Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2011 Environmental Assessment Horse Creek Project McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest Lane County, Oregon Legal Locations: Within T 16S R 5E Sec: 14-16, 21-28, 34-36; T 16S R 6E Sec: 19-36; T 16S R 7E Sec: 14-17, 20-34; T 16S R 8E Sec: 28-30; T 17S R5E Sec: 1; T 17S R 6E Sec: 1-6, 8-15, 22-26, 34-36; T 17S R 6 ½ E Sec: 1-4, 9-16, 21-28, 33, 36; T 17S R 7E Sec: 2-11, 16-20, 28-33; T 18S R 6E Sec: 1-3; T 18S R 7E Sec: 4-6, 8-9. Willamette Meridian Proposed Horse Creek Unit For More Information Contact: Brenda Hallmark McKenzie Hwy McKenzie Bridge, OR

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Table of Contents Summary Introduction Document Structure Background Purpose and Need for Action Proposed Action Connected Actions Decision Framework Planning and Management Direction Public Involvement Issues Alternatives, including the Proposed Action Description of Treatments for Action Alternatives Alternatives Alternative 1(No Action) Alternative 2 (The Proposed Action) Alternative Comparison of Alternatives by Issue Comparison of Alternatives Environmental Consequences Forest and Stand Structure Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Fire and Fuels Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Economics Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Water Quality/Aquatic Resources Scale of analysis Affected Environment-Stream Shade and Temperature Environmental Consequences-Stream Shade and Temp Affected Environment-Stream Flows/Disturbance History Environmental Consequences-Streams Flow/Disturbance History Affected Environment-Sedimentation and Roads Environmental Consequences-Sedimentation and Roads Affected Environment-Riparian Conditions Environmental Consequences Riparian and Channel Conditions Affected Environment Aquatic Resources Environmental Consequences Aquatic Resources Scenic Quality Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences i

4 Name of Project 3.6 Recreation Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Wildlife Scale of analysis Affected Environment Early Seral Habitat for Wildlife Environmental Consequences - Early Seral Habitat for Wildlife Affected Environment Snags and Down Wood Environmental Consequences - Snags and Down Wood Affected Environment Threatened Northern Spotted Owl Environmental Consequences - Threatened Northern Spotted Owl Affected Environment Elk Habitat Environmental Consequences - Elk Habitat Affected Environment - Special Status Species Environmental Consequences - Special Status Species Affected Environment - Migratory Land Birds Environmental Consequences - Migratory Land Birds Affected Environment - MIS Environmental Consequences - MIS Soil Productivity and Slope Stability Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Roads and Access Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Air Quality Scale of analysis Affected Environment-Air Quality Environmental Consequences Heritage Resources Scale of analysis Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Botanical Resources Scale of analysis Affected Environment Rare Species Environmental Consequences - Rare Species Affected Environment - Special Habitats Environmental Consequences - Special Habitats Invasive Plants Scale of analysis Affected Environment Invasive Plants Environmental Consequences Invasive Plants Consultation and Coordination Appendix A: Design Features Common to The action Alternatives Appendix B: Detailed List of Project Activities & Road Status Summary Appendix C: Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Appendix D: Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders ii

5 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Appendix E: Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Appendix F: Response to Scoping Comments List of Tables Table 1 - Landscape Habitat Summary...3 Table 2 - Proposed Action Activities...7 Table 3 - LRMP Management Areas and NWFP designations Table 4 - Allowable Downed Woody Material Table 5 - Summary of proposed activities associated with Alternative Table 6 - Summary of activities associated with Alternative Table 7 - Comparison of Alternatives by Key Issue Table 8 - Comparison of Alternatives by Activity Table 9 - Averages per acre for proposed harvest stands Table 10 - Post harvest averages for harvest units (excluding skips and gaps) by alternative (per acre) Table 11- Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Definitions Table 12 - Fire Behavior Changes by Fuel Model Table 13 - Estimated Economic Value of Alternatives Table 14 - Stream Temperatures for the Horse Creek Project area Table 15 - Recovery Levels Immediately after Project Implementation Table 16 - Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams Table 17 - Summary of Road Storage or Decommissioning Sediment Risk Reduction Table 18 - Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for the Horse Creek Project area Table 19 - Large wood totals from Horse Creek Stream Survey (1996) Table 20 - Acres of Riparian Reserves Thinning and Fuels Treatments Table 21 - MIS Fish and Habitat Description for the Horse Creek planning area Table 22 - Description of Visual Quality Objectives Table 23 - Visual Quality Objective Categories Containing Activity Units Table 24 - Estimated % of Forest Habitat Type Meeting Snag Density Tolerance Levels Table 25 - % of Forest Habitat Meeting Downed Log Cover Tolerance Levels Table 26 - Horse Creek Project Spotted Owl Habitat Removal/Modification Acres Table Analysis of Current DDE categories by BGEA for Horse Creek Project Table 28 Acres of changed DDE Values by BGEA and Alternative in the Horse Creek Project Area Table 29 - Potential for Occurrence of Special Status Wildlife Species in the Horse Creek Project Area. 78 Table 30 - Summary of Particulate Matter Emissions for the Horse Creek Project Treatment Units List of Figures Figure 1 - Pie Chart of Project Area...3 Figure 2 - Horse Creek Project Land Allocations Figure 3 - Alternative 2 Map (West Half) Figure 4 - Alternative 2 Map (East Half) Figure 5 - Alternative 3 Map (West Half) Figure 6 - Alternative 3 Map (East Half) Figure 7- Projected Early Seral Habitat for the next 10 years Figure 8 - Projected age distribution for National Forest lands with no regeneration Figure 9 - Fire Regimes in the Horse Creek Project Area Figure 10 - Horse Creek Listed Fish Critical Habitat Figure 11 - Horse Creek Proposed Units Snags >10 dbh Figure 12 - Horse Creek Proposed Units Snags >20 dbh Figure 13 - Elk Habitat Emphasis Areas in the Horse Creek Project Area iii

6 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Summary The McKenzie River Ranger District proposes to commercially harvest about 2,043 acres and reduce hazardous fuels through non-commercial thinning on approximately 216 acres within the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Within the proposed 2,043 acres of commercial harvest approximately 1,468 acres would be commercially thinned (508 acres in Late Successional Reserve (LSR) and 960 acres in non-lsr), approximately 218 acres would be scattered gaps (1-3 acres in size in non-lsr), approximately 104 acres would be dominate tree releases (~¼ acre in size) (85 acres in LSR and 19 acres in non-lsr), and approximately 253 acres would be no-harvest skips (88 acres in LSR and 165 acres in non-lsr). The proposed action would also maintain approximately 37 miles of road, create approximately 9.1 miles of temporary roads (of which 0.7 miles are within Riparian Reserve and 2.4 miles are within LSR), store approximately 4.1 miles of existing roads, and decommission approximately 3.4 miles of existing roads. Roads that are currently designated as closed or stored that would be used for timber harvest would be converted back to their original maintenance level following project completion. The project area is located southeast of the McKenzie Bridge community, and is intermixed with private and Forest Service lands. The project area is within the McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest, Oregon. The proposed project would actively manage stands to improve forest conditions in terms of diversity, density, and structure; decommission or store roads not required for current and/or projected future management; provide for a sustainable supply of wood products within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area management allocations in the Horse Creek project area; and reduce hazardous fuel levels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). In addition to the proposed action (Alternative 2), the Forest Service also evaluated the following Alternatives: Alternative 1: This alternative is the no action alternative which provides the baseline to compare action Alternatives. There would be no commercial harvest, hazardous fuels reductions, road decommissioning, or road storage in this alternative. Alternative 3: This action alternative commercially harvests previously managed stands on approximately 1,133 acres, reduces hazardous fuels on approximately 216 acres, maintains approximately 34 miles of road, stores approximately 5 miles of road, decommissions approximately 3.4 miles of road, and creates approximately 3.4 miles of temporary road. Alternatives, units and activities that were considered but dropped from further analysis: Large Openings for Early Seral Habitat: In response to public scoping comments that expressed concern about the decrease in amounts of large openings for early seral habitat, an alternative was considered that would create openings ranging in size from about 5-20 acres through shelterwood harvests and increase the amount of gap openings within harvest units. The responsible official chose not to fully develop this alternative because the majority of the stands proposed for treatment for this project were younger plantations or did not meet culmination of mean annual increment. 1

7 Horse Creek Project Road Decommissioning: Many current Forest Service system roads in the project area were considered for possible decommissioning. The responsible official decided not to develop this alternative because roads not included in the action Alternatives were considered necessary for current and/or projected future vegetation management, recreational access, or fire management. All stands within the project area were considered for commercial harvest treatments. Units surveyed but not proposed for commercial activities include 1, 10, 15, 30, 35, 280, 440, and 670. The units were dropped due to stand age, feasibility or other resource concerns. Portions of units 1, 10, 15, and 30 would still receive non-commercial hazardous fuels reduction treatments in both action Alternatives. 1 - Introduction Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment 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: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose and need for the project, and the agency s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These Alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other Alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other action Alternatives that follow. Agencies, Tribes, and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of the project area may be found in the project planning record located at the McKenzie River Ranger District Office and is available upon request Background Throughout the last century the Horse Creek Project area has been shaped by both natural and human caused disturbance processes. The 1964 flood, an event with a recurrence interval of years, 2

8 Environmental Assessment June 2011 resulted in large-scale channel changes for Horse Creek. Flooding occurring in 1996, a storm with a recurrence interval of approximately 50 years, resulted in changes such as large wood accumulations into log jams, localized stream bank cutting, and channel shifting. Several slides and slope failures occurred in association with these flood events. Additionally, Forest Service records indicate that within the project area approximately 5,873 acres (~10%) of federal land has been previously clearcut. The earliest clearcuts occurred in the 1940 s and the most recent completed in the early 1990s. Below is a landscape summary of seral habitat condition on Forest Service Lands within the Horse Creek Project area Table 1 - Landscape Habitat Summary Figure 1 - Pie Chart of Project Area Seral Habitat on F.S. Lands in Horse Creek Project Area Acres % Non-Forest/unclassified 2,879 5 Early seral <20 yrs. old 1,052 2 Early Mid seral ,208 6 Mid seral yrs. old 3,070 5 Mature yrs. old 21, Older mature/old-growth 24, Total 56, Forest Service ownership within the project area is approximately 56,927 acres, about 97% of the area, while private lands account for approximately 1,639 acres or about 3% of the project area. Of the 56,927 acres within the project area approximately 18,338 are allocated as Late Successional Reserve Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to 1) Improve forest conditions in terms of diversity, density, and structure; 2) Decommission or store roads not required for current and/or projected future management; 3) Provide a sustainable supply of wood products within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area management allocations in the Horse Creek Project area; 4) Reduce hazardous fuel levels in the McKenzie Bridge WUI. Meeting the defined project purpose would address specific needs in the project area. Needs identified by the District IDT are described below in terms of the existing condition and the desired condition for the project area. 1. Improve forest conditions in terms of diversity, density, and/or structure to address the following needs A. Increase forest resiliency and adaptive capacity in the project area. Existing Condition: Out of a total of 56,927 acres of federally forested lands in the project area 7,330 acres or 13% are under 80 years old. In the absence of density management these stands can be characterized as being overstocked. This generally decreases individual tree growth, increases 3

9 Horse Creek Project tree/stand stress and susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks, and influences high severity forest fires. These disturbances can negatively impact resource values and increase wildfire risk to the project area. Desired Condition: The project area should have a decrease in overstocked stands making the area less susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks, as well as high severity forest fires. Stand vigor should be increased as released trees develop into larger trees sooner. The continuity of fuels across the treatment area should be reduced to decrease wildfire risk within the project area. Forest diversity in terms of seral stages should also be enhanced to promote less shade tolerant species which would increase the adaptive capacity of the forest. Some current climate models indicate a potential increase in average temperatures and altered precipitation patterns for this region over the course of the 21 st century (IPCC, 2007). Consequently, there is potential for increased tree/stand stress associated with forecasted changes in temperatures and precipitation. If climate models are accurate, the frequency and intensity of insect and disease outbreaks as well as wildfires may increase; potentially impacting wildlife habitat, timber production, and private residences within the WUI. Increased forest resiliency is important for sustaining forest ecosystems especially in light of projected climate changes. B. Promote the development of late-successional conditions in young, managed stands in the Horse Creek Late Successional Reserves (LSR). Existing Condition: Approximately 4,700 acres of plantations are located in the Horse Creek LSR (2,725 acres within the project area), and 98% of these are stands under 50 years old and can be characterized as being dense, overstocked, and within the stem exclusion development stage. No commercial thinning has occurred in the Horse Creek LSR over the past 20 years, which is not in line with recommendations provided in the Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment (1998). Desired Condition: Plantations in the Horse Creek LSR treated by the project should have an accelerated path to late-successional conditions, which results in stand components benefiting latesuccessional forest-related species, including: 1) the long-term development of vertical and horizontal diversity, 2) snags, and 3) coarse down woody material (logs). C. Restore riparian function in Riparian Reserves and to develop additional large wood to stream reaches that currently lack adequate amounts. Existing Condition: Timber harvests pre-dating the Willamette Forest Plan frequently extended into riparian habitat adjacent to streams within the project area. Resulting plantations within these riparian areas consist of dense, overstocked stands of small diameter trees with little stand structural diversity, and almost no large trees that can provide coarse wood to the streams. In addition, the conifer dominated overstory in these plantations has shaded out much of the hardwoods, reducing an important nutrient component of the aquatic ecosystem. Desired Condition: Provide accelerated development of the following in Riparian Reserves: 1) late successional connectivity, 2) large diameter trees as large wood sources in Riparian Reserves, 3) complex habitat structures representative of those that would result from natural disturbance patterns, 4) large wood to streams. 4

10 Environmental Assessment June 2011 D. Provide Early Seral Habitat in the Non-LSR Management Allocations. Existing Condition: A reduction in mixed severity and stand-replacing fires on the landscape over the past century, coupled with in-growth of openings created from historic timber harvesting has resulted in a deficient amount of early seral habitat in the project area. Currently, there is approximately 1,052 acres (about 2% of the project area) of forested public land in the project area that is classified as early seral habitat (0-20 years old). Much of this acreage is greater than 15 years old and is approaching early mid seral habitat. There is a need to enhance, create, and/or maintain early seral habitat in the project area to support some of the 156 wildlife species that have been documented to depend on early seral habitat within Oregon and Washington (O Neil et al. 2001). The project area contains nine elk emphasis areas. Four of these (Roney, Eugene, Harvey-Sphinx, and Separation-Honey) are managed as high emphasis areas. The other five (North Side Horse, Taylor, King, White Branch, and Owl-Pothole) are managed as moderate emphasis areas. According to elk model runs completed in 1997 and 2004, three of these elk emphasis areas do not meet the Forest Plan desired values for forage quality: King, North Side Horse, and Owl-Pothole. Desired Condition: The amount of early seral habitat within the project area should be increased and should include components of which early seral wildlife species are dependent. These components include features such as a diversity of shrub and forbs species, some legacy remnants like live and dead overstory trees, and large down woody material. 2. Decommission or store roads not required for current and/or projected future management to address the following need A. Reduce resource impacts caused by roads not needed for current and/or future resource management in the project area, with emphasis on the Horse Creek Late Successional Reserve (LSR). Existing Condition: Road density in the Horse Creek LSR is relatively low in comparison to other LSRs in the Mid-Willamette Province with a mean road density of around 2 miles per square mile. Many of these roads provide access for wildfire suppression, recreational use, and forest management treatments and will be needed in the future. However, some portions of the road system within the project area are showing signs of deterioration due to hill slope processes, fill failure, improper drainage design, and/or inadequate maintenance. These degraded roads have the potential to adversely impact surrounding natural resources, especially water quality, where failure could result in excessive sediment delivery to streams. Desired Condition: The decommissioning of Forest Service system roads not required for current or projected future vegetation management, recreational use, and/or fire suppression activities is desired; thereby, reducing or eliminating existing or potential impacts to natural resources. Degraded or deteriorating road segments that are not projected to be needed in the next 10 to 15 years would be stabilized to a self maintaining condition and stored until needed. Road storage is the term used for actions taken to reduce damage to adjacent resources and facilitate use for future management activities before road closure. 5

11 Horse Creek Project 3. Provide a sustainable supply of wood products to the public within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area management allocations to address the following need Existing Condition: The stands within the project area outside of LSR are located in Matrix and Adaptive Management Area management allocations. The Forest Plan shows a need to provide multiple-use benefits which include a goal to meet timber outputs at IV-227 and sets forth Standards and Guidelines for harvest scheduling at FS 176 and 177. The Northwest Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Analysis (USDA, 1994) amended the Forest Plan and recognized the need for a sustainable supply of timber and other forest products that will help maintain the stability of local and regional economies on a predictable and long-term basis (NWFP p. 1-4). Furthermore, the Adaptive Management Areas are expected to produce timber as part of their program (NWFP p. D-8). Desired Condition: Management activities that provide sustainable forest products in an environmentally sound and cost effective manner are desired. 4. Reduce hazardous fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Existing Condition: Fire suppression over the past century has resulted in increased fuel loading throughout forest ecosystems. This increased fuel loading consists of surface fuels, ladder fuels (small trees and brush that can carry fire into tree crowns), and dense overstory canopies. As a result, managing hazardous fuels has become a priority both nationally and locally to reduce the potential for large, high severity wildfires in and around our communities. There is a need to treat hazardous fuels in the McKenzie Bridge WUI to reduce potential wildfire impacts and risks to the private dwellings and residents in the project area. The Horse Creek Project area is within Lane County and is part of the Lane County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP, 2005). The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has begun implementation of recommendations from this CWPP regarding defensible space around private residences in the McKenzie Bridge area. Much of the Forest Service land surrounding the communities currently exhibits a fuel profile conducive to high severity wildfires through continuous tree canopies, dense understory, and/or areas of high surface fuel loadings. Desired Condition: Further enhance projects being implemented by ODF through reducing the horizontal and vertical continuity of fuels in and around the McKenzie Bridge WUI to decrease potential impacts and risks to people, structures, and resources in the event of a wildfire Proposed Action The McKenzie River Ranger District (MRRD) proposes commercial thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, sugar pine release, and no-harvest skips on approximately 2,043 acres within the Horse Creek planning area. The timber sales are planned to be sold over a period of about 3 to 7 years starting in MRRD also proposes approximately 216 acres of hazardous fuels reduction treatments in the (WUI) through non-commercial thinning. The proposed action would conduct a variety of resource management activities directly addressing the purpose and need as identified above. A description of the proposed silvicultural prescription is presented in 2.1 below with a detailed list of project activities by unit, listed in Appendix B. 6

12 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Table 2 shows the proposed activities that would help achieve the purpose and need within the project area. Table 2 - Proposed Action Activities Proposed Activity Alternative 2 Unit of Non- Measure LSR LSR Purpose Need Addressed Harvest Treatments (1) Commercial Thinning Light Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Commercial Thinning Medium Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Commercial Thinning Heavy Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Gaps (GS) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Dominant Tree Release (DTR) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D Sugar Pine Release (SPR) Acres N/A N/A 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D No Harvest (NH) Acres A Total Acres Acres 2,043 Estimated Volume MBF 27,100 Connected Actions to Harvest Treatments Logging System Skyline Acres 723 Ground Acres 1,320 Transportation Temporary Roads Miles Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 37 Subsoiling # of 13 Units Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments (2) Hand Treatments Acres 152 Mechanical Treatments Acres 703 Post Harvest Underburn (3) Acres A, 1-D Gap Underburn (4) Acres D Other Proposed Actions Non-Commercial Fuels Treatments No Harvest Hazardous Fuels Treatment (HFT) Acres A, 4 Transportation Road Storage Miles A Road Decommission Miles A (1) : Harvest Treatments are described in Section 2.1. (2) : Post harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. (3) : These acres are possible underburn acres due to dbh and location, not all acreage may be underburned. Acreage not underburned may have other post-harvest fuels treatments assigned before implementation. (4) : Gap underburns may occur even if the remainder of the unit is not burned. Refer to Section 2.1-Description of Treatments for Action Alternatives, Planting Description, and Planting-General for specific units requiring underburning for site preparation. 7

