed in detail because there would be no potential for reasonably foreseeable significant effects to wildfire hazard and risk, which are diminished at the scale of all BLM- administered lands within the planning area, beyond those disclosed in the FEIS. The BLM’s management within the planning area is unable to provide more than slight variation to fire hazards within the planning area due to the checkerboard pattern of the landscape within the planning area. Any increases in fuel loading and fire risk would be short-lived after regeneration harvest or commercial thinning is completed (zero to five years). Regeneration harvest units fire hazard would remain elevated (zero to 30 years) due to stand establishment and high-density stand structure. Fire risk would increase immediately following harvest activities due to the increase in available fuel (slash, branches, tops) and sunlight on the forest floor. Slash created during regeneration and commercial harvest activities, at landings, and along some roads would be piled and burned upon the conclusion of harvest activities. The piling and burning of slash would minimize the risk of fire once they are completed. Project design features requiring logging contractors to have State of Oregon required fire equipment on site during operations would minimize the risk of fire caused by operational activities prior to the completion of the piling and burning of slash.
Cultural Resources
What effect would project activities have on cultural or archaeological resources if they are present?
A review of Cultural Resources records and GIS data did not produce any previously documented cultural properties within the Panther Creek planning area. Survey techniques are based on those described in Appendix D of the State Protocol between the Oregon-Washington State Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)… (2015).
The proposed timber harvest occurs in the Coast Range Physiographic Province. The prescribed techniques are based on the results of an Inventory Strategy Plan for BLM Lands in the Oregon Coast Range (1992) which highlighted the lack of historic properties identified by previous cultural inventories on the east and west slopes of the Coast Range. The resulting methodology will be applied as follows. Post-harvest surveys will be conducted using standards primarily based on slope. These standards require survey on all harvest areas where slopes are less than 15%, and on 5% of the areas where slopes exceed 20%, or if professional judgment prompts such efforts due to topographic features or existence of nearby cultural resources.
In addition, project design features would address any cultural resource discovered during project implementation, requiring that all project activities would be suspended until an evaluation of the discovery is made by a BLM archaeologist.
Because there are no documented cultural resources present, the action alternatives would not have any impact to them. Additionally, project design features would address the needs of any cultural properties discovered during project implementation. Therefore, there will be no effects to cultural resources as a result of the action alternatives and this issue will not be analyzed further.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS TO EXTERNAL SCOPING AND BLM RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Doug Heiken
Oregon Wild
Summary of Oregon Wild Comments
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 174 ● BLM should avoid commercial tree removal in the inner Riparian Reserves, which should be a distance greater than the site-potential tree height because this is where most functional wood is recruited and thinning within that distance will deprive the stream of valuable woody structure.
BLM Response: The 2016 ROD/RMP establishes the Riparian Reserve land use allocation to include lands within one site potential tree height from all streams and those wetlands equal to or larger than 1 acre in size. The width of the Riparian Reserve land use allocation is a plan level decision and the consideration of a wider Riparian Reserve is not appropriate at the project scale. The site potential tree height for the Panther Creek project area is 220 feet, which was established through modelled ORGANON outputs based on stand exam data. The Panther Creek treatment units occur within the Panther Creek, Baker Creek and Haskins Creek subwatersheds, which are classified as Class II subwatersheds under the 2016 ROD/RMP. The Riparian Reserves of Class II subwatersheds are broken into inner-zones (0-120 feet on perennial streams; 0-50 feet on intermittent streams) and outer-zones (121-220 feet on perennial streams; 51-220 feet on intermittent streams).
The Panther Creek project would conduct 35 acres of commercial thinning in the outer-zone of the Riparian Reserves. No commercial tree removal would occur in the inner-zone of the Riparian Reserves. Issue #11 (EA section 3.3.2) analyzes the effects of commercial thinning on large wood recruitment and stream channel morphology. This analysis concludes that nearly all wood is recruited from within 131 feet of streams and with the inner-zone no-harvest buffers, at least 95% of potential large wood would be preserved. Additionally, all action alternatives would directly add approximately 9 square feet of basal area per acre of the Riparian Reserve that was thinned, leading to an increase in large in-stream wood.
● We urge the BLM to avoid road construction. There are already too many roads in this watershed with adverse effects on soil, water, wildlife, etc.
