Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment i

Lang Dam Project

Draft Environmental Assessment

McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest

Lane County, Oregon

Legal Location: T16S, R4E Sections 23-26 and 35-36; T16S, R5E Sections 19 

and 27-35; and T17S, R5E Sections 4-5; Willamette Meridian

Responsible 

Official:

Terry Baker

McKenzie River District Ranger

Willamette National Forest

57600 McKenzie Hwy

McKenzie Bridge, OR 97413

541-822-7200

For Information 

Contact:

Dean Schlichting

NEPA Planner

McKenzie River Ranger District

57600 McKenzie Highway

McKenzie Bridge, OR 97413

541-822-7214

Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41223

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific 

Northwest

Region

October 2016
ii Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on t

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, 

offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, 

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in 

any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 

program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be 

made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the 

letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov . 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment iii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................................8

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................8

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................................11

Provide a Sustainable Supply of Timber Products...............................................................................................11

Actively Manage Stands to Improve Stand Conditions, Diversity, Density and Structure...................................11

Manage Riparian Reserves to Control Stocking and Acquire Desired Vegetation Characteristics Needed to 

Attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives...............................................................................................12

1.3 Decision Framework..........................................................................................................................................12

1.4 Forest Plan and Management Direction ...........................................................................................................13

Forest Plan ..........................................................................................................................................................14

Northwest Forest Plan ........................................................................................................................................14

1.5 Tribal Consultation ............................................................................................................................................15

1.6 Public Involvement Efforts................................................................................................................................15

1.7 Consultation with other Agencies.....................................................................................................................16

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)......................16

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office ..........................................................................................................16

1.8 Issues Derived from Public Comments..............................................................................................................16

Non-Key Issues....................................................................................................................................................17

Chapter 2: Alternatives................................................................................................................. 20

2.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated ...........................................................................................................20

1. Timber harvest in the McLennon Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). ...............................................20

2. The creation of early seral forests in the purpose and need and include an analysis of age-class distribution 

in the document..................................................................................................................................................20

2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................................................20

2.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................20

Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2..............................................................................24

2.4 Project Design Features included in Alternative 2 ............................................................................................27

2.5 Mitigation and Enhancement Included in Alternative 2 ...................................................................................36

2.6 Monitoring Included Under Alternative 2 .........................................................................................................36

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................................................................................37

Chapter 3: Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative .............. 39

Interdisciplinary Team.............................................................................................................................................39

Role of Science ........................................................................................................................................................39

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................................................................39

3.1 Forest and Stand Structure ...............................................................................................................................40

Summary of Effects.............................................................................................................................................40

Scale of Analysis..................................................................................................................................................40

Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................................41

Stand Age Classification......................................................................................................................................41

Stand Initiation - Young Managed Plantations (0-30 years old).........................................................................41

Stem Exclusion - Second Growth Plantation (31-80 years old) ...........................................................................42

Understory Re-initiation - Mature (81-180 year old) ..........................................................................................42

Old Growth - Old Growth (greater than 180 years old) ......................................................................................42

Stand Density and Competition ..........................................................................................................................43

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................................46

Direct and Indirect Effects...................................................................................................................................46

3.2 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................................52

Summary of Effects.............................................................................................................................................52
iv Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Scale of Analysis..................................................................................................................................................52

Affected Area ......................................................................................................................................................52

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................................53

Direct and Indirect Effects...................................................................................................................................53

Cumulative Effects ..............................................................................................................................................55

3.3 Wildlife ..............................................................................................................................................................55

Summary of Effects.......................................................................................................................................55

Scale of Analysis..................................................................................................................................................56

Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened) ...................................................................................................................56

Summary of Effects.............................................................................................................................................56

Scale of Analysis..................................................................................................................................................57

Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................................57

Direct and Indirect Effects...................................................................................................................................58

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................................59

Proposed Threatened and Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife................................................................................66

Survey and Manage Species................................................................................................................................71

Management Indicator Species ..........................................................................................................................76

Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker, and Deadwood Abundance...............................................................77

Elk and Deer........................................................................................................................................................81

Marten ................................................................................................................................................................83

Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker, and Deadwood Abundance...............................................................83

Elk and Deer........................................................................................................................................................85

Marten ................................................................................................................................................................87

Migratory Birds...................................................................................................................................................87

3.4 Heritage Resources ...........................................................................................................................................89

Summary of Effects.............................................................................................................................................89

Scale of Analysis..................................................................................................................................................89

Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................................................................90

Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................................90

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................................91

3.5 Transportation...................................................................................................................................................92

Summary of Effects Analysis...............................................................................................................................92

Scale of Analysis..................................................................................................................................................92

Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................................92

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................................93

3.6 Recreation .........................................................................................................................................................98

Summary of Effects.............................................................................................................................................98

Scale of Analysis..................................................................................................................................................98

Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................................99

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).............................................................................................................99

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................................102

3.7 Scenic Quality ..................................................................................................................................................104

Summary of Effects...........................................................................................................................................104

Scale of Analysis................................................................................................................................................105

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................................105

Scenic Driving....................................................................................................................................................105

Developed Recreation Sites...............................................................................................................................105

Dispersed Recreation Sites................................................................................................................................105

Trails..................................................................................................................................................................106

South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River (WSSR) ...............................................................................106

Roads and Viewpoints.......................................................................................................................................106

3.8 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) ....................................................................................................................113

Summary of Effects...........................................................................................................................................113
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment v

Scale of Analysis................................................................................................................................................113

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................................113

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................................114

3.9 Botanical Resources ........................................................................................................................................114

Summary of Effects Analysis.............................................................................................................................114

Scale of Analysis................................................................................................................................................114

Affected Environment - Sensitive Botanical Species..........................................................................................114

Environmental Consequences – Sensitive Botanical Species.............................................................................115

Affected Environment – Survey and Manage Botanical Species.......................................................................116

Environmental Consequences – Survey and Manage Botanical Species...........................................................116

Affected Environment – Special Habitats..........................................................................................................117

Environmental Consequences – Special Habitats..............................................................................................117

Affected Environment - Invasive Plants.............................................................................................................118

Environmental Consequences – Invasive Species..............................................................................................119

3.10 Fire and Fuels ................................................................................................................................................120

Summary of Effects Analysis.............................................................................................................................120

Scale of Analysis................................................................................................................................................120

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................................120

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................................123

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction ...................................................................126

3.11 Air Quality......................................................................................................................................................126

3.12 Water Quality and Aquatic Resources...........................................................................................................130

Affected Environment – Riparian Conditions....................................................................................................132

Environmental Consequences – Riparian Conditions........................................................................................136

Affected Environment – Stream Shade and Temperature ................................................................................142

Environmental Consequences – Stream Shade and Temperature ....................................................................142

Affected Environment – Stream Flows/Disturbance History.............................................................................144

Environmental Consequences – Stream Flows/Disturbance History.................................................................145

Affected Environment – Sedimentation ............................................................................................................145

Environmental Consequences – Sedimentation................................................................................................146

Affected Environment – Fisheries, Aquatic Insects, and In-stream Habitat......................................................150

Environmental Consequences to Fisheries, Aquatic Insects, and In-stream Habitat ........................................152

3.13 Climate Change .............................................................................................................................................157

Summary of Effects Analysis.............................................................................................................................157

3.14 Economics .....................................................................................................................................................159

Summary of Effects...........................................................................................................................................159

Scale of Analysis................................................................................................................................................159

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................................159

3.15 Agencies and Persons Consulted...................................................................................................................161

List of Tables

Table 1 Land Management Areas (MA) in Project Area and Proposed Treatment Acres in Alternative 2..................13

Table 2 Non-Key Issues and Reasoning (note: the above numbers are used in this table under Reasoning).............17

Table 3 Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions in Alternative 2 .................................................21

Table 4 Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres in Alternative 2..........................................................22

Table 5 Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves with Alternative 2 ......................................................................25

Table 6 Design Features Included in Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................27

Table 7 Wildlife Tree Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Included in Alternative 2. ...........................36

Table 8 Down Wood Enhancement Recommendations Included in Alternative 2 .....................................................36

Table 9 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................................37
vi Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 10 Harvest Units and Stand Age Classification...................................................................................................43

Table 11 Key SDI Values...............................................................................................................................................45

Table 12 Acres of SDI Stages by Alternative ................................................................................................................45

Table 13 Average Stand Characteristics of stands considered for harvest..................................................................46

Table 14 Comparison of Treatments (acres) by Alternative........................................................................................49

Table 15 Management Indicators for Assessing Effects to Soils..................................................................................53

Table 16 Lang Dam Project Area Spotted Owl Habitat Type Distribution by Acres and Percent ................................58

Table 17 Age Class Acres by Treatment Type ..............................................................................................................60

Table 18 Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type and Activity.............................................................................61

Table 19 Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments in Spotted Owl Habitat. .......................................................................64

Table 20 Summary of Adverse Effects due to Spotted Owl Habitat Modification ......................................................64

Table 21 Lang Dam Project Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl...............................................................................64

Table 22 Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Willamette National Forest and Lang Dam Project 

Alternative 2 Impacts..........................................................................................................................................76

Table 23 Wildlife Habitat Types in the South Fork McKenzie River Watershed..........................................................78

Table 24 Current Percentages of Landscape in Large Snags (>20 inches dbh) in the South Fork McKenzie River 5th 

Field Watershed for the WLCH_C Wildlife Habitat Type. ...................................................................................78

Table 25 Large Snags/Acre at Various Tolerance Levels for the WLCH_OCA Habitat Type.........................................78

Table 26 Current (2016) Snag Population Potential for the WLCH_C Wildlife Habitat Type.......................................79

Table 27 2015 Snag Field Surveys of the Proposed Lang Dam Units. (Visual estimates of snag habitat over 14” 

diameter) ............................................................................................................................................................80

Table 28 Current Levels of the Landscape Containing Various Levels of per Acre Large Log (>20 inches dbh) in the 

South Fork McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed for the WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Type.............................80

Table 29 2015 Down Wood Field Surveys. Proposed Lang Dam units showed the following visual estimates of down 

wood over 14” diameter.....................................................................................................................................81

Table 30 2016 Willamette National Forest analysis of DDE Categories by Elk Emphasis Area....................................83

Table 31 Road Closures and Decommissioning in the Lang Dam Project Area ...........................................................96

Table 32 Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest.......................................................................................96

Table 33 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for the Project Area .............................................................................100

Table 34 Visual Quality Objectives and SMS Categories............................................................................................108

Table 35 Special Habitats in the Lang Dam Project Area...........................................................................................117

Table 36 Invasive Plants in the Lang Dam Project Area.............................................................................................118

Table 37 Modeled Wildfire Behavior for Proposed Lang Dam Units.........................................................................123

Table 38 2015 Down Wood Field Surveys of the Proposed Lang Dam Project .........................................................139

Table 39 Riparian Reserve Management on Federally Managed Lands in the Project Area.....................................140

Table 40 Aggregate Recovery Percentage for the Lang Dam Project........................................................................145

Table 41 Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for Lang Dam Project Area Roads..............................................147

Table 42 Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative......................148

Table 43 Nutritional quality of various types of organic matter ...............................................................................153

Table 44 Stream Culvert Installation or Replacement...............................................................................................155

Table 45 Estimated Economic Alternatives ...............................................................................................................160

Table 46 Core Interdisciplinary Team Members:.......................................................................................................161
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment vii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Lang Dam Project Area ....................................................................................................................................9

Figure 2 Lang Dam Project Area with 6th Field Watersheds.......................................................................................10

Figure 3 Northwest Forest Plan management allocations in the Lang Dam project area ...........................................15

Figure 4 Map of Lang Dam Project Area and Proposed Units in Alternative 2............................................................23

Figure 5 Current Stand Age Classification in the Lang Dam Project Area, excluding private land. .............................43

Figure 6 Visualization of Stand Before and After Thinning..........................................................................................47

Figure 7 Visualization of Thinning with Gaps...............................................................................................................48

Figure 8 Visualization of Single vs Multiple Tree Dominant Tree Release...................................................................48

Figure 9 Pacific Pond Turtle at Strube Ponds in the Lang Dam Project Area...............................................................66

Figure 10 Lang Dam Project Area Elk Emphasis Areas.................................................................................................82

Figure 11 Proposed Road Activities in the Lang Dam Project Area .............................................................................94

Figure 12 Forest Plan Management Allocations with Recreation Attributes..............................................................98

Figure 13 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map ......................................................................................................99

Figure 14 View from Castle Rock to the west............................................................................................................109

Figure 15 View of proposed units from Cougar Dam Looking North ........................................................................111

Figure 16 Cougar Dam looking north showing a human modified landscape...........................................................111

Figure 17 Lang Dam units adjacent to the IRA...........................................................................................................113

Figure 18 Fire regimes in the Lang Dam Project Area ...............................................................................................121

Figure 19 Riparian Reserve Treatments within the Project Area ..............................................................................132

Figure 20 desired conditions for Late-seral Riparian Reserves..................................................................................134

Figure 21 an example of overstocked, conifer-dominant stand in Riparian Reserves..............................................134

Figure 22 an example of properly functioning Riparian Reserves.............................................................................135

Figure 23 Source Distance Curves for Study Area .....................................................................................................137

List of Appendices

Appendix A:................................................................................Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

Appendix B:............................................................................Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternative

Appendix C:............................................................................................................Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

Appendix D:..........................................................................Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities

Appendix E:...............................................................................................................Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit

Appendix F:..................................................................................................................................................................References
8 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The McKenzie River Ranger District is proposing to provide a sustainable supply of timber; actively 

manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure; and manage Riparian 

Reserves to control stocking and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives on approximately 645 acres on the Willamette National Forest.

To accomplish this project, the district proposes to harvest about 8.1 million board feet (MMBF) from 21 

managed stands ranging in age from 40 to 120 years old. In these stands, proposed treatments include 

about 347 acres of commercial thinning and 24 acres would be retained as skips. In addition, 39 acres

would be harvested as openings (gaps) and dominant tree releases (DTRs) ranging from 1/4 to 3 acres in 

size. 

Accessing harvest units would require about 2.2 miles of temporary road construction, which would 

utilize previously impacted areas when possible. There would also be approximately 11.5 miles of road 

maintenance.

The total Lang Dam project area encompasses 7,195 acres and is located off of Forest Service Road 19 

approximately 4 miles east of the community of Blue River, Oregon (Figure 1). The project area is in the 

Elk – McKenzie River, Cougar Creek – South Fork McKenzie River (SFMR), Cougar Reservoir - SFMR, and 

East Fork - SFMR 6th field watersheds (Figure 2). The legal description for the project area is: T16S, R4E 

Sections 23-26 and 35-36; T16S, R5E Sections 19 and 27-35; and T17S, R5E Sections 4-5; Willamette 

Meridian, Lane County, Oregon.

This environmental assessment was prepared to determine whether effects of the proposed activities 

may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. By preparing this 

environmental assessment, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations.

Compliance with the State Historic Preservation Office and National Historic Preservation Act, executive 

orders such as environmental justice, Northwest Forest Plan determinations, and laws such as the 

Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, etc. are addressed in Appendix A: Compliance with Forest 

Plan, Laws, and Regulations.

For more details on the proposed action, see the “Proposed Action and Alternatives” section of this 

document in the beginning of Chapter 2.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 9

Figure 1 Lang Dam Project Area
10 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 2 Lang Dam Project Area with 6th Field Watersheds
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 11

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed project is to, (1) Provide a sustainable supply of timber products; (2) 

actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and structure; and (3) manage 

Riparian Reserves to control stocking and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to more 

quickly attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Provide a Sustainable Supply of Timber Products

Why Consider Taking Action: The proposed project is needed to help ensure the Willamette National 

Forest continues to supply a reliable supply of timber products as directed by the laws and guidance 

below and in doing so contributes to the stability of local, regional, and national economies and achieves 

the annual Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) target for the Forest.

Several laws direct and allow the Forest Service to provide the sustainable harvest of trees from the 

Nation’s forests including Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976. One of the strategic goals of the Forest Service is to provide and sustain benefits to the 

people of the United States and the world as a whole. To accomplish this goal, one of the objectives is to 

provide a reliable supply of forest products over time consistent with achieving the desired conditions on 

National Forest System (NFS) lands and to maintain or create processing capacity and infrastructure in 

local communities. (USDA Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018 ). Additionally, the Willamette National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, includes goals to 

produce an optimum and sustainable yield of timber that helps maintain the stability of local and

regional economies, and contribute valuable resources to the national economy on a predictable and 

long-term basis.

Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) is an estimate of probable harvest levels that could be maintained on a 

forest annually (Northwest Forest Plan 1994). PSQs represent neither minimum levels that must be met 

nor maximum levels that cannot be exceeded. Rather, PSQs represent the best assessment of the 

average annual amount of timber harvest that could occur on a forest without decline, over the long

term, if the schedule of harvests and regeneration are followed (Northwest Forest Plan 1994). PSQ can 

vary and change over time depending on acres available for harvest, expected acre yields and Forest 

direction.

Existing Condition: The current PSQ annual target for the Willamette National Forest is 111 million board 

feet (MMBF) as amended by the Approval of PSQ Estimates for Northwest Forest Plan Forests (1998).

Desired Condition: Through implementation of the proposed action, the McKenzie River Ranger District 

would contribute approximately 11 MMBF to the Willamette National Forest PSQ target in fiscal year 

2017.

Actively Manage Stands to Improve Stand Conditions, Diversity, Density 

and Structure

The proposed project is needed to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and structure in the 

project area, providing benefits to vegetation, wildlife, and overall health of the forest.

Why Consider Taking Action: Sixty-eight percent of stands proposed for harvest in the project area are 

overstocked or showing signs of reduced growth or mortality from competition. Overstocked stands 

occur when trees are closely spaced, resulting in a competition for resources. Closely spaced trees 

competing for resources generally result in decreased individual tree growth. Overstocked stands can 

also cause increased tree/stand stress, resulting in increased susceptibility to insect and disease 

outbreaks. Additionally, overstocked stands can increase the potential for high severity wildfires.

The proposed project would help improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure with 

thinning, gaps, and dominant tree release. Thinning the overstocked stands would make more growing 
12 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

space and resources available to the remaining trees, resulting in decreased tree stress and development 

towards larger diameter stands. Stand vigor would also be increased as released trees develop into 

larger trees sooner, accelerating the development of some late successional characteristics. Tree species, 

age, and structural diversity would be maintained or enhanced.

The Stand Density Index (SDI), which is a qualitative measure of tree competition in a stand, ranges from 

234 to 503 and averages 331 for all stands being considered for treatment in the Lang Dam project area. 

In Douglas-fir, the maximum SDI (SDImax) is 595 (Reineke 1933). As a stand reaches an SDI of about 149, 

or approximately 25 percent of SDImax, trees in the stand start to compete with each other. As SDI 

increases to around 357, or 60 percent SDImax, trees reach a point at which they start dying due to 

competition, or self-thinning (Long, 1985). Additional information about SDI is available under the 

heading Stand Vigor and Growth located in Section 3.1, Forest and Stand Structure.

Existing Condition: Sixty-eight percent of stands proposed for harvest in the project area are overstocked, 

or showing signs of reduced growth from competition with an average SDI of at least 298, or 50 percent 

of SDImax. 

Desired Condition: Healthy, vigorous stands with an average SDI below 207, a level where you maximize 

individual tree growth before transitioning into maximizing stand growth which starts around an SDI of 

208.

Manage Riparian Reserves to Control Stocking and Acquire Desired 

Vegetation Characteristics Needed to Attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

Objectives

Why Consider Taking Action: Treatment of stands in Riparian Reserves would accelerate the ability of 

Riparian Reserves to provide adequate stream shade, root strength and bank stability, sediment filtration 

and nutrient cycling, large wood supply to waterbodies and floodplains, organic matter input, and 

habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife.

Existing Condition: Due to replanting at stocking levels much higher than natural after previous clear cut 

harvest and dense stocking in fire regenerated stands, portions of Riparian Reserves within the project 

area units consist of dense, overstocked, conifer-dominant stands with very little structural and species 

diversity and understory development. This lack of complexity and diversity is outside the natural range 

of variability and may be limiting nutrient cycling, deciduous organic matter input to waterbodies, and 

habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife.

Desired Condition: Maintain conditions in currently functioning portions of Riparian Reserves. In 

overstocked, conifer-dominant portions lacking structural and species diversity, use silvicultural tools to 

acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 

(Appendix C).

1.3 Decision Framework

The responsible official for this proposal is the District Ranger of the McKenzie River Ranger District on 

the Willamette National Forest. The District Ranger will review the proposed action, alternatives, and the 

environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:

• Whether to implement the proposed action;

• What specific design features are needed;

• What specific project monitoring requirements are needed to ensure design features are 

implemented and effective; and 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 13

• What if any modifications would be made to the proposed action.

The decision will be based on: 

• How well the selected alternative achieves the project purpose and need; and

• How well the selected alternative responds to analysis issues.

1.4 Forest Plan and Management Direction

This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is tiered to the following EISs and plans, which are 

incorporated by reference:

• The Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement, as amended (USDA Forest Service 1990; referred to as the “Forest Plan”)

• The Northwest Forest Plan and Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Related Species with the Range of 

the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a; 

referred to as the “Northwest Forest Plan”)

• The Forest Plan as amended by the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001 )

• The Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Preventing and Managing 

Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005).

The Forest Plan “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” (Forest Plan, I-1). The Forest Plan provides management direction through the 

designation of specific management areas and standards and guidelines specific to these designations.

The Forest Plan for the Willamette National Forest provides management direction through the 

designation of specific management areas, standards and guidelines specific to designated areas. The 

Northwest Forest Plan amended the Willamette Forest Plan by establishing new and additional 

management areas, standards and guidelines. When there is overlap of management allocations, the 

more restrictive standards and guidelines of both allocations apply (Northwest Forest Plan 1994a p. A-6). 

Table 1 displays Forest Plan management areas, Northwest Forest Plan land management areas and 

proposed action unit acres for the proposed action. See Figure 3 for a map of Forest Plan Management

Allocations in the Lang Dam project.

Table 1 Land Management Areas (MA) in Project Area and Proposed Treatment Acres in Alternative 2

Northwest Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan

Project 

Area

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment 

(acres)

(16a) Late Successional Reserves

(11a) Scenic-Modification Middleground 65 0

(11c) Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground 69 0

(11e) Scenic-Retention Middleground 2 0

(11f) Scenic-Retention Foreground 57 0

(16b) Late Successional Reserves (9b) Wildlife Habitat-Pileated Woodpecker 109 0

(11c) Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground 4 0

(5a) Special Interest Area 551 0
14 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Northwest Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan

Project 

Area

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment 

(acres)

(17) Adaptive Management Area

(7) Old Growth 89 0

(9c) Wildlife Habitat-Marten 189 0

(9d) Wildlife Habitat-Special Area 187 0

(11a) Scenic-Modification Middleground 2,249 115

(11c) Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground 1,326 420

(11f) Scenic-Retention Foreground 1,253 108

(WA) Water 179 0

Non-FS Land Non-FS Land 866 0

Total Acres 7,195 645

MA-15 Riparian Reserves (overlapping acres) 2,443 209

NSO Critical Habitat Unit (overlapping acres) 1,628 0

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) (overlapping acres) 1,134 0

Forest Plan

The following discussion will focus on the relevant management allocations where treatments are 

proposed.

Scenic-Modification Middleground (11A) 

These are areas that have the objective to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the forest 

landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes would be managed for a modest level of 

scenic quality. This area would also be managed for other resource goals including timber production, 

recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitats.

Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground (11C) 

The goal of these areas is to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the forest landscape 

through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes would be managed for a moderate level of scenic 

quality. This area would also be managed for other resource goals including timber production, 

recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and maintenance of wildlife habitats.

Scenic-Retention Foreground (11F) 

These areas that have the objective to create and maintain desired visual characteristics of the forest 

landscape through time and space. Visually sensitive landscapes would be managed for a high visual 

quality. This area may also be managed for other resource goals including maintenance of wildlife 

habitats, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and timber production.

Northwest Forest Plan

Adaptive Management Area (MA 17) 

This is an allocation from the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan that is designed to develop and test new 

management approaches to integrate and achieve ecological, economic, and other social and 

community objectives. All of the harvest units for the Lang Dam project fall within the Adaptive 

Management Area. 

Riparian Reserves (MA 15)

These are areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian-dependent, terrestrial resources receive 

primary emphasis. All streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes and unstable areas are included and managed for 

the purpose of protecting the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species. There are 209 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 15

total acres of Riparian Reserves in the Lang Dam Project area and 120 acres of commercial harvest in the 

riparian reserves.

Figure 3 Northwest Forest Plan management allocations in the Lang Dam project area

1.5 Tribal Consultation 

Tribal consultation for the Lang Dam project began in August 2014. The McKenzie River Ranger District 

consulted with the Klamath Tribes, the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of 

Siletz Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. On August 4, 2014 the Tribes received a 

consultation package that included information about the proposed project location, proposed actions, 

and the purpose and need for the project. Additionally the consultation invited the Tribes to provide any 

comments or concerns regarding the proposed project. One comment was received from the Warm 

Springs tribe expressing support of the project as long as cultural sites are protected.

1.6 Public Involvement Efforts

Public involvement efforts during the development of the draft EA included scoping letters and 

publication of the project on the Willamette National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions website.

Below is a timeline illustrating public involvement efforts for the Lang Dam project:

• February 5, 2013: Project published in the Willamette National Forest Schedule of Proposed 

Actions

• September 29, 2014: Scoping letter and background information mailed to members of the 

public, organizations, and state/federal agencies that have expressed interest in receiving 

information on District projects
16 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

• Fall 2016 (anticipated): Initiation of 30-day comment period for Draft Environmental Assessment 

will be published in The Register Guard and a notice of opportunity to comment will be mailed 

to members of the public, organizations, and state/federal agencies that have expressed interest 

in receiving information on District projects.

The scoping letter and relevant background information was mailed to approximately 150 individuals, 

interest groups and organizations, elected officials and other state and federal agencies. A total of seven

letters were received. All correspondence and comments are available in the Project Record at the 

McKenzie River Ranger District office.

1.7 Consultation with other Agencies

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout

Endangered Species Act (ESA) informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon and 

Columbia River bull trout was initiated in September 2016 and anticipated to be completed by March 

2017.

Northern Spotted Owl

Endangered Species Act (ESA) formal consultation with the USFWS for the Northern Spotted Owl was 

completed in the fiscal year 2015 Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) Biological Opinion (FWS reference 

01EOFW00-2014-F-0221) signed October 4, 2014.

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

The 1995 Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the USDA Forest Service PNW, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Regarding Cultural 

Resource Management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service, (amended in 2004), provides 

a process by which the Forest Heritage Specialist may certify that the Forest has complied with Section 

106 of NHPA for the project. In accordance with this PA, an appropriate inventory was conducted in 2013 

and 2014. All known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (project area) were protected by 

avoidance, resulting in a determination of “Historic Properties Avoided” on January 26, 2016.

Documentation was provided by SHPO and copies have been retained in the Forest and District Heritage 

files.

1.8 Issues Derived from Public Comments

To help focus the planning efforts, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) used comments from the tribal 

consultation, the public and other agencies to identify issues for this project. A standardized content 

analysis process was conducted to analyze the letters received during the public scoping period. Content 

analysis was designed to extract comments from each letter received, evaluate similar comments from 

different or unique letters, and identify topics or issues of concern. Planning regulations direct agencies 

to narrow the scope of environmental analysis by concentrating on issues that are key to the proposed 

action and to briefly discuss other issues.

During content analysis, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), with involvement and approval from the 

Responsible Official, identified the key issues and non-key issues discussed below.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 17

No key issues were found to develop alternatives to proposed action. See Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated. Planning regulations direct agencies to narrow the scope of environmental analysis by 

concentrating on the issues that are truly important to the proposed action and to briefly discuss other 

non-key issues. Issues are usually divided into key and non-key issues. Key issues are used to generate 

additional action alternatives to the Proposed Action. None of the comments received were considered 

key issues or alternative generating issues.

Non-Key Issues

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require delineation of the Non-Key Issues 

summarized in Table 2 Sec. 1501.7 directs us to “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues 

which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec 1506.3)...” The 

following is a list of reasons that identified issues as Non-Key:

#1 -Issue is outside of the proposed action

#2- Issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan or other high level decision

#3 -Issue is adequately addressed is all alternatives

Table 2 Non-Key Issues and Reasoning (note: the above numbers are used in this table under Reasoning)

Non-Key Issues Reason Rational

Comments from Oregon Wild

Consider that logging will not promote 

diversity as it will deprive stands of 

dead wood features that are essential

to structural diversity and habitat. 

Reason #3

The Action Alternative addresses down wood needs. 

Skips, or un-thinned areas in harvest units, would be 

left in stands for natural snag and down wood 

recruitment. Post-harvest prescribed burning 

wouldalso contribute to the development of down 

wood. The No Action Alternative addresses natural 

snag and down wood development to compare and 

contrast snag and down wood development in the 

Action Alternative. 

We oppose the logging of any unit 

requiring road construction for access. Reason #3

There is no permanent road construction proposed for 

in the Lang Dam project. Approximately 2.2 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed. After the 

timber sale and post-harvest activities are completed, 

the roads would be de-compacted, sub-soiled, and reseeded to obliterate them from the landscape. In 

addition, existing compaction created by old harvest 

entry would be improved by additional treatments 

proposed in Units 60 and 190. See the Soils Section in 

Chapter 3 for further discussion.

We oppose logging in riparian 

reserves. This will deprive the riparian 

reserves of needed wood recruitment. 

The Forest Service needs to provide 

for a high level of wood recruitment 

throughout the riparian reserves, not 

just instream. 

Reason #2 and #3

Careful thought and analysis was used when 

developing Riparian Reserve management strategies. 

Riparian Reserve prescriptions were developed on a 

unit by unit basis to meet the distinct needs of the 

stream habitat and surrounding vegetation. There 

would be no thinning of the Riparian Reserves in 4 of 

the 21 units. The remaining units would have 120 

acres of Riparian Reserve thinning with 89 acres of 

skips in the Riparian Reserves. Required no-harvest 

buffers on streams, skips within the harvest units and 

artificial snag creation address some of the down 

wood issues at the project level scale. Thinning 

prescriptions for the proposed action were designed 
18 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Non-Key Issues Reason Rational

by a certified silviculturalist and the interdisciplinary 

team to meet both project objectives and various 

resource needs. Thinning in the Riparian Reserves 

also adheres to the Northwest Forest Plan. See the 

Hydrology and Aquatic Resources Section for further 

discussion.

We strongly urge the Forest Service to 

drop the proposed units in Sections 32 

and 33. They appear to be well on 

their way to developing Late 

Successional conditions on their own 

and do not need intervention. 

Reason #3

Approximately 53 of the 645 harvest acres in the 

proposed project do contain trees with ages 

approximately 100-117 years old. Stand Density Index 

(SDI) is a qualitative measure of tree competition in a 

stand. The SDI of this stand is 291 and stand exams 

have yielded over 200 trees per acre. These stands 

are over-stocked and not designated as Late 

Successional Reserve (LSR). The inclusion of these 

stands is aligned with the Purpose and Need of this 

project to actively manage stands to improve stand 

conditions, diversity, density and structure. 

See the Section 3.1, Forest and Stand Structure 

section for more information about stand densities.

Comments from the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

We encourage the McKenzie District 

to apply a variety of silviculture 

prescriptions to meet the direction of 

the Central Cascades Adaptive 

Management Area (AMA). This 

includes heavy and light thinning, 

gaps, early and late serial creation, 

and untreated areas. 

Reason #1 and #3

This project would commercially thin 467 acres, this 

includes acres in the riparian reserve, and create 89

acres of gaps, skips, DTR’s in the Adaptive 

Management Area. The overall objective for the AMA 

is to learn how to manage on an ecosystem basis in 

terms of both technical and social challenges, and in a 

manner consistent with applicable laws. The intent is 

to encourage the development and testing of technical 

and social approaches to achieving desired ecological, 

economic, and other social objectives. The intent of 

the silvicultural treatments is to encourage structural 

complexity and biological diversity in forests and 

riparian areas that have been degraded by past 

management activities and natural events. Using 

prescribed fire and silvicultural approaches would 

provide managers with a variety of tools to promote 

forest health. Development of a variety of forest 

structural conditions including late successional forest 

conditions and desired riparian habitat conditions as 

well as provide a stable timber supply would meet the 

overall objective for Adaptive Management Areas.

Be proactive in in treating the Riparian 

Reserves by utilizing gap cuts to 

promote habitat, stand diversification 

and the objectives of the ACS. Focus 

the Riparian Reserves treatments on a 

variety of native habitats. 

Reason #2 and #3

Harvesting is proposed on 120 of the 209 Riparian 

Reserves in the project area. All activities must meet 

the requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan 

including the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

Objectives. 

All timber sales should be 

economically viable. Supporting local 

mills and local government should be 

the primary goal for all timber sales on 

federal land.

Reason #2 and #3

One purpose and need of the Lang Dam project is to 

provide a sustainable supply of timber to support local 

markets. Forest Service Manual Direction (2430-2432) 

and Handbook 2409.18, Chapters 10-30 require that 

financial and economic efficiency information be made 

available to the decision maker prior to substantial 

investment of capital resources into timber sale 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 19

Non-Key Issues Reason Rational

projects. The proposed action would be economically 

viable. 

Allow flexibility in the type of

harvesting systems of accomplish 

resource objectives. 

Reason #1 and #2

As long as equipment can be shown to meet or 

exceed the requirements outlined in the EA analysis, it 

is possible for flexibility in harvesting systems. Certain 

restrictions, including times and seasons of operation, 

are necessary to meet federal laws, such as the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Provide for flexibility in the EA that will 

allow an operator to make road 

improvements that will permit winter 

haul. Proper road design and layout 

should pose little to no negative 

impact on water quality or slope 

stability. 

Reason #3

Refer to chapter 2.4 (Project Design Features included 

in Alternative 2, Design Features 14 and 16) for a 

description of when wet weather or winter haul can 

occur. All season haul would be permitted as 

conditions allow and if all maintenance and structural 

requirements are met to assure that activities meet 

Clean Water Act requirements for streams within the 

project area. Road maintenance would protect the 

existing road infrastructure, improve safety of the road, 

and decrease sedimentation on roads used for project 

implementation.

Comments from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

When obliterating or decommissioning 

temporary roads, consider seeding 

native species and planting native 

shrubs that produce fruit, buds and 

browse. 

Reason #3

Native seeding of landings, temporary spurs and 

decommissioned roads is part of the required posttreatment prescription for the project.

Rehabilitate natural meadows and 

openings by the removal of 

encroaching conifers. 

Reason #1 There are no natural openings or meadows in the 

planning area. 
20 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2: Alternatives

This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Lang Dam project. It includes a 

description and map of each alternative considered. This chapter also presents the alternatives in 

comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative in order to provide a clear basis for 

choice by the decision maker.

2.1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated

1. Timber harvest in the McLennon Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area 

(IRA).

The Interdisciplinary Team originally considered harvest treatments in a portion of the McLennon 

Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). As a result of comments received during public scoping

period, the team decided to eliminate proposed treatments in the IRA.

2. The creation of early seral forests in the purpose and need and include 

an analysis of age-class distribution in the document.

Creation of young early seral forests was considered during development of this project. An analysis of 

age distribution for the project area shows a fairly even distribution of age classes and does not reflect 

an outstanding need for the creation of early seral forests at this time. The assessments on the ground 

did show an immediate need for thinning to increase stand health and vigor and to diversify stands that 

are primarily single-storied and very homogenous. A detailed description of the analysis is included in 

Section 3.1 – Forest Stand and Structure. There would be 64 acres of gap and dominant tree release 

(DTR) creation scattered throughout the harvest acres to help achieve this purpose and need. The 

project area would be revisited in the future when the creation of regeneration forests may be more 

appropriate. 

Two alternatives have been analyzed for this project: Alternative 1 - No-Action and Alternative 2 -

Proposed Action.

2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1- No-Action assesses the current management situation of the affected environment as well 

as the future conditions should an action not be implemented. The No-Action alternative should not be 

confused with a baseline. Whereas a baseline is essentially a description of the affected environment at 

a fixed point in time, the No-Action alternative considers what effects would occur to forest ecosystems 

and resources in the project area if no action is taken.

The purpose and need would not be met under Alternative 1, as no timber harvest would be 

implemented.

2.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to implement Alternative 2. The proposed action was developed to fully 

meet the purpose and need of this project by treating 645 acres of stands. This alternative is consistent 

with management direction set forth in the Willamette National Forest Plan Commercial harvest in 

approximately 645 acres of 40-120 year old stands yielding approximately 11 million board feet of 

timber. Including skips and harvest, approximately 53 acres are in stands over 80 years old and 592 acres 

are in stands under 80 years old. Harvest treatments proposed include thinning, gap creation, dominant 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 21

tree release, and skips. Table 4 provides a summary of forest age classes and treatment acres for 

Alternative 2. Table 3 illustrates the proposed treatments, connected actions, and the purpose and need 

they address. A detailed description of proposed treatments and project activities is included in 

Appendix B. A detailed list of treatments for individual units is listed in Appendix E. Specific features and 

types of treatment and their effects to the environment are discussed in the Environmental Impacts of 

the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document. 

Alternative 2 would consist of the following:

• Commercial harvest in approximately 645 acres of 40-120 year old stands yielding approximately 

11 million board feet of timber. Including skips and harvest, approximately 53 acres are in stands 

over 80 years old and 592 acres are in stands under 80 years old. Harvest treatments proposed 

include thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, and skips. Table 3 provides a summary of 

forest age classes and treatment acres for Alternative 2.

• Utilize harvest systems comprised of 37% skyline logging, and 63% ground-based logging. 

• Utilize approximately 11.5 miles of existing roads and approximately 2.2 miles of temporary 

roads. Temporary roads would be obliterated after use; no new permanent (system) roads would 

be constructed. 

• Decommission approximately .3 miles of road and store approximately 3 miles of roads to place 

in a hydrologically stable conditions. 

• Treat approximately 532 acres of activity generated fuels using a combination of post-harvest 

underburning and burning of machine and hand piles.

Table 3 Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions in Alternative 2

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure

Proposed 

Action 

Purpose – Need 

Addressed4

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 347 1, 2

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 120 3

Gaps Acres 39 1, 2

Dominant Tree Release Acres 26 1, 2

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 24 2

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 89 3

Total Acres 645 1, 2, 3

Estimated Gross Volume MMBF 11 1

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments )2 Acres 57 2

Post-Harvest Underburn 3 Acres 475 2
22 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure

Proposed 

Action 

Purpose – Need 

Addressed4

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 0 -

Skyline Acres 199 -

Ground Acres 333 -

Transportation

New Road Construction Miles 0 -

Temporary Road Construction Miles 2.2 -

Roads Maintained Miles 11.5 -

Road Decommissioning Miles 0.3 -

Road Storage Miles 3 -

Stream Culvert Replacement - 4 -

Post-Harvest Planting

Planting in Gaps Acres ~17 3

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres ~22 3

1

: Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. 2

: Mechanical treatment may include: grapple piling in slash concentrations, yarding tops attached, mastication, or any other 

mechanical device). 3

: These acres are possible underburn acres due to tree size and location; not all acreage may be underburned. Acreage not 

underburned may have other post-harvest fuels treatments assigned before implementation. 4

: 1- Provide a sustainable supply of timber products; 2- Actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, 

and/or structure; and 3-Manage Riparian Reserves to control stocking and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to 

attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Table 4 Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres in Alternative 2

<80 years old 80-120 years old

Acres of Harvest Units 

(including skips)

592 53

Acres Proposed for 

Harvest 489 43
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 23

Figure 4 Map of Lang Dam Project Area and Proposed Units in Alternative 2
24 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2

The treatments proposed in Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2 are described and displayed below in

Table 4. All units were surveyed by fisheries, hydrology, wildlife, cultural and botany specialists. Each unit 

was gridded to capture streams, springs, wetlands and other waterbodies that may not be mapped on 

the GIS layer. Based on stream and riparian characteristics, a recommendation was made for notreatment buffers and other potential treatments (e.g., down wood creation) for each waterbody. After 

surveys were conducted individually, specialists met as a team to discuss findings and develop an 

integrated Riparian Reserve management plan for each unit. Due to differences in stand conditions, unitspecific management prescriptions are grouped into three treatment types:

Full Stream Influence Zone Protection: The stream influence zone is the extent of a stream’s riparian 

area that directly influences stream function and is typically defined as one site potential tree height 

(180 feet in the Headwaters McKenzie River Watershed). The portions of these Riparian Reserves in the 

stream influence zone are currently functioning and meeting Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) 

Objectives. Therefore, no management in one site potential tree height (180 feet) is recommended. 

Thinning in the upland portion of Riparian Reserves (180-360 feet) of ponds and fish-bearing streams, 

however, is recommended to improve vegetation species diversity and late forest structure for wildlife.

Thinning for Vegetation Diversity: Due to replanting at stocking levels much higher than natural after 

previous clear cut harvest and dense stocking in fire regenerated stands, portions of the Riparian 

Reserves within the project area are overstocked, conifer-dominant, lacking structural and species 

diversity, and not currently meeting ACS Objectives. Thinning was recommended to improve vegetation 

conditions outside of the primary shade zone on perennial waterbodies to protect water quality and 

outside of the primary wood recruitment zone (discussed in detail in Section 3.12 Water Quality and 

Aquatic Resources) to protect potential in-stream wood inputs. Thinning would accelerate development 

of large wood and late forest stand structure and increase species diversity, which would improve the 

ability of Riparian Reserves to provide adequate stream shade, root strength and bank stability, sediment 

filtration and nutrient cycling, large wood supply to waterbodies and floodplains, organic matter input, 

and habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife.

Dead and Down Wood Creation: Due to replanting at stocking levels much higher than natural after 

previous clear cut harvest and dense stocking in fire regenerated stands, portions of the Riparian 

Reserves within the project area are overstocked, conifer-dominant, lacking structural and species 

diversity, and not currently meeting ACS Objectives. Near perennial waterbodies, thinning was 

recommended to improve vegetation conditions outside of the primary shade zone to protect water 

quality and outside of the primary wood recruitment zone to protect potential in-stream wood inputs. 

On intermittent streams and springs, thinning was recommended within the primary wood recruitment 

zone to improve vegetation diversity but dead and down wood objectives would be met by falling and 

leaving at least eight trees per acre and creating two snags per acre.

For more information on how these management prescriptions comply with ACS Objectives, see 

Appendix C.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 25

Table 5 Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves with Alternative 2

Description Units Stream Class

Riparian 

Reserve

Boundary1

Thinning 

Treatment

Ground-Based 

Equipment 

Buffer2

Fuels 

Treatment 

Buffer3

Dead and 

Down Wood 

Habitat 

Creation

Full Stream 

Influence Zone 

Protection: No 

harvest within 

one site potential 

tree height of 

waterbody. 

Thinning in 

upland portion to 

improve 

vegetation 

diversity for 

wildlife.

20, 

30, 

60, 

80, 

90, 

120,

Fish-bearing 

streams (Class 1 

& 2)

360 feet No Harvest 

within 180’ 180 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 180’

From 0-360 

feet: fall and 

leave at least 

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams (Class 3)

180 feet No Harvest 

within 180’ 180 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 180’

NA

Intermittent 

Streams (Class 4) 180 feet No Harvest within 180’ 180 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 180’

NA

Ponds 360 feet No Harvest 

within 180’ 180 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 180’

From 0-360 

feet: fall and 

leave at least 

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

Wetlands and 

Springs 180 feet No Harvest within 180’ 180 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 180’

NA

Thinning for 

Vegetation 

Diversity

Thinning to 

improve 

vegetation 

diversity for 

wildlife while 

protecting shade 

and wood 

recruitment

zones.

40, 

60, 

70, 

80, 

90, 

100, 

110, 

120, 

150, 

160, 

170, 

180 

Fish-bearing 

streams (Class 1 

& 2)

360 feet

Unit 40 no 

harvest 

within 180 

feet; >80% 

canopy 

closure 

from 180’-

360’

180 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 180’

From 0-360 

feet: fall and

leave at least 

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams (Class 3)

180 feet

Unit 170; 

no harvest 

within 60’; > 

50% 

canopy 

closure 

from 60’-

180’. Unit 

180, no 

harvest 

within 60’; > 

40% 

canopy 

closure 

from 60’-

180’

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 60’

From 0-180 

feet: fall and 

leave at least 

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

Intermittent 

Streams (Class 4) 180 feet

Units 20, 

50, 70, 80, 

100, 130, 

150, 160, 

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 60’

From 0-180 

feet: fall and 

leave at least 
26 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Description Units Stream Class

Riparian 

Reserve

Boundary1

Thinning 

Treatment

Ground-Based 

Equipment 

Buffer2

Fuels 

Treatment 

Buffer3

Dead and 

Down Wood 

Habitat 

Creation

180, 190; 

no harvest 

within 60’; > 

40% 

canopy 

closure 

from 60’-

180’

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

Units 80, 

90, 100, 

150, 160, 

180; no 

harvest 

within 30’; > 

30% 

canopy 

closure 

from 30’-

180’

90 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 60’

From 0-180 

feet: fall and 

leave at least 

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

Ponds 360 feet

Unit 80; no 

harvest 

within 180’; 

> 40% 

canopy 

closure 

from 180’-

360’

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 60’

From 0-360 

feet: fall and 

leave at least 

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

Wetlands and 

Springs 180 feet N/A 110 feet

No fuels 

treatment of 

underburn 

within 60’

From 0-180 

feet: fall and 

leave at least 

8 TPA, create 

2 snags/acre

1 One site potential tree height is 180' as identified in the Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis.

2 No ground-based equipment within 50 feet of no-harvest buffer. For units with 180' no-harvest buffer, the equipment buffer is the 

same as the no harvest buffer. 

