Outlook Landscape Diversity Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Environmental Assessment Middle Fork Ranger District, Willamette National Forest, Lane County, Oregon December 2016 Cover Photo: North Shore Meadow. Photo taken by Katie Isacksen 1

2 For More Information Contact: Allen F. Hambrick Willamette National Forest District Ranger Highway 58 Westfir, Oregon : Fax: In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. 2

3 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 3 I. Introduction... 7 Document Structure... 8 Background... 9 Purpose and Need for the Proposal Proposed Action Issues II. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action Alternatives Alternatives Not Fully Considered Design Features III. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Wildlife Water Quality Fisheries Soils Vegetation Roads Recreation Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Economics Heritage Resources Climate Change IV. Consultation and Coordination Tribal Governments: Federal, State, and Local Agencies Interdisciplinary Team Members: Contents of the Project Analysis File List of Tables Table 1. Land and Resource Management Plan Land Allocations Table 2. Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Reference and Current Seral Stage Habitat Distribution. 21 Table 3 Proposed thinning acres dropped from the Outlook Project due to Deception Fire effects.24 3

4 Table 4 Design Features and Monitoring Common to all Alternatives Table 5 Comparison of Alternatives Table 6 Summary of Effects Determinations for Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources Table 7 Management Indicator Species Presence Table 8 Presence and suitable habitat summary for threatened, endangered, proposed species, along with critical habitat on the Willamette National Forest with rationale for effects analysis related to the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area Table 9 Presence and suitable habitat summary for sensitive species on the Willamette National Forest with rationale for effects analysis related to the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area Table 10 Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, and D for Threatened species that are Known to Occur or Have Potential Habitat for Occurrence, along with Designated Critical Habitat in the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area Table 11 Core Area and Home Range acres for known or potential spotted owl sites affected by harvest activities proposed under the Outlook Project Action Alternatives Table 12 Outlook Landscape Diversity Project (OLDP) alternative comparison of project activities with harvest element that would modify NSO critical (CH) and non-critical habitat Table 13 Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, and D for Proposed and Sensitive Species that are Known to Occur or Have Potential Habitat for Occurrence in the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area. 69 Table 14 Willamette National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) and their relationship with the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area Table 15 Acres by Big Game Emphasis Area (BGEA) Table 16 Nutrition Model for Dietary Digestible Energy for Big Game Table 17 Relationship between current motorized vehicle use and Forest Plan Standards applied to Big Game Emphasis Areas (BGEA) Table 18 Matrix acres proposed for treatment as follows: Table 19 LSR acres proposed for treatment as follows: Table 20 Early-seral forage enhancement proposed under Outlook Alternatives A and D Table 21 Outlook Project Action Alternatives comparison for proposed road closure associated with BGEAs and Forest Plan Standards for open road density Table 22 Alternative comparison of summed raw values of predicted level of elk use for individual BGEAs and the Outlook Project area Table 23 Comparison of estimated current and reference median snag levels for wildlife habitat types in the Outlook Project analysis area (Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed) Table 24 Comparison of estimated current and reference median down wood levels for wildlife habitat types in the Outlook Project analysis area (Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed) Table 25 Rationale for whether or not species requires surveys. (Species compiled from the December 2003 species list that occur on the Middle Fork Ranger District, Willamette National Forest) Table 26 Project Area by Sub-watersheds and Percent of Watershed Table 27 7-Day Average Maximum Water Temperature of six streams within project area

5 Table 28 Aggregate Recovery Percent (ARP) levels (harvest estimated 2023) Table 29 Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative. 130 Table 30 Structural Condition of Project Area and proposed treatment in Riparian Reserves Table 31 Large Wood Augmentation by Drainage as Displayed in Figure Table Wood Count Stream Survey by Seral Class Combination Table 33 MIS Fish and habitat description for the Lookout Point project area Table 34. Compaction in units 16% and above from existing roads and logging operations. Red cells currently exceed 20% Table 35 Post-fire duff retention. Red cells are to be deleted, yellow cells are not to have fuel treatments, but slash is to be left in units, blue cells are not to be underburned Table 36 Comparison of Issues between Alternatives Table 37 Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Table 38 Change in watershed age classes resulting from Deception Fire Table 39 Summary of treatments and acreage treated for Alternative A, Proposed Action Table 40 Change in stand attributes over time for simulated LSR thinning Table 41 Change in stand attributes over time for early-seral creation treatment Table 42 Predicted change in crown competition factor over time for the LSR thinning Table 43 Predicted change in crown competition factor over time for the early-seral treatment 173 Table 44 Special habitat restoration Table 45 Summary of treatments and acreage treated for Alternative B Table 46 Predicted change in stand attributes under the No Action for LSR stand Table 47 Summary of treatments and acreage treated for Alternative D Table 48 Alternative comparison of vegetative objectives Table 49 Sensitive and Survey Manage Species within the Outlook Planning Area Table 50 Comparison of Alternatives for Fungi Species Table 51 Documented Invasive Plant Species in Outlook Project area Table 52 Ground disturbance by Alternative Table 53 Percentage and Acreage of Watershed Disturbed by Alternative Table 54 Special Habitats within Outlook Units Table 55 Special Habitat Treatment Areas Table 56 Miles of open and closed/stored roads in project area Table 57 Proposed Road storage and Decommissioning Impacts on Roads Available to the Public200 Table 58 Proposed Temporary Spur Construction by Alternative Table 59 Roads Proposed for Decommissioning in Alternative D Table 60 Forest Trails within the Outlook Project Area

6 Table 61 Trails by Harvest Units Table 62 List of Recreation Special Uses Table 63 Viewshed Thresholds Table 64 Outlook Project Area Inventory for Other Undeveloped Lands Table 65 Inventory of Land Areas within Outlook Project area Table 66 Size Class and Acres of Other Undeveloped Lands in the Outlook Project Project area218 Table 67 Middle Fork Willamette Fireshed Large Fires (1787-Present)* Table 68 Fire Regime Descriptions Table 69 Simple 7: Fire Regime Condition Class Succession Class evaluation for Dry Mesic Douglas-fir and Western Hemlock Forest Type in the Lookout Point Watershed Table 70 Fire Behavior Prediction System Fuel Models Table 71 Existing Dead/Down Surface Fuel Load (tons/acre) Table 72 Alternative A Current & Predicted Dead/Down Fuel Loading Estimates in Commercial Thinning, Early-seral Creation and Early-seral Maintenance Units (tons/acre)* Table 73 Alternative B Current & Predicted Dead/Down Fuel Loading Estimates in Commercial Thinning and Thin to 30% Residual Canopy Cover (tons/acre) Table 74 Alternative D Current & Predicted Dead/Down Fuel Loading Estimates in Commercial Thinning, Early-seral Creation and Early-seral Maintenance Units (tons/acre)* Table 75 Project Area Particulate Matter Emissions Estimates (tons)* Table 76 County Employment (not seasonally adjusted) Table 77 Economic Efficiency Analysis for the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Table 78 Economic Impact Analysis Figure 1. Vicinity map of project area Figure 2 Land Allocations in Outlook Project Area Figure 3 Outlook Units Dropped Due to Deception Fire Figure 4 Current land allocation and NSO critical habitat composition for the Outlook project area. 59 Figure 5 WEM output display of current DDE composition and post-treatment DDE composition under each Outlook Action Alternative within individual BGEAs and overall project area Figure 6 WEM output display of changes in predicted DDE under each Outlook Action Alternative against current condition within individual BGEAs and overall project area Figure 7 Predicted use change by BGEA and project area under Alternative A Figure 8 Predicted use change by BGEA and project area under Alternative B Figure 9 Predicted use change by BGEA and project area under Alternative D Figure 10 Summary of Use in BGEA by Alternative

7 Figure 11.Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for all snags in Outlook area.100 Figure 12 Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for large snags in Outlook area. 100 Figure 13 Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for all down wood in Outlook area 103 Figure 14 Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for all large down wood in Outlook area Figure 15 Past land activities by drainage Figure 16 The Outlook Landscape Diversity project area by seral stage Figure 17 Large Wood Augmentation by Drainage Figure 18 Slope Classes in the Outlook Project area Figure 19 Map of managed stands within the Outlook project area, emphasizing units with greater than 16% compaction Figure view of Outlook Project Area Figure 21 Density of Hardwood species composition in proposed units Figure 22 Density of conifer species composition in proposed units Figure 23 Visual simulation of LSR thinning Figure 24 Visual simulation of early-seral creation treatment Figure 25 Average Composite Douglas-fir Log Price, Douglas County Market Area Appendix A. Consistency with Direction and Regulation Appendix B....Sale Area Improvement Appendix C. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Appendix D.....Vegetation Appendix E...Scoping Comments Appendix F..Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Appendix G....Roads Appendix H..Alternative Maps Appendix I..Literature Cited Appendix J Stand Scale Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Analysis 7

8 I. Introduction The Forest Service is proposing to commercially thin on about 4,461 acres to promote stand diversity in 112 separate plantations created by past clearcutting. Associated activities include 129 miles of road maintenance, 130 miles of road closure, 3.2 miles of temporary spur road construction, 2.2 miles of non-system temporary road reconstruction, and abatement of the surplus forest fuels generated by the proposed thinning. Additionally, we propose 177 acres of early-seral habitat maintenance and 257 acres of early seral creation, 249 acres of special habitat maintenance and restoration, 1,628 acres of snag creation and 1,155 acres of instream wood creation, and approximately 100 acres of soil compaction amelioration to maintain and enhance the diversity of vegetation in this watershed. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Middle Fork Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest over the next five to ten years. The Forest Service prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the above activities may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document in chapters I and II. Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment for the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project (OLDP) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment (EA) discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five parts: Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, the agency s proposal for achieving that purpose and need, and the (internal and external) issues developed to assist in determining environmental effects. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and an overview of how the public has responded. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description and comparison of the agency s proposed actions as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. The alternatives were developed based on key issues raised by the interdisciplinary team, the public, and other agencies. This discussion also includes measures to be taken to mitigate potential environmental effects. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative, by issue. Environmental Consequences: This section describes in detail the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives, by resource. This analysis is organized primarily by the affected environmental components, and secondarily by the issues. Within each section, the affected environment is described first to provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the alternatives. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of Interdisciplinary Team members and the various public agencies and stakeholders consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provides more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. An Analysis File for this project is kept in the project planning record at the Middle Fork Ranger District in Westfir, Oregon and is available for inspection upon request. This file contains the various reports prepared by 8

9 the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) which provide more detailed information to support the analyses summarized in this environmental assessment, as well as all public correspondence and input. This EA contains numerous literature citations which are consolidated in appendix I of this document. There are also numerous references to Forest Wide (FW) and Management Area (MA) standards and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990a). These references are typically in parentheses containing numbers as follows: FW-XXX; MA-XXX, and refer to the standards and guidelines that can be found in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan starting on page IV-47. It also contains citations of the Standards and Guidelines contained in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 1994b). These citations are made as follows; (Record of Decision, page A-XX). Background Proposed Project Location and Characteristics The project area encompasses the entire Lookout Point Reservoir Fifth-field watershed, totaling approximately 49,660 acres. The area is both north and south of the Lookout Point Reservoir on the Middle Fork of the Willamette River and extends from the western boundary of the Willamette National Forest east to the Deception Creek and Buckhead Creek drainages to the confluence with the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Willamette River, approximately two miles downstream of the cities of Westfir and Oakridge. The project area occurs within portions of Townships 20 and 21 South, Ranges 1, 2 and 3 East, of the Willamette Meridian. 9

10 Figure 1. Vicinity map of project area. 10

11 The project area contains 10 different Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; USDA, 1990, pages IV-141 to 240) Management Allocations. Private and other federal agency lands are in the project area as described below: Table 1. Land and Resource Management Plan Land Allocations Management Areas (MA) Acres in Project Area Acres in Proposed Harvest Units 9D Wildlife Habitat Special Areas (Admin. Reserved) A Scenic Modification Middleground (Matrix) 4, C Scenic Partial Retention Middleground (Matrix) 2, F Scenic Retention Foreground (Matrix) 2, A Developed Recreation sites (campgrounds; Admin. Reserved) 13B Forest Service Administrative Use Areas (Admin. Reserved) 14A General Forest Intensive Forest Management (Matrix) ,459 16A Late Successional Reserve (Admin. Reserved) 32,618 2,649 16B - Late Successional Reserve 100 acre (Admin. Reserved) WA - Major Water Bodies (Admin. Reserved) 1,686 0 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 75 0 Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE) Private Lands Total 49,660* 3,953 *Total acres do not include Riparian Reserves (approximately 16,000 acres), the 5b Hardesty - Mt. June Ecological Area (3,248 acres) or the Hardesty Mountain Roadless Area (3,690 acres) which are incorporated in other overlapping allocations. See Appendix H - Alternative Maps for locations of these features. Forest Plan Direction The Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, 1990a and b) as amended by the Record of Decision of April 1994 for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old- Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan; USDA/USDI, 1994a and b) provides management direction (see Table 1 and Figure 2), specifies land allocations, and standards and guidelines for the management of forest lands in this project area. To distinguish between the two plans, this document will refer to them as the Forest Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), respectively. The Northwest Forest Plan provides a regional strategy for management of federal lands and the old-growth and late-successional forest ecosystems they contain. The Northwest Forest Plan amended land allocations established in the Willamette Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan has designated most of the project area as Matrix and LSR lands, aside from the riparian reserves mentioned below. Matrix lands are where most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities are to occur (NWFP Standards and Guidelines, page C-39). See the Forest Plan (pages IV-, 177, 201, 205, and 227) for full description of the Standards and Guidelines for Management Areas, 9d, 11a, 11c, and 14a, respectively. See page C-30 of the NWFP for a description of the standards and guidelines for <1 392 <1

12 riparian reserve management and protection. See page C-9 of the NWFP for a description of the standards and Guidelines for LSR Management Areas, 16A, 16B. Both these plans also contain general standards and guidelines that apply to all land allocations (FP, starting on page IV-45; NWFP, page C-1). When there is overlap of management allocations, the more restrictive standards and guidelines of both allocations apply (Northwest Forest Plan 1994a p. A-6). The following management direction (see Figure 2 Land Allocations) is relevant to treatments proposed within the Outlook Project: Wildlife Habitat-Special Areas (9d) are areas allocated toward the goal of protecting or enhancing unique wildlife habitats and botanical sites which are important components of healthy, biologically diverse ecosystems. Timber management may not be implemented for the purpose of programmed harvests, but it may be implemented for treatments if necessary to meet established wildlife objectives. Scenic-Modification Middleground (11a) areas have the goal to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes will be managed for a modest level of scenic quality. These areas are also managed for other resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitats. Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground (11c) areas have the objective to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes will be managed for a moderate level of scenic quality. This area will also be managed for other resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitats. Scenic Retention Foreground (11f) areas have the objective to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the forest landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes will be managed for a high level of scenic quality. This area will also be managed for other resource goals including timber production, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitats. General Forest-Intensive Timber Management or Matrix lands (14a) consists of areas outside of other NWFP land allocation categories where most of the timber treatments occur to produce an optimum and sustainable yield of timber production that is compatible with multiple use objectives. Late Successional Reserve (MA 16a) areas are identified to maintain a functional, interactive, latesuccessional and old growth forest ecosystem. They are designed to serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. 100-acre Late Successional Reserve (MA 16b) areas are identified to maintain a functional, interactive, late-successional and old growth forest ecosystem in small blocks throughout the landscape. They are designed to serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. Riparian Reserves (MA 15) are areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian-dependent, terrestrial resources receives primary emphasis. In these areas all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable areas are included and managed for the purpose of protecting the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species. (Approximately 16,000 acres) Hardesty Mt. June Ecological Area (5b) has a goal to preserve the diverse genetic base of native plant and animal communities and ensure that biological and physical processes continue unimpeded. Also, to protect the area as a benchmark for measuring the effects of management activities conducted in similar landscapes and as a basis for research, education, and monitoring (see Appendix H Alternative Maps for location). (3,248 acres) 12

13 Hardesty Mountain Roadless Area was first studied in RARE II and was considered for Wilderness by the US Congress. They released 4,031 acres for multiple use management in the Oregon Wilderness Act of Since the release of these lands in 1984, approximately 341 acres have been affected by development activities. The area is contiguous to 2,555 acres of Hardesty Mountain roadless area on the Umpqua National Forest making a total of 6,245 acres. (see Appendix H Alternative Maps for location). (3,690 acres of unaffected land) 13

14 Figure 2 Land Allocations in Outlook Project Area 14

15 The Outlook Landscape Diversity Project area contains approximately 16,000 acres (32 percent of project area) of riparian reserves as defined in the Northwest Forest Plan; riparian reserve acres overlap the above Management Area allocations. Timber management may not be implemented for the purpose of programmed harvests, but it may be implemented for treatments if necessary to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. The project area contains about 13,800 acres of plantations ranging in age from about 15 to over 60 years; these were all created by past clearcut harvest. It contains a total of 243 miles of road that have been built mainly to facilitate past forest management activities. The project area contains a major transportation corridor along the Middle Fork of the Willamette River and the Lookout Point Reservoir; State Highway 58 runs along the southern shore of the reservoir and river, and a mainline railroad runs parallel to the Highway until it crosses the river in the middle of the project area, then it runs along the north shore. There is also a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line connecting the Hills Creek Reservoir generating station to the Lookout Point Dam facility. This power line right-of-way is entirely north of the river/reservoir. The project area contains about 667 acres of private lands, 75 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 316 acres of land administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The private lands are mostly industrial forest lands, but there are several rural residential parcels. The private lands are generally located along the Reservoir or Highway 58. The area also contains the small, unincorporated community of Westfir and the Middle Fork Ranger Station, both located near the confluence of the Middle Fork and the North Fork of the Middle Fork of the Willamette Rivers in the southeast corner of the project area (see Figure 1 Vicinity Map). The Outlook project area contains one Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) named Hardesty Mountain. Approximately 3,700 acres of this roadless area are on the Willamette National Forest but portions are located on the adjacent Umpqua National Forest and BLM lands. No thinning activities are proposed in the IRA. The project area contains approximately 50 miles of popular hiking and mountain biking trails. These trails and some of the system roads are also used by equestrians. The most popular of these trails include the Hardesty Mountain and Goodman Creek trails (#s 3463 and 3461 respectively) south of the Reservoir, the Eugene to Crest Trail (# 3559) on the northern project area boundary, and the Alpine Trail (# 3540) on the eastern boundary. Many of these trails are accessible nearly year around, accounting in large part for their popularity. The area also contains two developed campgrounds administered by the Forest Service, Black Canyon and Hampton. The Black Canyon campground is the largest, with 73 sites. Both campgrounds provide boat ramp access to Lookout Reservoir, and neither is open during winter months. Decision Framework The Willamette National Forest, Middle Fork Ranger District, District Ranger will determine which of the proposals addressed in this analysis to implement. The District Ranger will review the proposed actions and the other alternatives, in the context of the purpose and need for action and the resultant environmental effects, in order to make the following decisions and determinations: What the optimal method of accomplishing the purposes and needs for this project should be, while resolving issues associated with the proposal and project area, and which action alternative, if any, should be implemented; Whether the selected alternative should be modified; What mitigating measures should occur along with any proposed activity; How the road system in this area should be managed; 15

16 Whether this action is in full compliance with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990a, USDA/USDI, 1994) and all Forest Service Policies and procedures. Purpose and Need for the Proposal The purpose of the proposed actions is to diversify or maintain the structural diversity of the vegetation (including that contributing to aquatic habitat structure and composition) within the project area, the Lookout Point Fifth-field watershed. Diversification of these ecosystem components would provide for the full range of habitats needed by wildlife and plant species and would assure these resultant vegetation types are resilient in the face of future climate change and wildfire occurrence. One important aspect of landscape and stand level diversity is provision of adequate amounts of wildlife habitat for all species of interest and concern. Approximately 28 percent of this project area consists of relatively uniform young stands resulting from the past regeneration harvesting which occurred over the last 60 years. As such, this project area does not contain the historic level of structurally diverse, older forests. Because young managed forests may not be as structurally diverse as natural stands of similar ages. The remainder of the Outlook project area consists of mature stands from 95 to 130 years of age resulting from relatively recent stand replacement fire, late successional or old-growth stands in excess of 200 years of age; non-forest cleared lands such as rights-of-way and the Lookout Point Reservoir, or natural non-forest vegetation such as meadows and rock outcrops. Little to no regeneration harvest has occurred in this area in the last 20 years, and only one natural event (Deception Fire of 2014) has occurred that would create early-successional habitat of any magnitude in over 100 years, due in large part to aggressive fire suppression. The relatively small portion (5%) of harvest units that still provide early-successional habitat important for wildlife (specifically big game) would soon develop into mid-seral closed canopy forests that would contain little if any foraging vegetation. This project area contains High and Moderate big game emphasis areas within which The Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 1990) standards and guidelines for wildlife habitat management require a certain amount of early successional forage habitat (FW-147 to 151). Such habitat doesn t exist at prescribed levels in this area. In addition, many of the roads and younger managed stands in this area contain noxious weed species that further threaten the diversity of vegetation and storage capacity in the Outlook project area. Purpose The maintenance or restoration of biodiversity has become an increasingly important consideration when developing management prescriptions for Forest Service managed lands. Such objectives are reflected in the Willamette National Forest Plan s Standards and Guidelines for forest, landscape, and stand level diversity (pages IV-78 and 79). Specifically, Standards and Guidelines FW-201 through 214, as summarized below, require maintenance and restoration of biodiversity and plant habitats at the Forest, landscape, and stand levels: FW-201: Biological diversity shall be maintained or enhanced by providing ecologically sound distribution and abundance of plant and animal communities and species of all age classes at the Forest, basin, and stand level. This distribution would contribute to the goal of maintaining all native.species and communities. FW-204 Project analysis.shall evaluate the broad scale habitat patterns created by management areas and the proposed activities.timber harvests, past and present, generate a succession of habitats The special interaction of these two habitat types [stands regenerated after harvest and natural stands] is a major source of diversity. 16

17 FW-207: During project planning, site-specific analysis shall consider biological diversity and ecosystem function. FW-211: Special wildlife and plant habitats.shall be maintained.examples of special habitats include. unique plant associations. In addition, standards and guidelines for Management Area 9d Special Wildlife Habitat direct the project designers to maintain habitats of native wildlife and plants (MA-9d-07). As part of the Record of Decision (ROD) for Northwest Forest Plan (Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl - USFS, BLM 1994), the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) (USDA/USDI, 1994, page B-11) was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. The ACS strives to maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and resources and restore currently degraded habitats. This approach seeks to prevent further degradation and restore habitat over broad landscapes as opposed to individual projects or small watersheds. (See Appendix C) Recent Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction for restoration (issued on 9/18/2008) is contained in FSM Chapter 2020 Ecological Restoration and Resilience. This direction provides foundational policy for using ecological restoration to manage Forest System lands in a sustainable manner. This policy specifies (2020.3) that all resource management programs have a responsibility for ecological restoration and directs that resource management programs and projects be integrated to achieve complementary or synergistic results contributing to ecological restoration. Ecological restoration is defined as assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged or destroyed (FSM ). The proposed actions have all been designed to restore the biodiversity of ecosystems that have been degraded by past harvest and intensive timber management or by the exclusion of fire from the ecosystems within the project area. More specific to this area, the Lookout Point Watershed Analysis (USDA, 1997) made recommendations (pages 130 and 131) that include diversification through silvicultural treatment applications in younger stands within the LSR, within Matrix lands, and in riparian reserves. The Recent Watershed Analysis Update (USDA, 2012) affirmed these recommendations. In addition, the South Cascades Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) also recommends that The objectives of density management treatments in these stands [less than 80 years old] are to place or keep stands on the path to produce or enhance late-seral structures as soon as possible.. Density treatment opportunities are limited primarily by the. vegetation condition in previous harvest units. (USDA/USDI, 1998, page 127). The LSRA also contains prescriptive guidance on where and why young stands should be thinned: avoid thinning where mid-seral stands under 80 years old are, or soon will be, nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. A stand should be thinned if it is not complex and diverse, and is less than 80 years old and the treatment is primarily designed to increase trees size, improve crown development, reduce large-scale-loss of key late-successional structure, or provide various stand components beneficial to late-successional forest-related species (page 128) Proposed Action The goal of the proposed activities is to maintain, enhance, or improve the structural and species diversity of managed and natural stands within special habitats in the project area to meet the above Purpose and Need. Some of the proposed activities are not directly related to the purpose and need for action (such as road use, road construction, or slash disposal), but are connected actions; those needed to facilitate or mitigate the primary proposed actions. What follows is a more specific list of actions proposed for this project: 17

18 Commercial thinning - in about 112 plantations totaling approximately 4,461 gross acres (approximately 3399 net acres), with variable spacing, creation of gaps, and retention of some unthinned areas. This thinning would be accomplished by various logging methods, including ground based machinery (~1,392 acres), skyline machinery (~1,891 acres) and helicopters (~323 acres), depending upon slope, soil conditions and road accessibility. Connected actions related to thinning include road maintenance and fuels treatments. Fuel treatment would generally consist of grapple piling along roads and within ground-based yarded units, chipping along roads, and some limited piling and underburning; Road maintenance - approximately 129 miles of road would be maintained and repaired to facilitate log haul and other project work, consisting of grading, ditch cleanout, surface rock replacement, and culvert replacement providing fish passage improvement. Road maintenance would reduce road related water quality problems; Road closures about 130 miles of system roads would be closed as per recommendations in the District Roads Analysis after, field verification. In most cases these roads would be placed in storage for future use (as opposed to full and permanent decommissioning), through barriers, water bar construction, some smaller culvert removal, and relief ditch placement over culverts left in place; Restoration of the Buckhead Wildlife Area in approximately 147 acres gross. Including removal of conifer encroachment into riparian gallery hardwood stands, and noxious weed abatement; Early-seral habitat maintenance - in approximately 177 acres gross (approximately 64 acres net) in nine stands from 15 to 25 years of age These stands only occur north of the Reservoir as LSR guidelines for stands south of the Reservoir preclude this activity which would retard the development of owl habitat. Forage creation would consist of generally removing most of the trees from treated portions in these stands while retaining some singly or in clumps, cutting some of the hardwood shrubs, slash abatement (scattering, piling or broadcast burning), and seeding with preferred forage species where needed. Prescribed burning would occur as needed to maintain these areas in forage condition; Early-seral habitat creation - approximately 257 acres gross (approximately 142 acres net) in nine stands approximately 40 to 60 years old. These stands are north of the Reservoir as LSR guidelines preclude this activity on the south side of the reservoir since it would remove northern spotted owl dispersal habitat. These plantations would be harvested again to provide for early-seral habitat while maintaining a complex current and future stand structure. About 70 percent of the Matrix portion acres within a stand would be thinned to around 12 to 18 percent canopy cover while remaining 30 percent of Matrix acres and all Riparian Reserve acres would remain unthinned resulting in an average of around 30 percent canopy cover in the stand; Abatement of existing noxious weed populations approximately 3,951 acres along roads and within proposed thinning units to mitigate possible expansion; Snag and down wood creation in mature stands approximately 1628 acres of 100 to 150 year old stands within two tree heights (400 feet) of most thinning units. Most natural stands of this age contain less then optimum levels of dead wood due to past fire occurrences About two snags per acre greater than 20 inches in diameter would be created in Matrix stands, and four snags per acre in the LSR stands. No trees suitable for spotted owl nesting, or with current potential red tree vole nests, or structural defects providing current and future crown diversity would be selected for use in this treatment; Special Habitat restoration - such as meadows and ash swales, (249 acres gross/approximately 167 acres net) to include noxious plant abatement, elimination of tree encroachment, and burning to maintain or expand the current extent; In-Channel Stream Wood Placement - In stream channels that are deficient in large wood (defined as over 12 inches in diameter) due to past stream cleanout actions, would have trees near the channels felled or pulled (uprooted) into stream channels. Candidate trees would come from within 100 feet of stream channels from adjacent mature stands and from the thinning stands themselves. Trees would be cut on 18

19 about 1,155 acres, and tree tipping using cable winches positioned on existing roads would occur on about 190 acres benefiting approximately 6 miles of stream. Trees selected for wood placement would not be the largest in the stand, nor would they be growing in perennially saturated soil. Additionally, no trees suitable for spotted owl nesting, or with current potential red tree vole nests, or structural defects providing current and future crown diversity would be selected for use in this treatment; Mitigation of existing soil compaction - from past ground-based yarding. Consists of subsoiling of main skid trails used during this harvest entry, and covers about 5 percent of the ground within the thinning units which were ground-based yarded during the first harvest entry. Desired Conditions The Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, USDA/USDI, 1994), contains the specific land allocations desired conditions in addition to the Forest Wide standards and guidelines mentioned above: LSR (33,279 acres; 67%) - a matrix of late-successional forests containing diverse structural elements, including vertical and horizontal heterogeneity of overstory and understory vegetation, large trees, down and standing dead trees, and a diverse suite of species. Ideally, wildfire should play its natural role in these areas, but because of past regeneration harvest and the extent of stand replacement fire in the last 130 years, this function of fire should be deferred until most of the area exhibits the general conditions mentioned above. Road densities should be low. (USDA, 1990 page IV 165, and USDA/USDI, 1994, pages C-9 to 19) Riparian Reserves (approximately 16,000 acres: these areas overlap all land allocations) all streamside areas as defined by the NWFP should be in late-successional conditions and exhibit structural characteristics similar to those specified for the LSR above. Riparian areas will provide a continuous and diverse habitat.and high water quality. Riparian areas will contribute to the diversity and dispersion of fish, wildlife, and plants within sub-drainages and the larger watershed. Stream channels will provide diverse, stable habitat for aquatic species as well as maintain water quality. Vegetation will be managed to provide diverse stands of conifer and hardwood vegetation which provide for riparian dependent species. (USDA, 1990, page IV 233) Matrix (12,816 acres; 26%) a matrix of age classes, including an appropriate amount of early successional habitat, where all stands contain amounts of dead wood specified by the NWFP and appropriate for the natural fire regime of the area. All old-growth stands that exist now should be protected. Stands should be structurally diverse, with younger stands containing abundant live and dead legacies from previous stands. The Matrix should maintain a contiguous late-successional forest connection between LSR OR-18 and LSR OR-20 somewhere at all times. Matrix lands should also help achieve Forest Plan standards for big game habitat conditions. (USDA, 1990, page IV 227) All vegetation types in all allocations should be resilient in the face of potential future climate change and, to the extent possible, in the face of potential wildfire. Many of the young second-growth stands are dense enough that increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation, or the occurrence of wildfire, could result in unacceptable levels of mortality. Also in all allocations, non-forest vegetation types should exist at their historic extent throughout the project area. Current Conditions and Needed Actions: In order to achieve the above described desired future conditions, and to accomplish the purposes of this proposal, the following activities need to occur in specific areas: 19

20 Plantations Young stands created by past harvest occupy about 13,800 acres or about 28 percent of the project area (not including the approximately 2,500 acres (five percent) that have been cleared of trees to facilitate construction of the Lookout Point Reservoir, Highway 58, the Union Pacific Railroad right-of way, a Bonneville Power Administration transmission line right-of-way, and residential or administrative sites). Little regeneration harvest has occurred in this area over the last 20 years, so the managed stands range in age from 15 to 55 years. This past harvest has generally resulted in the development of dense young conifer stands that are not very diverse structurally, or in species composition and/or abundance. As a result, these stands may be more susceptible to damage than comparably - aged natural stands in the face of extreme weather events or wildfire occurrence. The canopies of the older stands are closed, creating a higher potential for crown fire or crown mortality from radiant heat in the event of a fire. Individual tree diameter growth has slowed in dense stands due to small crown volumes relative to tree heights. These conditions often result in poorly developed and low diversity understory vegetation layers (due to high amounts of shade), and can also lead to overstory stem breakage due to snow accumulation during severe winter storms. Furthermore, if the stem density of such stands is not reduced, attainment of large diameter trees with deep and complex crowns would be greatly inhibited. All the above conditions also apply to harvest-created stands within riparian reserves. Given the condition of managed second-growth stands in the project area and the species and structural habitat diversity enhancement and maintenance goals previously stated, there is a need for a considerable reduction of tree density and canopy cover in dense young plantations, both in upland and riparian areas. Some studies suggest (for example, Franklin, 2001; Spies and S. L. Duncan, 2009, Chapter 22; Tappeiner, et al, 1997; Muir, et al, 2002) that old-growth forests typically developed from relatively open young stands with as few as 50 dominant trees per acre with low canopy closures for long-periods of time. Reduction in both canopy closure and trees per acre can be expected to promote understory development and vertical diversity. Such structural development has been shown to benefit a variety of wildlife species typically associated with habitat similar to the Outlook project area. The young plantation stands in this area now contain from 200 to over 350 trees per acre greater than 7 inches in diameter; with some in excess of 700 trees per acre in all size classes. It is generally recognized that in this age range a young stand should have no more than 100 to 150 trees per acre to provide enough sunlight to encourage a diverse and dense suite of understory vegetation and maintain the vigor of the dominant conifers. Reduced stand densities would provide for, or accelerate, the development of various stand structural components such as ground vegetation, secondary conifer canopies, large complex crowns, and appropriately large future sources of dead and down tree habitat. Diversification of these stands by a reduction in stem density would serve to maintain or enhance populations of animals and plants which utilize multi-storied conifer stands, and ultimately provide for higher quality future northern spotted owl dispersal and foraging habitat. Many of the second-growth stands within the project area contain moderate to high amounts of large down wood, left from the first harvest operations as a result of lower utilization standards in the middle portion of the 20th century. However, few of these stands meet current levels for class I and II down logs or larger snags prescribed by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP; USDA/USDI, 1994, page C-41). Most of these stands are dense enough that natural competition mortality has or would create some class I and II standing and down dead trees but with few exceptions this dead wood structure is far from meeting the size requirements specified in the NWFP. The standing and down dead wood being generated by these stands is in the three to 10 inch range and would remain in that range for some decades to come. The 100 year old natural stands in this area are generally dense enough that the dead wood they are now generating is still considerably less than the 20 20

21 inches in diameter required by the NWFP. There is a need to reduce the tree stocking density in these managed stands so that residual trees would more rapidly achieve diameters greater than 20 inches. This discussion of young stand conditions applies to all land allocations. Some 67 percent of the project areas is designated as Late-Succession Reserves (LSRs), which contain nearly 25,000 acres of these dense young stands. The need to restore the vegetative diversity of young stands in the LSRs is more important than other allocations. The NWFP and the South Cascades LSR Assessment both direct that dense young plantations be thinned to provide for higher quality future late-successional habitat and to accelerate the development of that habitat. Some of these plantations, and especially the roads that were built to facilitate the original harvest, contain various non-native invasive plants. The presence of these invasive species threatens current and future species diversity in the plantations and throughout the project area. This project area contains one of the highest levels of invasive plants on the Middle Fork Ranger District. There is a need to reduce the occurrence of non-native, invasive plants in this area. Wildlife Habitat As illustrated in the table below, only six percent of this project area currently contains primary deer and elk forage habitat, counting the natural meadows. Many of these meadows are too dry to provide quality forage throughout the year. Most of the current early-seral habitat will soon transition to closed canopy young stands that would provide only hiding cover. There is a need to supply additional amounts of quality forage habitat for big game consisting of early-successional forest habitat (USDA, 1990, pages IV-69 and 70). However, harvest intense enough to accomplish forage production objectives is problematic, especially in stands over 80 years of age due to the fact that such harvest is prohibited in the LSR which represents about 70 percent of this project area. Project area stands in excess of 80 years old have a high potential to contain an abundance of occupied red tree vole nests based upon survey results in similar areas on the Middle Fork Ranger District. Under a Pilot Study, the matrix portion of this project area is programmatically exempt from the requirement to survey and manage for red tree voles as it is considered a non-high priority site for red tree vole protection due to the large proportion of reserved lands (such as the LSR) it contains (see USDAI/USDA, 2003 and 2012). Table 2. Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Reference and Current Seral Stage Habitat Distribution. Time Period Non-Forest: Altered Non- Forest Vegetation Earlyseral Mid- Seral Late Seral Old - Growth Total Watershed Reference Conditions (1900) acres , ,000 20,500 49,638 Approx. % 1% 1% 50% 2% 4% 42% 100% Current Conditions (Post-Deception Fire) acres 1, ,026 11,791 25,035 7,143 49,638 Approx. % 4% 1% 6% 24% 50% 15% 100% Non-forest altered = features that either are not vegetated or contain vegetation atypical of natural, native conditions, such as the reservoir surface (~1,680 ac), Highway 58, and the railroad and power line right-of-ways; Non-forest vegetation = meadows, marshes, rock outcrops, talus slopes, brush fields; Early-seral = forests less than 20 years old without a closed canopy - stand initiation stage; Mid-seral = forests from 20 to 80 years of age - stem exclusion stage Late-seral = mature forests from 80 to 200 years of age - understory re-initiation stage; 21

22 Old-growth = forests greater than 200 years of age, typically with complex structure (high amount so dead wood, deep crowns, multiple canopies). A large proportion of the late successional stands in the 90 to 120 year age range contain low amounts of snags and down wood due to the past fire history that involved repeated severe fire. There is a need to provide some of these important structural elements in such forests in order to make these younger forests more diverse and capable of supporting adequate populations of large dead wood dependent wildlife species. There is also a need to reduce the density of open roads to comply with Forest Plan direction for big game habitat quality. The project area now contains about 243 miles of system roads, most of which are currently open to traffic. This translates to an average of 3.3 miles of road per square mile, with some areas having a considerably higher road density because of the large unroaded areas in the Hardesty Mountain area and the upper portions of the Deception Creek drainage. As mentioned above, two-thirds of the project area has been designated as Late-Successional reserves, in large part to facilitate recovery of the threated northern spotted owl; diversification of uniform dense young stand is as important in the LSRs as in any land allocation (see USDA/UDI. 1994, page C-12). Most of the non-lsr portions of this project area were recently classified as northern spotted owl critical habitat. These areas also contain many dense plantations; there is a need to diversify the structure and species distribution of such stands designated as critical habitat so that they can develop into suitable habitat more quickly. Aquatic Habitat Another aspect of biodiversity is the structure, composition and function of the stream channel network and floodplains. Some stream culverts under roads do not provide adequate habitat connectivity for aquatic organisms and some of the project area stream channels do not contain adequate amounts of properly sized large wood. There is a need to provide for improved structural diversity on some stream channels and to provide for better aquatic habitat connectivity. Some of the 243 miles of system roads in the area are currently not drivable, but have not been intentionally closed, so sediment problems may still exist because little road maintenance has been funded in this area for the last 2 decades. Many of these roads are so over grown with vegetation that it is difficult to observe the condition of those roads. The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis and recent Update (USDA, 1997, and USDA, 2012) determined that this watershed exceeds road density goals, and the 2004 District Roads Analysis has identified a number of these roads (totaling about 130 miles) as being suitable for closure to protect various resources values, and in recognition of the lack of funding to do periodic maintenance. Roads can provide for chronic and episodic sediment entry into the stream system. This turbidity can come from improperly maintained road surfaces or ditch systems (chronic) or from culvert and fill failures (episodic, catastrophic events). Funding is inadequate to keep these roads maintained to standard and lack of maintenance can result in sediment production. Roads also can affect terrestrial wildlife biodiversity through disturbance of wildlife populations and the introduction of non-native plant species. There is a need to reduce the density of open road systems in this project area through closure or decommissioning. There is also a need to maintain and repair system roads within the project area to assure that the transportation system is not producing excess sediment or altering the hydrologic regime. Road closures designed to reduce the risk of sediment entering the stream channel system entail removal or replacement of culverts, construction of drainage structures to divert water from the road surfaces, and removal of fill where there is a potential of failure potential. Other activities that would improve the hydrological function of roads on the landscape may be considered. 22

23 Non-Forest Vegetation Only a small percentage of this project area consists of non-forest vegetation types, less than 1.5 percent not counting the non-vegetated lands occupied by the Lookout Point Reservoir, and the State Highway 58 and Union Pacific Railroad rights-of way (which together comprise five percent of the project area). Non-forest vegetation in this area typically consists of relatively small rocky openings in the forest dominated by sparse grasses and herbs, and often containing some to a considerable amount of Oregon white oak, particularly around the edges of such openings on south aspects. There are some larger areas of this habitat type; the most extensive of these are the cliffy openings visible from Highway 58 at the upper end of Lookout Point Reservoir. These rocky meadows are often wet during the spring and very dry in the summer and fall. They can contain a high diversity of plant species, some of which are considered rare and sensitive. There are also some wetter non-forest types on lower gentle slopes, northerly aspects at higher elevations, and some limited shrub and talus types on the higher elevation north aspects of the Deception Creek headwaters, Patterson Mountain, and Hardesty Mountain. Non-forest vegetation areas provide important wildlife habitats. Many of these areas still exist at their historical extent but some are experiencing a small degree of conifer encroachment. Most of these areas contain some to a considerable amount of invasive, non-native plants which in some cases threaten to engulf these special habitats. There is a need to remove encroaching conifers, remove non-native plants, and apply prescribed fire to some of these non-forest habitats to maintain and enhance their ecosystem function. Thinleafed pea; (Lathyrus holochlorous) There is also a very specific need to restore the habitat and population of a rare plant, thinleafed pea. There is only one known site where this plant occurs on the Willamette National Forest and it s in this project area above and below Forest Road This general area is designated stand #2124 (approximately 8 acres). This population is growing on and above the road cut slope in association with other plants such as Oregon white oak, camas, poison oak, various grasses, and a native thistle. These plants prefer or require open conditions to persist and thrive. Portions of this population have been lost in the recent past due to road maintenance activities. The area above and below the thinleafed pea location was once a more open forest maintained in that condition by frequent fire. It may well have held a much larger population of thinleafed pea and its associates in the past. This eight acre patch of forest is somewhat unique in this proposal and this landscape. It is now a closed canopy forest of most Douglas-fir with an average age of about 80 years and an average diameter of around 12 inches. There are also a few dead or nearly dead Oregon white oak in this stand, none larger than 6 inches in diameter. There are a few older but not real large Douglas-fir and incense cedar scattered throughout the stand; most of these trees have fire scars or charred bark. There is a need to restore the forest adjacent to the thinleafed pea site to its historic open conditions and plant thinleafed pea seeds to restore its population to historic levels Economically Viable Timber Harvest There is a need to provide for economically viable timber harvest projects to accomplish the various vegetative treatments listed above, as well as to accomplish the goals and related economic benefits identified in the Purpose and Need statement for the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI, 1994a; page 1-4). Funding specifically allocated to biodiversity improvement is minimal or does not exist to accomplish these objectives. The sale of merchantable timber can be used to fund various biodiversity and restoration projects. 23

24 The Deception Fire of 2014 The Deception Fire of August 2014 occurred within the Outlook Landscape Diversity project analysis boundary and affected 6,685 acres of Willamette National Forest land with varying burn intensities. All 6,685 acres are also within the Outlook Project boundary. The fire also burned into the boundary of the Umpqua National Forest giving the fire a total of approximately 7,400 acres (BAER analysis 2014). A Burned Area Emergency Response Team was brought in near the end of the fire to determine the risk of damage post-fire to life, property and resources. The specialists conducted their assessments and determined only three percent of the fire had burned at a severe level and eight percent at a moderate level. For the majority of the area, the moderate and low-level burns actually created positive impacts for snag creation and woody debris for the streams, and the light under burned areas would create a healthier, more diverse forest. Burn intensities were severe enough in some areas to redefine about 775 acres as early-seral age class. This redistribution affected about 21 acres of current early-seral habitat, and resulted in reduction of older forest habitat as follows: mid-seral (-115 acres), late-seral (-369 acres), old-growth (-270 acres). These shifts represent about a 1% increase in early-seral, and a 1% decrease for both late-seral and old-growth habitat in the project area compared to pre-fire condition. Table 2 compares current (post-deception Fire) habitat against estimated reference habitat conditions. The data for current condition show that compared to historic conditions, early-seral has decreased by 44%, mid-seral habitat increased by 22%, late-seral increased by 46%, and old-growth decreased by 27%. The Outlook Landscape Diversity Project dropped four commercial thinning units from the project and partially dropped one more (See Table 3, See Figure 3). The remaining units were hand ignited from the road during suppression action. In most cases, underbrush was consumed at a very low intensity during night hours without affect to soil or duff. Please see chapter III for a more in depth discussion of the effects of the Deception Fire to each resource. Table 3 Proposed thinning acres dropped from the Outlook Project due to Deception Fire effects. Unit Net Acres Dropped Gross Acres Dropped Dropped Units Total Partial Drop Unit Dropped Net Dropped Gross Remaining