BLM Response: This comment was considered for inclusion as an alternative by the Panther Creek IDT but was not analyzed in detail. A discussion as to why this alternative was not analyzed in detail can be found in section 2.7 of this EA.
● Regen does not make sense for several reasons, as it: creates dense young stands that transpire a lot of water and are more susceptible to wildfire; results in greater emissions of greenhouse gases as opposed to thinning; removes late successional habitat which is in short supply in the area; reduces the recruitment of snags, which are in short supply in the area; does not mimic natural disturbance; results in inadequate retention of legacy structures; causes soil damage; and causes fragmentation and reduces biodiversity. For these reasons, we urge BLM to consider an alternative that thins the stands instead of conducting regen harvest.
Based upon the request of Oregon Wild in this comment, the BLM considered including an alternative that commercially thinned all proposed HLB stands instead of conducting regeneration harvest on 284 to 493 acres, depending on alternative, but eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis as it did not meet the Purpose and Need for the project (see EA section 2.7 for further rationale). The Panther Creek project site specifically applies the management direction provided for the HLB in the 2016 NCO RMP, which clearly directs the BLM to conduct regeneration harvest for multiple purposes, which include contributing ASQ timber volume to the Salem SYU, managing stands infected with disease and stocked with hardwood species, and adjusting age classes (see EA section 1.4, Purpose and Need).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 175 Andy Geissler
American Forest Resources Council (AFRC)
● Sustained yield levels and Allowable Sale Quantities were calculated through models that indicated what level of regeneration harvest and what level of thinning would occur on each sustained yield unit by age- class. We urge the Tillamook Field Office to recognize these models in the ensuing Panther Creek EA in order to justify and defend the actions being proposed.
BLM Response: The stands proposed for regeneration harvest and commercial thinning within the Panther Creek planning area were selected to respond to the Purpose and Need of the project (EA section 1.4), which reflects specific management direction of the Harvest Land Base found within the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP. We disagree with AFRC that an individual project, like the Panther Creek project, needs to align with the model outputs to “justify and defend the actions being proposed”. The vegetation models used in support of the 2016 PRMP/FEIS were never meant to be used in this way. The Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria very clearly states that the BLM conducted vegetation modelling to understand “the consequences of the alternatives across broad landscapes, rather than making decisions about actions at specific locations” (Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Planning Criteria, p. 28).
With that being said, the proposed Panther Creek project is generally consistent with many of the outputs that the vegetation modelling reported for the Tillamook Field Office during the first decade of RMP implementation, including acres of regeneration harvest and commercial thinning and the age-classes from which these treatment are conducted. This general consistency is not because the Panther Creek IDT sought specifically to propose a project that reflected the modeled outputs but instead comes from the fact that the current condition found within the Panther Creek planning area is reflective of the current condition experienced by the model across the Salem SYU as a whole and that the Panther Creek IDT applied management direction from the RMP in a similar manner to the vegetation model.
● The scoping notice for the Panther Creek project indicates which RMP objectives were “selected” for this project. In the HLB, the 2016 RMPs list five objectives. We believe that each of these objectives must be met in order to be in compliance with the O&C Act’s mandate of sustained yield timber management. We do not believe that the BLM can “choose” not to meet the objective of “manage forest stands to achieve continual timber production that can be sustained through a balance of growth and harvest”. Therefore, we urge the Tillamook Field Office to include the aforementioned objective in the Panther Creek project.
BLM Response: The 2016 NCO ROD/RMP states that “management objectives are descriptions of desired outcomes for BLM-administered lands and resources; the resource conditions that the BLM envisions would eventually result from implementation of actions consistent with the RMP” (2016 NCO ROD/RMP p. 47). The 2016 NCO ROD/RMP goes on to say that “through effectiveness monitoring, the BLM will assess whether implementing actions in accordance with management direction is achieving the management objectives of the RMP” (2016 ROD/RMP p. 47).