3 In addition to fuels treatment buffer, there would be no fireline construction within Riparian Reserves.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 27

2.4 Project Design Features included in Alternative 2

The design features in Table 6 were developed to reduce the environmental effects of the proposed 

activities and ensure project activities are implemented to comply with standards and guidelines, goals, 

objectives, conservation strategies and Best Management Practices.

Table 6 Design Features Included in Alternative 2

Objective Design Feature Location

Forest and Stand Structure

1

Meet stocking requirements as 

identified in the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) 

planting would be used in 

addition to natural regeneration 

to ensure full stocking

Plant at 15’ x 15’ spacing, or about 194 trees per 

acre. The species mix should contain Douglas-fir, 

western white pine, sugar pine, and western red 

cedar. Stratify the mix with Douglas-fir quantities 

higher in the lower elevations and western red 

cedar higher in the moister sites. Sugar pine and 

western red cedar would vary with sugar pine 

more prominent in warmer drier sites.

Units 50 and 60

2 Maintain structural diversity

During presale, protect identified trees with raptor 

nests and those with unusual structure such as 

broken tops.

All harvest units

3 Minimize damage during 

harvest.

Protect residual stand and reserve trees to the 

best extent possible from treatment damage. All harvest units

Fire and Fuels

4 Reduce post-harvest fuels Follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

acceptable fuel loading (FW-252). 

Units with slash pile 

creation as well as 

Underburn units

5

Maintain effective ground cover 

and downed wood following 

fuels treatments

Follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

prescribed burning (FW-081 and FW-253). Underburn units

6

Identify management objectives 

from the Forest Plan related to 

fuels, prescription parameters, 

contingency, safety hazards and 

mitigations, and public 

notification prior to and during 

implementation.

Use the nationally approved Interagency 

Prescribed Fire Burn Plan for any activity involving 

prescribed fire.

Units with slash pile 

creation as well as 

Underburn units

7 Maintain forest structure and 

wildlife objectives

Follow burn prescription parameters so overstory 

mortality should be 10 percent or less. Underburn units

8 Maintain forest structure and 

wildlife objectives

Except machine piles, or when within 200’ of a 

road or private property, up to two unburned slash 

piles per acre should be left for wildlife habitat. 

The average size of piles would be less than 6 

feet tall and between 5 and 7 feet in diameter.

Units with slash pile 

creation
28 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Objective Design Feature Location

Soils, Watershed and Fisheries

9 Reduce compaction and 

undesirable soil damage

Use previously compacted areas whenever 

possible prior to disturbing new areas. Examples 

of previously compacted areas include: existing 

landings, old primary skid roads, legacy haul 

roads, and/or tractor fire lines.

All harvest units

10 Minimize erosion and 

sedimentation

Construction or maintenance of roads would not 

be done when soils are saturated or run-off 

occurs. A stable fill would be constructed across 

all streams when crossed by new temporary roads 

and would be removed following operations.

Approximately 2.2 miles of temporary roads would 

need to be constructed for this project. This would 

also require the construction of three temporary 

stream crossings. These temporary crossings 

would be extensions of the 1900399 road.

Units 70, 80, 90, 100, 

and 110.

11 Minimize erosion and 

sedimentation

Native surfaced roads would be restricted from 

hauling when soils are saturated or run-off occurs. Entire Project Area

12 Minimize potential impacts to 

fish.

Best Management Practices (BMP’s), including 

placement of sediment barriers, provision of flow 

bypass, and other applicable measures, would be 

included in project design as necessary to control 

off-site movement of sediment.

Entire Project Area

13 Minimize potential impacts to 

fish.

Any project activity, such as culvert replacement,

that must occur in fish-bearing streams would 

comply with Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) seasonal restrictions so that the 

in-stream work would occur July 1st – August 

15th. If a waiver to these dates is required, the 

district fisheries biologist would need to review the 

proposal and seek a waiver from ODFW, NMFS, 

and the USFWS if it is warranted. 

Entire Project Area

14 Prevent sedimentation

All haul roads would be maintained in stable 

condition. Wet weather haul would be monitored 

by the Timber Sale Administrator, the District 

Road Manager, Fisheries Biologist, and/or 

Hydrologist. When necessary, haul may be 

suspended during rainfall to prevent off-site 

movement of sediment into drainage courses. 

Haul may also occur when the road surface is 

either covered with a relatively continuous snow 

pack or is frozen. Dust abatement of road surfaces 

would be used if roads become excessively dusty 

during the summer as determined by TSA.

Entire Project Area

15 Reduce contamination to aquatic 

areas

If lignin sulfate is used for dust abatement, one 

application would occur during the dry season 

(July/August/September) at a dilution rate of 50

percent lignin sulfate and 50 percent water.

Lignosulfonate would remain on the road surface 

and not go over road edge. During blading, small 

berms could be created or wattles used at stream 

Entire Project Area
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 29

Objective Design Feature Location

crossings to assist with keeping palliatives on the 

road surface. A 1 foot no-application buffer on the 

edge of gravel would be used if road width allows.

Lignosulfonate would not be applied when raining 

and when possible, a 3 day forecast of clear 

weather would follow application.

16 Reduce off-site movement of 

sediment into drainage courses

Ground-based equipment used for yarding, 

processing, fuel treatment, or other project 

activities would operate only when soils are 

relatively dry where water is not pooling. Stop 

work if trenching, or rutting detected. Operations 

would be suspended before rainfall or precipitation 

results in off-site movement of sediment into 

drainage courses.

Snow/frozen soil may be operated on in the 

following conditions:

1. 0 inches of frozen soil−Need at least 18 

inches of settled snow

2. 4 inches of frozen soil−Need at least 9 

inches of settled snow

3. 6 inches of frozen soil−No snow cover 

necessary

Entire Project Area

17

Undesirable soil damage from 

skidding would be avoided 

through skid trail layout and use 

of alternative yarding systems

Ground-based equipment should be limited to 

slopes less than 30 percent. Equipment use may 

be approved on slopes from 30-40 percent on 

short pitches based on site specific conditions.

The upper limit for prebunching is on 45 percent

slopes. All equipment trails need to be prelocated 

and preapproved. Skid trails would be located 

outside drainages, seeps, springs and/or concave 

landforms, which could accumulate and transport 

overland flow and sediment.

Ground-based portions 

of harvest units

18 Reduce compaction directly 

adjacent to stream channels.

Ground-based equipment should not be permitted 

off road within 50 feet from the no-cut buffer for all 

streams (fish-bearing to intermittent). These 

widths are required unless a change is approved 

by the district hydrologist or district fish biologist. 

Ground based portions 

of harvest units

19 Minimize impacts to stream 

channels.

Full suspension would be required when yarding 

over perennial stream channels. Full suspension 

is preferred over intermittent streams (class 4) 

However, where full suspension is not obtainable, 

partial suspension would be required, and yarding 

would be limited to when the stream is dry. Bump 

logs to protect the stream channel would be 

utilized as appropriate

All harvest units

20 Minimize impacts to stream 

channels.

Where cable yarding requires corridors through a 

riparian area, corridors would be laid out to result 

in the least number of trees cut. Trees located in

no-harvest riparian buffers that must be cut to 

facilitate yarding corridors would be felled towards 

the channel (if feasible) and left on site.

Cable yarding portions 

of harvest units
30 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Objective Design Feature Location

21

Provide adequate drainage and 

avoid unnecessary soil 

disturbance

All skid trails and landings should be water-barred 

to provide adequate drainage. Water bar location 

should occur where local terrain facilitates 

effective drainage of the skid trail or landing while 

avoiding unnecessary soil disturbance. An 

example would be to construct water bars every 

100 feet on slopes less than 15 percent, and every 

50 feet on slopes greater than 15 percent. Water 

bars should be keyed-in to the cut bank and have 

a clear outlet on the downhill side. Where 

available in concentrations, slash can be scattered 

on skyline corridors, skid trails and landings.

All harvest units

22 Reduce compaction

Primary skid trails would be sub-soiled to a depth 

of 3-6 inches at the completion of project activities.

Primary skid trails in gaps, as well as all temporary 

roads and landings should be sub-soiled to a 

depth of 18-24 inches or to bedrock.

All ground based units,

All temporary roads

23 Prevent sedimentation

All areas of exposed soil, such as landings, skid 

trails, decommissioned roads, and cut and fill 

slopes associated with road construction or 

maintenance would be seeded with native 

grasses, or weed free mulch unless agreed to 

otherwise.

All harvest units

24 Prevent sedimentation

Sub-soiling, scarification, and water barring may 

be limited or suspended on feller buncher/ 

processor/ forwarder roads when the skid road is 

sufficiently covered with slash to form an effective 

mat to minimize compaction and erosion.

All harvest units

25

Reduce soil disturbance and the 

risk of erosion in Riparian 

Reserves

Firelines for underburning would not be 

constructed in Riparian Reserves. Fire would only 

be allowed to back into the no fuels treatment

buffers identified in the Riparian Reserve 

treatments tables.

All harvest units

26 Reestablish hydrologic and 

geologic processes

Temporary roads would be made hydrologically 

stable and decommissioned after completion of 

project activities. Decommissioning of temporary 

roads may include all of the following: removal of 

any added rock, blocking the entrance, removal of 

culverts, out-sloping the road surface, pulling back 

displaced material onto the road way, installation 

of water bars, re-vegetation of the road prism, and 

sub-soiling of compacted surfaces.

All harvest units

27 Protect key riparian features and 

integrity

All existing down wood would be retained in

Riparian Reserves to maintain aquatic objectives. All harvest units

28 Ensure sufficient water flow in 

streams

Water sources used by project operations would 

be reconstructed or maintained as necessary to 

protect stream bank stability, riparian vegetation, 

and water quality. Water used for fire treatments 

and dust abatement would be drafted from various 

water sources outside of Listed Fish Habitat. At all 

drafting locations, 90 percent of stream flow would 

be maintained to reduce risk to aquatic species 

and water quality.

Entire project area
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 31

Objective Design Feature Location

29 Protect and enhance riparian

features

Riparian Reserve treatments and buffers (see 

Table 4) All harvest

Wildlife

30

Provide downed wood and 

emulate residual material seen 

following wildfire

All existing down logs regardless of decay class 

would be retained on site All Harvest Units

31

Provide downed wood and 

emulate material seen following 

a natural disturbance

Up to 3 trees per acre of the residual trees may be 

cut to enhance downed wood in decay classes 1 

and 21. Tree diameters would be of the average 

size merchantable trees in the unit. Full tree 

lengths are preferred. TSOs would work with 

purchasers to minimize disturbance of existing 

down wood See Table 7 for unit specific 

recommendations.

All Harvest Units

32

Provide a visual screen along 

heavily travelled roads to reduce 

impacts to elk, deer and other 

wildlife.

Where operable, limit skid trails entering roads 

and skyline corridors to a spacing of no less than 

200 feet along roads. In 50 feet, directionally fall 

away from the road to protect the nonmerchantable trees and brushy hiding cover.

Units adjacent to 

Forest Service roads 

1900399 (Units 100, 

110, 120, 130),

1900408 (Units 20, 30, 

40, 50, 140), 1900410

(Unit 151), 1900411

(Units 151, 160, 170)

33 Maintain high quality early seral 

habitat conditions

Minimize planting of created gaps over 0.2 miles 

from a road. All Thinning Units

34 Enhance snag levels in the 

landscape

Up to 4 trees per acre, of the average size in the 

unit, may be used for snag creation after harvest 

with site specific recommendation by the district 

wildlife biologist. See Table 6 for unit specific 

recommendations.

All Thinning Units

35

Provide snags and emulate 

effects of mortality following fire

and to provide downed wood in

the landscape

Retain existing snags where possible, except 

those needed to be fallen for safety or operational 

purposes. Those cut during operations should 

remain as down wood. Danger trees felled during 

operations would be left on site for large woody 

material.

All Harvest Units

36 Reduce impacts to bats

During layout, look for snags and trees that have 

cavities or sloughing bark that could be used as 

natal or roost sites by bats. If these are found, 

retain them, where possible, by incorporating them 

into skips or leave trees.

All Harvest Units

37

Reduce disturbance to nesting 

birds and during popular hunting 

periods

Snag creation activities would have seasonal 

restrictions applied as needed with a separate 

Biological Evaluation completed shortly before 

implementation. Implementation would not occur 

during the Cascade Elk Rifle season.

All harvest units with 

snag and/or large 

down wood placement 

and/ or enhancement

See Table 7 & Table 8.

38 Reduce disturbance to nesting 

birds

When possible, conduct prescribed burning during 

the fall when conditions allow. Units with underburn

39 Reduce disturbance during 

nesting season of cavity nesters

Conduct roadside hazard felling outside the critical 

seasonal restriction period for cavity nesters which 

All roadside hazard 

tree maintenance
32 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Objective Design Feature Location

is from April 1-June 30. This may be waived on a 

case-by-case basis if the trees to be felled are of 

small diameters and do not show signs of nesting 

use.

40 Minimize effects to species of 

concern

If previously undocumented goshawk or other 

raptor nests are found during layout or sale 

administration, project modifications including 

contract modifications to remove acreage would 

be made as needed to protect the nest site and 

reduce harm to birds.

All Harvest Units

41 Maintain Johnson’s Hairstreak 

(butterfly) habitat

Mark for retention any identified western hemlock 

trees which contain dwarf mistletoe All Harvest Units

42 Protect habitat for the Crater 

Lake Tightcoil

Prevent ground/habitat disturbance within 10 

meters (~30 feet) of perennially wet areas during 

project activities.

All Harvest Units

43 Minimize potential conflict 

between hunters and contractors

A seasonal operating restriction would restrict all 

operations behind closed gates during the 

Cascade Elk Rifle season, which is typically the 

third week of October. All non-emergency vehicle 

traffic would be restricted on gated closed roads 

beginning the Friday before that week through the 

end of the following Friday.

All Harvest Units

44

Protect any discovered 

Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive (TES) species

If TES wildlife species are found in future field 

work or during activities associated with this 

project, and potential for adverse effects exists, 

project modifications would be pursued. All 

contracts would include provisions to provide 

required protection measures in the event of TES 

species discovery.

All Harvest Units

Botany

45 Reduce the introduction/spread 

of weeds

All road construction and logging equipment shall 

be cleaned prior to working in the area. Entire project area

46 Reduce the introduction/spread 

of weeds

Equipment should work in non-infested areas and 

then move to infested areas (USFS would provide 

map). If the purchaser elects to move from an 

infested area to a non-infested area, equipment 

shall be washed prior to leaving the infested area.

All harvest units

47 Reduce the introduction/spread 

of weeds

Clean fill (soil or rock free of slash and debris) 

would be used for construction of temporary 

roads. Sources of rock and fill material needs to 

be free of invasive plants. Rock quarries that may 

be used would be surveyed for invasive plants 

prior to use. If invasive plants are found, they 

would be treated as necessary prior to use.

All harvest units

48 Reduce the introduction/spread 

of weeds

Gaps would be placed to avoid infested areas.

Botany would work with pre-sale during project 

implementation. 

All harvest units with 

gap creation

49 Reduce the introduction of 

weeds

Use weed -free rock for all road construction and 

maintenance Entire project area
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 33

Objective Design Feature Location

50 Reduce area for weeds to 

germinate

Minimize soil disturbance (minimize fireline 

construction, reuse old skid roads) to meet project 

objectives.

All harvest units

51 Reduce the introduction of 

weeds

Disturbed areas (culverts, road shoulders, 

closed/obliterated roads, landings, skid trails) 

should be re-vegetated with weed free native seed 

to compete with invasive plants as soon as 

possible. Weed free mulch would be used if 

necessary. Monitor sites and reseed or replant as 

necessary.

Entire project area

52 Reduce the introduction of 

weeds

Roads to be closed or decommissioned would be 

treated for invasive plants prior to closing. Entire project area

53 Protect known special habitats

Buffers identified in the Botany and Invasive 

Plants Section 3.9 would be implemented. Presale 

would work with the district botanist.

20, 30, 60, 70, 80, 90, 

100, 110, 120, 150, 

160, 170, 180

54 Reduce the potential for spread 

of invasive plants.

One or a combination of Integrated Pest 

Management practices (i.e. manual, mechanical, 

chemical, mulch) would be used to treat invasive 

plant species found in the project area. Existing 

infestations should be treated prior to project 

implementation to minimize seed spread. 

All harvest units

Roads

55 Protect against sediment

Best Management Practices (BMPs), including 

placement of sediment barriers, provision of flow 

bypass, and other applicable measures, would be 

included as necessary to control off-site 

movement of sediment.

Entire project area

56 Protect against sediment

For any perennial stream crossing culvert 

replacement, a specific dewatering plan shall be 

included with the contract design provisions.

Entire project area

57 Protect against sediment

All road reopening, reconstruction and temporary 

road building would occur when soils are relatively 

dry to avoid potential surface erosion of exposed 

soil.

Entire project area

58 Protect against sediment

All temporary roads shall be made hydrologically 

stable if not being used for extended periods of 

wet weather.

Entire project area

59 Protect against sediment

Apply rock surfacing to all native surfaced roads 

prior to wet season which is identified as between 

November 1 and May 31. Aggregate depth on 

temporary roads should not exceed 4 inches. 

Temporary spurs that have had rock applied shall 

be subsoiled to a depth of 20 inches upon 

completion of project.

Entire project area

60 Protect against sediment

On segments of decommissioned roads in 

between fill removals, either build waterbars to 

divert surface drainage or de-compact the road 

surface to a depth of 18-24” to ensure infiltration of 

surface runoff.

Entire project area
34 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Objective Design Feature Location

61 Protect road infrastructure

All required road maintenance would be 

completed prior to project implementation without 

an agreement signed by the contracting officer.

Entire project area

62 Protect road infrastructure

At the completion of harvest and associated 

activities, reopened roads shall be closed (stored)

and new temporary roads shall be 

decommissioned. Closed roads and 

decommissioned roads shall be placed in a 

hydrologically stable condition and closed to 

vehicle travel to reduce potential for surface 

erosion and sedimentation.

Entire project area

Heritage Resources

63 Protect previously unidentified 

heritage resources

Project activities planned outside of the area 

defined in the heritage resource inventory schema 

must be coordinated with the Zone Archaeologist 

prior to initiation.

Entire project area

64 Protect previously unidentified 

heritage resources

If cultural resources are encountered during the 

course of this project, earth-disturbing activities in 

the vicinity of the find must be suspended, in 

accordance with federal regulations, and the Zone 

Archaeologist notified to evaluate the discovery 

and recommend subsequent courses of action.

This action would be included in all project 

contracts.

Entire project area

65 Protect previously unidentified 

heritage resources

Changes to current unit configuration would 

require coordination with the Zone Archeologist to 

protect known or unknown heritage resources.

All harvest units

66 Protect previously identified 

heritage resources

All National Register of Historic Places eligible and 

potentially eligible sites must be avoided during all 

project activities. Presale crew(s), road 

engineer(s), and the FMO/AFMO must coordinate 

with the Zone Archaeologist to ensure protection 

of the known cultural sites: 06180100747

See: Zone 

Archaeologist

Scenic Quality

67 Minimize visual impacts

Low or flush cut stumps at an angle facing away 

within 100ft. of trails and recreation sites. .Tree 

marking on trees within 100ft. of trails and 

recreation sites would be on the side of trees 

facing away from these recreation assets. Timber 

sale boundary markers would be removed within 

100ft. of trails and recreation sites such as parking 

areas and trail heads after harvest activities have 

concluded.

Units 190, 210 and 

220.

Recreation

68 Protect Trail

Recreation specialist would identify anchor trees 

that are integral to trail stability and mark these as 

leave trees adjacent to trails.

Units 190, 210, 220

adjacent to trails 3309,

3321 and 3506
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 35

Objective Design Feature Location

69 Inform the Public

Postings would be provided to recreation 

specialists as soon as possible prior to harvest 

activity.

Units 190, 210, 220 

adjacent to trails 3309, 

3321 and 3506

70 Maintain Public Access

Trails that would be affected by harvest activity 

would be open to public use after 5PM (1700hrs) 

on week days and would remain accessible at all 

times on weekends and holidays. During the 

months of August and September trails would 

remain open to public use at all times. No haul is 

allowed on weekends.

All trails affected by 

harvest activity

71 Protect Trail

Integrate recreation specialist during layout phase 

to mark leave trees along trail to maximize canopy 

cover over trail and minimize sunlight penetration 

into trail corridor. This would help reduce the 

amount of seasonal vegetation growth and 

associated maintenance to keep trails clear.

Units 190, 210, 220 

adjacent to trails 3309, 

3321 and 3506

72 Protect Trail

Gaps upslope of trails would be placed at least 

200 feet away from trails. A Recreation specialist 

would be integrated into design and layout to 

determine best location for gaps downslope of 

trails.

Units 190, 210, 220 

adjacent to trails 3309, 

3321 and 3506

73 Protect Trail

One end log suspension would be used to reduce 

impact to trail tread for skidding that takes place 

over trails. Skidding corridors would be at least 

150ft apart.

All trails affected by 

harvest activity

Air Quality

74

Monitor and control air quality in 

communities and Class 1 

Airsheds

Follow Oregon Smoke Management Plan and 

Forest Plan Standard and Guides All harvest units

75

Approve burning of units/piles 

given current fuels and weather

conditions and monitor smoke 

during prescribed burn/pile burn

Survey fuels for estimate of particulate matter and 

obtain approval from ODF Smoke Management 

Forecaster.

All harvest units

Transmission Lines

76 Protect improvements of 

cooperators

Project activities in the vicinity of transmission 

lines and their access facilities would be 

coordinated with the BPA.

Entire project area

1 Discretionary design features that are funding-dependent
36 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

2.5 Mitigation and Enhancement Included in Alternative 2

Table 7 Wildlife Tree Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Included in Alternative 2.

Unit

Snag 

Creation per 

acre and 

Priority

Unit

Snag 

Creation per 

acre and 

Priority

Unit

Snag 

Creation 

per acre 

and Priority

Unit

Snag 

Creation 

per acre 

and Priority

20 2/moderate 80 2.5/high 140 1/low 190 None

30 4/high 90 1/low 150 None 210 3/high*

40 1/low 100 1/low 151 None 220 3/high*

50 2.5/high 110 2.5/high 160 None

60 2.5/high 120 2.5/high 170 None

70 1/low 130 2.5/high 180 2/moderate

*Mitigation (would occur). Wildlife Tree Mitigation in units other than 210 and 220 is optional and may occur if funding is available, 

considering the priority shown. Additional Wildlife Tree Mitigation would occur in 120 acres of riparian reserves (Table 6).

Tree mitigation and enhancement techniques may include topping, girdling and/or inoculation, Table 7

also includes mitigation measures from recommended Riparian Reserve thinning that includes snag 

creation to benefit wildlife (also shown in Table 6). Snag creation would take place as a priority 

mitigation measure in Class 3 and 4 streams as well as wetland and spring Riparian Reserves.

Table 8 Down Wood Enhancement Recommendations Included in Alternative 2 

Unit

Recommended 

trees per acre 

cut to enhance 

large down 

wood

Unit

Recommended 

trees per acre 

cut to enhance 

large down 

wood

Unit

Recommended 

trees per acre 

cut to enhance 

large down 

wood

Unit

Recommended 

trees per acre 

cut to enhance 

large down 

wood

20 1/low 80 2/low 140 1/low 190 None

30 3/low 90 1/low 150 None 210 None

40 None 100 1/low 151 None 220 None

50 2/moderate 110 1/low 160 None

60 2/moderate 120 1/low 170 2/moderate

70 1/low 130 2/moderate 180 1/low

* Enhancement recommendations may occur if funding is available. Additional down wood mitigation would occur in 120 acres of 

riparian reserves (Table 6).

2.6 Monitoring Included Under Alternative 2

Operations: Contract administrators would monitor treatments during implementation to ensure 

contractors are in compliance with their contract. Contract elements monitored would include harvest 

specifications, bole damage to residual trees, down wood and snag retention, skid trail spacing and use 

of designated skid trails.

Fuels Treatments: McKenzie River District fire and fuels personnel would monitor fuel loading prior to 

and post application of fuels treatments. Fuels treatment results would offer data to use in the future.

Road Management: McKenzie River Ranger district engineering personnel would monitor road 

management through contract administration and routine road maintenance inspections.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 37

National Aquatic Best Management Practice Monitoring: The National Best Management Practices

Program provides a standard set of core best management practices for the protection of water quality

and consistent documentation of the use and effectiveness of the practices. Post-implementation best 

management practices monitoring may include review of aquatic management zones, erosion 

prevention and control measures, cable and ground-based yarding operation effects, and site treatment.

Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring: The Forest Supervisor’s Staff performs annual project 

monitoring at each Ranger District and compiles the results in the yearly Forest Monitoring Report.

Implementation of treatments from this project would be subject to Forest Plan Implementation 

monitoring. Other implementation monitoring elements may include temporary road decommissioning, 

snag and large down wood abundance, and any seeding or planting of vegetation.

Reforestation: Ensure stand is sufficiently stocked within five years. Forest Service Manual directs us to 

conduct first and third year stocking surveys to determine if the site can be certified.

Dead Wood Habitat Monitoring: McKenzie River Ranger District wildlife personnel would monitor snag 

and large down wood habitat levels in units prior to wildlife tree and down wood enhancement activities 

and after prescribed burning, if applicable. This would determine existing habitat levels and compare 

those with the amounts needed for mitigation and enhancement activities. Monitoring may also be 

conducted after underburning to evaluate the level of tree mortality and snag creation from fire. 

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 9 summarizes and compares treatments and connected actions that would occur under each 

alternative.

Table 9 Comparison of Alternatives

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1

Purpose –

Need 

Addressed4

Alternative 2

Purpose –

Need 

Addressed4

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian 

Reserves Acres 0 - 347 1, 2

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 - 120 2, 3

Gaps Acres 0 - 39 1, 2

Dominant Tree Release Acres 0 - 26 1, 2

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 - 24 2

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 - 89 3

Total Acres 0 - 645 1, 2, 3

Estimated Volume MMBF 0 - 11 1

Connected Actions

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical 

and/or hand treatments )2 Acres 0 - 57 2
38 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1

Purpose –

Need 

Addressed4

Alternative 2

Purpose –

Need 

Addressed4

Post-Harvest Underburn 3 Acres 0 - 475 2

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 0 - 0 -

Skyline Acres 0 - 199 -

Ground Acres 0 - 333 -

Transportation

New Road Construction Miles 0 - 0 -

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 - 2.2 -

Roads Maintained Miles 0 - 11.5 -

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 - 0.3 -

Road Storage Miles 0 - 3 -

Stream Culvert Replacement Miles 0 - 4 -

Post-Harvest Planting

Planting in Gaps Acres 0 - ~17 3

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres 0 - ~22 3

1

: Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. Post-harvest fuels treatments would 

occur in timber harvest units; therefore the acreage of post-harvest fuels treatments are not included in the total acres of treated 

units. 2

: Mechanical treatment may include: grapple piling in slash concentrations, yarding tops attached, mastication, or any other 

mechanical device). 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

: 1- Provide a sustainable supply of timber products; 2- Actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, 

and/or structure; and Manage Riparian Reserves to control stocking and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to 

attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 39

Chapter 3: Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action and No Action Alternative

This section of the Draft EA considers the environmental consequences of implementation of the various 

alternatives. The following discussion of effects follows CEQ guidance for scope (40 CFR 1508.25(c)) by 

categorizing the effects as direct, indirect, and cumulative. The focus is on cause and consequences. For 

this analysis, in general, direct and indirect effects have been discussed in the context that most readers 

are accustomed to: those consequences which are caused by the action and either occur at the same 

time and place, or are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable 

(40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative effects are discussed where there is an effect to the environment which 

results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

The analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on each resource includes defined analysis area 

boundaries, as well as the length of time effects are expected to last. These are specific to each resource 

and therefore may vary in physical and temporal scale.

Interdisciplinary Team

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) includes Forest specialists for each discipline (see Table 46, for team 

members and their qualifications). Specialists on the IDT prepared technical reports to address the 

affected environment and expected environmental consequences of the proposed action and 

alternatives of the Lang Dam project. All reports are maintained in the project file, located at the 

McKenzie River Ranger District in McKenzie Bridge, Oregon. In some cases, this chapter provides a 

summary of the report and may only reference technical data upon which conclusions were based. 

When deemed appropriate, those parts of specialist reports that are not included in this Draft EA are 

incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.41).

Role of Science

Science information improves the ability to estimate consequences and risks of decision alternatives. The 

effects of each alternative are predicted based on science literature and the professional experience of 

the IDT specialists. The conclusions of the IDT specialists are based on the best available science and 

current understanding. Relevant and available scientific information is incorporated by reference and a 

complete bibliography is included at the end of this document. Referenced material is a consideration of 

the best available science.

Cumulative Effects

The Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding 

analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by 

focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of 

individual past actions.”

The cumulative effects analysis in this document is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part:

CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 

determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present 

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects 
40 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. 

The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions 

considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected 

environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent 

preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions 

is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and 

specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation 

could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ 

regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all 

individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or 

obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform 

decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)

Appendix D provides a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the project 

area that could contribute potential cumulative effects to the environment along with the Lang Dam

project.

3.1 Forest and Stand Structure

Summary of Effects

Stands proposed for treatment are in a condition that would respond and benefit from thinning, based 

on stocking levels, average stand diameters and crown ratios. Thinning and adding diversity with gaps, 

dominant tree release, and skips would improve the growth and maintain the health of residual trees by 

reducing the competition between trees, develop the understory and diversify the species composition 

by opening up the tree canopies. Skips within these stands, within riparian reserves, and other sensitive 

areas, as well as selected areas of wildlife tree and large down wood creation where needed, would add 

another element of stand diversity.

Thinning, DTR, and gaps would promote the development of a diverse, multilayered stand structure 

providing conditions that favor the establishment of shrubs, hardwoods, and conifer in the understory, 

and by releasing saplings and intermediate-crown class trees in the stand. Increased growth of the 

understory would provide a more contiguous bed of green, high moisture content, less flammable 

vegetation on the forest floor. Thinning, DTR and gaps would promote crown differentiation by allowing 

overstory trees to develop deep canopies and larger diameter branches in open stands. As the crowns 

differentiate, the risk of fire spreading from crown to crown goes down. 

Thinning, DTR, gaps, and skips would maintain or enhance stand level, plant species diversity, 

composition and structure. 

Gaps, and DTR treatments would help to provide for acres of stand initiation. Stand initiation acres 

would provide for long term (80-100 years) sustainable timber production.

Commercial harvest in both alternatives would shorten the duration stands spend in successional stages, 

moving stands more quickly through stem exclusion resulting in fewer snags on those harvested acres 

from suppression mortality.

Scale of Analysis

The scale used to evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative effects on Forest and Stand Structure 

associated with the Lang Dam project is the project area. The project area consists of 7,195 acres in the

Elk – McKenzie River, Cougar Creek – South Fork McKenzie River (SFMR), Cougar Reservoir - SFMR, and 

East Fork - SFMR 6th field watersheds. By using the project area, it is possible to evaluate potential 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 41

impacts in an area large enough to encompass other disturbances, both human and natural, and it is a 

logical analysis area to assess stand conditions based on plant associations.

Affected Environment

The Lang Dam project area consists of approximately 7,195 acres along the South Fork McKenzie River in

the McKenzie River Ranger District. Overstory tree species composition is dominated by Douglas-fir in all 

the stands. Western red-cedar, incense-cedar, grand fir, sugar pine, western hemlock, big leaf maple, red 

alder, and black cottonwood are present in varying amounts, but make up less than five percent of the 

overstory in all stands. The understory tree layer is generally poorly developed with low to moderate 

amounts of western hemlock, incense cedar, and western red cedar (5-80 trees per acre ~ 2”dbh). 

Understory shrub and herbaceous communities are moderately developed in some stands and 

disproportionate in others. Major species include Salal, Oregon grape, Pacific rhododendron, bracken 

fern, and hazel on drier sites; and sword fern, vine maple, and vanilla leaf on wetter sites. Productivity, 

measured by site class (a way of defining an areas potential for dominant tree height over a given time 

frame where lower numbers, typically on a 1-5 scale represent better growth potential), is moderate in 

most of the area (site class 3), but some higher productivity sites exist in the northern portion of the 

project area (site class 2). There is a floodplain along the South Fork McKenzie River and along the 

northern portion of the project area, primarily north of the 1900-408 road, where a larger component of 

hardwoods, such as big leaf maple, red alder and black cottonwood exist.

The stands, in the Lang Dam project, are primarily in the Western Hemlock and Grand Fir plant 

association series. In addition, the stands are primarily single story and the distribution of leaf area is 

heavily weighted towards the overstory strata. The canopy tends to be relatively uniform in terms of 

crown class differentiation and horizontal spatial patterning, except for small gaps caused by laminated 

root rot. Few legacy snags exist in the harvest units. Laminated root rot and competitive mortality is 

creating a low level of small snags, less than 12 inch DBH, in most units. In addition to root rot pockets, 

some stands contain wetlands, streams, or hardwood pockets which break up the relatively uniform, 

dense canopy of Douglas-fir. Most stands are bordered by a mix of late-successional forest and managed 

stands of varying age classes. 

Stand Age Classification

Stand age of Forest Service managed lands in the project area was determined using data from the 

Forest Service’s FSVeg database in addition to stand exam data collected 2015. Data shows that virtually 

the entire approximately 7,195 acres in the project area, including non-FS ownership, is managed as 

forest, with exceptions of the East Fork of Cougar Reservoir and small areas (2-5 acres) associated with 

Cougar Dam operations. Stand age in the project area is distributed into four categories: Stand Initiation, 

Stem Exclusion, Understory Re-Initiation, and Old Growth. 

Stand Initiation - Young Managed Plantations (0-30 years old)

Stands in this category are the younger second growth plantations originating from regeneration harvest 

which took place in this area in the late 1980's and 1990's. These stands are in the stand initiation 

development stage as described in Oliver and Larson (1996). Most stands were re-established by 

planting conifer seedlings after the regeneration harvest at stocking level to ensure survival of fully 

stocked sites. Other plants – trees, shrubs, and herbs grow from seed, sprouts, advance regeneration, 

and other mechanisms are also invading the sites and compete for the open growing space. Growth is 

usually rapid with competition for the available growing space. Generally, these stands have low to 

moderate amounts of downed woody debris and standing snags. Stand initiation represents 

approximately only approximately 465 acres, or approximately 7.8 percent of the forested lands 

administered by the Forest Service in the project area (Figure 5).
42 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Stem Exclusion - Second Growth Plantation (31-80 years old)

Stands in this category are the older second growth plantations originating from early clearcut harvest 

treatments in the 1940’s to the early 1980’s and wildfires in the early part of the decade (see Fire and 

Fuels Section). Self-thinning which is a point where inter-tree competition causes mortality is common in 

most stands of this type due to high densities. In addition to mortality, competition from high density is 

causing crown recession in the overstory trees and crown ratios average 43 percent. However, crown 

ratios of dominant and co-dominant trees are above 40 percent and height to diameter ratios are 

generally below 70 percent. This stand type can be characterized as a dense, closed-canopied, even-aged 

stand. Based on the stand development classifications developed by Oliver and Larson (1996), these 

stands are classified as stem exclusion. The stem exclusion stage occurs after canopy closure, as the 

stand begins to differentiate into size classes. Shading and competition for nutrients and water by larger 

trees leads to death of smaller trees and much or all of the understory vegetation. Some of timber 

stands established after wildfires have a scattered overstory of remnant old–growth. Past logging 

utilization practices, fuels treatments, and safety regulations govern the amount of downed woody 

debris and standing snags retained in the plantations. Generally, these stands have low to moderate 

amounts of downed woody debris and are absent of standing snags. Stem exclusion represents 

approximately 1,804 acres, or 30.4 percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in 

the project area (Figure 5).

Understory Re-initiation - Mature (81-180 year old)

Stands in this category are characterized as a fairly uniform, single-canopied, even-aged stand. These 

stands are in the understory re-initiation development stage. During the understory re-initiation stage, 

crowns recede and scattered overstory trees begin to die, and herbs, shrubs, and tree regeneration 

(usually shade tolerant species such as western hemlock, western red cedar, and true firs) appear on the 

forest floor. Many of these stands originated from wildfires that occurred in the late 1800s and early 

1900s. The lack of legacy structural components such as snags and coarse downed woody debris left 

over from the previous stands suggest a fire regime of re-burns or multiple underburn fires over the last 

2 centuries. Understory re-initiation represents approximately 2,234 acres, or 37.6 percent of the 

forested lands administered by the Forest Service in the project area (Figure 5).

Old Growth - Old Growth (greater than 180 years old)

Stands in this category are characterized as old growth (Oliver and Larson, 1996) and would generally 

meet the definition of old growth, and in some cases the PNW-447 (USDA, 1986) old growth criteria. The 

stands have large, live trees, often dominated by late-seral Douglas-fir; large, dead, standing and downed 

trees; multi-layered canopy; and a heterogeneous understory. The old-growth stage occurs when 

overstory trees die sporadically and understory trees begin growing into the overstory, creating multiple 

canopy layers and gradual shift towards a stand dominated by shade-tolerant species. Many of these 

stands have been previously salvage logged to remove wind throw and mortality. Old Growth represents 

approximately 1,434 acres, or 24.2 percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in 

the project area (Figure 5).
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 43

Figure 5 Current Stand Age Classification in the Lang Dam Project Area, excluding private land.

Figure 5 illustrates the current stand age classifications in project area and Table 10 provides the 

acreages of each stand age classification and the acres proposed for harvest in each category.

Table 10 Harvest Units and Stand Age Classification

Stand Initiation

(0-30 years old)

Stem Exclusion

(31-80 years old)

Understory 

Re-Initiation

(81-180 years old)

Old Growth

(>180 years old)

Project Area1 (acres) 465 1,804 2,234 1,434

Alternative 2 (acres) 0 592 53 0

1

: Does not include non-forest areas such as waterbodies, meadows, and rock outcrops. Also does not include private land.

Stand Density and Competition 

Harvest is proposed in both previously managed stands and fire regenerated (naturally regenerated) 

stands with the proposed action. High density stands with low and declining vigor are common in the 

Lang Dam project area. Ninety-two percent (Table 10) of stands proposed for harvest are second growth 

stands classified as being in the stem exclusion development stage (Oliver and Larson, 1996). Stands in 

this stage have dense crowns which block out the light to the forest floor and limit additional tree 

regeneration in the understory. Shade-tolerant understory trees that are present persist but grow very 

slowly. Intermediate or suppressed trees that do not tolerate shade well suffer from competition and 

have an increased mortality rate. The remaining eight percent are classified as being Understory Re-
44 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Initiation (Oliver and Larson, 1996) where growing space has opened up due to stem exclusion, allowing 

for a understory plants and trees to start growing.

Stand age is a metric that is easy to understand. However, it does not provide a complete picture about 

stand development, composition, or characteristics. Stand density as a surrogate for other factors such 

as stand vigor and growth, competition, and mortality better represents if a need exists for management 

because it is transferable between both plantations and fire regenerated stands, independent of age.

Stand Exams

Existing stand conditions were measured in 2015 using the Forest Service Common Stand Exam program.

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS)

The April 2016 version of Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (USDA Forest Service 2008, Pacific Northwest 

model with Western Cascade variant, revised April 2016) was used to analyze stand exam data. FVS, is a 

model used to predict the potential outcome of different management activities in a stand. Current 

stand densities and sizes are entered and the model predicts how stand conditions, densities, and 

mortality are likely to occur or change over time with different management activities.

Stand Density Index

Stand Density is an important factor in considering forest health. Stand density is directly related to 

stand-growth potential, stand vigor, and the ability of stands to ward off insect and disease. Stand 

Density Index (SDI), which was developed by Reineke in 1933, is a quantitative measure of tree 

competition or density in a stand. At its most basic level SDI is based on the average number of trees per 

acre and the average size of those trees. SDI allows current stand data to be normalized for a stand of 

trees with an average diameter of ten inches. The maximum SDI or SDImax for the Lang Dam project is 

set at 595 which was identified by Reineke as the maximum for Douglas-fir. In FVS, current stand 

conditions are modeled to predict potential future conditions under different management scenarios 

(alternatives).

Mortality is modeled from two sources in FVS – external and internal. External sources of mortality are 

caused by agents such as insects, diseases, and fire. Internal sources of mortality include background 

mortality and density-dependent mortality (Dixon 2009). Background mortality, which is normally 

expected mortality in a healthy stand occurs at low levels and is not necessarily related to stand density.

Density-dependent mortality means that as stocking levels increase in a stand, inter-tree competition 

may occur and over time, the stand would “self-thin” (big trees crowd out small trees). As densitydependent mortality increases, vigor and growth decrease.

Density-dependent mortality is predicted in stages based on the percent SDI relationship between a 

stand’s existing SDI value and the SDImax. In general the lower the existing percent SDI (current SDI / 

SDImax) the lower the likelihood of density-dependent mortality. Lower percentages of SDImax, from 25-

35, are more suited to maximize individual tree growth, while percentages of SDImax ranging from 35-60 

percent would maximize stand growth as a whole. As shown in Table 11 below, stands which reach an 

SDI of about 149, or approximately 25 percent of SDImax, enter a stage known as the “Onset of 

Competition”. Trees in the “Onset of Competition” stage are still maximizing individual tree growth while 

competing for growing space. “Full Site Occupancy”, the next stage is when percentages of SDImax range 

from 35-49.9, this is the stage where the stand growth as a whole is maximized. Stand growth slows as 

the “Limit of Tree Vigor” is reached around the 50-59.9 percent SDImax. As SDI increases to around 357, 

or 60 percent SDImax, trees reach a point known as “Zone of Imminent Mortality” (Long, 1985) where 

larger dominant and codominant trees die due to competition. Stands in the Lang Dam project area have 

SDIs ranging from 234 to 503 and average 331 (Table 11). Stands with a higher SDI in the Lang Dam 

project area are showing signs of reduced vigor and growth. Some density dependent mortality has 

begun due to overcrowding and competition between trees for nutrients and light.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 45

Table 11 Key SDI Values

Stage % of SDImax SDI Value based on 595 

SDImax

Onset of Competition 25-34.9 149-207

Full Site Occupancy 35-49.9 208-297

Limit of Tree Vigor 50-59.9 298-356

Zone of Imminent Mortality 60+ 357+

One way to compare how the alternatives best meet the future desired condition of a project is to 

compare the percentage of maximum SDI values between alternatives. As stated earlier, the stands in 

the Lang Dam project consist of predominantly Douglas-fir, which has an SDImax of 595 (Reineke, 1933). 

In particular, attention should be paid to the desired condition to have “healthy, vigorous stands with an 

average SDI below 207 a level where you maximize individual tree growth before transitioning into 

maximizing stand growth which starts around and SDI of 208” which is achieved by maintain stands in 

the “onset of competition” and “full site occupancy” stages. Table 12 shows the total acres of the SDI 

stages, based on FVS modeling, which would result in each alternative. 

Table 12 Acres of SDI Stages by Alternative

Stage No Action Proposed Action

Onset of Competition 0 604

Full Site Occupancy 233 41

Limit of Tree Vigor 273 0

Zone of Imminent Mortality 139 0

Previously Managed Stands 

Approximately 592 acres of previously managed stands, both from regeneration harvest and partial cuts,

are proposed for treatment in the proposed action. Over about the last 70 years there has been 

approximately 2,450 acres of timber harvest on lands managed by the Forest Service in the project area. 

Approximately 513 acres of Forest System lands in the project area have been pre-commercially thinned.

Approximately 947 acres of Forest System lands in the project area were modified with regenerationtype timber harvest, which is now in plantations less than approximately 70 years old.

In previously managed stands, the average age of the stand is 50 years old with the range between 40 

and 77 years old. Many of the stands are just starting to enter the stem exclusion stage or are already 

well in the stem exclusion stage with SDI’s averaging 335. Little understory development and species 

diversity appears to be in the stands. Many of the existing plantations in the analysis area are becoming 

ready for intermediate thinning treatments. Over the next decade, tree diameters in younger plantations 

would continue to become large enough for commercial thinning.

Fire Regenerated Stands

Approximately 53 acres of fire regenerated (naturally regenerated) stands are proposed for harvest in 

the proposed action. The project area has been shaped by wildfires over the last several centuries, as 

well as timber harvest over the past 80 years. The stands proposed for treatment have been 

commercially thinned in previous entries. The project area includes fire-regenerated stands which have 

been thinned in previous entries, as well as some stands that have not been previously thinned.

In the fire regenerated stands proposed for treatment, the average age is 98 years old with a range of 96 

to 100 years old. Because these stands have been managed, they do have the start of understory

development as light has been allowed to enter the stands in the past. The fire regenerated stands 

proposed for harvest in the Lang Dam project have an average SDI of 293 (Table 13) which is almost 50 

percent of SDImax. 
46 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Stands Averages

Table 13 illustrates average stand characteristics stands both over and under 80 years of age, and an 

average of all stands proposed for harvest in the project.

Table 13 Average Stand Characteristics of stands considered for harvest.