25 Figure 3 Outlook Units Dropped Due to Deception Fire 25

26 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The public has been consulted throughout the development and analysis of this project. On January 14, 2013, we began consultation on the OLDP by writing to representatives of The Klamath Tribes, The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. The letter explained the purpose and need for the project, provided a map of the project area, and solicited comments on the proposed action. We did not receive any comments from the Tribes following the consultation. The OLDP has been included in the Annual Program of work review with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Siletz, and Warm Springs since This project has been listed on the Willamette National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions, a quarterly updated list of projects and their status that is available on the Forest s website, since winter, Five public field trips or meetings were conducted prior to analysis of the proposed action. Dates of these meetings are as follows: January 22, 2013 (American Forests Resource Council or AFRC) April 19, 2013 (AFRC) May 8, 2013 (Emerald Chapter of the Back Country Horsemen Organization) May 22, 2013 (Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Cascadia Wildlands) September 13, 2013 (Many Rivers Sierra Club) A mailing list of approximately 139 individuals and organizations that might have an interest in such projects was sent a copy of the initial scoping letter describing this proposal and the purpose and need for action on January 14, This mailing list includes all landowners within the project area. Eleven formal comment letters or s were received from the public or public agencies during project development. Some of these comments were outside the scope of this proposal, and some became the basis for identified analysis issues and alternative actions. These letters of comment are contained in this project s Analysis File and are available for review at the Middle Fork Ranger Station. Five update meetings/fieldtrips were held for those that showed interest in how the project would move forward after the Deception Fire. Dates of these meetings are as follows: October 2, 2014 (Congressman DeFazio and County Commissioner Faye Stewart) October 6, 2014 (Greater Oakridge Area Trail Stewards (GOATS) and Oakridge Public), October 15, 2014 (Oakridge Public meeting at Oakridge High School), November 3, 2014 (Public meeting with Environmental Interest Groups), November 12, 2014 (Deception Creek Mobile Home residents). Issues The following issues and associated evaluation criteria were developed to facilitate evaluations of the environmental effects and achievement of the purpose and need for actions of the proposed actions and alternative actions. Issues are those conditions or realities related to potential environmental effects. They are identified here to facilitate some kind of measurement of the environmental effects of a proposed action and its alternatives. Issues can be considered Key or Non-Key to this analysis. Non-Key issues are not unimportant, but the effects 26

27 related to these issues are mitigated or eliminated by prescription details, application of best management practices, or compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, so do not help in displaying environmental effects of the proposal or in differentiating between alternatives. Issues Derived from Public Comments After receiving comments, we identified those statements that are considered specific written comments as defined by Forest Service regulations. We then separated the issues into two groups: key and other issues. Key issues represent an unresolved conflict associated with potential environmental effects of the proposed action that cannot be resolved simply with mitigation or design features. Key issues are used to formulate alternatives, prescribe design elements and focus the analysis of environmental effects. Key issues Key Issues are those which drive the development of alternative actions and also help differentiate between alternative courses of action in terms of differing environmental or social effects. Other analysis issues will be addressed in specialist reports and Chapter III of the EA (Environmental Effects), as needed and appropriate, but such issues will not be specifically tracked throughout this EA. Such management issues either do not drive alternative actions or would not show a marked difference in alternative effects. Lack of Early-Successional Habitat The quantity and distribution of early-seral habitat is low and poor and will soon be even more so. The small acreage of this habitat is on the verge of becoming mid-seral, closed canopy habitat. In addition to general suppression of project area biodiversity, this low amount of early-seral habitat has compromised the value and function of the project area for big game habitat. Big game habitat conditions do not currently meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (FW-135 through 151). Evaluation criteria: Fire Regime Condition Class rating (see table 68 pg. 225) increase in acreage of early-successional habitat (see table 36 pg. 162) change in big game Dietary Digestible Energy Index (see pg. 76 Elk and Deer (Big Game)) Noxious Weed Spread This project area contains several serious plant pests; in some cases the populations are large. Disturbance of soil and ground vegetation, and vehicle/machinery use all increase the likelihood of continued non-native, invasive plant spread. Evaluation criteria: acreage of canopy closure reduction to less than 40 percent (see table 36 pg. 162) acreage of ground disturbance (see table 52 pg. 190) Lack of Snag and Down Wood Habitat Due to past wildfire occurrence and harvest history, this area contains less than the estimated historic average levels of snags and down wood. This relatively low level of standing dead wood habitat affects the diversity of wildlife habitat and overall diversity of stand structure. Thinning plantations to provide for increased vegetational diversity would reduce the number of naturally generated snags and future down wood over a period of several decades in those areas. Conversely, the dead trees generated in a dense and unthinned stand are typically small in diameter and do not have as much utility to wildlife as snags and down log that are much larger. Thinning of dense stands increases the future average diameter of the remaining trees by a considerable amount (from 25 to 40 percent over a 20 year period), so snags generated by future intra-tree competition or stochastic mortality would be much larger and provide 27

28 more valuable wildlife habitat. Large diameter dead trees last much longer as standing snags than do small diameter trees. Evaluation criteria: acreage where snag recruitment would be depressed or delayed for several decades or more. (see pg. 96 Dead Wood Habitat-Snags and Deadwood) acreage of treatments which would increase snag numbers (see pg. 96 Dead Wood Habitat-Snags and Deadwood) Road Density 250 miles of system road are open to vehicle use or have not been formally, hydrologically closed, averaging about 3.2 miles per square mile. This high road density presents a number of potential resource quality problems, including wildlife disturbance, noxious weed spread, and water quality/fish habitat degradation. Since this extensive road system has seen little maintenance due to lack of money-generating management activity (harvest) or general road maintenance funding over the last 20 years, there is an increased potential for water quality effects. In some cases, road failures have already occurred, producing negative water quality effects. Evaluation criteria: total miles of road closure (see table 57 pg. 200) mileage of road maintenance (see table 57 pg. 200) Northern Spotted Owl Effects Early-seral habitat creation would remove dispersal or suitable northern spotted owl habitat, along with designated critical habitat, or delay its recovery from past harvest. Some proposed special habitat restoration would remove suitable northern spotted owl (NSO) roosting/foraging habitat. Proposed activities could, depending upon the location and time of occurrence, create noise and smoke disturbance to spotted owls. Proposed thinning would also affect NSO dispersal habitat by reducing canopy closure to less than 40 percent, but would improve habitat quality in the long-term ( 20 years) by accelerating development of more structurally diverse forests. In addition, proposed activities could, depending upon the location and time of occurrence, result in noise and smoke disturbance to spotted owls. Evaluation criteria: acres of NSO habitat modification; dispersal and suitable, plus critical habitat (see pg. 66 For NSO Habitat Modification) effects to NSO home ranges (nest patch, core area, and home range meter, 0.5 mile and 1.2 mile radii respectively) in terms of acreage of habitat change. (see pg. 63 Table 11 Core Area and Home Range acres ) effects to NSO critical habitat in terms of acreage affected. (see pg 64 Table 12) amount of Incidental Take associated with proposed activities (see pg. 66 NSO Determinations) Maintenance of Biodiversity - A primary objective of the Proposed Action is correction of the decline in vegetative structural and species diversity within this watershed. This lack of diversity has occurred primarily due to continued forest succession in the absence of either density management in younger managed stands or historic fire disturbance and is directly related to the purpose and need for the various treatments previously mentioned. Declines in stand structural and species diversity have been primarily in the form of increasing density of forests and exclusion through shading of diverse forest floor vegetation assemblages, and 28

29 secondarily due to establishment and expansion of non-native, invasive plant species. Declines in diverse habitats have affected both wildlife and plant species and their abundance. The structural characteristics of the young managed forest stands in this area are quite different from those of the original forests before harvest. Maintaining the status quo would result in prolonged reduction in biodiversity compared to what used to exist on these lands. Evaluation criteria: percent of area where the canopy closure would be less than 30 percent (see table 36 pg. 162) acres of noxious weeds eradicated. (see table 5 pg. 46 Comparison of Alternatives) acreage of young dense stands opened up with their structure diversified. (see table 36 pg. 162) Public Access Closure of roads could negatively affect recreational and special forest product collection access in this area. The road system is used by mountain bikers and equestrians to make loop trips of some of the trails in this area, and it is a popular area for hunting and gathering of firewood and greenery. Some of this use requires vehicle access, and the non-motorized uses can be affected if road closure and/or hydrologic decommissioning results in creation of physical barriers that are difficult to cross on foot, with bikes, or on horseback. Evaluation criteria: percentage of road system proposed for closure (see table 57 pg. 200) Economics The Northwest Forest Plan allowed a designated amount of timber harvest, which translates to important economic activity in local communities (USDA/USDI, 1994a, page 1-4; USDA/USDI, 1994b, pages 2 and 3). Such harvest is to take place on Matrix Lands (USDA/USDI, 1994b, pages 5 and C-39); including a certain amount of regeneration harvest on Matrix lands to provide for the projected and desired amounts of local economic activity. An economically positive sale of merchantable timber products would facilitate diversification of the secondgrowth stands and provision of the needed early-successional habitat. Funding is not available to remove this many trees without being subsidized by the sale of those trees. Treatments to maintain early-seral habitat in plantations young enough to not yet be merchantable in terms of thinning are expensive, would not generate any money to fund that kind of management, and would negatively affect future timber growth and availability. Evaluation criteria: board feet production of commercial timber harvest (see table 77 pg. 240) Net Present Value of all actions in an alternative. (see table 77 pg. 240) cost per acre of early-seral habitat maintenance (see Economic Analysis pg. 241) loss in timber volume production (see Economic Analysis pg. 241) Non-Key Issues Non-key issues involve resource concerns that ultimately were determined to not be affected by the proposed actions or alternative actions, either due to a simple lack of impact on a given resource, or because routine best management practices and/or how the proposed activities are to occur would avoid the impact. Non Key 29

30 issues are addressed in a general way by resources in the Current Conditions section of the effects analysis below. Soils: The effects of proposed ground-based yarding and temporary road construction could accumulate with past detrimental soil conditions (see Forest-Wide standard and Guidelines FW- 081) caused by uncontrolled ground-based yarding, and landing and road construction. Those cumulative effects could exceed the amounts specified by the above standard and guideline. About 3000 acres of past harvest on gentle ground may be close to or in excess of standards for the allowable amounts of detrimental soil conditions. Evaluation criteria: percent increase in detrimental soil conditions (see Soils Compaction pg.155) acres of bare soil created in areas with high soil erosion potential-(see Soils Displacement pg. 153) Water Quality: activities occurring within riparian reserves could cause detrimental changes in water quality and non-compliance with DEQ standards, mostly resulting from road maintenance and use. Such changes could have an effect on listed fish and their habitat, either through increased solar radiation to the stream channel increasing stream temperatures, through the introduction of sediment, or the short-term reduction of woody debris input. Conversely, thinning riparian stands could improve the availability of large wood to enter the stream channel over the long-term, and generally increase the structural and species diversity in riparian forests. Evaluation criteria: Miles of road maintenance and use; (see table 57 pg. 200) Acres of thinning within riparian reserves; (see table 30 pg 134) Acres of early-seral habitat maintenance in riparian reserves; (see table 30 pg. 134) Change in the aggregate recovery percentage by planning sub-watershed; (see pg. 126 Stream Flows/Disturbance History) Acres of riparian reserve with depressed wood input; (see pg. 132 Riparian Conditions) The Key Issues are addressed in the EA under the respective resources they address. Some issues relate to several resources (e.g. roads potentially affect the quality of wildlife habitat and water quality). 30

31 II. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project. It includes a description of each alternative, a map, and presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between alternatives and providing a clear basis for choice among options for the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., the number of acres treated, or miles of road used or closed) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., the amount of income produced or degree of effects to recreation, etc.) in relation to the identified issues. See Appendix H for a complete set of the Alternative Maps. Alternatives Proposed Action - Alternative A This alternative was developed in response to the purpose and need for action in conjunction with the findings and recommendations in the 2012 Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update. Commercial thinning- About 112 plantations totaling about 4,461 acres gross, with variable spacing, creation of gaps, and retention of some unthinned areas. No-cut riparian buffers would be retained with differing widths depending upon stream class and the remainder of the riparian reserves would be thinned the same way as upland areas. Connected actions related to thinning include road maintenance and fuels treatments. Fuel treatment would consist of grapple piling and burning along roads and within groundbased yarded units, chipping along roads, underburning, and some limited hand piling and burning; Road maintenance- Approximately 129 miles of road would be maintained and/or repaired to facilitate log haul and other project work, consisting of grading, ditch cleanout, surface rock replacement, and culvert replacement including fish passage improvement where appropriate. Road maintenance would reduce road related water quality problems; Road closures- About 130 miles of system roads would be closed as per recommendations in the District Roads Analysis, with field verification. In most cases these roads would be placed in storage for future use (as opposed to full and permanent decommissioning) through barriers, water bar construction, some smaller culvert removal, and relief ditch placement over culverts left in place; Restoration of the Buckhead Wildlife Area- In approximately 147 acres gross, to include removal of conifer encroachment into riparian gallery hardwood stands, and noxious weed abatement. Early-seral habitat maintenance- 64 acres of net treatment in nine stands about 16 years of age only north of Lookout Point Reservoir as LSR guidelines preclude this activity which would retard the development of owl habitat. Forage creation would generally consist of removing most of the trees from treated portions in these stands (retaining some singly or in clumps) and cutting some of the hardwood shrubs. Abatement of the slash created by those two activities would be achieved by scattering, piling or broadcast burning, with follow-up seeding with preferred forage species where needed. Prescribed burning would occur as needed to maintain these areas in forage condition; Early-seral habitat creation- 257 gross acres in nine stands from about 40 to 60 years of age only north of the Reservoir as LSR guidelines preclude this activity which would remove northern spotted owl dispersal habitat. These plantations from previous regeneration harvest would be harvested again to provide for early-seral habitat while maintaining a complex current and future stand structure. About 70 percent of the Matrix portion acres within a stand would be thinned to around 12 to 18 percent canopy cover while remaining 30 percent of Matrix acres and all Riparian Reserve acres would remain unthinned resulting in 31

32 an average of around 30 percent canopy cover in the stand; Resulting fuels would be broadcast burned and forage vegetation would be planted if not already present. Abatement of existing noxious weed populations- Along roads and within proposed thinning units to mitigate possible expansion due to ground disturbance; Snag and down wood creation in mature stands- This would occur in 100 to 150 year old stands within two tree heights (400 feet) of most thinning units. Most natural stands of this age contain less then optimum levels of dead wood due to past fire occurrences. Approximately 1,628 acres would be treated adjacent to proposed thinning units. About two snags per acre greater than 20 inches in diameter would be created in Matrix stands, and four snags per acre in the LSR stands. No trees suitable for spotted owl nesting, or with current potential red tree vole nests, or structural defects providing current and future crown diversity would be selected for use in this treatment; Special Habitat (SHAB) restoration- To include noxious plant abatement, elimination of tree encroachment, and burning to maintain current extent, (249 acres gross/approximately 167 acres net); In-Channel Stream Wood Placement- In stream channels that are deficient in large wood (here defined as over 12 inches in diameter) due to past stream cleanout actions, trees near the channels would be felled or pulled (uprooted) into stream channels. Trees to provide this wood input would come from within 100 feet of stream channels from adjacent mature stands and the thinning stands themselves. Trees would be cut on about 1,155 acres, and tree tipping using cable winches positioned on existing roads would occur on about 190 acres benefiting approximately 6 miles of stream. Trees selected for wood recruitment would not be the largest in the stand, would not be growing in perennially saturated soil, would not be suitable as nest trees for spotted owl, and would not have current potential RTV nests or structural defects providing current and future crown diversity. Mitigation of existing soil compaction- This activity seeks to alleviate soil compaction generated by past ground-based yarding. This would consist of subsoiling of main skid trails used during this harvest entry, and cover about 5 percent of the ground within thinning units which were ground-based yarded during the first harvest entry. Alternative B Alternative B was developed to meet the project purpose and need and address the key issues of economics by proposing a more economically efficient method of early-seral habitat creation through harvesting of ten older stands rather than what is proposed in Alternative A. Commercial thinning- About 4,715 gross acres of plantations; the same variable density thinning proposed in Alternative A; Thin to 30% Residual Canopy Cover (Mature Stand Harvest) - In mature Matrix stands ( years). About 169 acres in 10 different stands have been located in vegetation types and on topography that would provide the highest quality big game habitat and maintain key late-successional habitat connective corridors between the LSR in this project area and the Fall Creek LSR to the north, to the extent feasible given other constraints. Variable density harvesting would be used to treat the units with 30% being retained in clumps or scattered throughout the unharvested portions. Broadcast burning would be used to reduce fuels generated by the harvest. The removal of logs would be accomplished with a skyline system; Does not include the proposed action early-seral habitat maintenance- In 14 to 23 year old stands; Retains full, no-cut riparian buffers in thin to 30% residual canopy coverage harvest areas, and would minimize fragmentation/edge creation through location of harvest units adjacent to previously harvested areas as much as possible; Does not include road closures other than those road segments identified by the District Roads Analysis as having a high aquatic risk (some 52 miles),in order to respond to the local desire to maintain road use 32

33 opportunities, to facilitate future road-related economic activity, and to minimize expenditures related to road closure; Maintains about 135 miles of system road to facilitate log haul; Includes all other habitat improvement projects within Alternative A such as the Buckhead Wildlife Area and SHAB enhancement/maintenance, noxious weed abatement, and snag and down wood creation to provide local employment opportunities. It does not include the early-seral habitat maintenance in young stands that is in Alternative A. The proposed commercial thinning and thin to 30% canopy coverage harvest in matrix areas would not require red tree vole surveys because they occur within a non-high priority watershed for the species due to the amount of reserved lands contained within the watershed. Surveys for all other Survey and Manage (S&M) species would still be required where warranted. This alternative would not include harvest in old-growth stands. Alternative C No Action This alternative most directly addresses the public issues of snag recruitment depression from thinning, and road closure effects on local use of Forest lands. It does not meet the purpose and need for action. This alternative is addressed and analyzed here primarily to highlight the effects, both positive and negative, on the human environment that would be incurred if the Proposed Action or any alternative actions are implemented. Alternative D - Identical to Alternative A (Proposed Action), except Roads , , , , , , and , and the last 3.9 miles of 5833; Roads , , ; and (totaling approximately 16 miles) would be decommissioned instead of closed/stored. (Alternative A proposes to keep all of Road 5833 open). Also, the approximately 2.2 miles of new temporary road construction proposed by Alternative A would not occur; areas in thinning units accessed by new temporary spur roads would remain unthinned, totaling about 200 less acres in ten different stands. This alternative responds to concerns expressed by Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands Project, and the Sierra Club regarding temporary road construction and the need to decommission certain roads (as opposed to simple closure). See Table 5 for a comparison of alternatives. Alternatives Not Fully Considered In addition to the fully developed and analyzed alternatives above, the project interdisciplinary team considered several alterative prescriptions and approaches that in the end were not fully developed and analyzed. These different approaches were ultimately not fully considered because they either: a) did not respond well to the project s purpose and need, b) were impractical from a logging feasibility or financial sense, or c) were determined to be too similar in effects to the developed alternatives. These include 1) creating small forage openings (less than 1 acre) in mature stands; 2) thinning to maintain a higher canopy closure to minimize effects to critical owl habitat, maintain a greater likelihood of near-term snag development, and maximize long-term fiber production; 3) a more widely spaced thinning to maximize nearterm volume production (and stumpage receipts), provide more forage benefits in thinned stands, and to increase understory diversity at the expense of the overstory tree canopy; and 4) including non-commercial thinning with an emphasis on increasing stand diversity in the proposed action. These potential alternative actions were not fully developed and analyzed because: 1) Creation of small forage openings in mature stands would provide little benefit in terms of forage (the openings would be too small) and still have a detrimental effect on spotted owl and other late-successional species habitat. Such openings could only occur within Matrix, which occupy only 30 percent of the project 33

34 area, and most of the Matrix lands are also classified as northern spotted owl critical habitat. So many openings would need to be created to show a positive effect in forage habitat amounts that many hundreds of acres of mature forest would be disturbed. Larger openings that would have a more positive effect on forage production would compromise the function of the mature stand as northern spotted owl habitat. 2) Thinning to maintain a higher canopy closure would limit the impacts to future snag and dead wood generation, but it would produce fewer benefits in terms of diversifying the species and structural diversity of these young stands. While lighter thinning intensities would reduce the potential of affecting NSO individuals in the near-term, the long-term quality of this habitat in terms of diversity would not be improved. Maximization of long-term fiber production is predicated on multiple thinning entries, which would incur periodic disturbance to the stands, creating repeated risks of non-native plant invasion and damage to understory vegetation. 3) A more widely spaced thinning to provide for a more profound and rapid increase in the diversity of understory vegetation would degrade northern spotted owl dispersal habitat and negatively affect future snag recruitment even more than the proposed actions. 4) Feasible pre-commercial thinning opportunities are limited in this landscape. Pre-commercial thinning is usually done in stands less than 12 years of age to minimize the amount of slash (and hence fire risk) generated by the activity. Reducing fuels is an expensive activity and such money is generally not available for precommercial treatments. The youngest stands in this landscape are now over 13 years of age. In addition, most young stands in this landscape have already been pre-commercially thinned. Design Features Actions Analyzed in the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project EA are consistent with a range of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that have been discussed and disclosed throughout the document. The treatments associated with the project are consistent with the goals and management direction analyzed in the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and Record of Decision. The design features in Table 4 were developed to reduce the environmental effects of the proposed activities and ensure project activities are implemented to comply with standards and guidelines, goals, objectives, conservation strategies and Best Management Practices. Table 4 Design Features and Monitoring Common to all Alternatives Objective Design Feature Location Botany To reduce the introduction/spread of weeds To reduce the introduction of weeds To reduce area for weeds to germinate To reduce the spread of weeds All road construction and logging equipment will be pressure washed prior to working in the area and when moving from an infested area to an uninfested area - to avoid noxious weed spread by removing dirt that could contain seeds; Require weed-free aggregate (gravel) for road restoration/reconstruction and landing construction. Minimize soil disturbance (minimize fireline construction, reuse old skid roads) to meet project objectives. Do not place gaps in areas that have or are adjacent to false brome, shiny geranium or blackberry. Entire project area All haul routes and constructed landings All harvest units All ground based harvest units. 34

35 Objective Design Feature Location To reduce the introduction of weeds To reduce the spread of weeds To reduce the spread of weeds To reduce the spread of weeds Special Habitats Rare plants Hydrology/Fisheries/Soils To prevent sedimentation and maintain stream shade To prevent sedimentation and maintain stream shade To protect water quality To protect water quality and slope stability To prevent sedimentation and maintain stream shade To provide downed wood Undesirable soil damage from skidding would be avoided through skid trail layout and use of alternative yarding systems Use native and weed free seed and straw for revegetation of skid, temp roads and landings Treat and monitor road systems, landings, fuel breaks, forage areas, gaps and other disturbed areas for 5 years following thinning and fuels treatments. Treat known new invader weed populations prior to closing roads In the year before quarries are used, District Botanist or representative will inventory and arrange for pre-treatment of quarries for invasive plants where rock extraction will take place In units that will be ground based avoid driving ground based machinery through sites of false brome or other high priority weeds to avoid spreading it into the unit. The botanist will need to work with the Timber Sale Administrator to designate weed free entry areas. All Special Habitats will be managed to maintain the microclimate and hydrologic function. Trees should be directionally felled away and not yarded through any special habitat. Gaps and temporary roads should not be placed adjacent to special habitats. See unit by unit list below for greater detail. All rare plants will be buffered (no-cut, no-entry, no harvest, no yarding) from activities that would disturb their habitat. See unit by unit list below for a list of sites and specific protection measures. All class I and II streams will have a 150ft no-cut buffer, Class III 80ft no-cut buffer and class IV 30-50ft no-cut buffer. Perennial seeps, springs and wetlands will retain a minimum of 30-50ft no-cut buffer where obligate vegetation (only surviving in wet environments) exists. These buffers apply to timber harvest activities and not the restoration components of this project. Early-seral Creation units will maintain full Riparian Reserve no-cut buffers. Class I and II streams will have 340 foot nocut buffers each side of the stream. Class III and IV streams will have 170 foot no-cut buffers on each side of the stream. Directional falling away from streams, perennial wet areas and meadow edges. Any trees felled into no-cut buffers would remain where landed. Buffer/avoid unstable areas in harvest units. No corridors would be cut through the no-cut buffer and no yarding would occur over stream channels without full suspension. All existing large downed wood within the no-cut riparian buffer will be retained. Ground-based equipment should be limited to slopes less than 30 %. Equipment use may be approved on slopes from 30-40% on short pitches based on site specific conditions. The upper limit for pre-bunching is on 45% slope. All prebunching trails will be pre-located and pre-approved. Entire project area Entire project area Quarries Ground based units Entire project area Entire project area All Commercial Thinning units Early-seral Creation units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units 35

36 Objective Design Feature Location To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage To control off-site movement of sediment To reduce erosion, protect listed fish species and avoid wildlife disturbance To minimize erosion and sedimentation To protect water quality and provide fish passage where applicable To minimize erosion and sedimentation To minimize erosion and sedimentation Undesirable soil damage from skidding shall be avoid through layout and use of alternate logging systems. Ground-based equipment used for yarding, processing, fuel treatment, mastication, or other project activities would operate from June 1 to October 31(Dry Season) and only when soils are relatively dry following the rainy season in the spring through the summer. Ground-based equipment used for yarding, processing, fuel treatment, or other project activities would not be permitted within 150 feet from the stream channel along Class 1 and 2 fish bearing streams, and within 80 feet of Class 3 non-fish bearing streams, and within 50 feet of the stream channel along Class IV (Seasonal, non-fish bearing ) streams. Existing landings, temporary haul roads, old primary skid roads, and/or tractor fire lines would be utilized as much as possible prior to disturbing new areas. Predesigned skid trails and landings are required in all ground-based yarding units and will be approved in advance of use by the TSO. Skid trails shall be located outside of the no-cut buffers and existing skid trails shall be used wherever possible. When units are located on clayey soils, a soil scientist should be consulted about the length and density of skid roads. A minimum of one end suspension of logs is required for all logging systems. Skyline corridors shall be designated by the TSO and agreed upon by the purchaser prior to felling. Skyline corridors shall be as narrow as practical and spaced approximately 150 apart. Any project activity such as culvert replacement within fishbearing streams would comply with Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife seasonal restrictions on in-stream work activities (July1-August 15). BMPs including placement of sediment barriers, provision of flow bypass and other applicable measures, would be included in project design. No new permanent road construction would occur. Construction or maintenance of roads and landings would be done during the dry period (June 1-October 31) and not when soils are saturated or run-off occurs. Stable fills and culvert crossings would be constructed across all stream crossings on reconstructed roads. Culverts that don t function properly and those that are close to failure would be replaced. All cut slopes and ditches will be maintained during and after logging operations. Purchaser is responsible for subsoiling all landings, primary skid trails within identified units, and existing and new temporary roads used in the sale area to a minimum depth of 20 inches, seeded with native seed and covered with weed All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All haul roads Entire project area All harvest units 36

37 Objective Design Feature Location To meet FS S&G s and reduce compaction To prevent sedimentation To prevent erosion and sedimentation To provide adequate drainage and avoid unnecessary soil disturbance To prevent sedimentation To protect stream bank stability, riparian vegetation and water quality. To reduce contamination to aquatic areas free slash/straw and bermed after completion of logging operations. Post sale subsoiling of compacted primary skid trails will occur in units where detrimental soil disturbance levels are above15%. All haul roads would be maintained in stable condition. Wet weather haul (November 1-May 31) would be monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator, the District Road Manager, Fisheries Biologist, and/or Hydrologist. When necessary, haul may be suspended during rainfall to prevent sedimentation such as when pooling of water or rutting on road surface is occurring. Installation of erosion and sediment control devices may be required near stream crossings. Dust abatement of road surfaces would be used if roads become excessively dusty during the summer. Native surface roads shall be restricted from hauling during the wet season (November 1- May 31) or when soils are saturated or run-off occurs. If a native surface road is to be winter hauled, it will be rocked to sufficient depth and strength as determined by an engineer during dry season (June 1- October 31). Prior to the wet weather season, all temporary roads, skid trails and landings should be water-barred in accordance with Aquatic Best Management Practice guidelines. Water bar location should occur where local terrain facilitates effective drainage while avoiding soil disturbance and sediment delivery. Construct water bars every 100 on slopes <15% and 50 on slopes >15%. Water bars shall be keyed into the cut bank and have a clear outlet on the downhill side. Water bars may be limited or suspended on skid trails when sufficiently covered with slash to minimize soil compaction and erosion. Temporary roads will be maintained as native surface roads and used only during the dry season (June 1- October 31). If a temporary road is to be used for wet weather haul (November 1- May 31), adequate rock needs to be applied prior to the wet haul season in order to prevent sediment delivery. Water sources used by project operations shall be reconstructed or maintained as necessary If lignosulfonate is used for dust abatement, one application would occur during the dry season (June 1- October 31) at a dilution rate of 50% lignin sulfate and 50% water. Lignosulfonate would remain on the road surface and not go over road edge. During blading, small berms could be created or wattles used at stream crossings to assist with keeping palliatives on the road surface. A 1 foot noapplication buffer on the edge of gravel would be used if road width allows. Lignosulfonate would not be applied when Units where detrimental soil conditions exceed 15%. (See below for list of units where these conditions apply) All harvest units and all haul routes (See below for list of roads that are listed as NO wet weather haul) All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units 37

38 Objective Design Feature Location To reduce loss of vegetation and the risk of erosion in riparian reserves To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage Wildlife To reduce effects to northern spotted owls and designated critical habitat from habitat modification and potential disturbance activities To reduce impacts to sensitive raptor bald eagle from potential habitat modification and disturbance activities raining and when possible, a 3 day forecast of clear weather would follow application. Fire would only be allowed to back into riparian areas. During prescribed burnings. Where necessary, handlines for underburning shall be constructed using hand tools along the no-cut riparian buffers. Fire line will be constructed with appropriate water drainage using natural contours and waterbars to divert water. On completion of broadcast burning and mop-up operations, constructed fire line will be rehabilitated by pulling duff and organic matter back over the exposed mineral soil to the original contour. Under burning will minimize off-site movement of soil (FW- 084). Underburning activities shall be planned to retain the soil duff and litter using the following limits: 1) Mineral soil exposed on soils classed as low to moderate surface erosion hazard should not exceed 40%. 2) Mineral soil exposed on soils classed as high surface erosion hazard should not exceed 30%. 3) Mineral soil exposed on soils classed as very high surface erosion hazard should not exceed 15%. 4) Duff retention on cold and/or west soils should be evaluated in each case, but generally retention of higher amounts of duff will be required. 5) Surface erosion hazard is defined in the Willamette National Forest Soil Resources Inventory (SRI). These results are usually achieved when duff moisture retentions are around 30%. Seasonal restrictions will be imposed on activities with the potential to disrupt NSO nest sites during the breeding season. The general seasonal restriction period for spotted owls is March 1 July 15 and may be extended through September 30 for some activities. If NSO nest activity is detected in areas not previously identified, seasonal restrictions and standard buffer distances would be applied. Helicopter operations plans will be reviewed to ensure seasonal and spatial restrictions are in place to avoid disruption to NSO nest sites during the breeding season. Protect existing remnant overstory trees and large snags to the greatest extent feasible during project activities. Protect existing remnant overstory trees and snags within 1.1 miles of rivers and reservoirs to the extent feasible during project activities. Seasonal restrictions will be imposed on activities with the potential to disturb bald eagle nest sites during the breeding season. The general seasonal restriction period for bald eagles is January 1 August 31. If bald eagle nest activity is observed in areas not previously identified, seasonal restrictions and standard buffer distances would be applied. All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units Harvest units as well as areas affected by proposed nonharvest activities refer to wildlife disturbance review binder for specific locations where seasonal restriction is required (See below for quick list of units.) Harvest units as well as areas affected by proposed nonharvest activities refer to wildlife disturbance review binder for specific locations where seasonal restriction is required (See below for quick list of units.) 38

39 Objective Design Feature Location To reduce impacts to sensitive raptor peregrine falcon from potential disturbance activities To reduce potential disturbance to migratory birds during the nesting season Seasonal restrictions will be imposed on activities with the potential to disturb peregrine falcon nest sites during the breeding season. The general seasonal restriction period for peregrine falcons is January 15 July 31. If peregrine falcon nest activity is observed in areas not previously identified, seasonal restrictions and standard buffer distances would be applied. Protect active roost and nest sites to the extent feasible during project activities. If nests or signs of nesting activity are observed before or during project implementation, defer all treatments with the potential to disturb or destroy nests until they are no longer active. In the event a significant roosting or nesting area is located within the project area, the District wildlife biologists should be contacted to assess project activities and formulate site specific management guidelines to ensure protection of the site. Harvest units as well as areas affected by proposed nonharvest activities refer to wildlife disturbance review binder for specific locations where seasonal restriction is required (See below for quick list of units.) Harvest units as well as areas affected by proposed nonharvest activities To reduce impacts to bats and their habitat To minimize potential impacts to western pond turtles To maintain Johnson hairstreak (butterfly) habitat To minimize potential impacts and promote habitat for Identify snags and trees during layout that have cavities or sloughing bark that could be used as natal or roost sites by bats. If found, retain where possible by incorporating into skip areas or as leave trees. If necessary to fell for safety reasons, leave as high a stump as possible to maintain potential for future use. For snag creation involving trees 20 diameter, consider treatment options to create bat crevices or induce heart rot to maximize potential benefit for bat use. In the event a significant bat roost is located within the project area, the District and Forest wildlife biologists should be contacted to inspect the site, assess any project activities for their potential to impact bats, and formulate site specific management guidelines to ensure protection of the site. For project activities occurring on road 5821 including road maintenance and log hauling, inform equipment operators and drivers of the potential for pond turtles to be present in the roadway. If pond turtles are observed crossing roads, the sighting should be reported and if possible the animal should be moved off the road in its direction of travel. If dwarf mistletoe is observed during unit layout, the severity of the infection should be assessed at the stand level with the silviculturist and wildlife biologist. The assessment objective is to allow low level infections to persist for habitat and ecological processes. Within late-successional stands, do not select trees for snag creation and riparian reserve large wood augmentation that contain dwarf mistletoe. For cavity excavators (including pileated woodpecker and marten): Retain existing snags (> 10 dbh) and protect down 39 Harvest units as well as areas affected by proposed nonharvest activities Haul routes utilizing road 5821 All harvest units All harvest units and elsewhere

40 Objective Design Feature Location Management Indicator Species (MIS) and deadwood dependent wildlife species To manage dead wood (snags and logs) in a way that maintains current habitat and promotes levels of snags and logs that emulates estimated reference condition Heritage To protect the historic and archaeological values of known and unknown historic properties logs (> 20 dia) to the greatest extent feasible. Retain a high percentage of green trees having crown abnormalities and/or obvious indicators of wildlife use such as pileated woodpecker foraging trees. For snag creation involving trees 20 diameter, consider treatment options that induce heart rot to maximize potential benefit to fisher. Enhance openings associated with project activities such as landings, burn piles, and soil treatment areas by applying Willamette native seed mix for deer and elk or other wildlife species. Consider all opportunities that support forage habitat improvement for deer and elk. For matrix diversity thinning units - an average of 12 trees per acre above the final desired stand density will be retained in order to create snags and contribute to future down wood levels. Where mapped and designated, late successional zones adjacent to the thinning units will be used to source additional snags where an average of two snags greater than 20 dbh will be created. For Matrix units thinned to create early-seral habitat - an average of four of the retained trees per acre will be topped or girdled to create snag habitat and two trees within the treatment skips will be topped or girdled to create snag and future down wood habitat. For LSR diversity thinning units retain an average of 15 trees per acre above the final desired stand density in order to create snags and contribute to future down wood levels. Where mapped and designated, late successional zones adjacent to the thinning units will be used to source additional snags where an average of four snags greater than 20 dbh will be created. For late successional zones that fall within the Inventoried Roadless area (SCZ-7, 27, 35, 40), snags will only be created using inoculation methods. No cutting, topping or saw use will occur in these 4 zones. Retain current snag, defective tree, and down wood habitat to the greatest extent feasible during project activities. The emphasis should be placed on protecting snags 10 dbh and down logs 20 diameter. Apply measures such as contour falling, strategic placement, or piling to maximize wildlife use potential for dead wood when safety or logistic reasons prevent protection of existing features. Monitor green tree mortality associated with prescribed underburning to document accuracy of mortality estimate and anticipated post treatment snag levels to ensure applicable prescriptions are met. Monitor down wood consumption associated with prescribed underburning to ensure consumption projections are accurate. All sites eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) must be avoided during all project activities. throughout the project area All harvest units along with adjacent snag creation zones where designated Entire project area 40

41 Objective Design Feature Location To protect the historic and archaeological values of known and unknown historic properties To protect the historic and archaeological values of known and unknown historic properties To protect the historic and archaeological values of known and unknown historic properties To protect the historic and archaeological values of known and unknown historic properties To protect the historic and archaeological values of known and unknown historic properties To protect the historic and archaeological values of known and unknown historic properties Roads To provide access to project area To provide transportation safety and sustain material resources on the roads To minimize erosion and sedimentation To reduce compaction and undesirable soil damage Presale personnel will adhere to generalized and sitespecific mitigation measures for sites and selected isolates adjacent to and within Outlook planning units, as detailed in Section VI and summarized in Table 3 of the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report (Godin 2015). Changes to current unit configurations and/or the addition of any new units or associated project actions outside of units will require consultation with the district archaeologist in order to protect known and unknown historic properties. Project activities planned outside of the area defined in the heritage resource inventory schema must be coordinated with the district archaeologist prior to initiation. This includes the establishment of new harvest landings, helicopter landings, spur roads, guy-line equipment anchors, slash burning, removal of roadside danger trees, and ripping of spur roads. There remains the possibility that buried prehistoric or historic cultural resources are present and could be uncovered during project activities. If cultural resources are encountered during the course of this project, earthdisturbing activities in the vicinity of the find should be suspended, in accordance with federal regulations, and the district archaeologist notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend a subsequent course of action. A contract clause must be included in all project prospectuses and contracts. This clause shall outline the procedures to follow in the event historic properties are discovered during timber sale operations. Prior to cultivating/ripping skid roads post-harvest a re-entry survey should be conducted in those areas deemed high probability for the occurrence of historic properties. Coordination with the district archaeologist is vital to ensure the continued protection of historic properties. Information about site locations must be protected and shall not be included in sale maps, etc. References to historic properties, where they must be made to ensure their protection, shall be accomplished using generalized terms and not archaeological/heritage sites. Follow national engineering standards for re-construction of roads and bridges. Road failures due to drainage issues will require realignment of the road into the hill to allow access beyond failure sites. Minimize ground disturbance, sustain material resources on the roadbed and provide proper drainage issues management. Dust abatement of road surfaces will be used if roads become excessively dusty during the summer. Construction and maintenance of roads will be prohibited when soils are saturated or run-off occurs. Existing haul roads and landings will be utilized as much as possible prior to disturbing new areas. No new landings would be constructed in Riparian Reserves. 41 Entire project area Entire project area Entire project area Entire project area Entire project area Entire project area All haul roads All haul roads All haul roads All harvest units

42 Objective Design Feature Location To reduce contamination to aquatic areas To prevent sedimentation Vegetation Management Commercial Thinning Commercial Thinning Early Seral Creation Early Seral Maintenance Special Habitat Restoration Use water for dust abatement. If lignin sulfate is used for dust abatement, one application per season, as necessary, would occur during the dry season (July/August) at a dilution rate of 50% lignin sulfate and 50% water. The palliatives would remain on the road surface and not go over the road edge. During blading, small berms could be created or wattles used at stream crossings to assist with keeping palliatives on the road surface. Or non-application buffers could be used on the road at stream crossings. A one foot no-application buffer on each edge of the road would be used if road width allows. The palliatives would not be applied when raining and when possible, a three day forecast of no rain would follow application. Areas of exposed soil, such as decommissioned roads, and cut and fill slopes associated with road construction or maintenance would be seeded with native seed, native grasses, or weed free mulch. Thinning: Retain average stand canopy cover of 40% achieved through a variable spaced thinning averaging 25 feet between dominant conifer trees +/- 20% variance. Maintain hardwood and minor species for diversity by not counting toward spacing requirements. Gaps: Implement 2 dominant tree release gaps for every 5 acres of treatment ranging from ¼ to ½ acre in size. Center gaps on one to several of the largest trees in the stand. Skips: Utilize skips where unique habitat features, protection of heritage resources or accessibility concerns are present. Thinning: Retain average stand canopy cover of 40% achieved through variable spaced thinning averaging 24 feet between dominant conifer trees +/- 20% variance. Diameter limit: All trees greater than 20 DBH (diameter at breast height) should not be cut except for the purpose of creating openings, providing other habitat structure, elimination of a hazard or cutting yarding corridors to meet exemption criteria in Late-Successional Reserves. If cut, tree(s) would be left on site. Trees greater than 20 DBH should be included in the spacing. Gaps: 10% of the stand acreage can either be thinned to 40 trees per acre OR- in ¼ acre gaps. For unique and site specific reasons, both can be implemented but the combination will not exceed 10% of the stand acreage. Skips: 10% of the stand acreage will be left as an untreated skip Thinning: 70% of the stand will be thinned to retain 6 of the largest conifer trees per acre plus all hardwood species. Skips: The remaining 30% of the stand will be left as an untreated skip. Girdle or masticate trees and shrubs to a residual stocking of 20 trees per acre and 40% of existing shrubs. The arrangement can be individually spaced or clumped to encourage diversification of the stand structure. Thinning: Retain average stand canopy cover of 50% achieved through variable spaced thinning averaging 20 feet 42 All haul roads All haul roads All Commercial Thinning harvest units in Matrix All Commercial Thinning harvest units in LSR All Early Seral Creation harvest units in Matrix All Early Seral Maintenance units in Matrix Stand 2460