The Panther Creek Project scoping notice errors when saying that the project is “being developed to achieve selected management objectives and direction…” It was not the intention of this statement to declare that only selected objectives would be met through this project and we agree with AFRC that the term “management objectives” should not have been included here. The intention of this statement was to establish that Harvest Land Base (HLB) management direction would form the basis of the Purpose and Need for the project but that, based on site specific stand conditions in the planning area, not every HLB management direction would be selected for incorporation. As an example, the management direction to conduct regeneration harvest for the purpose of
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 176 creating growing space for hardwood and pine species persistence and regeneration is not included in the Panther Creek project’s Purpose and Need.
The management direction that establishes the Purpose and Need of this project is detailed in EA section 1.4. The management objective to “manage forest stands to achieve continual timber production that can be sustained through a balance of growth and harvest” has been included in EA section 1.2 which details the selection of the Panther Creek planning area.
● Incidental northern spotted owl (NSO) take avoidance should be the only reason why treatments in the Harvest Land Base get deferred for NSO considerations. AFRC would like the Tillamook Field Office to explicitly describe in the Panther Creek EA if and why stands identified for treatment in the scoping document are deferred from treatment.
BLM Response: NSO surveys did not determine northern spotted owl occupancy in the Panther Creek planning area. No acres or stands that were identified in the Panther Creek scoping letter have been deferred for NSO considerations. As discussed in EA section 3.3.1.4 pre-project surveys found eight Bureau Sensitive mollusk sites within proposed treatment units included in the Panther Creek project scoping document. Management direction from the 2016 ROD/RMP states that the BLM is to “implement conservation measures to mitigate specific threats to Bureau Sensitive species during the planning of activities and projects” and that “conservation measures include altering the type, timing, location, and intensity of management actions” (2016 ROD/RMP, p. 95). The IDT used best available science to determine that 2-3 acre of existing habitat would be necessary to maintain suitable habitat conditions at these known sites, which would mitigate specific threats to these Bureau Sensitive species. As such, a total of 10 acres (8 acres in unit 19-2, 1 acre in unit 17-1, and 1 acre in unit 17-2) have been excluded from all action alternatives. The 10 acres would be available for future timber harvest as more information is discovered about these Bureau Sensitive species.
● The 2016 NCO ROD/RMP contains mitigation measures for both the marbled murrelet and the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the red tree vole. We would like the BLM to follow the survey protocols outlined and provide an account of any acres that were required to be deferred from management in the ensuing Panther Creek EA.
BLM Response: Survey techniques and results for the red tree vole and the marbled murrelet are detailed in sections 3.3.2.3 and 3.3.3.3 of this EA, respectively. Red tree vole transect, and subsequent climbing surveys, discovered 26 trees with red tree vole nests (19 active and 7 inactive). Based upon RMP management direction a total of seven management areas were established that incorporate all 26 nest sites, which total 80.4 acres. Of these 80.4 acres, approximately 19 acres were proposed for regeneration harvest or commercially thinning in the Panther Creek scoping notice, in units 13-1, 13-2 and 19-1. These acres have been removed from the proposed project and the management areas will be allocated as Late Successional Reserve through future RMP plan maintenance.
No occupancy was determined through marbled murrelet surveys and, as a result, no proposed treatment acres have been deferred.
● We encourage the BLM to consider proactive management in the Riparian Reserves by focusing treatment on a variety of native habitats, reducing no-cut buffers, and utilizing gap cuts.
BLM Response: As detailed in section 1.4 of this EA, the Purpose of riparian commercial thinning within the Panther Creek project is to promote the complexity of riparian stands, which includes increasing species diversity and developing large open-grown trees and multi-cohort stands. All outer-zones of the Riparian Reserve adjacent to proposed Harvest Land Base stands were inspected by BLM specialists. During this inspection, many riparian
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 177 stands were identified as containing complex forest components, such as diverse species compositions including shade tolerant conifer species and large, open-grown conifer trees. These stands are not proposed for riparian commercial thinning as they do not have the need for this treatment. 35 acres of riparian stands were identified as needing thinning treatment and underplanting and are included in the action alternatives. These stands are characteristically dominated by Douglas-fir, with small live crowns, and have no shade tolerant species within the understory. As described in EA section 2.4, thinning in the proposed riparian stands would be spatially variable and would utilize multiple trees per acre targets within individual units and would employ small (up to ½ acre in size) heavily thinned areas where little or no trees are left. All riparian commercial thinning prescriptions would result in a stand average of at least 60 trees per acre and at least 30% canopy cover aver harvest.