Stand Type

Total 

Trees Per 

Acre

Trees per acres 

available for 

harvest1

Quadratic 

Mean 

Diameter1

Average 

Stand

Height1

Canopy 

Cover

Percent1

Average 

Age1

Basel 

Area1

Stand

Density 

Index1

Under 80 

years old 431 154 16 94 70 50 189 335

Over 80 

years old 464 74 21 113 47 98 163 293

All 435 189 16 96 68 55 186 331

1

: Based on trees seven inches and greater DBH, because seven inches is the minimum DBH of a tree considered for harvest in the Lang Dam 

project.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Stands left untreated would continue to grow for another 200-500 years barring a natural disturbance, 

but at slower rates as trees compete with each other for growing space. Growth rates would continue to 

decline, and natural processes that affect tree vigor and cause changes in stand structure would 

continue. 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. Diameter growth 

would be low or would decline, and live crown ratios would get smaller. Trees in these stands would 

become less vigorous and more susceptible to insects and diseases. Competition-induced mortality 

would increase, thus increasing small diameter <15” snags and down wood. The down material would 

increase fuel loadings, fire risk and vulnerability of the stands to insect infestations. The competitioninduced mortality would not be available for commercial wood products. Low light levels in un-thinned 

stands would suppress development of shade-tolerant trees and limit understory vegetation. The 

diameter and product value of trees harvested in the future would be reduced without treatment. The 

no action alternative would result in no compaction or potential loss of growth associated with 

temporary roads.

Low light levels in un-thinned stands would suppress development of shade-tolerant trees and limit 

understory vegetation. 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. The diameter and product value of trees harvested in the future would be 

reduced without treatment.

Alternative 2 Treatments

Thinning

Thinning would increase the health and vigor of the remaining trees and help increase the stands ability 

to adapt to environmental changes. Additional light, from reduced canopy cover, reaching the forest 

floor would help promote a second cohort of trees. Both shade-tolerant and intolerant species may be 

established; however, shade-tolerant species would thrive better over time as the overstory crown 

closes. The beneficial effects of a more open canopy would taper off over the next 15-20 years as the 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 47

canopy cover is estimated to increase 2 percent per year (Chan, 2006). By primarily harvesting Douglasfir, which is over represented in the project area because of planting densities, this second cohort is 

expected to provide vertical, horizontal, age, and species diversity in the stand.

Conifer trees would be removed through commercial thinning across all size classes, but would primarily 

consist of smaller diameter trees with an emphasis on retention of sugar pine and white pine; however 

these species may be cut for operational purposes (see Figure 6). 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 understory shrubs and forbs which have broad ecosystem benefits.

Young uniform stands can be diversified by early thinning (DeBell et al. 1997, and Hayes et al. 1997) as 

proposed for the plantations to be treated with the Lang Dam Project. Early commercial thinning has 

been shown to be beneficial to the future development of understories, the promotion of natural 

regeneration, and in enhancing biodiversity (Muir et al. 2002). With early thinning, overstory trees can 

develop deep canopies and large-diameter branches in open stands (McGuire et al. 1991). Low overstory 

density facilitates the establishment of understory trees (McGuire et al. 1991, Bailey and Tappeiner 

1998, Miller and Emmingham 2001).

To help provide diversity on the landscape, heavier thinning would likely promote rapid growth of trees 

with characteristics normally associated with old trees in old-growth stands. Many old trees grow rapidly 

when they are young (30-100 years), producing large stems and crowns. Evidence (Franklin et al. 1981, 

Tappeiner et al. 1997) suggests that growth rates of some older forests indicate slow regeneration and at 

low densities over a long period with little tree-to-tree competition. Old-growth stands typically have 

multiple canopy layers, and thinning promotes a second cohort by allowing for natural regeneration to 

occur (Tappeiner et al. 1997).

Some old-growth forests appear to have developed from relatively even-aged cohorts that have 

undergone long-term suppression mortality, little understory regeneration of Douglas-fir, and episodic 

release of established tolerant conifers (Winter et al. 2002a, 200b). Therefore, stand management can 

follow multiple routes that emulate natural processes to move dense young stands towards structure 

similar to old-growth forest.

A short-term adverse effect to understory vegetation and below ground fungi would be the mechanical 

damage from logging. The removal of host trees and soil disturbance from the yarding operation impacts 

below ground fungi (Courtney et al. 2004). This adverse effect is mitigated by the use of designated skid 

trails with ground-based yarding systems and log-suspension capabilities of skyline and helicopter 

yarding systems.

Figure 6 Visualization of Stand Before and After Thinning

Gaps

Gaps are openings which would range in size from one to three acres outside of Riparian Reserves (see

Figure 7). Gaps would be randomly placed unless it was necessary to strategically place the openings to 

meet other resource needs such as to minimize conflict with logging systems, to minimize visual 

concerns, avoid weed infection, or to treat an identified root rot pocket. In the stand, a thinning 

prescription would be applied to the area outside the gaps.
48 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Gaps would retain up to four trees per acre. Trees designated as a leave tree in the gap would not be 

used for snag or large down wood enhancement projects. 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 enhancement.

By implementing gaps, the project would provide numerous benefits for many species of wildlife over 

the next 10-20 years before regeneration reclaims the opening. For birds, gaps have been shown to 

provide habitat to shrubland birds not present in mature forest (Chandler et al. 2009) while generally 

providing more fruit and more resource abundance due to a lower canopy and increased fruiting (Blake 

and Hoppes 1986). Generally gaps provide more resources to herbs, shrubs, and broad-leaved plants 

which provide the foundation for food webs that contribute to many different trophic levels in Pacific 

Northwest conifer forests (Hargar 2007).

Figure 7 Visualization of Thinning with Gaps

Dominant Tree Release (DTR)

This prescription would provide for growth of a dominant tree or group of five to ten 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 (McGuire et al. 1991), 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 66 feet from the bole of an individual tree, or each tree in a 

group. Around an individual tree, the 66 feet equates to approximately 1⁄4 acre when one tree is 

identified. When five to ten trees in a clump are identified, the opening size would vary depending on 

the number and spacing of trees retained but would likely range from an estimated 1/3 to 1⁄2 acre (see

Figure 8). Sugar and white pine over 24” in size would be treated as a dominant tree. The lack of 

competition would provide the tree(s) in the DTR a long term benefit of at least 50-100 years as it would 

remain a dominant tree in the opening even as other trees encroach on the opening.

Figure 8 Visualization of Single vs Multiple Tree Dominant Tree Release

No Harvest – Skips

By not treating an area, the area would provide diversity in a stand. These areas would be allowed to 

have natural processes take place such as inter-tree competition, which would create snags and down 

woody material. However, there would be an edge effect that could take place along the skips edge. 

Skips would be dispersed between riparian and non-riparian areas. 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, forbs, and 

shrubs along the edge.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 49

Implementation of skips would be with hard boundaries flagged on the ground along unit boundaries 

and in units. Additionally, internal skips may include identifying a tree and not including for harvest any 

other tree within a specified distance of that identified tree. Similar to the no action alternative, skips 

would continue for another 200-500 years baring a natural disaster, but at slower rates as trees compete 

with each other for growing space and resources.

Effects of Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have the beneficial effects previously identified on treated acres (see Table 14). 

Thinning and dominant tree release (DTR) on 493 acres would improve or maintain growth and health of 

overstocked stands currently in stem exclusion. Thinning and DTR creation would open up the tree 

canopy allowing more sunlight and precipitation to reach the forest floor. This would result in changes in 

the microclimate (increased air and soil temperatures, relative humidity’s, and air movement), under the 

main canopy for a short term (10-20 years) until the canopy closes back in (Chan, 2006). These changes 

in microclimate stimulate an increase in favorable growing conditions for most plant species.

Alternative 2 would treat 532 acres with thinning, DTR, and gaps to promote the development of 

diverse, multi-layered stands. The treatments would primarily aid by providing conditions that favor the 

establishment of shrubs, hardwoods, and conifer in the understory and by releasing saplings and 

intermediate-crown class trees in the stand. Thinning, DTR, and gaps would also promote crown 

differentiation by allowing overstory trees to develop deep canopies and larger diameter branches in 

open stand. As the crowns differentiate, the risk of a fire spreading from crown to crown goes down.

Thinning, DTR, gaps, and skips would maintain or enhance stand level, plant species diversity, 

composition and structure on 645 acre with Alternative 2. Species richness for herbaceous species and 

total species richness across trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation is greater in thinned stands than

in un-thinned and old-growth stands (Bailey et al. 1998).

Moving acres into stand initiation is accomplished with Alternative 2, where Gaps, and DTR would 

provide for 65 acres. Those acres would provide for long term (80-100 years) sustainable timber 

production with regeneration of a new cohort of trees which would provide timber in the future.

Through commercial harvest, fuel loading would increase on 532 acres with Alternative 2, the fuels 

added would mostly be smaller in size from limbs and needles which typically decompose within 2-3 

years. However, larger branches and logs fuels can persist for at least 5 years. Increased growth of the 

understory would provide a more contiguous bed of green, high moisture content, less flammable 

vegetation on the forest floor. Please see the Fire and Fuels section for more information on fuel loading.

Commercial harvest may cause some stages of forest succession to be shortened due to accelerated 

growth and enhancement activities (Andrews et al. 2005). These stands would more quickly move from 

stand initiation to understory re-initiation. Increased horizontal and vertical diversity along with diversity 

in species composition and sizes would result with understory re-initiation.

Table 14 Comparison of Treatments (acres) by Alternative

Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acres of Thinning Outside Riparian 

Reserves 0 347

Acres of Thinning Within Riparian Reserves 0 120

Acres of Gaps 0 39

Acres of Dominant Tree Release 0 26
50 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acres of Skips Outside Riparian Reserves 0 24

Acres of Skips Within Riparian Reserves 0 89

Total Acres of Timber Harvest Units

(includes skips) 0 645

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

With implementation of Alternative 1, no cumulative effects to forest stand and structure would occur 

because no actions would be taken.

Alternative 2

Effects to forest stand and structure from Alternative 2 overlap in time and space with effects from three 

past projects – 7-Thin Stewardship Reoffer (7-Thin), and Buck Thin, which are both currently active. 7-

Thin consists of 80 acres of thinning and three acres of gaps, and Buck Thin includes 51 acres of thinning 

within the project area. Buck Thin also contained about 75 acres of thinning and 12 acres of gaps north 

of the project area, which is not considered in this analysis.

In conjunction with 7-Thin and Buck Thin, the Lang Dam project would cumulatively benefit the project 

area by helping to maintain or enhance plant species, increase structural diversity and composition, and 

promote crown differentiation. By adding the 532 acres associated with the Lang Dam project to the 

existing projects in the planning area, cumulatively, the Lang Dam project would have beneficial effects 

on 663 acres.

When looked at with 7-Thin and Buck Thin, treatments associated with Lang Dam would reduce the time 

663 acres are in the stem exclusion stage of stand development, which would limit the number of snags 

attained through suppression mortality on those acres.

No cumulative effect to fuel loading is anticipated due to timing from harvest associated with the Lang 

Dam project. Fuel treatments on the Cascade Thin, Hartz Reoffer Thin, or Road 19 Salvage project would 

be completed on these projects prior to the implementation of Lang Dam.

Connected Actions

The following actions and effects would occur with implementation of Alternative 2.

Post-harvest Tree Planting

Active reforestation of the gaps in Alternative 2, would be required. Reforestation would be expected to 

occur within five years of harvest, and occur from both tree planting and natural regeneration. 

Alternative 2 would require approximately 17 acres of planting while relying on natural regeneration on 

approximately 22 acres. Post-harvest densities would be sufficiently low to allow shade-intolerant 

species such as Douglas-fir to regenerate in addition to increasing diversity with the planting of species 

such as western white pine and western red cedar. Slash and other debris would be utilized as shade and 

as a deterrent to browse by ungulates. Trees planted in identified root rot pockets would be species that 

are less susceptible to root rot like western red cedar, sugar pine, white pine or red alder. Reforestation 

would help to ensure sustainability of the stands into the future. A mix of species which represent the 

historic composition would be planted, resulting in increased species diversity.

Subsoiling

Subsoiling would occur when a unit has compaction levels above Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 

Subsoiling is beneficial to Forest and Stand structure in order to reduce compaction and increase root 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 51

growth, along skid trails and landings. Skid roads in planting areas are expected to be subsoiled to a 

depth of 18-22 inches to reduce the effects of compaction. The exception would be avoiding soils under 

retention tree canopies to reduce disturbance. Compaction from skid roads has not shown a reduction in 

residual tree growth (Miller et al, 2007). Some adverse effects may occur if residual trees inadvertently 

have roots pruned by the subsoiling.

Temporary Road Construction and Decommissioning

Temporary road construction and decommissioning would occur where temporary roads are necessary 

to facilitate project activities. The initial effects of the construction would be compacted soils which 

could affect Forest and Stand Structure; however those effects would be offset by decommissioning. The 

effects of decommissioning would be the same as subsoiling, and is generally beneficial to the residual 

stand because of reduced compaction and root growth, so increased growth is likely along skid trails and 

landings that have treatment. Some adverse effects may occur if residual trees inadvertently have roots 

pruned during decommissioning.

Fuels Treatments

Fuels treatments are discussed in Section 3.10. A benefit of the fuels treatment to the Forest and Stand 

Structure is that when fuels treatments are complete, the likelihood of a reburn in the event of a wildfire 

is reduced. Also, when the selected fuels treatment is an underburn, a secondary benefit would be

exposing mineral soil. The presence of mineral soil is proven to increase the survival of seedlings and the 

success of seeds to sprout and take root (Tappeiner et al. 2007).
52 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

3.2 Soils

Summary of Effects

No adverse effects to soil resources are expected to occur with the use of design features and proper 

project implementation.

Scale of Analysis

For the soil resource the scale of analysis for both direct / indirect effects and cumulative effects is 

almost always the “unit”, i.e. the stand polygon or activity area proposed for silvicultural treatment. The 

unit of measure for evaluating those effects is generally considered the percent of the “unit” affected. 

The summing of acres for various units, such as the total acres of skyline logging in a given alternative, is 

not an evaluation criterion for soils impacts. Impacts are evaluated on a unit-by-unit basis, and are 

generally the same in any given unit for all action alternatives. The full Soil and Geology Report is in the 

project analysis file and available upon request from the McKenzie River Ranger District.

Affected Area

This project area is located in the Lower McKenzie drainage area and lies completely within the Western 

Cascades physiographic region. The project area lies at the boundary between the older “Tu” and the 

younger “Tfc” volcanic deposits (Walker and Duncan, 1989). These deposits are basaltic lava flows, flow 

breccias and pyroclastic deposits representing both early and later events of the Western Cascade 

volcanic sequence. The area has been heavily modified by mountain glaciation and stream erosion over 

the last million years. Resulting features such as gentle side slopes in the valley bottoms, the lack of very 

fine soil particles in most areas, and the fact that glacial scour removed deeper pockets of fine-grained 

soils on much of the steep terrain, indicate soils within the project area are quite stable.

These various volcanic land types are generally well drained where permeability is rapid in the surface 

soil and moderately rapid in the subsoil. Because of high infiltration rates in the broad valley bottoms, 

overland flow is generally uncommon. In the proposed units, side slopes range from near zero to about 

30% on the gentler slopes to 40 to 80% on the steeper terrain. Offsite erosion is generally not a concern 

because of the vegetative ground cover, the high infiltration rates, and the gentle to moderate side 

slopes for many units. 

Most of this project area was historically burnt by either natural or aboriginal fires that were likely 

prevalent and carried through much of the project area in the last several hundred years. Many areas 

have been frequently exposed to low and moderate intensity fire. Consequently, natural accumulations 

of down woody debris may not be prevalent in many parts of this project area. These conditions vary 

across the landscape, depending on aspect, elevation, and slope position.

The McKenzie River Ranger District primarily contains stable, productive soils. Active slope instability 

from debris chutes, slumps or earth flow complexes do not usually occur in this general area, and no 

unstable ground was found associated within the proposed units. However, Unit 130 does contain a 

debris chute tract located upslope from the harvest unit. This debris chute comes to rest near the unit’s 

north boundary. Field investigation also indicated that two units proposed for timber harvest within the 

Lang Dam project area does approach or exceed the Willamette National Forest FW-081 Standard of 20% 

of an activity area impacted by compaction (Unit 60 and Unit 190). Evidence of compaction from 

previous entries is still present in most plantation units with previous ground-based harvest. Despite this, 

all remaining units are sufficiently within the compaction standard and have existing compaction levels 

at generally less than 5%. 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 53

Environmental Consequences

The major impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity are discussed in the Forest Wide Standards 

and Guidelines for Soil and Water Quality protection and are addressed in Chapter IV of the Willamette 

Forest Plan, sections FW-079 to FW-114.

The total area of cumulative detrimental soil effects should not exceed 20% of the total acreage within 

the activity area, including roads and landings. In most situations, preventing soil impacts is the most 

effective and feasible way of ensuring long-term soil productivity. Anticipated effects to the soil resource 

would be within Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (FW-081 to 086) (Table 12).

Table 15 Management Indicators for Assessing Effects to Soils

Issue Management Indicator Justification

Displacement

The removal of more than 50% of 

the topsoil or humus enriched soil 

horizons from an area of 100 

square feet which is at least 5 feet 

in width

FW-081

Compaction

An increase in soil bulk density of 

15% or more and/or by a reduction 

of macropore space of 50% over 

the undisturbed soil.

FW-081

Nutrient Loss

Insufficient duff retention or large 

woody material to ensure adequate 

nutrient cycling.

FW-085

Instability An increase in size, density or 

number of slope failures. FW-086

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

A No Action Alternative would result in no timber harvest or associated post-timber harvest activities. 

Stands would continue to mature. Many of the stands proposed for treatment at present are densely 

overstocked and have little understory vegetation because of the lack of sunlight to the forest floor. Over 

time in these stand conditions, growth of intermediate and suppressed trees would slow and tree 

mortality would rise. In areas of heavy stocking, stand resiliency would stagnate. Blow down and snow 

down would continue to increase fuel loading in the short to intermediate term. In general, plant 

diversity would diminish as well as soil biota from lack of sunlight. 

Short-term to intermediate-term impacts from harvest, such as soil disturbance or displacement, dust 

(or mud), slash accumulation and disposal, increased compaction and nutrient loss would not occur. In 

areas already compacted or disturbed by the initial entries, subsoiling improvements with machinery 

would not occur. The soil building process would continue to return the soil to near pre-harvest 

conditions over the longer-term. No effects to slope instability are anticipated under the No Action 

alternative.

A No Action Alternative is not considered beneficial for long-term soil productivity. Activities which 

reduce stocking levels, improve stand vigor, eliminate excessive fuel loading, and allow for the subsoiling 

of previously compacted areas are favored.
54 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2

As stated above, the major short-term impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity may include 

displacement, compaction, nutrient loss and instability. All prescriptions or design features are 

designed to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the National Best Management Practices for 

Water Quality Management on the National Forest System Lands (USDA, 2012).

Compaction: Field surveys indicated that two units in the Lang Dam project area approached or 

exceeded The Willamette National Forest Standard (FW – 081) of 20% of an activity area impacted by 

compaction: Unit 60 and Unit 190. Consequently, purchaser subsoiling is required mitigation to ensure 

that levels remain below the 20% standard.

The remaining units in the project area were sufficiently within the standards for compaction. 

Compaction is not anticipated to exceed the 20% value in any unit and should be below the 15% level (or 

lower) in most units. Activities which minimize further compaction as much as possible, or reduce 

existing compaction through mechanical means (subsoiling) would be required. To adequately protect 

the soil resource, the primary yarding objective for all units would be either ground-based systems with 

predesignated skid roads and directional falling as appropriate, or skyline yarding with one end 

suspension, except at tail trees and landings. Landings are primarily planned at old existing landings, 

road turnouts, and road junctions. Some new spur roads would be required in a few units to access 

suitable landing sites. These roads would be subsoiled, ripped and reseeded with native ground cover at 

the end of harvest operations. With entry into any ground-based unit, evident skid or haul roads would 

be utilized before any new skid road is approved. Ground-based skidding equipment shall stay on 

designated skid trails which would be subsoiled upon completion of harvest activities. Consequently, 

effects from existing compaction and harvest activities is not anticipated.

One of the goals with entry into all these units is to provide the opportunity to subsoil long-term existing 

skid roads (created during past timber sales) as much as is practical in order to reduce compaction to 

lower levels. Subsoiling may be curtailed in some areas in order to reduce the amount of root pruning of 

leave trees, to avoid excessive amounts of exposed soil, or to avoid stumps or large rocks. The use of 

designated skid roads, the reuse of the existing skid road system, and the subsoiling of primary landings 

and skid roads in critical units would be contractually required in order to reduce or maintain 

compaction levels and therefore compaction levels would not increase significantly at the completion of 

harvest activities. 

Displacement: Little physical evidence can be found in any unit within the project area to indicate that 

timber management activities would result in significant, long-term detrimental soil displacement, offsite soil movement, or substantial loss of productivity. To adequately protect the soil and top-soil, the 

primary yarding objective for all units would be either ground-based systems with predesignated skid 

roads and directional falling as appropriate, or skyline yarding with one end suspension, except at tail 

trees and landings. The primary factor differentiating these two yarding systems would be side slope. 

Disturbance from yarding would be well within the Regional and Forest standard and significant adverse 

impacts are not anticipated. With appropriate suspension during logging, soil disturbance is minimal and 

off site erosion is essentially non-existent. Skyline operations in thinning units with smaller wood and 

intermediate supports usually impacts less than 1% of the unit area. During harvest, the retention of 

stream adjacent trees and the requirement of full suspension yarding over or away from stream courses 

would minimize or eliminate off-site erosion.

Instability: Slope instability is a geologic process that is not acutely active in this project area. Units or 

sections of units with instability were identified during field reconissance and would be excluded from 

timber harvest. Unit 130 does contain a debris chute tract that initiates upslope from the proposed unit. 

This debris chute came to rest near the north boundary of this unit. This area would be utilized during 

any harvest activities. Management of this unit would have no adverse effect on slope stability.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 55

Nutrient Loss: Monitoring and field reconnaissance in recent years has shown that the duff retention 

percentages for under burns in partial cuts, thinning, or fuels reduction within stands, which maintain an 

intact live root mat and live canopy cover over most of the unit, could be less (to much less) and still 

achieve adequate soil nutrient protection. Within the managed plantations, slash would be scattered in 

the units, piled and burned, or perhaps broadcast or under burned. Extensive monitoring of grapple 

machine piling operations indicates that little or no additional nutrient loss due to compaction or 

displacement occurs, when properly implemented. Burning the piled slash may develop sufficient heat 

to affect the underlying soil. However, the hotter portions of the pile burning involve only a very small 

part of the acreage in any unit, usually less than 1% of the area. However, pile burning is usually done in 

the fall or winter months when duff and soil moistures are higher, and this helps reduce the downward 

heat effects to the soil. Consequently, pile burning is considered a minor effect because of the limited 

overall acreage involved.

Management activities would be planned to maintain enough large woody debris (dead and down) to 

provide for a healthy forest ecosystem and ensure adequate nutrient cycling (FW-085). Site specific 

needs would be considered in conjunction with wildlife objectives as outlined in FW-212a and FW-213a 

(as amended). Concentrations of larger down logs that were produced with the initial harvest should be 

left undisturbed as much as possible. Consequently, with the retention of adequate duff and woody 

debris, potential adverse impacts to long-term soil productivity and nutrient loss are not anticipated.

Cumulative Effects

Prescriptions for soil protection and considerations take into account past and predicted future land 

management activities. The major soils concerns - compaction, nutrient loss, displacement and 

instability - are most effectively reviewed, for both short and long-term effects, at the project level.

Potential cumulative effects from displacement, nutrient loss, and instability with past management 

were not observed in the field reconnaissance. If these factors are observed, the affected parts of the 

units would be dropped from the proposed harvest. The primary previous impact to the soil resource 

from management is compaction, the effects of which can remain apparent for decades. Existing 

compaction levels on a unit-by-unit basis have been documented and discussed. Theses soils design 

criteria are designed to limit the amount of additional compaction, and the subsoiling is intended to 

reduce compaction where levels would exceed standards and guides. Units 60 and 190 have subsoiling 

mitigation to ensure compaction is improved or reduced to acceptable levels (20% standard). 

With proper project implementation, as specified in the design criteria, unacceptable cumulative effects 

on the soils resource are not anticipated from Alternative 2 (BMP W-5). Consequently, the utilization of 

soil protection measures and best management practices as defined in the Soils Report would generally 

preclude the need for additional cumulative effects analysis. Deviations from the standards and 

guidelines would be the primary trigger for a cumulative effects review, and no deviations are planned.

3.3 Wildlife

Summary of Effects

Stands proposed for treatment are in a condition that would respond and benefit from thinning, based 

on stocking levels, average stand diameters and crown ratios. Thinning and adding diversity with gaps, 

dominant tree release, and skips would improve the growth and maintain the health of residual trees by 

reducing the competition between trees, develop the understory and diversify the species composition 

by opening up the tree canopies. Skips within these stands, within riparian reserves, and other sensitive 

areas, as well as selected areas of wildlife tree and large down wood creation where needed, would add 

another element of stand diversity.
56 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Thinning, DTR, and gaps would promote the development of a diverse, multilayered stand structure 

providing conditions that favor the establishment of shrubs, hardwoods, and conifer in the understory, 

and by releasing saplings and intermediate-crown class trees in the stand. Increased growth of the 

understory would provide a more contiguous bed of green, high moisture content, less flammable 

vegetation on the forest floor. Thinning, DTR and gaps would promote crown differentiation by allowing 

overstory trees to develop deep canopies and larger diameter branches in open stands. As the crowns

differentiate, the risk of fire spreading from crown to crown goes down. 

Thinning, DTR, gaps, and skips would maintain or enhance stand level, plant species diversity, 

composition and structure. 

Gaps, and DTR treatments would help to provide for acres of stand initiation. Stand initiation acres 

would provide for long term (80-100 years) sustainable timber production.

Commercial harvest in both alternatives would shorten the duration stands spend in successional stages, 

moving stands more quickly through stem exclusion resulting in fewer snags on those harvested acres 

from suppression mortality.

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 South Fork McKenzie River and McKenzie River 5th field 

Watersheds that this project falls in.

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for early seral wildlife habitat, 

sensitive species, migratory land birds, and terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS) was the 

project activity units and the project area.

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for elk habitat includes the 

project activity units, and one Elk Emphasis Area, Cougar, which management activities would occur in. 

The Cougar elk emphasis area includes some private land. Two additional elk emphasis areas would have 

a small amount of harvest and are also discussed. These emphasis areas were used for the scope of 

analysis because of established ratings for elk habitat as described in the Willamette National Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. Cumulative effects for each species or habitat type discussed below 

considered the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions shown in Appendix D. Projects that 

modified forested habitats continue to have ongoing effects on many wildlife species, especially those 

dependent on late-successional forests.

Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened)

Summary of Effects

Alternative 2 would remove about 17 acres or less than one percent of the suitable owl habitat in the 

project area. About 440 acres of dispersal-only habitat would be moderately or heavily thinned, which 

makes up approximately 27 percent of the dispersal habitat in the project area. Removal of suitable 

habitat may affect, and is likely to adversely affect (direct and indirect), spotted owls because such 

harvest would remove suitable habitat and therefore decrease the amount of nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat for an owl pair.

No suitable spotted owl habitat would be removed with the Lang Dam project within the home range of 

any known spotted owl activity center. No Recovery Action 32 (RA32) habitat occurs within the proposed 

treatment areas. The Lang Dam Project would not cause a trend toward federal listing, nor jeopardize 

the continued existence of the spotted owl.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 57

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for threatened northern 

spotted owls was a 300m, 0.5 and 1.2 mile radius buffer around all pair activity centers for the spotted 

owl within the project area. These habitat radii were used to determine available amounts of suitable 

and dispersal habitat. 

Affected Environment

The northern spotted owl is a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that 

uses forest habitat in the project area. Effects of the various proposed actions for the Lang Dam project 

were addressed by the Willamette Planning Province Level I Terrestrial Team (2014) and evaluated by the 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the FY2015 Biological Opinion (BO) (FWS Reference Number 

01EOFW00-2014-F-0221). This BO fulfills the Forest Service’s legal requirement with respect to Section 7 

of ESA for the Lang Dam Project, and is consistent with the June 26, 2013, order by Judge Leon in 

Swanson Group Mfg. LLC et al. vs. Jewell et al. (Case 1:10-cv-01843-RJL, Document 63). This EA

incorporates by reference this BO, as well as the Biological Assessment. The analysis of effects to spotted 

owls in this EA is consistent with regional direction provided October 22, 2013, and November 3, 2015 

(Walter 2013, Peña 2015). A summary of the effects of the alternatives on the northern spotted owl is 

provided in this section.

Effects to the northern spotted owl are based on current survey information provided by the H J 

Andrews Spotted Owl Demographic Study Area (Forsman et al. 2011), past district wildlife survey data, 

and an evaluation of the project area for potential owl sites in unsurveyed habitat. Based on habitat 

suitability, habitat quantity, and the distance to the next nearest owl site, no additional potential owl 

sites were considered for this project. This methodology was used in absence of current district spotted 

owl surveys in all areas of suitable owl habitat, and is based on standard methods used in the Willamette 

Planning Province and supported by science (Willamette Planning Province 2015). Potential sites could 

support breeding spotted owl pairs, and management of such areas is recommended in the Recovery 

Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Potential site designation is based on guidance in the Recovery 

Plan, decades of knowledge acquired from spotted owl surveys, and the best commercial and scientific 

information available. Spotted owl habitat associations and habitat requirements for reproduction were 

considered. Potential site centers and their nest patches were located in the best available habitat likely 

to facilitate spotted owl nesting by providing suitable nest trees and foraging habitat for rearing of 

young.

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Northern spotted owl habitat is classified as:

Suitable Habitat: Suitable habitat that provides for nesting, roosting, and/or foraging, consisting of 

“...forested stands used by spotted owls for nesting, roosting and foraging. Features that support nesting 

and roosting typically include a moderate to high canopy closure (60-90 percent); a multi-layered, multispecies canopy with large overstory trees (with dbh of greater than 30 inches); a high incidence of large 

trees with various deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of 

decadence); large snags; large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and 

sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owls to fly. This habitat is described as nesting and 

roosting habitat in the revised northern spotted owl recovery plan (USFWS 2011, p. A-10).” Suitable 

habitat can also function as dispersal habitat as it supports both territorial and dispersing spotted owls. 

Those units for the project which were considered to be suitable spotted owl habitat provide for foraging 

and roosting with marginal potential for nesting due to the relatively young growth form of the upper 

canopy and the absence or relatively low number of legacy trees over 250 years old.
58 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Dispersal-only Habitat: Dispersal-only habitat provides for protection from avian predators and at least 

minimal foraging opportunities during dispersal and colonization periods. Dispersal habitat consists of, at 

a minimum, stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian 

predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities (USFWS, 2011, p. A-10). It is comprised of conifer 

and mixed mature conifer-hardwood habitats with a canopy cover greater than or equal to 40 percent 

and conifer trees greater than or equal to 11 inches average diameter at breast height (dbh) with open 

space beneath the canopy to allow spotted owls to fly. Generally, spotted owls use younger stands to 

move between blocks of suitable habitat, and to roost, forage and survive until they can establish a nest 

territory. Juvenile owls also use dispersal habitat to move from natal areas. Dispersal habitat thus 

includes habitat that would provide some roosting and foraging opportunities during the colonization 

phase of dispersal, but not at a scale that would support nesting pairs (Willamette National Forest 2009). 

While dispersal habitat is often referred to in a general sense as stands that are 40-79 years old, growing 

site conditions, tree spacing, elevation, stand size and landscape juxtaposition, precommercial thinning 

history, and stand structure, all play a role in the habitat a stand may provide at a particular age after 

harvest or other disturbance event.

Non-habitat: Non-habitat refers to land which is capable of growing habitat, but does not currently 

function as either suitable or dispersal habitat.

The Lang Dam project area contains a mix of forest stand age classes and was classified into non-habitat, 

dispersal, and suitable spotted owl habitat based on aerial photos and field reviews conducted in 2015. 

Owl habitat mapping estimates there are currently about 2,628 acres of suitable habitat (37%), 

approximately 1,622 acres of dispersal habitat (23%), and approximately 2,077 acres of non-habitat 

(29%) in the Lang Dam project area (Table 16). In addition, there are approximately 701 acres of private 

land and 75 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lands throughout the Lang Dam project area which 

make up approximately 11 percent of the total project area. Aerial photography shows that most of the 

private lands have been logged and are thus are non-habitat for spotted owls Private and other agency 

land acres were not incorporated into the spotted owl analysis or numbers represented in Table 16

shown below.

Table 16 Lang Dam Project Area Spotted Owl Habitat Type Distribution by Acres and Percent

Lang 

Dam

Project 

Area

Suitable Acres Dispersal Acres Non-Habitat Acres Private and Other 

Agency Lands

Total

2,628 or 37% 1,621 or 23% 2,077 or 29% 777 or 11% 7,104

(100%)

Recovery Action 32 of the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl identified a need to 

maintain older, more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests containing large diameter trees, 

high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken topped trees, mistletoe, large 

snags, and fallen trees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Guidance for identifying such stands was 

developed for the Willamette National Forest with review by USFWS and Bureau of Land Management 

(Doerr 2012). No Recovery Action 32 (RA32) habitat occurs within the proposed treatment areas, and 

thus none would be modified or removed for this project.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Lang Dam project is not located in 2012 Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl and thus, there 

are no effects to Critical Habitat.

Known Owl Sites

Two known owl sites occur in vicinity of the proposed Lang Dam harvest units.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 59

Effects of habitat modification on individual northern spotted owl sites are assessed at three spatial 

scales: the home range, core area, and nest patch.

Home Range: A home range in the Oregon Cascades Province is a 1.2 mile radius circle (2,955 acres) 

around a known or potential spotted owl site (Thomas et al. 1990, Courtney et al 2004). It is used by 

northern spotted owls to obtain cover and food, and for reproduction and rearing of young. Home 

ranges of multiple northern spotted owl pairs may overlap with habitat shared between adjacent 

resident northern spotted owl pairs and dispersing northern spotted owls. These areas are important for 

the survival and productivity as northern spotted owls are non-migratory.

Core Area: Within the home range, the core area (500 acres) is a 0.5 mile radius circle centered on the 

activity center, representing the area most heavily used during the nesting season (Bingham & Noon 

1997). The core area is defended by territorial northern spotted owls and generally does not overlap the 

core areas of other northern spotted owl pairs.

Nest Patch: Within the core area, the nest patch (70 acres) is defined as a 300 meter radius circle around 

the activity center. This is based on habitat use of spotted owls within the Central Cascades Study Area, 

located on the Willamette National Forest. The two key elements of habitat within a nest patch are: (1) 

canopy closure of dominant, co-dominant, and intermediate conifer and hardwood trees and (2) the 

amount of down wood. Modification of habitat within this area is considered likely to affect the 

reproductive success of nesting northern spotted owls and is used in determination of incidental take. 

No proposed units overlap nest patches.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have determined viability thresholds of 50 percent suitable 

habitat in the core area and 40 percent suitable habitat in the home range, respectively. Suitable habitat 

levels below these thresholds are thought to compromise the reproductive success of owls. More than 

half of the high quality spotted owl territories had core areas comprised of 50 to 65 percent older forest 

(Franklin et al. 2000). Bart (1995) calculated that spotted owl populations were stable when the average 

proportion of nesting, roosting, and forage habitat in the home range was 30 to 50 percent. Owls may 

successfully fledge young when suitable habitat drops below these percentages, but the likelihood of this 

decreases as suitable habitat declines. It should however be noted that this analysis was carried out 

before barred owls became a major issue to spotted owl populations, and that in 2016, there are few if 

any stable northern spotted owl populations.

Environmental Consequences

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat - Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on suitable or dispersal spotted owl habitat (see Affected 

Environment section above for habitat definitions). Non-habitat plantations would slowly develop into 

dispersal habitat within another 10-15 years as the stands thin themselves. Those stands which are 

currently dispersal habitat would develop into low quality foraging habitat within 40-50 years. Stands 

which currently have larger remnant trees of larger diameters could become low quality nesting habitat 

within that timeframe as well. The stands which are currently foraging habitat with some nesting 

opportunity would develop towards old growth conditions and start to become high quality suitable owl 

habitat fitting Recovery Action 32 stand characteristics in about 50-100 years.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 would treat stands between 40-120 years which are non-habitat, dispersal or suitable 

foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl. Some of the older stands may have scattered remnant 

overstory trees with potential owl nesting structures, however these trees would not be harvested 

unless they pose a safety hazard to the logging or post-harvest underburning operation. Table 17 displays 

Alternative 2 proposed treatment acres by age class. Table 18 shows treated acres by spotted owl habitat 
60 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

type and treatment type. It should be noted that more acres were analyzed and consulted on with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for habitat modification and removal than the final actual acres proposed 

for the Lang Dam Project. Please refer to the Biological Opinion for additional information. Consultation 

acres and effects included the entire unit footprint. Project field surveys and planning resulted in areas 

within that original unit footprint that would be left unharvested for a variety of reasons such as riparian 

protections for water quality, botanical concerns, and/or landscape skips. Field surveys determined that 

the remaining portions of units 210 and 220 that were logged in 2000 do not qualify as suitable foraging 

habitat since the remaining canopy falls below 60%. These two units are currently dispersal habitat for 

spotted owls. Thus, effects to owls have been reduced from an initial 84 acres of suitable habitat 

removal to 17 acres. Further reductions in effects to owl habitat are a result of where the proposed units

lay on the landscape, and how they connect to other habitat types

Table 17 Age Class Acres by Treatment Type

Thinning Units Actual Acres of Thinning Units,

Gaps, Skips and Dominant Tree Release

41-80 years 592

81-120 years 53

Total 645

Note: Skips are not harvested, however, depending on their size and location within the unit, they may no longer provide spotted owl 

habitat.

Treatments in Suitable Habitat: 

Alternative 2 would remove about 17 acres or less than one percent of the suitable owl habitat in the 

project area with unit 180, making the habitat unsuitable for spotted owls. In about 40 years postharvest, the stand would develop into dispersal habitat. Retention of about 61 trees per acre with the 

proposed thinning treatment would allow this stand to provide higher quality dispersal habitat 

compared to what would occur in a regeneration harvest without leave tree retention. Suitable owl 

habitat would develop after 80 to 140 years post-harvest, and the stand could achieve characteristics 

that fit the Recovery Action 32 description due to the retention of legacy trees that would exist in the 

stands at that time. 

Alternative 2 proposes post-harvest underburning of up to 588 acres to reduce activity generated fuels. 

During the underburns approximately 20% of the 3-9 inch slash would be consumed. (See Fire and Fuels 

Section 3.10). Post-harvest underburning may also result in a small amount of overstory tree mortality. 

Generally, an overstory mortality level of up to 10 percent is allowable and desirable for wildlife habitat 

because it helps create dead wood structures which are used by the spotted owl rodent prey base and 

other species. In reality, post-harvest underburning generally does not result in more than a few dead 

overstory trees, if any.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat:

About 440 acres of dispersal-only habitat would be moderately or heavily thinned, leaving over 40% 

canopy cover (=moderate thinning) or under 40% canopy cover (=heavy thinning), which makes up 

approximately 27 percent of the dispersal habitat in the project area. Units proposed for moderate 

thinning which maintain an average of approximately 40 percent canopy cover are expected to close 

their canopies back to pre-harvest conditions within 7-10 years. However, habitat suitability for flying 

squirrels, the main prey of spotted owls in the central Oregon Cascades, may not recover even after 11-

13 years post-thinning (Manning et al. 2012). Units with heavier thinning treatments and lower average 

canopy retention near 30 percent would need approximately 10-15 years to reclose their canopies back 

to pre-harvest conditions. Thinning of dispersal habitat would benefit overall forest structural 

development and improve long-term (>25 years) spotted owl habitat conditions. Post-harvest snag and 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 61

large down wood habitat enhancement in selected thinning units would improve stand structure 

conditions even more for spotted owls and their prey in the long-term.

Treatments in Non-Habitat:

Approximately 188 acres of forest stands that are currently non-habitat for spotted owls would be 

thinned. This is about nine percent of all the non-habitat forest stands in the Lang Dam project area. 

Thinning these stands would benefit spotted owls because after 7-15 years, forest structure would be 

improved over the current condition, and they would develop into dispersal habitat conditions faster 

than if they were left to develop naturally. Structural enhancements such as snag and down wood 

placement would further benefit spotted owl habitat quality. This would improve this habitat in the near 

future in about ten years, and longer term for 20-30 years.

No Treatments in RA32 Stands:

Recovery Action 32 of the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl identified a need to 

maintain older, more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests containing large diameter trees, 

high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken topped trees, mistletoe, large 

snags, and fallen trees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Guidance for identifying such stands has 

been developed for the Willamette National Forest with review by USFWS and Bureau of Land 

Management (Doerr 2012). No Recovery Action 32 (RA32) habitat occurs within the proposed treatment 

areas. One unit and a portion of unit 210 were dropped from the proposal after a 2015 field review 

determined they qualify as RA32 habitat.

Table 18 Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type and Activity 

Treatment Suitable Acres Dispersal Acres Non-habitat Acres

Harvest 17 440 188

Post-Harvest 

Underburn 17 440 131

Total Treated 

Acres 17 440 188

Northern Spotted Owl - Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on spotted owl habitat, so there are no cumulative effects to 

be considered.

Alternative 2

The spotted owl habitat evaluation above incorporates past Forest Service activities in the Lang Dam 

project area in the analysis of the current condition, e.g. non-habitat and dispersal habitat acres in the 

project area accounts for past timber harvest. Other currently ongoing activities in the Lang Dam project 

area that could result in effects to spotted owl habitat are the Buck Thin and 7 Thin Timber Sale which 

would log about 134 acres in younger stands under 80 years of age which are dispersal habitat. The 

recently completed 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project removed understory vegetation in 

approximately 94 acres of stands of mixed ages ranging from 40-100 years of age and thus qualified as 

dispersal and suitable owl habitat. The Lower 19 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is currently 

being analyzed and proposes understory treatments of 520 acres in the Lang Dam project area, most of 

which is suitable owl habitat. The Lower South Fork Floodplain Enhancement Project is another project 

that is currently in the planning stage that would remove approximately 33 acres of suitable owl habitat 

in the project area. Together with the proposed Lang Dam Project Alternative 2, these projects would 

result in impacts to 533 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat, or approximately 15 percent of the Lang 
62 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Dam project area. The effects of the hazardous fuels treatments considered in this analysis would be 

negligible because only few older trees or snags would be lost.

On a broader scale, Davis et al. (2016: entire) conducted the Northwest Forest Plan monitoring to show 

trends in spotted owl habitat over the first 20 years of implementation from 1994 to 2013. They found a 

net decrease of 1.5% in spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat on federal lands from 9,089,700 acres in 

1993 to 8,954,000 in 2013 (abstract summary not paginated). Gross losses on federal lands were 473,000 

acres from wildfires (-5.2% loss), 116,100 acres from timber harvest (-1.3% loss), and 59,800 acres from 

insect and diseases (-0.7% loss). Because the gross losses were greater than the net losses, it indicates 

that the process of forest succession is compensating for some of the habitat loss.

Dispersal habitat increased by 2.2 percent on federal lands, but dispersal capable landscapes decreased 

by 5 percent due to habitat losses on the surrounding non-federal lands. Large wildfires continue to be 

the major loss of spotted owl habitat on federal lands and most of these losses occurred within the 

conservation network of large reserves designed for spotted owl conservation.

The 20-year monitoring results show that within the Western Cascades of Oregon, there was a net gain 

of 27,100 acres of spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat (1.5% increase) on federal lands, despite gross 

losses of 101,500 acres (-4.3% loss) (Davis et. al. 2016, p. 21). The losses include 34,900 acres due to 

timber harvest, 63,000 acres due to wild fires, and minor losses due to insects and unspecified causes. 

Within the Western Cascades of Oregon, there was a net gain of 122,200 acres of spotted owl dispersal 

habitat (3.4% increase) on federal lands, despite gross losses of 121,500 acres (-3.7% loss) (Davis et. al. 

2016, p. 31). The losses of dispersal habitat include 28,300 acres due to timber harvest, 89,300 acres due 

to wildfires, and minor losses due to insects and unspecified causes. Recruitment of dispersal habitat on 

federal lands in the Western Cascades of Oregon is more than compensating for habitat losses with the 

recruitment rate about twice the rate of dispersal habitat loss.

The analysis of dispersal-capable landscapes found no loss of landscape connectivity in the interior of 

federal lands within the Western Oregon Cascades (Davis et al. 2016). There has been no loss in 

landscape connectivity for spotted owls that exists along a wide corridor across the Cascade Range from 

the Canadian border south into northern California. However, substantial loss to dispersal capable areas 

has occurred along the south west area of the Willamette Province adjacent to the Willamette Valley and 

this loss extends south and west across a connection area between the Oregon Coast and Cascades 

Range south of the Willamette Valley. There also has been some areas of dispersal-capable landscape 

loss and a few small areas of gain along the eastern edge of the range of spotted owl in the east side 

Cascades area in the northern half of Oregon.

Conclusion or Summary

Based on the above-described effects of the Lang Dam Project, other recently completed and planned 

projects, and the new Northwest Forest Plan monitoring information, viability for the northern spotted 

owl would be maintained throughout the project area. The Lang Dam Project would not cause a trend 

toward federal listing, nor jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. Alternative 2 would 

not preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls, and the landscape would still provide suitable and 

dispersal spotted owl habitat post-treatment.

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CH) - Direct and Indirect Effects

The Lang Dam project is not located in 2012 Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl and thus, there 

are no effects to Critical Habitat.