43 Objective Design Feature Location Special Habitat Restoration Special Habitat Restoration Special Habitat Restoration Recreation To protect existing trail corridors within harvest units To maintain visitor safety when at the highest level of the year Fire and Fuels To reduce post-harvest fuels To maintain effective ground cover and downed wood following fuels treatments Identify management objectives of forest plan, related to fuels, prescription parameters, contingency, safety hazards and mitigations, and public notification Maintain forest structure and wildlife objectives Air Quality To monitor and control air quality in communities and Class 1 Airsheds Approve burning of units/piles given current conditions and monitor smoke during prescribed burn/pile burn between residual trees +/- 20% variance. Release around ash swales. Gaps: Implement 2 gaps for every 5 acres of treatment ¼ acre in size. Locate gaps where large relic stumps are not present and on the main ridge between swales. All trees less than 20 DBH should be cut and removed from the stand except Pacific madrone and Oregon white oak. Older legacy trees, if smaller than 20 DBH, should be retained and protected. Cut encroaching conifer trees larger than 8 DBH prior to prescribed restoration burning. Address protecting Oregon white oak in prescribed burn plan. Girdle and/or cut encroaching conifers. Selectively thin dense hardwood areas to release crown canopies on 3 sides. Leave felled trees in place. No Snag creation in any trail corridor. A 100 foot no cut buffer on either side of trails. Consult with recreation planner to identify and flag potential issues to trail corridors during pre-sale layout. Haul Route weekend seasonal closure starting the weekend closest to July 4 th weekend and ending after Labor Day weekend. Weekend seasonal closures will start Friday at noon and end on Sunday evening. Labor Day weekend will end on that Monday evening. Follow forest plan standards and guidelines for prescribed burning S&G FW-252 Follow forest plan standards and guidelines for prescribed burning S&G FW-081 and FW-253 Use the nationally approved Interagency Prescribed Fire Burn Plan for any activity involving prescribed fire. Follow burn prescription parameters so overstory mortality should not exceed 10%. Follow Oregon Smoke Management Plan and Forest Plan Standard and Guides Survey fuels for estimate of particulate matter and follow guidance from ODF Smoke Management Forecasts. Stand 2124 Stand 2230 Stand 0311 Units: 2141, 2361, 2333, 2216, 1757, 1796, 2688 Haul Roads: 5826, 5833, 5835, 5840, 5847 All harvest units All harvest units All harvest units Underburn units All harvest units All harvest units 43

44 No wet weather haul road numbers: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Roads listed as no wet haul will not be hauled on during the wet season (typically November 1 st to May 31 st ). Harvest Units with greater than 15% soil compaction levels from previous operations: 2194, 2481, 2644, 2092, 2312, 2257, 2219, 2361, 2138, 2195, 6052, 2216, 2689, 2655, 2559, 2203, 2677, 2374, 2116, 2690, Wildlife disturbance minimization units: NSO (3/1-7/15): 2100, 2120, 3250, 2176, 2205, 2218, 3261, 2275, 2496, 2525, 2554, 2438, 2531, 2570, 2586, 2583, 2549, 3266, 2653, 2641, 2647, 3526, 2689, 2563, 2594, 2635, 2690, 2666, 2673, 2655, 2731, 2795, 1780, 1879, 2116, 2188, 2043, 2044, 1915, 1883, 2677, 2627, 2620, 2556, 2630, 2511, 2589, 2124, 1904, 2608, 2637, 3260, 4940, BE (1/1-8/31): 2333, 2312, 2334, 2393, 2452, 2496, 2428, PF (1/15-7/31): 2509, 2501, 2511, 2556, Botanical resource minimization units: Rare Species Unit Sites: Usnea longissimia-120 foot buffer (No-cut, No-entry, No harvest, No yarding): 1780, 1904, 2120, 2135, 2408, 3250, 3261, Cladonia norvegica-120 foot buffer (No-cut, No-entry, No harvest, No yarding): 2059, 2234, 2386, 2586, 2653, 2772, 2819, Nephroma occultum-120 foot buffer (No-cut, No-entry, No harvest, No yarding): Woodwardia fimbriata-60 foot buffer (No-cut, No-entry, No harvest, No yarding): 2460, 2499, Special Habitat Management Unit Sites: Ash Swale-60 foot buffer: 1780, 1904, 2374(No yarding through or temp roads in units, directionally fall trees away), 2460 (Found throughout this unit, Helicopter logging required to prevent ground disturbance, remove encroaching conifers) Dry Meadow-1780, 2205, 2498, 2677, 3526 (No disturbance in this area. Do not yard or create roads through this area and directionally fall trees away) Wet Meadow-60 foot buffer: 2138, 2348, , 3260(do not yard or create roads through this area and directionally fall trees away) Swamp-60 foot buffer: 1863, 2275, 2333, 2334, 2374, 2476, 2496, 2498, 2525, 2531, 2549, 2561, 2570, 2583, 2586, 2641, 2688, 2689, 2772, 2775, 3520 (no yarding or temp roads in this area) Seep-60 foot buffer: 1989, 2116, 2216, 2348, 2499, 2594, 2607, 2620, 2644, 2690, 2760 (no yarding or roads in this area, directionally fall trees away) Rock Garden: 2120, 2329, 2393, 2496, 2689, 2840(No disturbance in SHABS. Directionally fall trees away and no yarding in this area) 44

45 Alder/Hardwood Habitat: 2203 (Do not yard through this area) Vine Maple Habitat: 2329, 2672 (No disturbance in SHABS. Directionally fall trees away and no yarding in this area) Wet Sedge Meadow-60 foot buffer: 2334 (No yarding or temp roads in this area) Hardwood and Rock Hardwood Habitat-60 foot buffer: 2361, 2386 (No yarding or temp roads in this area) Mesic Meadow: 2481, 2554 (Do not yard or create temp roads in the meadow) Pond-60 foot buffer: 2563, 2655 Rocky Outcropping: 2647, 2731, 2736, 2752, 2795, 3261 (Do not yard through this area. Directionally fall trees away from cliff.) Cliff Habitat: 2672 (Do not yard or create roads through these areas. No disturbance site.) Monitoring Operations: Contract administrators would monitor treatments during implementation to ensure contractors are in compliance with their contract. Contract elements monitored would include harvest specifications, bole damage to residual trees, down wood and snag retention, skid trail spacing and use of designated skid trails. Fuels Treatments: The Middle Fork Ranger District fire and fuels personnel would monitor fuel loading during and following the fuels treatments. Fuels treatment results will offer data to use in the future. National Aquatic Best Management Practice Monitoring: The National Best Management Practices Program provides a standard set of core best management practices and consistent documentation of the use and effectiveness of the practices. Post-implementation best management practices monitoring may include review of aquatic management zones, erosion prevention and control measures, cable and ground-based yarding operation effects, and site treatment. Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring: The Forest Supervisor s Staff performs annual project monitoring at each Ranger District. The results are compiled in the Forest Monitoring Report and posted to the Willamette National Forest web site at: Implementation of treatments from this project would be subject to Forest Plan Implementation monitoring. Other implementation monitoring elements may include temporary road decommissioning, snag and large down wood abundance, and any seeding or planting of vegetation. Reforestation: Post disturbance stocking levels are expected to meet minimum levels based on the Forest Plan and Management Allocation objectives. Botany: Post implementation monitoring of rare plant and special habitat buffers and weed treatment buffers will help guide further buffers and document the use of project design features. 45

46 Table 5 Comparison of Alternatives Project Element Unit of Measure Alternative A (Proposed) Alternative B Alternative C (No Action) Alternative D Commercial Thinning Vegetation Treatments Within Entire Project Area- Gross Acres/ Net Acres 4461/ / /3199 Skips Gaps Acres Early-seral Creation Thin to 30% Residual Canopy Cover Gross Acres/ Net Acres 257/142 No 0 257/142 Skips Gaps Acres 63 0 no no 63 0 Mature Stand Harvest Thin to 30% Residual Canopy Cover Gross Acres/ Net Acres No 169/83 0 No Skips Gaps Acres No No No No SHAB Units with Harvest 2 stands Gross Acres/ Net Acres 70/63 70/ /63 Skips Gaps Acres Totals Net Acres 3,605 3, ,404 Volume MMBF (Million Board Feet) Skips, Gaps, and RR Treatment acres Gaps (All Treatment Acres Units) Skips (unthinned area Acres within original managed stand boundaries) Riparian Reserve Acres Treatment Acres Logging System Ground-based yarding Acres Skyline yarding Acres Helicopter Acres Landings Total Acres of landings Acres Pre-haul road maintenance New (Non-System) temporary road construction Roads and Access Miles Miles

47 Project Element Unit of Measure Alternative A (Proposed) Alternative B Alternative C (No Action) Alternative D Re-open existing spur Miles roads (Temp Spur Road Construction) Road storage Miles Road decommissioning Miles Stream Culvert # installation or replacement- Perennial Stream Culvert # installation or replacement- Intermittent Waste Areas Acres Fuels Treatments Yard Tops and Limbs, Acres Burn Landing Piles, Roadside Grapple Pile Clean-up and Burn, Hand Pile and Burn Underburn Acres Burn Helicopter landings Acres Broadcast Burning of Acres Early-seral Creation Thin to 30% Residual Canopy Cover Whipfell, Prune, Hand pile Acres and burn, underburn of Early-seral Broadcast burn of Mature Stand Harvest Acres Special Habitat Restoration Early-seral Habitat Maintenance /Enhancement Gross Acres/ Net Acres Gross Acres/ Net Acres Habitat Work 249/ / / /64 No 0 177/64 Skips Gaps Acres 85 0 No No 85 0 Weed Abatement* Acres Snag Creation (outside thinning units) In-channel wood Placement Mitigation of Existing Soil Compaction # of Trees (Acres) # of Trees (Acres) Acres 5397 (1628) 5775 (1155) 5397 ( (1155) ( (1155) *Acres of ground disturbance, conversion to canopy less than 40% and haul routes were used to estimate acres of weed abatement that could be needed. 47

48 III. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. The cumulative effects discussed in this chapter include an analysis and a concise description of the identifiable present effects of past actions to the extent that they are relevant and useful in analyzing whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed action and its alternatives may have a continuing, additive and significant relationship to those effects. The cumulative effects of the proposed action in this analysis are primarily based on the aggregate effects of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Individual effects of past actions have not been listed or analyzed and are not necessary to describe the cumulative effects of this proposal or alternatives (CEQ Memorandum, Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 2005). Refer to Appendix F for a list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions included in the assessment of cumulative effects. Refer to Appendix A for consistency of the Proposed Action with direction and regulations. Specialist reports or analysis not covered in this EA or appendices are available in the Outlook EA project analysis file and are available upon request at the Middle Fork Ranger District. Planning treatment acres are estimated and may change when the project is implemented on the ground. Other changes may occur but would be within the intent of the proposal and would follow standards and guidelines. Up to 13 timber sales may be prepared from the proposed action and are expected to take place within the next 5 years. 48

49 Summary of Effects Determinations. Table 6 summarizes the effects determinations by resource area for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species and Critical Habitat. Table 6 Summary of Effects Determinations for Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources TES Wildlife Species Status Alt. A, B, and D Northern Spotted Owl Threatened -Habitat-LAA (Thin Leafed Pea SHAB Unit 2124) -Habitat-NLAA (All other Habitat) -Disturbance-NLAA Critical Habitat Northern Spotted Owl Designated -LAA (Thin Leafed Pea SHAB Unit 2124) -NLAA (All Other Habitat) Fisher Proposed NE Bald Eagle Sensitive MIIH American Peregrine Falcon Sensitive Beneficial Impact Harlequin Duck Sensitive NI Fringed Myotis Sensitive MIIH Townsend s Big-eared Bat Sensitive MIIH Pallid Bat Sensitive NI Western (Pacific) Pond Turtle Sensitive MIIH Johnson s Hairstreak Sensitive MIIH Crater Lake Tightcoil Sensitive NI Cascades Axetail Slug Sensitive MIIH Rare Botanical Species Vascular Species Lathyrus holochlorus, thin-leaved peavine Bryophytes Lichens Fungi TES Fish 49 NI Beneficial Impact NI NI MIIH Spring Chinook Salmon Threatened Species-NLAA Habitat-NLAA Bull Trout Threatened Species NLAA Habitat-NLAA Rhyacophila chandleri (caddisfly) Sensitive NI Rhyacophila leechi (caddisfly) Sensitive NI Namamyia plutonis (caddisfly) Sensitive NI There are no recognized effects or impacts related to the No Action Alternative C. TES = Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive NE = No effect NI = No impact

50 MIIH = May impact individuals or their habitat but the action would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect NLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affect NA = Not applicable Table 7 Management Indicator Species Presence MIS Habitat Present Species Present Spring Chinook salmon Yes Yes Bull trout Yes Yes Coastal cutthroat trout Yes Yes Whitefish Yes Yes Rainbow trout Yes Yes Brook Trout Yes Yes Northern Spotted Owl Yes Yes Pileated Woodpecker Yes Yes American Marten Yes Not Documented Northern Bald Eagle Yes Yes American Peregrine Yes Yes Falcon Black-tailed Deer Yes Yes Roosevelt Elk Yes Yes Red-breasted nuthatch Yes Yes Northern flicker Yes Yes Hairy woodpecker Yes Yes Downy woodpecker Yes Yes Red-breasted sapsucker Yes Yes 50

51 Wildlife Current Conditions General Wildlife The following discussion briefly summarizes what is known or inferred about terrestrial wildlife species and their associations with the Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest (WLCH) habitat type (Chappell et al. 2001). Although the Outlook Project area contains Montane Mixed Conifer (MMC) habitat type along with WLCH, project activities would be limited to locations best described as WLCH habitat. A focus is placed on those species identified as being closely associated with this habitat type that may act as indicators for a larger suite of species that may be influenced by this project. Where it occurs in Washington and Oregon, 232 wildlife species have been identified as associated with the Westside Lowlands Conifer-Hardwood Forest Habitat type (O Neil et al. 2001). This includes 120 bird, 72 mammal, 26 amphibian, and 14 reptile species. Only a small percentage of those species however are listed as closely associated with this type of habitat. That list includes 23 bird, 23 mammal, and 2 amphibian species. If one considers the plant associations characterizing current vegetation within the project area influenced by this habitat type, the list of closely associated species that are known or likely to occur in the project area is further reduced (Johnson and O Neil 2001, Marshall et al. 2003, Verts and Carraway 1998) to 20 bird, 20 mammal, and 2 amphibian species. Closely associated species are those that are widely known to depend on a specific structural condition or habitat type for part or all of its life history requirements. Survey results or casual sighting observations have documented the presence of many of these species within similar habitat in an adjacent watershed. For example, an intensive young stand study (YSS) that included previously managed stands within the adjacent North Fork watershed documented presence of 50% of bird and mammal species, plus 100% of amphibian species listed as closely associated with WLCH habitat (Hagar et al. 2004). Documented species include: Birds ruffed grouse, sooty grouse, northern pygmy-owl, barred owl, olive-sided flycatcher, winter wren, golden-crowned kinglet, western bluebird, varied thrush, black-throated gray warbler, western tanager. Mammals silver-haired bat, big brown bat, mountain beaver, Townsend s chipmunk, Douglas squirrel, northern flying squirrel, red tree vole. Amphibians ensatina, red-legged frog. Influences on these species from project activities represent both short-term ( 10 years) and long-term (> 10 years) timeframes. Influences are based on results published in recent scientific literature while considering effects associated with all proposed project activities. Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D General Wildlife Implementing the thinning of young, previously managed stands under any Action Alternative can be expected to assist in stimulating an overall increase in structural diversity within and adjacent to treated habitat across the project area. Each Outlook Action Alternative also involves a proposal to conduct activities that increase ecological diversity by providing early-successional habitat, which is one of the three Matrix objectives for 51

52 Silviculture stated in the Northwest Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines (B-5, 6) (USDA, USDI 1994). Structurally and compositionally diverse early-successional (aka early-seral) habitats have become recognized as the scarcest habitat in the Pacific Northwest Region (Thomas et al. 2006). The Outlook Silviculture Prescription not only addresses creating and enhancing early-seral habitat, but includes provisions to ensure it consists of spatially diverse and complex spatial elements. This effect should subsequently serve to benefit many wildlife species dependent on more open and/or edge habitat across this portion of the landscape within the watershed. Effects would be neutral for local species dependent on multi-layered, older interior forest habitat in the short term as treatments are not proposed in such habitat. The general homogeneity of structure across managed stands proposed for thinning supports low wildlife diversity (Hayes et al. 1997). Silvicultural objectives for treatments are based on current evidence that appropriate treatments can positively influence biodiversity in managed forests. The variable density approach to commercial thinning as discussed in the silvicultural prescription reflects both short and long-term strategy recognized for managing young conifer stands that mimics the structure of natural stands. This strategy is anticipated to generally have a positive influence on species richness and overall biodiversity in this type of habitat (Franklin et al. 2002, Hagar 2007). Treatments would promote growth and development of nonconiferous vegetation. This would result in a significant contribution to maintenance of wildlife diversity in managed stands throughout the project area (Hagar 2007). Additional benefits in this regard would also be realized through an increase in vertical and horizontal complexity of structure in retained conifers. Larger sources for snag and log recruitment would also be a long-term outcome associated with diversity thinning treatments. Studies associated with thinning younger stands have yielded some unexpected results with respect to wildlife occurrence and use in thinned stands. Young stand study results revealed species responding positively to thinning represented a broad range of seral stage and foraging guild associations (Hagar 2007). Bat species in general are shown to exhibit a preference for thinned stands versus unthinned stands (Humes et al. 1999). Long-term effects of thinning appear to increase abundance of small mammals, and heavier thinning may outperform lighter thinning in this regard (Hayes 2007). Post-harvest relative densities identified in the silvicultural prescription tend to average between moderate and heavy thinning relative densities considered by Suzuki and Hayes (2003). They concluded that thinning generally maintained or enhanced short and long-term habitat quality for most small mammals in habitat with characteristics similar to the Outlook Project area. Some studies have investigated avian community response to fuel reduction treatments (thinning and prescribed burning) similar to those associated with this project. Published study results are somewhat mixed, but can be used to suggest effects from treatments alone are not expected to influence overall avian diversity. Local variation in species composition and abundance is most likely a function of natural annual variation with treatment effects contributing secondarily. That said, some examples exist where individual species such as western bluebird have increased in abundance following treatments similar to those proposed by the Outlook Project (Hurteau et al. 2008). Project effects to all closely associated species are not quantifiable on an individual basis relative to the amount of habitat modified or disturbed against the amount available throughout the Outlook Project area. The amount of habitat directly affected by proposed activities is summarized as follows for treatment types: Commercial thinning (ranging from 4,230 to 4,715 acres between Action Alternatives) would affect about 10% of the Federal forested lands in the project area. 52

53 SHAB restoration treatments would affect about 0.5% of the entire project area. At the project scale there is no difference between Action Alternatives when comparing the effect of SHAB treatments against the amount of similar habitat in the project area. Under Alternatives A and D, 142 acres of early-seral habitat (in multiple locations) would be created and 64 acres would be enhanced. Under Alternative B, 83 acres early-seral habitat would be created from previously mature forest. Early- seral acres represent net acres treated out of larger gross unit acreage. Untreated gross acres (i.e. skips) would provide additional habitat complexity within and adjacent to early-seral settings. Treatments to manage for early-seral would favor an estimated 71 species occurring on the Willamette National Forest considered specifically tied to early-seral forest and edge habitat. This compares to 14 species tied specifically to old growth forest habitat (O Neil et al. 2001). Species with known or suspected population declines that would benefit from an increase in quality early-seral habitat include Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, orange-crowned warbler, rufous hummingbird, black-throated gray warbler, dark-eyed junco, and American goldfinch. Although small in scale, Outlook activities that promote, enhance, and prolong earlyseral habitat would make a positive contribution to a need for providing a range of forest structural stages across the landscape. A variable density component to the silvicultural prescription, along with riparian no-treatment buffers and a variety of seasonal restrictions would apply under all Action Alternatives. The anticipated scheduling of harvest activities over a number of years would further stagger modification or disturbance of wildlife habitat spatially and temporally across the project area. These measures would provide a level of spatial and seasonal refugia for individuals that may be exposed to direct or indirect effects from proposed activities. Many proposed activities would likely occur outside the breeding season for these species and/or at a time when many may have migrated from the area or become seasonally inactive which serves to further mitigate any potential short-term negative direct or indirect effects to individuals from habitat modification or disturbance. Activities proposed under all Action Alternatives for this project would not compromise the ability of species to persist or become established throughout the project area. Alternative C No Action General Wildlife Alternative C would not have an effect on terrestrial wildlife based on the following assumption - that current habitat proposed for diversity thinning, SHAB restoration, and other habitat treatments would continue to provide suitable habitat for wildlife species that may be present as it evolves without human management activities. No short or long-term changes to habitat would occur and no disturbance would result from management activities. The development of habitat and associated dynamic nature of habitat suitability that may be subject to an unknown frequency and variety of stochastic events is considered beyond the scope of this evaluation. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D General Wildlife There are past actions that have likely affected the closely associated species for this habitat type. Past clearcutting would have benefitted early-seral species and negatively impacted the late-successional species. Current treatments focus on increasing floristic diversity and the overall trend in the project area over the past 53

54 decades has been a maturing forest with increased connectivity which would benefit all but the early-seral species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that may negatively affect the species analyzed here. Taking into account the past, present, and foreseeable future actions, the overall persistence of these closely associated species in the project area is not a concern. Alternative C No Action General Wildlife Alternative C is the No Action alternative. No activities would take place in previously harvested stands to influence development of late-successional characteristics or promote elements of biodiversity. With one known exception, no other actions that may benefit terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat would occur. The Middle Fork R.D. is planning to plant 345 acres of the Deception Burn in LSR. This action is expected to speed up reestablishment of the forest and is thought to be beneficial to some species. The No Action alternative has no associated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on any of the species evaluated here. It provides a benchmark for current condition, or a point of reference for describing the environmental effects under the Action Alternatives. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive (TES) Species There are currently no terrestrial wildlife species listed as endangered that are known or suspected to occur on the Willamette National Forest. The list of threatened or proposed species, along with critical habitat on the Willamette National Forest, is shown in Table 8. The list of proposed or sensitive species on the Willamette National Forest is shown in Table 9. One threatened, one proposed, and ten sensitive species either known or suspected to occur, or with suitable habitat present are evaluated in more detail in this analysis. For the other species shown in Tables 8 and 9, there are no expected impacts to individuals or their habitat as a result of the proposed project, and they are not further addressed. The Outlook Project Biological Evaluation (BE) contains a more detailed analysis of proposed activities and their potential effects or impacts on these species and their habitats. The rationale for both including and excluding species from further analysis in the BE is based on results of pre-field review, current science review, local knowledge, professional judgement, occurrence records and project field reconnaissance conducted from 2011 through

55 Table 8 Presence and suitable habitat summary for threatened, endangered, proposed species, along with critical habitat on the Willamette National Forest with rationale for effects analysis related to the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area. SPECIES ESA Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Known or suspected to be present? Suitable habitat present? Rationale if not carried forward for analysis Northern Spotted Owl (T) Strix occidentalis caurina Yes Yes Analyzed in BE with further discussion in Provincial BA and USFWS BO. Oregon Spotted Frog (T) Rana pretiosa No No No suitable lake habitat present. Fisher (P) Pekania pennanti (West Coast) No Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Critical Habitat ESA Designated or Proposed Designated or Proposed? CH Present? Rationale if not carried forward for analysis Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Yes Yes Analyzed in BE with further discussion in Provincial BA and USFWS BO. Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa Yes No No Critical Habitat Present Fisher Pekania pennanti (West Coast) No No No Critical Habitat Present Table 9 Presence and suitable habitat summary for sensitive species on the Willamette National Forest with rationale for effects analysis related to the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area. Species USFS R6 Sensitive Known or suspected to be present? Suitable habitat present?* Rationale if not carried forward for analysis Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes Yes Analyzed in more detail in BE. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Yes Yes Analyzed in more detail in BE. Bufflehead Bucephala albeola No No 55 No high-elevation lake breeding habitat present. Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Yes Yes Analyzed in more detail in BE. Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis No No No suitable marsh habitat is present. Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis No No No high-elevation willow habitat is present. Black Swift Cypseloides niger No No No suitable waterfall habitat is present. Purple Martin Progne subis No No No Suitable Habitat Present - above likely elevation range for breeding.

56 Species USFS R6 Sensitive Known or suspected to be present? Suitable habitat present?* Rationale if not carried forward for analysis Lewis Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis No No White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus No No North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus No No 56 No ponderosa pine breeding habitat or high elevation fall dispersal habitat present. No suitable upper elevation mixed conifer forest habitat present. No upper elevation habitat subject to extended snowpack present. Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes Suspected Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Townsend s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Suspected Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus Potential Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana boylii No No No currently suitable stream habitat is present. Western (Pacific) Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata Yes Yes Analyzed in more detail in BE. Mardon Skipper Polites mardon No No No suitable grassland/meadow habitat present. Johnson s Hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni Potential Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Crater Lake Tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum crateris No Yes Analyzed in more detail in BE. Cascades Axetail Slug Carinacauda stormi Potential Yes Analyzed in more detail in BE. California Shield-backed Bug Vanduzeeina borealis californica No No Western Bumblebee Bombus occidentalis No No No suitable grassland/meadow habitat present. No high elevation meadow and grassland habitat with abundant floral resources present to support species occurrence given current known distribution. Current Conditions Threatened Species (Northern Spotted Owl) The reader is referred to the following documents for the most comprehensive accounts of the biology, ecology, and status of the northern spotted owl throughout its range and within the Willamette Planning Province: Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011); Population Demography of Northern Spotted Owls (Forsman et al. 2011); Status and Tends of Northern Sotted Owl Populations and Habitats (Davis et al. 2011); Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2012); Willamette Planning Province FY 2015 Biological Assessment of LAA Projects with the Potential to Modify Habitat and/or Disrupt Northern Spotted Owls (USDA et al. 2014). Activities associated with the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project (commonly referred to as the Outlook Project or OLDP) proposed action comply with standards and guidelines under the Willamette Forest Plan

57 (USDA 1990) and the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA et al. 1994). The proposed action is also consistent with criteria in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) and the South Cascades Late Successional Reserve (LSR) Assessment (USDA et al. 1998). With specific reference to Recovery Action 32 under the Recovery Plan, the Outlook project does not propose any activity that would modify components of older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer stands. This project EA includes discussion on compliance with applicable plans, policy, and direction in greater detail. Additional standards for projects that would specifically affect the northern spotted owl and its habitat have been established for the Willamette Province by the Level 1 Consultation Team, and have or would be applied to this project. Those general standards are listed in the FY2015 Biological Opinion (BO) for LAA Projects with the Potential to Modify the Habitat of Northern Spotted Owls (USFWS 2014 p ). In order to evaluate effects to northern spotted owls (NSO) and their habitat from proposed activities associated with the Outlook project, consideration needs to address an appropriate scale of analysis. The Outlook project spotted owl habitat project area consists of the project area plus additional acreage within 1.2 mile radius home ranges for known or potential NSO sites with territories that overlap portions of the project area where proposed activities could modify habitat or result in disturbance to nesting NSO. Known sites are in reference to a site occupied by a pair or resident single as defined by results from surveys conducted to protocol in or after Potential sites are used for determining effects to NSO where survey data are insufficient. A potential site is defined as an area able to support resident NSO (i.e. a potential breeding pair). Results from previous survey history reveal 31 historic NSO sites meet the known site criteria. Four of these sites are centered on Federal land in the adjacent Umpqua National Forest. Three of these sites are centered on Federal land in an adjacent portion of the BLM s Eugene District. In addition, there is one potential NSO site within the Outlook project area. Collectively the Outlook project area plus the surrounding area associated with home ranges for these sites defines the Outlook project spotted owl project area. The NSO project area is also referred to as the action area, and encompasses an area somewhat larger than the 49,629 acre Outlook project area. This analysis assesses habitat suitability within and between home ranges throughout the project area and action area. Analysis compares current conditions against post treatment conditions associated with the Action Alternatives (Alternative A Proposed Action, Alternative B and D). Effects under Action Alternative A have been submitted for ESA Section 7 consultation as the proposed action. The location and type of proposed activities are evaluated for their potential to modify habitat or disturb NSO at known or potential sites during the breeding season. Analysis focused on evaluating effects and providing measurable criteria to address the Outlook project EA key issue - Northern Spotted Owl Effects (see EA p. 28). Most activities associated with the Outlook Project proposed action (Alternative A) that would modify NSO habitat fall within 1.2 mile home ranges for sites within the project area (Outlook Wildlife BE pages 25, 32). The amount is very similar under the other two project Action Alternatives (B and D). The Willamette Planning Province FY2015 Biological Assessment (BA) of LAA Projects with the Potential to Modify the Habitat and/or Disrupt Northern Spotted Owls (USDA et al. 2014) addresses effects associated with the Outlook Project proposed action against additional actions proposed across the forest and province. This Outlook project BA addresses effects associated with the proposed action for the project area as described above. This document tiers to the Province BA for more in-depth activity descriptions and associated effects to spotted owls and their habitat, as well as for thoroughly addressing new information pertaining to known or potential threats to this species in the Willamette Province. The Outlook Project spotted owl project area represents about 0.7% of the Willamette Province and 3% of the Willamette National Forest. Relative to current overall habitat and home range conditions for the Willamette National Forest (USDA et al. 2014, page 187), comparable information for the Outlook project indicates the NSO project area is above, to well above, average for amount of Federal land ownership, amount of protected 57

58 land, and current NSO habitat suitability. The area is also above average for current individual NSO fitness measures such as core and overall home range habitat conditions. Diversity thinning related to the Outlook proposed action is designed to enhance that transition by promoting more complex structural characteristics in treated stands compared to stands left to develop undisturbed under the influence of competition leading to suppression mortality and influence related to unknown frequency and nature of stochastic events such as disease, windthrow, and wildfire. One such stochastic event was the Deception Fire that occurred in August and September Effects of the Deception Fire on habitat conditions for NSO sites where fire activity occurred were variable. Out of 6,685 acres of the fire that burned on the Willamette National Forest within the Outlook project area, about 775 acres are determined to have burned with moderate to high severity resulting in changes to habitat affecting five NSO sites within the project area. Additional details for effects of the Deception Fire on habitat associated with NSO sites are contained in the Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Wildlife Specialist Report (Doerr 2014), which is part of the Outlook Project analysis file. Any difference in affected acreage between the 2014 BAER report and this evaluation is a result of using revised data for a 2015 BARC (Burned Area Reflectance Classification) data analysis. With one exception, NSO sites with habitat affected by the Deception Fire remain at or well above functional fitness thresholds for core area and home range habitat conditions. These thresholds are based on a concept that it is necessary for a core area to have 50% suitable habitat, and a home range to have 40% suitable habitat to maintain spotted owl life history functions associated with any given site. This subject is further discussed in the effects section of this evaluation. On January 22, 2015 the Willamette Province Level I team discussed the change in habitat conditions for NSO site #4083 in relationship to activities under the proposed action that would modify dispersal habitat within the core and home range for that site. Due to the amount of suitable habitat lost in the nest patch and core area for #4083, and uncertainty related to occupancy or habitat use, the Level I team recommended considering the core area as also representing the nest patch for the purpose of effects determinations pertaining to habitat modification and disturbance (Doerr personal communication). In response to the recommendation, the portion of Unit #2666 proposed for diversity thinning and located within the core area for #4083 has been dropped from treatment under the proposed action, and is now recognized as a skip area where current dispersal habitat would not be modified. There is currently a proposal to fell danger trees created by the Deception Fire along roads that are open to the public where such trees are within striking distance of the road. Trees that are deemed merchantable would be offered for sale if feasible to yard to the road. Only dead trees would be felled, and no trees would be removed from within any riparian reserve buffer. This activity would not affect the functionality of any habitat that currently exists in or adjacent to danger tree treatment areas. The activity would also not cause disturbance to spotted owls at any site in the project area. 58

59 Figure 4 Current land allocation and NSO critical habitat composition for the Outlook project area. Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Northern Spotted Owl Effects of Activities in the Nest Patch, Core Area, or Home Range of Known and Potential Spotted Owl Sites Best available science was used to develop assumptions within a general analytical framework and determine effects of proposed activities to known and potential spotted owl sites. For consistency in overall effects determinations the Outlook Project BA cites the Willamette Province BA where unit biologists have provided sufficient details on rationale to support conclusions that follow. 59

60 Table 10 Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, and D for Threatened species that are Known to Occur or Have Potential Habitat for Occurrence, along with Designated Critical Habitat in the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area. Species ESA Threatened Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Critical Habitat ESA Designated or Proposed Effect Determination For Alts. A, B, and D* LAA NLAA Designated (D) or Proposed (P) - Effect Rationale For Determination Adverse affect is associated with 8 acres of SHAB restoration that removes suitable habitat. All other projects, plus disturbance avoid adverse effects and are therefore NLAA. Rationale For Determination Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina (D) LAA NLAA Adverse affect is associated with 8 acres of SHAB restoration in critical habitat that removes suitable habitat. All other projects avoid adverse effects and are therefore NLAA. * There are no recognized effects or impacts related to No Action Alternative C. NLAA a = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect LAA b = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect a =NLAA determination requires informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b =For listed species, a LAA determination requires formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For proposed species, a LAA determination requires conferencing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (WO Amendment , Forest Service Manual , March 31, 1991). Nest Patch The Outlook Project proposes no activity within any known or potential NSO 300 meter radius nest patch. Habitat modification within a nest patch can directly and indirectly affect the likelihood of spotted owls occupying, breeding and persisting at known and potential sites. Breeding behavior, especially selection of a suitable nest tree or trees, predator defense of the nest tree and rearing of young is more affected by habitat conditions at this scale compared to the core area or home range. Removal of any suitable or dispersal habitat, or even light to moderate thinning of suitable or dispersal habitat in a nest patch would likely result in an adverse effect to spotted owls. Core Area Habitat modification with the core area can directly and indirectly influence the likelihood of spotted owls occupying, breeding and persisting at known and potential sites. Breeding behavior, including rearing of young, is more affected by habitat conditions at this scale compared to the home range. In the Willamette Province, a core area of habitat for spotted owls is generally a 0.5 mile radius circle or 503 acres. This area represents about 20% of a home range where research suggests 60-70% of spotted owl activity is concentrated during the nesting season (Bingham & Noon 1997). Based on information presented and discussed in the Willamette Province BA, this evaluation for the Outlook Project assumes that it is necessary for a spotted owl core area to have 50 percent or more suitable habitat to maintain spotted owl life history functions. The 50 percent threshold seems to measure when a significant impairment of spotted owl life history functions is most likely to occur. When suitable habitat is removed to below 50 percent within the core area, spotted owl occupation and breeding success is likely to be adversely affected, including a potential for injury to spotted owls. 60

61 Seven of the 32 spotted owl sites within the Outlook Project area have current core area conditions below 50 percent suitable habitat. No harvest treatment is proposed in four of the seven core areas listed with current suitable habitat < 50%. Diversity thinning proposed within the remaining listed core areas would not modify suitable habitat or affect the functionality of the core area. With one exception all additional harvest activity within any other core area displayed in Table 11 is related to diversity thinning in dispersal habitat with no effect to currently suitable conditions. The eight acres of suitable habitat removed is associated with SHAB restoration and would reduce the amount of suitable habitat within the core area for site #2872 from 66% to 64%. This reduction would not affect the functionality of the core area to support occupancy or breeding success. All diversity thinning is expected to accelerate long-term development of suitable habitat within spotted owl core areas. Overall effects to spotted owl core areas are equal under each of the Action Alternatives. Home Range Habitat modification within the home range can directly and indirectly influence the likelihood of spotted owls occupying, breeding and persisting at known and potential sites. In the Willamette Planning Province, the home range of spotted owls is generally a 1.2 mile radius circle or 2,895 acres. Based on a number of studies, it is likely that at least 40 percent or higher suitable habitat is necessary for maintaining spotted owl life history functions at the home range scale (USDA et al. 2014). When suitable habitat is reduced to below 40 percent within a home range, spotted owl occupation and breeding success is likely to be adversely affected, including a potential for injury to spotted owls due to habitat loss. Activities that maintain the extent and function of suitable habitat within a home range are generally not likely to result in adverse effects to spotted owls. At some sites, younger stands of foraging habitat without potential nest trees are essential to occupation and reproduction of spotted owls because nesting, roosting and forage (i.e., suitable) habitat comprises less than 40 percent of the home range and less than 50 percent of the core area. Downgrading of such forage-only habitat to dispersal habitat may result in effects similar to the downgrading of nesting, roosting and forage habitat, including adverse effects and potential injury to spotted owls. Three of the 32 spotted owl sites within the Outlook Project area have current home range conditions below 40 percent suitable habitat. Diversity thinning is proposed in each of the three listed home ranges with current suitable habitat < 40%, which would not modify suitable habitat or affect the functionality of these home ranges. Table 11 displays how diversity thinning would affect dispersal habitat in 30 of the 32 home ranges for spotted owl sites within the Outlook Project area. This treatment is expected to accelerate long-term development of suitable habit within these home ranges. The removal of dispersal habitat from seven home ranges as shown in Table 11 is related to thinning to promote early-seral habitat under Action Alternatives A and D. The Silviculture prescription for this treatment would delay development of suitable habitat, although would ultimately promote development of high quality suitable habitat based on structural characteristics that evolve after treatment. The removal of eight acres of suitable habitat from the home range of spotted owl site #2872 is associated with SHAB restoration proposed under each Action Alternative. This removal is not sufficient enough to change the percentage of home range suitable habitat for this site. The additional removal of suitable habitat from eight spotted owl home ranges shown in Table 11 under Alternative B is not part of effects associated with the proposed action that has been consulted on. This removal is related to creating early-seral habitat by thinning mature stands that have not been previously managed. The reduction of home range suitable habitat under any Action Alternative would not change the functionality of any affected home range to support occupancy or breeding success. 61

62 The relative acre comparison shown at the bottom of the table below is not a true sum of acres treated due to overlap between some core and home range acres treated. It does however provide a way to reveal the overall similarity between alternatives and acres affected. The notable exceptions are related to thinning dispersal to create early-seral habitat under Alternatives A and D, and thinning suitable to create early-seral habitat under Alternative B. The Outlook Project Silviculture and wildlife files include detailed spreadsheets for each Action Alternative that display individual unit acreage, land allocations, and unit-specific treatment prescriptions. Refer to those project analysis files for further details. 62

63 Table 11 Core Area and Home Range acres for known or potential spotted owl sites affected by harvest activities proposed under the Outlook Project Action Alternatives. 63

64 Effects to Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Special Management Considerations that apply to the West Cascades/Coast Ranges of Oregon and Washington Under the Final Rule, the USFWS determined that physical and biological features in habitat occupied by the species at the time it was listed, as represented by the primary constituent elements, may require special management considerations. And as a result the following considerations are provided, and apply to projects such as the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project: 1. Conserve older stands that contain the conditions to support spotted owl occupancy or high-value spotted owl habitat as described in Recovery Actions 10 and 32 in the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011, pp. III-43, III-67). On federal lands this recommendation applies to all land-use allocations. 2. Management emphasis should be placed on meeting spotted owl recovery goals and long-term ecosystem restoration and conservation. When there is a conflict between these goals, actions that would disturb or remove the essential physical or biological features of spotted owl critical habitat need to be minimized and reconciled with long-term restoration goals. 3. Continue to manage for large, continuous blocks of late-successional forest. 4. In areas that are not currently late-seral forest or high-value habitat and where more traditional forest management might be conducted (e.g., in matrix land use allocations), these activities should consider applying ecological forestry prescriptions. The Outlook Project s proposed actions have been developed under these considerations. The Outlook Project Action Alternatives are similar with respect to the proportion of harvest acres that would affect spotted owl critical (70%) and non-critical (30%) habitat. The total amount (displayed as gross unit acres) of spotted owl critical and non-critical habitat with potential to be modified under the EA alternatives is shown in Table 12. Table 12 Outlook Landscape Diversity Project (OLDP) alternative comparison of project activities with harvest element that would modify NSO critical (CH) and non-critical habitat. NSO Habitat Type and Gross Unit Acres Treated* by Alternative OLDP Alternative Dispersal Acres Suitable Acres Total Acres CH non-ch sum CH non-ch sum CH non-ch sum A (Proposed) 3,339 1,441 4, ,347 1,441 4,788 B 3,298 1,479 4, ,465 1,489 4,954 C (No Action) D 3,242 1,308 4, ,250 1,308 4,558 * Activities include commercial thinning for diversity, harvest for early-seral creation from mid or late seral stands, harvest to restore special habitat. 64

65 Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Northern Spotted Owl Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities (not involving Federal activities) that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR Definitions). It has been defined that a non-federal action is reasonably certain to occur if the action requires approval of a state or local resource or land use control agency and such agencies have approved the action, and the project is ready to proceed. The intent behind this is to consider cumulative effects related to a non-federal project with reasonable certainty that it would occur as opposed to a possibility that it would occur. Non-federal lands within the Outlook Project action area boundary comprises less than two percent of the area and consists of 14 separate parcels that are considered to not provide spotted owl habitat. Habitat conditions on these lands are not expected to improve within the foreseeable future and, as a result are not expected to contribute to the survival and recovery of the spotted owl. Beyond the direct/indirect effects addressed associated with proposed activities under the Outlook Project proposed action (Alternative A) or Alternatives B and D, there are no future State or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area that would result in cumulative effects to spotted owl habitat including critical habitat. There is no cumulative effect associated with disturbance to spotted owl from project activities. There is no cumulative effect of significance related to the Deception Fire Danger Tree Removal project or the Rock Crushing project that would affect spotted owl habitat or change any determinations pertaining to the Outlook Project. Under the proposed action, the Outlook Project would result in a minor influence on nearterm development or maintenance of suitable spotted owl habitat, but would result in long-term maintenance of quality dispersal habitat and development of suitable habitat. Because of the present condition and location of current harvest, restricted harvest, and non-harvest allocations, cumulative effects of past or present actions such as the Outlook Project should not influence the ability of the local NSO population to persist, or become established in the surrounding landscape by eliminating demographic linkages beyond the species dispersal capabilities. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative C Northern Spotted Owl Alternative C is the No Action alternative where the proposed project does not take place. Therefore no direct effects are associated with Alternative C. No activities would take place in previously harvested stands to influence development of late-successional characteristics or promote elements of biodiversity. No SHAB restoration would occur that would affect NSO habitat. The No Action alternative provides a benchmark for current condition, or a point of reference for describing the environmental effects under the Action Alternatives. The Outlook Landscape Diversity Project area currently consists of a terrestrial habitat composition and distribution that is considered deviated from a reference condition. Old-growth forested habitat is believed to be currently fragmented and underrepresented based on evidence for reference estimates. The patch size and spatial configuration of early-seral forested habitat is considered to be highly underrepresented compared to reference estimates. The No Action alternative would have no effect on the current development stage of spotted owl habitat within the project area. There is no rationale to suggest that the No Action alternative 65

66 (Alternative C) would affect the northern spotted owl or critical habitat based on current habitat conditions throughout the project area and ecological requirements of the species. Alternative C would have no effect because it does not propose to implement any new actions that would affect NSO or their habitat. Current habitat throughout the project area would continue to support wildlife species that may be present as it evolves without human management. Speculating on the development of habitat and associated dynamic nature of habitat suitability that may be subject to an unknown frequency and variety of stochastic events is considered beyond the scope of this evaluation to suggest any level of indirect or cumulative effects. Determinations Northern Spotted Owl Current conditions in the Outlook Project spotted owl project area are sufficient to support occupancy and dispersal of owls across the landscape, and should increase as capable, dispersal, and suitable foraging habitat develops. However the Outlook Project proposed action does involve short and long-term modification or removal of dispersal and suitable habitat in matrix and late successional reserve (LSR) land allocations. This habitat modification would affect dispersal habitat within 30 spotted owl home ranges, and suitable habitat within 1 home range. Activities associated with the proposed action could result in potential disturbance to spotted owls during the breeding season at 19 out of 32 nest sites within the action area; however no activities would result in disruption to NSO. There are no adverse effects to spotted owls that would result in incidental take associated with any proposed activity located within a core area or home range for a known or potential site. The Outlook Project does not propose any activity within a spotted owl nest patch. The following determinations are made in assessing the impact of activities under the Outlook Project proposed action (Alternative A) on spotted owls and their habitat, or on spotted owl critical habitat. Acres or trees shown for each activity are the amount related to the proposed action. Similar amounts are associated with Alternatives B and D; however 169 additional acres of suitable habitat would be adversely affected under Alternative B. The same determinations are valid for each of the project s three action alternatives (Alternative A, B and D). For Habitat Modification including Critical Habitat (CH) Harvest Habitat Remove Mid-seral harvest of dispersal habitat for early-seral diversity may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 257 gross unit acres 226 acres CH) Harvest Habitat Maintain Variable density thinning of dispersal habitat designed to maintain or increase diversity and accelerate development of late successional habitat characteristics in previously managed stands may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 1,184 gross unit acres 747 acres CH) (LSR: 3,343 gross unit acres 2,621 acres CH) Prescribed Burning 66