Inner-zone no-cut buffers have been determined by the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP and are a plan level decision and reductions to inner-zone no-cut buffers will not be explored at the project level.
● We encourage the BLM to provide operational flexibility within the Panther Creek EA and resulting timber sale contracts. We encourage allowing the use of processors and feller-bunchers throughout cable yarding units, which can greatly increase economic viability and, in some cases, decrease disturbance.
BLM Response: To the extent that our planning documents allow, we have attempted to develop project design features that are more conditions based, rather than having hard and fast requirements for project implementation (see Project Design Features section 2.7). Many times Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP are the driver for the inclusion of a project design feature. Yarding methods established for the Panther Creek project adhere to BMP TH 13, which specifically limits non-specialized skidder or tracked equipment (processors and feller-bunchers) to slopes less than 35%, except when using previously constructed skid trails or accessing short pitches of steeper terrain. Some units in the Panther Creek Project that are identified as cable yarding areas do have existing skid trails present, and in such cases a processor or feller-buncher would be able to work in conjunction with a cable yarding system if the existing skid trail network could be accessed while adhering to the included project design features.
City of Carlton (Comments Provided for the City by Tetra Tech)
● A landslide occurred in 1998 in Sec. 19 of the the planning area that deposited sediment into Carlton Reservoir, the City’s water supply. The City is concerned about erosion from the proposed timber harvest and road building operations, and the potential to destabilize the ground from the removal of trees that could again impact the City’s public water supply in the reservoir. It is requested that measures are taken to provide erosion control such that the work avoids erosion into Panther Creek or Carlton Reservoir. Measures may include buffers, revegetation, and other soil stabilization measures.
BLM Response: Under Alternative 4 (which contains the most acres of regeneration harvest), the Panther Creek project contains approximately 25 acres of commercial thinning, 7 acres of regeneration harvest, and 700 feet of newly constructed road in Sec. 19 of the planning area on slopes that drain to Panther Creek above Carlton Reservoir. The hydrology and soils analysis examined the potential of timber harvest and road building to effect sedimentation and slope stability in this area of concern.
As discussed in EA section 6.1, the hydrology analysis determined that there would be no effect to water quality from timber harvest, both at the project scale and when considering the area upstream of Carlton Reservoir. This is due to all HLB commercial thinning and regeneration harvest units having a 220 foot no-harvest buffer off of all streams and riparian commercial thinning units having a 120 foot on perennial streams or 50 foot no-harvest buffer on intermittent streams. Additional PDFs and BMPs have been included in the project that would further reduce any possibility of sediment delivery to streams as a result of timber harvest, which include: felling trees away from no-harvest buffers; requiring one-end suspension of logs at all times; and implementing erosion control measures on skid trails and cable yarding corridors such as installing water-bars and seeding with native
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 178 grasses. The hydrology analysis also found that new road construction would not impact water quality, as all proposed newly constructed roads would be located on or near ridgetops and would not cross any streams.
As discussed in EA section 6.1, the soils analysis determined that there would be no effect to slope stability as a result of the project. During project planning, the Panther Creek IDT used a variety of remote sensing tools and field reconnaissance to examine all proposed units to identify areas with high slope failure risk. All areas identified for high slope failure risk have been removed from the project. There were no portions of proposed units in Sec. 19 above Carlton Reservoir that were identified as having high risk for slope failure. Furthermore, the proposed treatment in this area is predominantly thinning (25 of 32 acres) where approximately 78-105 trees per acre would remain after harvest. We do not expect thinning treatments of this kind to destabilize the ground from the removal of trees.
● The City is planning on dredging the reservoir in the near future to remove material from the last slide that occurred in the watershed and will require a location to place the dredge material. The City requests the BLM to consider if there is a way to use some of the logged area as a fill site.
BLM Response: As described in section 1.3 of this EA, the proposed regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and riparian commercial thinning would occur on lands allocated as Harvest Land Base (HLB) and Riparian Reserve (RR) by the 2016 NCO ROD/RMP. Regeneration harvest would only occur within the HLB and we are assuming that this would be the area that the City of Carlton is requesting to store dredged waste material. The general objective of the HLB land use allocation is long-term sustained yield timber management. As such, using these lands as a fill site would be incompatible with these management objectives. The City of Carlton is encouraged, however, to contact the Tillamook Field Office to further discuss the potential of fulfilling the request.