13 Horse Creek Project Connected Actions Other Connected Actions Common to all Action Alternatives Post-harvest Tree Planting: Planting would be required within the gaps of harvest units that have greater than or equal to 25% of the unit in gaps. Supplemental planting in units which are composed of less than 25% gaps may occur to add diversity to the stand with underrepresented species. Reforestation would be monitored to ensure that establishment occurs according the National Forest Management Act, In gaps created from root rot pockets, any follow-up planting would occur with species that are non-susceptible to the root disease. Subsoiling: Subsoiling would occur in commercial thinning units that are or would be above Standards and Guidelines for high compaction levels (see Appendix A). Wildlife forage seed may be spread to help deter weeds from establishing, decrease erosion potential, as well as provide temporary forage for wildlife species. Subsoiling also should occur on main skidtrails in units where follow up planting is prescribed. Road Storage: Upon completion of harvest and associated activities, previously stored system roads would be blocked to traffic. These roads would be put back into storage to reduce erosion potential and reduce potential disturbance to wildlife. Decommissioning of Temporary Roads: Temporary roads in the project area would be decommissioned upon completion of activities or connected activities such as firewood gathering, planting and fuels treatments. Soils may be scarified to aid in vegetation establishment. Wildlife forage seed may be spread to help deter weeds from establishing as well as provide quality forage for wildlife species. Down Wood and Snag: Enhancing the existing levels of down wood and snags of decay class I and II material greater than 20 diameter and 20 feet in length may occur within harvest units or adjacent un-harvested units. In units where diameters do not meet the 20 diameter criteria, smaller trees down to 14 may be treated. Enhancement activities include girdling, topping, inoculating, and hand felling of appropriately sized trees Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the other Alternatives in order to make the following decisions: The proposed actions as analyzed, comply with the applicable Standards and Guidelines found in the Willamette Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and all laws governing Forest Service actions. The Environmental Assessment has sufficient site-specific environmental analysis. The proposed action meets the purpose and need for action. With these assurances the Responsible Official must decide: Whether or not to select the proposed action or one of the Alternatives, and what, if any, additional actions should be required. Whether the selected alternative is consistent with the LRMP, or if the LRMP shall be amended in this action Planning and Management Direction This EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1990) FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD), as well as subsequent 8

14 Environmental Assessment June 2011 amendments. This includes the ROD for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Spotted Owl, or Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA, 1994), and the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants, ROD (USDA, 2005). The LRMP guides all natural resource management activities and establishes management Standards and Guidelines for the Willamette National Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resources management. (LRMP, I-1). The LRMP was amended by the NWFP which provides additional Standards and Guidelines associated with Matrix, Riparian Reserves, Adaptive Management Area, and Late-Successional Reserves. The LRMP ROD discusses environmental effects for Forest-wide programs while the NWFP ROD discusses environmental effects for regionwide programs. Both set the stage for project level analysis and planning. The Mid-Willamette Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA, 1998) is incorporated by reference. The assessment provides context at a landscape scale for disturbance regimes, connectivity, and functional roles of different elements as they pertain to Late Successional Reserves in the landscape. Used with other planning documents, the LSRA provides a landscape strategy for implementation of restoration activities by prioritizing treatment areas and listing types of appropriate treatments. This document tiers to and incorporates by reference the 2001 Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA and BLM, 2001). The 2001 ROD amends a portion of the Northwest Forest Plan by adopting new species specific Standards and Guidelines for Survey and Manage species. The ROD makes it possible for the Agencies to more efficiently provide the level of species protection intended in the Northwest Forest Plan. Table 3 displays Management Area acres as designated in the LRMP for the project area and proposed action unit acres. It also has the allocations from the NWFP. The NWFP supersedes any direction in the LRMP, unless the management area and or Standards and Guidelines in the LRMP are more restrictive. General Forest (Matrix): The primary objective of this area is to produce an optimum and sustainable yield of timber production that is compatible with multiple use objectives. Adaptive Management: The primary objective of this area is to develop and test new management approaches to integrate and achieve ecological and economic health, and other social objectives. Timber harvest is expected to occur on these lands. Riparian Reserves: Riparian Reserves are areas along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian dependent terrestrial resources receives primary emphasis. The primary objective of the reserves is to protect the health of the aquatic system and its deponent species. Scenic Retention areas: In general, human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor. 9

15 Horse Creek Project Partial Retention areas: In general, human activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Table 3 - LRMP Management Areas and NWFP designations Project Proposed Action Acres Willamette LRMP NWFP Designation Area Management Area Timber Fuel Acres Harvest 1 Reduction 1 Total 1-Wilderness 1-Wilderness 29, a-SIA 17-Adaptive Management a-SIA 16-Late Successional Reserve c-Marten Habitat Areas 17-Adaptive Management d-Wildlife Special Habitat 16-Late Successional Reserve c-Dispersed Rec. Semiprimitive Motorized 14a-Matrix e-Dispersed Rec. Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 14a-Matrix 1, e-Dispersed Rec. Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 16-Late Successional Reserve a-Scenic Modification Middleground 16-Late Successional Reserve a-Scenic Modification Middleground 17-Adaptive Management c-Scenic Partial Retention Middleground 17-Adaptive Management c-Scenic Partial Retention Middleground 16-Late Successional Reserve 1, c-Scenic Partial Retention Middleground 14a-Matrix d-Scenic Partial Retention Foreground 16-Late Successional Reserve 1, e-Scenic Retention Middleground 16-Late Successional Reserve 3, e-Scenic Retention Middleground 17-Adaptive Management f-Scenic Retention Foreground 17-Adaptive Management f-Scenic Retention Foreground 16-Late Successional Reserve b-Administrative Use Area 14a-Matrix a-General Forest 14a-Matrix 5, ,167 14a-General Forest 17-Adaptive Management a-General Forest 16-Late Successional Reserve 11, Total Acres (including skips) 2, , Riparian Reserves (2) 15, : Timber harvest acres also result in hazardous fuels reduction within and outside the WUI. The Fuel Reduction treatments represent acres that will not be commercially harvested, only non-commercially thinned to reduce hazardous fuel levels in the WUI. 2: Riparian Reserve acres overly other land management allocations and do not equate to additional acres of treatments. 10

16 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Figure 2 - Horse Creek Project Land Allocations 11

17 Horse Creek Project Modification: Human activities may dominate the characteristic landscape but must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture, and appear as natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middleground. Special Interest Areas (SIA): The objective of this area is to preserve lands that contain exceptional scenic, cultural, biological, geological or other unusual characteristics. Late Successional Reserve (LSR): The primary objective of this area is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems by maintaining biological diversity associated with native species and ecosystems that serve as habitat for late-successional forest species. Other Management Guidance (non-nepa documents) Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis (1995) Oregon Smoke Management and Implementation Plan (1995) Horse Creek Watershed Analysis (1997) Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment (1998) Lane County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2005) McKenzie River Special Interest Area Implementation Guide (2009) Public Involvement The proposed Horse Creek Project was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on October 1, Scoping letters were sent to our public mailing list in November of 2010 describing the project proposal. Comments from the public were requested by December 10 th to be most useful in the analysis. Comments were received by Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Lane County Audubon, American Forest Resource Council, North American Butterfly Association, Many Rivers Group Sierra Club, Darin Harbick, Jason Damon, Gene Hiatt, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Eugene Skrine and Valerie Rapp, Nancy Holzhauser, The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed all comments and incorporated the concerns into the issues where applicable. A summary of scoping input and the Forest Service responses are located in Appendix F. From that list the IDT developed a list of issues to address Issues Issues are points of concern about environmental effects that may occur as a result of implementing the proposed action. They are generated by the public, other agencies, organizations, and Forest Service resource specialists and are in response to the proposed action. Key issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and/or Alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision maker and the public to understand. Key issues should be phrased as a cause-effect statement relating actions under consideration. Other issues/comments are those that: (1) are outside the scope of the purpose and need; (2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, 12

18 Environmental Assessment June 2011 or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. It is important to note that all comments and potential issues provided by the public were reviewed and addressed. Appendix F lists the public comments, responses to the issues, and/or identifies where the issue is addressed in the EA. Key Issues 1. Threatened northern spotted owl: The public raised concern about the potential effects of commercial harvesting in suitable spotted owl habitat. This has been established as an issue because of the possibility of increased effects to this Threatened species. This issue will be tracked by the number of acres of suitable northern spotted owl habitat removed and is covered in depth in Chapter 3 Threatened Northern Spotted Owl. 2. Amount of temporary road construction: The public raised concern over building new temporary roads. Comments were received both in favor of and against new temporary road construction. This was established as an issue because of the possible environmental and economical impacts. The issue will be tracked throughout the analysis by the number of miles of temporary roads proposed. Resources that may be affected by the planned activities also warrant analysis and discussion and will be analyzed in chapter 3. Other issues considered but not considered Key Issues 1. Distribution and amount of early seral habitat: The public expressed concern over the amount of early seral habitat and the distribution of that early seral habitat within the project area. Big Game Emphasis Areas (BGEAs) are those managed for Habitat Effectiveness under guidance from the Willamette National Forest Plan and are currently the standards used for early seral habitat across the forest. There are nine Emphasis Areas within the Horse Creek Project area. Proposed actions could alter big game habitat by changing the amounts of foraging, hiding and thermal cover habitat. This issue was not considered a key issue because the majority of the stands proposed for treatment for this project were younger plantations or did not meet culmination of mean annual increment. The effects of the action Alternatives on big game habitat are addressed in Chapter Decommissioned Roads: The public identified a concern that the proposed amount of road storage and decommissioning was not sufficient in promoting watershed restoration. The decommissioning of roads not needed for current and/or projected future management is also identified in the purpose and need for this project. This was not considered a key issue because roads not identified in the proposed action to be stored or decommissioned were determined to have projected future management needs such as invasive weed treatments, vegetation management, recreational access, and/or fire suppression. As a result of this, any additional road storage or decommissioning falls outside the purpose and need of this project. 3. Invasive plants: Proposed actions may introduce or spread noxious and non-native invasive plants. Off road vehicle and equipment use, ground disturbance, and created openings in the 13

19 Horse Creek Project forest canopy resulting from any action alternative can provide an opportunity for noxious and non-native plants to establish. This was not considered a key issue because prevention measures, such as equipment washing, re-vegetating with local native species, and minimizing gap creation and ground disturbance in areas adjacent to existing invasive plant populations would be used for all action Alternatives. These measures should help minimize establishment of invaders and reduce population expansion associated with harvest activities. (See Design Criteria in Appendix A) 4. Commercial thinning of multi-storied stands: The public expressed concern that commercial thinning that removes multi-storied stand structure could result in negative effects to the northern spotted owl and create habitat more favorable to barred owls. This was not considered a key issue because many of the stands proposed for treatment are characterized as being single cohort stands in the stem exclusion stage of development. These stands are generally single storied, even-aged plantations with little understory vegetation. Thinning of these stands would allow increased sunlight to reach the forest floor which should stimulate some stand re-initiation (Oliver and Larson, 1990) potentially allowing for a second cohort to become established. If there is advanced regeneration within the current stand, the added sunlight should help perpetuate the growth of the smaller trees. Some mortality in trees smaller than 7 inch dbh is expected, however with the added light within the stand, the treatments should result in a more structurally diverse stand in the long term. Structurally diverse stands are generally considered more favorable habitat conditions for the spotted owl. 5. Increased off-road vehicle use resulting from commercial thinning: The public expressed concern that harvest activities could increase public access to areas for off-road vehicle use. This was not considered a key issue because there are current regulations in place prohibiting vehicle use off of designated forest system roads. Illegal off-road vehicle use should be reported and investigated by Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers. 2 - Alternatives, including the Proposed Action This section describes and compares the Alternatives considered for the Horse Creek Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the Alternatives in comparative form, clearly defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare Alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Design features that would be applied to both Alternatives are listed in Appendix A. These features are a combination of best management practices and IDT recommendations to minimize affects to resource. 14

20 Environmental Assessment June Description of Treatments for Action Alternatives Proposed treatments for the Horse Creek Project area are thinning, gaps, skips, dominant tree release, sugar pine release, hazardous fuels treatment, various post-harvest fuels reduction treatments, road storage, and road decommissioning. Activities common to all thinning Thinning would increase the health and vigor of the remaining trees and help increase the stands ability to adapt to environmental changes. Skips and gaps ¼ to 3 acres in size (see Gaps and DTR description below) would be placed in many of the stands to promote vertical, horizontal, and age diversity within the stands. Outside of the Horse Creek Late Successional Reserve (LSR), the use of skips and gaps would allow for an un-even aged management approach. Additional light reaching the forest floor should help promote a second cohort of trees. Both shade-tolerant and intolerant species may be established; however, shade-tolerant species would likely maintain longer growth within the forest canopy as the overstory crown closes. The canopy cover is estimated to increase 2% per year (Chan et. al). This second cohort is expected to provide vertical, horizontal, age, and species diversity in the stand. The trees removed through commercial thinning would primarily be the smaller diameter Douglas-fir trees. Western red cedar, sugar pine and white pine would generally not be removed in the prescription; however they may be cut for operational purposes. This prescription would also maintain or increase vegetative diversity in the understory by opening the canopy to allow for growth of seedlings, as well as the development of some understory shrubs and forbs. Thinning techniques would be based upon Stand Density Index (SDI) which represents the number of 10 inch trees per acre a stand can sustain. In the case of Douglas-fir, 595 is the maximum SDI (SDI max ) identified for west side Douglas-fir (Reineke, 1933). Project generated fuels may be removed with treatments such as biomass utilization, piling and burning, underburning, mastication, firewood, chipping, or natural decomposition. Post-harvest fuels treatments may be monitored to compare natural decomposition and fuels treatments such as yarding-tops-attached or burning. Activities associated with thinning in the Horse Creek LSR In an effort to stimulate development of late-successional conditions, the following activities would be prescribed within the Horse Creek LSR. To increase the stand diversity and size of tree crowns, limbs, and individual tree diameters, dominant tree release would be utilized within the LSR. Gaps of 1-3 acres would not be placed in LSR due to restraints from Standards and Guidelines. Thinning prescriptions would be prescribed in the same fashion as in the non-lsr stands with an emphasis on thinning the stands a little heavier. The heavier thinning would help to promote larger limbs lower to the ground, larger crown size, larger diameter growth, and would also likely reduce the number of stand entries needed for the long term. A 20 maximum diameter cap for harvest trees would be placed on trees within the LSR. To avoid inappropriately simplifying stands in the LSR, heavy thinning would not reduce the canopy cover below 30% nor reduce the residual stand below 50 trees per acre (Mid Willamette LSR Assessment, 1998). See 15

21 Horse Creek Project below for detailed description of activities and Table 5 for distribution within the LSR. Enhancement activities such as snag and creation of coarse woody debris may be completed following harvests. Thinning Prescription Description Commercial Thinning Heavy (CT-H): The CT-H would thin stands to an average canopy cover between approximately 20-50%. The residual SDI for the stand, post harvest, would be between 15-30% of the SDI max. Maintaining SDI max in the 15-30% range would help to maximize individual tree growth and size (Long, 1985). Commercial Thinning Moderate (CT-M): CT-M would thin stands to an average canopy cover between approximately 35-50%. The residual stand, post harvest, would have between 30-60% SDI max which is a zone where a stand would have full site occupancy however be below a level of self-thinning (Long, 1985). In addition to helping maintain a healthy stand below the self-thinning threshold, the SDI ranges would help to maximize growth on the stand in its entirety. Commercial Thinning Light (CT-L): The CT-L would occur within Riparian Reserves and would thin stands to an average canopy cover between approximately 50-60% which would help provide ample shade for the Riparian Reserves. Gaps: Gaps would be randomly placed unless it was necessary to strategically place the openings within a stand to minimize conflict for future harvesting techniques and/or to provide higher quality early seral habitat for wildlife species. When a root rot pocket is identified, a gap would be placed with a 50 foot buffer established around the outside of the root rot pocket. Within the stand, a commercial thinning prescription would be applied to the area outside the gaps. No Gaps would be placed within LSR. Outside LSR, up to 25% of a stand may be put into gaps of various shapes and sizes. Gaps would generally range in size from 1-3 acres with the potential of larger gaps occurring when a 50 foot buffer is placed on a root disease pocket. Within the LSR, dominant tree release (DTR) would replace gaps and would range in size from ¼ to ½ acre. Gaps would retain approximately one tree per acre to add diversity and provide for natural recruitment of snags and down woody material in the future. Trees designated as a leave tree within the gap would not be used for snag or down woody (wildlife) enhancement projects; however, retention trees meeting criteria for wildlife trees (i.e. having Phellinus pini conks or other elements of wood decay, crooked tops, etc.) would serve as a wildlife tree and offset the need for further enhancement. No gaps would be placed in Riparian Reserves. Dominant Tree Release (DTR): This prescription would provide for growth of dominant trees to promote larger trees scattered throughout the stands. This meets the purpose of improving stand conditions in terms of species composition, diversity, density, and structure. DTR may result in open grown trees that develop larger limbs lower to the ground, which could serve as wildlife habitat, as well as greater taper reducing tree susceptibility to wind damage in the future. The area around the dominant tree would be cut to a radius of one chain (66 feet which equates to approximately ¼ acre) around each tree marked. Two or more trees in a clump may be identified 16

22 Environmental Assessment June 2011 as a DTR which would result in an estimated 1/3 acre oval shaped opening being placed around the crowns of the trees (two ¼ acre holes combined, see diagram below). The canopy cover of the stand would be adjusted based on the ¼ acre DTR having a canopy cover of 4% (estimated average canopy of 24 inch dbh for the selected DTR tree). Dominant tree selected Cut Radius around each dominant tree Sugar Pine Release (SPR): Within all units, a SPR prescription would be used in an effort to help promote sugar pine regeneration, addressing part of the purpose of improving stand conditions in terms of species composition, diversity, density, and structure. SPR would be applied to sugar pines that are 24 dbh and larger with a maximum of 5 trees selected per 10 acres. All trees within a radius of one chain from the bole of the sugar pine are to be cut and removed regardless of species with the exception of another sugar pine or a tree larger than 45 inches DBH (20 inches dbh in the LSR). The one chain radius would result in an approximately ¼ acre opening in the canopy. When a sugar pine is present and the treatments for a unit include DTR, the SPR would substitute for the DTR. The canopy closure of the stand would be adjusted based on the ¼ acre SPR having a canopy closure of 4% (estimated average canopy of 24 inch dbh for the selected DTR tree). This prescription would promote increased growth of larger trees scattered throughout the stands and allow a higher probability for natural regeneration to occur. No-Harvest Skips NH: No-harvest skips would be used to help add diversity within stands. Skips would be placed around all watercourses ranging from 30 feet for Class 4 streams to 60 feet for Class 1, 2, and 3 streams at a minimum. In units where gaps represent 25% of the stand, skips shall be placed to account for 15% of the stand. Planting Description General Planting: No planting would occur in CT-M, CT-L, DTR, SPR, or Gaps unless specified below. Where planting is prescribed within a stand and the residual stand quadratic mean diameter is 14 inches or greater, underburning to treat the slash may occur as site prep. Main skid roads in units should be sub soiled to a depth of inches to reduce the effects of compaction. Residual slash and other debris would be utilized to micro-site the seedlings and act as a deterrent to browse by ungulates. Planting would occur in units 50, 580 and 810 which would be thinned to low residual trees per acre density. This should allow for successful artificial regeneration. In addition, the gaps within units 40, 700, 760, 780, 840, 880, 900, and 960 shall be planted. Underrepresented species would be intermixed in the replanting. Douglas-fir would be the primary tree species planted (60-70%) with sugar pine (approximately 5-10%), white pine (10-25%), and western red cedar (10-25%) intermixed where appropriate (percentages are approximate and are recommendations in case unforeseen circumstances occur). Trees would be planted at a 15 x 15 foot spacing (194 trees per acre) to ensure establishment. Planting success would be defined as 75% survivorship. 17