Known Owl Sites - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 

Because Alternative 1 does not implement any actions, there would be no effects on any known owl 

sites.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 63

Alternative 2 

About 26 percent of the Lang Dam project area is annually surveyed as part of the HJ Andrews Owl 

Demography Study. The project area has two known spotted owl sites, however neither has had a 

nesting owl pair for over ten years. The site in the west of the project area had a non-nesting pair in 

2012, and the site in the east has not had a spotted owl detection since a day resident single was found 

in 2007. The old-growth and suitable nesting habitat surrounding Delta Campground has not been 

surveyed, however the overall habitat acres in that area are well below the analysis threshold levels, and 

it is unlikely that an undetected pair would be nesting in that location. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) have determined spotted owl habitat viability thresholds of 50 percent suitable habitat in the 

core area and 40 percent suitable habitat in the home range, respectively. Suitable habitat levels below 

these thresholds are thought to compromise the reproductive success of owls. While there are some 

areas that have not been surveyed in the past or have very outdated survey data due to the time and 

expense of conducting surveys, no additional owl sites or nesting pairs are expected to be present. This 

is due to the low amount of suitable nesting habitat present that does not already overlap a known or 

historic site. 

Effects of Suitable Habitat Removed to Known NSO Sites:

Removal of suitable habitat may affect, and is likely to adversely affect (direct and indirect), spotted owls 

because such harvest would remove suitable habitat and therefore decrease the amount of nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat for an owl pair.

No suitable spotted owl habitat would be removed with the Lang Dam project within the home range of 

any known spotted owl activity center. No suitable habitat would be removed within the home range 

radius of any known sites due to dropping stands that are RA 32, as well as field reviews that determined

that other proposed units in the sites have less than 60% canopy cover and are therefore not suitable 

habitat.

Unit 180 has approximately 17 acres, and was determined to qualify as suitable spotted owl habitat and 

does not fall within the 1.2 mile home range radius of any known owl sites. While this unit itself has not 

been surveyed, it is located about 0.4 miles between areas to the west and east that are annually 

surveyed, and is in a highly fragmented area in which no additional owl sites are expected to currently 

exist.

Effects of Dispersal Habitat Removed to Known NSO Sites:

Removal of dispersal habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (direct and indirect), spotted 

owls (unless it is within the nest patch of a known or predicted owl site) because, even though dispersal 

habitat would be eliminated on these acres, sufficient habitat would remain in the area to facilitate owl 

dispersal which is the case for all proposed Lang Dam project units (USFWS 2014).

There are four units within the Lang Dam project that would remove approximately 187 acres of 

dispersal habitat to a post-harvest canopy cover of 20-39 percent for the purpose of improving stand 

structural diversity and enhancing big game forage. These are fast growing stands and are expected to 

increase in canopy closure by about 2 percent per year, with most of them achieving dispersal habitat 

again in 5-6 years after harvest. These four units are: 50, 160, 210, and 220. 

Dispersal habitat would be removed within the home range of one known owl home range in the Lang 

Dam project area. Table 19 shows units within 1.2 miles of Known Owl Sites in the Lang Dam Project 

Area. Acres outside affected known or predicted owl sites are not shown (Willamette Planning Province 

Terrestrial Level I Team 2015) No dispersal habitat would be harvested within the 0.5 mile nest core.
64 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 19 Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments in Spotted Owl Habitat.

Owl Site Harvest Treatment

Proposed 

Dispersal 

Habitat Units

Matrix AMA Admin 

withdrawn

Total 

(Acres)

2443

Dispersal Habitat

Maintained 20, 60, 100, 110 0 128 0 128

Dispersal Habitat 

Removed None 0 0 0 0

1817

Dispersal Habitat

Maintained None 0 0 0 0

Dispersal Habitat 

Removed 210, 220 0 53 0 53

Effects of Dispersal Habitat Maintained to Known NSO Sites:

Harvest Habitat Maintained may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the spotted owl both directly 

and indirectly because current spotted owl habitat would be maintained. In the Biological Assessment 

for the Lang Dam project, only dispersal habitat would be treated under this activity (USFWS 2014).

Dispersal harvest habitat maintained treatment is proposed on 128 acres that would result in a postharvest canopy closure of at least 40 percent. Table 19 displays one known site with a home range that 

overlaps these treatment units. However, no dispersal habitat would be reduced with the harvest habitat 

maintained treatments. These treatments in dispersal habitat stands are may affect but are not likely to 

adversely affect spotted owls (USFWS 2014).

Spotted Owl Habitat Effects Summary Lang Dam Project:

A summary of the adverse actions anticipated by the Lang Dam project due to habitat modification is 

shown in Table 20 and Table 21. No northern spotted owl sites would be adversely affected by habitat 

modification and associated activities, and there would be no take or harm to spotted owls with this 

project.

Table 20 Summary of Adverse Effects due to Spotted Owl Habitat Modification 

Project Name Proposed Activity Current Habitat 

Type

Post-treatment 

Habitat LAA (Acres)

Lang Dam HH Remove Suitable non-habitat 17

Grand Total (acres) 486

Table 21 Lang Dam Project Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl

Lang Dam Project Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl

Spotted Owl Habitat Modification May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Noise Disturbance? May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Effects to Critical Habitat No Effect, not located within Critical Habitat

Habitat Modification within 300 meter nest 

patch?

No
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 65

Lang Dam Project Effects to the Northern Spotted Owl

Habitat Modification within 0.5 mile nest core? No

Habitat Modification within 1.2 mile home 

range?

No removal of suitable owl habitat within 1.2 mile home range

Take? No

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 

Since there would be no effects with Alternative 1, there are no cumulative effects to consider.

Alternative 2 

The evaluation above incorporates past Forest Service activities in the Lang Dam project area in the 

analysis of the current condition (e.g. estimate of suitable and dispersal spotted owl habitat available 

accounts for past timber harvest). The other currently ongoing or planned activities in the Lang Dam 

project area would not remove any suitable spotted owl habitat withinthe home ranges of the two 

known activity centers. 
66 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Proposed Threatened and Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife

Sensitive species are species that are not federally listed under the Endangered Species Act, but that are 

designated by the Forest Service and given special consideration in project analysis due to viability 

concerns. The goal of the Forest Service is to manage for these species so that they would not become 

federally threatened or endangered. Effects of the alternatives on Forest Service sensitive species were 

considered in a project Wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE). This environmental assessment tiers to the 

analysis in the BE and provides a summary of the effects. Five sensitive species have habitat or potential 

suitable habitat in the project area and were analyzed in detail in the project BE. One of these species, 

the Crater Lake tightcoil, is on both the “Sensitive” species list and the “Survey and Manage” species list;

therefore discussions of effects to this species would be limited to the table below and the Survey and 

Manage species discussion section.

Summary of Effects

No impacts to the habitat of Pacific Pond Turtles would occur. Alternative 2 may adversely impact 

individual Townsend’s Big-eared and Fringed Myotis bats, but would not likely result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing. Snag habitat enhancement may benefit 

these bat species.

Figure 9 Pacific Pond Turtle at Strube Ponds in the Lang Dam Project Area.

Pacific Pond Turtle

This species inhabit ponds, marshes, rivers, and streams, preferring those with rocky or muddy bottoms 

and aquatic vegetation (watercress, cattails, etc.). These turtles feed on aquatic plants, carrion, and 

insects. They have been found from sea level to about 3,800 feet elevation, although they are more 

common below 2,000 feet. 

Pond Creek which borders Lang Dam unit 80 contains slow moving water habitat and beaver ponds, 

which may be used by the Pacific Pond Turtle. However, the relatively dense canopy may make this pond 

of lower habitat quality than if it were to be more open to sunlight, which turtles need. This area was 

surveyed in 2015 during the planning of the Lang Dam Project, and no turtles were detected. During 

planning of the Delta Thin Timber Sale in 1995, pond turtle surveys were also conducted in Pond Creek, 

with no turtles found (April 25 and June 30, 1995 and later additional visits that year). During all of the 

above surveys, no relatively open, suitable nesting habitat which consists of the preferred clay soil type 

with a high sun exposure was found.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 67

Fisher

It is unlikely that fishers occur in the project area. While there have been three reported Fisher sightings 

on the McKenzie River Ranger District (Forest Service NRIS database), none of these have been verified 

with a photo or DNA. The last verified records of fishers on the Willamette National Forest were in the 

1940s with the exception of a 2014 detection at the very south end of the Forest. This individual fisher 

may only be from a dispersing male from the recent fisher reintroduction at Crater Lake.

Townsend’s Big-Eared and Fringed Myotis Bats

These two bat species are known to roost in tree and snag cavities and under loose bark (Lacki et al. 

2007). On the west side of the Cascades, snags are thought to be the main roosting habitat for fringed 

myotis and a minor roosting component for Townsend’s big-eared bats (Ormsbee personal 

communication). No tree/snag roost sites have been documented by the Forest Service in the project 

area or on the Forest, but such sites are very difficult to detect. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Pacific Pond Turtle

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would have no impact on the Pacific Pond Turtle because no habitat impacts would occur.

Alternative 2

With the recommended no-cut stream buffer of 180 feet to protect the riparian area and water quality

in Pond Creek, no impacts to the habitat of Pacific Pond Turtles would occur (Chapter 2 Design Features). 

There is an opportunity to fall trees into the pond/creek area which may enhance this habitat for Pacific 

pond turtles.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 

Since Alternative 1 would have not cause any impacts to the habitat of Pacific Pond Turtles, there are no 

cumulative effects to be considered.

Alternative 2

Since Alternative 2 would have not cause any impacts to Pacific Pond turtles, there are no cumulative 

effects to be considered. The Lower South Fork Floodplain Enhancement Project is currently being 

planned in the Lang Dam project, and would benefit turtle habitat by restoring slow-moving side channel 

habitat and creating five small ponds. There are no other ongoing or future planned projects in the Lang 

Dam project area that would impact turtles.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fisher

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would have no impact on the fisher. Stands under 40 years old would develop diverse 

structure more gradually compared to thinning them now. As these stands continue to thin themselves 

out, the small openings would begin to show more understory forbs, shrubs, and a second layer of 

conifers, moving these stands towards late-successional habitat which would benefit fishers. The older 

stands in the Lang Dam area would continue to develop towards old-growth habitat conditions, which 

should improve habitat conditions for fishers. Alternative 1 would not affect these stands, which, barring 

high-intensity fire or other large scale disturbance, would continue to develop forest structure like tree 

cavities for resting and natal dens that would benefit fisher if they occurred in the watershed.
68 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2

Due to the fact that Fisher has not credibly been documented to occur on the McKenzie River Ranger 

District, Alternative 2 is very unlikely to affect the Fisher, yet some potential Fisher habitat may be 

affected. Alternative 2 of the Lang Dam Project includes thinning approximately 53 acres (footprint acres 

which includes about 7 acres of no-cut skips) of stands over 80 years old. These older stands contain 

higher quality potential habitat for this species. Thinning proposed in Alternative 2 would degrade 

potential fisher habitat by reducing future snag and downed wood sources and by reducing forest 

canopy that could aid in thermoregulation (Raley et al. 2012). However, some forest structure of value to 

fishers would remain with the overstory tree retention that would be left and with the snags and 

downed wood that would be created and enhanced within about 120 acres of riparian reserves Table 5. 

Additional snags and downed wood may be created and enhanced throughout many units. Unit harvests 

would leave most of the largest overstory trees, however, depending on tree spacing, they may not 

always be retained. Alternative 2 would impact less than 1 percent of 1 hypothetical female fisher home 

range based on where units over 80 years of age are clustered. Less than 1 percent of 1 hypothetical 

male fisher home range may be impacted. Alternative 2 would retain sufficient habitat to provide for 

fishers should they reestablish in the area in the future.

The management recommendation to leave and/or create large down wood (EA Design Criteria in 

Chapter 2) may ensure habitat requirements of this species are met, and would provide long-term 

potential future habitat benefits to Fishers, if they occur in the area.

Fisher is not likely to currently inhabit the Lang Dam project area and thus, any effects to potential 

habitat are unlikely to occur. Due to the lack of any documented presence of the Fisher on the McKenzie 

River Ranger District, it is my determination that Alternative 2 would not impact this species. In the 

longer term (>10 years), with the potential for large down wood creation where it is currently scarce, 

Alternative 2 may benefit potential Fisher habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Since Alternative 1 would have not caused any impacts to the habitat of fisher, there are no cumulative 

effects to be considered.

Alternative 2

Considering this project as well as past, present, and reasonably certain future projects, over 50 percent 

of the Lang Dam project area would remain in forest habitat greater than 80 years of age (EA Chapter 3, 

Forest and Stand Structure). No stands over 180 years of age would be modified and thus, about 20% of 

the project area would provide older forest habitat structures as potential high quality fisher habitat. The 

Lower South Fork Floodplain Enhancement Project is currently in the planning stage, and would remove 

or modify approximately 33 acres of older forest habitat in the project area. Alternative 2 would retain 

sufficient habitat to provide for fishers should they reestablish in the area in the future.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Townsend’s Big-eared and Fringed Myotis Bats

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no impact on Townsend’s Big-eared and Fringed Myotis bats. Stands under 40 

years old would develop diverse structure more gradually compared to thinning them now. Snag and 

down wood development would occur naturally over time, primarily within the next 20-40 years as the 

stands thin themselves, benefitting habitat for the Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s Big-eared bat. Stands 

between 40-80 years old would continue to grow larger tree diameters. As these stands continue to thin 

themselves out, the small openings would begin to show more understory forbs, shrubs, and a second 

layer of conifers, moving these stands towards late-successional habitat which would benefit bats. The 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 69

older stands in the Lang Dam area would continue to slowly develop towards late-successional habitat 

conditions, which should improve future habitat for fringed myotis Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing. Snag habitat enhancement may benefit these 

bat species.

Changes to foraging habitat:

Bats readily forage over large areas, and use a variety of habitats including open and forested areas. 

Alternative 2 would create approximately 39 acres of open forested habitat with some larger trees and 

snags in small gaps. An additional approximately 347 acres would be thinned with Alternative 2 (harvest 

acres excluding skips). The site-specific effect of this change to bat foraging habitat is uncertain, and 

could range from negative to beneficial. The magnitude of the effects on foraging habitat at the 

landscape and forest level scales are insignificant, however, because Alternative 2 harvest acres affects

approximately 9 percent of the Lang Dam project area, and about 0.04 percent of the Willamette 

National Forest.

Amount of roosting habitat affected/Changes to roosting structures:

Proposed harvest units under 80 years of age currently contain little to no snag habitat, and few 

potential bat roosting trees/snags that may be used by bats would be lost with Alternative 2. The 

approximately 53 (footprint) acres of stands over 80 years of age proposed for harvest in Alternative 2 do 

contain higher levels of snag habitat than the younger plantations. These snags may be lost if they are a 

safety hazard during the logging operation. Some of these stands would also have prescribed burning 

treatments after logging which is likely to result in some additional loss of snag habitat. Loss of hazard 

trees larger than 12” diameter which may have some bat roosting crevices along the haul route may also 

impact individual roost trees or snags used by this species.

Lang Dam units 210 and 220 contain some large snags and decadent features that might provide 

potential tree roost sites for bats, but at a much lower abundance than would be found in old-growth 

forests. Proposed timber harvest in the stands over 80 years of age would retain some of the larger trees 

and a few large snags, but the harvest and subsequent underburns would largely degrade bat roosting 

tree habitat on about 53 acres. These are the unit footprint acres and some additional snags in adjacent 

skips or outside unit boundaries may be lost if they are safety hazards in the logging or underburn 

operation. However, prescribed underburning may create additional snags that might be used by bats 

after 10 or more years. In addition, snag creation is recommended on 521 acres (15 out of 21 units) at 

the rate of 1-4/acre (Chapter 2 Design Features).

Stands mapped as suitable spotted owl habitat were used as a proxy for potential bat tree roost habitat 

because they contain larger trees and snags. It is estimated that there are about 2,628 and 804,700 acres 

of potential bat tree roosting habitat in the Lang Dam project area and on the Willamette National 

Forest, respectively. On the Willamette National Forest, this makes up about 48 percent of the total 

forest acres. In the Lang Dam project area, it comprises about 37 percent of the total acres. Alternative 2 

would degrade about 0.6 percent (approximately 89 acres) of the estimated bat tree roosting habitat in 

the Lang Dam project area, and 0.002 percent of the total Willamette National Forest bat tree roosting 

habitat.

Because the final stand canopy closure in the older stand thinning units (210 and 220) would remain 

above 15%, and additional snags and downed wood would be created, it is estimated that in about 80 

years, the proposed harvest units would regenerate to a two-layered stand that would begin to resemble 

old-growth as described by USFS (1986). At that time, these stands would still be lower quality bat 
70 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

roosting habitat than the untreated stands in Alternative 1 because they would have fewer large snags 

and large decadent tree components.

Potential for direct mortality to bats:

Fringed myotis have strong fidelity to natal roost sites and pups are weaned by the end of July to the end 

of August depending on factors such as lateness of spring (Ormsbee pers. comm.). If snags or trees used 

as natal sites are fallen prior to that time, it is likely that some or all the pups and adults would be killed. 

Mitigation measures would protect some snags, but some would be fallen for safety and operational 

reasons. Some logging may occur before pups are weaned in late summer, especially in years when 

parturition is delayed. Thus there is a possibility that direct mortality to bat pups could occur as a result 

of timber harvest in Alternative 2. The possibility of a natal colony being directly harmed by logging is 

very low, however, because the bats are thought to be relatively uncommon and natal colonies are 

thought to occur at low densities on the landscape. Stands 80-100 years old that are proposed for 

treatment with Alternative 2 have lower potential for bat roostiing than old growth forests or forests 

with substantial numbers of 250-year old trees. Any scattered remnant trees within these stands would 

not be cut unless they are a safety hazard, i.e. had a broken top. The approximately 53 acres of older 

forests (counting those over 80 years of age) harvested in Alternative 2 represents about 0.03 percent of 

the estimated total potential bat tree roosting habitat for these species in the Lang Dam project area.

Additional mitigation measures are proposed that would reduce the possibility of direct mortality further 

(see Design Criteria section below). As the numbers of natal sites increases, so does the possibility that 

impacting approximately 53 acres of forest would impact a site. However, as the number of sites 

increases on the forest, the chance that loss of a single site would result in the species no longer 

maintaining a viable population on the Forest inversely diminishes because many unaffected natal sites 

would still exist.

Up to 588 acres of post-harvest prescribed underburning may kill a small number of green trees or burn 

large snags which may be additional loss of large tree/snag bat roosting habitat. However, generally the 

underburning would take place in spring conditions when fuels are somewhat moist, and it should not 

cause loss of much habitat. Tree mortality would in the longer term lead to the creation of suitable bat 

roosting habitat once the tree bark begins to peel off from the tree, leaving suitable bat roosting 

crevices. 

There is a small risk that any snag or hazard tree cutting due to operating and safety concerns would 

cause mortality to these bat species. There is a chance that bats would escape if trees or snags they are 

roosting in are cut.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 

Since Alternative 1 would have not cause any impacts to the habitat of bats, there are no cumulative 

effects to be considered.

Alternative 2

The evaluation above incorporates past Forest Service activities in the Lang Dam project area in the 

analysis of the current condition (e.g. estimate of potential bat roosting habitat available accounts for 

past timber harvest) and assumed all of the younger stands are unsuitable for bat tree roosting. Other 

currently ongoing activities in the Lang Dam project area that could result in impacts to bat habitat are 

the Buck Thin and 7 Thin Timber Sale which would log about 134 acres in younger stands under 80 years 

of age. The 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project was recently completed which removed 

understory vegetation <7” dbh in approximately 94 acres of stands of mixed ages ranging from 40-100 

years of age. The Lower 19 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is currently being analyzed and 

proposes treatment of 520 acres in the Lang Dam project area. The Lower South Fork Floodplain 

Enhancement Project is another project that is currently in the planning stage that would remove 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 71

approximately 33 acres of suitable owl habitat in the project area. Together with the proposed Lang Dam 

Project Alternative 2, these projects would result in impacts to 563 acres of older forests or 

approximately 15 percent of the Lang Dam project area. The effects of the hazardous fuels treatments 

considered in this analysis would be negligible because only few older trees or snags would be lost. 

Viability would still be maintained throughout the project area, and the Lang Dam Project would not 

cause a trend toward federal listing.

Survey and Manage Species

The Northwest Forest Plan was amended with standards and guidelines for conducting project surveys 

and managing known sites for certain rare or endemic species that were associated with late 

successional forest habitat (Forest Service and BLM 2001). Species covered by this direction are referred 

to here as “Survey and Manage” species. There are four wildlife Survey and Manage species on the 

Willamette National Forest: Crater Lake tightcoil snail, Oregon Megomphix snail, red tree vole, and great 

gray owl.

Summary of Effects

Survey and Manage Species: While this project may impact individual Oregon Megomphix snails, it is not 

expected to result in any issues for population viability of this species. Alternative 2 would remove or 

thin approximately 53 acres (footprint acres with skips included) of red tree vole habitat in stands over 

80 years of age, but would not affect any documented red tree vole nest areas. Alternative 2 would 

create about 65 acres of open habitat (39 acres of gaps and 26 acres of dominant tree release) which 

may enhance opportunities for great gray owl foraging. For all proposed units in Alternative 2, there 

would be no treatment within 10 meters of perennially wet areas, and there should be no impact to the 

Crater Lake Tightcoil. 

Oregon Megomphix

This snail occurs at low to moderate elevations, below the zone of seasonally persistent snow pack. 

Megomphix snails are most often found within the mat of decaying vegetation under sword ferns and 

big-leaf maple trees and near rotten logs. Most occupied sites are on well-shaded slopes and terraces, 

and many are near streams (Management Recommendations for Terrestrial Mollusk Species: 

Megomphix hemphilli, the Oregon Megomphix, Version 2.0, Applegarth 2000). Oregon Megomphix is in 

S&M Category “A” in Linn County and this project is in Lane County, so surveys are not required.

However, the guidelines do require management of known sites as of 9/30/99. In western Oregon most 

Megomphix locations are between 500-1500 feet, with 2540 feet being the highest elevation at which 

this species has been found (Forest Service and BLM 1999), however there has been a location found at 

about 3000’ elevation on the McKenzie River Ranger District and thus, this elevation is being used as the 

Megomphix habitat upper elevation level for the habitat analysis.

Red Tree Vole

Standards and guidelines to conduct red tree vole surveys and protect nest sites were developed, along 

with other habitat protection measures from the Northwest Forest Plan, to provide a reasonable 

assurance of persistence of certain species, such as red tree vole, which were believed to be rare and 

uncommon across the range of the Northwest Forest Plan at the time it was developed. For vertebrate 

species, like voles, this persistence objective is consistent with the goals of providing for viable and welldistributed populations under the National Forest Management Act Regulations (Forest Service and BLM 

2001:3-4; Forest Service and BLM 1994:43-47). 

Five red tree vole nests are currently known from the project area that were found during past timber 

sale surveys for Ridgecat and Cat Thin. Two of these nests were active in 1999 and 2000, and are located 

in units 60 and 130, both of which are young stands that are about 44 and 53 years old, respectively. The 

area surrounding the historic nest sites was intensively surveyed during fieldwork activities in 2015, 
72 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

however no nests were seen on September 25, 2015 and September 29, 2015. Three additional nests 

outside the proposed unit boundaries were also found during the 1999 surveys with one being active 

and the other two inactive.

Surveys for the red tree vole were conducted in 2015 in all proposed Alternative 2 stands over 80 years 

of age if they met the survey requirements in the Red Tree Vole Survey Protocol Version 3.0 (Forest 

Service and BLM 2012) (units 180, 210, and 220). Stand exam data later determined that units 210 and 

220 do not have a canopy covers over 60% and thus, they do not need to be surveyed. Unit 151 was 

surveyed although the stand age is under 80 years because it does contain some large remnant overstory 

trees. No red tree vole nests were found. Project surveys were not required in stands to be thinned 

under 80 years of age for Survey and Manage wildlife species due to exemptions “A”, under what is 

commonly known as the “Pechman exemption(s).” 

Great Gray Owl

Individual great gray owls can be found in a wide variety of habitat types. However, forests appear to be 

necessary for reproduction in North America (Habeck 1994, Duncan and Hayward 1994). Examples of 

forest types known to be suitable for great gray owls include: ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), 

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), tamarack (Larix occidentalis), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand 

fir (Abies grandis), mixed conifer- hardwood, aspen (Populus tremuloidus), and other deciduous tree 

types. Platt and Goggins (1991) found great gray owl nests on the Willamette National Forest in mature 

and remnant old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer habitat. Most nests are located near natural 

meadows or manmade openings. Bryan and Forsman (1987) found nests in south central Oregon to be 

less than 980 feet (300m) from the nearest meadow opening. Platt and Goggins (1991) found nests 

within 660 feet (200m) of a timber-harvest-created opening.

NRIS, the Forest Service web-based wildlife sighting database, shows one Great Gray Owl record in the 

Lang Dam project area just below the road in unit 220 (Steve Ackers, 4/17/2013). This is a previously 

harvested stand that currently has about 46% canopy cover. Great Gray Owl surveys have not been 

conducted in the project area.

In some locations like on the Willamette National Forest, shelterwood harvesting has been found to be 

beneficial because it opens up closed forest canopy cover for foraging (Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management 2001). Pre-disturbance survey(s) for Great Gray Owls are not required because the 

proposed harvest units in Alternative 2 do not have proximity to natural openings > 10 acres, and predisturbance surveys are not required in suitable nesting habitat adjacent to man-made openings at this 

time (pg. 14, Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the Northwest Forest Plan v3.0, 

January 12, 2004). The required habitat characteristics of suitable Great Gray Owl habitat include: (1) 

large diameter nest trees, (2) forest for roosting cover, and (3) proximity [within 600 feet] to openings 

that could be used as foraging areas (Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the range of the 

Northwest Forest Plan v3.0, January 12, 2004). 

Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail

This species is associated with areas within 10 meters of perennial wetlands and riparian areas (Duncan 

et al. 2003). 

Surveys were not required for the Lang Dam project because all suitable habitat for Crater Lake Tightcoil 

would be protected with a minimum of a 10m (30 feet) no-harvest buffer. There would be no active fire 

ignitions within this buffer area. Many of the perennial streams and wetlands would have a no-harvest 

buffer which well exceeds this of up to 180 feet (Chapter 2 Design Features).
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 73

Direct and Indirect Effects

Oregon Megomphix

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Oregon Megomphix snail because there would be no changes 

to current habitat near bigleaf maple trees. 

Alternative 2

All Alternative 2 units are below 3000’ elevation and thus, may impact suitable Oregon Megomphix 

habitat on about 645 acres, which is an estimated 10 percent of the suitable habitat in the project area 

(about 6,680 acres below 3000’). While this project may impact individual Oregon Megomphix snails, it is 

not expected to result in any issues for population viability of this species. The NRIS database accessed 

on June 7, 2016 shows there are four 1999 records of the Oregon Megomphix in the project area. These 

known locations are not within or near any proposed units. In addition, there are 90 more Oregon 

Megomphix records just to the west of the Lang Dam project area, which indicates they are quite 

abundant in the vicinity. The NRIS database accessed on August 6, 2014 showed over 163 records of the 

Oregon Megomphix on the Willamette National Forest. These locations were detected with limited 

survey work over several years, and this number is likely only a very small percentage of all the 

Megomphix locations on the Forest. While impacts to individuals may occur, the overall population 

viability would not be impacted.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Since Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Oregon Megomphix snail, there are no cumulative 

effects to be considered for this species.

Alternative 2

Past actions which may still be impacting Megomphix habitat in the Lang Dam project area includes the 

the recently completed 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project which removed the understory 

under 7” dbh on 94 acres and may have reduced the habitat quality by reducing understory hiding cover 

and shade that this snail requires. Two other ongoing projects include the 7-Thin Stewardship Reoffer 

which includes 80 acres of thinning and three acres of gaps; and the Buck Thin Timber Sale which 

includes 51 acres of stand thinning. The Lower 19 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is currently 

being planned, and would treat a 520-acre area by thinning the understory vegetation. The Lower South 

Fork Floodplain Enhancement Project is another project that is currently in the planning stage that would 

remove or modify approximately 121 acres of Megomphix habitat in the project area. (Appendix D). 

Combined with the Lang Dam Project acres, these projects would impact Megomphix habitat on 

approximately 1,420 acres or approximately 19% of the suitable Megomphix habitat in the Lang Dam 

project area. Considering the effects of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on 

Oregon Megomplix in the project area, there are no concerns for future persistence or population 

viability. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Red Tree Vole

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no direct effect on the red tree vole. Thinning of 628 acres of younger stands 

would not occur, and those stands would take longer to achieve higher quality red tree vole habitat 

characteristics, including larger tree canopies and diverse structure.
74 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would remove or thin approximately 53 acres (footprint acres with skips included) of red 

tree vole habitat in stands over 80 years of age, but would not affect any documented red tree vole nest 

areas.

Suitable spotted owl habitat can be used to estimate the amount of the highest quality red tree vole 

habitat in the project area. There are currently about 2,628 acres of higher quality red tree vole habitat 

in the project area, and Alternative 2 would remove or thin about 0.6 percent. Because of the number of 

overstory trees that are being left, the stand would return to conditions matching the description of 

suitable red tree vole habitat (Forest Service and BLM 2012) in about 50-60 years. About 628 (footprint) 

acres of lower quality red tree vole habitat in stands under 80 years of age would also be impacted. 

While nests in younger or more open-canopied stands are less likely to be present, they may still occur. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Since Alternative 1 would have no effect on the red tree vole, there are no cumulative effects to be 

considered for this species.

Alternative 2

Other recently completed projects in the Lang Dam project area which have impacted red tree vole 

habitat quality include the 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project which removed the understory 

under 7” dbh on 94 acres, about half of which was higher quality red tree vole habitat. This project may 

have reduced red tree vole habitat quality. Two other ongoing projects include the 7-Thin Stewardship 

Reoffer which includes 80 acres of thinning and three acres of gaps; and the Buck Thin Timber Sale which 

includes 51 acres of stand thinning, all of which are occurring in lower quality red tree vole habitat. The 

Lower 19 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is currently being planned, and would treat a 520-acre 

area by non-commercially thinning the understory vegetation in older, high quality red tree vole habitat 

stands. The Lower South Fork Floodplain Enhancement Project is currently in the planning stage that 

would remove or modify approximately 33 acres of higher quality red tree vole habitat, or about 88 

acres of lower quality habitat in the project area. Considering all of these projects combined with 

Alternative 2 for the Lang Dam Project, about 617 acres of higher quality stands over 80 years of age, 

and about 897 acres of lower quality red tree vole habitat in stands under 80 years of age would be 

impacted. This represents about 17% of the higher quality stands in the Lang Dam project area being 

impacted, with about 2% of this amount resulting from the Lang Dam Project. Considering the effects of 

all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on red tree voles in the project area, there 

are no concerns for future red tree vole persistence or population viability. All Survey and Manage 

guidelines are being followed in the Lang Dam Project.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Great Gray Owl

Alternative 1

Since Alternative 1 would have no effect on the great gray owl, there are no cumulative effects to be 

considered for this species.

Alternative 2

Decades of successful fire suppression, coupled with past timber harvest and dense planting, has 

resulted in a limited quantity of openings to support great gray owls.

Alternative 2 would create about 65 acres of open habitat (39 acres of gaps and 26 acres of dominant 

tree release) which may enhance opportunities for great gray owl foraging. On the west slope of the 

Cascades, the cutting of openings into forest stands initiates an early successional stage that can support 

small mammal populations likely to be used by great gray owls up to about ten years post-harvest 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 75

(Quintana-Coyer et al. 2004). Unit 220 has the heaviest thin planned with a final post-harvest canopy 

cover of about 20%. The 2013 great gray owl sighting in unit 220 indicates some degree of foraging use, 

and with the proposed thinning to a final post-harvest canopy of approximately 20% the foraging habitat 

quality for great gray owls would improve. Other units to be thinned would have a final post-harvest 

canopy cover of 30-40% and thus, stands would only be moderately open for less than about ten years 

until the canopies close in again. This would only slightly improve foraging opportunities for great gray 

owls. For those units with older trees (units 180, 210, and 220), most of the largest overstory trees

would be retained, which are the trees which may be used by Great Gray Owls for nesting. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Great gray owls would be impacted by Alternative 1 because no additional openings would be created 

that would improve their limited foraging opportunities. Decades of successful fire suppression, coupled 

with past timber harvest and dense planting, has resulted in a limited quantity of openings to support 

great gray owls.

Alternative 2

Past actions which may have improved great gray owl foraging opportunities in the Lang Dam project 

area include the recently completed 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project which removed the 

understory under 7” dbh on 94 acres, making the stand more open for great gray owl foraging. Since 

larger down wood and root wad structures are still present in the understory, this should still provide for 

adequate small mammal hiding and denning opportunities. Increased sunlight has also stimulated grass 

and forb seed development which benefits small mammals and thus, the predatory great gray owls. Two 

other ongoing projects include the 7-Thin Stewardship Reoffer which includes 80 acres of thinning and 

three acres of gaps; and the Buck Thin Timber Sale which includes 51 acres of stand thinning. Portions of 

the planned Lower 19 Road Hazardous Fuels Project on approximately 520 acres may also lead to some 

slight foraging habitat improvements for great gray owls because the understory would be cleared out. 

The Lower South Fork Floodplain Enhancement Project is another project currently in the planning stage 

that would remove or modify approximately 121 acres of forest stands in the project area which may 

benefit small mammal prey of great gray owls. Considering the above-mentioned projects combined 

with Alternative 2 for the Lang Dam Project, about 1,441 acres of stands would be opened up, which 

may improve foraging habitat quality for great gray owls which have been recently seen in the Lang Dam 

project area. There is also a permanent linear opening in the Lang Dam project area due to a 

transmission line, which provides approximately 9 acres of permanent foraging habitat. Because nesting 

great gray owls are generally associated with larger, more permanent openings, it is unknown if all of the 

above-mentioned projects would provide adequate foraging habitat for nest establishment in the area. 

Since all of the above projects would retain most of the largest overstory trees, nest trees for great gray 

owls would continue to be present across the Lang Dam Project Landscape.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Crater Lake Tightcoil snail.

Alternative 2

For all proposed units in Alternative 2, there would be no treatment within 10 meters of perennially wet 

areas, and there should be no impact to this mollusk. Protection buffers are being placed around 

perennial wetlands where they occur near or in the proposed harvest units, and prescribed fire 

treatments would not allow fire to be lit in the 10m riparian buffer area following the management 
76 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

recommendations for this species and thus, no impacts to this species is expected (Forest Service and 

BLM, 1999).

With the above measures in place, overall population viability in the project area and on the Willamette 

National Forest would be maintained, and the persistence of this species should not be compromised. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Since Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Crater Lake Tightcoil snail, there are no cumulative 

effects to be considered for these species. 

Alternative 2

Since Alternative 2 would have no effect on the Crater Lake Tightcoil snail, there are no cumulative 

effects to be considered for this species.

Management Indicator Species

Summary of Effects

Viable populations of these species would be maintained at the Forest Level. While the loss of snags may 

impact habitat for these species, snag mitigation and enhancement would benefit these species. 

Alternative 2 would have beneficial impacts on elk and deer, minor impacts to pileated woodpeckers, 

and no impacts to marten, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The use of Management Indicator Species (MIS) in project planning was established by the 1982 National 

Forest Management Act planning regulations. Management Indicator Species are species whose 

response to land management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a wide range of 

species with similar habitat requirements. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1990 

Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identified MIS and the rationale for 

their selection (Forest Service 1990: III-69, Table 22). Viable populations of MIS would be maintained at 

the Forest Level. The effects of the alternatives on northern spotted owl are addressed above in the 

specific section for that species. The project Biological Evaluation concluded that the alternatives would 

have no impact on peregrine falcons because there is no high quality nesting habitat in the Lang Dam 

project area. The Biological Evaluation also determined that the alternatives would have no impact on 

bald eagles because the alternatives do not affect lakes and fish streams. The effects of the alternatives 

on the remaining MIS are addressed below.

Table 22 Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Willamette National Forest and Lang Dam Project 

Alternative 2 Impacts

Indicator Species Indicator Habitat Reason Selected in 

1990

Lang Dam Alternative 2 

Impacts 

cavity excavators1 dead and decaying trees ecological indicator, 

limited habitat

Loss of snags may impact, 

snag mitigation and 

enhancement would benefit

elk winter range commonly hunted Beneficial

deer winter range commonly hunted Beneficial

pileated woodpecker old growth and mature 

conifers

ecological indicator, 

limited habitat

Minor impact
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 77

Indicator Species Indicator Habitat Reason Selected in 

1990

Lang Dam Alternative 2 

Impacts 

marten old growth and mature 

conifers

ecological indicator, 

limited habitat

No impact

northern spotted owl2 old growth and mature 

conifers

ecological indicator, 

limited habitat, proposed 

threatened species2

Likely to Adversely Affect

bald eagle3 old growth conifers near 

large bodies of water

federally threatened 

species3

No impact

peregrine falcon3 cliff nesting habitat near 

abundant prey

federally endangered 

species3

No impact

1

Forest Service (1990) identified the following species in this group: red-breasted nuthatch, northern flicker, hairy woodpecker, 

downy woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, Lewis woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and northern three-toed woodpecker.

2

Became a federally threatened species in June 26, 1990, as the Willamette NF Plan was being finalized.

3

Bald eagles and peregrine falcons were subsequently delisted and are now Forest Service Sensitive Species

Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker, and Deadwood Abundance

Cavity excavator MIS are used as an ecological indicator for the abundance of dead and decaying trees. 

Pileated woodpeckers are MIS that use snags, but also prefer old and mature forests. Cavity excavator 

MIS species that occur or have potential habitat in the proposed Lang Dam Units are red-breasted 

nuthatch, northern flicker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, red-breasted sapsucker, and pileated 

woodpecker. None of these species are federally listed Endangered or Threatened Species, Forest Service 

Sensitive species, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008), or species 

that are regionally identified as having current viability concerns. Population trends for these species 

from breeding bird surveys from 1996─2013 indicate stable populations in Oregon for hairy woodpecker 

and downy woodpecker, and increasing population trends for pileated woodpecker and red-breasted 

sapsucker (Sauer et al. 2014). A decline in northern flicker and red-breasted nuthatch has been detected 

from 1996-2013. Northern flicker is a common resident species that is ubiquitous to most forest habitats 

in Oregon. They are most abundant in open forest habitat and along forest edges with available large (31 

inches dbh or greater) snags (Marshall et al. 2003). The red-breasted nuthatch appears to be fairly 

common in Oregon and is somewhat flexible to use different forest types. This species is showing a slight 

population decline due to intensive forest management that reduces the amount of large diameter 

trees, snags, and structural diversity (Marshall et al. 2003). Despite a recent decline in numbers, both 

northern flickers and red-breasted nuthatches are well above population levels that would suggest a 

viability concern.

DecAID Project Analysis: Snags

A collection of information, referred to as DecAID, has been developed by Region 6 to help projects 

identify the levels of snags and downed logs required to meet wildlife population needs (Forest Service

2012). At the landscape level, DecAID recommends providing dead wood at levels within the range of 

historic variability. The 5th field South Fork McKenzie River watershed (137,567 acres) was used to 

evaluate deadwood at the landscape level for this 645-acre project. Only about nine acres of units 20 

and 60 fall within the adjacent McKenzie River-Quartz Creek 5th field watershed.

DecAID evaluates deadwood levels by wildlife habitat type. The South Fork McKenzie River watershed 

contains five different wildlife habitat types (Table 23). Treatment units within the Lang Dam project are 

made up entirely of Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest (WLCH_C). The other four habitat types, 

WODF, EMC_ECB, MMC, and PARK, do not have any activities proposed in them, and are thus not further 

discussed.
78 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 23 Wildlife Habitat Types in the South Fork McKenzie River Watershed. 

Wildlife Habitat Type Acres

Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forest (EMC_ECB) 1

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (MMC) 69,400

Open Parkland (PARK) 5

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest (WLCH_C) 54,410

Westside Douglas-fir Forest (WODF) 2,262

Table 24 displays the results for the WLCH_C wildlife habitat type for the South Fork McKenzie River 5th 

field watershed and shows that this watershed is currently outside the estimated range of natural 

variability for large snags. Currently, only 8 percent of the acres are in the tolerance level 80 plus 

category compared to the estimated historic condition with a range of 10-30 percent. Various tolerance 

levels/intervals (tl) are displayed that show the proportion of the landscape in the wildlife habitat type 

that would contain the shown range of snag levels in Table 24.

Table 24 Current Percentages of Landscape in Large Snags (>20 inches dbh) in the South Fork McKenzie 

River 5th Field Watershed for the WLCH_C Wildlife Habitat Type.

HUC_10 HU_10_NAME Wildlife 

Habitat Type tl0to30 tl30to50 tl50to80 tl80plus Total Acres

1709000402 South Fork

McKenzie River

WLCH_C 45% 19% 28% 8% 137,567

Median Historic Condition for Willamette National 

Forest (historic variability in parentheses)

30 

(15-45)

20 

(10-30)

30 

(15-45)

20 

(10-30)

1,675,407

The median historic condition for the South Fork McKenzie River watershed was estimated using levels 

of snags and downed logs found in strategic plots in unlogged stands of various ages and an estimate of 

the normal distribution of seral stages derived from the assumed fire return interval. Median values are 

the mid-point where half of the time deadwood levels would be at or higher than that value and about 

half the time they would be at or lower than the value. Studies have indicated that fire frequency and 

severity varied considerably in the past due to substantial variability in weather conditions, and fire 

severity varied from century to century (Wimberley et al. 2000). Therefore, levels of dead wood have 

fluctuated considerably over time and plus or minus 50 percent of the estimated median value was used 

to approximate the historic range of variability. 

DecAID provides information on snag and down wood in three tolerance levels, 30 percent, 50 percent, 

and 80 percent. The 30 percent tolerance level is typically used when considering landscapes that have 

exhibited extensive harvest activity. The 50 percent tolerance level is typically used when considering 

matrix land allocations and 80 percent is typically used when considering late-successional reserves. 

These considerations are general guidelines and it is the responsibility of the biologist to interpret and 

use information from DecAID to best fit the needs of the area being analyzed. 

Table 25 Large Snags/Acre at Various Tolerance Levels for the WLCH_OCA Habitat Type

Tolerance Limit (%)

30 50 80

WCH LG Snags/acre

large tree stands 4.25 6.11 11.66

small to medium tree stands 2.1 4.41 10.6
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 79

Cavity Excavator Snag Population Potential Analysis:

The Willamette National Forest Plan has a Standard and Guideline (FW-121) that states: “Habitat 

capability for primary cavity excavators shall be maintained to provide for at least 40% or greater 

potential populations. Habitat shall be provided and monitored at the subdrainage level.” The method 

that the Forest Plan used to calculate habitat population potential is no longer considered “best science” 

for determining that viable populations would be maintained.

In order to determine the current distribution of large snags and the capability of the landscape to 

support primary cavity excavators, an analysis was conducted at the forest level for all 5th field 

watersheds (February 2016). This analysis estimated the current percentages of the landscape that 

contain various levels of large snag (>20 inches dbh) habitat.

The 20” dbh and above size class available in the DecAID snag analysis data was used in these 

calculations, while the snag population potential method is based on 18” dbh and above. Consequently, 

the results slightly underestimate population potential because snags 18-19.9” dbh are not counted.

Snag habitat potential in each watershed did not include acres on private land. 

The calculations indicate that on the Willamette National Forest, there is a current snag population 

potential of about 54% in the Westside Lowland Conifer Hardwood habitat type (Table 26). At the 5th

field level, all watersheds are above 40%, although some are not much above that value.

In the South Fork McKenzie River watershed, there is a current population potential of about 61%, 

compared to a historic reference condition of about 75% (Table 26).

Table 26 Current (2016) Snag Population Potential for the WLCH_C Wildlife Habitat Type.

Analysis Area Current Historic 

Willamette National 

Forest-all watersheds

54% 73-77%

South Fork McKenzie 

River

61% 75%

Snags in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Habitat Type– DecAID Project 

Analysis

The snag analysis suggests that, for WLCH_OCA habitat, snags are currently below historic levels in the 

South Fork McKenzie River watershed in the 8 percent of the watershed that historically contained high 

numbers of large snags/acre (Table 24). The median reference condition for total snags 20 inches dbh 

(diameter breast high) or larger is about 12/acre on approximately 20 percent of the watershed. The 

median reference condition for smaller and medium snags under 20 inches dbh or larger is 

approximately 11/acre on that same six percent of the landscape.

Currently, within the South Fork McKenzie River watershed, approximately 58 percent of the WLCH_OCA 

habitat is estimated to have low levels of large snags (4/acre) compared to an estimate of 30 percent for 

the median historic condition.

Within the Lang Dam project stands being harvested, 48% of the units proposed show low levels of snags 

<3/acre (Table 27). Snags counted were 14 inch dbh and higher and thus, the difference to historic snag 

levels is greater than the comparison between Table 27 and Table 29.The current low density of snags 

and greater percentage of areas lacking higher levels of snags compared to historic conditions is mainly 

due to past clearcut harvesting that removed existing snags as well as the trees that could provide future 

snags.
80 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Hundreds of wildlife trees have been created in various harvest units in the South Fork McKenzie River 

watershed since the late 1980s to mitigate for the loss of snags from timber harvest and ongoing fire 

suppression activities. Treatments used were blasting, girdling, girdle and inoculate, inoculate, sawtop, 

and combination treatments of sawtop and inoculate. 