8. LITERATURE CITED
Barnes, G.H. 1962. Yield of even-aged stands of western hemlock. Technical bulletin No. 1273. United States Department of Agriculture.
Beechie, T., Pess, G., Kennard, P., Bilby, R., & Bolton, S. (2000). Modeling recovery rates and pathways for woody debris recruitment in northwestern Washington streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20(2), 436-452.
Benda, L., Hassan, M., Church, M., & May, C. (2005). Geomorphology of steepland headwaters: the transition from hillslopes to channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41(4), 835-851.
Benda, L., Litschert, S., Reeves, G., & Pabst, R. (2016). Thinning and in-stream wood recruitment in riparian second growth forests in coastal Oregon and the use of buffers and tree tipping as mitigation. Journal of Forestry Research, 1-16.
Bier, J.E. and D.C. Buckland. 1947. Relation of research in forest pathology to the management of second growth forests. I. Poria weirii root rot. An important disease affecting immature stands of Douglas-fir. British Columbia Lumberman 31(2): 49-51, 64, 66.
Bilby, R.E. 1985. Contributions of road surface sediment to a western Washington stream. Forest Science 31(4): 827-838.
Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, and S.H. Duncan. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface sediment in forested watersheds in southeastern Washington. Forest Science 35 (2): 453-468.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 179 Bjorn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83- 138, in W.R. Meehan (editor) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Brake, D., Molnau, M., & King, J. (August 10-14, 1997). Sediment transport distances and culvert spacing on logging roads within the Oregon coast mountain range. ASAE Annual International Meeting. Minneapolis, MN.
Buckland, D.C., A.C. Molnar and G.W. Wallis. 1954. Yellow laminated root rot of Douglas-fir. Canadian Journal of Botany, 32(1): 69-81.
Burke, T.E. 1999. Management recommendations for terrestrial mollusk species. Cryptomastix devia, the Puget Oregonian Snail. V. 2.0. Prepared for the Oregon. Bureau of Land Management. 33 pg. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/TM4Species/2000-015_1.pdf (Accessed 10/31/2017).
Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In: Proceedings, conference on salmon spawning gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest? Water Research Center Report 39. Washington State University. Pullman, WA.
Chan et al., 2004. Variable density management in Riparian Reserves: lessons learned from an operational study in managed forests of western Oregon, USA. Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 78(1/2), 151-172.
Chan, S.S., Larson, D.J., Maas-Hebner, K.G., Emmingham, W.H., Johnston, S.R. and Mikowski, D.A. 2006. Overstory and understory development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Canadian journal of forest research, 36(10), pp.2696-2711.
Childs, T.W. 1963. Poria weirii root rot. Phytopathology53: 1124-1127.
Cissel, R., T. Black, N. Nelson, and C. Luce. 2012. North Fork Siuslaw River GRAIP Watershed Roads Assessment. Boise, ID, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Cole, E. and M. Newton. Tenth-year survival and size of underplanted seedlings in the Oregon Coast Range. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39(3): 580-595.
Curtis, R. O. 1982. A Simple Index of Stand Density for Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 28:92-94
Curtis, R.O. and Marshall, D.D. 2000. Why quadratic mean diameter? Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 15(3), pp.137-139.
Dolloff, C., & Warren, M. (2003). Fish relationships with large wood in small streams. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 37, 179-193.
Drew, T.J. and J.W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science, 25(3): 518-532.
Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan and P Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan (version 3.0). 70 pg. Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/11-mollusks_v3_enclosed2.pdf (Accessed 11/07/2017).
Dyck, Alan R. (Forest Wildlife Biologist) USDA - Mt Hood National Forest. February 14 2001. Survey and Manage Microsite Guidance. Unpublished report
Evans Mack, D., W. P. Ritchie, S. K. Nelson, E. Kuo-Harrison, P. Harrison, and T. E. Hamer. 2003. Methods for surveying Marbled Murrelets in forests: a revised protocol for land management and research. Pacific Seabird
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 180 Group Technical Publication Number 2. Available online at: https://pacificseabirdgroup.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/PSG_TechPub2_MAMU_ISP.pdf (Accessed 05/16/18)
Fallon, C. 2015. Pristiloma pilsbryi Crowned tightcoil, Survey recommendations for the species in Washington State. Compiled for the Interagency Special Status Sensitive Species Program.