23 Horse Creek Project Underburning may be used for site preparation in the units and gaps where planting would occur. This should reduce post harvest fuels and decrease competition between seedlings, grasses, forbs and shrubs for resources in the upper horizons of the soil. Planting Alternative: Portions of select units within ½ mile of Forest Service Road 2643 would be planted primarily with noble fir. Units 480, 560, 620, and 630 would have noble fir plugs planted at approximately 24 x 24 foot spacing or 75 trees per acre (TPA). Planting success would be defined as 75% survivorship. Fuels Treatments Description Post harvest fuels treatments would be utilized to reduce harvest created fuels. Treatments are guided by the LRMP Standards & Guides (S&G) for Maximum Acceptable Fuel Loadings of downed woody material. These guidelines are as follows (FW-212 and FW-252): Table 4 - Allowable Downed Woody Material Diameter Tons/Acre > pieces/acre >20 ft. Proposed post-harvest fuels treatments would consist of hand treatments, mechanical treatments, and/or underburning. Underburns may require the construction of handlines around the unit perimeter. The handlines would be created prior to the burn and would aid in containing the prescribed fire within the unit boundaries. Handlines are created by scraping fuel back to an approximate 18 mineral soil line and scattering fuels that lie within about 10 feet of the proposed line. If units are located on a steep slope, waterbars would be created within the fireline to reduce erosion potential. The implementation of fuels treatment may vary in method from what is proposed in the Alternatives to meet S&G (i.e. grapple piling instead of underburning). However, the implemented fuel treatments would remain within the range of effects analyzed in the EA. Hand Treatments and Mechanical Treatments: Hand treatments require manually hand piling the majority of created slash that is 1 inch in diameter and 3 feet in length. Mechanical treatments use machines to pile or chip/mulch fuels. Slash piles may occur within the unit or at the landing(s). Piles would generally be placed in locations to minimize the damage of residual standing snags or live trees; however some piles could be strategically located to cause tree mortality to create snags for wildlife habitat. Piles would then be burned at a later date after the slash has sufficiently dried and conditions would not allow fire to spread to surrounding areas. Hand, grapple, and landing piles are covered with approved plastic following construction. This creates a drier pocket of fuel in the middle of the pile and enables them to be burned during the wet season when there is very low risk of fire spreading into adjacent fuels. Post Harvest Underburn: Post harvest underburns are intended to reduce fuels created by harvest activities, help promote structural and biological diversity, perform site preparation for planting, and improve ecological health by returning a natural disturbance to the ecosystem. Low-to-moderate intensity surface fire would reduce competition from shade tolerant species within the residual stand. Underburning would comply with Forest S&G in regards to 18

24 Environmental Assessment June 2011 consumption of fuels and maintaining down-woody material, duff cover, and snags. Spring-like burning conditions would reduce the risk of burning large woody material because of high moisture content and provide conditions for lower fire intensity meeting fuel treatment S&G. Mortality of residual overstory trees should be minimized to no greater than 10%. Trees that are killed adjacent to roads may be felled for safety reasons. Hazardous Fuels Treatments (HFT) (Units 1, 10, 15, 30, ): This prescription would reduce fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface through non-commercial methods. The primary objectives are to reduce ladder fuels and surface fuel loads (horizontal and vertical continuity). Stands with this treatment are generally older (>120yrs old) and would focus on cutting trees and shrubs no greater than 10 inches dbh. Changes to the fuel and stand structure would reduce potential wildfire behavior in the McKenzie Bridge WUI. Treatments include: cutting/thinning, hand piling and burning, chipping, mastication, or public use firewood. Roads For all action Alternatives, existing forest roads that would be needed for harvest activity would be maintained to allow safe access to harvest areas and to reduce adverse impacts to resources. Road maintenance associated with haul routes would result in decreased maintenance cost, improved safety, and reduced potential for resource damage related to degraded roads that would be needed for current and future resource management. Road maintenance activities may include felling danger trees, clearing and grubbing, replacing drainage structures, asphalt pavement patching, repairing holes in the roadbed, reconstructing ditches, application of dust abatement material (water or lignin sulfate), and placement of aggregate surfacing. Temporary roads would be created in both action Alternatives. These roads would be placed in areas to minimize impacts to resources and when possible, would be placed on previously disturbed areas. Temporary roads would be decommissioned after all activities associated with their use are completed. Road Storage and Decommissioning: To meet the purpose and need of decommissioning or storing roads not required for current and/or projected future management the District Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed roads in the project area and identified roads or segments of roads meeting this criterion. Roads being either stored or decommissioned would receive treatments to place them in a hydrologically stable condition. This may include water barring, reseeding, sub-soiling, culvert removal, or slope stabilization. The storage and decommissioning of these roads are not associated with timber harvest activities and implementation of treatment would be contingent upon funding availability. Roads designated for storage would be placed in a hydrologically stable condition, seeded with approved forest mix, and closed to vehicular traffic. Some roads designated for storage are currently closed; however, additional work is needed to assure a hydrologically stable condition. Stored roads could have future needs for activities such as young plantation thinning and would therefore be stored and remain as a closed Forest system road. 19

25 Horse Creek Project Roads designated for decommissioning were determined to be unneeded in the foreseeable future. These roads would be closed to vehicular traffic, made hydrologically stable, seeded with approved forest mix, returned to a more natural state, and removed from the Forest road system Alternatives Alternative 1(No Action) Under the No Action alternative, existing management plans would continue to guide activities in the project area. No commercial harvest, fuels treatments, road storage, or road decommissioning would be implemented to accomplish the projects purpose and needs. Alternative 1 assesses the current management situation of the affected environment and serves as a baseline to compare and describe the differences in effects between taking no action and implementing action Alternatives to meet project objectives. Because no timber harvest, fuels reduction, road storage or decommissioning would occur, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for action, including managing the project area to improve stand health and vigor, decommission or store roads not needed for projected future management, provide a sustainable supply of wood products, and reduce fuels in the WUI. The existing network of roads would remain unchanged. Normal scheduled road maintenance, such as brushing, culvert cleaning, and surface blading would continue in accordance with maintenance plans and present funding levels. Control of invasive plants would continue as currently programmed and funded Alternative 2 (The Proposed Action) Alternative 2 is the proposed action and is designed to meet the purpose and need of the Horse Creek project. This alternative proposes approximately 2,043 acres of commercial thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, sugar pine release, and no-harvest skips; approximately 216 acres of hazardous fuels reduction through non-commercial thinning within the McKenzie Bridge WUI, approximately 37 miles of road maintenance, approximately 9.1 miles of temporary road creation (of which 0.7 miles are within Riparian Reserve and 2.4 miles are within LSR), approximately 4.1 miles of road storage, and approximately 3.4 miles of road decommissioning within the Horse Creek planning area. The timber sales are planned to be sold over a period of about 3 to 7 years starting in A description of the proposed silvicultural prescription is presented in 2.1 Description of Treatments for Action Alternative. A detailed list of project activities for individual units is listed in Appendix B. Table 5 - Summary of proposed activities associated with Alternative 2 Proposed Activity Alternative 2 Unit of Purpose Need Non- Measure LSR Addressed LSR Harvest Treatments (1) Commercial Thinning Light (CT-L) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Commercial Thinning Moderate (CT-M) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D,3,4 20

26 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Table 5 - Summary of proposed activities associated with Alternative 2 Proposed Activity Alternative 2 Unit of Purpose Need Non- Measure LSR Addressed LSR Commercial Thinning Heavy (CT-H) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D,3,4 Gaps (GS) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Dominant Tree Release (DTR) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D Sugar Pine Release (SPR) (1) Acres N/A N/A 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D No Harvest (NH) Acres A, 1-D Total Acres Acres 681 1,362 2,043 Estimated Volume MBF 27,100 Connected Actions Logging System Skyline Acres 723 Ground Acres 1,320 Transportation Temporary Roads Miles Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 37 Subsoiling # of Units 13 Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments (2) Hand Treatments Acres 152 Mechanical Treatments (2) Acres 703 Post Harvest Underburn (3) Acres A, 1-D Gap Underburn (4) Acre D Other Proposed Actions Fuels Treatments No Commercial Harvest Hazardous Fuels Treatment (HFT) Acres A, 4 Transportation Road Storage Miles A Road Decommission Miles A (1) : SPR would be applied if sugar pines are found in a stand and would be identified during pre-sale layout. (2) : Post harvest fuels treatment methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. (3) : These acres are possible underburn acres due to dbh and location, not all acreage may be underburned. Acreage not underburned may have other post-harvest fuels treatments assigned before implementation. (4) : Gap underburns may occur even if remainder of unit is not burned. Refer to Section 2.1 for specific units requiring underburning for site preparation Alternative 3 Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 in that it would not harvest in suitable northern spotted owl habitat or in stands with lower densities. Alternative 3 would also not harvest units that require the creation of temporary roads that are greater than ¼ mile in length or cross class 1, 2, or 3 streams. Otherwise the unit treatments in Alternative 3 are the same as those in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes approximately 1,133 acres (~910 acres less than Alternative 2) of commercial thinning, gap creation, DTR, SPR, and no-harvest skips within the Horse Creek planning area. Alternative 3 would construct approximately 3.4 miles of temporary road with

27 Horse Creek Project Figure 3 - Alternative 2 Map (West Half) 22

28 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Figure 4 - Alternative 2 Map (East Half) 23

29 Horse Creek Project miles in Riparian Reserves and 0.5 mile in LSR (~5.7 miles less than Alternative 2). Road storage would be approximately 5.0 miles instead of 4.1 miles in Alternative 2. Hazardous fuels reduction (~216 acres) and road decommissioning (~3.4 miles) would remain the same as Alternative 2. Description of the proposed silvicultural prescriptions is presented in 2.1 Description of Treatments for Action Alternative. Table 6 shows the activities for Alternative 3 that would help achieve the purpose and need within the Horse Creek Project area: Table 6 - Summary of activities associated with Alternative 3 Proposed Activity Unit of Alternative 3 Purpose Need Measure Non- LSR Addressed LSR Harvest Treatments Commercial Thinning-Light (CT-L) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Commercial Thinning-Moderate (CT-M) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Commercial Thinning-Heavy (CT-H) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Gaps (GS) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 3, 4 Dominant Tree Release (DTR) Acres A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D Sugar Pine Release (SPR) (1) Acres N/A N/A 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D No Harvest (NH) Acres A, 1-D Total Acres Acres ,133 Estimated Volume MBF 12,900 Connected Actions Logging System Skyline Acres 543 Ground Acres 590 Transportation Temporary Roads Miles Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 34 Subsoiling # of 5 Units Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments (2) Hand Treatments Acres 128 Mechanical Treatments 2 (3) Acres 272 Post Harvest Underburn (3) Acres A, 1-D Gap Underburn (4) Acres D Other Proposed Actions Non-Commercial Fuels Treatments No Harvest Hazardous Fuels Treatment (HFT) Acres A, 4 Transportation Road Storage Miles A Road Decommissioning Miles A (1) : SPR would be applied only if sugar pines are found in the stand (currently none have been identified) and would be identified during pre sale layout. (2) : Post harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. (3) : These acres are possible underburn acres due to dbh and location. Acreage not underburned may have other postharvest fuels treatments assigned before implementation. (4) : Gap underburns may occur even if remainder of unit is not burned. Refer to Section 2.1 for units requirements 24

30 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Figure 5 - Alternative 3 Map (West Half) 25

31 Horse Creek Project Figure 6 - Alternative 3 Map (East Half) 26

32 Environmental Assessment June Comparison of Alternatives by Issue This Section provides a brief summary of effects by alternative based on the key issues selected by the Responsible Official. Table 7 - Comparison of Alternatives by Key Issue. Proposed Activity Unit of Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Issue #1 Amount of suitable northern spotted owl habitat removed Acres Issue #2 Amount of temporary road construction Miles Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a brief summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 8 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among Alternatives. Table 8 - Comparison of Alternatives by Activity Proposed Activity Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Non- Non- LSR LSR LSR LSR Harvest Treatments Commercial Thinning Light Acres Commercial Thinning Moderate Acres Commercial Thinning Heavy Acres Gaps Acres Dominant Tree Release Acres Sugar Pine Release (1) Acres 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A No Harvest Acres Total Acres 681 1, Acres 0 2,043 1,133 Estimated Volume MBF 0 27,100 12,900 Connected Actions to Harvest Treatment Logging System Skyline Acres Ground Acres 0 1, Transportation Temporary Roads Miles Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles Subsoiling # of Units Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments (2) Hand Treatments Acres Mechanical Treatments (2) Acres Post Harvest Underburn (3) Acres Gap Underburn (3)(4) Acres

33 Horse Creek Project Proposed Activity Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Non- Non- LSR LSR LSR LSR Other Proposed Actions Fuels Treatments No Harvest Hazardous Fuels Treatment Acres Transportation Road Storage Miles Road Decommission Miles (1) : SPR would be applied if sugar pines are found in a stand and would be identified during pre sale layout. (2) : Post harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. (3) : These acres are possible underburn acres due to dbh and location. Acreage not underburned may have other postharvest fuels treatments assigned before implementation. (4) : Gap underburns may occur even if remainder of unit is not burned. Refer to Section 2.1- for specific units requiring underburning for site preparation Environmental Consequences 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. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of Alternatives presented in Chapter 2, Proposed Actions. See Appendix B for a unit by unit table and Appendix C for all past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect the project area. 3.1 Forest and Stand Structure Scale of analysis The scale used to evaluate the overall condition of the Horse Creek Project was the project area which consists of 58,566 acres in the Horse Creek 5 th field watershed, Lower and Middle Horse Creek and Lower Separation 6th field watersheds. The scale used to evaluate stand health was the individual proposed harvest units in the project area which had stand exams completed Affected Environment Private Lands: Forest Service ownership within the project area is approximately 56,927 acres, about 97% of the area, while private lands account for approximately 1,639 acres, about 3% of the project area. Forest and stand structure on private lands have been shaped by timber harvest and fires in the last century. There is no reliable source of vegetative data for private lands in the project area, but based on GIS analysis and general knowledge of the area, approximately 65% (~1,065 acres) of the private lands are industrial forest lands. It is also assumed that most industrial forest lands are managed on a year rotation, so up to 1,065 acres could have been harvested in the last 60 years; however that is unlikely due to accessibility issues for some areas. Within the last 15 years it is estimated that 765 acres has been harvested by clearcuts. All clearcuts appear to have been replanted. Management of private industrial forest lands is expected to remain consistent for the reasonably foreseeable future. The remainder of the land seems to be residential. 28

34 Environmental Assessment June 2011 National Forest Lands: Timber harvest and stand replacing fires have been the dominating disturbances on forested lands in the 20th century. Table 1 and Figure 1 of the EA show the current age distribution of the Horse Creek Project area. Figure 8 displays a 75 year projection of the age distribution in the project area. The information is based on no regeneration harvest or other disturbance causing regeneration to occur in the project area for the next 75 years. Figure 7- Projected Early Seral Habitat within the Horse Creek Project Area for the next 10 years on National Forest lands where no regeneration, gaps, or wildfire occurs Figure 7 and Figure 8 show that if there is no regeneration disturbance caused by harvesting, fire, or other natural occurrence within National Forest lands, early seral habitat (<20 years old) would progress to early mid seral habitat in 5 years, early mid seral habitat (20-40 years old) would go away within 30 years, and mid seral forests would be lost within 75 years. Presently, approximately 82% of the project area is currently over 80 years old, which could be classified as mature forests. Approximately 43% is over 200 years old which would be classified as old growth. The natural historic range of variability for old growth Douglas-fir forests is 50-90% of the landscape. The Horse Creek Project is composed of generally north to northeast facing slopes. It could be assumed that historically this area would have been in the middle of the historic range of variability. The amount of mature or old growth forest within the project area is slightly lower than may have occurred naturally, however there is little difference. Figure 8 - Projected age distribution for National Forest lands in the Horse Creek project area with no regeneration 29

35 Horse Creek Project Due to the slope direction, it could be assumed that historically this area would have had pulses of large expanses of early seral habitat. This would have been the result of stand replacing fires characteristic of these forest types in conjunction with numerous smaller openings from disturbance like small lightning fires and endemic insect outbreaks. The historic range of variability for early seral habitat in Douglas-fir is 3-30% of the landscape. Currently the Horse Creek Project has approximately 1.5% of early seral habitat across the project area which suggests that there is a shortage compared to what may have occurred naturally. Stand structure within the proposed timber harvest units is limited. The units are mostly single cohort stands that have little vertical and horizontal diversity. The units range from approximately 30 years old to 100 years old. Previously managed stands and one fire regenerated stand are proposed for harvest in Alternative 2, where only previously managed stands are proposed in Alternative 3. As shown in Table 9 the average canopy cover percentage is around 68% with an average stand density index (SDI) of around 341 for Alternative 2 and 332 for Alternative 3. Inter tree mortality likely begins to occur around 55% of the maximum SDI (Tappeiner et al. 2007). The estimated maximum SDI for Douglas-fir is 595 (Reineke, L.H. 1933), therefore inter tree mortality will likely occur at an SDI of 327. Inter tree mortality has already begun on the majority of the stands in the project area. Table 9 - Averages per acre for proposed harvest stands Trees Quadratic Average Total Alternative Per Mean Stand Acre Acre Diameter Height Canopy Cover Percent Age Basel Area Stand Density Index Standing Board Foot 2 2, , , ,882 Previously Managed Stands (2021 acres in the proposed action): In the last 70 years there has been approximately 7,180 acres (approximately 13%) of the federal land within the project area managed with either a regeneration or selection harvest. The earliest management was in the 1940 s with regeneration being the predominant harvest method until the 1990 s when selective harvest became the dominant form of management. Most of these stands have been precommercially thinned and some have been fertilized. Previously managed stands proposed for commercial harvest in the Horse Creek Project area can be characterized as second growth stands in the stem exclusion stage. The average age is approximately 43 years old with the range between 30 and 60 years old. Most of the stands are just starting to enter the stem exclusion stage or are already well in the stem exclusion stage. Little understory development and species diversity appears to be in the stands. Fire Regenerated Stand (22 acres in the proposed action): Historically, large stand replacing wildfires could return whole drainages to early seral habitat. Allowing these large scale disturbances to occur naturally is currently not an option because wildfire suppression is a priority for the Horse Creek Project area. The Horse Creek Project area has been shaped by flood events and wildfires as well as timber harvest over the past 100 years. Our fire records show that there have been six large fires within 30