67 Prescribed burning in a natural meadow (non NSO habitat) for habitat restoration and maintenance would have no effect on northern spotted owls. (Matrix: 32 gross unit acres 0 acres CH) Individual tree removal Individual tree removal associated with maintenance of haul routes through suitable NSO habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Various Allocations: 100 trees 74 trees CH) Individual tree removal associated with system road storage or decommissioning in suitable habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 32 trees 228 trees CH) (LSR: 84 trees 64 trees CH) Individual tree removal associated with Riparian Reserve Large Wood Augmentation in suitable NSO habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 795 trees 730 trees CH) (LSR: 1,395 trees 1,170 trees CH) Individual tree removal associated with Riparian Reserve Large Wood Augmentation in dispersal NSO habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 125 trees 105 trees CH) (LSR: 245 trees 215 trees CH) Individual tree removal associated with Riparian Reserve Large Wood Augmentation in non-habitat for NSO would have no effect on northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 275 trees 275 trees CH) (LSR: 220 trees 220 trees CH) Terrestrial habitat enhancement Snag creation in late-successional stands that function as suitable NSO habitat adjacent to thinning units may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 1,094 trees 826 trees CH) (Admin Withdrawn: 24 trees 24 trees CH) (LSR: 4,279 trees 3,916 trees CH) Treatments to promote or prolong early-seral habitat diversity in harvest plantations that function as nonhabitat for NSO would have no effect on northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (Matrix: 177 gross unit acres 177 gross unit acres CH) Special habitat restoration Treatments to restore habitat for a rare botanical species that would result in removal of suitable spotted owl habitat may affect and is likely to adversely affect spotted owls due to habitat modification. (Matrix: 8 gross unit acres 8 gross unit acres CH) Treatments to restore riparian habitat diversity in the Buckhead Wildlife Area where the current function of suitable NSO habitat is maintained may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls or critical habitat. (LSR: 147 gross unit acres 88 gross unit acres CH) For Disturbance Project activities associated with the proposed action conducted during the breeding season (March 1 September 30) throughout portions of the action area within the defined disturbance distance and beyond the disruption distance may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls at 19 nest sites. 67

68 For activities conducted beyond the defined disturbances or outside of the breeding season period (October 1 February 28) there would be no effect on spotted owls. Communication with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Consultation with USFWS is required based on the proposed action. Consultation for effects associated with the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project proposed action has been incorporated into the Willamette Planning Province FY 2015 Biological Assessment of LAA Projects with the Potential to Modify Habitat and/or Disrupt Northern Spotted Owls (USDA et al. 2014). In response to the BA, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) Regarding the Effects of Habitat Modification Activities on the Northern Spotted Owl and its Critical Habitat within the Willamette Planning Province, FY 2015 (FWS Reference Number 01EOFW F-0221) on October 6, Effects stated in this project level evaluation are consistent with those stated in the BO. The Outlook Project does not involve any incidental take associated with the proposed action. Effects to Forest Service Sensitive and Federally Proposed Wildlife Species Sensitive species are species that are not federally listed under the Endangered Species Act, but are designated by the Forest Service and given special consideration in project analysis due to viability concerns. The goal of the Forest Service is to manage for these species so they will not become federally threatened or endangered. Federally proposed species are species that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife has recommended for listing as threatened or endangered but that recommendation has not been finalized. The only proposed species is the fisher which is proposed as threatened. No critical habitat has been proposed for fisher at this time. Effects of the alternatives on Forest Service sensitive and federally proposed species are considered in a project wildlife biological evaluation. This environmental assessment tiers to the analysis in the biological evaluation and provides a summary of the effects in Table 13. Ten sensitive species plus the proposed fisher have habitat or potential habitat in the project area and were analyzed in detail in the project biological evaluation; the current condition can also be found in the biological evaluation. The biological evaluation is in the project record and available upon request. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, D, and C Proposed and Sensitive Species For the one proposed species (fisher) assessed, there is no anticipated effect related to project activities. For the ten sensitive species evaluated that have known or potential habitat in the project area, activities proposed under any Action Alternative would likely have no impact on three species (harlequin duck, pallid bat, and Crater Lake tightcoil) and a beneficial impact on one species (peregrine falcon). For the remaining six sensitive species (bald eagle, fringed myotis, Townsend s big-eared bat, western pond turtle, Johnson s hairstreak, and cascade axetail slug) project activities may impact individuals or their habitat, but the action would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Alternative C, the No-Action alternative, would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impact on any sensitive or proposed species. 68

69 Table 13 Summary of Effects of Alternatives A, B, and D for Proposed and Sensitive Species that are Known to Occur or Have Potential Habitat for Occurrence in the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area. Species USFS R6 Proposed/Sensitive Fisher-Proposed Pekania pennanti (West Coast) Effect Determination For Alts. A, B, and D* No Effect Rationale For Determination Fishers are not believed to currently occupy habitat within the project area or elsewhere on the Forest. Activities would not preclude reestablishment of occupancy in historic habitat. Long-term beneficial effects are identified. Bald Eagle-Sensitive Haliaeetus leucocephalus American Peregrine Falcon- Sensitive Falco peregrinus anatum Harlequin Duck-Sensitive Histrionicus histrionicus Fringed Myotis-Sensitive Myotis thysanodes Townsend s Big-eared Bat- Sensitive Corynorhinus townsendii Pallid Bat-Sensitive Antrozous pallidus Western (Pacific) Pond Turtle- Sensitive Actinemys marmorata Johnson s Hairstreak-Sensitive Callophrys johnsoni Crater Lake Tightcoil-Sensitive Pristiloma arcticum crateris Cascades Axetail Slug-Sensitive Carinacauda stormi MIIH Beneficial Impact No Impact MIIH MIIH No Impact MIIH MIIH No Impact MIIH Impact due to log haul and potential to disturb foraging, or perched birds in vicinity of nest sites. Beneficial Impact due to short and long-term enhancement of foraging habitat associated with known-site management and across project area. Activity proposed in or near habitat with potential for harlequin presence would not modify suitable habitat or disturb the species. Effects to potential foraging, roosting, or natal habitat is minor at the project area, watershed and Forest scale. Probability that an occupied roost or natal site would be impacted during logging or hazard tree felling operations is low. Effects to potential foraging, roosting, or natal habitat is minor at the project area, watershed and Forest scale. Probability that an occupied roost or natal site would be impacted during logging or hazard tree felling operations is low. Pallid bat is not believed to currently occupy habitat within the project area or elsewhere on the Forest. Activities would not preclude potential re-occupancy in historic habitat. Impact limited to potential for vehicle traffic to disturb or injure individuals that may be crossing haul routes in the vicinity of occupied habitat while moving between seasonal use areas. Only a minor amount of western hemlock would be affected by diversity thinning in units where dwarf mistletoe has not been documented but could occur. Potential for impact from hazard tree removal and to adjacent habitat from helicopter yarding disturbance. The species has been documented at one site on the Willamette National Forest (McKenzie River R.D.). A 10 meter no-treatment buffer would apply to all potentially suitable habitat within commercial thinning and early-seral creation units. The species is not known to currently occupy habitat within the project area. Thinning could impact individuals in a minor amount of potential habitat. Activities would not preclude potential occupancy of habitat on the fringe of its suspected range where it is considered relatively abundant. 69

70 Species USFS R6 Proposed/Sensitive * There are no recognized effects or impacts related to No Action Alternative C. Effect Determination For Alts. A, B, and D* Rationale For Determination NE = No Effect NI = No Impact. MIIH = May Impact Individuals or their Habitat, but the action will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.bi = Beneficial Impact 70

71 Species for which the alternatives would have no impact or beneficial impact are not going to be discussed further in this EA. More detailed information concerning these species can be found in the Wildlife BE(see project analysis file). The following discussion will be concerning the effects from the proposed actions on the Fisher and the six Sensitive Species that may impact individuals or their habitat. Determination Fisher Despite recent photographic evidence confirming presence of one individual on the Middle Fork Ranger District, there is no current evidence of fisher occupying suitable habitat within its historic range on the Forest. There is no threat to any known or suspected local fisher population from activities proposed under the Outlook Project. This project does not propose activity that would modify or otherwise disturb potential fisher denning habitat. Considering the spatial and temporal scale of proposed activities across the project area, the wide-ranging nature of daily movements associated with fisher foraging and/or dispersal behavior, along with the unlikelihood of occurrence, this project would not disturb or preclude individuals from reestablishing occupancy in historic habitat within the project area. It is determined therefore that Outlook Action Alternatives (A, B, and D), as well as No Action (Alternative C) would have no effect on fisher. In addition, there are some long-term beneficial effects to the species identified under the Action Alternatives. Determination Northern Bald Eagle The Outlook Project does not propose activities within a known breeding area under the Action Alternatives that would affect the integrity of potential nesting, roosting, or perch habitat. Nevertheless some incidental loss of perching habitat could occur as a result of hazard tree removal along haul routes that pass through three known bald eagle breeding areas. In addition, conducting activities such as snag creation, riparian reserve large wood augmentation, commercial thinning, helicopter yarding, log haul, and road maintenance that are proposed to occur within or near nest sites has potential to disturb bald eagles that may be present in these areas, or elsewhere in the project area during the breeding season. Although seasonal restrictions to mitigate against disturbance would be applied where warranted based on R6 management policy and Forest Plan standards, there is still a likelihood that some disturbance could occur as a result of project actions due to the location of breeding areas and how eagles are known to use habitat in the vicinity of nest sites. Therefore it is determined that hazard tree removal and/or log haul proposed under each Action Alternative (A, B, and D) could result in a situation that may impact individuals or their habitat, but the action will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for bald eagles. There is no meaningful difference between Alternative A, B, or D in this regard. Determination Fringed Myotis and Townsend s Big-eared Bat There is no known threat to hibernacula or natal roosts from activities proposed under the Outlook Project. Over 95% of habitat in natural stands or open areas throughout the project area associated with highest potential to be utilized by Myotis thysanodes and C. townsendii would not be modified or disturbed by project activities. However the potential for activities to modify or disturb potential roosting or forage habitat, or disturb individuals that may be utilizing such habitat exists within the project area. Therefore it is determined that activities proposed under any Action Alternative that have been described and evaluated could result in a 71

72 situation that may impact individuals or their habitat, but the action will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for Myotis thysanodes and C. townsendii due to the low probability and level of impact. Determination Western (Pacific) Pond Turtle Although proposed activities would not modify suitable habitat for western pond turtle, there is a recognized risk to individuals related to road maintenance and log haul along Road 5821 due to the location of known populations and how turtles are likely to seasonally use habitat in the vicinity of occupied sites. Therefore it is determined that road maintenance and log haul proposed under each Action Alternative (A, B, and D) could result in a situation that may impact individuals or their habitat, but the action will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for western pond turtles. There is no difference between Alternative A, B, or D in this regard. Determination Johnson s Hairstreak There are no known C. johnsoni. Populations associated with potential suitable habitat that may exist in portions of the project area, and the likelihood of occurrence is considered low. Although proposed activities would not modify suitable habitat for Johnson s Hairstreak, there is a recognized risk to individuals related to hazard tree removal associated with road maintenance/storage/decommissioning and from disturbance helicopter yarding where rotor wash may impact canopy habitat in adjacent stands where the species may be unknowingly present. Therefore it is determined that some hazard tree removal and helicopter yarding proposed under each Action Alternative (A, B, and D) could result in a situation that may impact individuals or their habitat, but the action will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for Johnson s Hairstreak. There is no difference between Alternative A, B, or D in this regard. Determination Cascades Axetail Slug There is no known threat to local populations of Cascades axtail slugs from activities proposed under the Outlook Project. The location of activities with potential to affect this species is outside the known occupied range and on the edge of the suspected range for C.stormi where the likelihood of occurrence is low. Activities would affect less than 2% of potential habitat for the species under the proposed action (Alternative A) or less than 3% under Alternative B. Because of these potential effects, it is determined that activities as proposed under any Action Alternative could result in a situation that may impact individuals or their habitat, but the action will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for Cascades axtail slugs. 72

73 Management Indicator Species (MIS) The use of Management Indicator Species (MIS) in project planning is established by the 1982 National Forest Management Act planning regulations. MIS are species whose response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a wide range of species with similar habitat requirements. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1990 Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identified MIS and the rationale for their selection (Forest Service 1990: III-69). These MIS include spotted owl, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, cavity excavators, pileated woodpecker, deer, elk, and marten. As indicated in Table 14, most of these species are either known to occur or have potential to occur in or near the project area. Activity associated with the proposed action is consistent with or exceeds Willamette Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines as they pertain to MIS management. Table 14 Willamette National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) and their relationship with the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Area. MIS Key Habitat Feature a Habitat Present in Project area? Species Present in Project area? b Northern Spotted Owl Old-growth and mature conifers Yes Documented Pileated Woodpecker Old-growth and mature conifers Yes Documented American Marten Old-growth and mature conifers Yes Low Potential Northern Bald Eagle Old-growth conifers near large bodies of water Yes Documented American Peregrine Falcon Cliff nesting habitat near abundant prey Yes Occasional Black-tailed Deer Winter Range Yes Documented Roosevelt Elk Winter Range Yes Documented Primary Cavity Excavators: Dead and decaying trees See below Red-breasted nuthatch Yes Documented Northern flicker Yes Documented Hairy woodpecker Yes Documented Downy woodpecker Yes Documented Red-breasted sapsucker Yes Documented Lewis woodpecker No Not Likely Black-backed woodpecker No Not Likely Northern three-toed woodpecker No Not Likely a As identified in the 1990 Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (FEIS III 68-83) b Documented defined as a resident population based on known survey, monitoring, or incidental observation data. Some suitable habitat for terrestrial MIS would be modified by activities under any Action Alternative associated with the Outlook Landscape Diversity project. Activities could result in disturbance to MIS that may be present in or adjacent to work areas. Effects to individual MIS from activities associated with the proposed action are not equal. In addition to individual species habitat requirements, proposed actions are recognized to be spatially and temporally influenced in their subsequent potential to affect individual MIS. MIS such as deer and elk would experience beneficial effects. Some negative effects associated with treated areas on other MIS such as spotted owl are recognized. MIS such as pileated woodpecker and other cavity 73

74 excavators can be considered to fall within a negative positive effects range when spatial and temporal aspects of treated areas are considered. In general, neutral to beneficial effects for bald eagle and peregrine falcon are considered due to measures to avoid or limit disturbance and impact to nesting habitat while providing some enhanced habitat for potential prey species.. Effects on spotted owls, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons related to the activities that may occur under any Outlook Action Alternative (A (proposed action), B or D) are addressed in this EA (pages 56-65), and further addressed in the Biological Evaluation for this project. For descriptions and discussion of the Action Alternatives, Silviculture Prescription, and wildlife BE. Effects related to Action Alternatives on the remaining MIS are addressed below. Standards and Guidelines ensure modification or disturbance that may occur associated with this project is not of a scale that would threaten the viability of any MIS to persist within the project area or within any local population. Current Conditions American Marten Given the limited amount of high elevation MMC (montane mixed conifer) habitat in the project area and how that habitat is spatially removed from larger blocks of habitat most likely to be occupied by marten, the probability that this species would be present or affected by any project activities is considered very low. Home range size for marten is extremely variable and influenced by many factors that make it difficult to extrapolate study results particularly from other regions (Stone 2010). Although data related to studies specific to the Oregon Cascades is lacking, often cited research indicates that home range sizes for marten in Oregon are considerably larger than many early estimates. A total of about 3,700 acres of MMC habitat broken into isolated habitat blocks occurs in the project area. This amount is far less than a mean male home range (± 6,700 acres) calculated for marten in northeastern Oregon (Bull and Herber 2001). MMC habitat is restricted to four small patches along the southern watershed boundary and Sawtooth Rock, Hardesty Mountain, Patterson Mountain, and Deception Rock. Activities proposed under any Action Alternative that fall above 4,000 elevation in these areas are limited to a minor amount of road closure and about six acres of diversity thinning in the upper portion of Unit 2689 on Patterson Mountain. Unit 2689 is not considered MMC habitat however; rather it s a higher extent of Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood forest (WLCH) habitat. There are no verifiable records of marten occurring within the Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed. A sufficient quantity of MMC habitat is lacking to provide an average size male home range, and consists of isolated habitat islands that may not be adequate to support a functional female home range. Nevertheless, amount and distribution of large snag and down wood habitat, especially when associated with natural, latesuccessional, and old-growth stands are important in influencing the presence of marten in MMC habitat. DecAID data for marten use of dead wood is only available associated with the montane mixed conifer habitat type. Modeling data for the watershed show current MMC levels near to within historic range of variability for MMC large and total snags respectively. Data also indicate levels above to well above the range of variability for MMC large and total down wood respectively. Current information suggests that snag and down wood requirements are within a historic range of variability to support MMC habitat use by marten at or above the 50% tolerance level. Currently the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) shows the status of this watch species to be sensitive and vulnerable yet widespread, abundant, and secure throughout its range - which suggests species viability may be assured as long as adequate protection measures such as Standards and Guidelines governing activities proposed by this type of project continue to be implemented. 74

75 Environmental Consequences Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D American Marten Effects from proposed activities on this wide-ranging species are considered in relation to the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project area (Lookout Point Reservoir 5 th Field Watershed). Project effects (direct and indirect) to this species are considered relative to the large home range size and the amount of habitat modified or disturbed against the amount available throughout the area. Effects associated with activities are considered for their near and long-term potential. Unless specifically noted, effects are considered essentially equal under any Action Alternative. This is based on how similar the alternatives are in their potential for activities to affect this species and its habitat. Natural forested stands of MMC habitat represent less than 8% of the Outlook Landscape Diversity project area. These stands offer the highest potential to provide suitable habitat for marten. Marten are more likely to associate denning or resting activity in late successional, old-growth, or other complex habitat found in portions of the project area than in previously harvested stands. The Outlook Landscape Diversity project does not propose activity that is considered to directly affect the ability of marten to utilize limited blocks of MMC habitat in the project area for denning, resting, foraging, or dispersal. Noise generating activities are considered to have some potential for disturbance to this species should it occur in close enough proximity. Less than 0.2% of proposed diversity thinning would involve activities near or adjacent to MMC habitat. Because of daily activity patterns, wide-ranging daily movements, low density of any potential population, plus the spatially and temporally dispersed aspect associated with activities across the project area, disturbance potential is considered very low. Any direct effects in this regard should not compromise the suitability of overall habitat throughout the project area for use by marten to any estimable extent. Implementing the silvicultural prescription as proposed should result in accelerating the transition from managed stands in a structurally simplified seral condition, to habitat having large tree characteristics as released trees respond by increasing size and structural diversity, and as levels of down wood continue to accumulate in the near-term. If marten in this area do choose to utilize WLCH habitat contrary to current evidence, such developmental effects in riparian and upland habitat would be beneficial to marten. However longer-term indirect effects would trend towards neutral or negative as effects from thinning alter suppression mortality rates and decrease associated snag and down wood recruitment potential. Beyond the direct/indirect effects which are generally deemed similar between Action Alternatives, there are no foreseeable activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the project area that would result in cumulative effects to marten from modification of habitat. Alternative C American Marten Alternative C is the No Action alternative. No activities would take place in natural or previously harvested stands to promote biodiversity or influence development of late-successional characteristics in upland or riparian habitat. There is no rationale to suggest that the No Action Alternative would impact marten based on current habitat conditions throughout the project area and ecological requirements of this species with limited 75

76 potential occurrence. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the species or their habitat under Alternative C. Current Conditions Elk and Deer (Big Game) The Willamette Forest Plan (1990) selected elk and deer as MIS not because of population viability concerns, but because of their economic and aesthetic value to local communities, hunters, and recreationists. The desired future condition for big game habitat is stated as follows: Elk habitat would be improved or maintained in areas managed for a high emphasis objective for big game. Forage enhancement projects, well distributed mature conifer stands for optimal cover, and controlled road access in the winter ranges would be evident in the high emphasis areas. The basic habitat components of forage and cover would be provided in areas with moderate or low emphasis objectives also, but in lesser quantity, distribution and quality (WNF, Plan, p. IV-7). The Outlook Project area (Lookout Point Reservoir 5 th Field Watershed) includes eight Big Game Emphasis Areas (BGEA) identified under the Forest Plan. The BGEAs and their associated emphasis levels, and overall composition relative to the project area are displayed below. Collectively the eight BGEAs define the project area for elk and deer relative to the Outlook Project. Table 15 Acres by Big Game Emphasis Area (BGEA) BGEA Name Forest Plan Emphasis Level BGEA acres Rhodes-School High 7,247 Tire High 8,651 White-Dell High 8,083 Duval-combined Moderate 7,628 East Goodman Moderate 2,936 West Goodman Moderate 5,901 East Deception Low 4,779 Schweitzer Low 4,168 Total Acres 49,392 The 1997 Lookout Point Reservoir watershed analysis evaluated the condition of Big Game Emphasis Areas (BGEAs) using habitat effectiveness index (HEI) modeling based on Wisdom et al (1986) as directed by the Willamette Forest Plan. Where applied, that analysis found that conditions were near or below Forest Plan Standards and in decline, particularly under LSR allocation where habitat objectives are focused on development of late-successional forest habitat and not on management of habitat for big game. A projected downward trend in local HEI due to the loss of forage habitat as it is converted to cover habitat based on effects from shifts in management practices under the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994) has been widely recognized (ODFW 2003, Cook 2002). More recent HEI modeling associated with project planning on the Middle Fork District and elsewhere on the Forest has confirmed significant declines in forage index values which translated into substantial decline in overall quality index when compared to watershed analysis values from the mid 1990 s. Forage and Overall Index values identified in the 1997 watershed analysis are certain to have followed similar declines, and would currently be well below Forest Plan Standards. 76

77 The Outlook Project area north of Oregon Highway 58 is within the ODFW designated McKenzie (#19) Wildlife Management Unit (WMU). The Rhodes-School and Tire BGEAs fall within this area. The remaining six BGEAs located south of Highway 58 are within the ODFW Indigo (#21) WMU. Since the beginning of the Willamette Forest Plan in 1990, deer and elk numbers ( along with hunter success) have declined substantially. Reduced forage quality and quantity due to the reduction in harvest activity that creates earlyseral habitat on Forest Service lands are important factors in this decline. Other influences include decades of fire suppression and lack of natural disturbance which have contributed to a decline in native forage habitat in this area. Current black-tailed deer populations remain below historic levels, and elk populations in this area appear stable to increasing on private lands but deceasing on Forest Service lands (ODFW 2014). The HEI modeling method is considered insensitive to the potential quality and quantity of native forage habitat restored under the type and scale of treatments such as those proposed in the Outlook Project silviculture prescription (Holthausen et al. 1994). Model output does not accurately reflect changes to elk/deer habitat resulting from proposed activities under any Action Alternative. In similar habitat, thinning has been shown to immediately stimulate the development of understory vegetation much of which is recognized for its contribution to foraging habitat for deer and elk (Hagar et al. 2004, Suzuki and Hayes 2003). Understory vegetation data associated with a study of thinning effects on habitat similar to Outlook Project showed an average 467% increase in grass, forb, and shrub coverage between thinned and unthinned stands (Artman 2003). Significant increases such as this can be expected to occur within stands treated by diversity thinning and thinning to create early-seral habitat along with prescribed burning throughout about 10% of the project area. As evidenced by the positive growth response of native forage species to reduction in forest overstory cover associated with previous commercial harvest activity in portions of the project area, an increase in forage quantity is assured to occur in areas associated with treatments to enhance flouristic diversity proposed by the Outlook Project. Declines in forage quality (digestibility) are known to occur in conjunction with increases in forage quantity responding to growth stimulated by overstory removal (Cook 2002). However this relation appears to be variable between study sites and across regions. Dynamic shade patterns resulting from buffered riparian reserves and variable density thinning components should mitigate potential negative responses discussed by Cook (2002) in forage quality against positive responses in forage quantity. Evidence suggests the diversity of tree, shrub, grass, and forb species throughout the project area would respond favorably to proposed activities thereby adding to overall quality of habitat for big game. HEI analysis was not conducted as a part of this update. As a result of the shift in management practices under the Northwest Forest Plan, HEI modeling is no longer considered best science as a way to evaluate and manage habitat for deer and elk. New modeling methods have been developed to evaluate habitat quality and use for elk in the west Cascades of Oregon and Washington. This modeling is referred to as the Westside Elk Model (WEM). Although specifically based on elk utilization studies, modeling is considered to represent trends in the ecological relationship between deer and habitat also. It is expected that the new modeling method would be applied to project planning and referenced during effects analysis related to management affecting habitat for deer and elk. There are two components to the WEM the Nutrition Model and the Habitat Use Model. Each of these components is addressed in this Outlook Project analysis. The Nutrition Model relies on the following covariates to arrive at an output that predicts forage nutrition value: % canopy cover, proportion of hardwoods, existing vegetation type, potential vegetation zone. The product of Nutrition Model output is displayed as dietary digestible energy (DDE) which is categorized under six classes of intermediate forage quality available in summer range habitat for elk as shown below: 77

78 Table 16 Nutrition Model for Dietary Digestible Energy for Big Game. Class Description Mean DDE 1 Poor < Low-Marginal 2.40 to < High-Marginal to < Low-Good 2.75 to < High-Good to < Excellent No Data N/A DDE values represent Kcal/g of forage where data show 2.9 Kcal/g represent conditions under which elk cow/calf/yearling performance (breeding date, pregnancy rate, winter survival) is optimized. A DDE value of 2.7 Kcal/g can be considered to represent a maintenance level threshold with respect to elk nutrition and performance (Cook et al. 2005; Cook 2011). The product of Habitat Use Model output is based on four covariates (DDE, slope, distance to cover-forage edge, and distance to open public road) and displayed as predicted level of elk use, categorized as quantiles which represent five resource selection values that are unit-less (Cook 2011). The higher the value the more predicted elk use. A resource selection value of 9 indicates No Data. This analysis compared predicted use quantiles at the individual BGEA and overall Planning Area scale against effects associated with each project alternative, using Alternative C as a current baseline. The Westside Elk Model was applied to provide input for the 2012 Lookout Point Reservoir 5 th Field Watershed Analysis update (USDA 2012). That update contains maps and data tables for BGEA conditions as they relate to habitat conditions under the WEM, and serves to define current condition for the Outlook Project area. Effects related to the 2014 Deception Fire however, resulted in changed circumstances for habitat within two BGEAs. The fire burned with varying severity through about 90% (4,317 acres) of East Deception BGEA. Of that amount, about 11% (457 acres) burned with moderate (9%) to high (2%) severity. For White- Dell BGEA, the fire burned through about 30% (2,425 acres) of the area with about 14% (329 acres) under moderate (9%) to high (5%) severity. The WEM was applied to determine how Deception Fire effects on big game habitat (elk/deer) shifted DDE and predicted use values within the East Deception and White-Dell portion of the project area. Results reveal within the East Deception BGEA, acreage in DDE classes 3 and 4 (at/above the 2.7 kcal/g nutritional maintenance threshold) increased by about 3.2% (151 acres). Within the White-Dell BGEA the same value increased by about 1.8% (145 acres). Changes in predicted use resulted in a 21% increase (1,004 acres) for classes 2, 3, and 4 (medium-low, medium, and medium-high respectively) for East Deception, and a 5.25% increase (423 acres) for White-Dell BGEAs. These effects when applied at the 5 th field watershed project analysis scale had little influence on overall DDE or predicted use. Data displayed in the DDE and predicted use tables reveals a number of characteristics about deer/elk habitat within the watershed. Habitat management under current Forest Plan Standards for elk/deer within the Lookout Point Reservoir watershed treats 49% of the area as high, 33% as moderate, and 18% as low emphasis. New Westside Modeling suggests 87% of the watershed provides poor to low-marginal nutritional forage measured as DDE, and that nutritional forage quality is below maintenance levels for elk across about 94% of the watershed. New modeling also suggests that predicted habitat use is considered low to medium-low across about 40% of the watershed. Based on current BGEA emphasis levels, predicted use as a percent of total 78

79 acreage falls within the lowest quantile for each group of emphasis levels as follows: High = 6% low, Moderate = 18% low, Low = 19% low. One component of current Forest Plan Standards pertaining to deer/elk habitat management that can be associated with new habitat use modeling is the amount of BGEAs exposed to motorized vehicle activity. Table 17 displays current condition of BGEAs within Lookout Point Reservoir watershed with respect to potential motorized vehicle activity. The current condition is referenced against road density standards (HEr) and indicates the reduction in mileage required to meet S&Gs. There is a general correlation between the location and extent of closure displayed in Table 17 and similar closures recommended in the 1997 watershed analysis (page 132 Table 37) that are being proposed for storage or decommissioning under the Outlook Action Alternatives. Table 17 Relationship between current motorized vehicle use and Forest Plan Standards applied to Big Game Emphasis Areas (BGEA). BGEA Name Empahsis Level BGEA Acres Current Sum Open Miles* Motorized Road & Trail Density Minimum Density (Mi/Mi 2 ) Needed to Meet Forest Plan S&G Miles to Close to Meet S&G Current % above S&G Rhodes- High 7, < School Tire High 8, < White-Dell High 8, < Duvalcombined Mod 7, <2.9 East Mod 2, <2.9 Goodman West Mod 5, < Goodman East Low 4, <4.8 Deception Schweitzer Low 4, <4.8 Overall Total 49, *Information is based on 2012 data analysis which used MVUM open roads and motorized trails, and included roads seasonally open during calving/fauning period. The WEM was applied for effects analysis related to proposed activities under the Outlook Action Alternatives. The following section addresses proposed treatments and how they may affect elk/deer habitat based on how they influence DDE and predicted use for individual BGEAs and throughout the project area. Environmental Conditions Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Elk and Deer (Big Game) Alternative A, B, and D Elk and Deer Outlook Project Action Alternative habitat treatment activities applied to Westside Elk Model. 79

80 Commercial Thinning (Alternatives A, B, D) Matrix: variable spacing (ranging from 22 to 28 to average 25 ) to result in an average 40% crown closure (counting understory conifers and hardwoods and riparian areas). The spacing should apply only to conifers, and primarily to Douglas-fir. All hardwoods and other minor species should be left in place and not count in the average spacing of the dominant conifers. Create gaps from ¼ to ½ acre in size (with an average 85 radius), 2 per five acres, centered on one to several of the largest trees in the stands; several trees can be used if they are large and in a clump (growing within 6 to 8 feet of each other). Slash would be abated by yarding tops, with some grapple piling along roads and skid trails and some broadcast burning as detailed in the Fuels Report. Matrix acres proposed for treatment as follows. Table 18 Matrix acres proposed for treatment as follows: Alternative Gross Unit Acres Net Treatment Acres A (proposed action) 1, B 1,438 1,051 D 1, LSR: Use the Exemption Criteria contained in the South Cascades LSR Assessment (USDA/USDI, 1998, pages ) except for riparian reserves (see above): variable density thinning ranging from 20 to 28 feet and averaging 24 feet between retained trees, 10% in heavily thinned patches with less than 50 TPA, retain 10% of the stand in an unthinned condition (untreated portions of the riparian reserve can qualify), create openings not to exceed ¼ acre, to equal 10% of the stand (equates to a circular opening with an average radius of 59 every 2.4 acres), and retain from 11 to 19 trees per acre more than provide by the above spacing guide for the purpose of near-term snag and down wood creation. LSR acres proposed for treatment as follows. Table 19 LSR acres proposed for treatment as follows: Alternative Gross Unit Acres Net Treatment Acres A (proposed action) 3,343 2,553 B 3,343 2,553 D 3,185 2,433 Early-seral Habitat Maintenance (Alternatives A, D) Cut, mow, or girdle trees and shrubs in young plantations (<30 old); at least 20 trees per acre would be retained singly or in clumps, and 40% of shrubs would remain untreated. Slash generated by those activities would be piled and burned. See table below and the Silviculture and Botany Reports for more stand-specific details on these treatments. Maintenance treatments, consisting of girdling, cutting, mowing, and/or prescribed burning, would occur about every 5 years. This treatment is not proposed under Alternative B. 80

81 Table 20 Early-seral forage enhancement proposed under Outlook Alternatives A and D. Outlook Project - Plantation ESUs Proposed for Treatments to Prolong Early-seral Conditions (Alts A, D) Item # Unit # (600xxxx) Gross Unit Acres Net* Unit Acres Year of Origin 2013 stand age Plant Association Treatment Options a Treatments applied to all, portions, or individual units as described CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 1) Brush/browse cutback; CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 2) Young conifer pruning/girdling/ CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 cutting to release hardwoods and forage species; CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 3) Wildlife habitat pile creation; CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 4) Invasive weed control; CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 5) Limited pile and/or broadcast burning; CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 6) Native forage seeding/planting; CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 7) Mastication treating conifers, CHS 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 hardwoods, shrubs Total Acres *Actual area within stand/unit subject to treatments estimated to range between 5-95%. a Specific treatments applied to individual unit acres would be prescribed based on vegetation conditions in the unit at a time closer to when funding is available to conduct the work. Early-seral Habitat Creation from mid-seral matrix plantations (Alternatives A, D) This treatment is to occur in plantations created by past clearcut harvest with the objective of creating quality early-seral habitat in stands not currently suitable northern spotted owl habitat. Proposed activities are based on Northwest Forest Plan guidelines for regeneration harvest, and following concepts promoted by Jerry Franklin and Norman Johnson regarding ecological forestry and early-seral habitat provision in their 2012 Journal of Forestry publication titled, A Restoration Framework for Federal Forests in the Pacific Northwest. The nine stands these actions are to take place within are all mid-seral stands of closed canopy Douglas-fir from 40 to 66 years of age. They are all located in matrix portions of the project area and consist of 257 gross unit acres with 142 net treatment acres. 70 percent of the matrix portion of each stand should be in open habitat with a scattered distribution of the largest trees retained. Within the open portions, most stands would retain six of the largest conifer trees per acre, reflecting the pretreatment species composition of the stands. All hardwood species would be retained. About 5 years after all treatments are completed, an average of two of the retained trees per acre would be topped or girdled to create snag habitat if natural events or fuel treatments have not already done so. Stands 3052 and 3053 would retain 10 of the largest trees per acre and three of those should be made into snags as per above. 30 percent of the Matrix portions of the stands would be retained as untreated clumps of at least 3 acres in size. Retention clump size is based on established criteria for providing interior habitat elements; therefore the clumps should generally not be linear. Clumps should be located around any small SHABS that may exist, or located preferentially along edges of older adjacent stands. Clumps should generally not be located in the center of stands to avoid damage from slash reduction activities. Natural suppression mortality would continue in the center of these clumps, and would be supplemented by the near-term creation of an average additional two snags per acre 81

82 No active reforestation should occur other than planting non-conifer trees to produce high quality forage in the near-term. The open portions of these stands would be allowed to recover to mid- and late-seral conditions on their own; future provision of early-seral conditions, if needed, should be done in different mid-seral stands. Riparian reserves within early-seral creation units would retain full no-treatment buffers for all stream classes. Slash generated by the early-seral habitat creation would be reduced (and planting sites or hardwood resprouting would be provided) by broadcast burning, with some hand piling, if needed (particularly in thinned riparian areas) to protect residual vegetation. Planting of forage species, or cutting/mastication of hardwoods and shrubs would occur where needed to provide for vigorous sprouting. Stands 3052 and 3053 (on Buckhead Flats, adjacent to the Buckhead Seed Orchard) would not retain untreated clumps, since they are small treatment units and clumps would result in a small amount of forage provision. However, a 175 foot wide buffer should be provided along Road 5828 as a visual screen. Untreated clumps should be retained adjacent to these stands in the adjacent thinning units (stands 2677 and 3051). Additionally, gaps should be created in stand 3051, centered on key large hardwood or conifer trees, or concentrations of high value forage shrubs (such as red huckleberry) along the western edge of the adjacent seed orchard. Early-seral Habitat Creation from unmanaged mature matrix stands (Alternative B) This treatment under Alternative B responds to comments that the Forest Service is not fully implementing the Willamette Forest Management Plan as amended, with the proposed action - primarily because it does not contain any regeneration harvest in Matrix lands. This alternative contains 10 harvest units (totaling 169 acres gross / 83 acres net) located in Matrix stands that do not meet Recovery Action 32 habitat definition in the Final Recovery Plan for the NSO (USDI, 2013). This mature stand harvest would be done based on suggestions made in Johnson and Franklin (2012) except that 30 percent of the existing trees would be retained in clumps and singly, and the stand would be thinned to 30 percent residual canopy cover. SHAB (Special Habitat) Restoration Treatments (Alternatives A, B, D) Thin-leafed pea site - (stand 2124): All trees less than 20 inches in diameter should be cut and removed from the sites, except that any live hardwoods such as Pacific madrone and Oregon white oak should be retained. All old-growth trees should be retained and protected from yarding damage and fire impacts. The resultant slash from that tree removal should be burned under fairly dry conditions to generate a hot fire in order to prepare a good site relatively free from competing vegetation for planting seeds of the desired herbaceous vegetation and Oregon white oak seedlings. Unit size is 8 gross / 6 net treatment acres. North Shore Meadow (stand 2230): Continue application of prescribed fire; this would be the third prescribed burn for this meadow in the last 10 years. To assure that desired trees species, (particularly Oregon white oak) be retained, prescribed fire should occur only after trees species have become dormant in the late summer or fall. Encroaching conifer trees larger than 8 inches in diameter should be cut before burning, since trees of this size are not likely to be killed by the short length and duration of flames produced by the generally herbaceous vegetation of the meadow. Unit size is 32 gross / 30 net treatment acres. Buckhead Special Wildlife Habitat Area - (stand 0311): Conifers encroaching into riparian gallery hardwood stands should be felled and left in place. Young, dense hardwood stands should be thinned to promote faster development of gallery hardwood forests. Noxious weeds should be abated by all methods available. Unit size is 147 gross / 76 net treatment acres. 82

83 Treatments to Store or Decommission Roads (Alternatives A, B, D) Each Action Alternative includes a proposal to conduct activities that would result in road storage as follows: Alternative A (130 miles), Alternative B (52 miles), Alternative C (114 miles). In addition to road storage, 16 miles of road decommissioning are proposed under Alternative D. The 2012 watershed analysis update and Outlook Transportation Report provide details on rationale and treatment methods associated with these proposals. Some roads proposed for treatments are currently designated as not open for public use. Effects Summary Direct and indirect effects from proposed activities are considered in the context of disturbance and habitat modification. Individuals that are within close proximity to proposed activities are likely to leave the area while the disturbance is underway. Disturbance may include falling, yarding, hauling, fuels treatment, and other prescribed activities. If all proposed activities were to occur simultaneously they would have the potential to create above ambient disturbance across about 10% of the project area for elk/deer. However those activities are expected to occur at a spatial and temporal extent such that they should not result in any significant negative direct or indirect effects to individuals or the local population. The Outlook Project is expected to be implemented as a series of individual timber sales over a staggered timeframe starting in The combined effect of habitat modification and disturbance to local elk and deer can only be inferred. Visual or noise generating activities such as logging/yarding (including helicopter) and hauling on the local deer/elk herd is not likely much of a disturbance issue. Numerous observations of deer and elk responding to logging operations associated with active Middle Fork projects indicate animals do not leave the vicinity. Animals simply move into adjacent cover during active operations and re-emerge to forage and loaf in treatment areas during periods of operational inactivity. There is nothing to suggest an overall behavioral change would occur as a result of disturbance from operations associated with proposed Outlook activities. Commercial thinning and fuels treatment activities in forested cover habitat resulting in forage habitat benefits are considered variable in outcome. In general, benefits are likely greater on southerly and westerly slopes (<40% gradient) as opposed to northerly or easterly slopes based on vegetation conditions and animal use patterns. The seasonal importance and variability in digestibility of forage for big game is the subject of much interest and recent investigation (Cook 2002). The importance of summer nutrition (June through August) is key for its influence on local population sizes. Based on overall landscape characteristics the Outlook big game project area is generally considered to provide year-round foraging opportunities for local elk and deer. The effect of road closures on elk/deer habitat as it relates to BGEAs and Forest Plan Standards is displayed in Table 21. Proposed closures are also factored into WEM output as a covariate influencing predicted use. Collectively, treatments described above include elements that influence quality, quantity, and predicted use of elk/deer habitat throughout the Outlook Project area. Products of Westside Elk Modeling that display effects of proposed treatments and compare these effects against Action Alternatives and current condition (No Action) are presented in the figures below. Some WEM output data indicate a negative change associated with management under the Action Alternatives. Considering the range of activities proposed, negative changes would not be anticipated. When canopy cover and distance to edge (between habitat patches) are decreased, and percent hardwoods and distance to open roads are increased, positive changes in nutrition and habitat use are expected. Model output anomalies that indicate negative changes can result when certain data and vegetation simulation models are used to predict future conditions. What should be recognized in WEM results applied to Outlook Project is that overall habitat conditions for elk/deer improve under each Action Alternative, with a slight advantage given to Alternative A (the proposed action). WEM results indicate that: 83

84 DDE in classes 3 and 4 would increase by 1.01%, 0.87%, or 0.91% across the project area under Alternatives A, B, or D respectively. Predicted use would improve in the form of positive change by 62.9%, 52.9%, or 67.4% of the watershed under Alternatives A, B, or D respectively. Overall, values indicate predicted use under the Action Alternatives would increase compared to No Action with the greatest increase under Alternative A, followed by Alternative D, then Alternative B. Table 21 Outlook Project Action Alternatives comparison for proposed road closure associated with BGEAs and Forest Plan Standards for open road density. BGEA Name Emphasis Level Miles Proposed to Close Alt A Alt B Alt D Miles to Close to Meet S&G Comment Relative to S&G Rhodes- School High A, D meet/exceed S&G; B improvement Tire High A, D meet/exceed S&G; B improvement White-Dell High A, D move 87% to S&G; B improvement Duvalcombined East Goodman West Goodman East Deception Mod A, B, D each improve beyond S&G Mod A, B, D each improve beyond S&G Mod A, D meet/exceed S&G; B improvement Low A, B, D each improve beyond S&G Schweitzer Low A, B, D each improve beyond S&G Column Total *For the category Miles of road proposed to closed the difference between open roads under current conditions and each alternative was calculated as some roads proposed for closure are currently shown as closed on the MVUM. **Current open road density meets or exceeds Forest Plan Standard or Guide established for BGEA 84

85 Figure 5 WEM output display of current DDE composition and post-treatment DDE composition under each Outlook Action Alternative within individual BGEAs and overall project area. 85

86 Figure 6 WEM output display of changes in predicted DDE under each Outlook Action Alternative against current condition within individual BGEAs and overall project area. 86

87 Figure 7 Predicted use change by BGEA and project area under Alternative A. % Area 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Negative Change No Change Positive Change Change from Existing Condition Figure 8 Predicted use change by BGEA and project area under Alternative B. 87

88 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% % Area 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% Negative Change No Change Positive Change 0.00% Change from Existing Condition Figure 9 Predicted use change by BGEA and project area under Alternative D. Table 22 Alternative comparison of summed raw values of predicted level of elk use for individual BGEAs and the Outlook Project area. BGEA Name Post Fire Existing Alt A Alt B Alt D Rhodes-School Tire White-Dell Duval East Goodman West Goodman East Deception Schweitzer Outlook Project area