Fallon, C. and S Jepsen. 2015. Columbia Sideband (Monadenia fidelis Columbiana) Surveys in Northwest Oregon. Final Report from the Xerces Society to the Interagency Special Status Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). 39 pgs. . Available online at: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents4/inv-rpt-ig-mofico- xerces-final-2015.pdf (Accessed 11/03/2017).
Foltz, R.B. 1996. Traffic and no-traffic on an aggregate surfaced road: sediment production differences. Presented at the FAO Seminar on Environmentally Sound Forest Roads, June 1996, Sinaia, Romania. 13 p.
Foltz, R.B., B. Westfall, and B. Kopyscianski. 2013. Turbidity changes during culvert to bridge upgrades at Carmen Creek, Idaho. US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Research Note RMRS-RN-54.
Foltz, R.B., K.A. Yanosek, and T. M. Brown. 2008. Sediment concentration and turbidity changes during culvert removals. Journal of Environmental Management 87: 329-340.
Goheen D.J., and E.M. Hansen. 1993. Effects of pathogens and bark beetles on forests. Beetle-Pathogen Interactions in Conifer Forests, Academic Press, London, p. 175-196.
Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western Oregon and Washington. US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760.
Hansen, E.M. and E.M. Goheen. 2000. Phellinus weirii and other native pathogens as determinants of forest structure and process in western North America. Annual Review of Phytopathology. Vol. 38:515-539.
Hibbs, D.E. and A.L. Bower. 2001. Riparian forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Ecology and Management 154 (1-2): 201-213. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/
Holah, J., M.V. Wilson, and E.M. Hansen. 1993. Effects of a native forest pathogen, Phellinus weirii, on Douglas- fir forest composition in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Huff, R., K. Van Norman, C. Hughes, R. Davis and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2012. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 3.0. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 52 pg. Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/sp-RedTreeVole-v3-0-2012-11.pdf (Accessed 4/17/2018).
Husch, B., C.E., Miller, and T.W. Beers. 1982. Forest mensuration (No. Ed. 3). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Isaacs, F. B., and R. G. Anthony. 2011. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting in Oregon and along the lower Columbia River, 1978–2007. Final Report, March 18, 2011. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/inventories/inv-rpt-bi-hale-oregon-1978-2007-2011-03.pdf.
Jack, S.B. and J.N. Long. 1996. Linkages between silviculture and ecology: an analysis of density management diagrams. Forest Ecology and Management, 86(1-3): 205-220.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 181 Jones, J., Swanson, F., Wemple, B., & Snyder, K. (2000). Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology, 14(1), 76-85.
Jordan, S.F. and S. F. Black. 2012. Effects of Forest Land Management on Terrestrial Mollusks: A Literature Review. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation under an Agreement with the Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program. USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 87 pages. Available online at: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-tools/#invertebrates (Accessed 10/31/2017).
Laufle, J.C.,G.B. Pauley and M.F. Shepard. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)--Coho Salmon. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.48). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 18 pp. Available online at: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-048.pdf. (Accessed 29 May 2013).
Lawson, P.W., E.P. Bjorkstedt, M.W. Chilcote, C.W. Huntington, J.S. Mills, K.M.S. Moore, T.E. Nickelson, G.H. Reeves, H.A. Stout, T.C. Wainwright, and L.A. Weitkamp. 2007. Identification of historical populations of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Oregon coast evolutionarily significant unit.
Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. The Forestry Chronicle, 61(1): 23-27.
Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research 35 (8): 2561-2570.Mammalogy 72:784-787.
Malt J.M. and D.B. Lank. 2009. Marbled Murrelet nest predation risk in managed forest landscapes: dynamic fragmentation effects at multiple scales. Ecological Applications, 19(5), 2009 pp. 1274-1287. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40347269 (Accessed 03/19/2018).