36 Environmental Assessment June 2011 or near the planning area in the last century. Each of these fires was a stand replacing event that left few residual trees. With no records to suggest otherwise, the stands are believed to have been naturally regenerated with predominantly Douglas-fir. Many of these fire regenerated stands do not show signs of active management since regeneration occurred. However, some of the stands do have residual stumps representing either salvage logging or selective harvest. With very little residual large snags and stumps located in the fire regenerated stands, a possible conclusion could be that there was multiple stand replacing fires that occurred in the area. If the fires occurred relatively shortly after each other, it would explain the lack of legacy features, which could have been consumed by the subsequent fire(s). The fire regenerated stand proposed for commercial harvest can be characterized as a second growth stand in the stem exclusion stage (generally dense, closed canopy forests where inter tree competition occurs). The age, based on 2010 stand exams, is approximately 98 years old. Because this stand is within the stem exclusion stage, a small amount of understory development is apparent. The stand is predominantly Douglas-fir with small amounts of sugar pine, western red cedar, and western hemlock saplings in the understory Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No stand treatments would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1. Growth rates would continue to decline, and natural processes that affect tree vigor and cause changes in stand structure would continue. Tree mortality occurring within known root rot pockets would continue unabated. Many stands are overstocked; site resources are being fully utilized and inter tree competition is apparent. The effects of overstocked stands include decreased growth, increased rates of mortality, higher risk for insect and disease attacks, and higher risk for stand replacing fires. Decline in underrepresented species, like sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata), would continue. Shade tolerant species, like western hemlock, would eventually dominate the stand in absence of timber harvest and/or other disturbances. High stocking density and canopy covers would continue to restrict regeneration of shade intolerant species such as Douglas-fir and sugar pine. Additionally, early seral habitat for wildlife species would continue to decline (see Figure 7 above). Within the LSR, the stands will continue to move towards late-successional characteristics at a rate slower than could be attained. The snag and coarse woody debris will continue to be composed of smaller material for a longer period as inter tree competition continues to hamper the growth of the stand and small trees die and become snags and down wood. Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Thinning: The commercial thinning for the Horse Creek Project area would primarily remove the smaller Douglas-fir in the stand. The thinning prescriptions for units remain the same in both action Alternatives. The difference being there would be less units and roughly 45% fewer acres being treated in alternative 3 (Alt. 2 has ~2,043 acres, Alt. 3 has ~1,133 acres), so less stands 31

37 Horse Creek Project would benefit from the effects of harvesting. The stands are mostly single cohort stands that have limited late successional characteristics and almost no early seral characteristics. The thinning would result in increased diversity through variable density thinning because there would be a range of residual tree spacing, openings (natural and created within stands), un-thinned areas (skips), and yarding corridors breaking up stand continuity. Latham and Tappeiner s (2002) study looked at stands harvested in Oregon that were 156 to 650 years old. Trees associated with harvest had more of a positive response to growth and vigor compared to the un-harvested control. All stands in the Horse Creek Project are younger than the study and therefore it is expected that the residual trees left would have more of a positive response than if left untreated. These stands would respond by maintaining or increasing growth and vigor over their current conditions. This would make the stands less susceptible to drought, insect, disease and wildfire damage, which in turn would promote healthy forests that are more resistant and resilient to the effects of climate change (Joyce et al. 2009). Variable density thinning would provide structural diversity at the stand and landscape scale to meet the varying habitat requirements of plants and animals. It would also leave options open for an uncertain climatic future. Understory vegetation would likely be maintained or enhanced in the thinning treatments compared to current levels, due to additional light reaching the forest floor (Ares et al, 2009; Davis et al., 2009; Harrington et al, 2004; Bailey and Tappeiner, 1998). This increased light would allow for some early seral habitat development, but is relatively short lived. An estimated increase of canopy cover of 2% per year (Chan et al, 2006) after the third year following harvest would be expected. Both shade-tolerant and intolerant species may be established; however, shade-tolerant species would likely survive longer as the overstory crown closes. This second cohort would be expected to provide vertical and horizontal species diversity over the next years. Subsequent thinning to maintain the growth of residual trees would be projected in many of the stands. Below is a summary of effects on average per acre for the proposed thinning by alternative following harvest. Within the LSR, thinning would help to develop late-successional characteristics by reducing competition of the remaining stand. The reduced competition would allow the residual stand to attain large diameter stems and limbs, and fuller crowns more quickly. These larger trees over time would result in long-term development of vertical and horizontal diversity, snags, coarse woody material (logs), and other stand components benefiting late-successional forest related species (Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment, 1998). In addition to added growth, having a more open stand would better allow a second cohort to become established to more quickly attain a multi-storied canopy. Table 10 - Post harvest averages for harvest units (excluding skips and gaps) by alternative (per acre) Alternative Number of Stands Trees Per Acre Quadratic Mean Diameter Stand Height Removed Board Feet Canopy Cover Percent Basel Area Stand Density Index , ,

38 Environmental Assessment June 2011 As shown on a per acre basis, there is little difference between Alternatives, except for the number of stands treated. Gaps: Gaps proposed in both action Alternatives are means of creating openings to help in the establishment of shade intolerant species such as Douglas-fir and other early seral species. The majority of the trees would be removed from the site with some residual live trees left on site. Although nothing can exactly mimic naturally occurring disturbance events, these openings would provide a forest product to society while creating a small scale disturbance similar to what may have occurred naturally. Gaps outside of the LSR would generally consist of approximately 1-3 acre openings with undulating edges where appropriate to avoid circles or square edges. Gaps would not be placed in Riparian Reserves. When root disease is present, the gap would be placed over the root disease to help slow the spread of the disease. In situations where the gap is associated with root disease, the gap size would be the size of the disease pocket plus a 50 foot buffer on the outside of the disease pocket as recommended by the Region 6 Forest Health and Protection website ( Openings of 1-3 acres should both facilitate stand treatments and increase satisfactory development of regeneration (Curtis and Carey, 1996). Because some of the gaps would be relatively small for regeneration of shade intolerant species, there would be an edge effect (shade from residual trees around the edge of the group). Height growth would be greater near the center of the opening and away from any leave trees. The gaps would be expected to be re-forested in the future and would allow a chance for shade intolerant species such as Douglas-fir to regenerate. In addition, the gaps would help to better mimic some late successional characteristics within the stand than would be projected to be produced in the same time frame if no treatment occurred (Andrews et al. 2005). Alternative 2 would have more acres (218 acres) for early seral habitat and regeneration to develop than alternative 3 (103 acres). Dominant Tree Release (DTR): Scattered throughout numerous units, the DTR would result in about ¼ acre canopy clearings around the largest, most dominant trees in the area. Maintained or increased diameter and height growth rates would be expected for the dominant trees after treatment (Tappeiner et al. 2007). Some open grown characteristics might begin to develop in the future with large limb size, greater taper and increased stability. In the LSR, the DTR would help provide open grown trees showing some late-successional characteristics such as full crowns, and have larger diameter boles and limbs. The DTRs would also help to encourage the initiation of structural diversity within the stands (Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment, 1998). Sugar Pine Release (SPR): Within all units, a SPR prescription would be used in an effort to help promote sugar pine regeneration, addressing part of the purpose of improving stand conditions in terms of species composition, diversity, density, and structure. SPR would be applied to sugar pine 24 dbh and larger with a maximum of 5 trees selected per 10 acres. The SPR would essentially be the same as a DTR in size and effects; however SPR would apply to all units and would substitute for a DTR when both occur in the same stand. No-Harvest Skips: These areas would be allowed to have natural processes take place such as 33

39 Horse Creek Project inter tree competition which would create snags and down woody material. However, there would be an edge effect that could take place along the skip s edge. Depending on the location and positioning of the skip the edge effect could allow for more light to reach the trees along the edge and forest floor. This extra light could lead to greater growth of some of the individual trees and some of the forbs and shrubs. Within the LSR, no-harvest skips would help to increase diversity and to retain processes and conditions such as thermal and visual cover, natural suppression and mortality, small trees, natural size differentiation, and undisturbed debris (Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment, 1998). Alternatives 2 and 3 Cumulative Effects There is no reliable source of vegetative age data for private industrial forest lands in the project area. It is assumed the private lands are being managed on a year rotation (site class dependant); management practices are not expected to deviate from this current rotation in the reasonably foreseeable future. GIS analysis has estimated 765 acres of private grounds have been clearcut in the past 15 years. Timber sale activities could reduce the number of natural snags that currently exist within the harvest units. However, snags would be replaced to some extent by burning induced tree mortality, incidental mortality as a result of harvest and post-harvest snag and down wood enhancement projects. There would also be around 96% of the Forest Service ownership within the project area that would not receive any harvest treatments (~55,000 acres) allowing natural processes to take place. The proposed stand treatments combined with the effects of past timber harvest and reasonably foreseeable projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts to forest and stand structure in the analysis area. Alternatives 2 and 3 Key Issues Key Issue #1 Threatened Northern Spotted Owl: Alternative 2 proposes to thin unit 50, a 22 acre stand that is currently approximately 98 years old and suitable northern spotted owl habitat. The proposed activity would remove the acreage from the suitable category. However, Table 1 shows that the 22 acres represents less than.05% of the current 46,660 acres of the 80+ year old age class within the watershed. In addition, the Horse Creek Project area consists of over 18,300 acres (32% of the project area) designated as Late Successional Reserve where management would continue to emphasize stand characteristics that are favorable for the northern spotted owl. Unit 50 is not located within the Horse Creek LSR. Alternative 3 does not propose to thin Unit 50. Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: Compaction from temporary roads may cause seedling and vegetation establishment to be difficult. However with the Design Criteria listed in Appendix A, soil compaction levels in temporary roads would be minimal (between S&G) and reduced with sub soiling and is therefore not a concern for the project area. Both action Alternatives would have the same effects for temporary roads within the given units. 34

40 Environmental Assessment June Fire and Fuels Scale of analysis The geographic scale used to assess direct and indirect effects includes the project activity units in the Horse Creek Project area. The cumulative effects analysis used the entire Horse Creek Project area Affected Environment Fire on the Landscape: Fire has played an important ecological role on the Willamette National Forest and will continue to do so in the future. Historically fires were often caused by lightning, but there are also references of local Indigenous people using fire for managing resources and travel routes (Teensma, 1996 and Kay, 2007). Over the past 80 years, records indicate six large, stand replacing wildfires occurred within or near the boundary of the Horse Creek Project area. Additionally, since 1970 records indicate there have been approximately 109 smaller fires within the project area that were suppressed and most were contained to less than one acre. Lightning accounted for the majority of these fires. Based on recorded data, the fire frequency in the Project area is 2.75 fires per year demonstrating the potential for fire to continue to occur across this landscape. Fire is a natural disturbance and the influences of human actions (development and resource management) over the past century necessitate activities to aid in maintaining and reducing wildfire hazards. Management activities such as grazing, timber harvest, fuels treatments, and fire suppression have altered Fire Regimes (FR) and the historic mosaic stand structure across the project area. Figure 9 - Fire Regimes in the Horse Creek Project Area 35

41 Horse Creek Project Fire Regime models indicate the Horse Creek Project area to be primarily FR IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc with FR V at higher elevations (see Figure 9). Fire Regime classes (Havlina et al., 2010) are defined below for the project area. FR I < 0-35 year fire return interval; low severity FR IIIa < 50 year fire return interval; mixed severity FR IIIb year fire return interval; mixed severity FR IIIc year fire return interval; mixed severity FR V 150+ year fire return interval; high severity Mixed severity and frequency refers to the varying degrees of fire intensity and severity that can occur given variations in topography, location, and time of year of fire occurrence. Stand replacing fires refer to all trees burning through the crowns. Stand replacing fire does occur in mixed severity fire regimes, but the size and shape is intertwined with low and moderate severity fire across the fire area. In addition to fire frequency and severity, fire disturbance is categorized into Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). For more information on FRCC, refer to the Fire and Fuels Specialist Report in the project file. From the FRCC model, the Project area is represented by FRCC1 in the wilderness and FRCC2 in managed areas. Although FRCC 1 states little departure from historic ranges, field reconnaissance reveals changes to the diversity of stand structure. Also, with past fire suppression, the attributes from fire frequency and mixed severity are more departed than the model indicates. The percentage of seral classes modeled vs. what actually exists indicates the FRCC is closer to FRCC 2. Table 11- Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Definitions Condition Class FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3 Departure of Fire Regime from Historic Range Departure is not more than one return interval Moderate change in size and intensity has resulted Dramatic changes in fire size and severity have resulted Risk of Losing Key Ecosystem Components Fuel Profile and Fire Behavior: The Horse Creek Project area is primarily composed of Fuel Model (FM) 5 (~4,872 acres), FM 8 (~27,257 acres), and FM 10 (~25,949 acres). In addition to these fuel models, private lands in the project area are also characterized by FM 11 and 12, but they were not analyzed on the ground. FM 5 is representative of young timber stands with Ceanothus velutinus being a common understory brush. Shrubs or grass in the understory can carry the fire. Low Moderate Severe Alteration of Vegetation Attributes form Historic Range Functioning within the historic range Moderately altered Substantially 36

42 Environmental Assessment June 2011 FM 8 represents closed canopy stands of short-needle conifers with light fuel loading in the 0-3 inch diameter fuels. When fires ignite in this fuel model, fire spread is generally slow with low flame lengths and scattered concentrations of heavy fuel loading that can flare up. FM 10 is representative of mixed conifer stands with heavy concentrations of dead down wood, > 3 diameter and/or dense understory. Ground fire behavior is higher intensity than FM 8 because of heavier fuel loading and ladder fuels. Torching of trees (fire in the crowns of trees) occurs more frequently. FM 11 and 12 is representative of light to moderate slash loads associated with timber management. The continuity of slash can increase fire behavior depending on fuel loads. Fire behavior was modeled using Behave Plus 4.0 with fuels and topography inputs that correspond to the Horse Creek Project area and summer fire weather data representing the hot, dry fire weather similar to 2006 and 2009 fire seasons. These data represent conditions where fires have a higher likelihood of escaping initial attack efforts. Areas with FM 8 exhibit low fire intensity and low overstory mortality. Fuel Model 10 exhibits higher fire intensity and severity including crown fire with mortality (see Table 12). Fuel Model 5 is also high fire severity with fast rates of spread, but because of stand age they will not receive harvest treatments. Due to the mosaic of fuel models, access difficulties, and steep terrain across this landscape, a low intensity fire initiating in FM 8 could easily spread to FM 5 or 10 and develop into a high intensity fire with limited suppression potential. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI): The Horse Creek Project area surrounds private lands and several groups of homes and structures along the McKenzie River, Horse Creek, and King Road. These areas are considered WUI because they intermingle with the forest environment (USDA 2001 and ONHMW 2005). These communities are within Lane County and are part of the Lane County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). This CWPP was developed by Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Workgroup (ONHMW) in Lane County and adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Some of the private land owners have been introduced to the CWPP and the Firewise program through Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and many have begun to make changes in defensible space around their homes or within their property ( Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects In the Horse Creek Project area the No Action Alternative would not support reducing hazardous fuel loading within and around WUI areas. Without the proposed treatments, fuel loading, ladder fuels, and canopy closure would continue to increase providing conditions for severe, high intensity wildfires. Areas near private property and residences would not have any reduction in fuels to aid in reducing wildfire intensity and mitigating hazards for firefighters. FRCC would not be maintained or reduced towards FRCC1, further reducing diversity and the natural forest resiliency to disturbance in the project area. No Action would not meet the desired future conditions, reduce firefighting risks, or be cost effective due to suppression of high severity fires. 37

43 Horse Creek Project Alternative 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Post Harvest Fuels Treatments: Commercial thinning results in changes to stand structure which can help reduce fire behavior. Thinning the units reduces canopy continuity and ladder fuels decreasing the potential for crown fire to initiate and spread. However, harvesting increases fuel loading within stands leading to increased potential wildfire behavior. Following a harvest, a high amount of slash exists for up to 5 years, especially with red needle slash for the first couple of years. This slash has high ignition and spread potential. This fire behavior would be reduced with fuels treatments occurring 1-2 years post harvest. Across the landscape the lack of variability in the horizontal and vertical fuel profile also increases the spread potential and intensity of wildfire. The proposed harvest and fuels treatments in Alternatives 2 and 3 would change the fire and fuels environment by: Reducing post-harvest fuels to LRMP S&G. Improving variability in the horizontal and vertical fuel profile. Creating a mosaic and distribution of seral stages present in a mixed severity Fire Regime taking steps towards changing from FRCC2 to FRCC1. Increasing fire tolerant conifers and reducing shade tolerant conifers in areas where historically their presence would be less in a mixed severity fire regime with no fire suppression. Returning the natural disturbance process of fire with prescribed fire treatments. The proposed timber harvests would create varying amounts of timber slash in each unit (located in Fire and Fuels Report). In the short term the increased fine fuel loading (0-3 material) may reduce the success of initial attack suppression operations due to the fast rate of spread and increased flame lengths (>4 feet). Post harvest fuels (slash) treatments would reduce the amount of fuel created from harvests to within or below maximum LRMP S&G fine fuel loading of 7-11 tons/acre. Fuels treatments are proposed to be within 1-2 years post harvest. The reduction in fuel loading would reduce the potential wildfire behavior. The fuels reductions treatments would also move many of the stands from FM 10 to FM 8 upon completion of fuels treatments. Design criteria located in Appendix A identify recommendations and restrictions that would be followed during the implementation of post-harvest fuels treatments. Table 12 displays the changes in fire behavior within the proposed treatment units for existing, post harvest, and post fuels treatment conditions. Fire behavior that exceeds 4 foot flame lengths requires engines, machinery or aerial support to reduce the risks to firefighters with hand tools. In all the units where post fuels treatments take place Table 12 - Fire Behavior Changes by Fuel Model Fuel Model Rate of Spread (chains/hr) Flame Length (feet) Crown fire w/ % mortality Spotting Potential (miles) FM10 Existing condition 23 9 Active FM12 Postharvest, no fuels Surface treatment FM8 Post-harvest w/ fuels treatment 6 2 Surface Crown fire activity is displayed as Active, which means that fire is present in both the surface fuels and canopy fuels. Post fuels treatment examines the fire behavior as FM8 because units will have lower fuel loading, higher CBH, and varying canopy density. 38

44 Environmental Assessment June 2011 LRMP S&G would be met. Post Harvest Underburning: Post harvest underburns would occur in both action Alternatives. Underburns would take place during spring-like conditions where the soil and duff moisture are damp or wet and fuel moisture in the large woody material (LWM) is high (above 25%). These conditions reduce consumption which helps to retain sustainable levels of duff, soil coverage, and large woody material (LWM) often used by wildlife. Additionally, potential mortality of residual overstory trees can be better controlled due to high live fuel moisture occurring under spring-like conditions. Prescribed fire treatments would assist with creating variability across the landscape and returning fire as a disturbance process to the ecosystem. Also, underburns would help reduce competition and prepare sites for replanting. The mortality of overstory trees for post harvest underburning would be kept to a minimum and would be no greater than 10%. Fire is a dynamic process that is influenced by multiple environmental factors such as wind, topography, temperature, and humidity. Due to these influential factors that create and alter fire behavior, a chance exists to exceed objective parameters such as tree mortality or duff retention. To reduce this risk, prescribed burns would be implemented under spring-like conditions with low to moderate temperatures, higher relative humidity, 1000 hour fuel moistures above 25% and moist duff and soil layers. Each prescribed burn would have an individual operation plan with specific prescription parameters that would be reviewed and signed by the District Fire Management Officer, a Silviculturalist, Natural Resource Staff, and the Line Officer. In the event that fire behavior exceeds predicted parameters, burning operations would be immediately evaluated and adjusted to alter fire behavior. Underburns may require fire line to be dug to mineral soil around the perimeter of the burn unit to keep fire within unit boundaries. Hazardous Fuels Treatments: Non-commercial thinning would occur within the WUI in both action Alternatives on approximately 216 acres. Proposed fuel treatments would include hand cutting, piling, pile burning, non-commercial firewood use, and/or chipping of created slash. These treatments accentuate treatments that private home owners are conducting through coordination with ODF and the Firewise program. Potential wildfire behavior would be reduced by these treatments due to a decrease in surface fuel loading, reduction of ladder fuels, and variability in vegetation continuity following treatments. Upon completion, the resulting fuel profile would decrease the potential for ground fire to carry into tree canopies which causes tree torching that can produce embers that can land on rooftops. The coordination of these projects between McKenzie River Ranger District, ODF, and private homeowners should reduce potential fire behavior and improve suppression tactics to protect people, property, and resources. Fuels treatments in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be conducted following LRMP S&G. Treatments within the WUI would aid in creating safer conditions for firefighters and home owners as well as continue collaboration with ODF and support the Lane County CWPP. FRCC 2 would move closer to FRCC 1. No other reasonably foreseeable future fuels management activities are planned within the Horse Creek Project area that would contribute incrementally to the cumulative effects from past or currently proposed activities. No adverse effects on the fuel profile or fire behavior would result from the proposed non-commercial fuel treatments. 39