89 Sum of Use Existing Alt A Alt B Alt D Big Game Emphasis Area Figure 10 Summary of Use in BGEA by Alternative In an overall context, cumulative effects of the Outlook Project on elk/deer would be positive in both short and long term. Thinning effects would provide immediate benefits and under some treatments are expected to last for two to four decades, while road closures would extend to long-term. Future SHAB maintenance activities associated with the proposed action would contribute to positive long-term effects relative to cumulative effects from past actions that have created the current habitat condition throughout affected BGEAs. There are no additional foreseeable actions that would modify current habitat for elk/deer in these BGEAs. Given what is currently known about local deer and elk populations, the future viability of these species in this area would be assured as long as habitat management opportunities continue to be implemented, and adequate protection measures such as Standards and Guidelines governing activities proposed by the Outlook Project continue to be implemented. Alternative C Elk and Deer (Big Game) Under the Outlook Project No Action alternative there would be no new management activities. Trends for gradual decline in habitat conditions established over the past years would continue. Road densities would remain in their current condition. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to deer, elk or their habitat under Alternative C. 89

90 Current Conditions Pileated Woodpecker Amount and distribution of large snag and down wood habitat, especially when associated with natural, latesuccessional, and old-growth stands are important in influencing the presence of pileated woodpeckers in the project area. Pileated woodpeckers also benefit from specific Forest Plan allocations within the project area such as MA-9D (Wildlife Habitat-Special Areas) and MA-16A and B (Late Successional Reserves). Collectively these allocations account for about 68% of the Outlook Landscape Diversity project area where about 65% of all habitat consists of natural stands in late-successional and old-growth conditions. These natural stands are well distributed across the project area. Current and historic, composition and structure associated with the habitat type and plant associations for this area favor nesting and foraging use by pileated woodpeckers (Csuti et al. 1997, Marshall et al. 2003, NatureServe 2015, O Neil et al. 2001). This species has been detected on numerous occasions during field visits throughout the planning process. Observations include foraging activity in habitat ranging from closed canopy forest, to open canopy shelterwood to seral edge settings. Typical foraging sign can be commonly found on trees and logs throughout the project area. Favored tree species appear to be western red cedar, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. There are no known nest trees within any proposed treatment unit or elsewhere throughout the project area. A collection of information, referred to as DecAID, has been developed by USFS Region 6 to help projects identify the levels of snags and downed logs required to meet wildlife population needs (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). DecAID evaluates deadwood levels by wildlife habitat type, and all of the proposed Outlook activities with potential to affect habitat are in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat of the Western Oregon Cascades (WLCH_OCA). At the landscape level, DecAID recommends providing dead wood at levels within the range of historic variability. DecAID analysis suggests current dead wood levels are below average for snags and at or within historic range for down wood when WLCH_OCA habitat across the Lookout Point Reservoir watershed is considered. This subject is discussed in detail on EA pages and in the Outlook Project dead wood analysis report. Also discussed in the dead wood report is how current snag and down wood levels relate to DecAID values associating pileated woodpeckers and their use of dead wood habitat. DecAID data for pileated use of dead wood is available associated with the WLCH habitat type. Data show current levels below historic estimates for snags, and at current historic estimates for down logs. Current information suggests dead wood requirements that support habitat use by pileated woodpeckers for nesting and foraging exists above the 30% and 50% tolerance level in all areas. However the amount of habitat supporting this level of use is indicated to be considerably less for snag habitat, while relatively abundant for down wood habitat. Currently the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) shows the status of this watch species to be sensitive and vulnerable yet widespread, abundant, and secure throughout its range - which suggests species viability may be assured as long as adequate protection measures such as Standards and Guidelines governing activities proposed by this type of project continue to be implemented. Environmental Consequences Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Pileated Woodpecker Because of home range size or dispersal capabilities for this species and the spatial extent of areas proposed for diversity thinning activity, effects from proposed activities are considered in relation to the Outlook Landscape Diversity project area. Unless specifically noted, effects are considered essentially equal under any Action 90

91 Alternative. This is based on how similar the alternatives are in their potential for activities to affect this species and its habitat. In that regard Alternatives A and B are 96% similar, Alternatives A and D are 95% similar, Alternatives B and D are 92% similar. Alternative A is recognized as the Proposed Action. Alternative A, B, and D Pileated Woodpecker Project effects (direct and indirect) to this species are considered relative to the large home range size (>1000 ac) and the amount of habitat modified or disturbed against the amount available throughout the area. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat would continue to be provided throughout the project area both during and after treatments are completed. Less than 10% of forested habitat in the project area would be affected by proposed activities under any Action Alternative. Less than 1% of late-seral habitat would be affected by project activities such as SHAB restoration (Alternatives A, B, and D) or thinning to create early-seral habitat (Alternative B only). Activities would largely be limited to affecting foraging habitat. The only known potential for an activity to affect nesting habitat is associated with roadside danger tree removal along haul routes or related to road storage implementation. Pileated woodpeckers are more likely to associate nesting or roosting activity in mature to late successional or old-growth habitat found across 65% of the project area than in previously harvested stands proposed for thinning and fuels treatment activities. Proposed actions include measures that should avoid directly affecting pileated woodpecker habitat within treated areas and ensure the ongoing ability of the species to utilize habitat throughout the project area for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersal. Silviculture and fuel treatment prescriptions include measures for protecting key features of potential nesting or roosting habitat such as existing legacy overstory trees, snags, and large down logs. Yet unintentional loss of some such features is inevitable due to operational or safety reasons. Snag creation in late-successional habitat proposed under each Action Alternative would enhance habitat for this species This activity would affect about 7% of the latesuccessional habitat in the watershed by creating four snags ( 20 dbh) per acre over 1,069 LSR acres and two snags per acre over 559 matrix acres. Under Forest Plan standards, LSR acres would exceed 100% population potential and matrix acres would exceed 40% population potential in proposed snag creation zones. The presence of equipment involved in noise generating activities are considered to have some potential for disturbance to this species should it occur in close enough proximity. However because of daily activity patterns, wide-ranging daily movements, low population density, plus the spatially and temporally dispersed aspect associated with activities across the project area, disturbance potential is considered low. Any direct effects in this regard should not compromise the suitability of overall habitat throughout the project area for use by pileated woodpeckers to any estimable extent. Implementing the silviculture prescription as proposed should result in accelerating the transition from managed stands in a structurally simplified seral condition, to habitat having large tree characteristics as released trees respond by increasing size and structural diversity, and as additional levels of snags and down wood continue to accumulate in the near-term. An average of 12 trees per acre in matrix thinning units and LSR thinning units less than 50 years old would be retained after diversity thinning to provide near and midterm snag and down wood habitat. In LSR thinning units greater than 50 years old an average of 17 trees per acre could be retained for this function. These treatments would affect about 9% of the WLCH habitat in the watershed, and would result in meeting or exceeding estimated mean reference condition for snag levels 10 dbh. The effect would also bring current level for snags 10 dbh in the per acre class to within historic levels for the watershed. Such developmental effects in habitat across treated areas would enhance foraging opportunity for pileated woodpeckers. However long-term indirect effects would trend towards neutral or negative as effects from thinning and related activities alter suppression mortality rates and decrease associated snag and down wood recruitment potential in affected areas. 91

92 Growth estimates (based on both monitoring and modeling) for the Outlook Landscape Diversity project area show the effect of thinning on average dbh of conifers in treated stands would result in exceeding dbh requirements to meet the DecAID 30% tolerance limit (25 dbh) for pileated nesting habitat between years post treatment. Units not treated, or all units under No Action would not achieve this potential, for another estimated years. The ecological cost related to this benefit is that during the next four decades or so, treated stands would contribute fewer snags and down logs as dead wood habitat during that timeframe by arresting recruitment as a result of thinning. The potential to contribute snags providing nesting habitat at the 50% tolerance level (32 dbh) would also be accelerated in treated stands, but at a slower rate than achieving 30% level. Beyond the direct/indirect effects addressed associated with the proposed action, there is one foreseeable action that is reasonably certain to occur within the project area that would result in cumulative effects to this species from modification of habitat. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is proposing to replace transmission line poles and improve access to their right-of-way (ROW) crossing through the Outlook Project area. One element of the project is to treat danger trees that have been identified along the ROW through their project area. BPA has identified 216 trees with an average dbh of about 12 along miles of ROW that pose a current or future danger to access sites and transmission lines. These trees include a mix of conifer and hardwood species that is dominated by Douglas fir (94 trees averaging dbh), western hemlock (58 trees averaging 8.75 dbh), and cottonwood (29 trees averaging 12 dbh). An unknown number of the total trees are considered to have current or future potential to function as foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. One objective for ROW management stated in a 2013 MOU between the BPA, USFS and others (FS#12-MU , BPA Right-of-Way Veg. Maint.) states Whenever practical, increase standing dead wood habitat through the topping rather than felling of trees along the edges of the ROW which pose a hazard to transmission lines. That objective is expected to be applied to the treatment of danger trees associated with the current proposed pole replacement and access management project. Whether topped or felled and left as down wood, the cumulative effect of this activity would not have any long term significant negative or positive influence on pileated woodpeckers at the watershed scale. Management of the project area under the Willamette Forest Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan should provide a long-term stable or increasing trend in amount and distribution of habitat capable of providing for the ecological requirements of pileated woodpeckers. Cumulative effects from the Outlook Landscape Diversity project in conjunction with past actions are considered neutral or negative as some components of habitat important to this species improve in response to silviculture treatments while other components decline in response to thinning or fuel treatments within portions of the project area. Effects to habitat would be spatially distributed across the project area and would occur across an extended implementation timeframe. Proposed activities under any Action Alternative should not limit the ability of this species to disperse through or persist within the project area where population viability would be maintained at both the watershed and forest scale. Alternative C Pileated Woodpecker Alternative C is the No Action alternative where the proposed project does not take place. No activities would take place in natural or previously harvested stands to promote biodiversity or influence development of latesuccessional characteristics in upland or riparian habitat. There is no rationale to suggest that the No Action alternative (Alternative C) would impact pileated woodpeckers based on current habitat conditions throughout the project area and ecological requirements of this species with known occurrence Alternative C would not have an effect on this species because it does not propose to implement any new management actions. Natural stands and managed stands would continue to evolve without human management. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the species or its habitat under Alternative C. 92

93 Current Conditions Cavity Excavators Cavity excavator MIS are used as an ecological indicator for abundance of dead and decaying trees. The significance of snags as one component characterizing both old-growth and younger timber stands, and the dependence of primary cavity excavators (PCE) on this component as MIS that provide nesting and denning habitat for numerous additional species of birds and mammals (secondary cavity nesters) is thoroughly addressed in the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990). A complete list and discussion of these species can be found on page 74 in Chapter III of the Forest Plan FEIS. The significance of this relationship is further emphasized by management S&Gs under the Northwest Forest Plan ROD (1994, 2001) and elsewhere throughout published literature (Hagar et al. 1996, Hallett et al. 2001, Lewis 1998, Muir et al. 2002, Olson et al. 2001, Rose et al. 2001). See the previous discussion under pileated woodpecker for an introduction to DecAID as the preferred tool for evaluating dead wood habitat in conjunction with effects to wildlife such as MIS. When focusing on snag and down wood habitat use by individual species, DecAID data is subject to study bias based on the regional location and type of habitat involved in the study. Comparing project habitat against DecAID inventory values for snag densities and down wood distribution in unmanaged stands and like habitat provides a better general idea of how to rate current and potential dead wood habitat. Habitat associated with proposed treatments under the Outlook Landscape Diversity project is typed as WLCH_OCA_S in DecAID. For WLCH_OCA_S habitat where study data exists, DecAID data show snags 10 dbh may be expected to occur across about 80% of an area with about 2/3 of snags < 20 dbh in size. Data also show down wood 5-20 diameter may be expected to comprise about 55% of all down wood with distribution across about 78% of an area, whereas 20 diameter material may be expected to comprise about 45% of all down wood with distribution across 71% of an area. Refer to EA pages and the Outlook Project deadwood analysis report for further discussion on this subject. Small and large snags ( 10 dbh), as well as small and large down wood ( 5 diameter), are currently patchy in distribution and amounts compared with similar habitat in the western Oregon Cascades. DecAID analysis suggests current dead wood levels are below average for snags and at or within historic range of variability for down wood when WLCH_OCA habitat across the Lookout Point Reservoir watershed is considered. The amount and distribution of dead wood habitat within the project area is therefore considered currently at or below average levels for similar habitat across the western Oregon Cascades, yet is known to be used by most cavity excavators designated as MIS on the Willamette National Forest. Five out of eight species of primary cavity excavators used as ecological indicators in the Willamette Forest Plan are known to occur within the Outlook Landscape Diversity project area. Three species (Lewis woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker) are generally not associated with Westside lowlands conifer-hardwood forest habitat that typifies stands throughout the project area where treatments are proposed (Marshall et al. 2003, O Neil et al. 2001, NatureServe 2015). Although patchy tree mortality associated with the 2014 Deception Fire exists in a portion of the project area, it has not created postfire habitat in a forest type or location likely to attract black-backed woodpeckers based on current available information (Mellen-McLean 2013). Visual or audible detection plus visual indicators of presence (use sign) have confirmed the presence of the following five PCE MIS: red-breasted nuthatch (RBNU), northern flicker (NOFL), hairy woodpecker (HAWO), downy woodpecker (DOWO), red-breasted sapsucker (RBSA). A Young Stand Study (YSS) in an adjacent watershed grouped cavity-nesters that included these species when considering post treatment effects of commercial thinning on this group of birds (Hagar et al. 2004). Data analysis revealed the following for cavity nesters: 93

94 Bird species richness (number of species/stand) was positively affected by thinning, and increased to the greatest extent in stands that were heavily thinned. No species regularly detected prior to thinning were absent during post-treatment surveys regardless of thinning intensity. Thinning prescription had no influence on bird density (number of individuals/acre) for this group. Another study investigating wildlife response to effects of thinning in similar habitat has shown that RBNU and HAWO populations increased after thinning despite overall lower snag densities (Hayes et al. 1997). Studies that have investigated bird response to effects of fire on habitat show wide ranges of responses based on complex associations between fire intensity and ecological requirements such as nesting or foraging characteristics of individual species. Some populations of bird species are known to increase while others decrease in response to prescribed burning. Post burn responses vary based on species life history. Increases in dead wood levels and insect outbreaks are often associated with post fire habitat that attracts cavity-nesting birds based on nesting and foraging opportunities. Many such positive responses are focused in a short-term timeframe (< 10 years) but can extend beyond a near-term timeframe (> 30 years) (Saab et al. 2007). Prescriptive measures are usually required to minimize loss of existing dead wood habitat from prescribed burning thereby increasing potential benefits to bird species that take advantage of habitat modified or maintained by fire. None of the PCEs that are Willamette National Forest MIS are federally listed Endangered, Threatened or Proposed Species, Forest Service Sensitive species, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008), or species that are regionally identified as having current viability concerns. Population trends for these species from breeding bird surveys from indicate relatively stable to slightly increasing populations in Oregon, as well as Regionally (Sauer et al. 2014). Slight declines are noted for Northern flicker and red-breasted nuthatch. However, Northern flicker is a common resident species that is ubiquitous to most forest habitats in Oregon, and certainly the most common PCE seen and heard in the Outlook Project area. Environmental Consequences Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Cavity Excavators Project effects (direct and indirect) to this group of species are considered relative to the amount of habitat modified or disturbed against the amount available throughout the project area. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat would continue to be provided throughout the project area both during and after treatment completion. About 90% of the watershed would not be affected by proposed activities under any Action Alternative, and would largely be limited to disturbance of foraging habitat. Effects to habitat would be spatially distributed across the project area and would occur across an extended implementation timeframe, including periods outside the breeding season or when species have seasonally migrated. The proposed action should not limit the ability of this species to disperse throughout or persist within the Lookout Point Reservoir 5 th field watershed (i.e. Outlook Project area). Implementing the silviculture prescription associated with the proposed action would result in maintaining a partial no-treatment buffer in all riparian reserves, plus protection and retention of habitat features such as snags, hardwoods and any remnant conifers (many of which possess decadent features making them suitable for use by cavity excavators). One anticipated result of this project would be a post-treatment habitat offering greater amounts of edge habitat, with greater complexity in more open habitat, and with abundant forage and 94

95 nesting opportunities in both living defective and dead trees that can be considered to provide better overall habitat for a greater diversity of cavity excavator species (Hagar et al. 2004, O Neil et al. 2001, Marshall et al. 2003, NatureServe 2015). Proposed management activities do involve modification or disturbance of suitable habitat for these species. Removal of standing green trees, loss of snags that pose a risk to worker safety, and disturbance of some large down wood from effects of harvest activities would occur. The snags and down wood section of the EA and analysis file report provides a thorough discussion of how dead wood habitat, important to this group of cavity excavator MIS, may be affected by proposed treatments. Additional levels of snags and down wood continue to accumulate in the near-term as a result of prescribed retention and dead wood management. (See further discussion on this under the previous effects to pileated woodpecker section.) Such developmental effects in habitat across treated areas would be beneficial to local cavity excavator MIS. Long-term indirect effects would trend towards neutral or negative as effects from thinning and related activities alter suppression mortality rates and decrease associated snag and down wood recruitment potential in affected areas. Past actions related to timber harvest activity plus reservoir, highway, railroad, and powerline corridor construction are generally responsible for defining the current condition of habitat throughout the project area relative to suitability for PCE designated as MIS. These actions have affected the overall amount and seral stage distribution of forested habitat largely by reducing the amount of old-growth habitat and increasing the amount of open and mid seral habitat. There are two foreseeable actions that could further affect habitat in this area and influence future suitability for PCE. First, the limited amount of danger tree removal proposed adjacent to open roads through a portion of the Deception Fire burn area would have no appreciable contribution to cumulative effects. Second, The BPA is proposing to replace transmission line poles and improve access to their right-of-way (ROW) crossing through the Outlook Project area. One element of the project is to treat danger trees that have been identified along the ROW through their project area. BPA has identified 216 trees with an average dbh of about 12 along miles of ROW that pose a current or future danger to access sites and transmission lines. These trees include a mix of conifer and hardwood species that is dominated by Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and cottonwood. An unknown number of the total trees are considered to have current or future potential to function as foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Whether topped or felled and left as down wood, the cumulative effect of this activity would not have any long term significant negative or positive influence on PCE at the watershed scale. Project effects would not threaten the viability of any current or potential population for this group of cavity excavators across the watershed or at the larger Forest scale. Cumulative effects from the Outlook Landscape Diversity project in conjunction with past actions are considered neutral or negative as some components of habitat important to PCE MIS improve in response to silviculture treatments while other components decline in response to harvest related activities within treated portions of the project area. Current science and the changing trend in timber management that has occurred under the Northwest Forest Plan, and projected for the future, should positively influence management of habitat for this group of species towards a historic condition as previously harvested stands and riparian reserves redevelop, and more emphasis is placed on retention of key structural components in unharvested stands. Alternative C Cavity Excavators Alternative C is the No Action alternative where the proposed project does not take place. No activities would take place in natural or previously harvested stands to promote biodiversity or influence structural development in upland or riparian habitat. There is no rationale to suggest that the No Action alternative would impact this group of cavity excavator MIS based on current habitat conditions throughout the project area and 95

96 ecological requirements of these resident species. Alternative C would not have an effect on this group of species because it does not propose to implement any new management actions. Habitat would continue to evolve without human management and provide suitable habitat for these MIS. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the species or their habitat under Alternative C. MIS Summary Effects to individual MIS from activities associated with any Outlook Landscape Diversity Action Alternative are not equal. In addition to individual species habitat requirements, proposed activities are recognized to be spatially and temporally influenced in their subsequent effect to individual MIS. Although proposed activities would modify some suitable habitat, and likely disturb some individual terrestrial MIS that may be present, they should not threaten the capability of any local population of these species to persist or become established in the project area. Project effects considered negative relative to disturbance would be short-term and minimal compared to the amount of habitat available in the surrounding landscape. Project effects considered negative relative to habitat modification would extend into a long-term timeframe due to the gradual reduction in recruitment of dead wood habitat associated with treatment areas. Long-term beneficial effects are associated with habitat having a higher level of structural and floristic diversity, and the capability of providing larger sizes of snag and down wood habitat. Dead Wood Habitat Snags and Down Wood Current Condition Dead Wood Habitat - Snags and Down Wood Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for managing snag and down wood (coarse woody debris CWD) habitat are provided by the Willamette Forest Plan as amended by the ROD. Consideration of dead wood levels is based on whichever Forest Plan or ROD S&G is more restrictive or provides greater benefits to latesuccessional forest related species. S&Gs pertaining to CWD levels are directed at retention and recruitment associated with regeneration harvest, while recognizing opportunities to apply the same basic guidelines, but modified to reflect stand potential associated with other harvest prescriptions. The general standard for CWD applied to projects if proposing traditional regeneration harvest would be to leave 240 linear feet of decay class 1 and 2 logs/acre which are 20 diameter and 20 in length. Under the Willamette Forest Plan as amended by the ROD, snag habitat shall be managed at levels within harvest units capable of providing for at least 40% or greater potential populations of cavity-nesting species. The 40% level is influenced by vegetation zones and is identified as 1.5 snags/acre for the western hemlock zone, and 1.7 snags/acre for the true fir zone. Current science has tested the validity of the potential population approach to species management, yet it remains the basis for S&Gs involving snag management. Strong support for identifying more appropriate amounts of snag and down wood habitat is being given to new approaches in addressing these habitat components. One such approach devoted to identifying appropriate levels of snag and down wood in selected habitat types is DecAID - the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon (Mellen- McLean et al. 2012). The collection of information, referred to as DecAID, has been developed by Region 6 to help projects identify the levels of snags and downed logs required to meet wildlife population needs. At the landscape level, DecAID recommends providing dead wood at levels within the range of historic variability. The median historic condition for this watershed was estimated using levels of snags and downed logs found in strategic plots in unlogged stands of various ages and an estimate of the normal distribution of seral stages derived from the assumed fire return interval. Median values are the mid-point where half of the time deadwood levels would be at or higher than that value and about half the time they would be at or lower than the value. Studies have indicated that fire frequency and severity varied considerably in the past due to 96

97 substantial variability in weather conditions and fire severity from century to century (Wimberley et al. 2000). Therefore, levels of dead wood have fluctuated considerably over time and plus or minus 50% of the estimate median value was used to approximate the historic range of variability. Dead wood habitat levels are best monitored and managed at a landscape level such as a watershed scale or a portion thereof. The Outlook planning area portion of the Lookout Point Reservoir Middle Fork Willamette 5 th field watershed exceeds an appropriate minimum-sized area of similar habitat to consider when evaluating current and future levels of dead wood, and was used as the analysis area for this project. When comparing snag and down wood levels, it is important to consider values for an affected habitat type that are from stands in a size class and structural condition similar to those where treatments are proposed. DecAID evaluates deadwood levels by wildlife habitat type. All of the proposed Outlook activities with potential to affect habitat are in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat of the Western Oregon Cascades (WLCH_OCA). Another way that dead wood levels are being considered relative to DecAID values is by estimating reference and current snag and down wood levels at a watershed scale across an entire habitat type without specific consideration of size class and structural condition where treatments are proposed. Although including a full range of size and structural stage data when considering current dead wood levels for affected habitat results in utilizing data that is less specific to a smaller project area, this approach provides a broad landscape perspective on current and reference conditions for a habitat type. The following section provides information on snag and down wood levels for the overall watershed with emphasis on the habitat type affected by proposed activities in the planning area (landscape scale). In order to provide a current condition baseline for the Outlook Project, an analysis of Dead Wood in Lookout Point Reservoir Middle Fork of Willamette (LPR-MFW) Watershed was based on application of existing data as part of an overall 2012 watershed analysis update. LPR-MFW Watershed (5 th field watershed ) totals about 101,918 acres including non-federal lands. Forest Service acres total about 49,000 acres with 71% (34,850 acres) in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forest-Oregon Cascades (WLCH_OCA) habitat, 8% (3,700 acres) in Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (MMC) habitat, and 21% (10,385 acres) in Westside Oak and Dry Douglas Fir Forest and Woodland (WODF) habitat. Baseline data from the 2012 watershed analysis update represents Forest Service lands only, and displays estimated current condition of the watershed for each wildlife habitat type (WHT) in different snag and downed wood densities, and was based on Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) analysis of forest inventory plot data (LEMMA 2009) for the watershed. A historic reference condition was also developed using snag and downed wood abundance derived from plot data in unmanaged stands throughout the habitat type and an assumed fire regime interval for the watershed that estimates the average amount of the habitat in different successional stages. This information is calculated for both total snags ( 10 dbh) and downed logs ( 5 diameter) and for large ( 20 diameter) logs and large ( 20 dbh) snags. Snag data are given as snags/acre (see Table 23) and downed wood data are given as % cover (see Table 24). Effects related to the 2014 Deception fire resulted in current changes in snag habitat and current to future changes in down wood habitat within a portion of the Outlook Project area. To provide ongoing support for project planning, a DecAID analysis was conducted to estimate pre-and post-fire snag densities within the Deception Creek 6 th field sub watershed as well as for the LPR-MFW 5 th field watershed (Acker 2015a). Additionally, a new DecAID analysis was conducted to estimate current condition, and potential changes in down wood cover due to fire effects (Acker 2015b). These analyses served to validate and revise the 97

98 information on dead wood from the2012 Watershed Analysis update that was used for project planning. The products of these analyses were based on updated GNN data (LEMMA 2015) and are considered in this analysis of dead wood effects associated with Outlook Project activities. All analysis was applied to WLCH_OCA habitat type where project activities are proposed and is the emphasis of this analysis. 98

99 Snags Table 23 Comparison of estimated current and reference median snag levels for wildlife habitat types in the Outlook Project analysis area (Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed). DecAID Wildlife Habitat Type Outlook Landscape Diversity Project DecAID Snag Analysis All Snags ( 10" dbh) Estimated Median Snags per Acre Large Snags ( 20" dbh) Estimated Median Snags per Acre Current Reference Current Reference WLCH_OCA MMC WODF DecAID analysis suggests that, for WLCH_OCA habitat, snags are below historic levels in the Lookout Point Reservoir watershed. The median reference condition for total snags 10 inches dbh (diameter breast high) or larger is about 12/acre compared to the current estimated condition of 5/acre. The median reference condition for large snags 20 inches dbh or larger is about 5/acre compared to the current estimated condition of 1.5/acre. Currently, within the Lookout Point Reservoir watershed, about 38% of the WLCH_OCA habitat is estimated to have no large snags compared to an estimate of 11% for the median historic condition. For snags 10-inch dbh or larger, about 23% of the habitat is estimated to have no snags compared to an estimate of 5% for the median historic condition. The current lower density of snags and greater percentage of areas lacking snags compared to historic conditions is mainly due to past clearcut harvesting that removed existing snags as well as the trees that could provide future snags. Additionally, reservoir, highway, railroad, and powerline corridor construction, plus fire suppression activities have helped reduce existing and potential deadwood abundance in the watershed. Based on Deception Fire severity as described by Acker (2015a), effects to snag habitat in the Outlook Project area is summarized here. Changes in frequency distribution of snag densities were more pronounced when smaller snags were included and when the spatial scope of the analysis was smaller. For the 5 th -field watershed, there was a slight change in distribution of snags with a lower diameter limit of 10 inches. There was decreased representation of lower snag densities and greater representation of higher snag densities, especially the highest density class included in the analysis (>36 per acre). For the 5 th -field watershed, there was almost no change in distribution of snags with a lower diameter limit of 20 inches. For the 6 th -field subwatershed, there was a moderate amount of change in distribution of snags with a lower diameter limit of 10 inches. There was decreased representation of lower snag densities and greater representation of higher snag densities; for the second-highest density class (24-36 per acre), current conditions nearly equal reference conditions while current conditions equal reference conditions for the highest density class. For the 6 th -field subwatershed, there was a slight change in distribution of snags with a lower diameter limit of 20 inches. Although most density classes changed by only 1%, the increase in the highest density class ( 18 per acre) brings large snag levels up to the lower range of historic variability for that density class. From the perspective of available tools and data, the Deception Fire has caused some change in the frequency distribution of snag densities while leaving the overall pattern mostly unchanged. Figures 11 and 12 display current estimated post-fire densities of all snags ( 10 dbh) and large snags ( 20 dbh) respectively for the LPR-MFW 5 th field watershed (Outlook Project area). Similar figures for the Deception Creek 6 th field subwatershed are contained in the Acker report (2015a). 99

100 Figure 11.Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for all snags in Outlook area. Figure 12 Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for large snags in Outlook area. 100

101 Within stand variability throughout the planning area influences current snag distribution. This variability would also influence the location of replacement snags, which would occur in a patchy rather than even distribution across the area related to harvest and burning activities. Current condition and the proposed action would assure compliance with Northwest Forest Plan guidance to maintain 40% of potential populations of cavity nesting birds (USDA, USDI 1994 page C-42). Snag levels representing a 40% population level amount to about 1.5 trees per acre for the western hemlock vegetation zone. Areas associated with treatments under the Outlook proposed action are within this zone. Under Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 100% potential population level for the western hemlock zone is represented by about 4 snags per acre >18 diameter (DBH). Snag data estimated for this vegetation zone across the entire watershed approaches an average of 2 snags per acre >18. This value translates to a current potential population level of about 50%. Snag levels in previously harvested WLCH_OCA habitat proposed for thinning were calculated based on the weighted average of snag data associated with stand exams conducted for the Outlook Project. Those data indicate a lower average for all snags (2.5/ac) and large snags (0.2/ac) per acre compared to estimated current median level. Stand exams also included representative natural stands in WLCH_OCA habitat. Weighted averages for all snags were higher (6.5/ac), but slightly lower for large snags (1.3/ac) than estimated current median levels for those untreated stands. When dead wood management objectives such as those associated with the Outlook Project are aimed at mimicking natural conditions, DecAID values associated with unharvested plot data are considered. Snag levels for data specific to the project area were compared against those listed in DecAID for Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood habitat type, in the Western Oregon Cascades, with a Small/Medium Tree Vegetation Condition (WLCH_OCA_S). A review of DecAID data (Figures WLCH_OCA_S.inv-14 and15) discloses that current snag levels throughout the planning area are within the lower end of the 30% to 50% tolerance range representative for snags in unharvested areas in this habitat type and condition. Down Wood Table 24 Comparison of estimated current and reference median down wood levels for wildlife habitat types in the Outlook Project analysis area (Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed). DecAID Wildlife Habitat Type Outlook Landscape Diversity Project DecAID Down Wood Analysis All Down ( 5" diameter) Estimated Median % Cover Large Down ( 20" diameter) Estimated Median % Cover Current Reference Current Reference WLCH_OCA MMC WODF 3 1 NA NA Analysis of deadwood information for the Lookout Point Reservoir watershed for WLCH_OCA habitat suggests that current levels of logs, both large and small, are within the range of historic levels. The median reference condition for total downed log ( 5 inch diameter) cover is 5% compared to the current estimated condition of 4%. The median reference condition for large ( 20 inch diameter) log cover is 1.5% compared to the current estimated condition of 1.5%. Most recent DecAID analysis of down wood in the LPR-MFW 5 th field and Deception Creek 6 th field watersheds confirms current estimates are within the historic range of variability for all down wood cover classes with the exception of the highest percent cover class for all ( 5 diameter) and large ( 20 diameter) down wood in Deception Creek subwatershed. When down wood 101

102 recruitment associated with Deception Fire tree mortality is factored in, levels for all down wood rise to within the estimated historic range, but levels for large down would remain slightly under the historic estimate (Acker 2015b). Figures 13 and 14 display current estimated post-fire densities of all down ( 5 diameter), and large down ( 20 diameter) wood respectively for the LPR-MFW 5 th field watershed (Outlook Project area). Similar figures for the Deception Creek 6 th field subwatershed are contained in the Acker report (2015b). 102

103 Figure 13 Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for all down wood in Outlook area Figure 14 Post-fire comparison of reference and current conditions for all large down wood in Outlook area 103

104 Field reconnaissance indicates existing down wood occurs in a patchy rather than even distribution across the planning area. Down wood reflects a composition of all decay classes, however large wood in previously managed stands is dominated by decay class 3 and 4 condition. DecAID values all decay classes when considering down wood cover. Down wood data associated with the Outlook Project shows an overall capability of providing large down wood (CWD) at levels specified in the Northwest Forest Plan. An equivalent percent cover value representing the Northwest Forest Plan Standard and Guideline for CWD is about 1.1%. Comparing this equivalent standard of 1.1% cover with current calculated dead wood values presented above reveals that Northwest Forest Plan levels for CWD currently exist in stands where treatments are proposed, and throughout the planning area. Down wood levels in previously harvested WLCH_OCA habitat proposed for thinning were calculated based on the weighted average of down wood data associated with stand exams conducted for the Outlook Project. Those data indicate a higher average for all down (4.4%) and large down (2.0%) percent cover compared to estimated current median level. Stand exams also included representative natural stands in WLCH_OCA habitat. Weighted averages for all down wood (7.0%) and large down wood (2.6%) were higher than estimated current median levels for those untreated stands. Down wood levels for data specific to the project area were compared against those listed in DecAID for Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood habitat type, in the Western Oregon Cascades, with a Small/Medium Tree Vegetation Condition (WLCH_OCA_S). A review of DecAID data (Figures WLCH_OCA_S.inv-16 and17) discloses current down wood levels throughout the planning area are at or above the 50% tolerance level for total down wood, and within the 50% - 80% tolerance range representative of large down wood in unharvested areas within this habitat type and condition. The large snag analysis suggests that currently the LPR-MFW watershed is below historical levels for large snags in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat. The total snag analysis also shows that currently the LPR-MFW watershed is below historical levels for snags in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat. Downed log analysis suggests that currently the LPR-MFW watershed is at historic levels for large down log cover in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat (Figure 14). The downed log analysis indicates that currently the LPR-MFW watershed is just below (4% versus 5%) estimated median level for total down log cover in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat, but well within the historic range of variability. The Outlook Project dead wood analysis report contains further discussion on wildlife relationships to snag and downed log abundance. Quantitatively missing from this analysis based on model output is the recognition that, in addition to snags, defective live trees provide an important function in this habitat type. Studies have shown defective live trees are important for supporting pileated woodpecker (Aubry and Raley 2002) and spotted owl (Hershey et al. 1998) use in habitat where such features occur. The 49,638 acre Outlook planning area consists of 65% late successional and old-growth habitat where defective live trees may be considered a more common feature on the landscape than DecAID analysis suggests. Summary of Effects With specific emphasis on WLCH_OCA habitat where Outlook Project activities are proposed, this analysis has shown that snag habitat across the planning area can be considered broadly limiting to generally within a 104

105 range of historic variability for snag dependent species. The analysis has shown that overall, down wood is well within the range of historic variability for all cover classes providing habitat for down wood dependent species. Proposed commercial thinning, SHAB restoration, and fuels reduction activities under the Outlook Project can be viewed as an anthropogenically induced pulse in tree mortality associated with normal processes of successional development and stand regeneration. However the consequences of actions based on vegetation management objectives that enhance overall diversity and result in removing existing trees and conducting activities in some areas that maintain open forest or meadow habitat would affect current composition and distribution plus future natural rates and levels of dead wood recruitment. DecAID relies on data from unharvested plots to assist managers in setting objectives aimed at mimicking natural conditions. Considering the current condition of snag and down wood habitat along with the information presented in this report, it is expected that dead wood levels throughout the watershed would remain below to somewhat above average in the natural range considered for similar habitat following proposed stand treatments for at least the next three to five decades. Throughout that time Outlook Project effects would influence accelerated development of late successional characteristics by about 30 to 60 years compared to untreated stands, and result in maintenance and promotion of future dead wood habitat across a managed forest that typifies the planning area at levels that would ensure its ongoing central role in the ecological processes influencing affected forested habitats. Implementing treatments associated with the Outlook Project Action Alternatives would result in maintaining a full or partial no-harvest buffer in all riparian reserves, plus protection and retention of habitat features such as hardwoods and the largest conifers - some of which may possess decadent features providing an arboreal dead wood habitat component. Prescriptions also include measures to protect existing snags and down wood to the greatest extent feasible when conducting project activities. Nevertheless it is inconceivable to consider that this project would not result in the temporary reduction of some legacy wood habitat components under Alternative A, B, or D. Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Dead Wood Habitat Snags and Down Wood Unless specifically noted, effects are considered essentially equal under any Action Alternative. This is based on how similar the alternatives are in their potential for activities to affect dead wood habitat. In that regard Alternatives A and B are 96% similar, Alternatives A and D are 95% similar, Alternatives B and D are 92% similar. See the Comparison of Alternatives table in the Outlook EA Chapter 2 for detailed comparison of project elements between alternatives being evaluated. Alternative A is recognized as the Proposed Action and is the basis for effects consideration. Differences between Action Alternatives and effects to dead wood habitat deemed insignificant at the landscape scale. Under the Outlook Project Action Alternatives, diversity thinning, thinning to create early-seral habitat, SHAB restoration, and fuels reduction treatments would occur throughout about 11% of WLCH_OCA habitat within the LPR-MFW 5 th field watershed. Thinning treatments comprise over 98% of proposed activities that would affect current or future dead wood habitat. Underburning to reduce fuels and stimulate desired diversity is proposed on about 30% of acres proposed for thinning or other activities. Additionally, snag creation in specified areas of late successional habitat adjacent to some thinning units would occur across 1,680 acres, or 105

106 about 4.8% of WLCH habitat in the watershed. Project activities would be limited to within WLCH habitat under any alternative. Treatment prescriptions call for protection of existing snags and down logs (legacy wood). However some amount of loss or disturbance of legacy wood is inevitable as a result of safety and logging feasibility issues. Measures are identified to address this loss or disturbance. Implementing the proposed action in conjunction with additional design criteria and snag creation would result in dead wood levels associated with treated areas that increase in the near-term. Direct and indirect effects would be limited to an undeterminable number of snags and logs that may be unavoidably affected or created within treatment units. Long-term effects of project activities would influence an overall decline in total snag and down wood habitat associated with treated portions of the project area as a result of reduction in recruitment potential. This subject is further discussed in the Outlook Silviculture Prescription and Vegetation Report and Appendix J. While standing and down dead wood is an important aspect of diversity associated with the Outlook Project, it is only one aspect. Management more strongly focused on maintaining existing and near-term dead wood levels would prevent attainment of other important diversity objectives such as increasing bole and crown sizes, developing a more dense and diverse understory layer, and releasing minor canopy tree species. Effects of the Outlook Project reflect a balance between maintaining existing and near-term levels of dead wood (particularly snags) in managed second-growth stands, against management focused on promoting the development of structural diversity associated with the living overstory and understory components in such stands. One Outlook thinning objective is to stimulate stand development and increase the diameter of dominant trees and potential future snags. The current average diameter at breast height (dbh) is about for the 80 LSR diversity thinning units, and for the 32 matrix diversity thinning units. Growth estimates (based on both monitoring and modeling) for the Outlook Project area show the effect of thinning on average dbh of conifers in treated stands would result in exceeding dbh requirements to meet the DecAID 30% tolerance limit (25 dbh) for pileated woodpecker nesting habitat between years post treatment. Units not treated, including all units under No Action would not achieve this potential naturally, for another estimated years. The ecological cost related to this benefit is that during the next four decades or so, treated stands would contribute fewer snags and down logs as dead wood habitat during that timeframe by arresting recruitment as a result of thinning. The potential to contribute snags providing nesting habitat at the 50% tolerance level (32 dbh) would also be accelerated in treated stands but at a slower rate than achieving 30% level. Snags Any loss of existing snag habitat would occur quite suddenly under the Action Alternatives, and is unavoidable due to operational and safety issues. Some existing snags in proximity to harvest activities would be judged hazardous to workers involved with implementing the silviculture prescription. Snag loss would be greatest among sizes <10 dbh, intermediate for snags dbh, and lowest among snags 20 dbh. Outlook stand exams revealed that about 42% of units proposed for thinning activity currently lacked snags 10 dbh. All felled snags would be left as down wood. Depending on decay class and burning conditions, some felled snags may be fully or partially consumed during subsequent fuels reduction and prescribed underburning in selected areas. Under the silviculture prescription for this project, green trees would be harvested from specified areas by variable density thinning. Implementing this prescription would result in an average of 80 trees per acre in matrix stands, and 80 trees per acre in LSR stands being retained, some of which may have current defects or sustain damage that would provide a future dead wood habitat component distributed throughout the project area. In addition to the number of trees retained for future stand development, an average of 12 trees per acre in matrix thinning units and LSR thinning units less than 50 years old would be retained after diversity 106

107 thinning to provide near- and mid-term snag and down wood habitat. In LSR thinning units greater than 50 years old an average of 15 trees per acre could be retained for this function. Also proposed under each Action Alternative is snag creation in late successional habitat adjacent to many thinning units throughout the watershed. Late successional snag creation zones have been identified under both matrix and LSR allocation. An average of two snags ( 20 dbh) per acre in matrix and four snags per acre in LSR would be created across 559 acres and 1069 acres respectively. Under Forest Plan standards, LSR acres would exceed 100% population potential and matrix acres would exceed 40% population potential in proposed snag creation zones. A detailed list of treatment units with the number of additional trees required to meet snag and down wood objectives based on stand exam data is included as an appendix to the Deadwood report. Further discussion and details on tree retention for snag habitat management can be found in the Outlook Project Silviculture prescription. These treatments would affect about 15% of the WLCH habitat in the watershed, and would result in meeting or exceeding estimated mean reference condition for snag levels 10 dbh. Treatments would also bring the current level for snags 10 dbh in the per acre class to within historic levels for the watershed. Such developmental effects in habitat across treated areas would enhance foraging and nesting opportunity for dead wood dependent species such as cavity excavators and nesters, and pileated woodpeckers. Long-term indirect effects would trend towards neutral or negative as effects from thinning and related activities alter suppression mortality rates and decrease associated snag and down wood recruitment potential in affected areas. Implementing the fuels treatment prescription under the Outlook Action Alternatives would affect current snag habitat in two ways. Snag loss and snag creation can both be expected. Prescribed underburning is likely to result in direct or indirect loss of some current snags which would be converted to down wood, or potentially consumed for advanced decay class snags; measures are prescribed to minimize these effects. The project fuels report and silviculture prescription discuss aspects of prescribed burning in greater detail. Underburning is proposed on about 930 acres in 20 units across the project area. Prescribed burning on these acres is estimated to result in 10% mortality of overstory trees creating about eight snags/acre averaging 13 dbh. It is also reasonable to assume some level of partial or full mortality associated with trees immediately adjacent to pile burning activity. Any such mortality would add to an existing patchy distribution of snag habitat across about 10% of WLCH habitat throughout the project area, particularly associated with edge habitat where such activities are proposed. Mortality from burning activities is expected to be mostly associated with trees < 20 dbh. With respect to DecAID snag levels, the creation of additional snags discussed above would supplement retained levels and offset inevitable loss of some snag habitat associated with project activities. The offset would retain near-term snag levels near to above the 50% tolerance level for all snags, and generally within a mid-30% to mid-50% tolerance range for the WLCH habitat type. Within treatment units, long-term (> years) total snag levels would decline within these ranges while recruitment gradually shifted towards larger trees (DecAID Figure WLCH_OCA_S.inv-2, 14 and 3, 15). Outlook Project effects are limited to about 10% of the WLCH habitat in the watershed. Therefore about 90% of WLCH habitat across the watershed would continue to evolve beyond current conditions and provide snag habitat tending towards or within the historic range, both near-term and long-term. For both treated and untreated areas, current and future snag habitat throughout the project area would remain patchy in distribution. Down Wood Existing down wood would be protected to the greatest extent feasible under the silviculture and fuels treatment prescriptions. Some disturbance of existing down wood associated with the proposed action is inevitable. Recruitment of some existing snags, retained trees, sub-merchantable tops and debris not yarded to landings during commercial thinning, newly created and existing stumps, would result in levels of down wood 107