Martin, D., & Benda, L. (2001). Patterns of instream wood recruitment and transport at the watershed scale. Transactions of the American Fisheries Association, 130(5), 940-958.
May, C. and R.E. Gresswell. 2003b. Processes and rates of sediment and wood accumulation in headwater streams of the Oregon Coast Range, USA. Earth Processes and Landforms 28(4): 409-424.
McArdle, R.E., W.H. Meyer, and D. Bruce, 1961. The Yield of Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest, Technical Bulletin 201, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., p. 74.
McDade, M.H. 1987. Source area of coarse woody debris in small streams in western Oregon and Washington.
Mico, C. and L. Mico. 2007. Sediment, shade, and habitat complexity in the upper Nestucca River stream network. Prepared by Demeter Design, LLC.
Mills, K, L. Dent, and J. Robben. 2003. Wet season road use monitoring project: final report. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Monitoring Program. Technical Report #17.
Moore, K., Jones, K., Dambacher, J., & Stein, C. (2017). Aquatic inventories project - methods for stream habitat and snorkel surveys (version 27.1). Corvallis, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation and Recovery Program.
Moore, R., & Wondzell, S. (2005). Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific Northwest: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41, 763-784.
Mull, K. E. (2005), Selection of spawning sites by Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Freshwater Creek, Master thesis, 48 pp., California Humboldt State Univ., Arcata.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 182 Murphy, M., & Koski, K. (1989). Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9(4), 427-436.
Nierenberg, T., & Hibbs, D. (2000). A characterization of unmanaged riparian areas in the central Coast Range of western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management, 129, 195-206.
ODEQ; Oregon Health Division. (2000a). Source water assessment report: City of Carlton PWS #4100171. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Oregon Health Division.
ODEQ; Oregon Health Division. (2000b). Source water assessment report: McMinnville Water & Light PWS #4100497. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Oregon Health Division.
ODEQ. 2002. Nestucca Bay watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
ODEQ. 2005. Willamette Basin Designated Beneficial Uses (OAR 340-041-0340). Retrieved October 26, 2017, from Department of Environmental Quality: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/Rulemaking%20Docs/table340a.pdf
ODEQ. 2014. Water Quality Assessment - Oregon's 2012 Integrated Report Assessment Database and 303(d) List. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from Department of Environmental Quality: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2012/search.asp
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife & Confederated Tribes Grande Ronde. 2001- 2002. Aquatic inventories project – physical habitat surveys of Coast Creek, Yamhill River Basin.
Perry, T., & Jones, J. (2016). Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forest in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology, 1-13.
Poage, N.J., and Tappeiner J.C. III. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of old-growth Douglas- fir trees in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
Pollock, M. M., T. J. Beechie, S. S. Chan, R. Bigley. 2005. Monitoring Restoration of Riparian Forests. Pgs. 67 - 96, In: Roni, P. [Ed.]. Monitoring Streams and Watershed Restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Price, Amy L, Jason S Mowdy, James K Swingle and Eric D Forsman. 2015. Distribution and Abundance of Tree Voles in the Northern Coast Ranges of Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist, 96(1):37-49. Available online at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1898/NWN14-04.1 (Accessed 01/24/2018).
Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20(11): 1753• 1761.
Reineke, L. H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46(7): 627–638. 12 pp. Available online at: http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=IND43968212&content=PDF.
Sabota, D., Gregory, S., & Van Sickle, J. (2006). Riparian tree fall directionality and modeling large wood recruitment to streams. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36(5), 1243-1254.
Spies, T., Pollock, M., Reeves, G., & Beechie, T. (2013). Effects of riparian thinning on wood recruitment: a scientific synthesis. Science Review Team Wood Recruitment Subgroup. Corvallis, OR; Seattle, WA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Science Laboratory; NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 183 Streamnet. 2018. StreamNet Generalized Fish Distribution. Available online at: www.streamnet.org.
Suttle, K.B, M.E. Powers, J.M. Levine, and C. McNeely. 2004. How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications 14(4): 969- 974.
Swingle, James K and Eric D. Forsman. 2009. Home Range Areas and Activity Patterns of Red Tree Voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in Western Oregon. Northwest Science, 83(3):273-286. Available online at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3955/046.083.0310 (Accessed 01/25/2018).