45 Horse Creek Project Alternative 2 and 3 Key Issues Key Issue #1 Threatened Northern Spotted Owl: Alternative 2 proposes to thin unit 50, a 22 acre stand that is currently 98 years old and suitable northern spotted owl habitat. The proposed activity would be underburning post-harvest slash. The prescribed fire would aid in returning a natural disturbance and emphasize characteristics that are favorable to northern spotted owl habitat in the future. Timing of the burn would be in respect to policies in place for protection of the northern spotted owl. Alternative 3 does not propose to treat unit 50. Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: Temporary roads would be closed upon completion of activities associated with harvesting. During grapple piling, equipment may operate on existing spur roads as well as create piles in skidding routes within unit boundaries. Overall there would be no change in effect due to temporary roads on fire and fuels within the project area for either alternative. Temporary roads are not created for non-commercial hazardous fuels treatments and would not have an impact on these treatments. 3.3 Economics Scale of analysis The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Social/Economic issues includes the project activity units in the Horse Creek Project area and the surrounding communities that would be affected by the proposed project Affected Environment The Horse Creek Project area is situated south of Highway 126 near the community of McKenzie Bridge, Oregon. Highway 126, a major travel route for commercial and recreation traffic passing through this community, follows along the McKenzie River. The economy of the local communities from the Springfield urban-growth boundary to McKenzie Bridge depends on a mixture of tourism, recreation, timber industry, and Forest Service jobs for stability. Local businesses that rely on tourism and recreation include: Hoodoo Ski Bowl, multiple inns and lodges, restaurants, stores, and gas stations, along with outfitters and guides. Timber industry jobs include a variety of forestry and mill jobs. Forest Service jobs in the Willamette and Deschutes National Forest vicinity are located at McKenzie Bridge, Sisters, Detroit, Sweet Home, and Middle Fork Ranger Stations. Tourism and recreational activities connected with National Forest lands have been on the increase in recent years for the upper McKenzie River area. Employment connected with tourism and recreation-related services has also increased. The current level of timber harvesting on the Willamette National Forest has dropped substantially from the levels of the mid-1980s. This decrease has contributed to a decline in the number of local jobs associated with the wood products industry in the area. 40

46 Environmental Assessment June Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The no-action alternative would not harvest any timber, and therefore, would not support direct, indirect, and induced employment. It would not result in increased income to the regional or local economy (including the counties). Current levels of employment in the wood products sector would not change under this alternative. If the Horse Creek Project were not replaced by another project, the no action alternative could contribute to a continued decline in forestry and milling related jobs. Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects All action Alternatives are economically viable, considering current selling values, timber volume per acre, yarding systems required, the proposed temporary road construction and system road maintenance needed, and the identified post-timber harvest projects identified in this analysis. The economic analysis utilized to make this determination is available in the Horse Creek Project analysis file at the McKenzie River Ranger District office. In general, the primary effect on timber harvest-related employment would occur from commercial timber harvest associated with the action Alternatives from an estimated selling year of 2012through a final harvest year of As Table 8 in Chapter 2 indicates, both action Alternatives would provide some opportunity for timber harvest-related employment, and higher revenues. Alternative 2 would provide higher net value than Alternative 3. Table 13 discloses costs and revenues and the estimated present net value of each of the action Alternatives. Though the combined economic benefit from implementation of any of the action Alternatives is expected to be positive, each of the Alternatives from the Horse Creek Project would have a localized beneficial effect for the socio-economic environment of western and central Oregon. Both action Alternatives would also have a benefit in the form of revenues going towards the National Forest Fund (NFF). Portions of revenue generated by the sale of timber from the action Alternatives would be available to the county for roads and schools. Alternative 2 would be expected to generate approximately 2.1 times the amount of revenue as Alternative 3. Table 13 - Estimated Economic Value of Alternatives 3 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Volume (MBF) 0 27,000 12,500 Discounted Costs (1) $585,000 $9,177,576 $4,768,298 Discounted Revenues (2) $0 $12,411,194 $5,849,099 Present Net Value (PNV) $0 $3,233,618 $1,080,801 PNV per Acre --- $1,806 $1,092 Benefit/Cost Ratio (1) Cost include approximate cost of the planning for the Horse Creek Project (2) Revenue based on th quarter ODF pond values that have been discounted for four years from the selling year to a final harvest year. (3) Values are meant to be used for the comparison of Alternatives only and do not represent an expected selling value. 41

47 Horse Creek Project Key Issue #1: Threatened Northern Spotted Owl: In general the reduction of acres associated with the northern spotted owl in Alternative 3 results in less volume harvested compared to Alternative 2. Because of the increased volume in Alternative 2, it is more economically feasible and returns more dollars per acre than Alternative 3. Key Issue #2: Temporary Roads: Temporary roads were identified by our logging systems specialist in an effort to try and reduce harvest costs. Both action Alternatives use temporary roads to increase access to units and reduce harvest cost. 3.4 Water Quality/Aquatic Resources Scale of analysis Unless otherwise noted, the geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Water Quality/Aquatic Resources includes the project activity units, the Lost Creek 6th Field sub-watersheds, and the Horse Creek 5 th field watersheds (focusing on the Lower Horse, Middle Horse, and Separation 6 th fields) which encompass the Horse Creek Project area. The watersheds within the project area drain into Horse Creek and the McKenzie River where public drinking water is one of the beneficial uses Affected Environment-Stream Shade and Temperature Major road construction and timber harvest began in the Horse Creek Project area in the 1940s, peaking in the 1970s and 80s. Much of the activities that occurred prior to implementation of the LRMP resulted in removal of riparian vegetation that provided shade for streams. Stream temperature data was collected at 11 locations in the project area during the summer months (June through September). Nine of these sites are within the Horse Creek watershed and two are within the Lost Creek sub-watershed where four harvest units are located. The data was collected for a minimum of two seasons with a maximum of 12 seasons. A summary of the data is provided in Table 14 along with the average values for control streams. These un-impacted control streams are hydrologically and geologically similar to the project area streams. Table 14 - Stream Temperatures for the Horse Creek Project area Stream Name Lowest Max. Daily Temp.* Highest Max. Daily Temp.* Range of Values Average Value Change from Baseline Control High Cascades Separation Creek 9.9º C 10.6º C 0.7º C 10.3º C - West Cascades Composite Control 12.0º C - Castle Creek 13.2º C 14.6º C 1.4º C 13.7º C 1.7º C King Creek 14.6º C 16.4º C 1.8º C 15.1º C 3.1º C Pasture Creek 13.9º C 15.1º C 1.2º C 14.3º C 2.3º C Pothole Creek 13.9º C 15.8º C 1.9º C 14.6º C 2.6º C 42

48 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Stream Name Lowest Max. Daily Temp.* Highest Max. Daily Temp.* Range of Values Average Value Change from Baseline Control Mixture of Influence from High and West Cascades Horse Creek (w/in Wilderness) 12.9º C 14.8º C 2.0º C 13.8º C - Horse Creek (abv. Separation) 14.9º C 16.2º C 1.3º C 15.6º C 3.6º C Horse Creek (blw. Separation) 11.6º C 12.4º C 0.8º C 11.9º C -0.1º C Horse Creek (at road 2639) 12.3º C 14.1º C 1.8º C 13.4º C 1.4º C * Maximum 7-day average The existing conditions for stream temperatures in the Horse Creek Project area appear to vary widely from the control conditions. All sensors showed higher than control temperatures with the exception of the sensor just below the confluence with Separation Creek and Lower Horse Creek (below the Road 2639 crossing). This is not surprising since Separation Creek is a High Cascade stream. The hydrologic regime of these streams typically maintains colder summer temperatures than their West Cascade counterparts. Separation Creek contributes considerable summer flows to Horse Creek and would lower the mainstem temperature. However, temperatures in the mainstem are considered by the State to result in poor water quality. Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, States are required to develop lists of impaired waters. Horse Creek is 303(d) listed for impaired temperature. The 7-day average maximum for upper Horse Creek was 13.8 C and lower Horse Creek was 13.4 C. Both of these are above the mandated 10.0 C for Bull Trout (Oregon DEQ. 2004/ (d) List of Impaired Waters). Both Pasture and Pothole Creeks have experienced recent debris flows that removed some of the large wood, riparian vegetation, and gravel. Lower levels of shade and less gravel to circulate hyporehic flow have resulted in elevated temperatures. In contrast, Castle Creek exhibits slightly cooler temperatures than the other non-control streams within the area. This is mostly due to increased groundwater storage characteristic of relic earth flows encompassing most of the Castle Creek watershed. Changes in the range of maximum temperatures from one water year to the next are attributable to inter-annual differences in precipitation and stream flows. The annual timing of the maximum temperature occurred between July and August in all instances. This suggests that management has impacted only the increased value for maximum temperature and has not affected interannual variability or annual timing of peak temperatures. For temperature information in Lost Creek sub-watershed, both Lost Creek and White Branch Creek were monitored for temperature during the summer of The 7-day average maximum was 9.2 and 9.0 C respectively. This is below the mandated 17.8 C summer rearing temperature (Oregon DEQ. 2004/ (d) List of Impaired Waters). The mainstem of the McKenzie River has a 13.0 C summer mandated temperature (Oregon DEQ. 2004/ (d) List of Impaired Waters). 43

49 Horse Creek Project Environmental Consequences-Stream Shade and Temp. Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Activities that affect stream-shading vegetation would not occur; and direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of this alternative on stream temperature are not anticipated. Water temperatures in streams in the project area would continue to recover toward more natural levels as riparian vegetation that was disturbed or removed by management activities prior to implementation of the LRMP re-grows and re-establishes streamside shade. Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects For all action Alternatives, treatments within riparian areas have been designed to comply with the Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies Evaluation of the adequacy of the Northwest Forest Plan Riparian Reserves to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards (USDA, 2005). All perennial streams (Class 1, 2 and 3) are provided with at least a 60 foot no-harvest buffer to retain effective stream shade. For streams within 1000 feet of listed fish habitat, a 100 foot noharvest buffer will be retained (see Appendix A, Stream Buffers). The no-harvest buffers were developed by calculating the width of the riparian area adjacent to perennial stream channels that provides stream shade for the period of greatest solar loading (between 10:00 and 14:00 hours), known as the primary shade zone, and the width of the riparian area that provides shade in the morning and afternoon (06:00-10:00 hours; 14:00-18:00 hours), considered the secondary shade zone. In overly dense riparian stands, optimum shade can be provided by the primary shade zone alone, and the secondary shade zone may contribute little to no shade since trees in the primary shade zone are already blocking the sun s solar radiation. In all of the units with proposed thinning in Riparian Reserves, 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. Intermittent (Class 4) streams are dry during the portion of the year when elevated temperatures occur and therefore temperature is not a significant issue. However, bank stability trees and no-harvest buffers (30 foot) retained for other resource objectives would provide substantial shade regardless (see Appendix A). Based on implementation of the Design Criteria outlined in Appendix A as well as field observations during project reconnaissance; no measurable direct, indirect, or incremental cumulative increases of stream temperatures are anticipated within the project area as a result of either action Alternative. Consequently, as in the no action Alternative, water temperatures of streams within the project area would continue to recover toward more natural levels as riparian vegetation re-grows and re-establishes streamside shade. Additionally, many of the treatment units are over-stocked plantations with small diameter riparian trees. Thinning within the secondary shade zone would increase growth of the remaining trees. Small incremental increases in the rate of recovery as a result of implementation of either action Alternative are anticipated to improve conditions over the long term. 44

50 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Alternative 2 and 3 Key Issues Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: There are two proposed temporary crossings of class 4 streams as part of both Alternative 2 and 3 treatment activities. The width of the clearing needed to establish the crossings would not create a detrimental change in temperature or shade because the primary and secondary shade zones of the surrounding riparian areas would retain sufficient canopy closure for providing shade. Also, the topographic location further enhances the protection from solar radiation. Small segments of other temporary roads would enter the riparian reserves, but not cross any streams. The reduction in canopy closure of the secondary shade zone is taken into account in the overall calculations of Riparian Reserve thinning treatments Affected Environment-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. The ARP model compares the acres of an analysis 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 sub-watershed and are intended to represent a minimum safe level of vegetative recovery in the sub-watersheds to prevent significant alteration of peak flow regimes as a result of management activities. Recovery generally occurs when stand diameters average 8 dbh and crown closures exceed 70%. The analysis is based on data extracted from the Forest s VEGIS database, which includes information about all past harvest activities in the sub-watershed. Currently, ARP levels in the Horse Creek watershed and Lost Creek sub-watershed s stand are far above the Forest Plan Midpoints of 70% Environmental Consequences-Streams Flow/Disturbance History Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Current ARP values are well above midpoint. Alternative 1 would result in no changes to existing peak flows having no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on stream flow in the project area. Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects Table 15 summarizes levels of recovery immediately after implementation of the project for each of the Alternatives. The incremental change associated with each Alternative is determined by comparing these values with current condition values that were presented in the affected environment discussion. Completion of implementation is estimated to occur by

51 Horse Creek Project Table 15 - Recovery Levels Immediately after Project Implementation (2020) for the Horse Creek 5th field watershed and Lost Creek 6th field sub-watersheds Sub-watershed Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Horse Creek Lost Creek Midpoint ARP ARP levels are maintained well above recommended values for all Alternatives in the affected sub-watersheds even immediately after implementation when the potential for negative impacts to vegetation would be greatest. Therefore, no altered peak stream flow regimes are anticipated from implementation of the proposed actions. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area that would result in effects that differ from those already disclosed for each of the Alternatives. Alternative 2 and 3 Key Issues Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: The temporary roads proposed would not significantly affect stream flow. Current and calculated future ARP values are well above the Midpoint values Affected Environment-Sedimentation and Roads The majority of the geologic terrain and soils of the Horse Creek Project area are not inherently prone to extensive erosion unless disturbed as discussed in the Soils Specialist Report (located in the project file). However, portions of the watershed have earth flow terrain and other unstable geologic features. Road construction and timber harvest began in the 1940s within the project area, peaking on National Forest system lands in the 1970s and 1980s, continuing at somewhat higher levels on private lands within the watershed. Past timber harvest methods resulted in compaction levels varying from 5% to 35% of those acres that were harvested with ground based logging systems (Soils Report). Road construction on the gentler portions of the project area and on the terraces (Soils Report) resulted in displacement but little off site transport of sediment to streams, except at crossings. Roads on earth flows or the more deeply dissected slopes above the river terrace, especially those roads constructed during the earlier part of the time period, employed construction methods such as cut and fill that resulted in relatively unstable facilities. These roads continued to produce sediment during storm events as unstable portions of road fills failed. Since implementation of the Forest Plan in 1990, road maintenance activities have worked to eliminate many of these unstable fill situations. Many were repaired to the higher standards after their initial failure. Even so, 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. Based on observations of existing road conditions during field reconnaissance for the project, sediment outputs from roads were estimated using the roads module of the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. The current sediment yield from roads is estimated at 106 cubic yards per year for the project area. Actual yields cannot be 46

52 Environmental Assessment June 2011 accurately calculated since there are numerous annual and inter-annual variations that would need to be considered including weather conditions, timing of peak flow events, etc. Therefore sediment predictions using WEPP modeling should only be used for relative comparisons between Alternatives rather than actual values expected to be produced. The McKenzie River Sub-Basin, including the Horse Creek Project area, provides municipal water to the city of Eugene by way of the Eugene Water and Electric Board s intake at Hayden Bridge, approximately 60 miles downstream from the project area. Sedimentation and associated turbidity are the most likely consequences of the Horse Creek Project that could adversely affect municipal water quality, but with the design features as well as best management practices, adverse effects are not anticipated Environmental Consequences-Sedimentation and Roads Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would not correct existing road erosion problems. Without timber harvest related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend makes it unlikely that funding would be available to support adequate road maintenance, which could result in increased sedimentation to streams. Culverts that are not maintained could plug and cause washouts. Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Road work associated with the Horse Creek Project includes replacement of a number of culverts that are currently in poor repair or inadequately sized to pass 100-year flood flows (Q100). Currently, the culverts proposed for replacement pose an elevated risk of fill failure. Discussion with engineering personnel indicated that the average fill volume is around 250 cubic yards. This material is at risk of entering the streams and potentially generating debris torrents if the existing culverts fail. However, replacement would require in-stream work in these locations. Work would be done during non-flow periods for intermittent streams, and engineering practices such as sediment barriers and flow bypass would minimize impacts on perennial streams. Flows in perennial streams are all expected to be less than 1.0 cubic feet per second when work occurs. It is not possible to do this work without some sediment delivery, and accurate estimates are not predictable. Depending on weather and other variable factors, sediment yields should fall between 0.5 and 1.5 cubic yards per installation based on professional experience. Table 16 provides a summary of these replacements and the potential amount of fill material that would have a reduced risk of entering streams. It also estimates the amount of sediment produced from the culvert replacements. The maximum estimate of sediment yields from the culvert replacements would be 31.5 cubic yards for Alternative 2 and 28 cubic yards for Alternative 3. In comparison, the estimated volume of fill stabilized is 6,260 cubic yards for Alternative 2 and 5,510 cubic yards for Alternative 3. 47

53 Horse Creek Project Table 16 - Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative for the Horse Creek Project Alternative Stream Type Number of Culverts Installed/Replaced / Removed Estimated Cubic Yards of Fill Stabilized Estimated Sediment Yields from Culvert Replacements (Cubic Yards) 1 None Perennial 5 1, Intermittent 7 1, Cross-drain 23 2, Total 35 5, Perennial 5 1, Intermittent 6 1, Cross-drain 23 2, Total 33 5, The IDT reviewed the roads in the project area recommended for storage or decommissioning not associated with harvest activities. Closure levels were assigned to each of these roads based primarily on the aquatic risk assigned to the road. Several of the roads chosen for storage and decommissioning are currently eroding or have culverts in poor condition that are at risk of failure. However, removing culverts would require in-stream work in these locations. Work would be done during non-flow periods for intermittent streams, and engineering practices 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 not predictable. Table 17 provides a summary of these activities and the potential amount of road and fill material that would have a reduced risk of entering streams. The maximum estimate of sediment yield from the decommissioning and storage treatments would be 8.5 cubic yards for both Alternative 2 and 3. In comparison, the estimated volume of fill stabilized is 1,600 cubic yards for both action Alternatives. Currently, it is estimated that the roads produce 22.7 cubic yards of sediment annually. This value does not include potential fill failure. Table 17 - Summary of Road Storage or Decommissioning Sediment Risk Reduction Estimated # of Culverts Decommission Storage Sediment Fill Stabilized Alternative Removed/ (Miles) (Miles) Pretreatment (Cubic yards) Stabilized Sediment from culvert removal (Cubic yards) All action Alternatives would implement the road management activities listed in the description of each action Alternative, as detailed in Chapter 2. As a minimum, these activities would include maintenance of proper drainage through maintaining existing structures, installing water bars, or restoring natural drainage features. Also included would be the installation of new ditchrelief culverts and replacement of existing ditch-relief culverts that are currently in poor 48