Table 27 2015 Snag Field Surveys of the Proposed Lang Dam Units. (Visual estimates of snag habitat over 

14” diameter)

High (>6 

trees/acre)

Moderate (3-6 

trees/acre

Low (<3 

trees/acre)

None

21 Lang Dam units 9% 0% 48% 43%

Due to the lack of areas with high levels of snags as described above, mitigation and/or enhancement is 

being recommended in selected units (Table 6, Design Criteria 34, 35, 36; Table 7).

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Coarse Woody Debris in Matrix 

Management (C-40)

The Northwest Forest Plan specifies that for regeneration harvests, 240 linear feet of logs per acre 

greater than or equal to 20 inches in diameter would be left. Logs less than 20 feet in length cannot be 

counted towards this total, and only decay classes 1 and 2 would be counted. Down logs should reflect 

the species mix of the original stand. In areas of partial harvest, the same basic guidelines should be 

applied, but they should be modified to reflect the timing of stand development cycles where partial 

harvesting is practiced.

Logs in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest 

Current levels of large down logs within proposed Lang Dam stands are within historic levels. Field 

surveys of the Lang Dam proposed units during 2015 showed approximately 27 percent of all proposed 

units with >6 down logs over 14 inches diameter/acre, 23 percent had moderate levels of approximately 

3-6/ large logs acre, and 45 percent had under 3 large logs/acre (Table 29) While many of the plantations 

showed relatively high levels of very large diameter down wood that was left from the original harvest 

which provides excellent habitat benefits, about 45% of the area contains low levels of large down wood.

DecAID Project Analysis

Large down wood, as well as snag densities, have varied considerably from one century to the next due 

to wide fluctuations in fire severity. Table 28 displays an analysis of the current levels of the South Fork

McKenzie River watershed and project area landscape that contain various per acre levels of large logs. 

For example, about 19 percent of the landscape would be expected to contain about 2-4 large logs per 

acre for the predominant WLCH_OCA wildlife habitat type. 

Table 28 Current Levels of the Landscape Containing Various Levels of per Acre Large Log (>20 inches dbh) 

in the South Fork McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed for the WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Type.

HUC_10 HU_10_NAME Wildlife 

Habitat Type 0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 Over 8

1709000403 South Fork McKenzie 

River WLCH_OCA 32% 22% 19% 13% 6% 7%

Current levels of large down logs within proposed Lang Dam stands are within historic levels, and 

population viability for species that depend on this habitat type would be maintained in the Lang Dam 

project area under Alternative 2.

Field surveys of the Lang Dam proposed units during 2015 showed approximately 27 percent of all 

proposed units with >6 down logs over 14 inches diameter/acre, 23 percent had moderate levels of 

approximately 3-6/ large logs acre, and 45 percent had under 3 large logs/acre (Table 29). Many of the 

plantations proposed for treatment with the Lang Dam project show relatively high levels of very large 

diameter down wood that was left from the original harvest, with quite large diameters over 40” which 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 81

provides excellent habitat that would last for many more decades. However, about 45% of the area 

contains low levels of large down wood.

Due to the high amount of areas that currently contain low levels of large down wood in the Lang Dam 

project area as described above, mitigation and/or enhancement is being recommended in selected 

units (Table 3, Table 4, Design Criteria 30, 31 Table 6).

Table 29 2015 Down Wood Field Surveys. Proposed Lang Dam units showed the following visual estimates of 

down wood over 14” diameter.

High (>6 

trees/acre)

Moderate (3-6 

trees/acre

Low (<3 

trees/acre)

None

21 Lang Dam units 27% 23% 45% 5%

Many of the plantations showed relatively high levels of large down wood that was left from the original 

harvest, with quite large diameters over 40”, such that it would last many more decades. 

Elk and Deer

Elk and deer are Forest MIS, not because of viability concerns, but because they are important big game 

hunting species in Oregon. The project area is in the state-designated McKenzie Wildlife Management 

Unit (WMU). Since the beginning of the Willamette Forest Plan in 1990, deer numbers and hunter 

success have fallen by more than 50 percent and elk numbers have declined substantially below Oregon 

Wildlife Population Management Objectives (Forest Service 2011) in that WMU. Reduced forage quality 

and quantity due to the reduction in clearcut logging on the Willamette National Forest are important 

factors in this decline. 

Past harvest activities have shaped the landscape in terms of the types of elk habitat. Harvest treatments 

were primarily clear cuts and patchy regeneration harvest. These harvested units once provided a wealth 

of quality forage for elk but have since grown into hiding and thermal cover. The Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife developed statewide management plans for elk and black-tailed deer (ODFW 2003, 

ODFW 2008) that note the need for higher quality forage areas on National Forest lands. With the 

cessation of large-scale clearcutting in Northwest National Forests, forage quality and populations have 

declined on the Willamette National Forest for both deer and elk as estimated from 1990-2010. Elk 

harvests and hunter success peaked in the late 1990s and have declined since then (ODFW 2003). The 

estimation of elk numbers is not an exact science. The professional consensus of ODFW area managers 

(based on minimum known elk numbers, estimates of animals missed during surveys, and the amount of 

areas lacking counts) is that the Wildlife Management Unit that overlaps the project area is substantially 

below State Population Management Objectives (Brian Wolfer, pers. com. 2014). 

Management objectives for deer and elk habitat apply to specific mapped “Emphasis Areas” within the 

Willamette National Forest. 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 with the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Lang Dam planning area includes portions of three 

designated emphasis areas: Cougar, East Fork and Minor Tributaries (Figure 10), however, all of the 

proposed activities except about nine acres are located in the Cougar emphasis area. The Cougar 

emphasis area has a low quality rating as does the Minor Tributaries area, while the East Fork is rated as 

high. These areas are managed for elk habitat under guidance from the Willamette National 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.
82 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 10 Lang Dam Project Area Elk Emphasis Areas

Elk Model for Lang Dam Project Area 

A Model to Evaluate Elk Habitat in Western Oregon (Wisdom 1986) was used to estimate habitat 

effectiveness (HE), (Willamette National Forest Plan 1990), which is defined as the proportion of 

achievement relative to an optimum condition. The management intent is to maintain effectiveness 

within a range of values with the optimum value being 1.0. HE incorporates and qualifies four key habitat 

attributes: size and spacing of forage (HEs), quality of forage (HEf), cover areas (HEc), and open road 

density through elk habitat (HEr). Each habitat variable is calculated individually and allows for a 

comparison by variable or as a whole (HEI). The elk model considers past and ongoing activities and 

results in an evaluation of the cumulative impacts on habitat from the past, present, and foreseeable 

future actions in the emphasis areas.

Maintaining a balance between cover and forage areas is a key component of elk habitat management in 

the Wisdom model. However, Cook et al. (1998) found that thermal cover did not enhance elk survival 

and production. They also found that thermal cover was not required by elk where food was not limiting, 

and could not compensate for inadequate forage conditions. Further research has shown that high 

summer and fall forage quality is critical to elk reproduction, survival, and population growth and 

stability (Cook et al. 2004). The increased importance of available forage abundance and quality, 

compared to thermal cover has also been supported by nutritional and physiological studies of blacktailed deer (Parker et al. 1999).

Westside Elk Model for the Lang Dam Project Area

Recent research has found that the quality and quantity of summer and fall forage is of great importance 

to elk populations. An increase in summer and fall elk forage quality can directly increase calf weights 

prior to winter, overwinter calf survival, pregnancy rates, adult fall fat accumulation, and herd 

productivity (Cook et al. 2004). The benefits of increased summer forage quality that have been 

demonstrated for elk are also expected for deer. The Westside Elk Model was developed to estimate 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 83

how silviculture treatments affect summer forage quality in western Oregon (Rowland et al. 2013). This 

updated model contains the following two components.

Elk Nutrition Model: The nutrition model predicts dietary digestible energy (DDE) that elk can acquire 

from each plant community during summer. Digestible energy levels in elk diets in summer are affected 

by nutritional adequacy of the various vegetation communities used by elk while foraging and are 

related to reproduction and survival in summer and subsequent seasons. The nutrition model predicts 

DDE for landscapes. There are four inputs to calculate dietary digestible energy: potential natural 

vegetation (PNV) zone, modeling region (1 of 3), canopy cover (%) of live trees, and proportion of total 

live trees (>2.5 cm diameter breast height) that are hardwoods.

Elk Habitat Use Model: The key components that have been identified as important for predicting elk 

habitat use are: 1) dietary digestible energy (higher DDE, higher predicted elk use), 2) distance to roads 

open to public access (farther from roads, higher use), 3) percent slope;, and 4) distance to cover/forage 

edge (closer to edge, higher use).

Table 30 2016 Willamette National Forest analysis of DDE Categories by Elk Emphasis Area.

DDE Class/Elk Emphasis Area Cougar Minor Tributaries East Fork

Poor 43% 57% 23%

Marginal 49% 41% 70%

Good 1% 0.2% 2%

Excellent 1% 0.2% 3%

Non-forested 6% 1% 1%

Marten

Marten are members of the weasel family that prefer mature and old conifer-dominated forest habitat 

and use cavities in snags and logs for denning, resting, and natal sites. Recent information suggests that 

marten primarily only occur in montane conifer forests above about 4000’ elevation on the Forest. A

2012-2015 carnivore detection study in the Mt Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness 

Areas on the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests found 90% of sites sampled (n=31) above 4000’ 

elevation to be occupied by marten (Hiller and McFadden-Hiller 2013; Doerr, personal communication). 

Marten are unlikely to inhabit the Lang Dam project area due to the low to moderate elevations below 

4,000.’ While there have been several reported marten sightings below 4,000’ elevation on the 

Willamette National Forest, none of these sightings has been verified with a photo or DNA evidence.

Cavity Excavators, Pileated Woodpecker, and Deadwood Abundance

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no impact on any cavity excavator MIS or pileated woodpeckers and would not 

affect current levels of snags and dead wood. The forest would continue to develop towards old-growth 

and this should result in a future increase in large snags and large downed logs in those stands and 

improve future habitat for woodpeckers that prefer old forest habitat, such as the pileated woodpecker. 

There would be no increase in habitat for species, such as northern flicker, that prefer forest edges and 

open forest habitat with large snags. There would be no additional wildlife tree and large down wood 

creation.

Alternative 2

The proposed Lang Dam harvest alternatives would affect snags and downed logs on about 9 percent of 

the project area with Alternative 2.
84 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Snag abundance was generally low or non-existent in the plantations and across the Lang Dam project 

area, and thus few large snags would be lost. Units 210 and 220 had the highest snag levels and trees 

with dead tops as well as platform structures, some of which would be lost if they are safety hazards to 

the logging operations. This may lead to an initial decline of snags on about 53 acres in Alternative 2. It 

should be noted that these acres exceed the total harvested acres shown in Table 5 in Chapter 2 because

the latter exclude skips, gaps and untreated Riparian Reserves, all of which may be impacted if they 

contain older snags that pose a safety hazard to the logging operations. Prescribed underburning that 

creates some degree of overstory tree mortality would help improve snag habitat conditions and is 

desirable at a variably low level, up to ten percent (Table 6 in Chapter 2, Design Features). Wildlife tree 

enhancement is recommended on approximately 491 acres in Alternative 2 if funding is available.

Lang Dam design features include a mitigation measure to protect existing snags where possible, a 

mitigation measure to create snags and large down wood in 120 acres of riparian reserves (Table 5), as 

well as a recommendation to enhance snag and down wood habitat in other units (Table 7 and Table 8 in 

Chapter 2).

With the Lang Dam project design features (Table 6 in Chapter 2) that recommend post-harvest 

monitoring and falling 0-3 trees per acre if these levels are not present, downed wood levels would 

initially increase on 492 acres of forest in Alternative 2. The level of dead wood creation would exceed 

the minimum levels needed under Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which are intended for 

regeneration harvest. Created snags would also contribute to future dead wood in the units, but, longterm over 100 years or more, there would be less large downed wood in the harvested acres compared 

to Alternative 1 because timber harvest would remove much of the future deadwood source.

The thinning prescription for the Lang Dam Project would retain canopy cover from 20-59% in the 

harvest units and thus, adequate numbers of leave trees would be retained for the recommended postharvest snag and down wood enhancement. If these recommendations are implemented, Alternative 2

would retain snag and large down wood habitat above minimum Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, 

and the proposed Lang Dam project would temporarily degrade, but not remove, habitat for most cavity 

excavators.

There may be benefits to treating the older stands above 80 years of age in Alternative 2 to Northern 

flickers since they prefer large snags, forest edges, and open forest habitat, all of which would be 

maintained or created by the proposed silviculture treatments. Red-breasted nuthatches would also 

benefit with Alternative 2 because about 489 acres of stands under 80 years old would be thinned (Table 

3), promoting increased structural diversity that benefits this species.

Pileated woodpeckers are also expected to continue to use the older stands after treatment since they 

are known to use shelterwood harvest areas (Forest Service 1990: III-73) and the heavy thin treatment 

proposed for the approximately 38 acres of unit 220 has comparable effects. Assuming that suitable owl 

habitat would be preferred pileated woodpecker habitat, Alternative 2 would remove 17 acres, or less 

than one percent of this habitat in the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because there would be no impacts to cavity excavator MIS, pileated woodpeckers or dead wood with 

Alternative 1, there are no cumulative effects to consider.

Alternative 2 and 3

Using the combined acres of suitable and dispersal owl habitat, which represent forests with trees 

capable of producing 11 inches and larger snags, as a proxy for general cavity excavator habitat, 

Alternative 2 would degrade 10 percent of the habitat in the project area. Hazard tree removal along the 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 85

haul route is also expected to result in a very slight additional decrease in snag habitat within the 

planning area. 

Other currently ongoing activities in the Lang Dam project area that could result in impacts to snag and 

down wood habitat are the Buck Thin and 7 Thin Timber Sale which would log about 134 acres in 

younger stands under 80 years of age which would only result in low levels of snag habitat loss. The 410 

Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project was recently completed which removed understory vegetation 

<7” dbh in approximately 94 acres of stands of mixed ages ranging from 40-100 years of age. The Lower 

19 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is currently being analyzed and proposes understory removal 

treatment of 520 acres in the Lang Dam project area. The Lower South Fork Floodplain Enhancement 

Project is another project that is currently in the planning stage that would remove or modify 

approximately 121 acres of forested stands in the project area. That project may need to fell large snags 

if they are project safety hazards or fall within the reconfigured channel areas. However, that project 

may also provide benefits to down-wood-dependent. Together with the proposed Lang Dam Project 

Alternative 2, these projects would result in impacts to 1514 acres of forests older than 40 years of age, 

or approximately 19 percent of the Lang Dam project area. While the amount of snag habitat loss initially 

would not be high, in the longer term over many decades, the abundance of future snag and the 

subsequent large down wood habitat would be reduced from all of the above activities. 

The private lands that make up 10 percent of the project area are expected to remain relatively poor 

habitat for cavity excavator MIS and pileated woodpeckers. Because Alternative 2 would impact only a 

small amount of the available habitat, snag and downed wood mitigation measures would be 

implemented, the individual MIS species are not on any viability “watch-list”, and, considering 

cumulative effects, future down wood and snag levels are expected to increase as past clearcuts on 

Forest Service lands mature, followed by the first and second thinning treatments. Alternative 2 is

expected to maintain population viability of cavity excavator species and pileated woodpeckers in the 

project area and South Fork McKenzie River watershed, and would not contribute to any loss of viability 

of these species at the larger Forest scale.

Elk and Deer

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would maintain the currently poor and marginal quality big game forage levels in the 

Cougar Elk Emphasis and Lang Dam project area. Current trends of elk habitat development would occur 

naturally over time with Alternative 1. Existing elk foraging habitat in open plantations would continue 

growing denser into hiding cover and then into thermal cover over the next few decades. While the 

overall amount of low quality forage may continue to decrease herd health, elk damage issues in local 

home gardens and adjacent private forest lands in the Lang Dam project area may increase.

In ten years, forage availability is expected to decrease even more in this area as current harvest 

openings grow into hiding cover. In the absence of additional harvest or wildfire, no new foraging areas 

would be created. Current amounts and quality of optimal and thermal cover would not significantly 

change in the next few decades. Within 75 years, all of the existing thermal cover would shift into 

optimal cover. Road density and big game security would not change. Overall habitat quality would 

decrease from the loss of forage. 

Alternative 2

Commercial thinning on 592 acres would change the function of elk habitat from thermal cover to 

mostly lower quality thermal cover that contains small inclusions of forage areas. 53 acres have been 

previously thinned are already in an open forage condition, and thinning them further would improve 

the forage habitat quality further which would last for 15-20 years. Units with a final post-harvest canopy
86 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

cover prescription below 40 percent would not provide thermal cover for 7-15 years and be modified 

hiding cover. However, these more open units would show improved forage habitat conditions compared 

to those with higher final canopies above 40 percent. Improved forage habitat in the thinned areas 

would be relatively short lived. The understory would show temporarily improved shrub and forb 

development due to increased sunlight within stands. Forage created by timber harvest generally lasts 

about 15-20 years until the stands growth into dense plantations that provide less forage.

Early seral foraging habitat would also be created by cutting 1-to-3 acre gaps within thinning units to 

provide small forage openings totaling 39 acres with Alternative 2. Gap forage values would remain 

higher longer, than in the thinned areas surrounding the gaps, depending on tree regeneration within 

the created gaps. While 17 created gap acres would be planted, 22 gap acres would be left to regenerate 

naturally which may allow the area to remain in a forage condition for a few additional years.

From a wildlife perspective, areas with very large gaps or heavy thinning are not recommended due to 

the high abundance of invasive weeds in the Lang Dam project area. The permanent opening for the 

approximately 9 acre transmission line that crosses the Lang Dam project area has had ongoing weed 

treatments for many years, funded both by the Forest Service and external partners such as the Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation. Thus, any newly created openings would be expected to develop major weed 

infestations and thus, a more cautious approach that thins most Lang Dam units more moderately has 

been taken.

Additional benefits to forage quality would occur on the 588 acres proposed for light intensity, patchy, 

post-harvest under burning, which would stimulate understory vegetation growth. Post-harvest 

underburning would provide greater benefits to elk and other species dependent on early seral habitat.

After thinning thermal habitat quality would be low for several years. After this time, thermal habitat 

quality would be improved slightly because trees would have been released, growing taller and larger 

canopies. Additional understory development would also benefit thermal habitat quality. 

There would only be a small reduction in open road densities with Alternative 2, which would 

decommission 0.3 miles and store 3 miles. Alternative 2 would result in an increase in disturbance 

throughout the implementation timeframe of this project (2-10 years) due to an additional 2.2 miles of 

temporary roads and increased traffic to access thinning stands. All temporary roads would be removed 

once activities are completed. 

Past management activities initially resulted in an abundance of forage habitat with the many acres of 

regeneration harvesting that occurred in the Lang Dam project area. More recently, a lack of 

regeneration harvest has allowed these forests to grow into hiding and thermal cover to create the 

current condition represented by Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative. The overall impact of the 

proposed action is that thermal cover in treated stands would be changed to lower quality thermal 

cover, hiding cover, or forage. Additional thermal cover does not enhance elk survival or production 

(Cook et al. 1998). 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

With Alternative 1, most of the elk and deer foraging habitat would be created on private land. 

Combined with other ongoing projects such as the ongoing Buck Thin, 7 Thin Stewardship, recently 

completed 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project and the planned Lower 19 Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction Project, about 748 acres or about 10 percent of the Lang Dam project area would be treated, 

resulting in newly improved foraging habitat conditions of low to moderate quality.

Alternative 2

Thinning the proposed 645 acres in Alternative 2, combined with other ongoing projects such as the 

Buck Thin, 7 Thin Stewardship, the recently completed 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project and 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 87

the planned Lower 19 Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project and South Fork Floodplain Enhancement 

Project, would result in improvements to about 1,514 acres or about 19 percent of the Lang Dam Project 

area for elk and deer foraging habitat. The combined effect would result in newly improved foraging 

habitat conditions of moderate quality. The Cougar Elk Emphasis Area would show increased levels of elk 

foraging on important winter range. The effects of this are likely to positively influence elk abundance in 

adjacent Emphasis Areas.

Given what is known about local deer and elk populations, the future viability of these species is assured 

and they would continue to benefit from habitat restoration opportunities that continue to be 

implemented – especially when conducted at an appropriate scale.

Marten

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would maintain the current forest habitat and the stands would continue to develop large 

diameter trees, large snags, and large downed logs as the stands progress into old growth forests. 

Structural features that marten prefer would continue to increase over time.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would not proposed any harvest activities above 4000’ elevation and thus, there would be 

no impact to marten habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2

Because there are no impacts to marten, the Lang Dam project has no cumulative effects on this species. 

Migratory Birds

Summary of Effects

Alternative 2 would remove about 53 acres over 80 and up to 117 years of age, and thin about 592 acres 

between 40 and 80 years of age. The older stands over 80 years of age provide habitat for bird species 

like the northern goshawk, which prefer older conifer forests. Alternative 2 would impact less than 1 

percent of the suitable goshawk habitat in the project area. Alternative 2 would also create about 39

acres of 1-3 acre gaps, and about 26 acres of dominant tree releases. About 22 of those acres would not 

be planted following harvest, which would benefit migratory birds that use this complex early seral 

habitat.

Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U. S.C. 703-704). The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the 

United States. However, under Executive Order (EO) 13186, all federal agencies are charged with the 

conservation and protection of migratory birds. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU 2008) between 

the Forest Service (FS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires, during NEPA planning, that the FS, to 

the extent practical, evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects to migratory birds against any 

short- or long-term adverse effects. It also requires the FS to consider approaches, to the extent 

practical, for identifying and minimizing take of migratory birds that is incidental to otherwise lawful 

activities. Region 6 has compiled information to assist biologists in disclosing effects to avian species 

during NEPA planning (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 2013). Effects to FS sensitive 

birds, federally ESA listed birds, and birds that are Management Indicator Species have been addressed 

above. Four additional migratory bird species that have been identified by USFWS as Species of 

Conservation Concern in the Northern Pacific Forest (USFWS 2008) and that have habitat in the 
88 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

proposed treatment units are addressed in this section. These four species are northern goshawk, 

Rufous hummingbird, olive-sided flycatcher, and purple finch.

An emerging concern for migratory birds in the Pacific Northwest is declining early-successional forest 

habitat (Swanson et al. 2010). Early seral conifer habitat is important habitat for many migratory bird 

species, including three of the above Species of Conservation Concern (Altman and Hagar 2007). In 

particular, there is a lack of complex early seral habitat, which is early successional forests with abundant 

and diverse shrub understory composition, high abundance of large diameter snags and downed logs, 

and substantial green tree retention. While private logging lands may create early seral habitat, large 

diameter snags, downed logs and live leave trees are rarely retained in any quantity, and shrub and forb 

understory species may be suppressed by herbicide treatments. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would have no direct effect on migratory bird habitat and would not increase habitat for 

early-seral species. The Lang Dam units would continue to develop towards old growth forest conditions

over many decades, resulting in improved nesting and foraging habitat for northern goshawks and other 

species that prefer this habitat.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would remove about 53 acres over 80 and up to 117 years of age, and thin about 592 acres 

between 40 and 80 years of age. The older stands over 80 years of age provide habitat for bird species 

like the northern goshawk, which prefer older conifer forests. These stands currently provide foraging 

and potential nesting areas for goshawks. No goshawks have been reported from any of the proposed 

Lang Dam units, however there were two wildlife sightings in the Lang Dam project area just to the east 

of the proposed units in the 1990s (Tim Fox 1997, Steve Shope and Joe Serna 1991) (NRIS database 

accessed June 8, 2016). Protocol goshawk nest surveys have not been completed. Mitigation measures 

would protect any raptor nests that are incidentally found in the harvest units during layout or 

implementation. Retention of some overstory trees would slightly reduce the amount of time required

to regenerate the stands back to foraging and nesting habitat. In about 80 years after timber harvest, the 

treatment units would return to suitable goshawk foraging and nesting habitat. Using suitable spotted 

owl habitat as a proxy for suitable goshawk habitat, Alternative 2 would impact less than 1 percent of 

the suitable goshawk habitat in the project area. 

Alternative 2 would also create about 39 acres of 1-3 acre gaps, and about 26 acres of dominant tree 

releases. About 22 of those acres would not be planted following harvest. Planting would be required in 

gaps that have greater than or equal to 25 percent of the unit in gaps. It is recommended that any gaps 

located more than 0.2 miles from a road not be planted due to the higher cost of planting and the 

potential to serve as higher quality early seral habitat. 

Not planting the gaps would benefit migratory birds that use this complex early seral habitat. Gap 

placement would avoid steep, rocky areas and favor deep soils and areas where the understory would 

readily develop. The resulting open habitat is expected to last for about 15 years at the lower and 

moderate elevations up to about 3500’ and in the one-acre gaps until they fill in naturally with conifer 

seedlings. The larger 2-3 acre gaps may remain as open habitats for about 20 years if they are not 

planted. The lower elevation gaps present in the Lang Dam project area are expected to close in faster 

than higher elevation gaps. The species mix in the lower elevation gaps would include vine maple, 

deerbrush, red alder, Oregon grape, red huckleberry and native grasses and forbs, the seeds of which 

benefit some species of migratory birds, as well as pollinators.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 89

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Other ongoing and recently completed projects in the Lang Dam project area that would provide early 

seral habitat that migratory birds need include Buck Thin, 7 Thin Stewardship, the recently completed 

410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project and the planned Lower 19 Hazardous Fuels Reduction 

Project. While Buck Thin and 7 Thin Stewardship would provide early seral gap habitat, the hazardous 

fuels projects would thin the stands which would only slightly opens the stand understory. Combined, 

these projects total about 748 acres or about 10 percent of the Lang Dam project area that would 

provide early seral habitat conditions for migratory birds.

Alternative 2

Other ongoing and recently completed projects in the Lang Dam project area that would provide the 

early seral habitat that migratory birds need include Buck Thin, 7 Thin Stewardship, the recently 

completed 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project and the planned Lower 19 Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction Project. Combined with Alternative 2, this would provide about 1,393 acres of slightly open 

forest stands on about 19% of the Lang Dam project area. The highest quality early seral habitat 

conditions for migratory birds would be within the gap treatment areas.

Only very few acres of early seral habitat has been created by wild fires in the project area in the past 50 

years. A small fire burned in 2010 near Delta Campground, however it was mostly an understory burn 

that produced new snag habitat, but did not produce much early seral habitat.

An increase in early seral dependent migratory birds would be expected in the regeneration and gap 

treatment units, and forest edges adjacent to the units, but the increase in birds would be minimal at the 

landscape level. The 10 percent of the project area that is private timber lands would likely continue to 

provide some lower-quality early seral bird habitat where stands have been recently clearcut.

No other projects that remove older forest habitat are reasonably foreseeable in this watershed or 

project area. With Alternative 2, viable populations of goshawks and other migratory birds that use older 

conifer forests are expected to be maintained at the landscape level because about 20 percent of the 

project area would remain older forested habitat over 180 years old. 

3.4 Heritage Resources

Summary of Effects

No effects are expected for activities associated with Alternative 1 or 2. Areas previously identified as 

culturally sensitive, and areas identified during surveys as culturally sensitive have been avoided by 

either dropping the proposed unit or redesigning the unit boundary. Additionally areas which could 

become identified during implementation are covered by protection measures that are already in place 

for this project (see Design Features listed in Chapter 2 Table 6). 

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale or area of potential effect used to assess the direct, indirect and cumulative effects 

for heritage resources includes all units proposed for treatment, road construction, landings, and fuel 

activities within the Lang Dam Project. An archaeological survey of the Lang Dam Project was conducted 

in order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other relevant 

laws and regulations. A systematic surface pedestrian search of the project is the principal manner for 

implementing the mandated goals. 
90 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Assessment Methodology

The survey for Lang Dam project took place during May 2013 and May through August 2014 by three 

crew members. One to three person transects spaced at 15 to 20 meter intervals followed a specific 

orientation based on factors that included the shapes of units and landforms and the possible presence 

of historic, Indian or Euro-American travel routes. In high probability areas, one-by-one meter shovel 

scrapes made with entrenching tools exposed mineral soil in areas where the thick duff layer limited 

ground visibility. Bearing orientations were followed to the best of abilities, but adjustments in 

orientation and interval spacing were made in order to avoid dangerous or unreasonable conditions 

(e.g., exceptionally steep slopes or impenetrable vegetation). A total of 532 acres were surveyed 

consisting of 471 high probability acres and 61 low probability acres. One new site was discovered during 

the survey (06180100747). The newly recorded cultural site is considered potentially eligible to the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and must be protected from project activities or evaluated to 

determine eligibility to the NRHP. No other known cultural sites would be affected by the proposed 

project actions. 

Affected Environment

The prehistory and history of the McKenzie River drainage have previously been summarized in the 

Cultural Resource Overview for the Willamette National Forest, Western Oregon (Minor and Pecor, 1977) 

the ten-year update of the above overview (Minor, 1987), Prehistory and History of B. L. M. Lands in 

West-Central Oregon: A Cultural Resource Overview (Beckham, Minor, and Toepel, 1981) Archaeology of 

Oregon (2nd Edition) (Aikens, 1986) and numerous other publications. These documents provide 

adequate detail of ethnographic and historic background for this report.

Ethnographic research indicates that highly mobile pre-contact and early historic Indian groups, notably 

the Molala, Kalapuya, and their predecessors inhabited the western Cascade Mountains for at least eight 

thousand years and engaged in subsistence rounds guided by seasonal cycles associated with peak times 

for hunting, fishing, and plant gathering. Based on linguistic evidence, the primary inhabitants of the 

Upper McKenzie watershed at the time of contact were likely members of the Santiam band of the 

Molala (Toepel 1987). Most of what is known of the Molala comes from ethnographic research on the 

Northern Molala band located in the vicinity of Mount Hood’s drainage systems and the Southern Molala

band located west of the Klamath Lake area. Little information exists regarding the Santiam band of the 

Molala, who are thought to have inhabited present-day Linn and Lane counties in the region between 

the northern and southern groups (Toepel 1987).

Pre-contact Indian use in the area is reflected in the cultural material left behind including chipped 

obsidian lithic scatters and obsidian lithic isolates. The lithic scatters and isolated finds are indicative of 

tool manufacture, modification and use related to hunting, gathering and processing various subsistence 

resources.

The first recorded contact between the Indians and European trappers and settlers came in 1812 when 

members of the Pacific Fur Company under the leadership of Donald McKenzie (for whom the river and 

valley are named) entered the area (Williams, 1988). Subsequent interaction with trappers, missionaries, 

military expeditions and settlers also brought them into contact with European diseases such as 

smallpox and influenza, which decimated their populations. In many cases, the diseases traveled the 

Indian trade routes and preceded the arrival of the Europeans themselves.

By the mid-1800s many of the remaining Molala and Kalapuya were removed to the Grand Ronde 

Reservation in western Oregon after the signing of the Dayton and Molalla Treaties of 1855. Other 

Molala shifted to the Siletz Reservation along the Oregon coast, the Klamath Reservation to the south 

and to the Warm Springs Reservation in eastern Oregon where they were absorbed into the 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. Today, their descendants continue to live in all of these places and 

use the Cascade Mountain to collect traditional use materials.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 91

Historic Use

Evidence of historic use in the vicinity of the project appears mainly in the form of trails which 

functioned as a part of the administrative and communication network in the early days of the Forest 

Service. Most of these historic trails still exist and continue to be maintained today. 

The first Castle Rock Forest Service fire lookout was built in 1917 as a simple 8x8' pole structure. In 1925 

a second lookout was constructed of standard design with a cupola attached to the roof. The third 

lookout was built in 1938 by the CCC using lookout design plan FC-1. This lookout was destroyed by 

vandals in a 1974 Halloween fire and never reconstructed.

Many of the Lang Dam Thinning units were originally clear cut harvested in the late 1940s and 1950 and 

others harvested in the 1970s. The original timber harvest of these units occurred prior to the President 

signing Executive Order 11593 and implementation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992). During this period prior to the mid to late 

1970s, the Forest Service was not required to hire professional archaeologist to conduct cultural 

resource surveys. Thus few sites were known on the forest.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 

Implementation of the no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effect on cultural resources 

since there would be no change to the integrity of cultural resource sites because no ground disturbance 

would occur. 

Alternative 2

Timber harvest, new and temporary road construction, ground base and skyline yarding and postharvest fuel treatment contribute to ground disturbance. Ground disturbance can affect the surface and 

subsurface integrity of an archaeological site and thus its significance to the National Register of Historic 

Places. Since appropriate and approved surveys have been conducted and cultural site protection 

measures are already in place (see Design Measures Table 6 in Chapter 2), the potential direct effects to 

all other potentially eligible sites would be in the form of inadvertent damage to the integrity of the 

cultural resources which were not discovered during initial survey. Any sites uncovered during 

implementation of the project would require all earth-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find to be 

suspended, in accordance with federal regulations, and the zone archaeologist notified to evaluate the 

discovery and recommend subsequent courses of action. Therefore, contract clause BT6.24 (or its 

equivalent) must be included in all project prospectus and contracts. The contract clause outlines the 

procedures to follow in the event cultural resources are discovered during timber sale operations.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 

Based on a review of the past, present and foreseeable projects listed in Appendix D, none overlap in 

time and space that would cause cumulative effects to the known cultural sites from any of the proposed 

actions under the Lang Dam Project. Appropriate and approved surveys and cultural site protection 

measures are already in place for this project (see Design Criteria Chapter 2, avoidance clause).

Alternative 2

Based on a review of the past, present and foreseeable projects listed in Appendix D, none overlap in 

time and space that would cause cumulative effects to the known cultural sites from any of the proposed 

actions under the Lang Dam Project. Appropriate and approved surveys and cultural site protection 

measures are already in place for this project (see Design Criteria Chapter 2, avoidance clause).
92 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

3.5 Transportation

Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 2 would have approximately 2.2 miles of temporary road built within the project area to 

support timber haul. Implementation of alternative 2 would result in a temporary increase of potential 

sediment delivery due to additional miles of temporary road use, road maintenance activities and 

increased traffic accessing the treatment stands. Temporary roads would be decommissioned once 

activities are completed and would not change road miles or access in the long term.

Alternative 2 would implement approximately 3.3 miles of system road closures or decommissioning 

within the project area. The proposed road closures would decrease vehicular access (public, 

administrative and commercial), decrease the current effective open road density, reduce existing road 

erosion problems, reduce road maintenance costs and may reduce illegal garbage dumping, the spread 

of noxious weeds and human caused fires. There would be fewer roads for public and administrative 

vehicle access for recreation, reforestation, fire and noxious weed control. Removing berms to access 

roads for fire suppression would take additional time and heavy equipment. However, closures would 

reduce illegal garbage dumping, reduce the spread of noxious weeds, reduce human-caused fires and 

would be left in a hydrologically stabilized condition with less effects to aquatic resources.

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Roads and Access includes 

the project activity units and the overall Lang Dam project area.

Affected Environment

The project area includes approximately 38.0 miles of existing roads. There are approximately 35.2 miles 

of Forest Service system roads, 2.3 miles of State Highway, 0.4 miles of State managed roadway and 0.1 

miles of County road in the project area. The Forest Road system consists of approximately 3.4 miles of 

arterial road, 3.0 miles of collector roads and 28.8 miles of local roads.

In and near the Lang Dam project area past management activities have provided the current network of 

Forest Roads mainly from timber sales. The current system of roads provides access to the area for 

administration, fire protection, public recreation, and forest product utilization. Approximately 12.1 

miles of road are asphalt surfaced, 21 miles are surfaced with crushed aggregate, and 5.1 miles are 

native surfaced. Approximately 19.7 miles of road within the project area are currently open to mixed 

motorized use. (MVUM).

Oregon State Highway 126 is the primary transportation corridor serving the project area. Forest Road 

19 is the primary transportation corridor serving the project area from Oregon State Highway 126 and is 

the only road classified as an arterial within the project area. Road 19, known as Aufderheide Drive, is a 

double-lane asphalt surfaced road and serves as a segment of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway. 

Roads 1900408 (Langasher), 1900410 (Powerhouse Rd), and 1900411 (Cougar Creek) are local roads that 

would provide the primary access to Road 19. There are no roads classified as collectors being proposed 

for use.

There are currently 2.0 miles of forest system roads in the project area that are closed. These roads are 

closed by means of gates, berms, or other physical barriers implemented through road management, or 

naturally by vegetative growth or blown down timber, or by administrative order. There are 

approximately 0.7 miles of roads in the project area that have been previously decommissioned.

The current road system allows the Forest Service administrative access to conduct a wide variety of

forest management and fire protection activities in the area. Specifically, the forest roads provide access 

to developed Forest Service campgrounds, various boat ramps, numerous trailheads, lakes, and various 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 93

dispersed camping sites. These roads also provide access to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dam facilities 

and BPA transmission lines. Access for firewood and special forest products gathering is also 

accomplished through use of the road system.

The road system receives maintenance in accordance with established road management objectives. 

Over the last decade, a limitation on road maintenance funds on the Forest has resulted in a backlog of 

maintenance work including road side brushing, drainage and ditch cleanout, and road surface repair on 

many of the primary and secondary roads in the project area. Under Alternative 2, there are drainage 

improvements which would be implemented prior to commercial haul, to protect water quality. Some of 

the existing culverts located within the road segments needed for haul are in poor condition and are in 

need of replacement. Additional deferred maintenance is expected in the future unless maintenance 

budget funding is improved.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not change the use pattern of roads or correct existing road maintenance problems. 

Without treatment-related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend makes it unlikely that 

funding would be available to support adequate road maintenance. Brush and tree re-growth and 

associated reduced visibility, debris on road, and surface irregularities from OHV and other traffic could 

eventually result in unsafe traveling conditions for public and administrative traffic, as well as increasing 

resource damage associated with localized erosion. There is currently a backlog of road maintenance and 

some local roads are impassible due to fallen trees or brush encroachment. Culverts that are not 

maintained because of impassible roads may plug and cause washouts with sediment reaching into 

major drainages.

Alternative 2

Road maintenance would occur on 11.5 miles of road with Alternative 2 (See Figure 11). Road 

maintenance would protect the existing road infrastructure, improve safety of the road, and decrease 

sedimentation on roads used for project implementation. Road maintenance may include roadside 

brushing, road surface blading, ditch and culvert drainage maintenance, culvert replacement, surface 

rocking, asphalt patching and/or the installation of drainage dips and water bars which would result in 

the proper drainage and safe use of the roads (see Design Features Table 6 in Chapter 2). Roadside 

brushing would increase sight distance and increase visibility for safer driving. There are miscellaneous 

segments of low standard road identified as potential haul routes throughout the project area that 

would require minor road width adjustments and road surface rehabilitation to support commercial 

haul.
94 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 11 Proposed Road Activities in the Lang Dam Project Area
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 95

Maintenance proposed with Alternative 2 may cause a temporary increase in sedimentation while the 

road maintenance work is being done (prior to treatments and associated road use), but would decrease

the volume and velocity of water that carries sediments off roads afterwards. Newly graded or surfaced 

roads, improved drainage structures, and upgraded culverts may increase sediment production until 

road surfaces and slopes stabilize, typically within approximately one to two seasons. Attention would be 

paid during road maintenance activities to minimize potential delivery to adjacent streams and Best 

Management Practices would be applied to prevent sedimentation to the greatest extent. Designated 

water sources for filling water tankers for surface blading, compaction and dust abatement operations 

would not significantly affect stream flows.

Alternative 2 would provide necessary road maintenance on haul routes and roads used for other 

treatment activities. This would reverse the trend of declining road conditions across an estimated 11.5 

miles of road or approximately 33 percent of the Forest Service road system within the project area. The 

miles of road open to public access in this alternative would be reduced. Maintenance activities would 

cause some short-term delays or detours for road users while roadwork is being performed. All OHV use 

on roads currently open to mixed use would be restricted while treatment activities are taking place. 

Alternative 2 would have approximately 2.2 miles of temporary roads built within the project area. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a temporary increase of disturbance due to additional 

miles of temporary roads and increased traffic to access the treatment stands. Temporary roads would 

blocked, decommissioned and hydrologically stabilized once activities are completed and would not 

change road miles or access in the long term.

Portions of the original road system were constructed to accommodate large yarding towers that were 

used to log large tracts of land. Current thinning activity usually utilizes small, mobile, road-based 

yarders. Temporary spur road construction needed to reach harvest units by these smaller yarders has 

been kept to a minimum utilizing the existing transportation system, skid trails and previously disturbed 

areas wherever possible. New temporary roads would typically be located to use gentle slopes and 

minimize soil disturbance wherever possible.

All currently closed system roads that would be re-opened and utilized for timber haul (approximately 

0.3 miles) would have maintenance performed prior to any haul. Upon the completion of project 

activities, these roads would then be physically blocked to traffic. All roads treated would be left in a 

hydrologically stable condition to drain properly and protect water quality. Future road maintenance 

costs would be reduced because roads would be re-closed to traffic and left with self-maintaining water 

drainage features.

Alternative 2 would implement approximately 3.3 miles of system road closures or decommissioning 

within the project area (See Table 31). These roads would be closed through placement of various types 

of barriers. Roads identified for storage treatments may include any of the following treatments as 

needed; closure by physical barrier, non-drivable water bars, removal of culverts from stream channels 

with fills of shallow to moderate depth, and reduction of fill depth for culverts in deep fill locations. 

Stored roads would include minimal disturbance to the roadbed because they may need to be reopened 

in the future for various management activities, including timber harvest and fire suppression activities. 

Roads identified for decommissioning may include any of the following treatments described with road 

storage but may also include removal of culverts from stream channels in deep fills, slope re-contouring, 

and sub-soiling. System roads are decommissioned when it is has been determined they are no longer 

needed to provide access for management activities, these roads are removed from the road system. 

Roads currently closed by gates would continue to maintain administrative access. The 

recommendations included in the Willamette National Forest Road Investment Strategy (September 

2015) were reviewed, verified and used by the interdisciplinary team as a tool to help identify the future 

status of roads included in the planning area.
96 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 31 Road Closures and Decommissioning in the Lang Dam Project Area

Road

Number

Length Haul

Route

Current

Status

Proposed Treatment

Alternative 2 Comment

1900399 0.30 Yes Closed Decommission

1900399 0.25 Yes Open Storage Close at FS/Army Corp. boundary

1900558 0.30 No Open Storage Close beyond powerline right-a-way

1900409 0.44 Yes Open Storage

1900447 0.29 No Closed Storage Road currently closed by Vegetation 

1900482 0.22 No Open Storage Close at Jct. with 1900489

1900484 0.21 No Open Storage

1900486 0.10 No Open Storage

1900489 0.10 No Open Storage Place boulders/berm at last 10th mile 

for driver safety

1900491 0.50 No Open Storage

1900492 0.20 No Open Storage

1900496 0.40 Yes Open Storage

The proposed road closures would decrease vehicular access (public, administrative and commercial), 

decrease the current effective open road density, reduce existing road erosion problems, and reduce 

road maintenance costs. Roads closed by the project would be left in a hydrologically stable condition to 

protect water quality. There would be fewer roads for public and administrative vehicle access for 

recreation, reforestation, fire and noxious weed control. Removing berms to access roads for fires 

suppression would take additional time and equipment. Table 32 shows the proposed road activities 

associated with harvest and the miles for each alternative.

Table 32 Proposed Road Activities Associated with Harvest

Activities Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2

New Road Construction Miles 0 0

Temporary Road Construction Miles 0 2.2

Roads Maintained Miles 0 11.5

Road Decommissioning Miles 0 0.3

Road Storage Miles 0 3.0
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 97

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would not change the use pattern of roads or correct existing road maintenance problems.

Without treatment-related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend makes it unlikely that 

funding would be available to support adequate road maintenance.

Alternative 2

Past management actions have created 35.2 miles of Forest Service road system within the project area 

that require continuing road maintenance to provide adequate safe use and resource protection. Past 

budgets have resulted in maintenance rates that have led to a decline in road conditions across the 

project area. Alternative 2 would provide necessary road maintenance on the haul routes and roads 

used for other treatment activities. Road maintenance and road closure treatments proposed under this 

alternative, combined with the maintenance that occurred with the 7 Thin Stewardship Reoffer would 

continue to improve the road system by reducing sedimentation increasing safety and reducing future 

maintenance costs. Road storage and decommissioning would provide fewer roads for public and 

administrative vehicle access for recreation, reforestation and fire access.
98 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

3.6 Recreation

Summary of Effects

Access to portions of Castle-Rock trail (Trail #3506) would be temporarily disrupted during harvest 

activity as a result of implementation of the Lang Dam Project. During trail closure periods it would not 

be possible to ride the section of Castle-Rock Trail between FSRD 411 and FSRD 480 as part of the newly 

improved O’Leary, Castle-Rock, King-Castle mountain biking loop. Disruptions would be mitigated by 

design criteria that does not allow harvest activity during weekends or holiday’s during the summer 

(May-July) and the trail would remain open at all times during the months of August and September. 

Visual qualities of the surrounding stands adjacent to approximately 1600ft. of the trail would be 

maintained through limited and site specific harvest and design criteria which include low cutting stumps 

within 100ft of the trail, removal of timber sale boundary markers after harvest and design criteria 

requiring that leave trees are marked on the side of trees facing away from trails. The trail itself would be 

protected by design criteria that ensures that any damage to the trail would be repaired after harvest 

activity and would meet the standards for a class 3 mountain biking trail. There would be no significant 

effects to developed or dispersed recreation sites or to scenic driving. 

Scale of Analysis

The area that was analyzed for effects to recreation were developed and dispersed recreation sites and 

trails within the Elk, Cougar Creek, Cougar Reservoir, and East Fork subwatersheds (6th field) of the 

McKenzie River and South Fork McKenzie River Watershed (5th field).