Swingle, James Kerr; for the degree of Master of Science in Wildlife Science presented on November 29, 2005. Eric D. Forsman, Major Professor. Title: Daily Activity Patterns, Survival, and Movements of Red Tree Voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in Western Oregon. 135 pgs
Turnstone Environmental Consultants Inc. 2017. Unpublished report. 2017 Report Marbled Murrelet Surveys for the BLM Tillamook Field Office. Portland, Oregon. 12 pages + Appendix (2017 Survey Data Forms – 81 pages).
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Management Recommendations for the Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus). Version 2.0. 25 pgs. Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/RedTreeVole/RTV.pdf (Accessed 11/09/2017).
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. July 29, 2015. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) - BLM Oregon and Washington State Director’s Special Status Species List is available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/ (Accessed 11/02/2017).
USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1986. Salem District Timber Production Capability Classification and Technical Guide, H-5251-1. Salem District, Bureau of Land Management.
USDI - BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 2008. Manual 6840, the Special Status Species Management Manual for the Bureau of Land Management. Available Online at: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/ag- policy/6840-im-2009-039-att1.pdf (Accessed 05/02/2018).
USDI Bureau of Land Management. October 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR.
USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Planning Criteria for Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon. Bureau of Land Management. BLM/OR/WA/PL-14/012+1792.
USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2016. Northwestern and Coastal Oregon Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management. BLM/OR/WA/GI-16/042+1792. 308 pgs. Available Online at: https://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/files/rod/Northwestern_and_Coastal_Oregon_ROD_RMP.pdf (Accessed 11/02/2017).
USDI - USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, Oregon. 203 pg. Available Online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/970924.pdf (Accessed 03/19/2018).
USDI - USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011a. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 pg Available Online at: https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery.asp (Accessed 02/05/2018).
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 184 USDI – USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12- Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Red Tree Vole as Endangered or Threatened; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register, 76:63720-63762. Available Online at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-13/pdf/2011-25818.pdf (Accessed 02/05/2018).
USDI - USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011c. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus); Final Rule. Fed. Reg. Vol. 76. 193; 61599-61621. Available Online at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-05/pdf/2011-25583.pdf (Accessed 02/05/2018).
USDI – USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2016. Barred Owl Threat. Accessed via web: August 17, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/BarredOwl
USDI - USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, and BLM (Bureau of Land Management) Northwest Oregon District. November, 2017. Biological Assessment Regarding Habitat Alteration Projects in FY 2018-2019 that are Likely to Adversely Affect the Northern Spotted Owl, the Marbled Murrelet, and their Critical Habitats, as proposed by the Northwest Oregon District of the Bureau of Land Management. 612 pages.
USDI - USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. December 11, 2017. Biological Opinion Regarding Habitat Alteration Projects in FY 2018-2019 that are Likely to Adversely Affect the Northern Spotted Owl, the Marbled Murrelet, and their Critical Habitats, as proposed by the Northwest Oregon District of the Bureau of Land Management. 21 pages.
Waring R.H. and Running S.W. 2010. Forest ecosystems: analysis at multiple scales. Elsevier; 2010 Jul 27. Chapter 5.
Waters, T. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.
Wilson, T. 2010. Limiting Factors For Northern Flying Squirrels (Glaucomys Sabrinus) In The Pacific Northwest: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis. PhD Dissertation. Union Institute & University, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Wilson, Todd M.; Forsman, Eric D. 2013. Thinning effects on spotted owl prey and other forest-dwelling small mammals. In: Anderson, Paul D.; Ronnenberg, Kathryn L., eds. Density management for the 21st Century: west side story. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-880. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 79–90. Available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/44793 (Accessed 02/15/2018).
Wise, D., & O'Connor, J. (2016). A spatially explicit suspended-sediment load model for western Oregon (Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5079). US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.
Worrel, D. (1999). Carlton Reservoir landslide, 1999 - A soil and water quality evaluation. Unpublished report. Tillamook, OR: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Worthington, N.P., et al. 1960. Normal yield tables for red alder. Research Paper. Pacific Northwest and Range Experiment Station. No. 36, p 3.
Panther Creek Timber Management Project EA # DOI-BLM-OR-NO04-2017-0003-EA Summer, 2018 pg. 185