54 Environmental Assessment June 2011 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. Alternatives 2 and 3 Cumulative Effects An analysis of estimated sediment outputs from roads in the project area was completed using the roads module of the WEPP model. The same analysis was conducted for the project area road system for each of the Alternatives incorporating all project related road maintenance, temporary construction activities, and products haul routes. Results were calculated to estimate sediment production rates during the implementation of the project as well as conditions following completion of the project (see Table 18). Rates of road related sediment yield remain constant under Alternative 1 (No Action), reflecting no specific changes in ongoing road treatments or conditions. For each of the action Alternatives, annual sediment yield increases during the life of the project between approximately 158 (Alt.2)- 147(Alt.3) cubic yards per year as a result of project activities. This represents an incremental 49.8% (Alt. 2)-39.1% (Alt.3) increased contribution of sediment that cumulatively adds to sediment already produced under the existing road system. Alternative 2 shows the highest increase during operations. Both action Alternatives show a decrease in sediment yield postoperation. Road maintenance conducted as part of the operation would result in decreased erosion of the road surface. Table 18 - Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for the Horse Creek Project area Alt 1 Alt 2 during treatment Alt 2 after treatment Alt 3 during treatment Alt 3 after treatment Gross Road Sediment Yield (yd³/year) Net increase/decrease % increase/decrease Alternatives 2 and 3 Key Issues Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: Approximately 9.1 miles of temporary road construction would occur with Alternative 2 and approximately 3.4 miles would occur with Alternative 3. Temporary roads would be located in previously disturbed areas wherever possible. Temporary road construction would occur from existing system roads located on stable flat ground, primarily outside of Riparian Reserves, with exception of two temporary roads built over intermittent streams in Unit 340 and Unit 490. These stream crossings are within 1,720 and 2,920 feet of listed fish habitat respectively. All temporary roads would be stabilized with erosion control measures as necessary for the wet season to minimize accumulation of runoff and transport of sediment. Temporary roads would be fully closed and decommissioned after the project is complete. Proper drainage would be installed and maintained throughout the operating season. 49

55 Horse Creek Project Affected Environment-Riparian Conditions Much of the past road construction and harvest activity that occurred prior to implementation of the current Willamette LRMP resulted in removal of riparian vegetation that provided large wood and shade to streams in the project area. The Horse Creek Project area is located in the Western Cascades and marks the lower extent of Pleistocene glaciations in the McKenzie River sub-basin. The porous glacial deposits are hundreds of feet deep in lower reaches of the watershed providing a low gradient barrier between the McKenzie River and the steep slopes above. Much of the Lost Creek sub-watershed drains the gently sloping terrain of the High Cascades and has a large water storage capacity contributing to a stable, even flow regime. The effects of glacial and volcanic landscapes to aquatic habitat quality are to intercept the products of disturbance woody debris and sediment. Primary streams within the Horse Creek 5 th field watershed and Lost Creek 6th Field subwatershed include Horse Creek and Lost Creek as well as small tributaries Separation, Pothole, Pasture, King, Castle, White Branch, and various unnamed creeks. The Riparian Reserve along Lower Horse Creek includes sections of paved roads, aggregate roads, and consists mostly of private land and residences in the lower portions of the watershed. The riparian areas in this portion of the watershed have seen the most impacts due to human activities (Horse Creek WA, 1997). There are a few pockets of mature forest, but most of the land has been impacted by management and recreation. The central portions of the Horse Creek watershed are on National Forest System lands and the Riparian Reserves have had less impact due to the management, but the Horse Creek road and dispersed camping continue to influence the mainstem Riparian Reserve. Upper Horse Creek, upstream of Mosquito Creek, is primarily influenced by natural processes due to the wilderness designation. The 1964 flood, an event with a recurrence interval of years, had complex effects on the Horse Creek channel, riparian area, and tributaries. Several tributaries experienced debris torrents sending massive quantities of sediment down Horse Creek. A high proportion of the vegetation on gravel bars was wiped out by the flood and sediment (gravel and cobble) from upstream debris flows was deposited on these exposed gravel bars. A review of historic aerial photos from 1955 and 1967 showed that this flood event also caused Horse Creek to abandon some channels and create new ones (Horse Creek WA, 1997). The 1996 flood (50 year recurrence interval in the McKenzie River) did not have the same sort of dynamic affects as the 1964 flood so the Riparian Reserve and channel conditions have been relatively stable since that time. Hardwoods have colonized the gravel bars and are providing shade and organic material to the stream ecosystem. Stream surveys were conducted by the Forest Service in 1996 following the February flood. Table 19 summarizes wood counts from that survey. A goal of 80 large pieces per mile has been established by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) to characterize habitat as properly functioning. As indicated by Table 19, Horse Creek does not reach this goal even in the wilderness. 50

56 Environmental Assessment June 2011 The surveyors noted that most of the large key logs had numerous small pieces of wood associated with them but those pieces were too small to be counted based on Forest Service protocols. The surveyors also noted numerous pocket pools in the channel greater than 5 feet in depth. Table 19 - Large wood totals from Horse Creek Stream Survey (1996) Reach Large Wood Frequency (pieces/mile) 2 Total Wood Frequency (pieces/mile) These reaches are located in the Three Sisters The Lost Creek Riparian Reserve consists of mostly forest land with little private land and recreational impacts. A stream survey conducted on Lost Creek in 2003 counted 25 pieces of large woody debris per mile. Smaller pieces were more abundant. This may be due to a large fire in the past century that burned stream adjacent conifers along most of the length of Lost Creek. Although minor development does exist along the stream corridor, potential sources for large wood recruitment are present. Wilderness. 2 Large equates to trees at least 50 feet long and 24 inches in diameter at the 50 foot mark Environmental Consequences Riparian and Channel Conditions Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Implementing Alternative 1 (No Action) would have no immediate effect on riparian condition. 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 common in old plantations. Alternative 1 would provide a higher rate of in-stream recruitment of wood compared to the action Alternatives. This recruitment would be provided mostly by stem mortality from competition, disease, wind and snow damaged trees. Most previously managed riparian areas within the project area, however, 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). This is especially true in the tributaries of Horse Creek due to their steep gradients. These stream channels readily transport woody material during floods down to Horse Creek. Due to the size of Horse Creek, small wood is easily transported out of the system unless it gets hung up on larger pieces in the channel. Though small wood has some value, particularly in the smaller headwater reaches, the longevity of recruited small diameter trees is short-lived as they break down through abrasion and decomposition more rapidly compared to large trees (>24 inch diameter). Cumulatively, Alternative 1 would perpetuate the impacts of densely stocked tree conditions longer into the future. While tree removal from riparian areas can reduce the number of trees that can be recruited into the Riparian Reserve, forest silvicultural practices can improve the quality and size of riparian trees by improving tree growth, selecting preferred species, affecting rates and timing of competition mortality, and disturbance regimes (e.g. fuel loading, insect infestations, disease) (Liquori et. al. 2008). Compared to the action Alternatives, Alternative 1 51

57 Horse Creek Project would provide a greater volume of in-stream wood in the short term, but the wood would be small and of limited value to aquatic habitat. 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. Alternative 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 2 includes 431 acres within Riparian Reserves and 229 acres for Alternative 3. The acres of Riparian Reserve within the fuels treatment units are 85 acres (both action Alternatives are the same). Table 20 summarizes the acres of Riparian Reserves affected by fuels or harvest treatments. Thinning in Riparian Reserves could develop diverse stand structure and accelerate forests towards late-successional conditions. Thinning could also accelerate development of large diameter trees that would eventually fall and provide large wood structure in streams and adjacent riparian areas. Table 20 - Acres of Riparian Reserves (RR) Thinning and Fuels Treatments on Federally Managed Lands in the Horse Creek 5th field watershed Proposed for Treatment Watershed Horse Creek (5 th field) Total RR (Excluding Wilderness) 9,064 Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Thinning Fuels Treatment Maintaining the existing hardwood component would also add to structural diversity and complexity. Riparian stand thinning within the Horse Creek Project area is expected to maintain aquatic habitat quality. The removal of thinned trees capable of contributing immediately to instream habitat (and influenced by action Alternatives) are generally located between 60 and 100 feet from the stream channel and are composed of small diameter trees of minor longevity and sediment storage value to current habitat. A similar rate of recruitment is expected from 0-60 feet from stream channels, where no thinning would occur in either action Alternative. Introduction of low intensity fire into Riparian Reserves is also anticipated to increase the plant species and stand structural diversity. At low burn intensities, large wood would not be removed from the Riparian Reserves. In addition, with local differences in soil moisture and relative humidity, 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 adapted 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 conditions than non-thinned plantations. Riparian Reserve effects discussion, summarized here, is further described in the Fisheries Biological 52

58 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Assessment (located in the project file and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy document located in Appendix E). Alternatives 2 and 3 Key Issues Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: The majority of temporary roads would be located on ridge tops or gentle slopes. Those segments located within the Riparian Reserves would be located well outside of the primary shade zone or would cross perpendicular to the stream and minimal impacts would be expected Affected Environment Aquatic Resources Management Indicator Species: The Willamette Forest Plan recognized 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 MIS for riparian habitat and water quality. The most common sport fish that have habitat on the McKenzie River Ranger District are spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, and coastal cutthroat trout. Grayling are not present in the McKenzie River system but the river does provide habitat for mountain whitefish. All the MIS fish except graylings can be found in the Horse Creek planning area and in general they have similar habitat requirements (i.e. cold, clean water; spawning gravels with low amounts of fine sediment; complex habitat with pools and riffles; large woody material in the channel to create complex habitats; stable stream banks; a healthy riparian area; migratory routes unobstructed by artificial barriers). Each species use the different stream types (e.g. small/steep streams, large streams and rivers, spring-fed streams) for different phases in their life history. Cutthroat are the most numerous fish in the steep tributaries to Horse Creek (i.e. Avenue Cr., Castle Cr., Pasture Cr., and Pothole Cr.) Spring Chinook salmon cannot fulfill all of their life history requirements in the Horse Creek planning area so they migrate to the sea in order to carry out their life history (anadromous life history). Horse Creek and Lost Creek provide excellent habitat for portions of the salmon life history (migration, spawning, incubation, and juvenile rearing habitats) but Chinook do not use the small, steep streams that cutthroat inhabit. Of all the salmonids, bull trout (a char) require the coldest, cleanest water and copious amounts of large woody material in the stream channel to create complex habitats. Horse Creek, Separation Creek, and Lost Creek do not provide spawning habitat for bull trout, but do provide excellent sub-adult rearing habitat. Rainbow trout and mountain whitefish are both river migratory fish in the McKenzie River. They move between spawning, rearing, and over-wintering areas during the year. Rainbow trout spawn in Horse Creek and Lost Creek but on average use smaller substrates than Chinook salmon. A Caddisfly (Rhyacophila chandleri) is thought to be a rare species that is patchily distributed, and apparently highly localized where it does occur. In the Cascade Mountains of Oregon A Caddisfly is associated with very cold, larger spring-fed streams. This species is documented on 53

59 Horse Creek Project the Willamette National Forest as a rare insect in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest and may occur within the Horse Creek Project area. For more information on A Caddisfly see the Horse Creek Project Biological Evaluation located in the Project File. Table 21 - MIS Fish and Habitat Description for the Horse Creek planning area Habitat Description MIS Habitat Present Species Present Spring Chinook salmon Yes Yes Riparian habitat and water quality Bull trout Yes Yes Coastal cutthroat trout Yes Yes Rainbow trout Yes Yes Mountain whitefish Yes Yes Documentation about these fish in the Horse Creek Project area has come from a variety of sources but primarily from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) surveys and Forest Service riparian inventories. During riparian inventories, Forest Service crews snorkel various habitats to document the presence and distribution of salmonid fishes in the planning area. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listed Species: Coastal cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and mountain whitefish are not listed on the ESA, nor are they considered rare by ODFW. Spring Chinook salmon and bull trout are both listed on the ESA as threatened and more information is available for these species. However, most of that information has been collected and enumerated in other watersheds in the McKenzie sub-basin (i.e. the upper McKenzie River and the South Fork McKenzie River). For a full discussion of the Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon and bull trout populations in the McKenzie River and Horse Creek Project area, see the Fisheries Biological Assessment (BA) in the project file. Bull trout: The potential exists for all sub-populations of bull trout in the McKenzie to use the Horse Creek watershed as a foraging area. The redd count in 2010 was 161 redds in all spawning areas. A conservative estimate of two fish per redd and the total adult bull trout population that currently uses the Upper McKenzie River watershed is around 322 adults. A population of reproducing adults this low is considered to be functioning at risk until a stable population of at least 500 adults can be documented (see Fisheries BA). Upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon: The Forest Service does not systematically collect data on spring Chinook salmon in Lost Creek or the Horse Creek watershed (i.e. redd surveys, juvenile population trends, etc.). However, it is known that both systems are used by Chinook salmon as spawning and rearing habitat. The Horse Creek watershed is dominated by natural processes and is arguably one of the most important 5 th field watersheds for wild spring Chinook salmon in the Willamette River basin. The Horse Creek Watershed Analysis (1997) provided information on ODFW redd surveys. A review of the data showed a steady decline of returning adults beginning in the 1940 s. In 1959 a high of 662 redds were counted in Horse Creek and in 1995 there was an inventory of 45 redds. Critical habitat has been designated for both species (Figure 10). 54

60 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Figure 10 - Horse Creek Listed Fish Critical Habitat Habitat Condition: The McKenzie River Ranger District has completed Forest Service Region 6 Stream Surveys in fish-bearing streams in the Horse Creek Project area. The stream survey protocol guides collection of field data for stream channels, riparian vegetation, and fish presence. Data collected from these surveys are then rated using habitat indicator benchmarks developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and FWS (USDA, USDC, and USDI 2004). Ratings for sub-watersheds in the Horse Creek planning area showed that habitat for bull trout and spring Chinook salmon is in excellent condition. The following are habitat indicators assessed in the Fisheries BA: Stream Temperature Pool Frequency and Quality Dissolved Oxygen / Turbidity Off-Channel Habitat Chemicals / Nutrients Refugia Physical Barriers Streambank Condition Substrate Character Floodplain Connectivity Large Woody Material Peak / Base Flow None of the habitat indicators rated as not properly functioning (see Fisheries BA). Potential effects to the habitat indicators caused by project activities are assessed and rated in the BA. The effects in the BA were all assessed as discountable, insignificant, neutral, or positive. None of the activities have the potential for negative effects to bull trout, spring Chinook salmon, or their designated critical habitat (see Table 36 in the Fisheries BA.) Environmental Consequences Aquatic Resources Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effect on MIS fish. Ground disturbing activities associated with harvest operation, road construction, and fuels treatments would not occur. Landscape delivery of fine sediment, as modified by the road and stream crossing network, would remain as it is and subject only to scheduled maintenance. 55

61 Horse Creek Project By not thinning in Riparian Reserves it would be expected that trees would not attain the diameters and crown conditions that are represented in unmanaged locations in the Horse Creek watershed. Additionally, the hardwood component in the riparian area would continue to be dominated by the Douglas-fir overstory. The leaves of hardwood trees are more readily conditioned by microbes in the stream ecosystem than are needles of conifers (Murphy and Meehan 1991). This makes hardwoods an important component of organic material input to streams to provide a continuum of materials invertebrates can consume. This effect would be limited to the stream segments adjacent to existing managed stands. The tributaries of Horse Creek coming off Wapiti Ridge are avenues for water, sediment, organic material, and large wood to reach the main stem of Horse Creek. Occasionally these materials come in a large pulse in the form of debris flows during flood events. Next to bank erosion, debris flows from these tributaries are the second most important source of large wood to Horse Creek. Without thinning, the remaining trees may not get large enough to be retained in Horse Creek or effectively interact with water and sediment to create fish habitat. Alternative 1 (No Action) Cumulative Effects The current road density in federally managed portions of the sub-watershed would not change. The effect of sediment delivery due to a deteriorating road system would be similar to those described in the section above but would be perpetuated further in time and may get worse over time Alternative 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects After extensive stream reconnaissance of the project area, a riparian management strategy (see Design Criteria, Appendix A) for Alternatives 2 and 3 was specifically developed to accelerate late-successional characteristics while protecting water quality and aquatic habitat conditions. No-harvest and no-treatment buffers on all streams were established to minimize effects to aquatic species and their habitat. Project design criteria (Appendix A) were incorporated into all activities (including timber hauling and road work) to similarly protect aquatic resources. Due to these project design features and stream protection measures, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in little or no change to the habitat elements listed above and no direct or indirect effect to MIS fish. However, in the short term there would be a reduction in the amount of woody material that is available for recruitment into the Riparian Reserves due to mortality from competition and disturbance. The Horse Creek Project would have no impact on A Caddisfly. For a detailed discussion of how the action Alternatives affect the habitat elements for the Horse Creek Project area see the Fisheries BA and BE located in the project file. Alternative 2 and 3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the same as Alternative 1 with the following differences. The current road density in federally managed portions of the sub-watersheds would remain nearly the same. Maintenance and reconstruction of system roads in action Alternatives is expected to withstand flood events through improved ditch relief drainage and up-sized stream culverts and may be expected to be more resistant to culvert related failure (compared to current condition). Following examination of the cumulative effects from past actions, combined with 56

62 Environmental Assessment June 2011 the proposed project, the additional management-induced effects from this project would not change the following: 1. The timing or magnitude of peak flow events (planning sub-drainage ARP remain well above the Willamette Forest Plan recommended levels); 2. Instability of stream banks (recommended ARP midpoints are exceeded, and bank destabilizing activity is excluded); 3. Adverse alteration of the supply of sediment to channels (fine sediment supply would be localized and of short duration); 4. Adverse alteration of sediment storage and structure in channels (channel conditions would be maintained with proposed action Alternatives). Alternative 3 would treat less riparian acres than Alternative 2 so the effects of overly dense forested stands would be greater in Alternative 3. Other projects are not foreseeable within the Horse Creek Project area that would add cumulatively to past and current actions. Habitat conditions necessary to aquatic MIS fish in Horse Creek and Lost Creek are expected to be maintained within and downstream of the project area. For more detailed discussion of how the action Alternatives affect the habitat elements for the Horse Creek Project area see the Fisheries BA located in the project file. MIS fish viability statement: The Horse Creek Project would maintain or improve habitat conditions for aquatic MIS in the project area. Human caused fine sediment delivery in the project area would be decreased in the long-term due to road work and the reduced delivery would be maintained after the project is completed. In the long-term, there would be a reduction in artificially induced sediment entering the stream system, benefiting aquatic MIS and their habitat. Therefore, the Horse Creek Project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Willamette National Forest for these species. Alternatives 2 and 3 Key Issues Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: It would be expected that there would be less potential for sediment to enter stream channels from temporary roads in Alternative 3 because there is 5.7 less miles being constructed compared to Alternative 2. There would be 2 crossings built over intermittent streams in Units 340 and 490 in Alternative 2. These crossings are within 1,720 and 2,920 feet of listed fish habitat respectively. 3.5 Scenic Quality Scale of analysis The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Scenic Quality is the Horse Creek Project area. 57