Figure 12 Forest Plan Management Allocations with Recreation Attributes
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 99

Affected Environment

The project area is used primarily for hiking and mountain biking on system trails, fishing along the lower 

South Fork of the McKenzie River and dispersed camping in support of hunting during elk and deer 

hunting season. The project proposes to treat timber adjacent to approximately 1600 feet of Castle-Rock 

Trail (Trail #3506) which is accessible by a trailhead on Forest Road 411 and is part of a larger trail 

network. Dispersed camping in the project area is typically associated with seasonal hunting activities 

although some camping use does occur in conjunction with trail system users or people simply getting 

away for a few days of camping in the forest. Developed recreation facilities in the project area include 

Delta Campground, the Delta Old Growth Trail, Echo Boat Launch and East Fork Trail Trailhead. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

The Forest Service uses a land classification system to inventory and describe a range of recreation 

opportunities called the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) from the Willamette Forest Plan FEIS, 

page III-93. This system seeks to identify recreation settings of varying characteristics that range from 

remote, undeveloped areas to easily accessed, highly developed sites. Settings are described in the 

following five ROS Classes: Primitive, Semiprimitive Non-motorized, Semiprimitive Motorized, Roaded 

Natural, and Roaded Modified. Primitive falls on the most unmodified natural environment end of the 

spectrum and Roaded Modified falls on the most substantially modified end of the spectrum. Table 33

displays the ROS classes within the project area and the acres proposed for treatments. Figure 13 shows

management areas within the project area and associated ROS classes.

Figure 13 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map 
100 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 33 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for the Project Area

Northwest Forest Plan

Land and Resource Management Plan

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

Visual Quality Objective (VQO)

Project 

Area

(acres)

Proposed 

Treatment 

(acres)

(9d) Wildlife Habitat-Special Area

ROS Roaded Natural

VQO Preservation 187 0

(11a) Scenic-Modification Middle-ground

ROS Roaded Modified

VQO Modification 2,249 115

(11c) Scenic-Partial Retention Middle-ground

ROS Roaded Natural

VQO Partial Retention 1,326 420

(11f) Scenic-Retention Foreground

ROS Roaded Natural

VQO Retention 1,253 108

(WA) Water 179 0

Non-FS Land Non-FS Land 866 0

Total Acres 7,195 645

Recreational Driving/Road Access

Driving for pleasure (sightseeing) is a popular activity on the district, primarily during the summer 

months when roads are open and free of snow. Use fluctuates from very light on most dead end roads to 

moderate use on secondary and connector roads. Most roads in the project area are lightly used and are 

not part of any popular designated scenic driving routes, however a portion of the Aufderheide Forest 

Road (FSRD19) is part of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway and is in the project area. During 

hunting season road use would increase, particularly on secondary roads, in the project area. 

Developed Sites

There are three developed recreation sites in the project area; Delta Campground, Echo Boat Launch and 

East Fork Trail Trailhead. Delta Campground is open from late April through September and provides 38 

campsites, pumped water, restrooms, amphitheater and access to the Delta Old Growth Interpretive 

Trail. Echo Boat Launch provides a day use picnic area, restrooms, fee station and paved boat ramp that 

allows access to Cougar Reservoir. East Fork Trail Trailhead provides access to the East Fork Trail, a 

restroom, picnic table, parking and wilderness entry station. The trail parallels the East Fork of the South 

Fork of the McKenzie River and provides connector access to trails that lead deeper into the Three 

Sisters Wilderness.

Dispersed Camping

There are several known low use dispersed campsites within the project area. These sites are usually 

associated with favorite hunting areas and are not typically used outside the hunting season. A recently 

updated (2013) Forest Order 18-2013-01-03 is within the project area and prohibits camping a half mile 

on either side of Forest Road 19. It also includes areas between Forest Road 410 and Forest Road 19 and 

areas surrounding Delta Campground and the Delta Campground access road. 

Trails

Castle-Rock Trail is a class 3 mountain biking trail that runs through a proposed harvest unit (unit 220) 

and is a part of a popular and growing mountain biking trail system. It serves as a key segment of a newly 

developed mountain biking route that includes portions of Olallie Trail (Trail #3529), O’Leary Trail (Trail 

#3321), Castle-Rock Trail (Trail #3506) and King-Castle Trail (Trail #4326) as well as select road segments 

which can either be ridden on a bike or used to support shuttle vehicles. Approximately 1.5 miles of

Castle-Rock Trail is currently maintained to standard while .5 mile of the trail is showing signs of erosion 

due to tread sloughing. Additionally, there are two stream crossings that are eroding the trail tread and 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 101

increasing sedimentation into the streams. Trail heads that support use of the newly improved mountain 

biking trail system are in need of improved wayfinding information and demarcation signs (USFS family 

of signs). They could also benefit from expansion and better delineation of parking areas to curtail 

resource damage caused by expected increases in use. In particular O’Leary Trailhead on Forest Road 

411 is in need of these improvements. Another trail in the project area is Echo Trail (Trail #3309). This 

trail is infrequently used and is in need of maintenance to maintain trail tread in a variety of areas. The 

upper portion of Castle-Rock trail is also in the project area and provides a short hike from a trailhead at 

the end of Forest Road 480 to a former fire lookout site where there is an expansive view of the 

McKenzie River Valley and the Three Sisters mountains. Delta Old Growth Nature Trail is accessed by 

Delta Campground and is a one mile loop and has interpretive stations that can be referenced using an 

interpretive guide that is available at the trailhead No project related treatments are proposed in the 

vicinity of these trails.

South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic Study River

The Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988 added segments of 40 rivers to the National 

Wild and Scenic River system. It also called for the study of seven Oregon Rivers to determine whether 

they are eligible and/or suitable for inclusion into the national system. A 25.7 mile stretch of the South 

Fork McKenzie River (South Fork) is one of these study rivers. To be eligible for Wild and Scenic River 

designation, a river must meet two criteria: 1) It must be free flowing and 2) It must have at least one 

Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV). The study segments of the South Fork have no impoundments 

so it meets the criterion for free flowing. The South Fork has four values that meet the criteria for ORV’s: 

Scenery, Recreation, Fish and Prehistoric, therefore the South Fork McKenzie River was found eligible for 

classification as a Wild and Scenic Study River (WSSR). 

The portion of the South Fork McKenzie River between Cougar Reservoir Dam to its confluence with the 

main stem of the McKenzie River is within the Lang Dam project area. This segment of the South Fork is 

identified as segment 3 by the Eligibility Determination for South Fork McKenzie River (USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1992). Segment 3 has a management classification of Recreation. A 

Recreation management classification means that a river is readily accessible by public roads and that 

roads, human habitations and other development would be in close proximity to the river. In addition, 

human activities may have substantially modified the scenery and there is a high potential for 

development of recreation occupancy sites as well as boat launching and mooring sites. The South Fork 

Report (Eligibility Determination) further recognizes that evidence of timber harvest is predominant 

throughout this segment. In addition, evidence of large scale human activity is predominant in the 

landscape in the upper portion of this segment and includes features such as extensive slope terracing, 

Cougar dam, power line corridor, a bridge and a USGS gauging station.

This segment of the river is primarily used by recreational anglers fishing from the bank of the river or 

from watercraft on the river. It is also sometimes floated by white water enthusiasts in watercraft such as 

hard shell kayaks and also by smaller inflatable watercraft including rafts when water levels are high 

enough. The river is characterized by generally swift flow and a narrow channel that is constrained by 

dense vegetation on both sides in many places. Water flows are governed by the release of water from 

the dam. There are no developed put in or take out locations on this section of the river and most 

boaters put in near the base of the dam at a roadside parking area and carry boats over and down a 

section of rip rap (bank stabilizing boulders). The take out is typically somewhere downstream of the 

confluence with the main stem of the McKenzie River at developed boat launch facilities such as Forest 

Glen boat launch near the community of Blue River which is managed by Lane County.

Segment 3 of the river can be divided into two distinct portions. The upper portion is paralleled by Forest

Service Road 410 and is accessible by several spur roads. The landscape in this segment shows evidence 

of human modification primarily associated with Cougar Dam. Spur roads off of Forest Service Road 410 

are open to vehicle traffic and provide access to areas that are typically used for fishing, or for just 
102 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

enjoying the river environment. Several older spur roads have been closed to vehicles and now offer foot 

access to a variety of user created trails that access a range of riverside locations where fishing is the 

primary activity. Much of this upper portion of the river falls within a forest order area where camping is 

prohibited (Forest Order 18-2013-01-03). 

The lower portion of segment 3 of the river curves sharply west and leaves the forest order closure area. 

The landscape in this portion is dominated by dense forest and limited expansive views into the broader 

landscape from the river. Evidence of human activity is largely unnoticeable throughout this segment 

except for timber harvest activity which may be noticeable by the lay person in the near term after 

harvest activity has concluded and in the longer term by people who have some kind of experience or 

background in forestry. This section of the river, until it’s confluence with the main stem of the McKenzie 

River, is roughly paralleled by Forest Service Road 408 (Lingasher Road) however the road is far enough 

from the river to be unnoticeable. Several spur roads off of Forest Service Road 408 provide access to 

the river although in this stretch there is only one known established dispersed campsite along the river 

bank. This particular campsite is located off of Forest Service Spur Road 388 and has historically been 

problematic due to incidences of property abandonment, garbage, long term residing and other 

associated resource damage. Additionally the campsite has no barriers to stop vehicles from driving up 

to the bank of the river which has resulted in damage to riparian vegetation.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

Recreation use of the National Forest in the project area would remain unchanged with the no action 

alternative and therefore would have no effects to recreation. The recreating public would continue to 

use the project area for recreational purposes, and would continue current use of dispersed campsites, 

trails, and roads. 

Alternative 2

Short terms effects of proposed timber harvesting, log truck hauling, and fuel treatments would include 

the following: localized road closures, and possible disruption to hunting, hiking, biking, camping and 

driving in some areas. The logging activity, hauling, and fuel treatments may cause increased noise 

disturbance and may temporarily increase the amount of dust in the air while these operations are 

under way. These effects would be mitigated by restrictions to log hauling on weekends.

Trails

Harvest activities in units that are in close proximity to Castle-Rock Trail (Trail #3506) would produce 

short-term direct effects for Castle-Rock Trail users and particularly for bikers who are riding the 

O’Leary-Castle Rock-King Castle trail system because this section of the trail would be closed during 

harvest activity. To reduce the impact of the closure, harvest activity in units that would affect CastleRock trail would not occur during weekends or holiday’s during the summer (May-July) and the trail 

would remain open at all times during the months of August and September (See Design Criteria, Table 6

in Chapter 2). The segment of Castle-Rock Trail that provides access to the Castle-Rock lookout vista 

point would not be affected. Visual qualities of the surrounding stands adjacent to approximately 1600ft. 

of the trail would be maintained through limited and site specific harvest and design criteria which 

include low cutting stumps within 100ft of the trail, removal of timber sale boundary markers after 

harvest and design criteria requiring that leave trees are marked on the side of trees facing away from 

trails. Trails would be protected to the extent possible by specific design criteria (see Table 6) such as 

retaining important anchor trees to ensure upslope stability adjacent to the trail and by limiting the 

impact of log yarding across the trail by using a suspension system that elevates one end of logs being 

transported. A recreation specialist would be incorporated into the layout phase of the project for units 

adjacent to trails to identify anchor trees to be retained. Placement of gaps (small clearings less than 3 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 103

acres) upslope of the trail would be at least 200 feet away which would ensure canopy cover is 

maintained over the trail. This would preserve current conditions where light penetration is limited and 

where seasonal vegetation growth is held in check. This is important because seasonal growth of 

understory vegetation requires maintenance to keep the trail open. After harvest activities have 

concluded any affected trails would be repaired to meet the established existing trail classification and 

trails that are designated for bike use would be repaired to meet class 3 biking trail standards. Safety of 

trail users would be addressed by closing the trail to public use during harvest activity. The public would 

be notified about the project through signage, outreach to local businesses, on the Willamette National 

Forest webpage and through other media sources such as the local newspaper. No other system trails in 

the project area would be affected by the Lang Dam project.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites

There would be no effects to developed recreation facilities in the project area because no harvest 

treatments are proposed adjacent to these sites and access to them would not be disrupted. Access to 

one dispersed campsite off of Forest Service Road 408 (Lingasher Road) would be restricted during 

harvest activity.

Roads

Road quality would be enhanced due to maintenance and would improve ride quality and safety on 11.5 

miles of forest roads in the project area. Some minor disruptions to recreational driving may occur in 

specific locations within the project area during harvest activities. Log hauling on the road system would 

not occur during weekends which would reduce impacts to forest road users during peak recreation use

periods. Forest Roads that access trailheads that support mountain biking and hiking on trails that are 

part of the O’Leary, Castle Rock, and King Castle trail system would have limited to no log hauling 

occurring in August and September because harvest in units adjacent to this trail system would be 

restricted during these months.

South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River

Proposed harvest units (20, 30, 40, 50, 80, 140, 151, and 160) are within segment 3 of the South Fork 

Wild and Scenic Study River. Recreational use of this segment of the river would not be affected by 

harvest activity. There would be no diminishment to the ORV (Outstandingly Remarkable Value) of 

Recreation for river dependent uses such as fishing and boating because proposed harvest and harvest 

related activities would not significantly affect access to the river or impede boating on the river. During 

harvest activity access to an established dispersed campsite off of Forest Service Spur Road 388 would 

be temporarily disrupted. After harvest activity has concluded this access road would be blocked to 

vehicles to protect riparian resources. This action would benefit the river by protecting it from accruing 

resource degradation associated with vehicle access. The site would remain open for public use for those 

who choose to park and walk in or float in from the river. A benefit to river dependent activities as 

related to the ORV of Recreation would be the reclamation of natural resources at this dispersed site, 

improved security and an overall improved opportunity for camping, day use and angling. 

The ORV of Scenery would not be diminished because the proposed treatments in this segment of the 

river would be consistent with all applicable standards and guidelines for Visual Quality Objectives 

(VQO’s). Timber harvest activity would be consistent with a landscape where evidence of timber harvest 

is a predominant feature.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Recreation use of the National Forest in the project area would remain unchanged with the no action 

alternative and therefore Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on recreation within the 

project area. The recreating public would continue to use the project area for recreational purposes, and 

would continue current use of dispersed campsites, trails, and roads.
104 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2

Trails

The likelihood of trail closures being in effect for project related work associated with the past Horse 

Creek and proposed Green Mountain project at the same time as those proposed by the Lang Dam 

project is low. 

Direct effects to trails would be mitigated by design criteria that protects trails. Short term effects such 

as the presence of slash and freshly cut stumps and tree marking would add cumulatively to effects if 

these effects overlap in time and space with the past Horse Creek and proposed Green Mountain 

project. Some cumulative effect overlap within the 3-6 year vegetation recovery period or during preharvest related activities may occur. 

Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites

There would be no cumulative effects to developed and dispersed recreation sites as a result of 

implementation of the Lang Dam project because there are no effects to developed sites and only one 

dispersed site would be affected and this site would benefit in the long term from the project.

Roads

The Lang Dam Project would maintain 11.5 miles of road which would add cumulatively to road 

improvements associated with the Horse Creek and Green Mountain Projects by improving the 

recreational driving experience by enhancing ride quality and safety on these roads. Storage of 3 miles 

and decommissioning of .3 miles of road as a result of the Lang Dam Project would not affect access to 

dispersed recreation sites, developed recreation facilities or trailheads so there would be no cumulative 

effects to recreation as a result of road storage or decommissioning.

South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River

The Forest Road 410 Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project encompassed approximately 94 acres along 

segment 3 of the South Fork Wild and Scenic Study River. The purpose of this project was to thin 

overstocked forest stands to reduce the intensity of wildfire and to increase the depth and field of view 

into the surrounding environment to enhance law enforcement ability to detect illegal campers and 

associated campfires in the no camping zone established by forest order. A Wild and Scenic River 

Assessment under Section 10(a) was completed for the 410 Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project and the 

finding was that the proposed action, as designed, would not degrade the values of the South Fork 

McKenzie River but would enhance water quality conditions (Wild and Scenic River Assessment under 

Section 10(a) for Forest Road 410 Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project, 2014). The proposed actions of the 

Lang Dam project would not add cumulatively to the effects of the hazardous fuels reduction project 

because no timber harvest is proposed within the hazardous fuels reduction project area.

3.7 Scenic Quality

Summary of Effects

There would be no significant effects to scenery as a result of implementation of the Lang Dam Project. 

All visual quality objectives (VQO’s) would be maintained consistent with forest plan direction. There 

would be some limited short term impacts to scenery along portions of trails affected by timber harvest 

activities however in the long term (6 years and beyond) the forest stands in these areas would recover 

with the end result being greater depth and field of view into the surrounding environment with larger 

individual trees and a more interesting mix of vegetation, color, texture and composition.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 105

Scale of Analysis

The view shed area that was analyzed for effects to scenery were principle travel routes and recreation 

areas within the Elk, Cougar Creek, Cougar Reservoir, and East Fork subwatersheds (6th field) of the

McKenzie River and South Fork McKenzie River Watershed (5th field).

Affected Environment

The project area is primarily used by hikers, hunters, anglers and bikers where enjoying scenery is often 

an integral part of the experience for these visitors. Trails in the project area are predominantly used by 

mountain bikers and hikers during the summer months and are used by hunters during hunting season. 

Mountain biking is a burgeoning use type and has been recently further supported by improvements to 

the O’Leary, Castle-Rock, King-Castle biking loop. Anglers and boaters enjoy sections of the lower South 

Fork McKenzie River which is designated as a Wild and Scenic Study River and where recreational 

boating and fishing are popular. Recreational driving and sightseeing occurs along sections of the West 

Cascade National Scenic Byway that passes through the project area and views of portions of the project 

area are possible from a developed overlook atop Cougar Reservoir Dam. 

Scenic Driving

A portion of Forest Service Road 19 (Auferheide Memorial Drive) is in the project area and is part of the 

West Cascades National Scenic Byway. National Scenic Byways are defined as areas with one or more 

archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities and are a collaborative effort 

established to help recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. 

Aufderheide Drive was named after Robert Aufderheide, the Willamette National Forest Supervisor from 

1954 until his death in 1959. The highway consists of paved roads which carve a path through scenic 

forests, the historic logging community of Westfir, the Constitution Grove, Box Canyon Guard Station, the 

Aufderheide Memorial, Cougar Reservoir and the McKenzie Highway. The route follows the Middle and 

North Forks of the Willamette River, up Box Canyon and down the South Fork and main fork of the 

McKenzie River. A number of interpretive sites are located along the Aufderheide Memorial Drive as well 

as numerous campgrounds, dispersed camping areas, trail heads, boat launches and day use areas. Box 

Canyon Guard Station and Indian Ridge Lookout are renovated and re-purposed historic buildings that 

are available for visitor reservations during the summer months. The portion of the Aufderheide 

Memorial Drive that is in the project area is that portion between the confluence with Highway 126 and 

the top of Cougar Reservoir Dam.

Developed Recreation Sites

Developed recreation sites in the project area include Delta Campground, Echo Boat Launch and Day Use 

Area and East Fork Trailhead. Delta Campground has 38 campsites, an amphitheater and also provides 

access to the Delta Nature Interpretive Trail. Echo Boat Launch is a paved boat launch that supports 

boating on Cougar Reservoir and also provides a primitive picnic area and restroom. East Fork Trailhead 

provides access to the East Fork Trail, paved parking, a restroom and picnic table.

Dispersed Recreation Sites

There are few established popular dispersed recreation sites in the project area. Most dispersed site use 

is associated with seasonal hunting for deer and elk. An exception is one site located off of Forest Road 

388 which is a spur road off of Forest Road 408 (Lingasher Road). This site is used throughout the 

summer periodically and is often occupied by long term forest dwellers and as a result the site is 

associated with resource damage.
106 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Trails

Castle-Rock Trail is a class 3 mountain biking trail that runs through a proposed harvest unit (unit 220) 

and is a part of a popular and growing mountain biking trail system. It serves as a key segment of a newly 

developed mountain biking route that includes portions of Olallie Trail (Trail #3529), O’Leary Trail (Trail 

#3321), Castle-Rock Trail (Trail #3506) and King-Castle Trail (Trail #4326) as well as select road segments 

which can either be ridden on a bike or used to support shuttle vehicles. Another infrequently used trail 

in the project area is Echo Trail (Trail #3309). The upper portion of Castle-Rock trail is also in the project 

area and provides a short hike from a trailhead at the end of Forest Road 480 to a former fire lookout 

site where there is an expansive view of the McKenzie River Valley and the Three Sisters mountains. 

Delta Old Growth Nature Trail is accessed by Delta Campground and is a one mile loop and has 

interpretive stations that can be referenced using an interpretive guide that is available at the trailhead.

South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River (WSSR)

The portion of the South Fork McKenzie River between Cougar Reservoir Dam to its confluence with the 

main stem of the McKenzie River is within the Lang Dam project area. This segment of the South Fork is 

identified as segment 3 by the Eligibility Determination for South Fork McKenzie River (USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1992). Segment 3 has a management classification of Recreation. A 

Recreation management classification means that a river is readily accessible by public roads and that 

roads, human habitations and other development would be in close proximity to the river. In addition, 

human activities may have substantially modified the scenery and there is a high potential for 

development of recreation occupancy sites as well as boat launching and mooring sites. The South Fork 

Report (Eligibility Determination) further recognizes that evidence of timber harvest is predominant 

throughout this segment. In addition, evidence of large scale human activity is predominant in the 

landscape in the upper portion of this segment and includes features such as extensive slope terracing, 

Cougar dam, power line corridor, a bridge and a USGS gauging station.

Roads and Viewpoints

Forest Service Road 19 is within the project area and is part of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway. 

The Cougar Dam overlook viewpoint is located on this road and is within the project area. This viewpoint 

is located at the western terminus of the top of the dam and has a developed parking lot with 

interpretive signage. A crosswalk provides access to a viewing platform that looks into the Lang Dam 

project area below the dam and into the lower South Fork McKenzie River drainage.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology

The analysis methods used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on scenery were based on a review 

of the Forest Plan for consistency with applicable standards and guidelines and the Scenery 

Management System (SMS) handbook. Field reviews of proposed harvest units from key travel routes 

(trails and roads) in conjunction with GIS geo-spatial mapping and a digital perspective analysis tool 

using Google Earth was used to evaluate project effects on scenic quality.

Visual Management System (VMS) and Scenery Management System (SMS)

The Visual Management System (VMS) was used to inventory and analyze aesthetic values on National 

Forest Lands until it was replaced by the Scenery Management System (SMS). The SMS evolved from the 

VMS and differs in that it has been expanded to reflect updated research findings. The current Land and 

Resource Management Plan for the Willamette National Forest remains tiered to the VMS system. For 

the purposes of this analysis both VMS and SMS terminologies have been referenced and used together 

to retain consistency with the forest plan while recognizing changes in systems used for analyzing 

scenery.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 107

Landscape visibility is a function of many essential, interconnected considerations including the 

following: 1) context of viewers, 2) duration of view, 3) degree of discernable detail, 4) seasonal 

variations and 5) number of viewers. Existing travel ways such as trails and system roads were analyzed 

for effects to scenery and were analyzed according to viewing distance classifications described in the 

SMS handbook. These distances are:

• Immediate Foreground (0-300 feet)

• Foreground (300 feet-.5 mile)

• Middleground (.5 mile-4 miles)

• Background (4 miles-horizon)

The Forest Plan establishes VQO categories (VMS) to describe the degrees of acceptable alteration of the 

natural landscape when considering timber stand management (Forest Plan FEIS, 1990). The five VQO 

and corresponding SMS categories are provided in Table 34 as well as definitions. Figure 13 in the 

previous Recreation section shows the proposed project area acres and proposed treatment acres within 

Management Areas and associated Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class and Visual Quality 

Objective (VQO).Figure 12 shows management areas in the project area and management areas with 

specific VQO classifications for those management areas with proposed harvest treatments.
108 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Table 34 Visual Quality Objectives and SMS Categories

Visual Quality Objectives (VQO’s) and Corresponding SMS Categories

VQO-Preservation/SMS-Very High: Provides for ecological change only (VMS). Landscape character is intact 

with only minute if any deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the 

highest possible level (SMS).

VQO-Retention/SMS-High: In general, human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor (VMS). 

Landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture and 

pattern common to the landscape character so completely that and at such a scale that they are not evident 

(SMS).

VQO-Partial Retention/SMS-Moderate: In general, human activities may be evident but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape (VMS). Landscape character appears slightly altered. Noticeable 

deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed (SMS).

VQO-Modification/SMS-Low: 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 middle-ground distances. Landscape character appears moderately altered. Deviations 

begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, 

shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles outside the 

landscape the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape 

being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within.

VQO-Maximum Modification/SMS-Very Low: Human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but should not appear as 

a natural occurrence when viewed as background. Landscape character appears heavily altered. Deviations may strongly dominate 

the valued landscape character

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

No timber harvest treatment would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1. All visually sensitive 

Management Areas would remain consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and VQO’s

would be maintained. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect on scenic quality in the project area.

Alternative 2

Scenic Driving

Treatments proposed by the Lang Dam project are consistent with all standards and guidelines for 

applicable VQO classes therefore no effects to scenic driving are anticipated.

Developed Recreation Sites

Scenery from developed recreation facilities (Delta Campground, Echo Boat Launch and East Fork 

Trailhead) would not be affected by proposed activities associated with the Lang Dam Project because no 

timber treatments would be visible from these locations. There is a possibility that minor increases in 

dust may be noticeable from these locations during hauling activities but this is expected to be 

negligible.

Dispersed Recreation Sites

No effects to scenery are expected for the few low use dispersed sites in the project area as a result of 

timber treatments with the exception of a known dispersed campsite located off Forest Service Spur 

Road 388 which is accessed via Forest Service Road 408 (Lingasher Road). Harvest treatments in the 

vicinity of this campsite would create a more open forest structure and improve depth and field of view 

in what is presently an overstocked stand.

Trails

Castle-Rock Trail (Trail #3506) is a class 3 mountain biking trail and about 1600ft. of the trail passes 

through unit 220. A class 3 designation requires that a VQO of Partial Retention be maintained within the 

trail corridor (100ft. on either side of trail). A VQO of partial retention requires that in general, human 

activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape (VMS). Landscape 

character may appear slightly altered and noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 109

landscape character being viewed (SMS). The forest plan further specifies that for trails passing through 

management areas with a more restrictive VQO the more restrictive standard shall apply. In this case the 

trail passes through management area 11a which has a VQO of Modification. The trail has a more 

restrictive VQO so management activities within the trail corridor must adhere to the more restrictive 

VQO of Partial Retention. 

Design criteria has been established that would ensure the applicable VQO of Partial Retention is 

retained. Pre-harvest tree markings would be required to be placed on the side of trees facing away from 

trails. These markers would be removed after harvest activities have concluded. Trail users on trails that 

pass through harvest unit 220 may notice slash, fresh cut stumps and skid trails in the short term after 

harvest treatments have concluded. As vegetative recovery takes place (3-6 years), and post treatment 

mitigation measures are implemented (removal of slash piles, boundary markers), evidence of harvest 

activity would become largely unnoticeable and would be subordinate to the characteristic landscape. In 

the long term (6-10 years) the end result would be a largely natural setting with greater depth of views 

into the surrounding landscape due to decreased stand density and healthier and larger individual trees 

with less understory vegetation. The end result would be consistent with all applicable VQO’s for the 

trail. Additionally, site specific gap placements downslope of the trail would be located with input from a 

recreation specialist and would provide improved views of the surrounding landscape for trail users.

Middle-Ground distance views (.5 mile-4 miles) of some units in the project area would be visible from 

Castle-Rock which is a former fire lookout location that is accessible by Castle-Rock Trail. This viewpoint 

offers sweeping views of the McKenzie River Valley and is a popular hiking destination. Proposed 

treatments would be consistent with the characteristic landscape where evidence of past timber harvest 

is a predominant feature of the landscape (Figure 14).

Figure 14 View from Castle Rock to the west
110 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic Study River (WSSR)

Some proposed timber treatment units (20, 30, 40, 50, 80, 140, 151 and 160) are within segment 3 of 

the South Fork McKenzie Wild and Scenic Study River (WSSR). Proposed timber treatments in these units 

would not diminish the ORV of scenery because the treatments would be consistent with the landscape 

character of this segment of the river where evidence of human activity such as timber harvest, dams 

and associated infrastructure such as roads, powerline corridor and extensive man-made terracing of 

adjacent slopes are noticeable and are recognized as part of and consistent with the existing visual 

landscape (Eligibility Determination for South Fork McKenzie River, USDA Forest Service, 1992). 

Roads and View Points

The majority of proposed units would not be visible from major viewing locations such as developed 

recreation areas, major roads or road junctions or from trails at landscape level views (middle-ground 

and background distances). Exceptions to this are viewing areas at the top of Cougar Reservoir Dam and 

Castle-Rock Lookout. These are both locations where the visiting public does engage in viewing the 

landscape as part of their visit to the area. Castle Rock lookout is a low use trail and Figure 15 illustrates 

the view from the former Lookout location. The viewing platform at the top of Cougar Dam is an 

important viewpoint for travelers enjoying vistas while traveling on Forest Road 19. Figure 15 shows a 

Google Earth overlay with proposed units from Cougar Dam Reservoir Looking North and Figure 16

shows a photograph from Cougar Dam looking north into the project area. Units 151, 160 and 180 would 

be clearly visible from atop Cougar Reservoir at middle ground distances however the proposed thinning 

treatments for these units would meet all standards and guidelines for VQO’s in the management area 

and would be consistent with the landscape which shows considerable human modification to the 

natural environment particularly in the form of timber harvest. A number of units would be clearly 

visible from Castle Rock at middle-ground distances and these units would meet applicable VQO’s for 

management areas and would be consistent with a landscape where evidence of timber harvest is 

predominant.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 111

Figure 15 View of proposed units from Cougar Dam Looking North

Figure 16 Cougar Dam looking north showing a human modified landscape
112 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

No timber harvest treatment would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1. All visually sensitive 

Management Areas would remain consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and VQO’s 

would be maintained. Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effects on scenic quality in the project 

area. 

Alternative 2

Scenic Driving

The Lang Dam project, past Horse Creek Project and proposed future Green Mountain Project would not 

close any portions of that segment of the West Cascades Scenic Byway that is in the general vicinity of 

these projects therefore there would be no cumulative effects to scenic driving as a result of 

implementation of the Lang Dam project.

Developed Recreation Sites

There would be no effects as a result of implementation of the Lang Dam Project to developed 

recreation sites therefore there would be no cumulative effects with other projects.

Dispersed Recreation Sites

There would be no significant effects as a result of implementation of the Lang Dam Project to dispersed 

recreation sites therefore there would be no cumulative effects with other projects.

South Fork McKenzie River Wild and Scenic River

Because the ORV’s (Outstandingly Remarkable Values) attributed to the South Fork McKenzie River 

would not be diminished as a result of the proposed action or action alternatives for either the Lang 

Dam project or proposed Green Mountain Project there would be no cumulative impact.

Viewpoints and Scenic Corridor

The proposed alternative would not affect scenic quality as viewed from the forest road system or from 

developed or dispersed recreation sites. Because of this there would be no cumulative effects as a result 

of implementation of the Lang Dam project.

Trails

Thinning treatments along system trails and near trailhead locations associated with the past Horse 

Creek Project and future proposed treatments associated with the Green Mountain Project may add 

incrementally to cumulative scenery effects as a result of implementation of the Lang Dam Project 

however the effect would be negligible due to design criteria which is in place for all three projects that 

limits impacts to scenery.

If the post-harvest vegetative recovery period (3-6 years) or pre-harvest related activities such as tree 

marking associated with the proposed Green Mountain Project or past Horse Creek project overlap in 

time with the Lang Dam project there would be some limited, incremental cumulative impact to scenery. 

The likelihood that all three projects implement project work in such a way that overlap occurs is low 

however. Design criteria are in place to protect scenery resources for all three projects so VQO’s would 

be maintained consistent with forest plan direction.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 113

3.8 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)

Summary of Effects

Alternative 2 would have no effects on the IRA because no timber harvest or associated activities would 

occur within the IRA. Three harvest units (190, 210 and 220) in the Land Dam Project are adjacent to the 

IRA. See Figure 17. These units would have boundary markers established during implementation to 

ensure all harvest related activities are restricted to areas outside the IRA boundary. 

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Inventoried Roadless 

Areas (IRA) is the Lang Dam project area boundary located within the Elk, Cougar Creek, Cougar 

Reservoir, and East Fork subwatersheds (6th field) of the McKenzie River and South Fork McKenzie River 

Watershed (5th field).

Figure 17 Lang Dam units adjacent to the IRA

Affected Environment

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of 

inventories roadless area maps (contained in Forest Service Area Conservation Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at the National headquarters office 

of the Forest Service), or any subsequent update or revision of those maps (36 CFR 294.11). These areas 

were set aside through administrative rulemaking and have provisions, within the context of multiple 

use management, for the protection of inventoried roadless areas. Most IRA boundaries are substantially 

identical to those identified as “Roadless Areas” referred to in the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17)
114 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

and identified by the Forest Plan, FEIS, however some localized, minor differences in boundaries may 

exist. 1134 acres of IRA is located within the Lang Dam Project boundary. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 

No treatments would occur with the implementation of Alternative 1, therefore no direct or indirect 

effects to the IRA would occur. 

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have no effects on the IRA because no timber harvest or associated activities would 

occur within the IRA. Three harvest units (190, 210 and 220) in the Land Dam Project are adjacent to the 

IRA. See Figure 17. These units would have boundary markers established during implementation to 

ensure all harvest related activities are restricted to areas outside the IRA boundary. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1 and 2

No effects to the IRA would occur within the Lang Dam project; therefore no cumulative effected to the 

IRA would occur. 

3.9 Botanical Resources

Summary of Effects Analysis

There were no listed sensitive species found during surveys, so there is no effect. There were no Survey 

and Manage species found during surveys, so there is no effect. No disturbance buffers would protect 

special habitats, so there is no effect. Invasive plants are present in the project area. Project Design 

Criteria would minimize the spread of them.

Scale of Analysis

The scale of analysis for botanical resources is limited to the units proposed for treatment.

Affected Environment - Sensitive Botanical Species

Current management mandates conservation of several categories of special status plants on the 

Willamette National Forest. These include species from the Regional Forester Sensitive and Strategic 

Plant lists. Special status species are protected by USDA Forest Service regulations and manual direction 

(FSM 2672.4). 

Numerous plants on the Regional Forester Special Status Species list for the Willamette National Forest 

have the potential to occur in the Lang Dam project area, which encompasses a wide range of western 

Cascade forest habitats. The complete species list is in the Biological Evaluation in the Project File.

Prefield review of the Lang Dam project area showed no known sensitive plant populations. Romanzoffia 

thompsonii, a small, flowering plant found in open, rocky, seasonally wet habitats ranging 750 to 6,000 

feet elevation, occurs in the South Fork Watershed. 

The project area was reviewed summer 2015, using intuitive controlled surveys. The surveyor traversed 

through the project area enough to see a representative cross section of all the major habitats and

topographic features, looking for the target species. When the surveyor arrived at an area of potential 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 115

habitat, defined in the prefield review or encountered during the field visit, they completed a survey for 

the target species.

Although potential habitat occurs for special status fungi in the project area, no surveys for these species 

occurred because they are infeasible (except Bridgeoporus nobilissimus, which is a perennial conk found 

on Noble fir snags and stumps). The sensitive fungi on the Willamette National Forest species list are 

limited in distribution and their habitats are poorly understood (i.e. there are very general habitat 

characteristics listed in the literature).

Unit surveys resulted no sensitive species in the project area. 

Environmental Consequences – Sensitive Botanical Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

This alternative would have no effect on special status botanical species because habitat modification as 

a result of timber harvest would not occur in the project area.

Alternative 2

There would be no effect on special status plants in the Lang Dam project area from timber harvest 

because no plants were located at the time of surveys.

Without knowing for certain the presence or absence of these fungi in the Lang Dam project area, a 

reasonable assumption is there would be some localized effects to individuals from activities proposed in 

the Lang Dam EA. These potential localized effects are specific to fungi only.

Timber harvest could impact some unknown fungi in the project area as a result of soil compaction and 

microclimatic change by increasing the effects of solar radiation through canopy removal (Griffiths and 

Swanson 2001). The thinning and gap creation would have the same effect of regeneration harvest, but 

to a lesser degree based on spatial impact. Alteration of seral stage creates a a change in underground 

fungal species diversity and regeneration harvest does diminish the richness of ectomycorrhizal species 

(Byrd et al. 2000). Logging intensity has also been shown to affect abundance and composition of 

ectomycorrhizal fungi (Durrall et al. 2006). 

Both natural fuels and post-harvest under burning have potential to affect fungi species. Research 

indicates diversity in ectomycorrhizal species, live root biomass, and duff levels is reduced by prescribed 

fire, compared to non-burned treatments (Smith et al. 2005). The majority of fungal species diversity 

resides in mineral soil (Bruns et al. 2002). Considering, fire behavior can be unpredictable; effects could 

occur from a change in expected fire severity during under burning operations. As a consequence, high 

intensity fires could kill fungi in mineral soil (Dahlberg 2002). The burn season could affect fire severity, 

with fall and spring burns having differential influences on the community structure and abundance of 

ectomycorrhizal fungi (Dahlberg et al. 2001). Pile burning could have an effect on some fungi in terms of 

radiant heat impacts; since concentrated burning can result in localized higher fire intensities and 

changes in fungal species diversity (Baar et al. 1999).

There could be effects from a loss of host trees as a result of timber harvest and there could be effects 

due to fuels treatments. Research found fungal reproduction was not affected at the 40 percent 

retention level, but was almost eliminated at the 15 percent retention level. (Luoma et al. 2004). The 

Lang Dam project proposes 39 acres of gaps under the proposed action. However, Alternative 2 proposes 

treatments (i.e. gaps) which would reduce tree retention in some stands closer to the 15 percent 

threshold where there are effects to sensitive fungi.

Gaps could have additional effects on fungi species potentially occurring in the project area by removing 

host trees of from their inoculum source. Ectomycorrhizal root tip density drops greatly when the 
116 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

distance from gap edge exceeds 10 meters (Berglund and Jonsson 2003). No harvest areas (skips) would 

be retained in units with gaps and may allow for some level of mycelia retention. However, gaps greater 

than 10 m (approximately 33 feet) from the next skip should be assumed to have some impact on fungi 

propagation.

Post-harvest under burning has potential to affect fungi species. Research indicates diversity in 

ectomycorrhizal species, live root biomass, and duff levels reduction by prescribed fire, compared to 

non-burned treatments (Smith et al. 2005). 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for sensitive plants is the Lang Dam harvest units because there is 

potential habitat for these species and any expected cumulative effect from the proposed action would 

occur in the project area boundary. There are no known sensitive plants in the Lang Dam project area; 

therefore, there is no cumulative effect to these species

This section analyzes cumulative effects to potential sensitive fungi habitat. Alternative 2 proposes 645 

acres of harvest. Harvest has occurred on approximately 5,143 acres of land (71%of the project area) in 

the past. Of the 645 acres treated, ground disturbance is expected to stay under the Willamette National 

Forest FW-081 Standard of 20% of an activity area impacted or 129 acres of the 7195 acre project area. 

Alternative 2 would increase potential cumulative effects to fungi by under 2 percent. Alternative 2 

carries a higher risk of cumulative effects to sensitive fungi species as compared to the No Action 

Alternative.

Affected Environment – Survey and Manage Botanical Species

This project is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards 

and Guidelines. This project utilizes the December 2003 species list. This list incorporates species 

changes and removals made as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews. Lang Dam 

project area surveys occurred during the summer of 2015. The survey and manage tracking form is 

available in the Project File.

Pre-field review of the Lang Dam project area showed no known Survey and Manage plant populations. 

One Survey and Manage lichen, Peltigera pacifica, occurs in the South Fork watershed. It occurs in moist, 

low elevation forest on soil, moss, rocks, logs, and tree boles.

The project area was reviewed summer 2015, using intuitive controlled surveys. The surveyor traversed 

through the project area enough to see a representative cross section of all the major habitats and 

topographic features, looking for the target species. When the surveyor arrived at an area of potential 

habitat, defined in the pre-field review or encountered during the field visit, a survey for the target 

species was completed.

Unit surveys resulted no Survey and Manage species in the project area. 

Environmental Consequences – Survey and Manage Botanical Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

This alternative would have no effect on survey and manage species because habitat modification as a 

result of timber harvest would not occur in the project area.

Alternative 2

There would be no effect on survey and manage species in the Lang Dam project area from timber 

harvest because no plants were located at the time of surveys.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 117

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for survey and manage species is the Lang Dam harvest units 

because there is potential habitat for these species and any cumulative effect from the proposed action 

is expected to occur within the harvest boundary. There are no known survey and manage plants in the 

Lang Dam; therefore, there is no cumulative effect to these species.

Affected Environment – Special Habitats

Special habitats are non-forested habitats which are limited in size and distribution across the landscape. 

Small, scattered habitats play important roles not only for perpetual occupants of the sites, but also for 

those organisms who use them seasonally, or for only a portion of their life cycles.

Numerous factors contribute to the creation or maintenance of special habitats. Among such factors, 

topography and hydrology often determine the microclimatic conditions at these sites. Some features, 

such as rock outcrops, are static and remain on the landscape. Wetland special habitats can be 

ephemeral or perennial depending on the water source. Meadows are unique because both natural 

disturbances and processes create them. Conversely, they can also be lost to natural processes such as 

encroachment. Table 35 identifies special habitats in potential Lang Dam harvest units. 

Table 35 Special Habitats in the Lang Dam Project Area

Proposed Units Special Habitat *No-Disturbance Buffer

20, 30, 60, 70, 80, 90, 

100, 110,120, 150, 

160, 170, 180

wetland/seep **30 ft.

*No-disturbance buffer distance is based on Special Habitat Management Guide. **Buffers would be expanded if Aquatic 

Resource analysis recommends increasing them in order to maintain hydrologic function.

Environmental Consequences – Special Habitats

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There would be no measurable effect to any seep/wetland with selecting this alternative.

Alternative 2

The action alternatives would have no impact on special habitats. Buffers would protect special habitats 

from harvest and ground disturbing activities. These habitats are not as common as forested habitats 

and they support plant communities which are different from those of coniferous forest. These buffers 

would maintain the microclimate, hydrology, and prevent damage to the areas during project 

implementation. Without the no-disturbance mitigation, reduced cover could potentially decrease 

humidity and increase temperature earlier in the growing season, thus altering habitat viability. 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for special habitat cumulative effects is the Lang Dam units. This area was chosen 

because activities outside the analysis area would have no effect on special habitats located within the 

project analysis area.

There would be no effect to special habitats in the Lang Dam project area because of the no-disturbance 

buffer mitigation; therefore, there would be no cumulative effect from the proposed actions.

Based on the analysis of this project, there would be no incremental change to existing populations of 

special habitats in the project area as a result of selecting any of the alternatives. There are no 
118 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

foreseeable future actions (e.g. burning, encroachment thinning) which would contribute additional 

cumulative effects to special habitats within the project area.

Affected Environment - Invasive Plants 

Several populations of invasive plants are present in the Lang Dam project area. Plant species such as: St. 

John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum), Scotch Broom (Cystisus scoparius), Tansy Ragwort (Senecio 

vulgaris), Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armenicus), cutleaf blackberry 

(Rubus lacinatus), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea strobe) are found along roads within and adjacent 

to the project area (Table 36). With the exception of spotted knapweed, these weeds are considered 

“established invaders” because they are commonly found on adjacent properties and throughout the 

Willamette National Forest. Spotted knapweed and false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) are 

considered “new invader” species because their distributions are limited in the Forest and they have 

greater potential for spread.

False brome and other known species in the Lang Dam project area are found on road shoulders, but 

occur in some proposed harvest units. Similar management actions in adjacent watersheds have 

contributed to the establishment of this plant in particular. Based on post-harvest observations of these 

other stands, it is assumed false brome would likely become established in all suitable habitats adjacent 

to established populations in the Lang Dam project area. Best Management Practices, such as EarlyDetection, Rapid-Response, equipment cleaning, and competitive seeding are effective at minimizing 

post-harvest effects on invasive plants.

Grasses and forbs are the first plants to colonize early seral habitats, with shrubs and trees establishing 

later as the stand matures. Gaps and other created openings attract wildlife looking for forage. Though 

less palatable than native forage, false brome is browsed, and then passed through manure. The seed 

also embeds in their fur. Most foraging wildlife species cover large areas, as such, there is potential to 

increase the range invasive plants, even with established Best Management Practices.

Table 36 Invasive Plants in the Lang Dam Project Area

Invasive Species Proposed Units

False brome 

(Brachypodium 

sylvaticum)

170, 190, 220

Spotted knapweed 

(Centaurea maculosa)

20, 30, 60, 80, 150, 160, 180

Blackberry species

(Rubus 

armenicus/R.lacinatus)

20, 30, 50

Scotch Broom 

(Cystisus scoparius)

20, 30, 40, 150, 170, 180

Tansy Ragwort (Senecio 

vulgaris)

20, 30, 40, 150

St. John’s Wort 

(Hypericum perforatum)

20, 30, 60, 80, 150, 180, 220
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 119

Environmental Consequences – Invasive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There would be no effects to invasive plants with this alternative. Invasive plant populations would likely 

continue to spread at the current rate. Selecting this alternative would not create disturbed areas as a 

result of harvest, hauling, or fuel treatment activities.