108 that are stable or slightly elevated across areas treated when compared to current condition. The Outlook Fuels Report discusses estimated fine to large dead/down fuel loading as a result of project activities. Implementing the fuel treatments prescribed under any Action Alternative would result in very similar effects on total down wood levels. The effect is associated with prescribed burning under Alternatives A, B, and D where a majority of down wood 5 diameter is predicted to be consumed by the activity. Most of the reduction would be in the 0 to 3 diameter range, but is likely to also affect an undeterminable amount of large diameter advanced decay class material. Stand exam and fuel plot data reveals down wood in such a class across areas subject to proposed underburning is well represented. Prescribed burning represents about 27% of total acres affected by habitat modification activities under Alternatives A and B, and about 22% under Alternative D. Downed log analysis suggests that currently the LPR-MFW watershed is at, to above historic levels for total and large down wood cover. With respect to DecAID down wood levels, the creation of additional amounts as discussed above would supplement retained levels and offset loss of down wood habitat associated with prescribed burning. The offset would not likely compensate for the reduction in advanced decay class large down wood on acres underburned however. Outlook Project effects are limited to about 10% of the WLCH habitat in the watershed. Therefore about 90% of WLCH habitat across the watershed would continue to evolve beyond current conditions and provide down wood habitat within the historic range near-term as well as long-term. For both treated and untreated areas, current and future dead wood habitat throughout the project area would remain patchy in distribution. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Dead Wood Habitat Snags and Down Wood Past timber harvest activity and other management actions have influenced the current condition of dead wood habitat throughout approximately 30% of the Outlook Project area. These actions have affected the overall amount and distribution of dead wood habitat by reducing the amount of old-growth habitat and increasing the amount of early and mid-seral habitat. The effect from decades of wildfire suppression has also influenced dead wood habitat by limiting the frequency, amount, and distribution of snag and down wood habitat across portions of the project area and elsewhere throughout the LPR-MFW 5 th field watershed. Beyond the direct/indirect effects addressed associated with the Action Alternatives, there are two foreseeable actions reasonably certain to occur within the project area that could result in cumulative effects to dead wood from modification of habitat. Salvage of roadside danger trees through portions of the area burned by the Deception Fire is proposed on about 41 acres out of 409 acres where high mortality is expected to contribute to improved levels of current snag and future down wood habitat. An analysis of this salvage (Doerr 2015) has shown the activity would not prevent the Deception Creek 6 th field watershed from achieving typical levels of downed wood within the historic range of variability after about a decade post-fire. The cumulative effect of this activity would not have any long term significant negative or positive influence on dead wood habitat at the LPR-MFW 5 th field watershed scale. Additionally, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is proposing to replace transmission line poles and improve access to their right-of-way (ROW) crossing through the Outlook Project area. One element of the project is to treat danger trees that have been identified along the ROW through their project area. BPA has identified 216 trees with an average dbh of about 12 along miles of ROW that pose a current or future danger to access sites and transmission lines. These trees include a mix of conifer and hardwood species that is dominated by Douglas-fir (94 trees averaging dbh), western hemlock (58 trees averaging 8.75 dbh), and cottonwood (29 trees averaging 12 dbh). Any number of the total trees is considered to have current or 108

109 future potential to provide snag and down wood habitat. One objective for ROW management stated in a 2013 MOU between the BPA, USFS and others (FS#12-MU , BPA Right-of-Way Veg. Maint.) states Whenever practical, increase standing dead wood habitat through the topping rather than felling of trees along the edges of the ROW which pose a hazard to transmission lines. That objective is expected to be applied to the treatment of danger trees associated with the current proposed pole replacement and access management project. Whether topped or felled and left as down wood, the cumulative effect of this activity would not have any long term significant negative or positive influence on dead wood habitat at the watershed scale. Current science and the changing trend in timber management that has occurred throughout the past three decades, and projected for the future, should positively influence management of decaying wood in untreated areas as previously harvested stands redevelop, and more emphasis is placed on retention of key structural components in unharvested stands throughout the project area and across the adjacent landscape. Information considered in this analysis indicates a negative cumulative effect associated with activities proposed under each Action Alternative that would result in an overall reduction in short- to long-term recruitment for total snag and down wood levels. In contrast, each Action Alternative would provide a positive cumulative effect associated with long-term recruitment levels of large snag and down wood habitat. Dead wood is a habitat component important to many members of the wildlife community, and the presence of some species may be limited on a small scale by the amount and distribution of such habitat in portions of the watershed. Considering the overall percent of acres proposed for treatment against habitat at the LPR-MFW watershed scale, dead wood should exist in a sufficient amount and distribution across this landscape to support the local wildlife community including MIS and species dependent on dead wood. Although the longterm overall ability for species dependent on dead wood habitat to disperse across, persist within, or become established within the project area would not be optimized by cumulative effects associated with the proposed action, these opportunities would still remain. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative C Dead Wood Habitat Snags and Down Wood Alternative C is the alternative under which no action is proposed. It serves as a baseline against which Action Alternatives are evaluated for effects. No treatments are associated with this alternative that would have any direct effect on dead wood habitat. Habitat associated with stands where activities are proposed under the Action Alternatives would continue to develop on a path of natural succession. Suppression mortality would continue to provide limited amounts of near- and long-term snag and down wood habitat as an indirect effect of no action. Such stands would be subject to an unknown number and frequency of stochastic events that may influence their ability to indirectly affect future levels of dead wood throughout the area. Speculating on these events and subsequent indirect or cumulative effects is considered beyond the scope of this analysis. 109

110 Compliance with Forest Plan, relevant Recommendations, and other Regulatory Direction A range of standards and guidance can be considered when evaluating dead wood levels associated with projects such as Outlook that proposed timber harvest in a variety of land allocations. The information below reviews activities associated with Outlook Project Action Alternatives against standards, guidelines, recommendations or direction pertaining to dead wood. Late-Successional Reserves: Eighty of 112 units proposed for diversity thinning under the Outlook Project Action Alternatives are within LSR RO222. Sixty five of the LSR units are less than 50 years old with 15 units greater than 50 years old. Prescribed treatments are designed to be consistent with criteria provided in the South Cascades LSR Assessment (USDA et. al. 1998) Chapter 5, with specific emphasis on density management for stands less than 80 years old (pages and REO exemption criteria (pages ). Relevant criteria and treatment standards have been incorporated into the Outlook Silviculture Prescription for LSR thinning units under each Action Alternative. Matrix Management Areas: Coarse Woody Debris - (Northwest Forest Plan ROD p. C-40 to C-41): manage for renewable supply of large downed logs well distributed across the landscape in regeneration harvest, leave 240 linear feet of decay class 1 and 2 logs/acre greater or equal to 20 diameter and equal or longer than 20 feet/log CWD on the ground pre-harvest should be retained and protected to the greatest extent possible from disturbance during treatment (e.g., slash burning and yarding) Retain downed logs in green tree retention forest patches (does not apply to intermediate harvest [thinning] where green tree retention is not required) Down wood data associated with the Outlook Project shows an overall capability of providing large down wood (CWD) at levels specified in the Northwest Forest Plan. An equivalent percent cover value representing the Northwest Forest plan Standard and Guideline for CWD is about 1.1%. Comparing this equivalent standard of 1.1% cover with current calculated dead wood values presented above reveals that Northwest Forest Plan levels for CWD currently exist in stands where treatments are proposed, and throughout the planning area. Snag Management - (Northwest Forest Plan ROD p. C-41 to C-42) As a minimum snags are to be retained within the harvest unit at levels sufficient to support species of cavity nesting birds at 40% of populations levels based on published guidelines and models. The objective is to meet the 40% minimum standard throughout the matrix, with per-acre requirements met on average areas not larger than 40 acres. To the extent possible, snag management should occur within areas of green-tree retention. [The context relates to snag management in conjunction with green tree retention. By inference, this direction applies to regeneration and does not apply to intermediate thinning harvest.] Although this standard can be considered inapplicable to the Outlook Project, current condition and the proposed action would assure compliance with Northwest Forest Plan guidance to maintain 40% of potential populations of cavity nesting birds (USDA, USDI 1994 page C-42). Snag levels representing a 40% population level amount to about 1.5 trees per acre for the western hemlock vegetation zone. Areas associated with treatments under the Outlook proposed action are within this zone 110

111 Willamette National Forest 1990 Forest Plan Direction and amendments Coarse Woody Debris - (amendment #6 7/13/91) Prescriptions should be developed prior to timber harvest to identify amount and distribution of CWD left after harvest and fuel treatment. Management practices to recruit CWD will normally pertain only to regeneration harvest and occasionally commercial thinnings in stands of sufficient size if needed based on wildlife habitat evaluation. Linear feet/acre downed logs by plant association: PSME/TSME ( feet), TSHE/ABAM ( feet), and ABGR (60-200). Range based on site-specific considerations such as proximity to marten and spotted owl habitat and future recruitment on site. Individual pieces contributing to CWD >16 at the small end and >10 long (75% of the total must be >20 long). In stands without the potential to have CWD of this size, the size of the CWD will be based on the size of mature and dominant trees on that site. Further, at least 50% of the CWD meeting the requirements should be in decay class 1and the remainder in decay classes 2 and 3. All decay class 4 and 5 logs should be left. At least 1 standing tree should be left as a potential source of CWD. If these trees are recruited for downed wood at a specified time after harvest, the trees contribute to the required linear feet of downed logs. [Note: Northwest Forest Plan CWD requirements, together with green tree retention requirements, are at least as restrictive as the above 1990 Forest Plan Levels. Recruitment of CWD in commercial thinning units will primarily be in LSR treatments or in other stands that are shown to be highly deficient in existing levels. ] Although this standard can be considered inapplicable to the Outlook Project, the dead wood analysis and Silviculture Prescription indicates this standard should be met or exceeded in the near and long-term for most treatment units under either Action Alternative. Snag Management - (1990 Forest Plan IV-65 to IV-66) [Note: Although not explicitly stated, the following harvest discussion pertained to regeneration harvest which was the dominant logging prescription in 1990.] Habitat capability for primary cavity excavators shall be maintained to provide at least 40% or greater population potential at the subdrainage scale. All timber harvest units shall provide snag habitat capable of supporting at least 20% or greater population potential for cavity nesters. In areas with a large number of old harvest units with few snags, the objective is to maintain an average 40% population level within as small an area as feasible (such as a small subdrainage). A 5-acre red-breasted nuthatch territory size should be used to determine the distribution of snag habitat within harvest units. Dead, defective, and green trees retained for current and replacement snags shall be greater than 18 inches in diameter or the largest available within the stand being treated. Snags with the largest dbh shall be selected (retained) wherever possible. Only snags in decay classes I, II, and III and greater than 20 feet tall shall be counted toward meeting habitat requirements for cavity nesting birds and snags greater than 40 feet tall are preferred. Snags in decay classes IV and V provide foraging habitat for insectivorous species and should be retained where possible. Although these standards designed based on regeneration harvest activity may be considered inapplicable to the Outlook Project, it is implied they would be. The snag analysis and design criteria specified in the Silviculture Prescription indicates the standards should be met or exceeded in the near and long-term for habitat associated with treatment units under any Action Alternative. 111

112 Survey and Manage Species Current Conditions Survey and Manage Species The Northwest Forest Plan was amended with standards and guidelines for conducting project surveys and managing known sites for certain rare or endemic species (botanical and wildlife) that were thought to be associated with late successional forest habitat (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). The species covered by this direction are referred to here as survey and manage species. The Outlook Landscape Diversity Project is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision (ROD) and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). This project utilizes the December 2003 species list. This list incorporates species changes and removals made as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews with the exception of the red tree vole (RTV), Arborimus longicaudus. For the red tree vole, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in KSWC et al. v. Boody et al., 468 F3d 549 (9th Cir. 2006) vacated the category change and removal of the red tree vole in a portion of its range, and returned the red tree vole to its status as existed in the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines, which makes the species Category C throughout its range. In addition, there are 12 species (botanical and wildlife) receiving special consideration as directed in the May 13, 2014 Regional Forester letter. We reviewed the 2003 Annual Species Review and the 2014 Regional Forester letter of 12 species lists, and determined there were only three survey and manage wildlife species needing evaluation (See Table 25). 112

113 Table 25 Rationale for whether or not species requires surveys. (Species compiled from the December 2003 species list that occur on the Middle Fork Ranger District, Willamette National Forest). Survey Triggers Survey Results Species S&M Category Within Range of the Species? Project Area Contains Suitable habitat? Project may negatively affect species/habitat under Action Alternatives? Surveys Required? Survey Date (month/yr) Sites Known or Found? Site Management under Action Alternatives Vertebrates Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus) A Yes Yes No No 1 n/a No None C Yes Yes Yes No 2 n/a No None Mollusks Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris) A Yes Yes No No 1 n/a No None 1 Surveys are not required since the project would not affect species/habitat. There is very limited habitat for great gray owl in the project area and none of the project actions would impact great gray owls or their habitat. Crater Lake Tightcoil would not be impacted as all perennially wet habitat within the project area would be buffered by 10 meters and/or the actions are not considered habitat disturbing. 2 Surveys are not required for the following reasons: 1.When thinning in stands younger than 80 years old, a 10/10/2006 court ruling known as the Pechman exemption releases the need for survey and manage; 2. For other habitat disturbing actions in the project area that do not meet number one above, they either a) fall within the non-reserve (i.e. matrix and adaptive management area) portions of a non-high priority pilot watershed for red tree voles, and are thereby released from pre-disturbance surveys (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2003), or b) are not considered habitat disturbing. Survey protocols referenced during consideration of survey requirements for species listed in Table 25 include the following: Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan Version 3.0 (USDA and USDI 2004). Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus Version 3.0 (USDA and USDI 2012a). Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan Version 3.0 (USDA, USDI, and USFWS 2003). It should also be noted that there are no known sites for Megomphix hemphilli (Oregon megomphix) within the project area that would require management under the 2001 Record of Decision requirements. There is little potential for habitat within the project area to support occupancy or use by other species for which a standard, guideline, or management recommendation was addressed in the 2001 ROD. These species include white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, and flammulated owl. Each of these species generally occurs on the eastern and southern periphery of the range of the northern spotted owl. 113

114 This project s proposed action would not affect suitable habitat for these species, or influence their distribution or population numbers to any extent relative to this portion of the range for the northern spotted owl. Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Survey and Manage Species Great gray owl (Strix nebulosi) Great gray owls are generally associated with meadow/open areas that are 10 acres or larger which have adjacent large snags for nesting. There are a few historic observations of great gray owls in the project area and most were incidental to northern spotted owl surveys in the 1990 s: Cloverpatch Butte and Tire Mountain Area North Shore Meadow Buckhead Mountain Area Patterson Mountain Area Duval Creek Area The nearest known nest site is about a mile from the southeast edge of the project area (outside the project boundary) adjacent to High Prairie. The High Prairie pair was observed nesting in 2009 but have not been monitored since. Prior to 2009, there was also a historic nest site near the Buckhead Seed Orchard which is on the southeast edge of the Outlook Project Area but there have been no protocol surveys at that site since the late 1990 s. There is a small amount of great gray owl nesting habitat in the project area surrounding meadows that are generally on the periphery of the project boundary, but there are no management prescriptions under any alternative that would negatively affect this habitat and thus there is no potential to negatively impact great gray owls and the project may benefit them by providing additional foraging habitat in several portions of the project area, including North Shore Meadow. Under all Action Alternatives, North Shore Meadow would be restored by setting back conifer encroachment via hand tools and prescribed burning which would benefit great gray owls. The North Shore treatment area is approximately 30 acres. Under Alternative A and D, 142 acres of early-seral habitat would be created in nine plantations ranging from 40 to 66 years old which could serve as foraging habitat for great gray owls. Additionally under Alternative A and D, 64 acres of young plantations (< 20 years old) would be treated to open up these stands and maintain early-seral habitat benefiting owls. These early-seral treatments are not proposed under Alternative B. However Alternative B does propose some mature stand harvest in 10 small units which would create early-seral habitat on about 83 acres. With the exception of North Shore Meadow, treatments associated with early-seral creation or maintenance under each Action Alternative is beyond 0.25 mile from natural openings and generally within two miles of any natural or manmade opening where great gray owls would be likely to nest within or adjacent to the project area. Red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) Suitable habitat for red tree voles consists generally of conifer stands 80 years old with canopy covers 60%. Often suitable spotted owl habitat is used as a surrogate. Red tree voles are an arboreal mammal whose diet in this part of their range is Douglas-fir needles. There is only one record (from 2003) of a historic active red tree 114

115 vole nest in the northeastern portion of the project area approximately 0.25 miles west of Unit Though there is limited existing knowledge of red tree voles in the project area, they do occur in similar habitats in adjacent watersheds so they are assumed to occur in Outlook. Seventy percent (32,817 acres) of the project area is suitable red tree vole habitat. Most of the project treatments would be in stands <80 years old which are generally not suitable habitat. There are only a few habitat-disturbing activities that may occur: Alt B Mature Stand Harvest Thin to 30% Residual Canopy Cover (83 acres in 10 units), and Unit 2124 Special Habitat Restoration (6 acres) Alternatives A, B, and D. These treatments would total 89 acres of suitable habitat modification under Alternative B which is less than 0.3% of all suitable habitat in the project area. The six acres of treatment under Alternatives A and D is essentially immeasurable at less than 0.02%. Other proposed project activities such as the late-successional snag creation and the in-stream wood placement are not considered habitat disturbing activities (2001 ROD Standards & Guidelines p.22). Additionally there are project design criteria that specify no trees with current potential RTV nests or structural defects providing current and future crown diversity would be selected for use in these treatments. There is limited new spur road construction under Alternatives A and B that could impact a small percent of suitable habitat. Only 0.3 miles of new spur road construction could occur in suitable habitat which would equate to about one total acre of impact spread across the Outlook Project area. Thus implementation of the Outlook Project is expected to be inconsequential and unlikely to result in any meaningful negative effect on this species habitat or the ability of red tree voles to persist or become established in nearby habitat. Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris) The potential for this species to occur in the project area is considered extremely low. The species has been documented at one location on the Willamette National Forest (McKenzie River R.D.) and is thought to occur in perennially wet areas above 2,000 elevation. Due to spatial buffers and design criteria under all action alternatives, no direct/indirect effects to Crater Lake Tightcoil are anticipated as a result of Outlook Project activities. Effects related to proposed activities on this species are fully addressed in the Outlook Project Biological Evaluation. Alternative C No Action Survey and Manage Species Alternative C is the No Action alternative where the proposed project does not take place. No activities would take place in previously harvested stands to influence development of late-successional characteristics or promote elements of biodiversity. No SHAB restoration or enhancement would occur. No other actions that may benefit terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat would occur. The No Action alternative has no associated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on great gray owls, red tree voles, or Crater Lake tightcoils. It provides a benchmark for current condition, or a point of reference for describing the environmental effects under the Action Alternatives. 115

116 Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Survey and Manage Species There are past actions in this project area that may have affected survey and manage species. Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Few natural openings >10 acres in size occur in the project area, thus great gray owls were likely not affected by past timber harvesting. Great gray owls have been negatively impacted by conifer encroachment into open meadows over time. They have benefited however from some early-seral/meadow/powerline right-of-way habitat improvement projects over the past few decades, although the cumulative acres improved is less than 200. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that may negatively affect great gray owls in the project area. Taking into account the past, present, and foreseeable future actions, the overall persistence of the species in the project area is not a concern. Red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) Previous timber harvesting has likely affected red tree vole in this project area. Since the 1950 s approximately 14,446 acres of National Forest land has been harvested 31% of the project area s Federal forests; most of the harvest was clearcutting. This would have a negative effect on red tree vole which require conifer forests 80 years old with interconnecting canopies. Individual red tree voles would have been eliminated from the clearcut harvests and fragmentation could have limited movement of remaining voles and also stunted recolonization. The Lookout Point Dam was constructed in 1954 which floods the Middle Fork Willamette River and removed suitable vole habitat (within the Lookout Point Reservoir pool). The Reservoir is 1,885 acres and some portion of that must have been suitable, or capable of being suitable vole habitat, which is now not only non-habitat but is a permanent barrier to movement between the north and south halves of the Lookout Point Watershed. Other past habitat impacts to red tree voles are the non-habitat corridors that exist along Highway 58, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the Bonneville Powerline Right of Way which all bisect the project area coincident with the Reservoir so generally, their effects can be lumped with the Reservoir impact. Thus some negative effects due to habitat removal from timber harvest, wildfire, and infrastructure placement have likely occurred in the past which may continue to reduce habitat suitability for red tree voles. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that may negatively affect red tree vole in the project area. As stands mature, suitable habitat should increase with much more acreage and continuity across the watershed for red tree vole. Taking into account the past, present, and foreseeable future actions, the overall persistence of the species in the project area is not a concern. Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris) There are past actions such as road building and timber harvest adjacent to streams in portions of the project area that have affected potential habitat for Crater Lake Tightcoil. These effects are incorporated into the environmental baseline condition. There are no present or foreseeable future actions that are currently recognized as having potential to contribute to cumulative affects to this species or its habitat. 116

117 Alternative C Survey and Manage Species Alternative C is the No Action alternative where the proposed project does not take place. No activities would take place in previously harvested stands to influence development of late-successional characteristics or promote elements of biodiversity. No SHAB restoration or enhancement would occur. No other actions that may benefit terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat would occur. The No Action alternative has no associated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on great gray owls, red tree voles, or Crater Lake tightcoils. It provides a benchmark for current condition, or a point of reference for describing the environmental effects under the Action Alternatives. Migratory Birds Current Conditions Migratory Birds Migratory birds are those that breed in the U.S. and winter south of the border in Central and South America. Many of our well known passerine songbirds (flycatchers, vireos, swallows, thrushes, warblers, and hummingbirds) fall into this category. Most others are included in the resident category. Birds are a vital element of every terrestrial habitat in North America. Conserving habitat for birds would contribute to meeting the needs of other wildlife and entire ecosystems. Forest Service Region 6 has compiled some information to assist biologists in disclosing effects to avian species during NEPA planning (USDA and USDI 2013). Effects to Forest Service sensitive birds, federally listed birds, and birds that are management indicator species have been addressed previously. We reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service migratory species of conservation concern for this Bird Conservation Region (i.e. BCR 5) that have habitat in Outlook Project proposed treatment units (USDA and USDI 2013). Five species fell into this category: northern goshawk, rufous hummingbird, olive-sided flycatcher, willow flycatcher, and purple finch. Bald eagle is another species fitting the criteria but is being addressed in the Biological Evaluation. We also reviewed the BLM Game Birds Below Desired Condition (GBBDC) and found one species that occurs in the project area Band-tailed Pigeon. An emerging concern for migratory birds in the Pacific Northwest is declining early-successional forest habitat. Early-seral conifer habitat is important for many migratory bird species, including four of the above species of conservation concern. In particular, there is a lack of complex early-seral habitat, which is early successional forests with abundant and diverse shrub understory composition, abundant large diameter snags and downed logs, and substantial green tree retention. While logging on private lands may create early-seral habitat, important elements such as large diameter snags, downed logs and live leave trees are rarely retained in any quantity, and shrub and forb understory may be suppressed by herbicide treatment. Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Migratory Birds This analysis focuses on proposed activities that would have the most potential for direct/indirect effects to these species. These activities include vegetative and fuels treatments. Road construction and snag creation activities should have no measurable effect on the species being analyzed. Additionally any difference between 117

118 the action alternatives is considered minor and discountable at the project scale, thus effects are considered equal unless otherwise noted. Band Tailed Pigeon and Northern Goshawk (Mid- to Late-Seral Species) These two birds are associated with closed canopy conifer forests and do occur in the project area. Currently about 70% of the project area Federal forestlands (32,178 acres) is 80 years old and thus generally suitable habitat for band-tailed pigeons. Goshawks are a little more selective, preferring older forests with larger trees so would be more likely to occupy the >200 year old stands (about 7,150 acres) which occur on 15% of the project area. The majority of the timber harvest proposed under this project is thinning in stands <80 years old; there should be no negative impact to these species. The maximum amount of thinning that would occur between all action alternatives is 3,635 acres which is less than 8% of all Federal forestland within the project area. These acres are net treatment acres which would be interspersed with riparian buffers, skips and gaps having a beneficial effect on these species as refugia. There could even be some beneficial effect since thinning should increase understory diversity and benefit hardwoods which may increase foraging opportunities for band-tailed pigeon whose key food sources include red elderberry, cascara and other berry-, fruit- and mast- producing shrubs and trees. Increased understory diversity and hardwood components of these young stands could also increase small mammal and bird prey diversity for goshawks. Under Alternative B, 83 net acres of mature stand treatment (>80 year old) harvest that would result in earlyseral conditions are proposed. This represents less than 0.3% of all habitat >80 years of age and would not result in any significant negative impact on either of these species. Additionally, Alternatives A and D propose mid-seral treatment of 142 net acres that would be converted to early-seral habitat. This represents about 1% of all mid-seral habitat (20-80 years old) within the project area, with no significant negative impact recognized from this activity. Early- seral conditions that benefit floristic diversity are likely to enhance foraging opportunities for band-tailed pigeons, and to a lesser extent, goshawks, which are more likely to forage in closed canopy forests. Short-term small pockets of early-seral habitat would also be created in the gaps that are prescribed within some of the thinned young stands. Up to 451 acres of gaps (from ¼ to ½ acre each) would be created across the project area. These gaps should function as early-seral habitat for approximately ten years. Fire and fuels treatments are prescribed in all of the action alternatives. Up to 986 acres of underburning may occur in the commercially thinned stands. In order to meet fuels treatment objectives, all such burning would be expected to occur outside the breeding season for these birds. While these prescribed burns could have a direct impact on birds occupying the burned areas, the effect would be short-term and be dispersed in both space and time. Prescribed burns would also reduce levels of down wood but prescriptions target small diameter down wood (< 5 dbh) so much of the large wood which is important for small mammal prey species should remain in the stands following treatment. Prescribed burning should stimulate the growth of hardwoods and forbs and create snags to benefit woodland and cavity nesting birds. There are no actions in this proposal that would have any consequential effect on these species. There are no meaningful differences between the action alternatives and their effects. Implementation of any Outlook Project Action Alternative is expected to be inconsequential and unlikely to result in any meaningful negative effect on these species habitat or the ability of these species to persist or become established in nearby habitat. Olive-sided Flycatcher, Willow Flycatcher, Rufous Hummingbird, and Purple Finch (Early-Seral and Edge Species) These four species are associated with early-seral and edge habitats and do occur in the project area. 118

119 Currently about 6% of the project area is in early-seral, plantation forest conditions of conifers less than 20 years old. Quantifying the exact amount of suitable habitat available for these species is challenging because they often do not require large patches of habitat and can occupy marginal conditions of early-seral that are transitioning into older forests. They can also thrive in riparian corridors that have some amount of open areas with hardwoods/shrubs for nesting and foraging. The major action in this project proposal is thinning young stands <80 years old which would have no effect on these species since they do not use that habitat. These species may benefit from the early-seral creation and early-seral maintenance portions of the project. Under Alternatives A and D, up to 142 net acres of new early-seral would be created by harvest activity in nine mid-seral managed stands, and 64 acres would be enhanced/maintained by non-commercial treatments in nine young plantations averaging 16 years old. Additionally, under Alternative B, 83 acres of mature stands would be converted to early-seral habitat by harvest in 10 natural stands. These actions could benefit these species, but amount to less than 1% of the project area. Fire and fuels treatments are prescribed under each action alternative. In the early seral habitat treatments, broadcast burning could occur. In order to meet fuels treatment objectives, all such burning would be expected to occur outside the breeding season for these birds. While these prescribed burns could have a direct impact on birds occupying the burned areas, the effect would be short-term and be dispersed in both space and time. Prescribed burning should stimulate growth of hardwoods and forbs as well as create snags thus benefitting these species. There are no other actions in this proposal that would have any consequential effect on these species. There are no meaningful differences between the action alternatives and their effects. Thus implementation of the Outlook Project is expected to be inconsequential and unlikely to result in any meaningful negative effect on these species habitat or the ability of these species to persist or become established in nearby habitat. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Migratory Birds There are past actions such as dam construction, road building and timber harvest throughout much of the project area that have affected potential habitat for migratory birds. These effects are incorporated into the environmental baseline condition. There are no ongoing or foreseeable future actions that would negatively affect the extent or amount of suitable habitat for Band-tailed Pigeon and Northern Goshawks. As younger stands mature, the amount and continuity of suitable habitat would increase across the watershed. While some early-seral habitat would be created and enhanced in this project, the amount is functionally insignificant in proportion to the overall project area. Thus the early-seral and edge species -- Olive-sided Flycatcher, Willow Flycatcher, Rufous Hummingbird, and Purple Finch would likely decline into the future as stands continue to mature in the absence of wildfire or other actions that would influence growth stage and development. Alternative C Migratory Birds Alternative C is the No Action alternative where the proposed project does not take place. No activities would take place in previously harvested stands to influence development of late-successional characteristics or promote elements of biodiversity. No other actions that may benefit terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat would occur. The No Action alternative has no associated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on any of the migratory species evaluated here. It provides a benchmark for current condition, or a point of reference for describing the environmental effects under the Action Alternative. 119

120 Water Quality The Outlook Diversity Landscape Project would take place on Willamette National Forest lands, wholly on the Middle Fork Ranger District. Oregon State Highway 58 and the Middle Fork of the Willamette River as it flows into and creates the Lookout Point Reservoir, split the project area into two sections, north and south of the reservoir. This project area (49,667 acres) is located within Deception Creek and Dexter Reservoir sixth field watersheds (HUC and , Table 26) which account for 66% of the Lookout Point Reservoir fifth field watershed (HUC ). The headwaters of the Lookout Point Watershed start high on the west side of the Cascade Mountains, flow through Hills Creek Reservoir and parallel to Highway 58 into the project area and eventually into Lookout Point Reservoir. The watershed is on the northeast side of the Middle Fork Ranger District. This 102,000-acre watershed (HUC # ) is in Lane County, Oregon. Approximately 48% percent of the Lookout Point Watershed is Willamette National Forest system land, with the remaining 52% being other public, private and municipal land. The Lookout Reservoir is one of two reservoirs on the Middle Fork of the Willamette River within the Middle Fork Ranger District. Table 26 Project Area by Sub-watersheds and Percent of Watershed Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed Sub-watersheds Acres % of Watershed Deception Creek Watershed 19, Dexter Reservoir Watershed 47, Total 102,000* 100 *Lost Creek Watershed compromises the remaining 34,869 acres of the fifth field, but none of it is National Forest Land or is in the project area. The geology of the project area is the Western Cascade Province, located at the northwest boundary of the Basin and Range Province. It consists of Oligocene to Pliocene aged rocks in the formations known as the Little Butte volcanic series, which include tuffs, tuffaceous sedimentary rock, lava and intrusions (Peck, et. al., 1964; Sharrod, 1991). The project area is constrained on both sides by high ridges forming a broad valley bisected by the Middle Fork Willamette River and has a dendritic drainage pattern typical of streams developed on these types of volcanic rocks. Streams are generally steep and narrow, separated by acute ridges. Mass wasting, hillslope and road-related land movements are the dominant forms of erosion in this watershed. They occur in steep areas prone to debris torrents associated with roads, concave slopes, headwalls and bedrock hollows. Large storm events increase soil moisture content on these slopes triggering slope failures. These types of failures add course grain sediments, rocks and wood to stream channels. Surface erosion is the result of hill-slope processes on large, deep-seated landslide areas. Such areas are found at lower to middle elevations and are a result of large land blocks slowly creeping downward or rapid movement of these blocks from seismic events. These areas are stable in their current slope geometry, but prone to surface erosion at the toe of slopes in stream channels or adjacent to road cuts. These deep seated landslides produce fine-grain sediments which move a greater distance from their source and have a potential to degrade water quality and aquatic habitat. The area s maritime climate means the winters are mild and wet with most of the precipitation falling between October and April with annual precipitation ranging from 45 inches at lower elevations to 70 inches at higher 120

121 elevations. Elevations below 1,500 feet typically receive precipitation in the form of rain, where elevations of 1,500 to 4,200 feet are the transient snow zone and elevations over 4,200 feet can store more than 5 feet of snow in winter. Summers are usually dry with average temperatures between seventy-five and eighty degrees. Unless otherwise noted, the geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Water Quality/Aquatic Resources includes the project activity units and the Deception Creek and Dexter Reservoir 6th Field sub-watersheds which encompass the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project area. These two sixth fields are made up of smaller face drainages (seventh field watersheds) that all flow into the Lookout Point Reservoir, making this reservoir a major component of the current conditions within these watersheds. The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis (WA 1997, updated 2012) discussed the physical domain of the project area. This report tiers to the WA and incorporates it by reference. It is important to note that the stream systems found within the project area have been influenced by past disturbances, both natural and human caused events that occur on the landscape. These natural and management induced changes to hydrology include logging, roads, reservoirs and large scale fires. The indicators vary depending on the spatial, temporal, physical and biological nature of the two sub-watersheds in the project area and shaped the existing condition of Stream Temperature, Turbidity, Peak and Base Flows and Riparian Condition within the project area. What follows is a discussion of how past disturbances have affected hydrology, stream channels and water quality in the project area to produce the existing condition. Current Conditions-Stream Shade and Stream Temperature Water Quality standards have been established by the State of Oregon, including temperature standards, in Chapter 340, Division 41 of the Oregon Administrative Rules. Water bodies that do not meet these standards are deemed water quality limited and are placed on a list by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (303(d)list). There are currently no 303d listed water quality limited water bodies within the project area (2012 ODEQ database). However, guidance from the Willamette Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requires all tributary streams to the Willamette to meet established criteria to protect beneficial uses including water quality. The Forest s Implementation Plan under the Willamette TMDL outlines a strategy for recovery that depends on implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) during management, actively restoring riparian areas where there is need and sufficient funding, and relying on passive restoration, particularly the regrowth of already established but young riparian vegetation. These criteria would all be met though TMDL implementation and would be applied to any planning such as this project (Willamette National Forest et. al, 2012). Stream temperature and land-use has long been a concern for aquatic species health. Land-use and management of water shading vegetation has been shown to be a dominant factor contributing to native aquatic species health in relation to appropriate in-stream temperatures (Holtby 1988, Borman and Larson 2003, Poole and Berman 2001). As is typical in the Western Cascades, water temperature controls the type and distribution of aquatic species in the watershed. The primary influence on water temperatures in the Outlook Landscape Diversity project area is solar radiation. Past timber harvest practices which did not leave adequate shade protection from solar radiation resulted in increased stream temperatures. Current harvest methods leave no-cut buffers that protect the primary shade zone, however, due to the past practices, shade retention in the project area remains important. Geology and soils greatly influence the vegetation that can exist on a site, as well as subsurface water storage areas which help regulate stream temperature by metering groundwater into stream systems. The local geology, soils and climate in the project area create excellent growing conditions in which native plants and trees thrive, providing needed shade from solar radiation. As a result of stream shade, snowmelt and groundwater inputs and climate, stream temperatures range between 16.8 C and 18.5 C. Table 27 shows the 121

122 maximum 7-day average high temperature for several streams within the project area. Changes in the range of maximum temperatures from one year to the next are attributed to the inter-annual differences in precipitation and stream flows. The annual timing of maximum temperature occurred between July and August in all instances. Table 27 7-Day Average Maximum Water Temperature of six streams within project area Stream Name 7-Day Average Maximum Water Temperature Days >17.8*C (64*F) Year O C Buckhead Creek Burnt Bridge Creek Crale Creek Deception Creek Duval Creek Goodman Creek School Creek Schweitzer Creek Tire Creek Past harvest near stream channels increased solar radiation inputs and caused subsequent increases in thermal loading of streams. Figure 15 below shows that depending on planning sub-drainage (p-sub, Willamette LRMP, 1990), past harvest has affected up to 43% of the total p-sub area. The bar graph shows that the majority of every p-sub consist of unmanaged and fire-regenerated stands (stands that burned, recovered and are now mature trees) and shows the portion of those managed lands (solid grey) that would be thinned (grey stripe) as part of this project. Approximately 5,300 acres or 27% of the Riparian Reserve network within the project area has been impacted by past harvest. Increased water temperature resulted until such time that shade recovered with regrowth on the site. Today, much of the streamside shade in the previously harvested units of this project area is currently functioning in early to mid-seral vegetation conditions. Many of these areas are now light limited due to closed canopies and primary production in streams may be limited by light exclusion. In addition, 73% of Riparian Reserves in the project area p-subs are unmanaged at this time and within the range of natural variability, providing high quality shade within the historic range. 122

123 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Forested Land History by Drainage Armet Buckhead Cain Carpet hill Crale Deception Dell Duvall Goodman Hazel Fern Hospital North South Rhodes Rock RollingRiffle School Schweitzer Tire WhiteheadBridge Project Area Thinning Managed Unmanaged Fire Regen Figure 15 Past land activities by drainage. Deception Fire (2014): burned 136 acres of Managed acres, 369 acres of Fire Regeneration acres and 270 acres of Unmanaged acres within the Deception Drainage which is not reflected in this figure. Road failures are a point source for thermal effects. Road failure-induced debris torrents can remove riparian vegetation, allowing additional solar radiation to enter the wetted area of the stream. Typically, these failures are small and do not have a measurable effect at the watershed scale. Within the project area shallow debris torrent failures associated with the road system can create scoured channels that act as heat sinks, creating an increase in water temperature as it flows over the channel s surface. The increased temperature generally occurs in the immediate vicinity of the failure. Cooling downstream can occur where downstream tributaries or subsurface flow through gravel bars add cool water, but cooling rarely occurs through bedrock-dominated reaches. Solar radiation is the greatest factor controlling stream temperature (Brown and Krygier 1970, Johnson 2004, Lee and Rinne 1980, Sinokrat and Stefan 1993, Webb and Zhang 1997). The natural and anthropogenic removal/loss of shading vegetation can greatly alter stream temperatures by changing the amount of direct solar radiation reaching the water s surface. Wildland fire has some of the highest potential to affect shading vegetation. A recent example was the 2014 Deception Creek Fire which burned approximately 7,400 acres (3,330 (45%) unburned, 3,236 (44%) low severity, 624 (8%) moderate severity and 187 (3%) high severity) within the Deception Creek seventh-field watershed. The losses of riparian vegetation by fire (and therefore stream shade) would likely lead to higher summer stream temperatures than during pre-fire conditions. These increased temperatures would persist until the vegetation recovers to a level that provides effective shade similar to levels that existed pre-fire. As seen in other fires on the District, shrub and forb vegetation recovers within 5-10 years while full overstory recovery takes decades. Within the project area, large landscape fires at the turn of the last century and then persistent logging resulted in increased stream temperatures. Outside the Deception Fire in this project area, the vegetation is fully recovered from past fires and logging operations. This is likely why there are no streams within the project area that are 303d listed for temperature. 123

124 Environmental Consequences-Stream Shade and Stream Temperature Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Stream Shade and Stream Temperature For this project all perennial streams (Class 1, 2 and 3) are provided with at least an 80-foot no-cut buffer to retain effective stream shade. Prescriptions for these buffers are outlined in the Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies (USDA and USDI 2005). This document provides a description of the Rapid Shade model used to analyze shade and makes recommendations for the width of riparian protection adjacent to perennial stream channels that provides stream shade for the period of greatest solar loading (between 1000 and 1400 hours), known as the primary shade zone. It also provides the recommendation for the width of the riparian area that has potential to provide shade in the morning and afternoon ( hours; hours), considered to be the secondary shade zone. In over-dense riparian areas like the ones in this project area, optimum shade can be provided by the primary shade zone alone, and the secondary shade zone may contribute little to shade since trees in the primary shade zone are already blocking the sun s solar radiation (USDA and USDI 2005). Thinning within Riparian Reserves would only occur where vegetation density is high and would benefit from thinning. Thinning would not occur in the primary shade zone of any perennial stream and would not result in less than 50% canopy closure in the secondary shade zone. The width of the primary shade zone in the action area varies depending on slope, aspect, stand density, stream width and canopy closure. Taking all these variables into consideration at the site-specific scale, the designated (Class 1 and 2-150ft, 3-80ft) no-cut buffer protects the primary shade zone on all perennial streams. Intermittent (Class 4) streams are dry during the portion of the year when elevated temperatures occur and therefore temperature is not a key issue. However, a foot no-cut buffer is in place to protect bank stability and retain trees for other resource objectives, providing substantial shade. No gaps would be placed closer than 170feet from the stream channel, protecting the primary shade zone. All thin to 30% residual Canopy Cover units would maintain a no-cut buffer of the full Riparian Reserve width of 340feet for classes 1 and 2 and 170feet for classes 3 and 4, respectively. Additional actions subsequent to timber harvest include fuels treatments to manage fuel levels (within thinning units), special habitat restoration (outside thinning units), early-seral habitat enhancement/maintenance (outside thinning units), weed abatement (outside thinning units), wildlife snag creation (outside and within thinning units), in-channel wood placement and mitigation of existing soil compaction (within thinning units). Effects to shade and subsequent effects on stream temperature from these actions are as follows: Fuels treatments include burning landings, hand piles, machine piles, underburning and broadcast burning within thinning units. The above mentioned stream buffers apply to all fuels treatment activities with the exception of allowing creeping ground fire to back into the buffers where applicable. As a result no additional loss of shade providing vegetation is expected and no measurable impact to stream temperature would occur. Early seral habitat enhancement/maintenance units would have the full Riparian Reserve width buffered due to the nature of returning an area to an early-seral stage by removing current vegetation. These buffers would ensure no loss of shade providing vegetation and no measurable impact to stream temperature would occur. Weed abatement consists of removing invasive weeds by hand and/or chemical treatment. Only targeted invasive species would be removed and the guidelines set forth by the Forest Weed Abatement EA would be followed. No loss of shade providing vegetation is expected and therefore, stream temperature would not be affected. 124

125 Wildlife snag creation would occur on approximately 2,000 acres within the project area. While some shade providing trees may be converted to snags, no impact to stream shade or stream temperature is expected. The individual trees that would be selected would be throughout the project area, where the occasional loss of one shade tree would have no measurable impact on stream temperature. In-channel wood placement would involve tipping and falling and leaving approximately 5,800 trees in total with 3-5 per acre or 70 to 120 per stream mile. The tree selection was designed to enhance stream complexity by adding additional wood to deficit stream segments while causing no measurable increase in stream temperature. Only non-dominant, non-streambank-rooted trees would be selected with an emphasis on conifer trees with less developed horizontal and vertical canopies. All riparian areas where in-channel wood augmentation would occur are currently overstocked and would not be impacted by the removal of 3-5 trees per acre. There would be no measurable increase to stream temperature as a direct result of this action. However, an indirect effect of increased in-stream wood would be the accumulation of gravel at instream wood locations, leading to more subsurface cooling of water, a positive benefit from this restoration action. Mitigation of existing soil compaction would occur within units that are above or near the standards and guidelines for soil compaction levels (greater than 20% in landings, roads and skid trails at the unit scale). Compacted soils are a result of past actions and are often visible due to the lack of vegetation. The decompaction of these soils would allow for recovery of soil productivity. No measurable impacts to stream temperature would result from this action due to lack of proximity of this action to riparian buffers. Alternative C Stream Shade and Stream Temperature Direct and indirect effects of the no action alternative on stream temperature are not anticipated. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects on stream temperature. No action would allow the riparian vegetation to recover at its current pace and not at a potentially increased rate that could result from thinning. The no action alternative would allow water temperatures in streams in the project area to continue to recover toward more natural levels, as previously disturbed riparian vegetation re-grows and re-establishes streamside shade. Untreated stands would, however, be more vulnerable to catastrophic fires as overstocked stand health would continue to decline. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Stream Shade and Stream Temperature Due to design features planned to protect existing stream shade, no direct or indirect effect to stream temperature for any of the four alternatives is expected. The effects of potential future projects and past projects, in addition to this proposed project are looked at wholly to determine whether their combined effects could impact stream temperature. Such additional projects and events that have the potential to impact shade are: past timber harvest, recent fires (Deception Creek 2014) and the future harvest of roadside hazard trees within the Deception Fire. An estimated 303 acres of Riparian Reserve within the Deception Creek watershed burned at a moderate or high severity level. This estimated acreage was calculated based on satellite imagery flown post-fire. While this area is still closed to entry, the 2014 Deception Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) report indicates that a majority of the area burned in a mosaic pattern. This in combination with the low total acres burned (with the exception of the Deception Drainage itself) would result in little expected increase to stream temperature, but some increase may occur as a result of this natural event. The riparian area of the Deception drainage had areas that burned hot and as a result, there is the potential for temperature increase in these heavier burned areas. The roadside harvest of danger trees would occur within 100 feet of designated roads and all streams would be buffered. Individual hazard trees would be marked for felling. No 125