63 Horse Creek Project Affected Environment Past and present natural and human caused disturbances or modifications (including fire, disease, timber harvest, fire suppression, residential and road development) are visible within and adjacent to the project area. Viewsheds are characterized as those visible areas adjacent to important travel corridors that are considered most sensitive to scenic quality. Running through or accessed by the project area are 54 miles of trails and numerous primary and secondary roads. No roads within the project area have any special scenic designation, however Forest Road 1993 is known locally and by visitors as an adventurous, scenic drive that provides high quality vistas of the major mountain peaks of the central Cascades. Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) The Forest Plan establishes VQO categories to describe degrees of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape when considering timber stand management (Forest Plan FEIS, 1990). The five VQO categories are described below. Table 22 - Description of Visual Quality Objectives Visual Quality Objectives Preservation: Provides for ecological change only. Retention: In general, human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor. Partial Retention: In general, human activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Modification: Human activities may dominate the characteristic landscape but must simultaneously utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture, and appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middle ground. Maximum Modification: Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but should not appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background. Within the Horse Creek Project area are two VQO categories, Retention and Maximum Modification. Units within each VQO are identified in Table 23. Figures that illustrate the extent of each VQO category across the Horse Creek Project landscape are available in the Visual Resources Report in the project file. Eight points of reference were analyzed for visibility. These points were specific locations and travel corridors where public use is concentrated and where viewing the Table 23 - Visual Quality Objective Categories Containing Activity Units VQO Category Activity Unit(s) VQO Retention (Foreground) 40, 50, 60 VQO Maximum Modification All other Units surrounding landscape is a likely component of their experience. The locations used were Horse Creek Campground, the community of McKenzie Bridge, McKenzie Bridge Campground, Castle Rock Viewpoint, Olallie Trail, King Castle Trail, King Road (Forest Road 2639), and Horse Creek Road (Forest Road 2638). Units 40, 50, and 60 are identified in the Willamette LRMP as within Management Area 11f- Scenic Retention Foreground. This management allocation applies to a viewing distance from 300 feet to 1 mile from identified areas where the public views visually sensitive landscapes. 58

64 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Distance assessment of the eight identified viewing reference points indicates that six are farther than 1 mile from the harvest units in the visually sensitive management area and therefore fall outside of official analysis VQO Retention Foreground. Two locations (Castle Rock viewpoint and King Castle Trail) are within the Retention Foreground viewing distance. A landscape assessment utilizing GIS indicates that no portions of Units 40, 50, or 60 are visible from Castle Rock viewpoint; however the majority of these units are visible from King Castle Trail. Of the six reference points that fall outside of the foreground viewing distance, nearly all acreage within units 40, 50, and 60 are visible at middle ground distances (1/2 mile to 4 miles) from viewing reference points of McKenzie Bridge community, McKenzie Bridge Campground, Horse Creek Campground, and King Road Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The No Action Alternative would not harvest timber stands in any visual management areas in the Horse Creek planning area, and there are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. All visually sensitive Management Areas remain consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and VQOs are met. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on scenic quality in the project area. Alternative 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects For those visitors traveling the forest road system in the project area, short term effects to visual quality would be limited to exposed stumps from harvested trees, less dense forested stands (increasing depth of view), slash or underburned areas, and possibly dust from transporting forest products from the forest on unpaved forest roads. Long term effects would include fewer exposed stumps due to vegetation recovery (3-6 years and after), and larger diameters and crowns of residual trees due to increased growing space. Intermediate harvest treatments, including fuels treatments, are expected to accelerate stand development toward a more natural range of conditions and scenic diversity in the project area. The prescriptions and design layout for the activity units would meet VQO standards and guidelines. The result would be a more open forest canopy where passing visitors may glimpse small openings. Proposed openings for diversity would appear natural and subordinate to the natural landscape; placement and shape would mimic natural openings were possible. Hazardous fuels treatments in these visually sensitive areas would also be as natural appearing as possible by using techniques such as the guidelines identified in the Visual Resources Report available in the project file. The proposed actions would not contribute additional adverse effects to visually sensitive Management Areas. These modifications would still maintain a moderately altered visual condition as identified in the Forest Plan, and should result in visually interesting stand structure, depth of views, and mix of vegetative species. Short term acceptable effects from treatments are recognized and long term enhancement to the visual landscape is expected. 59

65 Horse Creek Project No long-term adverse incremental cumulative effects to scenic quality are anticipated considering the direct and indirect effects from the proposed action and the action Alternatives. Also, no reasonably foreseeable future management actions are planned for the project area which would result in additional cumulative effects to the scenic quality. 3.6 Recreation Scale of analysis The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for recreation resources is the Horse Creek project area Affected Environment The project area is popular for both developed and dispersed recreation activities including: camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, bicycling, picnicking, berry picking, viewing scenery, and driving for pleasure. The project area contains approximately 54 miles of recreation trails of which a significant portion are within the Three Sisters Wilderness. Visitor use in the project area is largely driven by seasonally directed recreation activities. Seasonal fishing (from the bank access via dispersed recreation sites) along Horse Creek is popular with local residents and visitors. The areas extensive trail system supports hiking and to a lesser extent mountain biking and horse riding activities. Big game hunting is an important recreational activity that brings an influx of users onto the more remote roads and trails in the project area during hunting seasons. Forest Road 1993 is known for its scenic qualities and viewpoints, but is under no formal scenic designation. There are also 43 recreation residences (summer homes) and 2 special use permits within the project area which include a mountain bike shuttle service provider and a drinking water provider. Developed Sites: There are two developed recreation sites within the project area, Whitebranch Youth Camp and Horse Creek Campground. Fuel treatments are proposed for areas adjacent to the campground. Two trailheads (Separation Lake/Louise Creek and Horse Creek trails) with limited on site development (trail sign boards, hitching posts, and picnic tables) are located within or adjacent to harvest units. Dispersed Camping: The District has knowledge of 20 dispersed campsites within the project area. These sites are usually associated with favorite hunting areas and get-away-spots, and are often located near water or at the end of a dead end road. Horse Creek Road provides numerous dispersed recreation sites that allow access to fishing and camping opportunities along the creek. Trails: There are approximately 54 miles of existing system trails within the project area. The majority of the trail miles occur within designated Wilderness. Several harvest units are in close proximity or adjacent to King Castle Trail (Trail 4326) which is popular with local residents and is easily accessed by King Road (Forest Road 2639) and Forest Road 480. King Castle Trail is becoming better known as an alternative to the McKenzie River Trail for mountain biking opportunities. One Wilderness trail head (Separation Lake/Louise Creek) is within a proposed 60

66 Environmental Assessment June 2011 harvest unit. Horse Creek Trail (Trail 3514) is accessed from Horse Creek Road and is directly adjacent to harvest units Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Recreation use of the National Forest in the project area would remain unchanged with the no action Alternative. The recreating public would continue to use the project area for recreational purposes, and would continue to use dispersed campsites, trails, and roads. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on recreation within the project area with the exception that road maintenance associated with harvest activities would not occur which could limit future access if roads are not maintained. Alternative 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Short terms effects of proposed timber harvesting, log truck hauling, and fuel treatments would include localized road closures and disruption to hunting, hiking, camping, off highway vehicle use, and driving in some areas. The activities associated with the action Alternatives could cause noise, dust or smoke disturbance. Units 40, 50 (Alternative 2 only), and 60 in particular would have short-term direct effects on King Castle Trail users, particularly where the trail intersects Forest Road 480. The upper portion of the trail passes through Unit 60 and alongside Unit 50 (Alt 2 only). Visual qualities of the surrounding stands would be maintained through limited and site specific harvest in the portions of units adjacent to the trail. Safety of trail users would be addressed during implementation. The duration of these effects would only last for the duration of implementing the stand treatment. Overall, it is unlikely that all recreation use in the area would be affected at the same time. A recreation specialist would be involved in the implementation of harvest in units adjacent to King Castle Trail. Hazardous Fuels Treatments would occur adjacent to and within Horse Creek Campground, and around several of the recreation residences in the Delta tract. This treatment would have the same short term effects listed above, however overall positive benefits would result from visual improvements and public safety. Miles available for public vehicular access as listed on the 2010 Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) would decrease from 65.4 miles to 63.4 miles for Alternative 2 and 63.6 miles for Alternative 3 (see Appendix B, Road Status and Proposed Activities). This results in very little difference in dispersed recreation effects between the action Alternatives. Forest Road 450 off of Horse Creek Road would be decommissioned below the primary dispersed camping area to protect riparian resources. Improved access from road maintenance would occur on approximately 37 miles in Alternative 2 and 34 miles in Alternative 3. This may increase access to portions of the project area and improve safety and driving comfort for road users. Indirect effects of these improvements may include increased dispersed camping and other activities in areas previously not used due to poor road conditions. 61

67 Horse Creek Project Alternative 3 does not include units 40 and 50 which are in close proximity to King Castle Trail. Removal of these units would likely result in a lessening of immediate, harvest related impacts to the recreational users of the trail. The proposed harvest treatment in unit 50 would provide improved eastward views of the Three Sisters Wilderness and this potential benefit would be lost if Alternative 3 is selected. Conversely, dropping unit 50 would also maintain presently existing canopy cover and maintain current accumulation of organic inputs to the trail surface which helps prevent erosion. There are no units identified for harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). Three units lie directly adjacent to the Three Sisters Wilderness (Units 860, 900, 960). These units could have skip acreage along the Wilderness boundary to reduce the potential for invasive species to enter the wilderness. Unit 960 would be dropped if Alternative 3 was selected. Reductions in Wilderness boundary units reduces the potential for indirect impacts (noise, dust, invasive species associated with logging equipment) and direct impacts (potential harvest encroachment over Wilderness boundary). Several units adjacent to Horse Creek Road are in close proximity to the Wilderness boundary; however the road and creek provide and obvious physical delineation. Past activities in the Horse Creek Project area have included timber harvest and road construction, creating a network of roads. These activities have opened vehicle access to Forest lands where dispersed recreation activities may occur. The incremental effects of either action Alternative would be to improve road conditions through maintenance activities, which may provide for more dispersed recreation in the project area. Road decommissioning (3.4 miles for both Alternatives) and road storage (4.1 miles or 5 miles for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively) would remove a small amount of current and potential motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities. There is no other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions that would contribute further to the effects described above. Key Issue #2 Temporary Roads: Harvesting unit 50 in Alternative 2 would require temporary road construction over a portion of King-Castle Trail that is an old road bed. Currently, this old road bed is in the process of revegetating and this section of the trail is reverting back to a narrow width foot path (Class 2 trail). Reusing this section of old road bed to facilitate log hauling would cause a setback for forest trail management objectives of converting this section of King-Castle Trail back to class 2 trail conditions. Alternative 3 would drop unit 50 resulting in approximately half the required temporary road construction on King-Castle Trail. Under this Alternative the trail segment where temporary road construction would occur would be over a portion of the trail that has not significantly revegetated and does not currently exhibit characteristics associated with Class 2 trails. Due to the existing condition of this trail and the reduction in required temporary road construction, Alternative 3 would result in less impact to King-Castle Trail than Alternative 2. 62

68 Environmental Assessment June Wildlife Scale of analysis The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for snags and down wood includes the project activity units and the Horse Creek 5th field Watershed. The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for early seral wildlife habitat, sensitive species, migratory land birds, and terrestrial MIS species was the project activity units and the Horse Creek Project area. For threatened northern spotted owls, a 0.5 and 1.2 mile radius buffer around all activity centers within and overlapping the Horse Creek Project area was used to determine available amounts of suitable and dispersal habitat. The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for elk habitat includes the project activity units and five Emphasis Areas which management activities would occur in. These emphasis areas were used for the scope of analysis because of established ratings for elk habitat in the Willamette National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. These Emphasis Areas do include private lands Affected Environment Early Seral Habitat for Wildlife Diverse quality early seral habitat is of key importance to wildlife (Hagar, 2007). This habitat provides a variety of dead wood structures for wildlife habitat and flowering forbs, as well as shrubs for wildlife forage and nectar. A total of 156 wildlife species in Oregon and Washington have been documented to depend on early seral habitat (O Neil et. al 2001). The management allocation for the larger Horse Creek LSR within the Horse Creek Project area is intended to provide primarily late-successional habitat which was recognized throughout the planning of this project. Past management activities initially resulted in an abundance of lower quality early seral habitat with the 4,237 acres of regeneration harvesting that occurred on federal lands in the project area. There is an additional amount of early seral habitat on private land within the Horse Creek watershed but due to management objectives of timber production, the habitat would be lower quality. Changes in forest management on federal lands within the past 25 years have resulted in significantly less acres of early seral habitat. Currently, early seral habitat in the Horse Creek Project area can be described as fair due to the lack of vertical and horizontal stand structure. A small amount of both wet and dry meadows are present in moderate to higher elevations of the project area (Horse Pasture Mountain, Lamb Butte Scenic Area, and adjacent to Upper Foley Seed Orchard). Overall, open meadow habitat in this landscape is rare. Historically, early seral habitat was produced primarily from fire disturbance. With recent fire suppression, this type of habitat is generally created by logging activities. The size and composition of early seral habitat patches varies by vegetation series and topography. Over 40% of early seral species require snags or large down wood for breeding. Early logging from the 1940s through the 1960s usually left abundant amounts of large down wood but not many snags. 63

69 Horse Creek Project Later logging practices from the 1960s to the 1980s transitioned to sanitation practices in many cases, which resulted in clearcuts devoid of any large dead wood component. A current analysis of seral stages in the Horse Creek Project area shows early seral habitat, of varying quality on approximately 2% of the landscape (see 1.2 Background). Since the 1980s, levels of early seral habitat have been decreasing, which is a trend on all public lands in the Pacific Northwest. Lack of recent regeneration harvest on federal lands combined with successful fire suppression has resulted in a much higher proportion of dense, closed canopy stands. Consequently, there is less open quality early seral habitat across the landscape than in the recent past. The current distribution of early seral habitat is also biased towards lower elevations on private lands Environmental Consequences - Early Seral Habitat for Wildlife Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Under this Alternative, the amount of diverse early seral habitat in the Horse Creek Project area would continue to shrink over time as stands move from the early to mid seral stage (see Figure 8 in 3.1). Natural tree mortality (insects, disease, wildfire, or blow down) within Horse Creek units is not expected to be significant nor likely to produce many future openings in the short-term, and is unlikely that there would be any noticeable increase in early seral habitat across the landscape. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Diverse early seral habitat would be created by cutting a total of 218 acres of 1-3 acre gaps outside the LSR and 104 acres of dominant tree release (DTR). DTR would be lower quality early seral habitat due to size of openings. This would increase the early seral habitat from 1,052 acres to about 1,374 acres on federal lands within the project area. Gaps would be expected to provide early seral habitat for years. Post-harvest underburning would better improve shrub and forbs development, and support the occurrence of more high quality early seral habitat. Commercial thinning on 2,043 acres would also increase use of the dense, young forests and make them more suitable to a wider range of wildlife species, compared to the current dense closed canopy condition. The heavy thin prescriptions (LSR acres, non-lsr 716 acres), gaps (218 acres, non-lsr), and DTR areas (LSR - 85 acres, non-lsr 19 acres) would open up the canopy more with longer lasting, improved diverse early seral habitat than units with no gaps and moderate or light thinning. Within the LSR, stands that are identified as suitable dispersal habitat for the northern spotted owl would maintain 40% canopy cover. The overall impact of the proposed action is that dense closed-canopy mid-seral forests would be thinned to a more open condition with gaps that would provide diverse early seral habitat. These more open habitat conditions associated with the thinning are expected to last approximately 7-15 years, depending on the site and final canopy cover. Some species that would benefit from increased understory vegetation include Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, turkey vulture, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper s hawk, California quail, long- and 64

70 Environmental Assessment June 2011 short-eared owls, Vaux s swift, Anna s hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, western bluebird, olive-sided flycatcher, as well as the overall avian biodiversity. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect The overall effects of Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2 with Alternative 2 having more acres proposed to be harvested and underburned than Alternative 3 which proposes to harvest approximately 1,133 acres. Therefore, there would be more acres in diverse early seral habitat in Alternative 2. Early seral wildlife habitat would be created in 103 acres of gaps outside the LSR and 64 acres of dominant tree releases (LSR-50 acres, non-lsr 14 acres) which would increase the total acres of early seral habitat on federal lands to 1,220 acres. Alternative 2 and 3 Cumulative Effects Much of the private grounds have been cut over in the past 20 years within the project area. The clearcuts on private lands are expected to supply low quality early seral habitat within the project area for the next years. There is no other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions that would contribute further to the effects on early seral habitat Affected Environment Snags and Down Wood The importance of dead wood in coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest is further emphasized by management Standards and Guidelines (S&G) under the Northwest Forest Plan ROD (1994, 2001), as well as elsewhere throughout published literature (Hallett et al. 2001, Laudenslayer et al. 2002, Lewis 1998, Rose et al. 2001). Several approaches and data sources were used to assess current snag levels for the Horse Creek Project area: Seral stage habitat evaluation, aerial insect and disease flight information, DecAID, and long-term snag habitat trends. Detailed information about the dead wood analysis can be found in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project file. DecAID the decayed wood advisor was used in the analysis of the Horse Creek Project for snags and down wood. DecAID helps managers decide how much dead wood to provide for a species habitat needs, and is designed to apply to salvage and green tree projects. Snags: For lowland conifer/hardwood forests in the Horse Creek watershed, the estimated median number of large snags >19.9 dbh is 3.5 per acre. The estimated median number of snags >9.9 dbh is 10.5 per acre compared to an estimated historic median reference condition of 5 per acre and 12 per acre, respectively for the Westside lowland conifer/hardwood forest of the Oregon Cascades. For montane mixed conifer forests in the Horse Creek watershed, the estimated median number of large snags >19.9 dbh is 4 per acre. The estimated median number of snags >9.9 dbh is 18 per acre compared to an estimated historic median reference condition of 5 per acre and 13 per acre respectively. Wildlife Relationship on Snag and Downed Log Abundance: DecAID provides a compilation of studies showing relationships of snag and downed wood abundance to wildlife occupancy of 65