Since the No-Action alternative does not propose thinning, temporary road construction, or fuel 

treatments it would not create additional suitable habitat in terms of soil disturbance, temporary roads, 

gaps, or landings. However, natural vectors (i.e. wildlife and wind) would continue to spread invasive 

plants. New and potential invader plant populations documented in the Lang Dam Project Area would 

remain highest priority in receiving treatment and monitoring, as determined by the District Botanist.

Alternative 2

Invasive plant effects in this alternative can be minimized through proper inventory and project design. 

Since the majority of the Forest’s invasive plant infestations occur along road shoulders, road 

maintenance and skid trails in harvest units represent a particular risk for inadvertently spreading weeds. 

Activities such as grading, brushing and mowing, culvert upgrades, and ditch cleaning can spread 

invasive plant species from one watershed to another. 

Ground disturbance and habitat modification from project implementation would have an effect on 

invasive plants. It provides suitable conditions for invasive plants to establish or out-compete early 

pioneer native species. This effect would be observed for approximately 3-5 years on temporary roads 

and created openings (landings and gaps). This effect would diminish over time as native vegetation 

establishes and out-competes the non-native species. Often there are many other connected activities, 

such as road improvements and slash treatment which have a presence on the landscape and result in 

some degree of ground disturbance. 

Based on the observed response of false brome to management in similar timber types, it is likely 

Alternative 2 could eventually spread false brome into an additional 320 acres early seral habitat (gaps) 

above and beyond the commercial thinning acres. This is also in addition to 324 acres regeneration 

harvest. Regeneration harvest would leave approximately 20 trees per acre depending on land allocation 

and would result in larger swaths of available ground for false brome establishment. False brome 

establishes along disturbed margins and spreads into adjacent habitats, invading successfully under a 

range of environmental conditions including shade and high nutrients (Holmes et al. 2008). 

In order to mitigate the effect ground disturbance would have on invasive plants, temporary roads and 

landings would be re-vegetated using native grass seed. Off-road machinery washing would occur prior 

to accessing and departing sale areas to mitigate the potential of vectoring invasive plant propagules. 

Rock sources used in temporary road construction would be free of invasive plants and approved by the 

road engineers and the District Botanist. 

By comparison, Alternative 2 proposes to harvest more acres and modify more habitat in the Lang Dam 

project area than Alternative 3. Therefore Alternative 2 carries a higher risk of creating new habitat for 

weed invasion.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for invasive plants is the Lang Dam project area because it addresses 

known distribution of invasive plants and likely travel routes for the proposed project. The invasive 

plants found in the project area are shade-intolerant and generally confined to roadsides and open 

areas, with the exception of false brome which in known to occur in some proposed harvest units. 
120 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

The Lang Dam project proposes 645 acres of timber harvest. Past management action has contributed to 

the current invasive plant condition, with approximately 5,143 acres of timber harvested from 2014 

through the present. This includes implementation of projects analyzed in Bridge EA, Horse Creek EA, 

Green Mountain EIS, and various fuels reduction projects. Temporary roads constructed with the timber 

projects were re-vegetated and decommissioned after the activities were completed. Decommissioning 

and re-vegetation post-harvest was done to mitigate the effect of temporary roads by prohibiting 

vehicular access and establishing competing vegetation. Based on plant observations in similar habitats, 

native vegetation generally returns to a previously disturbed area within 2-5 years. Competitive seeding 

reduces the amount of resources available to invasive plants and the amount of time it would take for 

native plants to colonize a site.

Timber harvest is the greatest contributor in this project to cumulative effect on invasive plant habitat 

just as it does to fungi habitat. Alternative 2 proposes 645 acres; while approximately 5,143 acres have 

been managed in the past. Alternative 2 would increase potential cumulative effects to invasive plant by 

approximately 12 precent. Therefore, Alternative 2 carries a higher risk of cumulative effects to invasive 

plants compared to Alternative 1. 

Mitigation of approximately 50 percent of these cumulative effects could occur through proper 

implementation of the Project Design Criteria list in Chapter 2, which includes a number of best 

management practices such as equipment cleaning, using weed-free rock, minimizing soil disturbance, 

and competitive seeding of temporary spurs and landings.

3.10 Fire and Fuels

Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments would include underburning and hand/machine piling and burning. 

Treatments would meet Forest Standards and Guides to reduce fuel loading created from harvest. 

Reduced fuels would create greater safety for firefighters and public when future wildfires occur. The 

treatments would reduce the potential for higher wildfire behavior within the Wildland-Urban Interface 

of private land and community boundaries, improve wildfire management operations and support 

positive impacts to natural resources. The use of prescribed fire would add a secondary benefit of 

returning the natural disturbance process to the forest ecosystem.

Scale of Analysis

Project and stand specific data, as well as landscape level data, were used as it represents the nature of 

wildfire and how it moves across the landscape. Stand level information was used to identify and predict 

specific fuels characteristics and effects.

Affected Environment

Fire on the Landscape

Historically, fire played an active role and fire’s role would continue to be vital on the Willamette 

National Forest (Agee 1993). Researchers have concluded “forest fire[s] [have] been an important 

process in Pacific Northwest forests profoundly affecting forest age and species distributions, hence 

wildlife habitat, watershed processes, aquatic ecosystems, carbon dynamics, and nutrient cycling” 

(Weisberg and Swanson 2003). It is a biophysical process (Ryan 2013), an ecosystem process (Teensma 

1996) and species have adapted to the fire process (Pausas 2009). Fires are often caused by lightning, 

and prior to Anglo-settlement Indigenous people actively managed the land by using fire (Ryan 2013; 

Boyd 1999; Weisberg 1998; Teensma 1996). Removing natural wildfire and limiting prescribed fire have 

inhibited or halted natural processes for changes in the forest ecosystem. The influences of human 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 121

actions (development, fire suppression and logging) over the past century have changed fire disturbance 

processes across the project area. 

Near the project area, researcher Alan Tepley’s studies (2013) convey non-stand replacing fires (i.e., fire 

that kills 70% or less of the overstory trees) have been eliminated which affects the changes of various 

cohorts in structure over time. This is a characteristic of mixed severity fires or Fire Regime III (FRIII). 

These fires are not stand-replacing but rather create a patchy mosaic of different mortality (forest 

structure and diversity) across the landscape (Tepley 2013; Swanson 2008; Kertis et al. 2007; Weisberg 

1998; NWCG Glossary). Fire regimes I, III and V are in and around the project area. Fire Regime I 

describes fires frequency and severity at 35 years or less with low severity (mortality). Fire Regime II is 

35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation 

replaced) and Fire Regime V is 150+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity. Figure 18

displays the Fire Regime in and around the project area.

Figure 18 Fire regimes in the Lang Dam Project Area

Private land, power lines for Eugene and the local community, Cougar Dam and other structures 

intermingle with wildland fuels making the project a part of the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) in the 

McKenzie River Valley. These structures are considered within the Wildland-Urban Interface where 

wildland fuels within 1.5 miles can threaten to ignite structures (Silvis Lab, website). Additionally, 

recreators and long-term campers create a high probability for human caused fires which can impact the 

Wildland-Urban Interface and public safety. Within the past 45 years, 19 of 22 fires in the Project Area 

have been human caused. Continuous canopy closure and increased vegetation and fuel in the 

understory due to fire suppression and human management create more potential for faster spreading 

wildfire.
122 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Fuel Profile 

Dead needles, sticks and branches are the fuels that most often carry the fire and are measured by size 

as it relates to the amount of time for the fuel to dry: 1 hour fuels – 0-.25 inch diameter; 10 hour fuels -

.25-1 inches; 100 hour fuels – 1-3 inches (NWCG Glossary). Larger fuels, greater than 3 inches, contribute 

to residence time and play a role in fire behavior but are not often used to model fire behavior. One, 10 

and 100 hour fuels are estimated for post-harvest loading (amounts) and used in fire behavior modeling 

and predictions. One hour fuels fluctuate quickly during the course of a day. When weather conditions 

warm up through the fire season, 10 and 100 hour fuels dry and become more readily available to burn 

enabling fire to move quickly or burn more intensely.

Surface fuel loading (the amount of fuels on the ground) and depth correlate to the fire behavior (Brown 

and Snell 1980). Fuel loading (measured in tons/acre) is used to model fire behavior within the units. 

Horizontal or surface fuels refer to fuels on the ground, while vertical fuels refer to the ladder fuels (from 

the ground to the canopy of trees) such as brush, younger trees and limbs on the bole of larger trees 

within the stand.

Lichen carries fire and often creates tree torching or increases the chances for crown fire to initiate and 

move. Lichen exists in moderate amounts inside and outside of the project area and it is on the boles 

and branches of trees. Lichen dries faster than 1 hour fuels, burns quickly and carries fire and often 

creates tree torching or increases the chances for crown fire to initiate and move.

Fire Behavior

Fire is a dynamic process influenced by fuel loading and multiple environmental factors such as wind, 

topography, temperature, and humidity. Modeling fire behavior helps to identify fires movement and 

impacts within the vegetation. Fuel models (FM) are used to quantitatively describe surface fuel loading 

which is used as inputs to the fire behavior models, as well as for firefighter’s reference when engaged in 

a wild or prescribed fire (Anderson 1982; Maxwell et al. 1980). In the project area the following fuel 

models are identified:

• FM8 – young stands (20-80 years old) with light fuel loading of approximately 5 tons/acre of 

0-3 inch fuels and varying amounts of brush in the understory; low intensity fires with low 

severity (low mortality of dominant overstory vegetation). This FM represents the proposed 

harvest units and stands within the project area.

• FM10 – intermediate to older stands (>80 years old) with moderate to heavy fuels on the 

ground, ladder fuels and lichen in the trees; high fire intensity and severity including crown 

fire with mortality. 0 to 3 inch fuels are often 7 tons per acre or greater. This FM represents 

stands outside of the proposed units and within the project area.

• FM11 or 12 - representative of light to moderate slash loads following timber harvest and the 

average modeled fuels loading is about 13 tons/acre or more. The continuity of slash can 

greatly increase fire behavior depending on fuel loads. This FM represents stands postharvest and prior to fuels treatments.

Fire behavior was modeled using BehavePlus5 (NWCG Glossary) with fuels inputs that correspond to the 

Lang Dam Project Area. Fire weather data used in the model represents hot and dry summer conditions. 

During this weather a wildfires rate of spread can escape initial attack and potentially threaten 

firefighters, public or private property (Table 37).
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 123

Table 37 Modeled Wildfire Behavior for Proposed Lang Dam Units

Rate of Spread 

(chains/hour)b

Flame Length 

(feet)

Percent 

Mortality

Existing conditions inside and outside of unitsa

(FM10) 9 ch/hr 8 feet 45 percent

Post-harvest, NO fuels treatment (FM11) 15 ch/hr 8 feet 50 percent b

Post-fuels treatment (FM8) 3 ch/hr 1 feet 1 percent

a – Prescription parameters were hot, dry conditions similar to those during fire season. (80°F, 10 mph 20 ft. wind, 1, 10, 100 hour 

fuels at 4, 6, 8% moisture, respectively).

b – One chain equals 66 feet.

NOTE: See Fire/Fuels analysis for modeling data.

Firefighters ability to suppress a wildfire is not safely achievable when flame lengths (FL) are too intense 

(hot) for firefighters (FL measured >4 foot high) and the rates of spread (ROS measured in chains per 

hour which is 66 feet per hour) exceeds the ability of firefighters to build handline faster than the fire is 

moving. Fire suppression operations would require mechanized suppression resources to safely suppress 

the fire. Other characteristics that create fire suppression difficulties or increase fire fighter hazards are: 

tree torching or fire carrying through the crowns of trees and spotting ahead or outside of the main fire 

perimeter, fire spreading quickly through the canopy of trees from high amounts of lichen, and extreme 

temperatures and dry weather that create dry fuel ready to burn.

With suppression and forest management, wildfires have not played their natural disturbance role on 

the landscape. The departure from historic conditions affect the current wildfire behavior, fuels, stand 

structure, spatial arrangements, species composition and successional roles. Using prescribed fire for 

slash reduction can offer changes to aim towards diversity and adding the ecological benefits (Means et

al. 1996).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

No fuels treatments would take place in the no action alternative. Fire suppression would continue, 

given proximity to private land and the community. Vegetation would persist through successional 

pathways with no natural disturbance. Additionally, prescribed fire as a disturbance process in the 

project area would most likely not occur without forest management. Without wildfire or changes to 

stand structure from thinning, wildfires have potential to burn more acres given greater fire behavior if 

suppression is unsuccessful.

Alternative 2

Harvests would create slash on 532 acres increasing the fuel loading, especially in the 1, 10 and 100 hour 

fuels. The proposed fuels treatments for Alternative 2 would reduce slash and range from underburns, 

mechanical or hand piling and burning. Underburns are favorable, however treatments could change due 

to funding, size of the trees and location of the units. Acreage not underburned may have other postharvest fuels treatments such as grapple piling, mastication or chipping. Following timber harvest the 

heavy fuel loading can persist at least five years or more with red needles during the first one to two 

years. Slash is lofty which allows air to funnel through creating a productive burning environment, 

especially with red needles. The increase in fuels raises the potential for greater or more intense wildfire 

behavior. During a wildfire the rate of spread (ROS measured in chains per hour which is 66 feet) in slash 

can be greater than pre-harvest existing conditions.
124 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

The proposed fuels treatments for Alternative 2 would reduce slash in all units. This would aim to meet 

the Forest Standards and Guides (FW-252) and consist of acres of underburning, machine or hand piling 

and burning. Harvest created slash would be treated 1-2 years post-harvest. The fuels treatments within 

each unit would help improve firefighter and public safety during future wildfires, help to increase 

diversity to the project area and offer a secondary benefit of returning the natural disturbance process 

of fire.

Post-harvest fuel loading was calculated for all units based on the stand exam data. The values are for 1, 

10, and 100 hour fuels (0-3 inch diameter fuels) measured in tons/acre and categorized by stand age 

classes. The average post-harvest fuel loading (without fuel treatments) is 13 tons/acre. Post-fuels 

treatment fuel loading would meet Design Features (<11 tons/acre). Modeling data was specific to each 

unit and can be referenced in the Fire/Fuels analysis file.

From past experience on the District, underburns often consume an average of 80 percent of the fine 

fuels 0-1 inch diameter ( 1 and 10 hour fuels), 40-60 percent of the 1-3 inch fuels (100 hour fuels) and 

only about 20 percent of the 3-9 inch fuels (1000 hour fuels). The fuel moisture of large woody material 

(> 9 inches) is most often higher and would not be consumed, only the bark would be charred. 

Prescribed fire treatments would be one or two underburns or one or two units with piles burned in a 

day.

Fire behavior was modeled for existing fuel models and post-harvest with and without fuels treatments 

(Table 37). Weather parameters used for modeling were hot, dry conditions similar to those during the 

fire season.

In the event of a wildfire, fire behavior would be reduced with harvest (reducing canopy continuity) and 

fuels treatments (reducing fuel bed) by keeping fire on the ground and not in the canopy thus improving 

suppression efforts. A more open canopy can allow the sun to quickly heat the vegetation and fuels on 

the ground, and with fewer trees the potential for wind within the stand can increase. Even though these 

modifications could result in faster rates of spread during a wildfire they would be lower intensity (heat), 

duration and lower flame lengths compared to harvested stands with no fuels treatments. The harvest 

and fuels treatments also reduce ladder fuels (vertical and horizontal fuels) which would reduce the 

potential for tree torching or crown fire (Safford 2009; Lindh 2003; Agee 2002) reducing spotting in and 

out of the unit.

Wildfire and prescribed fire are dynamic processes influenced by multiple environmental factors such as 

wind, topography, temperature, and humidity. Due to these influential factors, which create and alter 

fire behavior, a chance exists to exceed underburn objective parameters and Design Criteria (mortality 

<10% and meeting Forest Standard and Guides FW-252, FW-081, FW-253). To reduce these factors,

underburns would take place under prescribed weather and fuels conditions, most likely in the spring or 

fall. The prescribed burns would be administered using tempered speeds of ignition to reduce mortality 

of residual canopy. These conditions and operations slow or stop consumption after the fine fuels are 

consumed and keep the intensity moderated. In the event the fire behavior exceeds treatment 

objectives or burning operations, changes are evaluated immediately and adjustments are made to alter 

or reduce fire behavior. Containing fire in the units is important given firefighter and public safety, 

private property, project objectives and surrounding natural resources.

Prescribed underburns (through the entire unit or in gaps) would also help to create snags and return 

fire as a natural disturbance process to the ecosystem. Underburns would help to reduce competition 

and prepare the site for natural or planted regeneration and improve species diversity. Prescribed fire 

would return the disturbance that creates changes to the soil, nutrients, vegetation species and 

regeneration (Swanson 2008) as well as simulate non-stand replacing wildfires (mixed severity) (Tepley 

2013; Barrett et al. 2010). 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 125

Underburns may require firelines constructed around the perimeter. These are created prior to the burn 

and aid in containing the prescribed fire within the unit boundaries. Firelines are created by scraping fuel 

back to mineral soil (18” line) and scattering fuels that lie within 10 feet of the fireline. If needed, units 

on steep slopes would have waterbars constructed within the fireline to reduce erosion. Firelines are 

rehabilitated to existing conditions if needed.

Firelines are usually not built along skips or riparian reserves (shaded areas). During the prescribed burn,

these areas burn with less intensity due to lower temperatures and higher relative humidity from the 

thicker canopy cover. Fire often backs into the shade and behavior decreases to a smolder or 

extinguishes itself.

Hand, grapple, and landing piles are covered with regulatory plastic following construction (Oregon 

Department of Forestry 1995). This creates a drier pocket of fuel in the middle of the pile and enables 

them to be burned in the late fall, winter or early spring when there is very low risk of fire spreading 

from the piles. Removing the plastic before burning is suggested in order to aid in reducing emissions 

from the plastic.

After treatments the fuel profile would aid in protecting private property surrounding the treatment 

units. Fuels treatments next to private property would aid in changing fire behavior moving from the 

project area to private and vice versa. Again, hazards to firefighters and public, property/structures, and 

resources would be decreased and suppression tactics and safety would improve. Additionally, many 

unattended campfires (19 in the past 45 years in the project boundary) would be better detected with 

greater visibility in the understory.

Monitoring for McKenzie River fire and fuels would take place prior to, during and following the fuels 

treatments. Fuels treatments and data offer information to use in future projects.

For information on smoke emissions see Air Quality Section 3.11

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the Lang Dam Project alternatives were analyzed in the East Fork, Elk Creek, Cougar 

Creek and Cougar Reservoir 6th field watershed. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable hazardous 

fuels projects and timber harvest aid in changing wildfire behavior and activity due to reductions in fuels.

Since 2008, hazardous fuels projects have been occurring throughout the McKenzie River communities

along major roads/highways and next to private property boundaries. These treatments add to the 

benefits of fuels treatments and thinning in the Lang Dam Project. Hazardous fuels projects are different 

than timber harvests as only the understory trees and shrubs <10” dbh are cut, piled and burned or 

chipped. This type of understory thinning aids in reducing fuel continuity from the ground to the crowns 

of trees. When fire moves in the canopy, spreading quickly and increasing spotting, private property and 

homes are put at a greater risk. All of these projects and Lang Dam proposals would aide in community 

wildfire safety and reduction. The following projects are planned within the next 5 years:

• 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Project Decision Memo CE – 94 acres of hand piles along FS Road 

1900-410 and King Road would be burned this winter 2016/2017.

• Highway Corridor Fuels Reduction DM 2009 – 24 acres of hand piles along the north side of 

Highway 126 at the FS Road 19 junction would be scheduled to burn in 2017/2018.

• Lower Road 19 Hazardous Fuels Project CE (in planning) – approximately 300 acres of thinning 

and hand piling and burning would begin in 2017. The project would continue over the next two 

to five years and hand pile burning would begin in 2018.

• Green Mountain EIS fuels treatments would begin within the next five years following the 

timber harvests. 
126 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Alternative 1 

Because of no action, there would be no additional impact on the environment from this project when 

added to the impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR §1508.7). 

Fire suppression would continue thereby affecting the changes to the ecosystem with the continued 

removal of the natural disturbance.

Alternative 2

For Alternative 2 approximately 532 acres or 13 percent of the analysis area would have post-harvest 

fuels treatment. These treatments, in addition to the planned and previously implemented fuels and 

thinning projects within and surrounding Lang Dam Project, would assist in changing the continuity of 

fuels. These changes are on a finer scale than the way wildfire could or would have naturally occurred

but having the change would offer beneficial assistance to fire fighter and public safety and reduce risks 

to private property.

Additionally, continued fire suppression and timber management have different effects (on wildlife, 

habitat, aquatics, soils and vegetation species) than having fire play its natural role. Many documents 

and researchers speak about the importance of fire in the forest ecosystem. As stated by Teensma 

(1996), “restoration and maintenance of fire as an ecosystem process is critical to retention of biological 

diversity and ecosystem sustainability.” Mixed fire severity regimes across the landscape is a component 

to maintain varying historic pathways (Tepley et al. 2013). The Lang Dam Project would help fire play a 

role in aiding the ecosystem processes through reducing post-harvest fuels.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction

The Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) FEIS and Record of 

Decision (ROD) establishes management standards and guidelines for treatment, maintenance, or 

reduction of hazardous fuels to achieve the desired future condition. Measurement criteria are 

consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

• McKenzie River Ranger District follows The Northwest Oregon Fire Management Plan – an 

interagency plan established to provide additional guidelines for prescribed and wildfire 

activities.

• A detailed, nationally approved interagency prescribed fire burn plan is a requirement for any 

activity involving prescribed fire. An individual plan is developed and used on each activity 

unit. It identifies management objectives specific to the Forest Plan, details about the stand to 

be burned, prescription parameters, contingency, safety hazards and mitigations, and public 

notification. Prior to fuels treatments fuels would be identified on the ground using transects 

and/or photo series to gather specific fuel loading. The District Ranger or Forest Line Office 

is required to sign and approve the burn plans before implementation.

3.11 Air Quality

Summary of Effects Analysis

Smoke emissions (airborne particulate matter) from pile burning or underburning should not last more 

than one or two days after the burn. The fuel loading post-harvest and consumption amounts would be

measured prior to burning and the timing of the burns (date of burn and length of ignition) would aim to 

avoid high amounts of smoke that trigger hazardous air quality readings on nephelometers. Smoke 

emissions were modeled in FOFEM (First Order Fire Effects Model) program using representative fuel 

loading post harvests. Direction of travel was modeled in BlueSky Playground program with average 

seasonal wind and with moderate amount of consumption smoke did not heavily impact the Smoke 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 127

Sensitive Receptor Areas (<50 ppm of PM2.5 particulate matter micrometers). Oregon Smoke 

Management forecasters would be notified prior to the burn and they would authorize implementation 

based on the amount of emissions predicted and the current weather forecast wind directions. Fire 

management personnel would notify surrounding communities and those that may receive low to 

moderate amounts of smoke during the burn. 

Scale of Analysis

Scale of analysis is in (upper McKenzie River Valley communities) and surrounding the project area. The 

travel or path of smoke is analyzed at a larger airshed (geography that shares the common flow of air) 

and would extend within and outside of the Willamette National Forest. 

Affected Environment

Standards for ambient air quality are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are designed 

to protect human health and welfare. Air quality can be impacted by the presence of particulate matter 

(and other pollutants) produced by both prescribed fire and wildfire smoke. EPA considers wildfires to be 

natural events even though some accidental human actions initiate some wildfires and, to some degree, 

prior land management practices can influence the frequency and scale of wildfires. Smoke generated 

from prescribed burning and wildfire must meet federal and state air quality standards set forth in the 

1970 Clean Air Act (CAA section 160).

The State of Oregon has been delegated authority for attainment standards set by the 1990 and 1977 

Amendments of the Clean Air Act. To regulate these standards, Oregon developed the Oregon Clean Air 

Act State Implementation Plan (Oregon Department of Forestry 1995). These are guidelines and 

regulations for prescribed fire smoke emissions in Oregon. The Willamette National Forest uses this plan 

for emission control in Oregon (USDA Forest Service 1990).

Under the Oregon regulations for prescribed fire smoke emissions, visibility and particulate matter (PM2.5

and PM10 micrometers) are measured through predicted fuels burned and through using nephelometers 

in smoke-sensitive receptor areas (SSRA). The nephelometer measures particulate matter and relates the 

measurements to air quality and pollution and impacts to humans. These are regulated in the airsheds 

surrounding the Lang Dam Project area, which includes SSRA and Class I Airsheds. Nephelometer values 

range from good to hazardous, 0 – 500. “An Air Quality Index value of 100 generally corresponds to the 

national air quality standard for the pollutant, which is the level EPA has set to protect public health” 

(AirNow website). Prescribed fire on Lang Dam is prescribed to be below 100.

Priority areas near the Lang Dam Project:

• Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA) 

o Oakridge – 27 air miles southwest

o Willamette Valley, eastern edge is Deerhorn – 20 air miles west

o Bend – 43 air miles east

• Class I Airsheds – protected from visibility impairment (Oregon Visibility Protection Plan)

o Three Sisters Wilderness – southeastern boundary of project area

o Mt. Washington Wilderness – 13 air miles northeast

• McKenzie River communities (non-designated state areas)

o McKenzie Bridge – three air miles northeast

o Blue River – two air miles northwest
128 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Air quality is important and a concern for people and airsheds. During prescribed fire, smoke emissions 

are short term (1-2 days). Blue River and McKenzie Bridge communities may have smoke during the 

evening hours following the prescribed fires as diurnal wind patterns can carry smoke downhill or down 

the valley. Class 1 Airshed guidelines would be met and coordinated with the Smoke Management 

Forecaster. The movement of smoke through the airshed would also be reviewed from the Forecaster.

Alternative 1 

If no management actions take place in the Lang Dam Project Area there would be no air quality impacts 

from fuels treatments. However, the risk of wildfire would still exist. Air quality impacts from wildfire are 

considerably higher than they are from prescribed fire. Wildfire smoke emissions are not short term and 

can often last for many weeks or months, as they did during Scott Mountain Fire in 2010 and Shadow 

Lake Fire in 2011. Smoke emissions from wildfire are more likely to heavily impact communities and 

contribute to harmful, concentrated levels of PM2.5 and PM10 given the amount of time the fire burns.

Alternative 2

Smoke emissions would be mitigated based on the timing of the burns, seasonality, forecasted transport 

wind direction, and weather. The Oregon Smoke Management plan requires scheduling prescribed fire 

on days which are suitable in relation to other land owners burning, weather forecasts and location to 

Class I Airsheds and communities. The importance of visibility in Class I Airsheds, such as Three Sisters 

Wilderness on the east side of the project area, is recognized and burn prescriptions and timing would 

be designed to minimize potential for smoke intrusion in these areas. Prescribed fire would aim to burn 

in order to protect visibility standards for Class I Airsheds.

Communities near the Lang Dam Project Area may be temporarily impacted by drift smoke from the 

prescribed fire underburns or pile burning. Smoke settling into the valley can impact community 

members who are sensitive to smoke. The time span smoke is emitted is short and the impact on 

community members are important to monitor. 

The local communities and public would be notified prior to burning. During the prescribed fire activity 

signs would be placed along the road or near the treatment area to inform public drivers of smoke along 

the road. Additional guidance would be calling local community members, posting signs in the 

community areas (i.e., grocery stores), submitting publication in the local newspaper and tracking burn 

program on the Willamette National Forest Webpage. Prescribed fires notification and implementation 

would also be designed to minimize the potential for impact to visitors in these areas:

• Delta Campground – within the northern portion of the Project Area

• Terwilliger Hotsprings – along Rd 19 and three miles south of Cougar Dam

From past experience on the District, underburns often consume an average of 80 percent of the fine 

fuels 0-1 inch diameter ( 1 and 10 hour fuels), 40-60 percent of the 1-3 inch fuels (100 hour fuels) and 

only about 20 percent of the 3-9 inch fuels (1000 hour fuels). The fuel moisture of large woody material 

(> 9 inches) is most often higher and would not be consumed, only the bark would char. Prescribed fire 

treatments would be one or two underburns or one or two units with piles burned in a day. 

Particulate matter emissions was modeled and compared between wildfire and post-harvest prescribed 

fire. Results identified wildfire emitting 300-400 percent more PM during one burn period. The fuels 

burned during a wildfire are greater at consuming large woody material and full tree crowns versus 

prescribed fire burning when larger fuel (logs and tree crowns) is moist and not consumed. The 

comparison of wildfire and prescribed fire uses the same number of acres for each, burning one day and 

under weather conditions that characterize the time of burn for prescribed and wildfires. Wildfires are 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 129

modeled with no suppression burning for one burn day using hot, dry conditions. Data can be found in 

the Air Quality Analysis.

It is important to note the emissions levels for all the fuels treatments within the project do not occur as 

a single event or at the same time. Underburns and pile burns usually occur during different seasons 

which would also alleviate smoke emissions during one period in time. In comparison, wildfire emission 

would occur over several days if it escaped initial attack. Under hot, dry weather wildfires can continue 

to burn for several days or months. 

The direction of travel for smoke can be modeled in BlueSky Playground application. The program 

calculates fuel consumption and visually displays the travel path of smoke. This allows the prediction of 

where the smoke may travel and what effect it would have on air quality. For example, calculating results 

from an underburn on Unit 170 in May demonstrates the common seasonal wind carrying smoke in SSW 

and SSE directions. Inputs of average fuel loading post-harvest (13 tons/acre) and seasonal wind 

(direction and speed) were used. Smoke emissions and direction would be dynamic as fire ignition timing 

varies upon the weather and time of day. Model results can be found in the Air Quality Analysis. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 

Because this is no action, there would be no impact on the environment from the incremental impact of 

an action when added to the impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(40 CFR §1508.7). Fire suppression would still continue with the potential for wildfires to grow and emit 

particulate matter.

Alternative 2

Impacts on air quality from smoke emissions would not exceed state mandated policy. Prescribed fire 

smoke emissions would be short duration (1-2 days). Prescribed fire design features and prescription 

parameters would reduce the quantity of emissions during prescribed burns (See section 3.2). Because 

smoke is of short duration and dissipates over the course of one or two days past management activities 

would not cumulatively add to air quality impacts from the proposed treatments. 

Additional projects would contribute to the amount and duration of particulate matter if treatments 

occur within the same few days of Lang Dam fuel treatments. The timing and emissions would be

regulated and smoke would last 1-2 days per treatment (the number of burns implemented per day). 

The following hazardous fuels projects and fuels treatments, within and bordering the Lang Dam Project 

Area, would occur within the next five years:

• 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Project Decision Memo CE – 94 acres of hand piles along FS Road 

1900-410 and King Road would be burned this winter 2016/2017.

• Highway Corridor Fuels Reduction DM 2009 – 24 acres of hand piles along the north side of 

Highway 126 at the FS Road 19 junction would be scheduled to burn in 2017/2018.

• Lower Road 19 Hazardous Fuels Project CE (in planning) – approximately 300 acres of thinning 

and hand piling and burning would begin in 2017. The project would continue over the next two 

to five years and hand pile burning would begin in 2018. 

• Green Mountain EIS fuels treatments would being within the next five years following the timber 

harvests. 

If two or more units are burned in or outside of the project area in one day (including burns on private 

land) smoke management forecasters coordinate with other land agencies or owners so air quality can 

be monitored and treatments scheduled in order to maintain acceptable air quality. This coordination 

would ensure this project meets guidelines and regulations through Oregon DEQ. No other foreseeable 
130 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

management activities would affect air quality or occur in the Lang Dam Project Area or surrounding 

areas that could affect communities or wilderness.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction

1. Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) FEIS and Record 

of Decision (ROD) establishes management standards and guidelines for air quality intrusion to 

Class 1 Airsheds. Timing is evaluated during prescribed fire treatments.

2. The Oregon Smoke Management Plan and the State Implementation Plan regulate the standards 

set by the 1990 Clean Air Act and 1977 Clean Air Act and its amendments. The Willamette 

National Forest closely follows this plan and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

regulations to maintain air quality standards in communities and Class 1 Airsheds during 

prescribed fire and wildfire. Air quality analysis was based on the guidelines the Willamette NF 

follows. Particulate matter (PM) production was evaluated with the predicted fuel loadings postharvest. Calculations of the estimated amounts of PM created was modeled in the First Order 

Fire Effects Model (FOFEM). Direction of spread within the surrounding airsheds was modeled in 

BlueSky Playground. Prior to work on the ground, each burn would be registered in Fastrax 

Smoke Registration Program (https://fastrax.ordvac.com/) to assure implementation and 

compliance with air quality regulations.

3. Wilderness Act established policies in the Forest Plan for reducing particulate matter intrusions 

within the Class I Airsheds. These standards and guidelines are managed in prescribed fire 

planning to reduce intrusions into the wilderness and work with smoke management forecasters 

prior to burning.

3.12 Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

Summary of Effects Analysis

The riparian vegetation and large woody material that provide for aquatic and terrestrial habitat 

complexity and productivity have been altered by past logging practices, road construction, and the 

construction of Cougar Dam. There is a lack of vegetation species diversity and structural complexity at 

the landscape and project scales. In general, the habitat elements that contribute to quality of fish and 

wildlife habitat and productivity are in an impaired condition primarily due to the presence of Cougar 

Dam, the removal of large woody material from streams and floodplains, and the alteration of riparian 

vegetation due to past logging and an altered flood regime. These conditions need to improve in order to 

meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives and support healthy, native fish and wildlife 

populations in the watershed.

Alternative 1 would have no immediate effect on the current conditions. Desired riparian conditions –

high species and structural diversity with large dead and down wood – slowly develop over time (several 

decades) and depend solely on natural thinning events (stem exclusion mortality and disturbance). And 

given the presence of Cougar Dam, flood disturbances that would benefit riparian vegetation would 

continue to be impaired. Active restoration of Riparian Reserve stands that currently do not meet ACS 

objectives would not occur. In addition, the currently dense Riparian Reserve stands would be at greater 

risk to high severity fire, insect infestation, and disease – all carried more efficiently through overstocked 

stands. Alternative 1 would result in little or no change to impaired habitat conditions for fish and other 

aquatic species.

Alternative 2 would commercially thin 120 acres and skip (i.e. not thin) 89 acres of Riparian Reserve to 

reduce the density of overstocked stands, increase species diversity and structural complexity, and 

accelerate tree growth to more quickly attain ACS objectives. This alternative would largely protect 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 131

future in-stream wood sources due to no treatment buffers (i.e. 89 acres of skips) but may reduce shortterm (1-2 decades) sources of small dead wood in the outer portions of some Riparian Reserves in order 

to achieve desired vegetation characteristics. However, wood values would remain within the range of 

natural variability and abundant overstory would be retained for future wood input sufficient to sustain 

physical complexity. Direct management actions would create dead and downed wood within some 

Riparian Reserves. Sedimentation potential would increase during harvest activities but decrease after 

harvest due to road upgrades, decommissioning, and storage. The risk of sediment delivery through 

culvert failure would be reduced due to culvert installation, replacement, and drainage improvement.

Due to project design features, protection measures, and enhancement treatments, Alternative 2 would 

result in beneficial changes to habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic species.

Alternative 2 was evaluated for effects on ESA-listed fish species bull trout, Upper Willamette spring 

Chinook salmon and their designated critical habitat. Potential project effects on population, habitat, 

and non-habitat indicators were evaluated in the Biological Assessment (BA). Although some project 

activities may have minor adverse effects at the site scale, the effects to the ESA listed fish and their 

habitat are considered to be either insignificant or discountable. The effects determination is described 

as “May Affect, but not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) Upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon, bull 

trout, and their designated critical habitat.

Scale of Analysis

Unless otherwise noted, the geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 

water quality and aquatic resources for this project includes the project area units, the project area, the 

Elk Creek-McKenzie River, Cougar Creek-South Fork McKenzie River, Cougar Reservoir-South Fork 

McKenzie River, and East Fork-South Fork McKenzie River 6th field sub-watersheds (Figure 2 in Chapter 

1).

Assessment Methodology

Data on current and historic watershed condition was gathered from the South Fork McKenzie 

Watershed Analysis (1994 and revised in 2010) and through GIS analysis of a USFS vegetation database 

(FSVeg).

At the beginning of the project all potential units were surveyed by fisheries, hydrology, wildlife, and 

botany specialists. Each unit was gridded to capture streams, springs, wetlands, and information on 

riparian conditions.

Based on stream and riparian characteristics, the hydrology, wildlife, and botany specialists jointly

developed recommendations for no-treatment buffers and other potential treatments (e.g. down wood 

creation) for each waterbody. Refer to Table 5 in Chapter 2 for unit by unit information on Riparian 

Treatments.

Methods used for the analysis of fish, aquatic insects and in-stream habitat included:

• Field reviews of units,

• a review of stream surveys within the project area,

• a review of the McKenzie River Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1994 and 2010) for 

pertinent information,

• a review of macroinvertebrate data collected on the ranger district,

• review of other specialist reports,

• project design features.
132 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Salmonid fishes (salmon, trout, chars, and whitefish) and the caddisflies on the sensitive species list have 

the potential to be affected by changes in stream shade that increase stream temperatures, supply and 

delivery of large woody material to the stream channel, and changes to sediment regime. Therefore, we 

analyzed these habitat attributes to determine the effects of the proposed activities to salmonid fish (a 

management indicator species) and caddisflies.

Affected Environment – Riparian Conditions

Most of the Lang Dam Project Area is located in the older West Cascades geologic region and contains

stable, productive soils. Active slope instability from either debris chutes or slump / earth flow 

complexes effecting riparian reserve areas do not usually occur in this general area.

Primary streams within the project area include the South Fork McKenzie River, Cougar Creek, and Pond 

Creek. Most of the tributaries to the South Fork McKenzie River are moderate to high gradient (> 2 

percent) first to fifth order1 streams. Boulders and large wood are key components found in these steep 

step/pool channels. Figure 19 shows the location of the major streams within the project area and the 

Riparian Reserve treatment units. 

Figure 19 Riparian Reserve Treatments within the Project Area

Road construction and timber harvest began in the project area in the 1940s, peaking on National Forest 

system lands in the 1970s and 80s. Much of this activity occurred prior to implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and resulted in removal of riparian vegetation that provided large wood and 

shade to the small tributary streams in the project area. There are pockets of mature forest, but most of 

 1 Stream order: each headwater perennial Stream is assigned an order of 1. The confluence of two 1st-order streams assigns 

the downstream reach an order of 2. In this method, the confluence of two 2nd-order streams results in a downstream reach of 

order 3, and so on. The confluence of a 1st-order stream with a 2nd-order stream does not change the order of the downstream 

reach; it continues to be a 2nd-order reach in this case.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 133

the land has been impacted by management. Some Riparian Reserves were clear-cut and replanted with 

Douglas-fir. As a result, many of these stands were set on a management-induced trajectory that has led 

to artificially dense, conifer-dominant stands, with tree densities above the natural range of variability 

expected in this area. Recent forest research in the Coast Range and Western Cascades indicates that 

existing old growth stands developed with natural stand densities of 40 to 60 conifers per acre 

(Tappeiner et al. 1997; Poage and Tappeiner 2002). Therefore, stands with a range of 40 to 60 conifers 

per acre would be considered to be within the range of natural variability. Stand densities in the project 

area range from 234 to 503 total trees per acre (including trees under 4 feet tall), with an average of 331 

trees per acre. Even if just over story trees > 7 inches dbh are considered, the average stand density is 

still high at 147 trees per acre. Additionally, Pollock et al. (2005) found that natural “riparian stands often 

develop in a much more open structure, such that stem exclusion is much less common and understory 

vegetation usually is present throughout the development of a forest.” The existing lack of complexity 

and diversity of many of the stands in the project area may be limiting nutrient cycling, deciduous 

organic matter input to waterbodies, and habitat for riparian dependent wildlife.

Little is known of wood counts in the smaller unnamed streams within project units since few are fishbearing and are not typically surveyed using the standard USFS protocol. Field surveys were conducted in 

all proposed units, but these surveys provided only an estimated size range of “pool forming” wood and 

an estimated range of abundance.

Historic logging practices have greatly altered vegetation patterns within the project area. In late-seral 

stands, shrubs and herbs are reinitiated as conifers die and create gaps in the canopy. A study of riparian 

plant communities in northwest Oregon (McCain 2005) provides data on “relatively unmanaged” 

conditions. In this study, a total of 441 sites in the western Cascades were surveyed, with many of the 

Willamette sites on the McKenzie River Ranger District. The study describes riparian and upland plant 

communities based on geomorphic features (e.g. in-channel, cobble bars, terraces, floodplain, etc.). On 

the “steep banks/terraces” and “high terraces/major floodplain” features (common to streams in the 

project area), deciduous trees had typical cover values of 15-64 percent. Additionally, valley crosssections (300-foot riparian transects) on 3rd and 4th order “relatively unmanaged” streams in the west 

Cascades had a hardwood basal area of 7-16 square feet/acre and hardwoods were present throughout 

the 300-foot transect. This study suggests that in “relatively unmanaged” riparian plant communities, 

there is typically a hardwood, shrub, and herb component. In addition, late-seral and old growth stands 

have numerous natural gaps which are frequently colonized by deciduous species (Warren 2013). The 

natural range of variability for early seral vegetation patterns within riparian forests are between 5 and 

20 percent (Swanson 2012) and a large component of this early seral vegetation is deciduous and 

herbaceous (Gregory et al. 1991). These deciduous and herbaceous species provide many benefits to 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems, including better food resources and higher productivity for aquatic 

invertebrates compared to conifer-dominant systems (Sedell and Dahm 1984; Webster and Benfield 

1986; Romero et al. 2005; Allen 1995; Wipfli 1997; Wipfli and Gregovich 2002; Cummins 2002; Allan et 

al. 2003; Musselwhite and Wipfli 2004; Wilzbach et al. 2005; Kiffney and Roni 2007); increased nitrogen 

fixation, organic matter cycling, soil fertility (Compton et al. 2003), and wildlife benefits.

Currently there is between 10-14 percent deciduous or mixed type vegetation within the Riparian 

Reserves of the Project Area. Based on the fact that there is a lack of both early- and late-seral 

vegetation classes that have a large deciduous and herbaceous component, it follows that these species 

are underrepresented on the current landscape. Figure 20 illustrates the desired conditions for late-seral 

Riparian Reserves with a mix of species and complex stand characteristics. Figure 21 illustrates typical 

overstocked stands in the project area.
134 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Figure 20 desired conditions for Late-seral Riparian Reserves

Some portions of Riparian Reserves within the project area have higher structural and species diversity 

and are providing adequate stream shade, root strength and bank stability, sediment filtration and 

nutrient cycling, large wood supply to waterbodies and floodplains, organic matter input to waterbodies, 

and habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife. Figure 22 illustrates properly functioning conditions within

Riparian Reserves in the project area.

Figure 21 an example of overstocked, conifer-dominant stand in Riparian Reserves
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 135

Figure 22 an example of properly functioning Riparian Reserves

The overall lack of deciduous and herbaceous vegetation may be impacting stream ecosystems.

Nutritional energy becomes available to the stream community from two main sources: photosynthesis 

by aquatic plants in the stream itself (autochthonous sources) and decomposition of organic matter 

imported from outside the stream (allochthonous sources). The mix of energy sources has a major 

influence on the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Streamside vegetation provides large 

quantities of organic matter in the form of leaves, needles, and woody material. Leaves and needles 

usually contribute most of the readily usable organic matter in woodland streams (Murphy and Meehan 

1991). Leaves and needles need to be conditioned by microbes for about 30 days before invertebrates 

would consume them.

In summary, the riparian vegetation and large woody material that provide for aquatic and terrestrial 

habitat complexity have been altered throughout much of the watershed and project area due to: 

clearcutting and replanting to single species monocultures; removal of hardwoods from riparian areas; 

removal of in-stream wood; replanting to create overstocked conditions; and removal of fire disturbance 

mechanism. Based on data gathered through landscape and stream reach assessments, it was 

determined that current conditions in some portions of the Riparian Reserves are outside the natural 

range of variability and are not meeting desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain ACS 

Objectives. See Appendix C (Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives) for more details. Though the 

trend is slow, the overall aquatic habitat is improving in the project area as the riparian vegetation 

recovers towards more natural conditions.
136 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences – Riparian Conditions

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Current rates of large wood recruitment, provided mostly by stem mortality (from competition, disease, 

wind and snow downed trees) and bank erosion, would be maintained. Alternative 1 would provide a 

slightly higher rate of in-stream wood recruitment compared to the action alternatives. Where the 

action alternatives protect about 90 percent of the wood recruitment zones, the No-Action alternative 

would protect 100 percent. In some streams, recruitment trees are of sufficient size to meet ACS 

Objectives; but in other streams with small diameter riparian stands, the aquatic benefit is limited, 

namely through the reduced ability to store sediment and organic matter and contribute to habitat 

forming processes (e.g. scour). 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. Small diameter trees are also more 

likely to be transported out of the system. In-stream wood abundance is low for most streams in the 

project area and is largely due to the lack of current wood inputs and the lack of stable wood in 

channels. This lack of large, stable woody material indicates that the trees that are being delivered to 

stream channels are too small to be functional.

The No-Action alternative would not accelerate desired vegetation conditions. Desired riparian 

conditions – high species and structural diversity with large dead and down wood – would slowly 

develop over time (several decades) and depend solely on natural thinning events (stem exclusion 

mortality and disturbance). Without management to increase the abundance of deciduous and 

herbaceous vegetation in dense, conifer-dominant stands, ecosystem productivity would remain at 

relatively lower levels.