126 additional loss of stream shade providing trees is expected; therefore, no increase in stream temperature is expected. With the exception of the recent fire in the Deception Creek drainage, no single past or perceivable future action is expected to increase stream temperature, neither is the combination of all these actions given the Best Management Practices being implemented as part of these actions. Current Condition-Stream Flows/Disturbance History Traditionally, projects involving timber harvest on the Willamette National Forest are analyzed for their cumulative impact on the quantity and timing of peak flows and water yields using an accounting methodology known as Aggregate Recovery Percentage or ARP, as specified by the Forest Plan (1990). The ARP model compares the acres of a project area within the transient snow zone that is recovered against a threshold value (Midpoint) that was calibrated for the area during development of the Forest Plan. The midpoint values were developed based on the soil, geology, vegetation, climate, and stream channel conditions of each subwatershed and are intended to represent a minimum safe level of vegetative recovery to prevent substantial alteration of peak flow regimes as a result of management activities. Recovery generally occurs when stand diameters average 8 diameter breast height (dbh) and canopy covers exceed 70%. The analysis is based on data extracted from the Forest s VEGIS database, which includes information about all past harvest activities and recent fires that have occurred in the sub-watershed. Currently, ARP levels within the Deception Creek and Dexter Reservoir sub-watersheds range from 87% to 98% as of 2015, above the Forest Plan Midpoint values. The area s maritime climate means the summers are usually dry with average temperatures between seventyfive to eighty degrees. Winters are mild and wet with most of the precipitation falling between October and April with annual precipitation ranging from 45 at lower elevations to 70 inches at higher elevations. Peak flows occur between December and May with low flow typically occurring in September. Peak flows occur during rain-on-snow events in the transient snow zone which encompasses nearly 74% of this project area. The transient snow zone is the range of elevation (1,500 to 4,200 feet) that receives winter precipitation in the form of either rain or snow, where elevations below 1,500 feet typically receive precipitation in the form of rain and elevations over 4,200 feet generally accrue more than 5 feet of snow. Numerous past actions such as large dam construction and past timber harvest have shaped the current conditions on the land and are covered more in depth in the Cumulative Effects section of this evaluation criterion. The results of these past actions have also created new management practices. As a result of the new management practices and recovery time, peak flows have decreased and some channels conditions have started to regain some of the complexity, diversity, and richness with vegetative re-growth, a closing canopy, and an intact riparian zone. Sediment is accumulating in association with new wood and reducing the energy found in the system. Areas of subsurface (hyporheic) flow are being created and reconnected to historic areas from the increase of wood storing sediment and dispersing flow onto existing floodplains. In addition to human activities, wildland fires have the potential to impact stream flows when significant amounts of vegetation are lost. While the Deception Creek Fire burned approximately 7,400 acres (including the Umpqua National Forest, 811 of which were at high or moderate severity) the over-all impact to the watershed was not enough to result in measurable changes to stream flow. The hydrology is currently responding well within its natural range with the existing vegetation condition. 126

127 Environmental Consequences-Stream Flows/Disturbance History Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Stream Flows/Disturbance History Table 28 summarizes levels of recovery immediately after implementation of this project for each of the alternatives. The incremental change associated with each alternative is determined by comparing these values with existing condition values. Completion of implementation is estimated to occur by Table 28 Aggregate Recovery Percent (ARP) levels (harvest estimated 2023) Planning subdrainages Existing Condition (2015) Alt. A (2023) Alt. B (2023) Alt. D (2023) Midpoint ARP Burnt-Buckhead Cain-Armet Crale Duval East Deception Hospital-Carpet Lower Goodman Middle Deception North-South North Shore Tributaries Rhodes-School Rock Rolling-Fern Schweitzer Tire West Deception West Goodman White-Dell ARP levels are maintained well above recommended values by all alternatives in the affected sub-watersheds, even immediately after implementation when the potential for impacts to vegetative recovery would be greatest. Therefore, no altered peak stream flow regimes are anticipated from implementation of the proposed actions. As seen in most other thinning projects on the Middle Fork Ranger District, selective harvest has very little potential to affect peak flows in the transient snow zone. 127

128 Alternative C Stream Flows/Disturbance History Alternative C, No Action, would result in no changes to existing peak flows as there would be no change to the current condition of any overstory vegetation. Existing stands have and would continue to recover to hydrologically-functioning conditions, and stream flows would remain at near natural levels. No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on streams flow would be expected in the project area under the no action alternative. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Stream Flows/Disturbance History Current ARP calculations for the planning sub-drainages within the project area are all well above Mid-Point ARP values. The values presented in Figure 4 include the effects of past harvests within the sub-drainages and the modeled effects of this project (see discussion by alternative under Effects of Implementation). Prior to this planning effort, the last know active timber sales in the area date back to approximately Based on ARP modeling, recovery is between 87% and 98 % (2015) for these sub-drainages. Land type sensitivity mid-points for the sub-watersheds (Forest Plan threshold of concern for peak flows) found within the project area are 70-80%, meaning that significant vegetative recovery of these sub-watersheds has occurred. Past regeneration harvest opened hill-slopes to snow accumulation and subsequent rain-on-snow events resulting in higher peak flows and increased scour in some channels. Within the last 20 years, timber practices have changed from regeneration harvest to commercial thinning and larger no-cut buffers have been used. However, older clearcuts still exist within the project area, allowing accumulations of snow, but these areas are growing at a rate expecting full recovery within 10 years. While snow accumulates in thinned areas, it does not pose the same risk for rain-on-snow events. In addition, the Middle Fork of the Willamette is controlled upstream of the project area by the Hills Creek Dam and immediately downstream of the project area by the Lookout Point Dam, making dams the most hydrologically impactful feature on the landscape. The controlled flows reduce annual peak discharge, decrease range of daily discharge, and reduce sediment and large wood loads impacting the downstream geomorphology and habitat quality. The Lookout Point dam has the capacity to store 453,000 acre-feet of water and cover a surface area of 4,360 acres, 2,167 acres of which are in the project area. Depending on pool height, the majority of the small drainages within the project area flow into the Lookout Point Reservoir and not the Middle Fork of the Willamette River. In summary, no direct or indirect effect to stream flow/disturbance history for any of the four alternatives is expected. The effects of potential future projects and past projects, in addition to this proposed project are looked at wholly to determine whether their combined effects could impact stream flow. Such projects include large scale dams, past and future timber harvest and large-scale wildland fire as discussed under this criterion. No cumulative effects are expected as a result of the combination of these projects/events. Current Conditions-Sedimentation and Roads Roads continue to be the largest source of human-caused sedimentation in the project area, especially at stream crossings where road sediment can enter streams and undersized culverts can fail during flood events. The construction and use of roads can be a substantial source of sediment in forested basins (Swanson and Dyrness 1975, Reid and Dunne 1984). Roads have three primary effects on water routing and yield: 1) they intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and road cut-banks and intercept subsurface water moving down the hill slope; 2) they concentrate flow, either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and 3) they divert or 128

129 reroute water from flow paths that it would take were the road not present. Roads modify natural drainage patterns and can increase hill slope erosion and downstream sedimentation. Often times, improperly designed or maintained road ditch lines and road fills input substantial amounts of fine sediment into the stream system. Undersized and/or improperly maintained culverts have a greater risk of failure than properly-sized and maintained culverts (Robison et al., 1999). Sediments from road failures at stream crossings are deposited directly into stream habitats and can have both local and downstream effects to aquatic organisms. These include alterations of the channel pattern or morphology, increased bank erosion and turbidity, changes in channel width, substrate composition, stability of slopes adjacent to the channels, and riparian vegetation. All of these changes result in important biological consequences that can affect the entire stream ecosystem (USDA, 2000). There are approximately 243 miles of system roads within the project area. The Outlook Project would utilize between 129 to 142 miles of haul routes depending on the alternative; of this, 16 miles are asphalt surface, 119 to 130 miles are aggregate surface and 6 miles are native surface. Haul route roads would receive maintenance that could consist of brushing of roadside vegetation, falling of danger trees, blading of roadbeds, cleaning of ditches and culvert inlets and outlets, removing slough and slide material, and placing aggregate and/or asphalt surfacing. Many culverts are deteriorating and need to be replaced to facilitate timber haul. Culvert replacement would occur at perennial and intermittent stream road crossings. In addition, ditch relief culverts would be replaced as needed. These standard maintenance activities occur on all roads when commercial activity occurs or on a rotating basis determined by use and need. Of the 243 miles of system roads within the project area, 26 miles are currently closed and an additional 52 to 130 miles, depending on the alternative, would be closed and stored as part of this project. Currently there are 3.2 miles of existing spur road reconstruction and another 2.2 miles of new spur road construction that would take place within the project area. Temporary road construction has been kept to a minimum, utilizing the existing system wherever possible. Temporary roads that are constructed for this project would be decommissioned at the end of the sale. Wet weather haul would occur on 137 (16 paved and 121 aggregate) of the 243 miles of system haul roads, as identified in the Outlook Landscape Diversity Transportation Report (Analysis File). Roads identified for wet weather haul would have a surfacing depth (engineer s professional judgment) to hold up to wet weather haul and all drainage maintenance would be completed prior to any haul. Environmental Consequences-Sedimentation and Roads Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Sedimentation and Roads Road work associated with this project includes replacement of a number of culverts that are currently in poor condition. Replacement would require in-stream work in these locations and work would be done during lowflow periods for perennial streams and non-flow periods for intermittent streams. In addition, Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as sediment barriers and flow bypass would minimize impacts on perennial streams. It is not possible to do this work without some sediment delivery, and accurate estimates are difficult to predict. Depending on weather behavior and other variable factors, sediment yields should fall between 0.5 and 1.5 cubic yards per perennial and intermittent installation and approximately 0.25 cubic yards per cross drain, based on professional experience. The average fill volume is estimated to be 200 cubic yards per perennial and intermittent culverts. This material is at risk of entering the streams and potentially generating debris torrents if the existing culvert fails. Table 29 provides a summary of these replacements and the potential amount of fill material that would have a reduced risk of entering streams, as well as estimates of the amount of sediment produced from the culvert replacements. The maximum estimate of sediment yield 129

130 from the culvert replacements would be between cubic yards for Alternatives A, B, and D. In comparison, the estimated volume of fill stabilized is 21,600-22,600 cubic yards for Alternatives A, B, and D. Table 29 Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative. Stream Type Number of Culverts Installed/Replaced/ Removed Cubic Yards of Fill Stabilized Sediment Yields from Culvert Replacements (Cubic Yards) Alternatives A, B, and D Perennial ,600-10, Intermittent ,000-11, Total ,600-22, Alternative C None The road management activities, at a minimum, would include maintenance of proper drainage through maintaining existing structures, installing water bars, and/or restoring natural drainage features. Also included would be the installation of new ditch-relief culverts and replacement of existing ditch-relief culverts that are currently in poor condition. These actions would reduce the likelihood of sediment leaving the road with runoff by reducing the average distance between drainage structures and consequently, the amount of water that each structure needs to handle. Less water on the road translates to less sediment-carrying capacity. Timber haul has the potential to generate sediment from the road surface and deliver sediment to road side ditches and stream crossings. The previously mentioned road maintenance is done to bring the roads up to engineering standards that can with stand timber harvest and minimize sediment generation and delivery. Dry haul (occurring during the dry season, typically June 1 to October 31) has the potential to generate sediment when conditions are dry enough to create road dust. When these conditions occur, roads are wetted to keep fines on the roadbed, greatly reducing the potential for sediment to be generated and delivered to streams. Wet haul (occurring during the wet season, typically November 1 to May 31) has the greatest potential to generate and deliver sediments due to the saturated soils and surface flow to generate and transport suspended fine sediments. Prior to haul, roads are assessed by engineers and road upgrades are designed for designated wethaul roads to hold up to the haul (Appendix G). These standards, when followed, and the implementation of BMPs greatly reduce the risk of sediment generation and delivery. Timber Sale Administrators, Hydrologists, Engineers and Fish Biologists monitor road conditions for evidence of road degradation, sediment generation and sediment delivery. Haul maybe suspended during wet periods to prevent sediment generation and delivery along with the use of sediment barriers such as straw, slash, spot rocking and silt fences to reduce the risk of sediment delivery to streams. Roads listed as no wet haul would not be hauled on during the wet season (typically November 1 st to May 31 st ). Other proposed actions that have the potential to generate sediment are fuels treatments, special habitat restoration, early-seral habitat enhancement/maintenance, in-channel wood placement and mitigation of existing soil compaction. Stream buffers apply to all fuels treatment activities with the exception of allowing creeping ground fire to back into the buffers where applicable. While fuel treatments would consume downed woody debris and some small shrubs, the fire prescription is to keep the fire at a low intensity to prevent 130

131 creating hydrophobic soils. Using a combination of a low intensity ground fire and stream buffers, there would be green vegetation between fuel treatment areas and streams which would slow overland flow and intercept fire-related sediments before they enter the stream. The same situation would apply to any fuel treatment associated with early-seral habitat enhancement/maintenance. In-channel wood placement would generate sediment when the falling tree makes contact with the stream bank. The amount of sediment created would be very short in duration and would be immeasurable downstream. Soil de-compaction would result in currently compacted and vegetated soils being disturbed and exposed to rain displacement, but with the use of BMPs such as seeding and covering all disturbed soils with straw or woody debris, no sediment from this work is expected to reach stream channels. Alternative C Sedimentation and Roads Alternative C continues the current management situation regarding road maintenance in the project area. This alternative would result in none of the road improvements that are included in Alternatives A, B and D leaving the roads in their existing condition. Current sediment delivery from road segments in need of maintenance would continue to increase stream turbidity, particularly during rain-on-snow events. The potential for a road failure to deliver large quantities of sediment to stream channels and the connectivity of the road ditches to the stream network could be increased. Such failures are usually the result of clogged, undersized culverts or inadequate ditch line maintenance. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Sedimentation and Roads Additional past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within the 5th field that have the potential to contribute sediment cumulatively are the Deception Fire (2014) and, the Deception Post-fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project. The road work involved with these projects has the potential for initial small sediment increases that would be short-term (one to five years depending on the action). These short-term increases would not all occur at the same time, minimizing the overall impact. Other actions (i.e. timber sales, road maintenance and trail construction) within the 5th field no longer contribute sediment. The Deception Fire consisted of approximately 7,400 acres, the majority of which were unburned (45%) and low severity burns (44%). Of the remaining 811 acres (624 or 8% moderate and 187 or 3% high), only 303 of which were within designated Riparian Reserves. As a result of the low number of high severity burned acres, the mosaic pattern that left buffers of live vegetation and the estimated vegetation recovery to start within a year of the fire field surveys for Deception Post-fire Hazard Tree Removal Project showed that the first summer after the fire resulted in ground cover growth, while the first winter resulted in small scale sediment movement. The BAER report estimated sediment movement as high as 240tons/acre within the high severity burn areas located on steep slopes. As of the 2015 summer, there was little evidence of the predicted sediment movement. The increased risk of sediment movement would persist until enough vegetation and tree growth occurs to stabilize these areas. The Deception Post-fire Hazard Tree Removal Project consists of felling dead trees from the fire that were deemed hazardous trees due to their proximity to roads. Trees within 100 feet of designated roads would be felled and removed in high mortality areas. Since only dead trees would be cut and equipment would not leave the road prism, the potential for increased sediment yield is minimal. This project should be completed in 2016 and would not still be contributing to cumulative effects during the operational time period of the Outlook Diversity project. 131

132 Cumulatively, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions result in short-term effects that occur at times when they would no longer be generating measureable sediment during the Outlook Diversity project and as a result would not contribute to a negative cumulative effect. Current Condition-Riparian Conditions Timber harvest and the resulting road construction peaked on National Forest system lands in the 1970s. As a result, the majority of logging and associated activities occurred prior to the implementation of the Willamette Forest Plan in Those pre-forest Plan activities included the removal of riparian vegetation which provided large wood and shade to streams. The purpose of this section is to disclose the effects of this project on riparian conditions as well as begin to address the need to restore the health of overstocked riparian areas and the in-stream large wood component to riparian areas. The following aquatic (A) and Terrestrial (T) objectives were developed as a result of those needs; Larger tree size and species diversity in young, overstocked managed stands (T&A) Vegetative species diversity (T&A) Greater connectivity between channels and floodplains (A) Side channel connectivity with main stem channels (A) Development of late successional habitat characteristics for wildlife dispersal (T) Deeper crowns for shade, wildlife habitat and lichens in young overstocked stands (T) Micro-site maintenance for mollusks including 10-meter buffers for known locations of species of concern (T) Maintenance of existing downed wood levels created by natural instability and past management activities (T&A) Road decommission in riparian areas to restore wetland connectivity, soil productivity and connectivity between uplands and riparian (T&A) A Riparian Reserve analysis for the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project using Northwest Forest Plan definitions was completed using GIS (see Figure 16). Analysis shows 40 percent of the Outlook Landscape Diversity project area is designated Riparian Reserves. Figure 16 shows the project area broken into seral stages and the Riparian Reserves. The seral stages by year are 0-20 or early-seral in tan, or mid-seral in light green, or late-seral or fire-regenerated in dark green, greater than 200 or old-growth as orange and non-forested in brown. These unmanaged areas (dark green and old-growth) of the map within Riparian Reserves represent areas that are existing high quality sources of shade and large wood supply, both now and into the future. On the other hand, previously managed areas (tan and light green) represent portions of the landscape that have been heavily managed in the past and have Riparian Reserves that are in need of treatment to restore proper structure and function of the replanted forest. In this project area, Riparian Reserves that include this stand type are often continuous and homogenous with little diversity, structure or complexity. This map offers a multiple sub-watershed context for how project prescriptions in Riparian Reserves should be implemented to assure that large wood and shade amounts are provided in a larger watershed context and not just at the unit scale. 132

133 Figure 16 The Outlook Landscape Diversity project area by seral stage. Several past disturbance systems have affected the riparian habitat within the Outlook Project area; Table 30 displays the resulting seral class of the Riparian Reserve within the project area. Much of the action area is located within previously managed timber stands and fire regenerated stands. However, the past practice of removing large wood from streams during timber harvest has the largest and longest lasting impact on instream wood quality and complexity. This past practice in combination with wildland fire resulted in the majority of streams within the project area being below desired levels of large in-stream wood, most are all together lacking large wood. A 2013 wood survey conducted in sample reaches of 7.2 miles of class III and IV streams within the project area determined that medium (>24 dia at a length of 50 from large end) and large (>36 dia at a length of 50 from large end) wood counts ranged between 1.7 and 21.0 pieces per mile whenever one or both sides of the stream had been managed (Stream Inventory Handbook, 2013 version 2.13). These numbers are well below the desired numbers of 80 pieces per mile of medium and large-size categories. 133

134 Table 30 Structural Condition of Project Area and proposed treatment in Riparian Reserves. Seral Class Acreag e in the Project Area by Seral Class Percen t of Project Area Riparian Reserve acres within Project Area by Seral Class Percent of Seral Class within Riparian Reserve in Project Area Planned Treated Riparian Reserve Acres Percent of Riparian Reserve acres being treated out of Total Riparian Reserve Acres within Project Area Earlyseral 2,962 6% % Mid-seral 11,654 24% 4,387 38% 820* 4% Late-seral 24,910 50% 8,699 35% Old growth 7,068 14% 3,189 45% Non forest 604 1% % Reservoir 2,167 5% 2,167 Total 49, ,589 *19% of mid-seral Riparian Reserve acres within project area would be treated The lack of large and effective wood in stream channels left the systems very simplistic and high energy, resulting in little channel complexity and poor aquatic habitat. In addition, the lack of large wood causes increased channel instability and bank erosion (Montgomery, 1997). Table 30 shows the current condition of the Riparian Reserves by structural condition. While 62% of Riparian Reserves within the project area are late-seral and old growth, the two seral classes with the greatest potential to naturally deliver large wood to streams, the wood levels are still below pre-management levels in the majority of streams within the project area. Maser and Sedell in 1994 showed that an old-growth wilderness drainage had ten times the amount of large wood per unit length of stream than a stream that had its adjacent forest logged in the previous 30 years. Recovery is slowly occurring with inputs of wood from unmanaged stream-side areas, the development of large wood within close proximity to stream channels in previously managed riparian areas and upland debris torrents, which are episodic in nature (~ every 35 years). Compounding the issue of low LWD numbers within stream channels is the existing condition of the adjacent stands (second growth, even-aged, closed canopy 40- to 55-year-old plantations), a condition that is also the result of previous intensive timber management regimes. These second growth, overstocked stands are the major natural source of LWD to enter these stream channels. The stocking levels and structure of these stands could substantially delay the development of late-successional forest characteristics. About 38 percent (4,387 acres) of the area in plantations (~11,600 acres) is within Riparian Reserves. The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update (2012) identified the need for silvicultural treatments in these areas to increase stand and landscape diversity in terms of species and structure. Such treatments could improve the health and vigor of these stands, and accelerate their development of late-successional forest characteristics. As previously mentioned, recovery is slowly occurring with inputs of wood from unmanaged stream side areas, the development of large wood within close proximity to stream channels in previously managed riparian areas and from upland debris torrents. However, these streams need large wood within the next decade. The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update (2012) identified this need and prescribed to introduce suitably-sized large wood material into stream channels where needed, as funding is available. As a result of 134

135 the current need and the immediate benefit of effective wood in streams, part of this project would be the augmentation of effective wood into stream channels. The previously mentioned 2013 stream surveys were completed for 7.2 miles of class I, II, and III streams with combinations of managed and unmanaged riparian seral classes (see Table 31). The survey revealed that even if only one side of a stream reach was logged and there was mature vegetation on the other side, there was very little wood in-stream due to the fact that all wood had been pulled from the stream during logging of the managed side. On the other hand, sampled reaches with mature vegetation on both sides had 53 to 78 pieces per mile on average (including small pieces), further showing that managed stream reaches are severely lacking in the project area. Small wood was also counted. While smaller wood is not as persistent and effective as large wood, it can still provide some function in a smaller stream channel. The main conclusions from the surveys were that when including small wood in the count, there was a significant difference in the pieces of wood per mile and that the older the riparian seral class on both sides of the stream, more small, medium and large pieces were present. As a result, approximately 50 miles of stream within the project area has been identified and surveyed for the additional recruitment of effective wood into the streams by two methods (drop/leave and tree pulling) (see Figure 17). These restoration activities may occur within or outside no-cut buffers. This project would add 70 to 120 trees per mile, with the following selection criteria: conifer and hardwood trees within 100ft of stream channel favor sub-dominant trees favor conifers with less developed canopies (vertically and horizontally) trees in saturated soils/perennially wet areas would not be selected favor trees not providing bank stability acres dispersed across drainages (see Table 31) drop and leave method would be used in areas inaccessible for tree pulling (needs road access) stream treatment reaches selected based on survey data and analysis (see Table 31) 135

136 Figure 17 Large Wood Augmentation by Drainage 136

137 Table 31 Large Wood Augmentation by Drainage as Displayed in Figure 17 Drainage Drainage Acres Riparian Reserve Acres- Total Riparian Reserve Acres- Thinned % of Riparian Reserve acres- Thinned Tree Placement Acres % of Riparian Reserve acres- Tree Placement Armet % 46 7% Buckhead % 88 7% Cain % 25 6% Carpet Hill % 16 10% Crale % 55 5% Deception % 0* 0% Dell % 41 8% Duvall % % Goodman % 202 6% Hazel-Fern % 11 2% Hospital % 10 4% North-South % 32 4% Rhodes % 19 2% Rock % 40 3% Rolling Riffle % 12 3% School % 68 8% Schweitzer % 94 14% Tire % % Whitehead-Bridge % % *0 acres of tree placement would occur due to the Deception Fire. 137

138 Table Wood Count Stream Survey by Seral Class Combination. Riparian Seral Class Combinations MANAGED 0-20yrs stream 0-20yrs 0-20yrs 0-20yrs 0-20yrs 20-80yrs yrs >200yrs Survey Distance (ft.) S,M,L Wood M,L Wood S,M,L Wood per mile M,L Wood per mile 20-80yrs 20-80yrs Weighted S,M,L Wood per mile Weighted M,L Wood per mile 20-80yrs yrs yrs >200yrs UNMANAGED yrs yrs yrs >200yrs stream >200yrs >200yrs Total (7.2 miles) *wood surveys were not done for 0-20yrs class due to their location at high elevations (mainly class IV) and accounts for small portion of project area *S=small wood> 12 at length of 25 from large end, M=medium wood >24 at length of 25 from large end and L=large wood >36 at length of 50 from large end (stream inventory Handbook, 2013 version 2.13) In addition to the lack of large in-stream wood, fragmentation of habitat and current roads within the Riparian Reserves are of concern to riparian health. The water routing and sediment impacts of roads were covered under the Sedimentation and Roads section. Environmental Consequences-Riparian Conditions Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Riparian Conditions These action alternatives would variable-density thin 820 acres or approximately 4% of Riparian Reserve acres within the project, incorporating needed diversity and complexity back into these riparian areas while using no-cut primary shade zone protection to retain shade and micro climate near streams. Underburning would occur within Riparian Reserves but outside the no-cut buffers. Tree mortality from heat in areas with high lichen accumulations would be minimized by utilizing a lighting pattern such that the fire behavior is limited to creeping on the ground. Handlines would be created outside the no-cut buffers unless wetline or existing roads could be used around all harvest unit boundaries which are prescribed for underburning. Gaps of one to three acres would be created outside of secondary shade zones (beyond 170 feet from the stream, or one site potential tree). 138

139 One of the expected results of thinning in Riparian Reserves is the development of diverse stand structure and the acceleration of forests toward late-successional conditions. Thinning can also accelerate development of large diameter trees that would eventually fall and provide large wood structure in streams and adjacent riparian areas. Maintaining the existing hardwood component also adds to structural diversity and complexity. Riparian stand thinning within the design of the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project is expected to maintain aquatic habitat quality. Studies by Johnston, et al. 2011, observed that 90% of the 90th-percentile source distances were within 18 m (60ft) of the channel, indicating that a buffer width of 60ft would maintain 90% of expected LWD inputs 90% of the time for streams. Under all action alternatives, the class III buffers are 80ft, with class I and II being greater than 150ft, therefore having minimal impact to future LWD input. Introduction of low severity fire into Riparian Reserves is also anticipated to increase the plant species and stand structural diversity. At low burn severities, large wood would not be removed from the Riparian Reserves. A local difference in soil moisture and relative humidity and, the pattern of burning in the Riparian Reserves is expected to resemble a patchwork mosaic of unburned and lightly burned sites. In the unburned portions, the existing understory vegetation (including conifers) would be retained. In lightly burned areas, understory conifers would experience some mortality, but fire endurer species such as willow and other hardwood shrubs would re-sprout and, in some instances, be stimulated into increased growth in response to the disturbance. The net result would be increased plant species and stand structural diversity, with a closer resemblance to historic stand condition than non-thinned plantations. Riparian Reserve effects discussion, summarized here, is further described in the Fisheries Biological Assessment (see project analysis file) and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency (see Appendix C of this EA). Alternative C Riparian Conditions Implementing Alternative C, the no action alternative, would have no immediate effect on riparian conditions, as the slow rate of recovery (decades to a century) towards natural conditions would continue and overstocked plantations of uniform tree age and limited diversity would persist. It would, however, increase the risk of loss of riparian stands to fire, insect infestation and disease, all carried more efficiently through dense riparian stands. Alternative C would provide a higher rate of in-stream recruitment compared to the action alternative but the trees would be small. This recruitment would be provided mostly by stem mortality from competition, disease, wind and snow downed trees. Most riparian stands in the project are composed of small diameter trees (<24 inches diameter). The aquatic benefit of small diameter trees is limited, namely through the reduced ability to store sediments and contribute to habitat forming processes (e.g. scour). Recruited small diameter trees effectiveness is short-lived, as they break down through abrasion and decomposition more rapidly compared to large trees (>24 inch diameter). Small diameter trees are also more likely to be transported out of the system. Natural stem development of even-aged riparian trees may be expected to exceed 40 years and delay the availability of large wood to stream channels. Development of future sources of in-stream wood would depend on natural thinning events (stem exclusion mortality and disturbance) to achieve stand diversity. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Riparian Conditions The only additional past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within the 5th field that have the potential to cumulatively negatively impact the riparian condition is the Deception Post-fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project. All other past events that have led to the current conditions were covered under the previous sections. While the post-fire hazard tree removal project has the potential to impact riparian condition, there 139

140 would be no effect because full Riparian Reserve buffers would be used. Any tree deemed hazardous within the Riparian Reserve would be felled and left to both mitigate the hazard to humans and impacts to the Riparian Reserve. As discussed in the current conditions and direct effects, there are lingering negative effects from past timber harvest actions. These effects have lessened over time as riparian areas have recovered and wood is naturally starting to accumulate in streams. Also previously discussed were the actions in this project such as large instream wood placement and the decommissioning of roads that would not only lessen those impacts but would also greatly kick-start the recovery process. As a result, the current projects are not expected to contribute to a negative cumulative effect. 140

141 Fisheries The Lookout Point Reservoir Middle Fork Willamette River 5 th field watershed is comprised of two 6 th fields, Dexter Reservoir and Deception Creek. The 5 th field is bisected by the Middle Fork Willamette River and includes 49,126 acres of lands under various ownership and land management administrations. The Middle Fork Willamette River gathers runoff from several large fish-bearing tributaries in the watershed; Buckhead, Cain, Armet, Goodman, Crale, School, Tire, Duval, Deception and others. These streams contain populations of native coastal cutthroat trout, sculpins, and other warm water minnows. Passage into these streams from Lookout Point Reservoir is complicated by fluctuating water levels within the reservoir from flood regulation and downstream water releases to meet minimum flow requirements. Passage into many reservoir streams is possible only for short periods, when the water level allows for passage through culverts under Highway 58 and FS Road 5821 (Northshore Road). A large portion of the Middle Fork Willamette River basin lies upstream of the Lookout Point Watershed project area. Approximately 40% of the stream flow within the watershed is regulated or restricted by Hills Creek Dam, located upstream of the project area near Oakridge on the Middle Fork Willamette River. Other large tributaries of the Middle Fork Willamette River that contribute significant flows to the Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed include, Salt Creek, Salmon Creek, and the North Fork Willamette River. Lookout Point Dam was constructed on the Middle Fork Willamette River in 1954, one mile west of Lowell. Lookout Point functions as a power generating dam with Dexter Reservoir serving as the regulatory pool for the dam. Both dams were constructed without fish passage structures and have high mortality rates when fish do pass through the turbine or regulating outlets. In addition, water quality issues associated with the dams and the migration timing of several aquatic species are adversely affected by their presence and operational schedules. Hills Creek Dam, located several miles upstream of Lookout Point Reservoir, regulates what would be the natural flow regime into the Lookout Point Watershed. Aquatic species that spawn in the upper Middle Fork Willamette River must emigrate through Hills Creek Dam where mortality is very high when passing through the turbine and regulation outlets. Hills Creek is similar to Lookout Point Dam in that they are both high head dams constructed with no fish passage structures. The mainstem Middle Fork Willamette River has down-cut and become more of a confined channel than in the past. Flow regulation from the project dams have altered the flow regime and reduced floodplain interaction in the Lookout Point Watershed. Highway 58, the major travel route through the watershed, and many other roads have adversely affected channel confinement and impacted the riparian condition. Early season drawdown within Lookout Point Reservoir exposes the shoreline and increases wave action resulting in further erosion of the stream banks. The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis (WA) discusses tributary streams within the Lookout Point Watershed. Many streams were surveyed in the late 1990 s and are listed as functioning at risk for various reasons. Fish migration barriers are common in the high gradient stair step tributaries draining into the Middle Fork Willamette River. These tributaries are dependent on mature riparian trees to provide a variety of functions such as shade and stability. Over time, these large trees are sources of large woody debris that help stabilize and create quality aquatic habitat. The majority of issues related to poor habitat conditions within the watershed are related to disturbances within the riparian reserve from actions such as, power line construction along Buckhead Creek and road construction that intersects many tributary streams and creates bottlenecks for bedload and large wood to move through the systems in natural processes. Many road crossings also create fish migration barriers at least at some portion of the fish life cycle. The WA mentions poor riparian conditions within streams such as Deception Creek which is also listed fish habitat and occupied habitat for spring Chinook salmon. It appears that streams on the south side of Lookout 141

142 Point Reservoir are in better condition than streams on the north side. Goodman, North, South, and Schweitzer creeks are listed in the WA as a group of streams that appear to be in good condition compared to the rest of the watershed. In general, much of the riparian conditions mentioned in the WA are related to past harvest practices. It has been 20 years since the Northwest Forest Plan became effective and the standards and guidelines regarding riparian harvest and road construction have had a large impact on the recovery of the Lookout Point Watersheds. Nearly all riparian areas along stream channels have recovered and they would continue to do so as long at the current standards are in affect. The vast majority of riparian condition is still in a state of recovery but the percentage of shade on stream channels is far higher than just a few years ago from tree growth along stream channels. Erosion and road impacts to the aquatic environment would decrease as roads are stabilized and removed from the landscape in the future. Fish passage issues would also be reduced as culverts are removed when roads are stabilized. Current Conditions-Fisheries Cutthroat trout are the dominant fish species in the smaller tributary streams that feed the Middle Fork Willamette River. Other native fish species found in the Lookout Point Watershed include rainbow trout, large scale sucker, northern pikeminnow, redside shiner, mountain whitefish, dace spp., sculpin spp., Oregon chub, spring Chinook salmon, and bull trout. Other non-native and illegally released fish species include, brown bullhead, white crappie, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, walleye, and channel catfish. Oregon Chub The Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed features described above are unique for this region and provide habitat for unique aquatic species. Buckhead Creek, and the Buckhead Wildlife Area adjacent to the Middle Fork Willamette River, is comprised of approximately 500 acres of past floodplain that was largely dewatered by regulation of flows within the Middle Fork Willamette River from Hills Creek Dam. These areas contain several healthy populations of Oregon chub, a small minnow native only to the Willamette Valley that was recently delisted under the Endangered Species Act from threatened status. Oregon chub were designated an Endangered species under the Endangered Species Act in In 2010, the status of Oregon chub was upgraded to Threatened. Since the chub was listed in 1993, the population has made a remarkable recovery throughout much of its historical range. In 2013, Oregon chub populations exceeded recovery criteria as defined in the Oregon Chub Recovery Plan. Subsequently, the Oregon chub is now delisted, making it the first fish to be delisted under the Endangered Species Act. The Oregon Chub Recovery Plan established criteria for delisting the Oregon chub and these criteria include establishing 20 populations of at least 500 adult chub, established populations must remain stable or increasing in size for seven years, and at least four populations meeting the first two criteria must be located in each of the three recovery areas. The Lookout Point Watershed is within the Middle Fork Willamette drainage recovery area and has three stable populations. These include Shady Dell Pond, Hospital Pond, and the Buckhead Wildlife Area population. However the general consensus among biologists is that the Oregon chub population would remain at risk for some time due to the loss of suitable habitat, flow regime changes from flood control dams, competition from non-native aquatic species, chemical contamination and others. 142

143 Federally Listed Fish Species Spring Chinook Salmon Salmon in the Lookout Point Watershed are part of the Upper Willamette River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), and have been designated as a Threatened species under the ESA by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (64 FR 14308). This listing decision was effective as of May 24, A subsequent decision by NMFS reaffirmed the Threatened status for wild stocks of spring Chinook salmon and added protection for the hatchery component (Willamette Hatchery, ODFW stock #22) of the spring Chinook salmon population present in this portion of the ESU (70 FR 37160). This rule was effective on August 29, NMFS has released their final rule designating critical habitat for Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon (70 FR 52630), effective January 2, 2006, and it includes the upper Middle Fork Willamette River and includes sections of the river that run through the watershed as well as Lookout Point Reservoir. Streams in the Action Area are not considered Essential Fish Habitat (EFH); the NMFS ended the upstream designation of EFH at Dexter Dam. Spring Chinook salmon are the only anadromous fish species present in the Lookout Point Watershed. Winter and summer steelhead were introduced downstream of the watershed in the 1950 s and 1980 s respectively, but have not naturalized to areas within the Lookout Point Watershed. Only adult spring Chinook salmon are transported upstream of Dexter Dam and released into other watersheds. Spring Chinook salmon spawn in the upper Middle Fork Willamette River and the North Fork of the Middle Fork Willamette River watersheds and the progeny of those fish emigrate back though the Lookout Point Watershed as fry and smolts. Juvenile salmon may spend one to two years rearing in Lookout Point Reservoir before they find their way downstream and continue their journey to the sea. The current distribution of spring Chinook salmon upstream of Lookout Point Dam is likely equivalent to the historic distribution with the exception of a loss of stream habitat due to the inundation of Lookout Point Reservoir. Seasonal fluctuations in water levels within the reservoir create fish passage barriers that prevent juvenile salmon from utilizing rearing habitat at confluence areas and prevent other salmonids from moving into smaller tributaries to spawn in the spring. Stream reaches utilized for salmon spawning are largely concentrated in the watersheds upstream of the Lookout Point Watershed however; the watershed does provide rearing habitat for juvenile salmon. While Chinook are native to the area, their natural migration routes were impeded by all three mainstem dams constructed in the 1950 and 60 s; Dexter, Lookout Point, and Hills Creek. These dams eliminated access to historic Middle Fork Willamette River habitat. Salmon reintroduction into the Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed is the result of efforts by the Forest Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Willamette Hatchery in Oakridge, OR is operated by ODFW; and their personnel annually collect adult Chinook near the base of Dexter Dam to use as brood stock for the hatchery. Beginning in 1993, excess adult Chinook of hatchery origin have been annually trucked above Dexter Dam and released into the Middle Fork Willamette River and its tributaries that drain into the Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed. 143

144 Bull Trout Bull trout occupy few if any areas within the Lookout Point Watershed. Bull trout migrate through Hills Creek Dam on rare occasions and sometimes survive passage and therefore can migrate further downstream into Lookout Point Reservoir Watershed. Currently there are no records of bull trout caught in the watershed but it is likely a small number of fish have passed into Lookout Point Watershed at least for short periods of time. The Middle Fork Willamette River bull trout population is part of the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and have been designated as a Threatened species under the ESA by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (63 FR 31647). This listing decision was effective as of July 10, Bull trout critical habitat is listed for the Middle Fork Willamette River and other tributaries that contain bull trout. Critical Habitat was designated for bull trout by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (70 FR 56212; effective October 26, 2005). The USFWS designated critical habitat for bull trout in the Willamette River basin in the following streams: Blue River, Horse Creek, Lost Creek, McKenzie River, Middle Fork Willamette River, South Fork McKenzie River, Swift Creek, West Fork Horse Creek and Willamette River. However, they excluded (pursuant to section 4 (a)(3) of the ESA) all stream reaches flowing through Federal land in the basin stating that it is adequately protected by the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. On October 18, 2010 the Service republished a new designation of Critical Habitat that does include streams on Federal lands. As of October, 2010 Critical Habitat for bull trout includes all sections of the Middle Fork Willamette River upstream of the Forest boundary on the Willamette National Forest; the designation includes Lookout Point Reservoir. Starting in 1997, the Willamette National Forest and ODFW began a cooperative effort to reintroduce bull trout upstream of the Lookout Point Watershed. Fry-stage bull trout are trapped in Anderson Creek( a tributary to the McKenzie River) and transported/released into areas upstream of the Lookout Point Watershed in the upper Middle Fork Willamette River. Since the bull trout reintroduction began there have been numerous reports of adult bull trout downstream of Hills Creek Dam and within the Lookout Point Watershed. An adult bull trout was captured in 2001 near the town of Oakridge, approximately 20 miles downstream of the bull trout natal area. In 2010, a large PIT tagged adult bull trout that was tagged upstream of Hills Creek Dam was recorded at a PIT tag interrogation site downstream of Hills Creek Dam. In 2011 two additional tagged adults passed through the Hills Creek Dam; however, it is not known if either of these adults continued downstream into the Lookout Point Watershed. Sensitive Species Three aquatic insects found on the Regional Forester s sensitive species list have been documented on the Willamette National Forest. These aquatic insects are all caddisflies and little is known about them. In fact, the common name for all of these caddisflies is A Caddisfly. A short summary of the distribution and known habitat associations are provided below. For a more detailed discussion on these species, see the Fisheries Biological Evaluation. Rhyacophila chandleri: In Oregon, this species is documented on the Willamette, Deschutes, and Umpqua National Forests. It is documented on the Willamette National Forest as a rare insect on the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. The entire Rhyacophila genus, whose name is derived from the Greek roots rhyaco (stream or torrent) and philia (fondness), is confined to running water. In the Cascade Mountains of Oregon, this species is associated with very cold, larger spring-fed streams (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2012a). Elevations of known populations range from around 1219 to 1700 m (4000 to 5600 ft.) in Oregon. 144

145 Rhyacophila leechi: In Oregon, Rhyacophila leechi is documented to occur on the Willamette National Forest and on Bureau of Land Management land in the Medford District. Rhyacophila leechi adults have been collected from springs and cold, spring-fed streams. This species appears to require colder water temperatures than the common and more widely-distributed Rhyacophila. verrula, and is likely confined to smaller, headwater streams and springs (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011). Oregon sites range in elevation from 440 to 980 m (1444 to 3210 ft.) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011). Namamyia plutonis: On National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands, documented occurrences are from the Rogue River-Siskiyou, Siuslaw, and Willamette National Forests (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). The majority of the documented occurrences are between 30 and 50 years old. Namamyia plutonis tend to be found associated with small streams in densely forested old growth or mature forest watersheds (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). All of these caddisflies require perennial stream flow, with cold water and in some cases spring-fed water. The integrity of the aquatic system would be maintained and all habitats would be protected from alterations with the designated stream buffer systems in place for the project which would protect them from any changes in temperature or sedimentation. Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) The Final EIS for the Willamette National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan recognizes anadromous and resident salmonids (i.e. members of the salmon, trout, char, whitefish, and grayling taxonomic family) as economically important species and designated them as management indicator species (MIS) for riparian habitat and water quality. The most common sport fish that have habitat on the Middle Fork Ranger District are spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, and coastal cutthroat trout. The Upper Middle Fork Willamette River (UMFWR) does provide habitat for mountain whitefish. Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent stream channels, springs, and ephemeral ponds/seeps. The aquatic MIS were selected to indicate healthy stream and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Attributes of a healthy aquatic ecosystems include: cold and clean water; clean channel substrates; stable streambanks; healthy streamside vegetation; complex channel habitat created by large wood, cobbles, boulders, streamside vegetation, and undercut banks; deep pools; and waterways free of barriers. Healthy riparian areas maintain adequate temperature regulation, nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and provide for instream wood recruitment. All the MIS listed above can be found in the Outlook Project area, and in general have these similar habitat requirements. Spring Chinook Based on adult return counts to Dexter Dam, the spring Chinook salmon population in the Upper Middle Fork Willamette River and within the Outlook Project area varies from year to year depending on the return numbers. Spring Chinook are out-planted above Lookout Point Reservoir in the North Fork Willamette River by ODFW via a trap and haul operation at Dexter Dam. The North Fork Willamette River provides suitable habitat for at least portions of the salmon life history (migration, spawning, incubation, and juvenile rearing). Pre-spawned spring Chinook salmon adults are also released in the Upper Middle Fork Willamette River upstream of Hills Creek Reservoir. Many of the juveniles from these releases pass through Hills Creek Dam and re-enter Lookout Point Reservoir and the Outlook Project area in the following year. Bull trout The majority of the bull trout population is located in the upper Middle Fork Willamette River Watershed, upstream of the Outlook Project area. The Upper Middle Fork bull trout population is largely 145