71 Horse Creek Project the site for a variety of wildlife species. These are expressed as tolerance levels. For example, the 50% tolerance level for large snags for nesting pileated woodpeckers is 7 snags per acre for Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests of the Oregon Cascades. This number indicates that half of pileated woodpeckers studied in this wildlife habitat were found to nest at sites with 7 or fewer large snags per acre. Many factors influence the population density and habitat selection of species that are associated with dead wood abundance. In general though, the greater the abundance of snags and downed wood and the larger the snags and downed logs, the better the habitat conditions for the dead wood dependent species. Standards and Guidelines for retaining snags and downed wood were developed around these relationships. Table 24 compares the current condition to what DecAID provides as a historic reference condition. Species-specific information in DecAID was reviewed for species found in the project watershed with snag and downed wood relationship studies comparable to the forest inventory plot data. From these studies, TES species, MIS species, and key prey species of northern spotted owl were compared to species tolerance levels to estimated current and historic snag and downed wood abundance. DecAID provided tolerance levels for the following species: pileated woodpecker, northern flying squirrel, and marten (Table 24). The large snag analysis suggests that currently the Horse Creek watershed is slightly below historical levels for large snags in terms of providing less nesting and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers and is low in occupied sites for the marten. The total snag analysis also shows that currently the Horse Creek watershed is well above historical levels for small snags and providing more snag habitat for northern flying squirrels than was provided in the estimated historic condition, however small snag densities relevant to marten tolerance levels are similar to the historic condition. Caution is advised in terms of extrapolating data calculated from stand exams which are not statistically valid for snag and log data. Table 24 - Estimated % of Forest Habitat Type (WHT) Meeting Snag Density Tolerance Levels for Key Wildlife Species, Current Condition vs. DecAID Historic Reference Condition, Horse Creek Watershed, Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Oregon Cascades Habitat & Wildlife Species Use Dead Wood Feature Wildlife Tolerance Level % Habitat Meeting T. L. DecAID Current Historic Condition Reference Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood, Oregon Cascades Pileated Woodpecker Snags>19.9 dbh >30% T. L. 39% 52% Nesting Sites Snags>19.9 dbh >50% T. L. 23% 32% Snags>19.9 dbh >30% T. L. 19% 28% Foraging Sites Snags>19.9 dbh >50% T. L. 5% 13% Northern Flying Squirrel Occupied stand Occupied site Snags>9.9 dbh >30% T. L. 74% 82% Snags>9.9 dbh >50% T. L. 52% 58% Montane Mixed Conifer Marten Snags>19.9 dbh >30% T. L. 52% 60% Snags>19.9 dbh >50% T. L. 49% 57% Snags>9.9 dbh >30% T. L. 70% 57% Snags>9.9 dbh >50% T. L. 64% 49% 66

72 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Downed Logs: For Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Horse Creek watershed, the estimated median percent cover of large logs >19.9 diameter is 3.5% and downed logs >4.9 diameter is 5.5% compared to an estimated historic median reference condition of 1.5% and 5% respectively. For montane mixed conifer forests in the Horse Creek watershed, the estimated median percent cover of large logs >19.9 diameter is 3.5% and downed logs >4.9 diameter is 7% compared to an estimated historic median reference condition of 0.5% and 3.5% respectively. Table 25 - % of Forest Habitat Meeting Downed Log Cover Tolerance Levels for Key Wildlife Species, Current Condition vs. DecAID Estimated Historic Reference Condition, Horse Creek Watershed Habitat and Wildlife Species Use Dead Wood Feature Wildlife Tolerance Level % Habitat Meeting T. L. DecAID Current Historic Condition Reference Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwoods, Oregon Cascades Pileated Woodpecker Logs>19.9 dia* >30% T. L. >62%* >48%* Foraging Sites Logs>19.9 dia* >50% T. L. >52%* >33%* Northern Flying Squirrel Logs>4.9 dia** >30% T. L. 67% 72% Occupied stand Logs>4.9 dia** >50% T. L. 46% 37% Montane Mixed Conifer Marten Occupied site Logs>4.9 dia** >50% T. L. 36% 16% *DecAID shows information for % total log cover >19.9 in and >4.9in diameter compared to diameters in the inventoried plot data. Thus the % of habitat in the above tolerance limit is substantially underestimated, but is shown to compare the relative difference between the current and historic condition. In Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat the downed log analysis indicates that currently the Horse Creek watershed is above historical levels for large downed log cover and is providing a greater amount of large downed log foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers than was provided in the estimated historic condition. The analysis also indicates that the watershed is slightly below historical levels for total downed log cover, but providing comparable amounts of total downed log habitat for northern flying squirrels. In montane mixed conifer habitat the downed log analysis suggests that currently the Horse Creek watershed is substantially above historical levels for large downed log cover and also above historical levels for total downed log cover in this habitat type. For a more detailed discussion about snags and down wood, refer to the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project file Environmental Consequences - Snags and Down Wood Figure 11 and Figure 12 were developed using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) which was projected using stand exam data from field surveys. The projection assumes that no snag creation 67

73 Horse Creek Project would occur and is only associated with proposed harvest units. It should also be noted that the current condition may be different than what is actually occurring on the ground due to low confidence intervals associated with the stand exams from which the data was derived. DecAID looks at a landscape level, so current conditions should be derived using DecAID, not the FVS simulation. FVS models the estimated mortality for the proposed harvest stands. Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Figure 11 - Horse Creek Proposed Units Snags >10 dbh Figure 12 - Horse Creek Proposed Units Snags >20 dbh *These figures assume that no snag creation would occur in the project area and subsequent thinning would not occur. Alternative 1 does not propose management activities and therefore would not alter snag and down wood densities. Existing vegetation conditions would continue to follow natural successional pathways, with snags and down wood responding accordingly. Snags and large down wood would continue to be created by the various natural mortality agents: insects and diseases, wildfire, wind throw, snow damage, bear damage, as well as suppression mortality. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on snag and down wood in the project area. Alternative 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Harvest: Very minor loss of existing snag habitat would occur under either action Alternative, due to safety issues associated with falling. The loss of snags within harvest units is judged to be very low because field surveys showed few or no snags within these plantations. An exception is unit 50 (Alternative 2 only) which is a naturally regenerated stand with an estimated 2 snags/acre greater than 14 dbh. Snags could be felled along the Horse Creek haul routes as well as within the harvest unit. Snag loss would be greatest among sizes <10 dbh, intermediate for snags dbh, and very low among snags 20 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 underburning. Some of the retained green trees may have defects that would provide future dead wood habitat. The removal of trees that would be subject to suppression mortality is an impact on future dead wood levels in harvest units. 68

74 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Post-harvest fuels treatments: Underburning the thinned stands may produce additional snag habitat, but is not judged to provide much due to the proposed spring-like conditions for burning. Tree mortality of no greater than 10% would be acceptable. Underburning may reduce existing large down wood habitat in specific areas when logs are in the older decay classes. Stands that are not underburned may have pile burning treatments to reduce fine fuels. Existing large down wood would not be impacted because piles are not placed over large existing down wood of any decay class. Pile burning treatments are unlikely to result in tree mortality. Any such mortality would add to an existing patchy distribution of snag habitat throughout the planning area. Within stand variability throughout the planning area influences current snag distribution. This variability would also influence the location of replacement snags, which would be provided for in a patchy rather than even distribution across the area. This prescription is common to each action Alternative and would assure compliance with NWFP guidance to maintain 40% of potential populations of cavity nesting species in matrix land allocations (USDA 1994 page C- 42). In the Horse Creek LSR, snag and down wood management is guided by the Mid-Willamette LSR Assessment (USDA Willamette National Forest et al. 1998). This document suggests managing for 100% population potential, while DecAID recommends providing historic levels of snags and down wood to best assure viability of dead wood dependent species. Past management actions related to timber harvest activities are generally responsible for the current condition of dead wood habitat throughout the planning area. These actions have affected the overall amount and distribution of dead wood habitat by reducing the amount of mature and old-growth habitat and increasing the amount of early and mid-seral habitat. There are no foreseeable actions that would affect dead wood habitat in this area. Commercial harvest as proposed under either action Alternative for the Horse Creek Project would result in a short term impact on dead wood levels in the activity units. Thinning would capture mortality and delay snag recruitment for many years. Snag levels are below historic reference conditions for the size class over 20 dbh, and therefore snag/wildlife tree creation is important for providing snag habitat. At the project level the amount of down wood is above the 50% tolerance level as described in DecAID; therefore, the activities associated with the action Alternatives would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on dead wood habitat in the planning area. Large snags however are below the 50% tolerance level as described in DecAID but above the 30% tolerance level as shown in Table 24. In unit 50 (Alt. 2 only) it is recommended to leave/create an average of 4 snags per acre post-harvest. Wildlife tree creation is recommended to enhance habitat in 39 units in Alternative 2 with a range of 1-4 trees per acre. Alternative 3 would have enhancement recommendations on 39 units with the same averages. Wildlife tree creation techniques could include topping, girdling and inoculation or any combination of these treatments. The proposed action would affect approximately 2,259 acres (~4%) of the federally owned 56,927 acres within the Horse Creek Project area with less if Alternative 3 was chosen. At least 96% of the project area would be allowed to continue to have natural processes accumulate snags and dead wood on the landscape. 69

75 Horse Creek Project Dead wood habitat should continue to exist in a sufficient amount and distribution to support the local wildlife community, including MIS such as pileated woodpecker, marten, and cavity nesters such that their ability to persist or become established would not be limited by this habitat component. Further discussion about Snags and Down Wood can be found in the Wildlife Specialist Report, which is available in the project file. There is no other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions that would contribute further to the effects described above Affected Environment Threatened Northern Spotted Owl The Horse Creek Project proposes 22 acres of treatment in suitable northern spotted owl habitat, which consists of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Treatment acres were consulted on in the Biological Assessment (in project record). Formal consultation for effects from proposed activities was submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in a programmatic Biological Assessment dated July 16, This Biological Assessment contains an analysis of effects with a conclusion that the proposed project related activities are likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls. A Biological Opinion dated February 11, 2011 was received from USFWS (BO) F-0157 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). The BO found that the Horse Creek Project activities as proposed may affect, and likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls due to thinning of suitable habitat (22 acres) and possible disturbance of three activity centers during the nesting season. These activity centers are older historic sites where owls have not been detected since 1990 and 1991 and are not located in the Horse Creek LSR. The BO also determined that the Horse Creek Project activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl and are not likely to adversely modify spotted owl critical habitat. The Service reached these conclusions because the proposed action is not likely to appreciably diminish the effectiveness of the conservation program established under the Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008) or the Northwest Forest Plan, to protect the spotted owl and its habitat on Federal lands within its range including designated spotted owl critical habitat. Additionally, no known cumulative impacts changed the determinations made under the effects of the proposed action. Existing Condition in the Horse Creek Project Area: Past surveys for spotted owls have documented 15 spotted owl activity centers within 1.2 miles of project units. All 15 spotted owl activity centers have established, 100-acre LSRs. No project units are proposed within 100-acre LSRs. Many of the proposed project units are located within plantations within the Horse Creek LSR and are within 2008 Critical Habitat Unit Western Oregon Cascades South. For more detailed information, refer to the Wildlife Biological Evaluation available in the project record. Past logging activities in the Horse Creek Project area have removed acres of spotted owl habitat. Remaining suitable habitat in the project area is now fragmented, lowering the overall quality of habitat on the landscape. Some units proposed for thinning are currently unsuitable habitat for spotted owls, which decreases the overall project effects. High tree density is the main reason why some stands in the project area are structurally unsuitable for spotted owl use, with a secondary reason being small tree diameters. Definitions of suitable and dispersal habitat for spotted owls are generally defined as: 70

76 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Suitable habitat: Consists of forested stands used by spotted owls for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. Generally these stands are conifer-dominated, 80 years old or older and multi-storied in structure, and have sufficient snags and downed wood to provide opportunities for owl nesting, roosting and foraging. The canopy closure generally exceeds 60 percent. This habitat is described as nesting/roosting and foraging (NRF) habitat in the northern spotted owl recovery plan (USFWS 2008). Dispersal habitat: Conifer and mixed mature conifer-alder habitats with a canopy cover greater than or equal to 40 percent and conifer trees greater than or equal to 11 inches average DBH. NRF habitat can also function as dispersal habitat. Snag habitat is an important component of high quality spotted owl habitat because it contributes to habitat for their prey base. Generally, flying squirrels are the most prominent prey for spotted owls in Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests in Washington and Oregon (Forsman et al. 1984). Snag presence within the proposed thinning units is currently low to non-existent. For more discussion on snags see Snags and Down Wood Environmental Consequences - Threatened Northern Spotted Owl Effects on northern spotted owl habitat are in compliance with Standards and Guidelines from the Willamette LRMP. Table 26 - Horse Creek Project Spotted Owl Habitat Removal/Modification Acres by Alternative Acres in parentheses are located in critical habitat. Habitat Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Suitable 0(0) 22(0) 0(0) Dispersal 0(0) 1,456 (243) 821 (97) Non-habitat 0(0) 565 (438) 409 (324) Total 0(0) 2,043(681) 1,133 (421) Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Under this Alternative, no actions would be implemented that change spotted owl nesting, roosting, or dispersal habitat. Forest stands in the area would continue to grow following natural successional pathways. If no other disturbances occurred, fragmented forest blocks would aggregate into contiguous forest over a period of many years. Trees within younger stands would thin out naturally over a span of several decades, and may reach low quality spotted owl foraging habitat suitability in approximately 50 or more years. Due to the previous clearcuts and relatively dense tree spacing, diameter growth would be slower than with thinning. Self-thinning would take place over time mostly due to tree competition, some wind throw, and from root rot which currently exists in the area. Down wood would be provided as tree mortality occurs, which contributes to maintaining the spotted owl prey base. Medium to large diameter snag levels would be expected to remain at very low levels for many more decades. 71

77 Horse Creek Project Alternative 2 Direct, and Indirect Alternative 2 proposes to remove about 22 acres of suitable northern spotted owl habitat in unit 50, which has an approximate stand age of 98 years and is located in an Adaptive Management Area. Although this stand is suitable spotted owl habitat, it is considered to be low quality based on stand structure and its location on the landscape. A few remnant legacy trees exist within this stand which are planned to be retained. Unit 50 falls within the 1.2 mile home range radius of activity center Unit 50 would be removed from current suitable habitat, however the 22 acres of reduced suitable habitat would not cross the habitat threshold of 40% within 1.2 miles and 50% within 0.5 miles (1756 acres/60.6% and 301 acres/60%). The juxtaposition of this stand on the landscape in relationship to known spotted owl sites and high quality habitat makes logging it a low risk to spotted owls. Additionally, Alternative 2 would thin approximately 1,456 acres of dispersal habitat and 565 acres of non-habitat. While canopies would be more open in the short-term (7-15 years), longterm habitat conditions would improve with larger tree sizes and increased structural diversity. Heavy thin prescriptions were emphasized within the non-lsr portion of the Horse Creek Project area but were not entirely excluded from the LSR within units that did not currently qualify as northern spotted owl dispersal or suitable habitat. Within Horse Creek LSR units 150, 180, 320, 360, 380, and 420 would have a final canopy closure under 40%, however these units are not currently northern spotted owl habitat. Heavier thinning during the first commercial entry should allow for increased structural stand development compared to a lighter thinning. Snags in the project area (see sections and for further discussion) may benefit spotted owls and their prey. Inoculation and combinations of other wildlife tree creation methods (i.e. live topping, leaving at least 30% of the live crown intact) could encourage the development of future nest platforms and tree deformities that are used by flying squirrels. In the long term the unique growths around topped and damaged trees may provide possible nest platforms for spotted owls. Alternative 3 Direct, and Indirect Alternative 3 proposes to thin approximately 1,133 acres compared to 2,043 acres in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 also excludes harvest of 22 acres in unit 50 which is the only unit that contains suitable spotted owl habitat. Thinning fewer plantation acres would result in 910 acres that would develop more slowly into larger diameter stands. Of the units excluded in Alternative 3, eight are within the Horse Creek LSR and the remaining 12 are outside the LSR on matrix land. For more information regarding the effects of not thinning plantation units at this time, refer to the Section 3.1-Forest and Stand Structure. Units 930 and 990 would not be thinned in Alternative 3. Not thinning these units could eliminate a one year noise disturbance at site 2440; however this is a location at which owls have not been detected since 1991, so noise effects are unlikely to occur. 72

78 Environmental Assessment June 2011 Alternative 2 and 3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Suitable Habitat (Fuels Units 10, 15, 30, ): Alternative 2 and 3 both have 216 acres of non-commercial fuels reduction treatments in suitable habitat. Treatments would not decrease the overall canopy cover of the stand below 60%, so it is anticipated that the treatments are not likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl. Dispersal Habitat: A canopy cover of greater than 40 percent for most units that are currently in the dispersal habitat condition would be maintained post-harvest and would continue to function as spotted owl dispersal habitat. Other habitat elements (e.g. including snags, down wood, treeheight class-diversity, and older hardwoods) would be maintained if possible. The exception would be the heavy thinning units where dispersal habitat would be taken down to 30% canopy cover to promote diverse early seral forage, and where gaps from 1-3 acres in size outside the LSR would be created. Dispersal habitat for spotted owls is not limited in these areas and these treatments are not likely to have an adverse affect. For the units that would be thinned to an average of 30% canopy cover, dispersal habitat would be removed in the short term and expected to recover within the next years. However, these stands would be variable in structure due to the gaps and it is anticipated that within approximately 5-10 years these stands would return to a dispersal habitat condition. Structurally, these stands would develop somewhat differently, contributing to overall biodiversity on the landscape. Thinning would be variable density, which is believed to accelerate the development of spotted owl habitat and dense prey populations (Carey 1995, 2001, 2003a; Carey et al. 1999a and 1999b; Carey and Wilson 2001). It is unknown whether opening the forest canopy in proposed harvest units would benefit other raptors in the area which may compete with spotted owls, such as the barred owl. The presence of barred owls has been reported to reduce spotted owl detectability, site occupancy, reproduction, and survival (USDA Forest Service et al. 2010). The preponderance of evidence suggests that barred owls are exacerbating the spotted owl population decline, particularly in Washington, portions of Oregon, and the northern coast of California (Gutiérrez et al. 2004, Olson et al. 2005). Alternative 2 would accelerate the development of a multi-storied stand structure in year old plantations, which may benefit spotted owls in the long-term. Unsuitable Habitat: Thinning current unsuitable habitat would open these small diameter stands to wider tree spacing. In addition to accelerated tree diameter growth, the more open stands would provide some options for spotted owl dispersal habitat, although they might be classified as very low quality for 10 or more years. There are no other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions that would add to the effects as described above to Northern Spotted Owls Affected Environment Elk Habitat Management objectives for deer and elk habitat apply to specific mapped Emphasis Areas within the Willamette LRMP. Each emphasis area has been assigned a rating of high, moderate, or low. Standards and Guidelines for management of these areas were developed in cooperation 73

79 Horse Creek Project with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Horse Creek Project area includes portions of nine designated emphasis areas: North side Horse, White Branch, Separation-Honey, Harvey-Sphinx, Eugene, Roney, Owl-Pothole, King, and Taylor (Figure 13). The Separation-Honey, Harvey-Sphinx, Roney and Eugene emphasis areas have high quality ratings and lie mostly within the Three Sisters Wilderness. The remaining four areas are rated as moderate. These areas are managed for elk habitat under the guidance from the Willamette Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (FW-137) with the assumption that providing high quality elk habitat would adequately address the needs for black-tailed deer. Elk Model for Horse Creek Project Area: a Model to Evaluate Elk Habitat in Western Oregon (Wisdom 1986) was used to estimate the habitat effectiveness index (HEI), which is defined as the proportion of achievement relative to an optimum condition. It is currently believed that the model overestimates the importance of thermal cover when food is not limiting and that thermal cover cannot compensate for inadequate forage conditions (supported by Cooke et al. 1998, 2004 and Parker et al. 1999). Another drawback to the Wisdom model is that forage is evaluated based on the average value of defined forage areas and does not consider the amount of forage provided. For more information on the Wisdom model and the specific results for HEI that the Wisdom model produced, see the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project file. The Nutrition Modeling for Westside Elk model (Boyd et. al. 2010) uses four covariates, one of which is dietary digestible energy (DDE). The single variable DDE was calculated for each Big Game Emphasis Area (BGEA) in the Horse Creek Project area (Table 27). This analysis shows that seven of the emphasis areas have most acres in Category 2, a marginal nutrition value; and two emphasis areas have most acres in Category 1, a poor nutrition value. Studies show that summer and autumn DDE has the main influence on winter calf survival, and higher DDE values Figure 13 - Elk Habitat Emphasis Areas in the Horse Creek Project Area 74