146 adfluvial. A small portion of the population exhibits fluvial and resident characteristics. Bull trout redds have only been documented in the Upper Middle Fork Willamette River Watershed and several small springs since Annual redd counts have averaged 7-10 redds for the past 9 years ( ). Based on the redd counts, the adult bull trout population numbers is estimated to be below 50 fish. Therefore the population size in the Upper Middle Fork basin is considered functioning at risk. Bull trout do pass through Hills Creek Dam and survive. Numerous angler reports have been reported since the reintroduction began and PIT tag information from downstream of Hills Creek Reservoir has documented that several bull trout have passed through the dam and survived. Some have been recaptured and returned to the Upper Middle Fork but not all of them were recaptured. Coastal Cutthroat, Rainbow Trout, and Mountain Whitefish Rainbow trout and mountain whitefish are both migratory river fish in the Middle Fork Willamette River. They move between spawning, rearing, and overwintering areas during the year. Coastal cutthroat are resident species to all Class I and II streams in the basin. Occupied habitat includes a wide range of gradients and stream sizes. The following table displays the presence of MIS species and their habitat in the project area. Table 33 MIS Fish and habitat description for the Lookout Point project area. Habitat Description MIS Habitat Present Species Present Riparian habitat and water quality Spring Chinook salmon Yes Yes Bull trout Yes Yes Coastal cutthroat trout Yes Yes Whitefish Yes Yes Rainbow trout Yes Yes Brook Trout Yes Yes Methods used to document fish distribution include field presence/absence surveys, aquatic inventory surveys, PIT tag interrogation data and redd surveys. The origin of this data has come from several sources including Forest Service field surveys and monitoring and, Forest Service Level II stream survey reports on fish-bearing streams. Presence/absence surveys have been completed for coastal cutthroat, rainbow trout, and mountain white fish in the project area. By following the Standards and Guidelines in the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994: C-31 to C-33) and the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project design criteria there would be no negative indirect effects to MIS. The Outlook Landscape Diversity Project would maintain habitat conditions for aquatic MIS in the project area. Riparian design measures and the natural geology of the area would serve to prevent any direct impacts to MIS and their habitat in the Middle fork Willamette River and its tributaries. Therefore, the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Willamette National Forest for these species. Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects - Fisheries The direct and indirect effects of the actions within the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project and how they may affect the input of wood to the stream network are analyzed below in relation to the effects on water quality and fish for all alternatives. 146

147 In addition, it is important to note here, that in August 2014 a large wildfire burned within the Deception Creek drainage. The Deception Fire started by lightning and by the time suppression efforts were complete, the fire burned approximately 7,400 acres (Including the Umpqua National Forest). The fire remained almost entirely within the Deception Creek drainage and burned within 21 Outlook units. The fire burned in a mosaic pattern with areas of unburned vegetation and low burn severity making up the majority of burn type (88% of the fire area) with relatively small areas of moderate and high burn severity(9% or 620 acres and 3% or 120 acres respectively (Shank 2014)). The affected units were later assessed for changed conditions and those recommendations primarily from the Forest Geologist and team soil scientist were agreed upon by the entire ID team. Scale of Analysis Unless otherwise noted, the geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for fisheries and aquatic insects includes the entire Lookout Point Reservoir-Middle Fork Willamette River, 5 th field watershed. The reason for selecting this scale of analyses is because streams, and in turn fish and their aquatic habitat, are directly connected to their riparian areas which in turn are connected to the hillslopes within the watershed. Alternative A Fisheries Direct and indirect effects to riparian stands throughout the project area are related to the no-cut buffer as much as the actual prescribed unit treatment. The expected trajectory of riparian stands the proposed alternative works towards is an older stand that provides greater structural integrity and species diversity while generating larger wood with a greater benefit to the aquatic environment. Large wood persists in the environment longer, creates more in-stream and channel stability, and has more utility as aquatic structure if it is transported to larger fish-bearing streams during heavy rains or debris torrents. If riparian areas are not thinned, their ability to reach site potential tree height ( feet) in the riparian areas would be reduced and the timeframe to reach that height would be greatly extended. Many of the riparian stands are already in a state of diminished crown ratio percentage for the height and age of the trees due to overcrowding. This condition can lead to further loss of structural integrity of the trees as the low-crown ratio does not provide enough photosynthetic area to allow the trees to put on girth/diameter that would otherwise strengthen the tree. Current growth is primarily vertical due to competition for sunlight and other important characteristics of growth are not being adequately provided. By applying most of the available energy to vertical growth the trees are not able to support heavy snow loads, which increases the probability of breaking or knocking the tree down. The overall intent of thinning these stands is to open the entire canopy by removing some of the poorly developed existing trees to provide the remaining trees room to expand and increase photosynthetic area that would lead to the production of more energy the trees can invest in more horizontal growth. Opening the overstory canopy and allowing sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor, understory plants such as young trees of a diverse nature, shrubs and forbs would experience increased growth rates and assist in creating a multi-layered forest that previously existed The benefits of thinning in dense, overcrowded stands are well documented. However, nearly all wood that falls into stream channels has the capacity to influence habitat and aquatic communities (Dolloff and Warren, 2003). Therefore, smaller woody material that enters stream channels is important to overall channel function because it can store sediment and organic material, contribute nutrients, and provide temporary pool habitat and slow-water refugia. It is important to note, however, that pools formed by smaller wood generally are not 147

148 as deep or complex as those formed by large wood. In addition, small wood does not persist for long periods of time because it deteriorates quickly and is more likely to be flushed from the system (Naiman et al., 2002). In smaller streams adjacent to previously harvested stands, field surveys indicated that relatively large amounts of existing (in-stream) and potential (standing) small functional wood are present. Field surveys also indicate that the vast majority of the down wood in these areas originated from within 50 feet of the stream channel. This is consistent with findings by McDade et al (1990), who found that in second-growth coniferous riparian forests, percent of the total in-stream wood was recruited from within 15 meters (49 feet) of the channel. In addition, McDade et al. (1990) and Welty et al. (2002) found that 80 percent and 90 percent, respectively, of the wood loading occurred within 20 meters (66 feet) of the stream channel in coniferous forests. Riparian reserves would be thinned within 820 acres in Alternative A. Thinning within riparian reserves would increase the health and vigor of the residual trees and help to increase the stands ability to adapt to future environmental changes as outlined above. Due to the majority of wood input coming from within the inner 100 feet of riparian areas, the no cut buffers established along Class I and II streams (150 feet) would be sufficient to protect the stream network from any changes and thinning the outer riparian areas would have no effect on the input of wood to the stream networks in Class I and II streams. Class III streams would maintain an 80 foot buffer and there may be a slight effect of wood input to these streams generated from thinning. That is, over time the wood may become larger just outside the 80 foot area and may have more overall benefit to the stream network than outlined above. Class IV streams carry even less buffer (30-50 feet) and may also see some beneficial characteristics of riparian thinning in the future. There would be no negative effects on stream shade and no measurable changes to water temperatures resulting from the riparian reserve thinning. No cut buffers would protect the stream network from changes occurring from thinning in the outer portions of the riparian areas. Over the long-term trees treated within the riparian reserves would grow larger and would become more useful as functioning wood when they are recruited into perennial streams. Trees in thinned riparian stands would grow to a larger size than untreated areas, by reducing competition for light and nutrient resources, which in the end would likely provide larger sized in-stream and floodplain wood than in the untreated areas. Residual trees in riparian areas would more effectively stabilize streambanks (by root systems) and would create a more abundant supply of large woody debris (LWD) to improve future stream habitat diversity, in addition to creating more diversity in the secondary canopy and within ground vegetation. LWD is important for stream channel morphology by controlling the storage and routing of sediment and substrate, engaging floodplains and reducing stream temperatures. Fish populations are positively correlated with abundance of LWD. LWD promotes pool formation and helps to maintain functioning pools, creates cover and pocket protection areas for aquatic organisms, and helps to control and moderate the stream gradient, sorting gravel necessary for spawning. Alternative B Fisheries The only quantitative difference in Alternative B that may have an effect on the input of wood to the stream network is the overall acres of thinning in Alternative B. That is, Alternative B commercial thins 3817 acres opposed to 3653 in Alternative A (164 more acres of thinning). As stated above, the Class I and II streams carry too deep of a no-cut buffer to benefit from any growth spurt the thinned areas may gain. However, the Class III and IV streams may see some additional benefit if the larger trees enter those stream networks due to the narrower buffers. It is possible, and over time likely that trees entering Class III and IV stream networks would travel downstream to fish bearing areas given there are no barriers to the transport of wood within the drainages. Floods and debris flows occur at fairly predictable frequency in all drainages and it is a natural process for wood that enters Class III and IV streams to move through the watershed over time. 148

149 The 83 acres of mature stand regeneration harvest listed under Alternative B would have no effect on wood delivery to any stream classification. These acres of harvest would carry full Northwest forest Plan riparian acres which are much deeper than the prescribed no cut buffers for Alternative A. Northwest Forest Plan riparian buffers are two site potential tree heights on each side of the stream for Class I and II streams (340 feet) and one site potential tree height for Class III and IV streams (170 feet) on each side of the stream channel. Alternative C Fisheries In the No Action alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects to fish or listed caddisflies because there would be no change in the state of riparian reserves throughout the project area. The proposed project would not occur. No thinning of riparian reserve trees would occur. This alternative would allow for the continued slow rate of recovery toward natural condition. Most riparian reserves within the Outlook Project Area are overstocked with plantation trees of uniform age and stands with limited structural integrity and species diversity, which would benefit from employing riparian reserve thinning. An overcrowded canopy condition is occurring within many of these uniformed units. This would continue to contribute to a lack of wood input that is the most beneficial in size to the stream networks and for aquatic habitat. This no-action alternative also has the potential for indirect and direct impacts to fish if a wildfire occurs in the area due to the significant fuel loading that is occurring within the upland as well as riparian reserves. Alternative D Fisheries Like Alternative B, this alternative differs only slightly from the proposed action. The only quantitative difference in Alternative D that may have an effect on the input of wood to the stream network is the overall acres of thinning. Alternative D, commercial thins 3,440 acres opposed to 3653 in Alternative A (213 less acres of thinning). All other harvest acres within Alternative D carry full Northwest Forest Plan riparian buffers as discussed in Alternative B and would have no effect on the introduction of wood to the stream network. Cumulative Effects In analyzing cumulative effects we look at past actions, ongoing actions, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The direct and indirect effects to the supply and delivery of large woody material to stream channels are outlined above. The following information was used to assess the potential for cumulative effects in the delivery of large woody material to stream channels and subsequently to salmonid fish and caddisflies due to thinning in riparian areas. Alternatives A, B, and D Fisheries Timber Harvest, Thinning in Riparian Areas In general, removing large wood or potential large wood interaction from stream networks can have deleterious effects on the aquatic environment. In-channel wood placement from the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project along with improved stands within the riparian reserves in the project area would have long term positive cumulative effects by increasing overall stream conditions and complexity within the 5th field watershed. This would create additional and higher quality fish habitat. The proposed action was found to have 149

150 no measurable impacts on wood recruitment with the established no-cut buffers. Therefore, taken into account with past, present, and future actions there would be no cumulative effects to wood recruitment in streams. Dam and Reservoir Construction The construction of Lookout Point Dam and subsequent formation of Lookout Point Reservoir has a profound influence on migratory aquatic species in the Lookout Point-Middle Fork Willamette River Watershed. Annual spring Chinook salmon spawning migrations are completely impeded as there is no upstream fish passage through or over the dam. Salmon are trucked around both Lookout Point and Hills Creek Dam to spawning areas upstream in the North Fork Willamette River and Middle Fork Willamette River. Juvenile salmon downstream migrations are also negatively impacted by slack water environments of the reservoir. Passage through both Lookout Point and Hills Creek dams is nearly 100% lethal to all fish passing through them. The effects of the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project would have no cumulative effects associated with it as there would be no additional barriers or impediments to aquatic organism migrations or movements. There are only two culvert replacements on roads with fish bearing streams and both of those would be designed to allow for the free flow of organism passage for all life stages of aquatic organisms. Deception Creek Fire and proposed Salvage Units within the Deception Creek Fire area were analyzed during the BAER efforts of Expert soil analysis was completed along with burned area severity acres. Several units within the Deception Creek 6 th field that were originally within the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project boundary were dropped due to concerns related to burn severity and soil conditions after the fire. No cumulative effects would be associated with the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project related to the Deception Creek Fire due to any units in a high severity burn area, adversely affected soils category, or other fire related effects were dropped. No other actions listed in Appendix F and related to the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project have the capacity to present cumulative effects to aquatic resources. There are approximately 173 acres in the Deception Fire area that have been initially identified as containing hazard trees. If this project is implemented in the future it would maintain full Northwest Forest Plan buffers for all stream classes. Therefore, the project would have no effect on stream temperature or the amount of large wood available for the stream network in the future. Alternative C Fisheries Because this is no action, there would be no impact on the environment from the incremental impact of an action when added to the impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR ). Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction Endangered Species Act Bull trout and Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon are both listed as threatened on the Endangered Species list. Both species can be present in the Lookout Point Watershed; however, they would only occupy Lookout Point Reservoir and are essentially landlocked in a reservoir environment and prevented from further downstream migration from Lookout Point Dam. There is no mechanism related to the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project that would generate further negative impacts of either species. There are no spawning areas within the Lookout Point Watershed for either species and the habitat is not conducive to long-term occupancy for bull trout or salmon. Therefore, alternatives A, B, C and D for the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project is may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) spring Chinook salmon and bull trout or their designated critical habitat. 150

151 The rationale for this finding is: Neither species prefers the habitat within Lookout Point Reservoir, however roads and especially road maintenance and wet season haul in the project area have the potential to deliver sediment to streams simply due to their existence. However, the amount of sediment delivered to streams from past, present, and foreseeable future use would not affect habitat downstream. Bull trout and salmon prefer and occupy areas upstream of this watershed in larger numbers where water temperatures are colder and stream conditions are not influenced by flood control dams as much. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is designated in all areas except above impassible dams (Lookout Point), and natural migration barriers. The Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization in 1996 established a new requirement for essential fish habitat that requires Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat for the Pacific coast salmon fishery means those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. The species designated in the Middle Fork Willamette River is spring Chinook salmon. As stated in the listing, essential fish habitat is not designated upstream of impassible dams such as Lookout Point. No effects to essential fish habitat is expected downstream of the dam. See Fisheries chapter 3 of this EA. 151

152 Soils The Outlook project area is located within the Western Cascades physiographic region. The volcanic rocks of the late Western Cascade in the Lookout Point area are represented by Miocene andesitic lavas that are stratigraphically equivalent to the Sardine Formation in the Detroit area (Woller and Priest, 1983). The strata consist of a heterogeneous assemblage of continental, largely volcanogenic deposits of basalt and basaltic andesite, tuffs and breccias. Radiometric potassium/argon dates on parts of this formation are mostly 25 to 16 million years old (Woller and Priest, 1983). Soils formed either directly on the underlying volcanic bedrock, on the more limited glacial deposits, or on jumbled combinations of the two in the slump complexes. These types have similar size gradations that range from silt loams to gravelly or cobbly sandy loams. Slope ranges are divergent, with 43% of the area having slopes between 1 and 30% (Figure 18). Depth to bedrock is highly variable and can range from 5 to 10 feet to many times that amount. The various landtypes are generally well drained where permeability is rapid in the surface soils, and rapid to slow in the subsoil. Because of high infiltration rates, overland flow is generally uncommon Slopes classes by percent of total area Percent to 30% 31 to 45% 46 to 60% >60% Slope Class 1 to 30% 31 to 45% 46 to 60% >60% Figure 18 Slope Classes in the Outlook Project area A major portion of the field investigation was directed at distinguishing the various identifiable landtype components within the study area. A copy of the previously mapped Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) landtypes for this particular project area is on file at the Middle Fork Ranger District. In general, the field investigation confirmed some of the original 1973 SRI designations. However, considerable refinement and subdivision of the various boundaries were noted because of the in-depth field reconnaissance with this project. Field investigation of landtypes and their specific attributes formed the basis for the site-specific recommendations and mitigations that follow in this section. The major short-term, intermediate, or long-term impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity, as discussed in the Willamette National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 1990), include displacement, compaction, nutrient loss, and instability. In most situations, preventing soil impacts is the most effective and feasible way of ensuring long-term soil productivity. Cumulative effects analysis for soils in this section will be analyzed at the unit scale, assessing past, present and reasonably foreseeable impacts. 152

153 The Deception Fire occurred in August 2014 during the Outlook planning process. The District Ranger directed that Outlook units included in the perimeter of the Deception Fire be assessed for changed soil conditions. Almost all the Outlook units within the Deception Fire perimeter are located in the Unburned / Low Severity fire areas. Current Conditions-Displacement Displacement is defined as the removal of more than 50% of the topsoil or humus enriched soil horizons from an area of 100 square feet which is at least 5 feet in width. Displacement can occur with timber management during road or landing construction, yarding, or the mechanical treatment of slash, such as machine piling. Contract requirements which reduce or eliminate displacement are the primary way to minimize this concern. Even though road development in this project area is extensive (approximately 130 miles of existing roads), several large blocks of forest have not yet been accessed. Most major road systems were constructed in the 1950s to the 1970s with older road construction standards when few location and construction controls were in place. Some of these roads were built on steep side slopes with side cast construction standards, where most of the excavated material was pushed or blasted over the edge onto the steep side slopes below. The remnants of this side cast, such as bare soil scarps and rocky talus zones, are still evident in a few areas. Several road locations cross actively unstable or potentially highly unstable soil areas where roads have failed over the years and been repaired. Fortunately, in most sites, slopes have stabilized and revegetated. The amount of new road construction slowed considerably in the late 1980s, and with subsequent entries, reconstruction began to dominate. Newer roads, when required, were constructed to different and better standards. Road grades were steepened and pitched to better fit the road template to the terrain. Cuts and fills were minimized, and drainage controls were added to promote long term slope stability. Most road cuts and fills have naturally vegetated over the years. Because the side slopes have revegetated and overland flow is limited throughout much of this project area because of the high infiltration rates, erosion from roads is not generally considered a concern, except in a few localized areas where side cast roads parallel nearby perennial drainages. Due to improved practices and road conditions, combined with the effects of time, displacement issues are of minimal concern, even in the Deception Fire area where there was low acreage of high severity burn. Environmental Consequences-Displacement Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Displacement Disturbance from yarding would be well within the Regional and Forest standard and adverse impacts are not anticipated. With appropriate suspension during logging, soil disturbance is minimal and off site erosion is essentially non-existent. During harvest, the retention of stream adjacent trees and the requirement of no-cut riparian buffers would minimize or eliminate off-site erosion. For Stand 2509, full suspension yarding would help avoid excessive disturbance on the very steep and ravelprone side slopes. For all other skyline units, one end suspension is sufficient. Excessive displacement with road construction or reconstruction has not been a concern because of increased design standards. Some units may require temporary roads (approximately 2 miles) to access suitable landing sites for either ground-based or skyline yarding systems. In all cases, these temporary roads are generally 153

154 located on gentle stable side slopes in common material. Little or no full bench construction is required, and if needed, end haul of excess excavation to a suitable waste area would be required. New temporary roads would not cross any active drainages. Some units are accessed by opening old logging roads (approximately 3 miles) constructed many decades ago. In most cases, use of these old roads would allow for drainage structure improvements and fill stabilization. Some units are accessed by using newer Forest Service roads that now require some additional work to maintain adequate road drainage and surface integrity. Standard and appropriate work practices and seasons of operation would be required to reduce excessive disturbance and minimize off site erosion. No ground-based yarding would take place between November 1 and April 30. Alternative C Displacement For all units outside the Deception Fire area, short to intermediate term impacts from harvest, such as soil disturbance, dust (or mud), slash accumulation and disposal, and longer term impacts such as compaction and nutrient loss would not occur. In addition, no new road maintenance would occur and therefore, no upgrades to poorly-functioning roads would occur either. Deception Fire effects For almost all units, the existing canopy is intact in areas of underburn or low severity burn. Consequently, the burned areas would re-vegetate, though the process may be slowed because of the shade cover. In the areas of greater severity where stand mortality occurred, post-fire needle fall is considerable and covers the ground extensively, so rill erosion would be minimized. In time, the areas of moderate to high severity burn with nearly complete mortality and consumption of most green needles, would reforest as adjacent live trees cast seeds into the burnt over areas. Dead trees would fall; duff, litter and brush would again accumulate; and the soils would rebuild. This process has already begun, as new vegetation throughout the entire burn area was present in the summer of Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Displacement Cumulative effects of displacement consist mainly of past timber management practices, including tractor piling slash and road construction. Little evidence of displacement from tractor piling was found during field visits, and no additional displacement from tractors is expected. Effects from past road construction on steep slopes can be seen in some areas. Some of these roads traverse unstable areas where side-cast materials were strewn on steep side slopes, and these are stabilizing due to revegetation. Over time, there has been less road construction, and new entries have required construction or reconstruction with best management practices to minimize soil disturbance and promote adequate water drainage. Revegetation and high infiltration rates in this area make erosion a much lower concern than in the past. New standards for road construction (little full bench construction, excavation materials hauled to suitable waste areas and construction on gentle slopes) and stabilization and drainage improvements to old roads would ensure a minimum of future impacts. Road or landing aggregate, either crushed or pit run required for this sale could come from various rock sources in or near the project area. Other uses could include select pit run, select borrow or rip rap. Those rock sources could provide the various rock products for road maintenance and reconstruction associated with harvest and haul needs. The extraction of rock is an irreversible action, and most rock pits are used gradually over time. The 154

155 cumulative effect is therefore a reduction of rock at the site. Soil removed from the surface of rock pits is deposited at nearby locations, on flat landforms where it is stable and quickly revegetated. There are therefore cumulative effects to the rock resource, but no cumulative effects anticipated to the soil resource. No other past practices or known future projects are expected to contribute to displacement in the project area; this project would not contribute to cumulative effects. Current Conditions-Compaction Compaction is defined as an increase in soil bulk density of 15% or more and/or a reduction of macropore space of 50% over the undisturbed soil. Excessive soil compaction from heavy, mechanized equipment used during logging can decrease soil productivity by restricting root growth, reducing rainfall infiltration rates, and increasing over land flow and run off. Prior management on some units, before best management practices were established, contributed to compaction conditions which now approach or exceed the currently accepted standards and guidelines. Activities which minimize further compaction would be implemented. Skyline logging would reduce the amount of ground contact with harvesting equipment on compacted soils. Utilizing existing compacted areas as much as possible would concentrate compaction on areas currently impacted, and existing compaction can be reduced through mechanical means (subsoiling) after the project is completed. Based on field transects conducted across proposed units with past harvest activity, investigation indicated that nine units (Table 34), currently exceed the Willamette National Forest FW-081 Standard of 20% of an activity area impacted by compaction from the original entry. An additional twelve units (Table 34) contain greater than 16% compaction. Based on professional judgment, a 3-4% increase in compaction can be expected from proposed harvest activities. For this reason, purchasers are required to mitigate compaction of current harvest activities in all units with greater than 16% compaction. 155

156 Table 34. Compaction in units 16% and above from existing roads and logging operations. Red cells currently exceed 20%. Unit Existing compaction percentage Environmental Consequences-Compaction Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Compaction Given that compaction in twenty-one units is expected to approach or exceed the 20% threshold at the completion of harvest activities, mitigation of new harvest soil compaction by the purchaser is a necessary action in all units with greater than 16% existing compaction to restore soils to a less compacted state (see Table 34 and Figure 19). Based on previous experience, this effort should be successful. For example, past post-harvest subsoiling in units on other districts has reduced the overall compaction level approximately 4 to 8%. In order to be successful in lowering compaction totals, an absolute requirement is that, with entry into any ground-based area, existing skid or haul roads would be utilized before any new skid road is approved. In addition, enhancement subsoiling is a high priority for units that already exceed 20% compaction. This is post-sale work that would be done on old skid roads and landings from previous entries that were not reused as a result of harvest within this proposed action. 156

157 Skyline operations in thinning units with small wood and intermediate supports usually impacts 1-2% of the unit area. Skyline yarding with one end suspension is proposed for part or all of most units. Field reconnaissance of the skyline areas on steeper ground indicates that these units had relatively low existing compaction levels (under 5%). Most of this compaction is related to old haul roads and landings. As a result, numerous skyline landings are primarily planned at old existing landings, road turnouts, and road junctions. Some new spur road and landings would be required in some instances. However, cumulative effects from existing compaction and skyline yarding are not anticipated for any unit. Figure 19 Map of managed stands within the Outlook project area, emphasizing units with greater than 16% compaction. Alternative C Compaction Evidence of compaction from previous entries is still present and with side slopes gentle enough for groundbased logging. In areas already compacted or disturbed by the initial entries, the soil building process would continue to return the soil to near pre-harvest conditions in the longer term. Short-term to intermediate term impacts from harvest, such as soil disturbance, dust or mud, slash accumulation and disposal, and longer term impacts such as compaction and nutrient loss would not occur. 157

158 Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Compaction Cumulative effects address past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities that, when added together, represent all potential effects to soil within a given treatment unit. The cumulative effects to the soil resource from compaction can remain apparent for decades, so residual compaction from the original harvest of these plantations needs to be considered. Monitoring has shown that when designated skid roads are properly utilized in conjunction with line pulling and directional falling, compaction from ground-based tractor operations generally remains at about 9 to 13%. In most cases, the original units were cable or skyline yarded, though suspension may have been limited. In some instances, ground-based systems were utilized, especially on flatter ground. By using existing skid roads and subsoiling landings and skid roads, compaction is expected to approach 20% in only two units; these two units which would be subsoiled after harvest would bring compaction below the 20%. Subsoiling can reduce compaction 4 to 8%. Cumulative effects from skyline yarding include compaction from old haul roads and landings. As the amount of compaction from previous activities is less than 5%, and proposed activities are anticipated in less than 1% of the area, due to usage of existing landings, there is little concern for increased future effects from skyline yarding. As shown in Appendix F, there are no reasonably foreseeable future activities within proposed treatment units of this proposed action that would cumulatively add to the effects described above for compaction. Current Conditions-Nutrient Loss Nutrient loss is most impacted by uncontrolled wildfire, reducing duff and litter fall inputs to the forest floor. Fire recurrence intervals of 100 to 300 years are apparent in the natural system, with shorter intervals recorded in some critical high lightning areas near ridgetops. The actual thinning or harvest of these units is not as much concern for long term soil productivity as the resulting slash accumulation and the potential for wildfire. Best management practices for fuel-loading reduce the concerns for wildfire (see Fuels section for more details). Except in areas affected by the Deception Fire (mentioned below), no noteworthy nutrient loss is currently evident. Deception Fire Effects From a nutrient standpoint, the primary units of concern are 2736A and 2752A (see Table 35); however, they have been dropped from timber management. Both units had nearly 100% mortality with very little duff retention (0 to 10%), and both units had extensive areas of moderate to high severity burning where most of the brush, litter, small limbs and green needles were consumed in the fire. Consequently, little or no ground cover remains, and little to no post fire needle fall has or would occur. Both units have considerable post-fire soil ravel on the steeper side slopes. Both stands might be good candidates for post-sale collection for selected fall and leave to add material to the forest floor. Another unit of potential concern is the B portion of unit This part of 2752 has 90 to 95% stand mortality, and duff retention was quite low (0 to 20%). On the other hand, the fire intensity, though sufficient enough to kill the trees was not hot enough to consume the green needles. Consequently, post fire needle fall is extensive and covers most areas. 158

159 The following prescriptions would reduce post-fire nutrient loss from thinning activities. Three units (2714B, 2736A and 2752A) were deleted from the planning effort. Nine units were modified to disallow fuel treatments and leave the slash in the units for nutrient cycling and erosion control (1700, 2714A, 2736B, 2752B, 2752C, 2770, 2775A and 2795A, 2799). Three units were modified to disallow under-burning (2666S, 2731, 2775C). Table 35 Post-fire duff retention. Red cells are to be deleted, yellow cells are not to have fuel treatments, but slash is to be left in units, blue cells are not to be underburned. UNIT Post-fire Duff retention (%) UNIT Post-fire Duff retention (%) 2714B 0 to 80% 2775C 30 to 50% 2736A 0 to 10% 2666S 20 to 40% 2752A 0 to 10% 2754B 40 to 60% to 30% to 40% 2714A 0 to 80% to 50% 2736B 10 to 20% to 60% 2752B 10 to 20% 2795B 10 to 30% 2752C 0 to 20% to 50% to 20% to 50% 2775A 0 to 20% to 40% 2795A 10 to 30% to 40% to 20% 3544A 20 to 40% to 30% 3544B 10 to 40% Environmental Consequences-Nutrient Loss Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Nutrient Loss The activity with the greatest potential to impact nutrient loss within treatment units of the proposed action is underburning of harvest generated fuels. Units were reviewed to identify areas that should and should not be underburned, using Forest Plan recommendations for fuel amounts to be left under various soil, aspect and slope conditions. Based on the field reconnaissance, no under-burning may occur in unit Unit 2509 has steep side slopes (75% to 90% with areas over 100%). It also appears the unit was initially broadcast burned with substantive intensity. At this point, numerous areas have little duff development, and the soils are prone to ravel and slough over much of the unit. Harvest in this unit would result in considerable slash on the ground. This would enhance nutrient cycling, duff development, and ravel stability. Concentrations of larger down logs that were produced with the initial harvest would be left undisturbed as much as possible. Timber management provides an opportunity to add both larger material and slash to the forest floor. Consequently, with the retention of adequate duff and woody debris, potential adverse impacts to long-term soil productivity are not anticipated within the Outlook project treatments units. 159

160 Alternative C Nutrient Loss Stands would continue to develop over time at a slow, natural pace. Many of the stands proposed for thinning currently have little understory vegetation due to competition for sunlight. Intermediate and suppressed trees would slowly be removed from the stand through mortality and decay. In areas of heavy stocking, stands would stagnate. Blow-down and snow-down would continue to add organic material to the fuel loading. In general, plant diversity would diminish as well as soil biota due to the lack of sunlight reaching the forest floor, and conditions would persist for decades to a century, depending on disturbance to these units. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Nutrient Loss Cumulative effects on nutrient loss are primarily from the Deception Fire of August Duff retention in two units was as low as 0 to 10%, and a third had high tree mortality and patchy low duff retention. There would be no additional negative effects of timber harvest in the three units that were dropped, and modifications have been made to other units affected by the fire to allow the beneficial return of forest biomass to the forest floor as part of the thinning project. Slash added to the severely burned units would contribute to slope stability and increase soil nutrients in those units as well. As shown in Appendix F, there are no reasonably foreseeable future activities within proposed treatment units of this proposed action that would cumulatively add to the effects described above for nutrient loss. Current Conditions-Slope Instability Evidence of previous slope instability is present in the form of stabilized debris chute and slump scars. In most cases, only minor protection is needed to maintain long term slope stability except for Stand 2620, which contains a small slump. Harvest of this unit could affect slope stability by changing the ground water regimes or temporarily diminishing root strength. The removal of trees with harvest from this portion of unit 2620 could, in the short to intermediate term, result in slight increases in the ground water level, which might affect slope instability down-slope. Specific actions necessary for the old slump area of unit 2620 include: 1) No gaps in this section; 2) Thinning with Designation by Description that maintains a 50% canopy closure after thinning; and 3) No under burning is in this area. Few changes in slope stability resulting from the Deception Fire were noted in the reconnaissance. Three Outlook units had existing slope stability concerns 1700, 2714B and 2754 B. In 2714B, fire mortality likely increased the potential for instability and that portion of the unit has been deleted. The western portion of unit 1700 west of road 5850 was also dropped. Unit 2754B would be thinned to promote long-term stability. 160

161 Environmental Consequences-Slope Instability Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Slope Instability Field review of previously thinned units in the past several years on both stable and unstable landtypes has shown no increase in either slope instability or erosion in either uplands or Riparian Reserves. In the long term, thinning would create healthier stands with varied stand structure and dynamics, and increased biodiversity. Those areas with shallow, debris chute soil failures where rooting depth plays a part in slope stability, would see improvements within a few years as crowns begin to respond to the increased sunlight. Larger trees tend to increase slope stability, and if failures do occur, provide larger wood for down-slope riparian areas. In most cases, only minor protection is needed to maintain long term stability on old debris chute scars except for Stand 2620, which contains a small stabilized slump that failed after the initial harvest. Harvest of this unit could possibly have some effect to slope stability from changes in ground water regimes or the temporary loss of root strength. Alternative C Slope Instability In the short or intermediate term, no effects to slope instability are anticipated whether the units are managed or not. Some units with potentially unstable soils are recommended for harvest to improve stand conditions. Stand density is such that little change in stability is anticipated if no management occurs. In the long term, loss of stand integrity with disease, storm or fire might cause an increase in slope failure. Cumulative Effects Alternatives A, B, and D Slope Instability Cumulative effects of past natural and harvest activities are evident in the form of stabilized debris chute and slump scars. In most cases, except for a small slump in unit 2620, minor protections would prevent activation of these slopes. As long as prescriptions for canopy cover maintenance and no burning are followed, there should be no cumulative impact of thinning in this unit. Cumulative effects of the Deception Fire include slope instability in three units. Units where thinning would further impact slope stability were dropped from planning, and thinning was suggested in one unit to enhance slope stability through improved root systems. Past activities and wildfires have contributed to localized slope instability in the project area, but these areas are currently stabilized, would be stabilized in the process of this project or were dropped from consideration, and therefore, the cumulative impacts on slope stability are anticipated to be minimal. As shown in Appendix F, there are no reasonably foreseeable future activities within proposed treatment units of this proposed action that would cumulatively add to the effects described above for slope instability. 161

162 Vegetation Issues Lack of early successional habitat Increase in acreage of early successional habitat. Acres treated to create or maintain early successional habitat will be used as the measure. Noxious weed spread Acreage of canopy cover reduction to less than 40 percent. The early seral creation and mature stand harvest would reduce canopy cover under 40%; therefore acres of treatment will be used as the measure. Maintenance of biodiversity Percent of area where canopy cover closure would be 30%. The early seral creation and mature stand harvest would reduce canopy cover to 30%; therefore acres of treatment will be used as the measure Acreage of young dense stands opened up with their structure diversified. All vegetation treatments with the exception of mature stand harvest address this key issue. Therefore, treatment acres for commercial thinning, early seral creation and maintenance will be used as the measure. Table 36 Comparison of Issues between Alternatives Key Issue Measure Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Lack of early successional habitat Noxious weed spread Maintenance of biodiversity Vegetation Objectives Increase in acreage of early successional habitat Acreage of canopy closure reduction to less than 40% Percent of treatment area where canopy cover is reduced to 30% Acreage of young dense stands where structure is diversified % 2% 0 4% 3,605 3, ,605 The desired vegetation (silvicultural) objectives are listed below along with the measures used to evaluate effects: Increase spatial and species heterogeneity. The change in forest structure from overstocked and uniform stands to more open conditions would be achieved through the reduction of stocking levels. Therefore, acres treated will be used as a measure. 162

163 Increase diameter of dominant trees and potential (future) snags. The increase in individual tree diameter over time would be achieved by the reduction of stocking levels. Therefore, acres treated will be used as a measure. Increase crown depth and structural complexity of dominant trees. The increase in individual crown depth and overall complexity of trees would be achieved by the reduction of stocking levels. Therefore, acres treated will be used as a measure. Facilitate development of a shade tolerant secondary conifer canopy. The development of a shade tolerant secondary canopy would be facilitated by increased light levels where gaps and dominant tree release openings are implemented. Therefore, acres treated with gaps and dominant tree release will be used as a measure. Provide for a more diverse and dense forest floor vegetation. The development of an understory would be facilitated by increased light levels where gaps and dominant tree release openings are implemented. Therefore, acres treated with gaps and dominant tree release will be used as a measure. Special Habitat Restoration. Special habitats would be restored through the removal of encroaching vegetation. Therefore, acres treated will be the measure. Current Conditions Forest Type and Structure Lookout Point Watershed This 49,660 acre 5th field watershed is located between the Oakridge/Westfir community and the City of Lowell. Elevation ranges from 930 feet at the surface of Lookout Point Reservoir (when at full pool) to about 4,500 feet at the head of the Deception Creek drainage in the southeast corner. The Middle Fork of the Willamette River laterally bisects the project area, running southeast to northwest. Oregon State Highway 58 and a mainline of the Union Pacific Railroad road also bisect the project area. These two transportation facilities parallel each other and are generally south of the Reservoir/river. The area also contains a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line right of way, which is entirely north of the Reservoir/Middle Fork River. Vegetation Vegetation types range from south facing dry meadows and rock outcrops to lush and dense riparian oldgrowth coniferous and hardwood forests. Nearly all the forested areas are dominated by Douglas-fir. While not especially numerous, the area contains a number of small to medium-sized dry meadows, wetland habitats and mesic meadows. Small patches of wetland hardwood forest called ash swales (dominated by Oregon ash) are not uncommon in this area, primarily in lower elevations on gentle terrain. The plant associations found within the project area range from low-elevation dry Douglas-fir to mid-elevation moist and cool western hemlock associations. Plant associations provide information about the potential of the biophysical environment and are indicative of site productivity. The Plant Association Field Guide (McCain and Diaz 2002) indicates the average site index for Douglas-fir in the western-hemlock series is 136. The forest vegetation that exists today has been shaped primarily from past disturbance, such as fire and forest management. Since the 1950 s there has been 14,446 acres of timber harvested on Forest Service ownership within the watershed. About 95% of the timber harvested was accomplished through clearcutting for the purpose of maximizing timber production. This harvest varied in size, from 20 to 80 acres per unit, so the mature forests in the area are somewhat to very fragmented with a few exceptions, particularly the north slopes 163

164 of Hardesty Mountain. The following Google Earth image displays 1994 imagery of the project area with the locations of matrix stands 2148, 2219 and 2194 marked. The year 1994 was chosen to visually represent the typical even-aged harvest which occurred from 1940 through the mid 1990 s. Outlook proposed stands depicted with yellow markers. Figure view of Outlook Project Area The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update Report for Forest Resources (Bailey 2012) updates the 1997 Lookout Point Watershed Project area. In Bailey s 2012 report, seral stage characterizations are used to describe the vegetation by structural/age classes. These seral stages include early-seral, mid seral, late seral and old growth. The report makes a comparison of seral stages between a 1900 reference condition to conditions in The analysis indicates the early-seral stage was at 50% in 1900 compared to 4.5% in Old growth was 42% in 1900 compared to 14.6% in Early GIS preparation work for the Outlook Project contains an age class analysis which was completed in Tree ages within the watershed were analyzed using field inspection, aerial photos, common stand exam and GIS. The age class breakdown is shown in Table 37. The analysis omits all non-forest acreage. For Outlook, this should be considered the most current and up to date analysis of age classes for the Lookout Point Watershed. 164

165 Table 37 Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Age Class Watershed Acreage Percent 0-20 Years 2, Years 11, Years 25, >200 Years 7, Vegetation Total 46, Recently, the 2014 Deception Fire totaling 6,685 acres on the Willamette National Forest portion (BARC analysis 2015), redistributed 775 acres into the young forest (0-20 years) category. Changes to age classes within the Lookout Point watershed resulting from the Deception Fire are shown in Table 38. Low intensity fire is assumed to have made no change to the existing age class. Table 38 Change in watershed age classes resulting from Deception Fire Age Class Watershed Acreage Percent Deception Fire, Moderate and High intensity fire acreage Watershed Acreage Post- Deception Percent Change (%) 0-20 Years 2, , Years 11, , No change Years 25, , >200 Years 7, , Total 46, , Non-Forest Service lands within the Lookout Point watershed comprise 2% or 1,686 acres of the project area which includes private, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) lands. Examining Google Earth images from , it appears about 80 acres are currently in the youngest age class (0-20). A much smaller area, though more permanent in extent of open habitat, occurred as a result of the creation of Highway 58, Union Pacific Railroad and the Bonneville Power Administration power line rightof-ways. Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Forest Type and Structure The long term objective of the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project is to maintain and increase the diversity of the vegetation structure and composition within the Lookout Point watershed. McComb, Spies and Emmingham (1993) believe that restoration of plantations to resemble mature and oldgrowth stands should be a priority and Tappeiner (in Spies and Duncan, 2009) says silviculture is crucial to 165

166 manage young stands to become tomorrow s old forests. Franklin (2001) strongly supported management to accelerate development of late-successional conditions. Silviculture Prescription, Design Features and Mitigation Measures The integrated vegetation treatments in the proposed action are listed, by unit, in Appendix D and include commercial thinning, early-seral creation, early-seral maintenance and special habitat restoration. Refer to appendix D for a description of the silviculture prescription. Refer to Table 4, Chapter II for Design and Mitigation Features. Under Alternative A, commercial vegetation treatments would occur on 3,604 acres and non-commercial treatments would occur on 168 acres (see Table 39). Table 39 Summary of treatments and acreage treated for Alternative A, Proposed Action Land Allocation Vegetation Treatment Acres Treated Commercial Acres Treated Non-commercial Thinning Early-seral Creation Matrix Early-seral Maintenance 0 64 Special Habitat Restoration LSR Thinning 2,540 0 TOTAL: 3, Effects related to silvicultural objectives Increase spatial and species heterogeneity. Vegetation treatments on 3,772 acres through thinning, earlyseral creation, early-seral maintenance and special habitat restoration would move the area toward the desired condition through the reduction of stocking levels. To examine the diversity of the current understory (seedling, sapling and small trees), FSVeg was used to summarize the project area plot data and average stems per acre for all species 4.0 inches DBH and less. The report shows a variety of hardwood species are present but at very low levels (see Figure 21). Bigleaf maple is the most abundant hardwood species with an average of almost 40 seedlings, saplings or small trees per acre. The conifer understory is primarily composed of Douglas-fir, western hemlock and western red cedar (see Figure 22). Reduction in stocking levels along with a leave tree designation for minor species would allow for the growth, development and enhancement to the existing suite of species. Also, placement of gaps can facilitate the development of existing species. 166

167 Average Stems per Acre Figure 21 Density of Hardwood species composition in proposed units Average Stems per Acre Figure 22 Density of conifer species composition in proposed units Increase diameter of dominant trees and potential (future) snags. Vegetation treatments on 3,772 acres through thinning, early-seral creation, early-seral maintenance and special habitat restoration would move the area toward the desired condition through the reduction of stocking levels. Lowering the stand density index (SDI) would improve growing conditions, increase resources to residual trees and increase diameter growth over time. To illustrate, stand was modelled in FVS the Forest Vegetation Simulator (version 2.05) to illustrate the effect of the proposed silviculture thinning prescription in the LSR. The prescription allows 10% of the treatment acreage to either be thinned to 40 trees per acre or be in ¼ acre gaps. The following FVS simulation demonstrates the ¼ acre gap scenario and 2016 pre-treatment is representative of current conditions. Following treatment, which is modelled to begin in 2016, the simulation shows the canopy cover is reduced to 40%. As a result of reducing stocking levels, the SDI decreases from 477 to 164 by 2020 and the 167

168 average stand quadratic mean (QMD) diameter increases steadily as time progresses. This may be a conservative estimate of changes over time related to QMD based on validation modelling for Blue Dot (see Appendix D). Blue Dot estimated the diameter increased by 0.7 per year. This FVS simulation estimates the diameter is increasing by per year. This range, however, is somewhat consistent with the range found in Tappeiner et al 1997 which characterizes stand changes for older and younger forest. Table 40 Change in stand attributes over time for simulated LSR thinning Year Canopy Cover (%) SDI QMD The following stand visualization results (see Figure 23) are from the same FVS simulation and correspond to the same years (2016, 2020, 2030 and 2040). The following snapshots are used to visually display the implementation of the commercial thinning over time. 168

169 Figure 23 Visual simulation of LSR thinning 169