Accelerated restoration of riparian stands that currently do not meet ACS Objectives would not be 

accomplished. Alternative 1 would perpetuate the impacts of homogenous, densely stocked stand 

conditions longer into the future potentially by several decades.

In addition, the currently dense riparian stands would be at greater risk to high severity fire, insect 

infestation, and disease – all carried more efficiently through overstocked stands. Although these are 

natural disturbance processes that contribute to forest habitat and diversity, a large disturbance event, 

or one of high severity, has the potential to reduce vegetation, large woody material, and stream shade 

across large areas of Riparian Reserves. Research conducted in the Pacific Northwest has shown that 

while fire severity may be lower along perennial streams due to relatively cool and moist conditions, fire 

severity along intermittent streams can be similar to adjacent upland areas (Tollefson 2004). In fact, 

under some circumstances, riparian areas can become corridors of increased fire spread (Pettit 2007).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) prohibits timber harvest in Riparian Reserves except as needed to 

control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed 

to attain ACS Objectives (NWFP Standards and Guides, TM-1(c)). Based on data gathered through 

landscape and stream reach assessments, it was determined that current conditions in some portions of 

the Riparian Reserves are outside the natural range of variability and are not meeting desired vegetation 

characteristics needed to attain ACS Objectives. Therefore, there is a need to treat parts of the Riparian 

Reserves to accelerate attainment of desired conditions. Other areas, however, are currently meeting 

desired vegetation characteristics and treatment is not necessary. In some cases, the maintenance or 

restoration of each one of the ACS Objectives can be a balancing act with trade-offs. For example, to 

meet the riparian vegetation objectives (“species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities” and “habitat to support well distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and 

vertebrate riparian dependent species”) in young, dense conifer stands, a common silvicultural tool is to 

remove overstory density to encourage understory growth and structural development. Removal of 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 137

overstory density, however, could potentially lead to increased thermal loading or reduction of wood 

volume available for recruitment. Because of these trade-offs, conflicting objectives were carefully 

balanced based on characteristics of each waterbody and adjacent riparian area.

Alternative 2 proposes both active and passive management of Riparian Reserves: thinning, down wood 

augmentation, and no treatment. Below are descriptions of the types of treatments proposed and the 

considerations for analysis with each.

Thinning in Riparian Reserves

The body of literature on the effects of thinning on stream and forest ecosystems is quite extensive. 

Several key factors in determining where this type of treatment would be beneficial for the attainment of 

ACS objectives were considered. In-stream wood recruitment, upland down woody material levels, stand 

structure, and species composition are described below. Alternative 2 would thin approximately 120 

acres within Riparian Reserves. Appendix E details where treatments are proposed within Riparian 

Reserves and the vegetation objectives for each unit in Alternative 2. 

In-Stream Wood

In-stream wood is important to the health of aquatic habitats, and many researchers have studied the 

areas along streams where wood recruitment typically occurs. Wood recruitment zones, as they are 

called, vary from as little as 8m (26 feet) up to about 45m (148 feet) depending on various factors (Benda 

and Bigelow 2014, Spies et al. 2013). According to Benda and Bigelow (2014) and shown in Figure 23, 

wood source areas are highly variable, but are strongly correlated to tree height and the dominant wood 

recruitment process for each stream reach. In their study, they found that in managed forests of the 

Cascades Range, where bank erosion and tree mortality are the dominant wood recruitment processes, 

90 percent of in-stream wood originated from within about 8 meters (26 feet) of stream channels and 

the remaining 10 percent is supplied from a distance equivalent to one tree height. Figure 23 shows the 

source distance curves for wood in Benda and Bigelow (2014). In less managed and unmanaged forests, 

90 percent of in-stream wood originated from about 13 meters (43 feet) of stream channels.

Figure 23 Source Distance Curves for Study Area

In Meleason et al. (2003), the simulation model OSU STREAMWOOD was used to evaluate the potential 

effects of different riparian thinning scenarios on wood recruitment to streams over time. In one 

scenario, they modeled the contribution of wood from forest plantations (up to 120 years old in a 
138 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Douglas-fir – western hemlock forest), beyond no-harvest buffers of varying widths. The results suggest 

that no-harvest buffers greater than 10 meters (33 feet) from the stream channel contributed minimal 

amounts of wood volume to streams. In McDade et al. (1990), the mean wood source distance for first, 

second, and third order Cascade and Coast Range streams in mature and old growth stands was 

approximately 10 meters. Conifer tree heights in these stands ranged from 40 to 80 meters (131 to 262 

feet). Johnson et al. (2011) demonstrates that in streams adjacent to undisturbed mature or old-growth 

forests in central and southern British Columbia, 90 percent of the wood at 90 percent of the study sites 

originated within 18 m (59 feet) of the channel. Robison and Beschta (1990) determined that the 

probability of a tree falling into a stream channel is primarily a function of tree height and distance from 

the stream. The upper crown of a tree, however, particularly in managed stands, is not of sufficient size 

to be considered of functioning size in the channel (i.e. large enough to influence stream morphology). 

Therefore, the “effective tree height” – the height to the minimum diameter and length necessary for 

the wood to qualify as “of functioning size”– is a more appropriate standard to use for assessing source 

area distance.

In all of the proposed riparian thinning stands, an area near the stream was designated as a no-harvest 

buffer to protect these wood recruitment zones as well as other resource concerns such as temperature.

The overall goal for developing wood recruitment zones was to protect at least 90 percent of trees that 

could potentially be recruited to the stream channel. This level of future wood input is thought to be at 

sufficient levels to sustain physical complexity and stability required by the ACS Objectives. This noharvest buffer ranges in width depending on specific conditions in each unit (i.e. width and gradient of 

stream, vegetation characteristics, etc.) and by stream type (i.e. seasonally flowing streams, perennial 

non-fish bearing streams, and fish bearing streams). Based on the research findings, a primary wood 

recruitment zone of 30 feet from each side of narrow (typically the intermittent class 4 and small class 3) 

stream channels was defined for young, dense stands within the project area, where bank erosion and 

tree mortality are the dominant wood recruitment processes and average tree heights range from 57 to 

95 feet. Along the wider perennial and fish bearing streams where average tree heights were greater 

than 95 feet, no-treatment buffers range from 60 feet to 360 feet depending on conditions.

Terrestrial Down Wood

In addition to in-stream wood, numerous studies have been conducted that address both the specific 

roles of down wood in ecosystem inclusive of its ecological function for wildlife and aquatic species. 

However, there is no reliable method of accurately quantifying levels of downed wood expected to occur 

in the upland portions of Riparian Reserves, assuming there were no human impact to the forest since 

these are subject to many variants. Two management rotations in Douglas-fir stands have been 

estimated to reduce the abundance of dead wood by 90% compared to levels in natural old-growth 

systems (Rose et. al.). It should be noted that stands go through a “U” shaped pattern of down wood 

development naturally; and depending on stand age, a fluctuation of large woody material is expected.

An estimate of the range of natural variability was used to develop down wood objectives. These 

objectives were based on input from wildlife specialists, modeling exercises using Forest Vegetation

Simulator (FVS), and scientific literature review. Across the project area, current levels of down wood are 

within estimated historical ranges (see Wildlife Section for more information). Field surveys of the Lang 

Dam proposed units during 2015 showed approximately 27% of all proposed units to have higher levels 

of large down logs (over 14” diameter) over 6/acre, 23% had moderate levels of about 3-6/acre, and 

about 45% had low levels of large down logs under 3/acre. Many of the plantations showed relatively 

high levels of large down wood that was left from the original harvest, with quite large diameters over 

40”, such that it would last many more decades. 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 139

Table 38 2015 Down Wood Field Surveys of the Proposed Lang Dam Project

High (>6 

trees/acre)

Moderate (3-6 

trees/acre

Low (<3 

trees/acre) None

22 Lang Dam unitsa 27% 23% 45% 5%

a

units showed visual estimates of down wood over 14” diameter

Given the unnaturally over-stocked conditions of these managed stands, in the long term (decades to a 

century), there would still be adequate woody material to maintain volumes within the natural range of 

variability. Abundant overstory would be retained for future wood input sufficient to sustain the 

objectives listed in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Appendix C).

However, within specific treatment units where current estimates are below the desired ranges, dead 

and down wood objectives would be met through leaving more of the residual stand (for future die off 

from stand competition) or through supplemental down wood creation treatments (see Table 38). These 

treatments are proposed as a potential enhancement effort so that habitat needs could be met at a site 

specific as well as a landscape level.

Stand Structure and Species Composition

Based on a review of existing literature and stand development theory, Spies et al. (2013) found that the 

“greatest potential ecological benefits of thinning to accelerate the development of older forest 

structure (e.g. large trees, large dead trees, spatial structure and compositional heterogeneity, etc.) 

come in dense uniform plantations less than 80 years and especially less than 50 years old.” The benefits 

of thinning in stands over 80 years old are more variable. Stand conditions were reviewed for each 

waterbody and recommendations were based on multiple variables, not just age. These factors included 

tree height and diameter, stand density, species composition, and understory development. 

In Alternative 2, all of the stands where thinning would occur within Riparian Reserves are under 80 

years old. The stands over 80 years old were surveyed, but no streams were found and thus do not 

contain Riparian Reserves.

Where thinning is proposed within Riparian Reserves, increases in abundance of understory vegetation, 

species diversity, stand structural diversity, and tree growth at a faster rate than background levels are 

expected. It should be noted that some modeling has shown that young conifer stands, if left untreated, 

would follow a trajectory towards forest structure found in certain reference conditions (Pollock et al. 

2012). Reference conditions were considered to have mature, late-successional conifer dominated 

stands with abundant large trees in the overstory, abundant large snags, and a well-developed 

understory of shade-tolerant trees. However, according to Harrington et al. (2005) thinning tends to 

increase shrub cover and greatly increase within-stand variability where shrub cover is absent before 

treatment. Riparian thinning can also promote the development of late successional forest attributes of 

value to many riparian and upland-associated species (Pabst et al. 2009, Harrington et al. 2005). Based 

on new research (Ruzicka et al. 2014), increased tree growth within no-treatment buffers adjacent to

thinned stands is also anticipated. In their study, trees responded to an apparent edge effect up to 15 m 

(49 feet) downslope of thinned areas. So it is expected to have similar beneficial effects within a large 

portion of the no-treatment buffers. 

A minimum of 50 percent canopy closure (approximately 40 percent canopy cover) would be maintained 

throughout the stand (which results in an average of 70-90 trees per acre remaining on site which is 

slightly higher than average old growth stand densities but would help support future down wood 

creation. Over all, the proposed prescriptions are a compromise between thinning and retention to, as 

much as possible, meet the greatest diversity and important resource protection needs such as 

microclimate and future large wood input.
140 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

No-Harvest Treatments in Riparian Reserves 

Alternative 2 proposes a variety of management actions for Riparian Reserves. One action is to leave the 

current stand relatively intact. The no-harvest portions of the Riparian Reserves were selected where 

added protection of existing habitats were needed. These no-harvest areas are either partial buffers 

within the Reserves or full Riparian Reserves. For example, in Unit 90 the Riparian Reserve and stream 

morphology is very diverse so the no-harvest buffer varies between 30 feet to the full 180 feet. Along 

some of the streams, the Riparian reserves show existing stand and vegetation diversity, sensitive 

habitat, soil stability issues, temperature sensitivity, or existing quality aquatic habitat so no thinning was 

recommended within these Riparian Reserves. Information on proposed silvicultural treatments in 

Riparian Reserves, or non-treatment, can be found in Appendix E.

Other Treatments

Within some treatment units, the introduction of low severity fire into patches of Riparian Reserves is 

anticipated during fuels treatments. Fire would be allowed to back into the Reserves and burn in a 

mosaic pattern rather than requiring a fire line around the Reserves which would potentially result in 

erosion. 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, vine maple, and other hardwood shrubs would re-sprout and, in some instances, be 

stimulated into increased growth in response to the disturbance. At low burn severities, large wood 

would not be removed from the Reserves. The net results, though localized, would be increased plant 

species and stand structural diversity, with a closer resemblance to historic stand condition than nonthinned plantations.

Table 39 summarizes the acres of Riparian Reserves affected by the various vegetation treatments. It also 

includes the number of acres that would not be treated based on recommendations from site specific 

field visits.

Table 39 Riparian Reserve Management on Federally Managed Lands in the Project Area

Total Riparian 

Reserve Acres 

within the Project 

Area 

Unit Acres Overlapping 

Riparian Reserves Activity

Acres Proposed for 

Treatment

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

2799 209 Thinning 0 120 

No Treatment Skip 0 89 

Wherever possible, temporary roads would be located on gentle slopes or would utilize locations 

previously disturbed by historic logging that had not been decommissioned. Those segments located 

within the Riparian Reserves would be located well outside of the primary shade zone or cross 

perpendicular to the stream. Alternative 2 would have about 1.2 miles of the 2.2 miles of temporary 

roads proposed within the Riparian Reserves. This is equivalent to approximately 2.4 acres of 

disturbance. There are 3 proposed temporary stream crossings which are needed to access portions of 

units. These temporary roads and crossings would be extensions of the 1900399 road and would access 

units 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110. Impacts to large wood are expected to be similar to those of thinning 

treatments. Typical rates of re-vegetation start occurring within 2 decades from natural regeneration if 

the disturbed area is not replanting. All temporary road crossings would be removed, and all temporary 

roads in Riparian Reserves would be decommissioned after treatment activities are completed.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 141

In summary, Alternative 2 would thin approximately 120 acres within Riparian Reserves (see Appendix E

for Units). The adverse impacts of thinning on in-stream large wood and future recruitment would be 

very minor at the watershed, project, and reach scales since approximately 4.3% of Riparian Reserves 

would be thinned in Alternative 2, and within those units at least 90 percent of the wood recruitment 

zones would be protected. The minor reduction in wood recruitment would occur at a very slow rate due 

to the naturally slow rate of the dominant wood recruitment processes (bank erosion and tree mortality) 

of streams in the project area. The beneficial impacts of thinning to accelerate tree growth would also be 

very minor at all scales due to the relatively small area treated and slow rates of tree growth. The 

beneficial impacts of thinning on riparian forest structure and diversity would be limited at the 

watershed scale due to the minor area of treatment (approximately 1.7 percent), but would have 

measureable beneficial impacts at the project and unit scales. Benefits of thinning would start occurring 

within 3-5 years, and would persist for decades. Analysis and field reconnaissance of Riparian Reserves 

by fisheries, hydrology and wildlife personnel on a unit by unit basis assured that Riparian Reserve 

prescriptions would provide for small wood inputs from no-harvest buffers and fall and leave in the short 

term (1-2 decades) while treating outer portions of riparian reserves for long-term (2-5 decades or more) 

shade, wood source and terrestrial habitat complexity. Table 39 summarizes the acres of Riparian 

Reserves affected by the various treatments. The proposed management of Riparian Reserves in 

Alternative 2 would not deter attainment of and would largely benefit ACS Objectives. The Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy compliance document (Appendix C) explains how each Objective is maintained or 

improved.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2

Actions in Appendix D were analyzed for effects to riparian condition and were found to have no effect, 

negligible effect, or beneficial effect. The negligible or beneficial effects combined with the minor 

impacts expected from the Lang Dam project would not measurably contribute to impaired riparian 

conditions.

Private timber lands are present on approximately 701 acres in the project area. Although they are 

managed according to Oregon Forest Practice Rules, impacts to streams may occur. Because the primary 

shade and wood recruitment zones would be protected and impacts minimized on federal lands, 

cumulative effects to streams across the watershed are not anticipated.

The majority of the effects in the Lang Dam project area would be located in the Cougar Creek-South 

Fork McKenzie River subwatershed. A review of recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the area (Appendix D Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to 

the Cumulative Effects Analysis) found that the 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Project was within the Cougar 

Creek subwatershed. No measurable effects on the hydrologic condition are expected to occur from the 

recent fuels reduction along the 410 Road and the effects of the two projects are expected to have no 

temporal or spatial influence on each other. 

In Elk Creek- McKenzie River, East Fork -South Fork McKenzie River, and Cougar Reservoir-South Fork 

McKenzie River subwatersheds, approximately 20, 14, and 3 acres respectively would be impacted all 

outside of riparian reserves. No cumulative effects are expected to occur in these three subwatersheds.

Projects that are ongoing (7-Thin Stewardship Reoffer, Buck Thin, and the Bonneville Power 

Administration’s ongoing maintenance of their transmission line) were considered when analyzing 

effects on the environment for the Lang Dam project and were included in the analysis of effects to 

riparian conditions. 

The Lower South Fork Floodplain Enhancement project would be located in the Cougar Creek-South Fork 

McKenzie River subwatershed. This project would harvest trees in the subwatershed on approximately 

88 acres in two units. The combined effects of the ongoing timber harvest projects, Lang Dam project, 
142 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

and the South Fork Floodplain Enhancement project would have beneficial effects to riparian conditions 

by thinning these densely stocked stands. This would improve riparian conditions by encouraging 

riparian hardwoods to grow. The South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis (1994) found that the 

subwatershed below Cougar Dam has been losing hardwood trees since the completion of dam 

construction in 1963. In addition, the South Fork McKenzie Floodplain Enhancement project would 

improve riparian habitat conditions on approximately 700 acres in the subwatershed by further 

encouraging the growth of riparian hardwood trees like red alder and cottonwood.

Affected Environment – Stream Shade and Temperature

Major road construction and timber harvest began in the project area in the 1940s, peaking in the 1970s 

and 80s. Much of the activities that occurred prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan 

resulted in removal of riparian vegetation that provided shade for streams.

Most of the intermittent (class IV) and non-fish bearing perennial (Class III) streams within the project 

area have one or more sections that flow subsurface. The South Fork McKenzie River is the largest 

stream within the project area, but temperatures are controlled through releases from Cougar Dam.

Cougar Creek (fish bearing) is the second largest stream within the project area and averages 14.8°C near 

the mouth which is below the 16 °C Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) cold water criteria. 

Pond Creek was not measured for temperature due to the difficulty in finding a deep enough pool to 

capture summer low flow temperatures.

The streams are typical of those found in the characteristically warmer West Cascades geology. These 

streams exhibit intra-annual variability greater than 0.3° C despite the fact that there has been no 

additional vegetation management along these streams during the time they were monitored. Changes 

in the range of maximum temperatures from one water year to the next are attributable to annual 

differences in precipitation and stream flows. The annual timing of the maximum temperature occurs 

between July and August.

Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states are required to develop lists of impaired 

waters. Lower reaches (river mile 0-4.5) of the South Fork McKenzie were listed as 303(d) for 

temperature (12.8° C) prior to the 2010 revision.

Environmental Consequences – Stream Shade and Temperature

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Activities that affect shade vegetation would not occur. The increased risk of high severity wildfire, which 

is carried more easily through dense stands, may affect water quality in the future. The corresponding 

loss of vegetation and duff may affect temperatures and microclimates around the edges of the streams 

and wetlands. Intermittent (class 4) streams and seasonal wet meadows go dry during the summer when 

temperatures are typically an issue, so increased stream temperature at the current vegetation 

conditions or after a high-severity fire is not expected in most of the class 4 streams in the project area. 

However, temperatures in perennial streams would be effected as would microclimates. See the Fire and 

Fuels Section in Chapter 3 for more specifics on the probability and effects of wildfires in the project 

area.

Alternative 2 

The system of Riparian Reserves under the ACS provides zones around streams, wetlands, and water

bodies that contribute to protecting or restoring the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of these 

waters, which is the major goal of the Clean Water Act. For all action alternatives, treatments within 

riparian areas have been designed to comply with the “Northwest Forest Plan Temperature Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Strategies – Evaluation of the adequacy of the Northwest 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 143

Forest Plan Riparian Reserves to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards” 

(TMDL 2012).

To comply with the stream temperature standards, no-harvest buffers were developed to eliminate 

management effects. These buffers were developed based in part by calculating the width of the riparian 

area adjacent to perennial stream channels that provides stream shade for the period of greatest solar 

loading, known as the primary shade zone; and the width of the riparian area that provides shade in the 

morning and afternoon, considered the secondary shade zone. Research has shown that in many cases 

major changes in stream temperature are not observed with partial no-harvest buffers within the 

Riparian Reserve width (Levno and Rothacher 1967, Brown and Krygier 1970, Swift and Messer 1971, 

Macdonald et al. 2003). In several cases, buffer distances less than one site potential tree have been 

shown to protect water temperature. Typically the primary shade zone is half of the site potential tree 

height. Gomi et al. (2006) reported maximum daily temperatures in headwater streams did not increase 

dramatically when 30- and 90-foot buffers were applied.

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 the Riparian 

Reserves, conifer densities are high and would benefit from thinning. Where Riparian Reserves are to be 

actively managed, a minimum of 50% canopy closure (approximately 40% canopy cover) is preserved in 

the outer portions (outside the no-harvest buffer) to help protect microclimate also. Some of the 

streams in the project area are less than 3 feet wide and others have very course substrate. The effective 

shade is typically less for these streams. In addition, several papers have been published recently 

indicating that hyporheic flow (water flowing through gravel), not just shade, has an influence on stream

temperature. Janishch et al. (2012) found that that the canopy cover of “buffers” was not a strong 

variable for temperature in small (<7 feet wide) headwater streams. Instead, the streams with coarsetextured streambeds tended to be thermally unresponsive as compared with fine-textured streambeds 

or those with small, near-stream wetland areas. This re-emphasizes the important role gravel and large 

wood play in stream temperatures and was used to further establish no-harvest buffer 

recommendations. 

The development of no-harvest buffer widths also took into account the stream classification.

Intermittent (Class 4) streams are dry during the portion of the year when elevated temperatures occur 

and therefore temperature is not as major an issue. However, bank stability trees and no-harvest buffers 

of 30 feet which were designed for other resource objectives would provide substantial shade when 

water is present regardless. Much of the stream-influenced microclimate would also be preserved since 

the gradients are strongest within the first 20-30 feet (Anderson 2007) and a portion of the canopy cover 

throughout the rest of the Riparian Reserve would be maintained. No-treatment buffers on perennial 

streams have varying widths developed, in part, to accelerate species and structural diversity while 

protecting effective shade.

The majority of perennial streams class 1 and 2 (fish bearing) are provided with a minimum of a 180 foot 

no-treatment buffer to retain effective stream shade and other resource needs. Some of the narrower 

class 3 (non-fish bearing perennial) streams within the proposed harvest units have a minimum 60-foot 

no-harvest buffer to retain effective stream shade and terrestrial microclimates (Anderson 2007) while 

still providing the opportunity to thin the rest of the Riparian Reserve for other desired characteristics.

However, where thermal loading, soil stability, desired stand characteristics, etc. is present; no-treatment 

buffers are wider, and most of the class 3 streams have a full 180 foot buffer.

There are 3 proposed temporary class 4 (intermittent) stream crossings as part of Alternative 2 

treatment activities. Class 4 streams are typically dry during the summer when water temperature is a 

concern. When there is water in the streams however, the width of the clearing needed to establish the 

crossings would not create a detrimental change in temperature or shade because the primary and 
144 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

secondary shade zones of the surrounding riparian area would retain sufficient canopy closure to 

provide shade to these narrow streams, and because the topographic location further enhances 

protection from solar radiation. A few short segments of other temporary roads would enter the outer 

portion of the Riparian Reserves but not cross any streams. This would allow for historically compacted 

areas to be re-used then properly sub-soiled and re-vegetated. The reduction in canopy closure of the 

secondary shade zone is taken into account in the overall calculations of canopy closure on Riparian 

Reserve thinning treatments. Based on implementation of the design features outlined in Chapter 2, 

Table 6 which reduce the acres of disturbance due to temporary roads and skid trails as well as field 

observations during project reconnaissance; a minimal direct effect is anticipated at a localized level 

within a few feet downstream of the temporary road crossings.

Additional road decommissioning and storage analyzed under this EA are expected to be accomplished 

within the subwatersheds during the time period of this project and its direct effects. In general, these 

activities help restore streamside vegetation which would provide additional shading of streams 

previously impacted by human activities.

No short-term (5-10 years) or long term (>5-10 years) increases of stream temperature are anticipated 

within the project area as a result of these alternatives. Additionally, no short-term (1-5 years) increases 

in stream temperature are anticipated since no shade trees would be removed by this project. Where 

Riparian Reserves are actively managed, a minimum of 50 percent canopy closure (approximately 40 

percent canopy cover) is preserved in the outer portions (outside the no-harvest buffer) to help that 

would also protect microclimate. 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. Additionally, thinning of dense stands and managing fuel loading helps reduce the risk 

of high severity wildfire. This, in turn, reduces the risk of impacts to stream shade and microclimate.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 

All recent and planned timber harvest and hazardous fuels reduction projects were and would be 

designed with similar protection measures, design features, and Best Management Practices that would 

prevent effects to stream temperature. For example, all primary shade trees would be protected and 50 

percent canopy closure would be maintained in the secondary shade zone. This would prevent any 

temperature affects to streams. Each of the past projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix D) were analyzed for effects 

to stream temperature and were found to have no effect or a slight beneficial effect from all treatments. 

Affected Environment – Stream Flows/Disturbance History

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 considerable alteration of peak flow regimes as a result of 

management activities. Recovery generally occurs when stand diameters average more than 8 inches 

dbh (diameter breast high) and crown closures exceed 70 percent. 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 project area are far above the Forest Plan Midpoints of 

75 for the Cougar Creek subwatershed (see Table 40 below). 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 145

Environmental Consequences – Stream Flows/Disturbance History

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Current ARP values are well above midpoint. Alternative 1, No Action, would result in no changes to 

existing peak flows based on vegetation removal. However, several miles of roads are in poor condition 

and funnel water to stream crossings or into alternative drainages. These alterations to stream flows 

would not be improved with the implementation of this Alternative due to the lack of road maintenance, 

storage, or decommissioning. However, the effect would be localized to a few yards down-stream in 

most cases.

Alternative 2 

Table 40 summarizes levels of recovery immediately after implementation of the project for each of the 

alternatives. Completion of implementation is estimated to occur by 2021. The Midpoint ARP value for 

the Cougar Creek sub-watershed is 75.

Table 40 Aggregate Recovery Percentage for the Lang Dam Project

Cougar Creek Subwatershed 

170900040109

Alternative 1 

(No-Action)

Alternative 2 

(Preferred Alt)

Watershed 

Minimum 

Percent

ARP 2016 (pre-project) 84.6 84.6 75

ARP 2021 (post-project estimates ) 87.8 82.4

ARP levels are maintained above recommended values for all alternatives in the affected sub-watersheds 

even immediately after implementation when the potential for adverse impacts to vegetation would be 

greatest. Therefore, no altered peak stream flows are anticipated from implementation of the proposed 

actions.

Overall, there would be no adverse impact to stream flow timing or duration through the 

implementation of these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

ARP levels would remain well above the midpoint so effects to peak flows throughout the watershed are 

not expected by vegetation removal. Each of the past and future projects listed in the Past, Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix D) were analyzed 

for effects to peak flow and were found to have no effect or a slight beneficial from all treatments.

Affected Environment – Sedimentation

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The majority of the geologic terrain and soils within the Lang Dam Project Area are not inherently prone 

to extensive erosion unless disturbed as discussed in the Soils Specialist Report (located in the project 

file). However, unit 130 does contain a debris chute tract that started from much higher on the slope, 

and signs of old, naturally occurring debris chutes can be found coming off the upper portions of 

Deathball Mountain (see Soils Section 3.2).

Most of these intersect the area where the stored portion of road 1900399 is located. The majority of 

the stream crossing culverts along this stretch have already been removed to reduce the hazard to the 

aquatic ecosystem. 
146 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Roads have the potential to be a large source of human-related sediment input to streams, and road 

densities can affect the over-all health of the aquatic ecosystem in an area. Road densities over 3.5 miles 

of road per square mile are considered “Not Properly Functioning” according to Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993) and according to the “Analytical Process for Developing 

Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (2004). 

Analysis conducted for this project and for the Biological Assessment for this project found that the road 

density is greater than 3.5 miles of road per square mile. This would be considered a “Not Properly 

Functioning” condition from a road density perspective.

Levels of compaction also have the potential to influence rates of human-related sedimentation to 

streams by decreasing rates of infiltration and increasing the potential for surface run-off and erosion.

Field surveys indicated that two units approached or exceeded the Willamette National Forest FW-081 

Standard of 20% of an activity area impacted, in this case by compaction. Unit 190 and Unit 60 both had 

transects at or above 20%. Since the aggregated compaction in these two units would exceed the 

threshold at the completion of harvest activities, subsoiling is required mitigation to ensure that 

cumulative levels would be below the 20% standard. The remaining units were sufficiently within the 

standard and compaction-related erosion is unlikely (see Soils Section 3.2).

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 around 22 cubic yards per year for 

the project area. Actual yields cannot be 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. Research comparing WEPP estimated sediment rates to actual rates has shown the 

model to over-estimate values. Therefore sediment predictions using WEPP modeling should only be 

used for relative comparisons between alternatives rather than actual values expected to be produced.

Environmental Consequences – Sedimentation

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Rates of road related sediment yield were estimated to remain relatively constant under Alternative 1 

(No Action), reflecting no specific changes due to the lack of road upgrades. Alternative 1 would not 

correct existing road erosion problems which result in chronic sedimentation to streams. Without timber 

harvest related road maintenance, the existing budgetary trend would result in only the main roads 

being maintained. Culverts that are not maintained could plug and cause washouts. The resulting 

sediment plumes could be detrimental to fish and amphibians. Over several decades, these road issues 

would stabilize as the disturbed areas re-vegetate. However, no project-related storage or 

decommissioning would occur. Harvest activity on the portion of private land within the project area 

would continue, as would use of shared roads. Table 41 below provides a comparison of sediment 

outputs between all Alternatives.

Alternative 2 

Past human activities have resulted in altered sediment regimes along many of the streams.

Hydrologically disconnecting roads by installing or improving road drainage features is a fundamental 

practice for eliminating chronic water quality impacts from roads and other disturbances. At a minimum, 

these activities would include maintenance of proper drainage through maintaining existing structures, 

installing water bars, or restoring natural drainage features. Installation of new ditch-relief culverts and 

replacement of existing ditch-relief culverts that are currently in poor condition would also be included.

These actions would reduce the likelihood of sediment leaving the road through runoff by reducing the 

average distance between drainage structures and consequently, the amount of water that each 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 147

structure needs to handle. Less water on the road and its ditches translates to less sediment-carrying 

capacity.

Field surveys indicated that two units approached or exceeded the Willamette National Forest FW-081 

Standard of 20% of an activity area impacted, in this case by compaction. Unit 190 and Unit 60 both had 

transects at or above 20%. Since the aggregated compaction in these two units would exceed the 

threshold at the completion of harvest activities, subsoiling is required mitigation to insure that 

cumulative levels would be below the 20% standard. The remaining units were sufficiently within the 

standard and compaction-related erosion is unlikely (see Soils Section 3.2).

Road work associated with the Lang Dam Project would also include replacement of 4 culverts that are 

currently in poor repair or inadequately sized to pass 100-year flood flows (Q100). These culverts 

currently pose an elevated risk of fill failure. Discussion with engineering personnel indicated that the 

range of fill volume is around 100-250 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 providing for 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, based on personal observation 

during project reconnaissance. It is not possible to do this work without some sediment delivery, and 

accurate estimates are not predictable. Depending on weather behavior and other variable factors, 

sediment yields should fall between 0.5 and 1.5 cubic yards per installation based on professional 

experience. This sediment would settle out within a few feet and is not in amounts that would harm 

aquatic insects or amphibians.

An analysis of estimated sediment outputs from roads in the project area was completed using the roads 

module of the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. The same analysis was conducted 

for each alternative incorporating all project related road maintenance, temporary road construction 

activities, and haul route activity. Results were calculated to estimate sediment production rates during 

the implementation of the project as well as conditions following completion of the project. Table 41

shows the estimates of sediment production rates based on WEPP.

For Alternative 2, annual sediment yield increases during harvest activities. This represents an 

incremental 19 percent increased contribution of sediment that cumulatively adds to sediment already 

produced under the existing road system. Alternative 2 shows the highest increase during operations 

when there is increased traffic on haul routes and freshly established temporary roads. By implementing 

the activities associated with the Lang Dam project, overall human caused sediment input would 

decrease (< 5 percent) from current levels.

Table 41 Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for Lang Dam Project Area Roads

Alt 1 (No Action)

Alt 2 (during 

harvest)

Alt 2 (after 

harvest)

Gross Sediment Yield (yrd3) 21.43 25.51 17.10

Net increase/decrease - 4.09 -4.33

% increase/decrease - 19.07 -20.22

Approximately 2.2 miles of temporary road construction would occur with Alternative 2. However, only 

1.2 miles would be proposed within Riparian Reserves. These represent approximately 2.4 acres of 

ground disturbance. 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 and would be fully 

decommissioned after the project is complete. In addition, 0.3 miles of road decommissioning and 3 
148 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

miles of storage are proposed which would reduce current sediment inputs. Decommissioning would 

include activities such as the removal of culverts, de-compaction and re-contouring to surrounding 

topography of the road surface, and revegetation. Based on professional experience, each fill removed 

would produce on average <1 cubic yard of fine sediment that would leave the fill removal site and settle 

out in the first 100 feet below the fill removal during the first winter.

Table 42 below provides a summary of the culvert replacements and the potential amount of stabilized 

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 approximately six cubic yards for Alternative 2. In comparison, the 

estimated volume of fill stabilized is 775 cubic yards for Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would reduce the 

potential for runoff effects and culvert failures that may affect Riparian Reserves or water quality.

Table 42 Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative 

Stream 

Type

Number of Culverts 

Installed/Replaced/Removed

Cubic Yards of 

Fill Stabilized

Sediment Yields from 

Culvert Replacements 

(Cubic Yards)

Alternative 1 

(No Action) None 0 0 0

Alternative 2

Intermittent 3 525 1.5-4.5

Perennial 1 250 0.5-1.5

Total 4 775 2.0-6.0

The roads where wet weather haul could be requested are the 1900411 road (limited strength) and the 

1900410 road (paved two-lane road). The 1900411 road would need improvements due to its “limited 

strength” status if wet weather haul were to be requested. Limited strength means that roads are likely 

to be damaged if used when adverse conditions exist in the roadbed. When authorized for use, 

placement of additional aggregate or other mitigation measures, at the expense and by the purchaser, 

shall be implemented to support haul during poor weather conditions. If wet weather haul was 

approved the purchaser would still be bound by the conditions found in the project design criteria which 

would prevent turbid water from entering waterways inhabited by listed fish (i.e. bull trout and spring 

Chinook salmon). The closest the 1900411 road gets to habitat with listed fish is at the junction with the 

1900410 road (approximately 200 feet between the road junction and the South Fork McKenzie River).

Wet weather haul would be monitored by the Timber Sale Administrator, the District Road Manager, 

Fisheries Biologist, and/or Hydrologist. Inspections would focus on road surface condition, drainage 

maintenance, and sources of soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Timber transport operations 

would be stopped immediately if road use is causing rutting of the road surface, ponding of water on the 

road, failure of any drainage structure, or any other action that increases the sediment delivery to a 

stream.

Most harvest-related sediment input to streams comes from skid trails, historic roads that were poorly 

located, historic log culvert crossings, or historic skyline corridor crossings. Research has shown that by 

keeping these at least 33 feet from streams and following Best Management Practices (BMP) guidelines, 

essentially all of the harvest related sediment is eliminated (Roshin 2006, Lakel 2010). In addition, as 

discussed in the Soils section of this document, soils in the project area have naturally high rates of 

infiltration and low potential for overland flow. The Design Features for Alternative 2 designate 

additional equipment exclusion zones around streams and wetlands which are expected to essentially 

eliminate any routing of water from the logging operations (see Table 6 in Chapter 2).

The McKenzie River Sub-Basin, including the Lang Dam 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 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 149

miles downstream from the project area. Sedimentation and associated turbidity are the most likely 

consequences of the Lang Dam Project that could adversely affect municipal water quality, but with the 

design features that restrict the location of skid roads and temporary roads as well as best management 

practices, adverse effects are not anticipated.

Natural annual pulses of sediment would continue. In some years the sediment input would be greater 

than in other years, but overall the sediment input levels are expected to remain near current levels until 

a large flood event occurs. However, the risk of road and fill failures during major storm events would be 

reduced. With the additional activities that would be part of the Lang Dam Project, overall 

anthropogenic sediment input would decrease across the 6th field subwatersheds.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2

Ongoing timber haul on private lands as well as annual road maintenance would continue into the 

foreseeable future throughout the watershed. However, private lands are under the jurisdiction of the 

Oregon Forest Practice Rules which require a different set of standards and BMPs to reduce 

sedimentation into the waterways.

All recent and planned timber harvest, riparian habitat complexity development, and road 

decommissioning projects were and would be designed with similar protection measures, design 

features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects to water quality and aquatic resources. 

Each of the projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to 

the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix D) were analyzed for effects to sediment.

The 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction project is a “past action” in the subwatershed. This project was 

monitored in the field by the Willamette Forest Leadership Team (FLT), the forest interdisciplinary team 

(IDT), and the ranger district IDT on June 9, 2016. During that field review it was determined that no 

sediment entered any waterway with that project.

Projects that are ongoing (7-Thin Stewardship Reoffer, Buck Thin, and the Bonneville Power 

Administration’s ongoing maintenance of their transmission line) were considered when analyzing 

sediment effects on the environment for the Lang Dam project and were included in the WEPP model 

run.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions have been taken into account in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Based on the field review of the 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction project, it is not expected that any 

sediment would enter waterways with the Lower 19 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction project.

The Green Mountain project would produce sediment but it is located above (upstream) of Cougar Dam. 

Cougar Reservoir and Dam block sediment from reaching the South Fork McKenzie River therefore the 

effects of sediment from Lang Dam and Green Mountain do not overlap spatially.

The Lower South Fork Floodplain and Enhancement project would add approximately 250,000 cubic 

yards of sediment to a 4.5 mile stretch of the South Fork McKenzie River below (downstream) Cougar 

Dam to improve spawning habitat conditions for native fishes and to reconnect off-channel habitats and 

the floodplain to the South Fork channel. The Lang Dam project would produce approximately 36 cubic 

yards of sediment in addition to the 250,000 cubic yards that would be placed with the Lower South Fork 

project. At present the lower South Fork McKenzie River is severely sediment supply limited due to the 

presence of Cougar Dam since its construction in 1963. This has placed the sediment regime in the lower 

South Fork McKenzie River outside of the range of natural variability. Even with the addition of sediment 

from Lang Dam and the Lower South Fork project, the sediment regime in the lower South Fork would 

be within the range of natural variability.
150 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment – Fisheries, Aquatic Insects, and In-stream Habitat

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale use to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to aquatic resources for this 

project includes the project area and the South Fork McKenzie River/Cougar Creek 6th field subwatershed. It also includes small portions of the South Fork McKenzie River/East Fork 6th field, the South 

Fork McKenzie River/Cougar Reservoir 6th field, and the McKenzie River/Elk Creek 6th field where units 

extend into these sub-watersheds (see Figure 19). However, there are no considerable drainage features 

that extend into these sub-watersheds from the units so the analysis would focus on the South Fork 

McKenzie River/Cougar Creek 6th field.

Affected Environment

A variety of fish species can be found the South Fork McKenzie River and Cougar Creek including 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii), mountain whitefish 

(Prosopium williamsoni), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), and brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri).

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The Willamette Forest plan recognizes anadromous and resident salmonids as economically important 

species and designates them as management indicator species for riparian habitat and water quality. 

Salmonids are good indicators because they are predators in the streams ecosystem. This means that 

they are not only affected by the physical conditions of their habitat but also by the metabolic energy 

pathways in the watershed from primary production to decomposition. The most common salmonid 

sport fish on the McKenzie Ranger District are spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, and 

coastal cutthroat trout.

Native coastal cutthroat trout are the most widely distributed fish in the McKenzie River Sub-basin, 

ranging from headwater streams to the mainstem South Fork McKenzie River. Cougar Dam combined 

with previous timber management in riparian areas has affected aquatic habitat quality by altering the 

quantity size, size and recruitment source of large woody material, which can affect substrate storage, 

habitat composition (e.g. riffles, pools, off-channel habitat, etc.) and water temperature.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listed Species

Cougar Dam has negatively affected migratory species like bull trout and spring Chinook salmon. The 

only location where bull trout have been documented spawning in the South Fork McKenzie is in Roaring 

River (a tributary) upstream of Cougar Dam. The lower South Fork McKenzie River has a coarse substrate 

and spawning size gravel is lacking. The South Fork McKenzie River is designated as critical habitat for 

both bull trout and upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon. For more details see the Fisheries 

Biological Assessment located in the project file.

Strategic Species

Two aquatic insects, one freshwater snail, and a fish (Pacific lamprey) can all be found on the Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species list and have been document on the Willamette National Forest. These 

aquatic insects are caddisflies and little is known about them. In fact, the common name for all of these 

caddisflies is “a caddisfly”. The freshwater snail has only been documented on the Middle Fork 

Willamette River, and the Pacific lamprey has been documented in the South Fork McKenzie River below 

Cougar Dam. A short summary of the distribution and know habitat association are provided below. For 

a more detailed discussion on these species, see the Fisheries biological evaluation.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 151

Caddisflies

Rhyacophila leechi: The entire Rhyacophila genus is confined to running water. R. leechi adults have been 

collected from springs and cold, spring-fed streams. This species appears to require colder water 

temperatures than the common and more widely distributed R. verrula, and is more likely confined to 

smaller, headwater streams and springs. Oregon sites range in elevation from 440 to 980 m (1,444 to 

3,210 ft.).

This species is known from a small number of sites in southern Oregon and northern California, from the 

western Oregon Cascades south to the Klamath Siskiyou Mountains. In Oregon, this species is 

documented to occur on the Willamette National Forest and on BLM land in the Medford District (USDA

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011 and 2012). 

Rhyacophila chandleri: In the Cascade Mountains of Oregon, this species is associated with very cold, 

larger spring-fed streams. Elevations of known populations range around 1,219 to 1,700 m (4,000 to 

5,600 ft.).

The range of this species is restricted to alpine areas of southern Oregon and northern California. In 

Oregon, this species is documented on the Willamette, Deschutes, and Umpqua National Forests (USDA

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011 and 2012).

Sampling for aquatic insects (macroinvertebrates) has taken place in the South Fork McKenzie River 

watershed. In 2005 and 2006 samples were taken above Cougar Dam and below the dam. Members of 

the genus Rhyacophila were collected in both places but neither of the species found are on the 

sensitive species list (SSL). In 2004, samples were taken in the East Fork of the South Fork McKenzie River 

and in Walker Creek. As with the other samples Rhyacophila were collected but not the species on the 

SSL.

Freshwater Snail

Fluminicola virens is a freshwater snail. It has not been documented on the McKenzie River Ranger 

District but has been documented on other ranger districts on the Willamette National Forest. Members 

of the genus Fluminicola are usually found in clear, cold waters with high dissolved oxygen content. Large 

species, such as F. virens, are typically found in streams. Generally, these species prefer cold, clear, 

streams with near-saturation amounts of dissolved oxygen, no or minor nutrient enhancement 

(oligotrophic waters); continual current; and coarse but stable substrate.

Fluminicola virens is known only from Oregon and Washington in the Northwestern United States. In 

Oregon, it is limited in distribution to the Willamette and lower Columbia River basins where it occurs in 

the lower Columbia River below Portland, the upper Deschutes River, the Umpqua River, the Willamette 

River including the Tualatin and Clackamas Rivers (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 2013).

Fish

The Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) is an ancient fish and has been documented in the 

McKenzie River. The following information on Pacific lamprey was obtained on the NatureServe Explorer 

web site (http://explorer.natureserve.org). This species is mainly anadromous; newly metamorphosed 

individuals migrate from parent streams to the Pacific Ocean. Upstream migrations may be as long as 

several hundred kilometers. Land-locked populations omit the oceanic phase but migrate between lakes 

and spawning streams.

The predatory phase of the life cycle (excluding land-locked populations) occurs in the ocean, primarily 

near stream mouths in estuaries and in other coastal areas but sometimes far away. Freshwater-resident 

populations exist in several areas in British Columbia and elsewhere.
152 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

Adults spawn in runs and riffles in rock, sand, or gravel-bottomed clear streams, in small, shallow 

depressions, or crude nests, at the heads of riffles. Water depth at spawning sites often is 30-150 cm.

Eggs hatch in 2 or 3 weeks. Ammocoetes remain in stream, metamorphose in 4-6 years (late SeptemberOctober). Ammocoetes inhabit shallow backwater and eddy areas along edges of streams in mud, silt 

and sand.

Pacific lamprey ammoccoetes have been documented in the South Fork McKenzie River below Cougar 

Dam.

Environmental Consequences to Fisheries, Aquatic Insects, and In-stream 

Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Riparian Reserves that are dominated by conifers and have little or no hardwoods near the stream 

channels, organic matter that is not as readily conditioned by microbes (i.e. conifer needles) would 

continue to be the dominant source of allochthonous material.

Nutritional energy becomes available to the stream community from two main sources: photosynthesis 

by aquatic plants in the stream itself (autochthonous sources) and decomposition of organic matter 

imported from outside the stream (allochthonous sources) (Murphy and Meehan 1991). The mix of 

energy sources has a major influence on the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Streamside 

vegetation provides large quantities of organic matter in the form of leaves, needles, and woody 

material. Leaves and needles usually contribute most of the readily usable organic matter in woodland 

streams (Table 43) (Murphy and Meehan 1991).

Leaves decay in four phases: they are leached by water, conditioned by microbes, and shredded by 

invertebrates and physical abrasion. Then residual fine particles are recycled within the benthic food 

chain by microbes and invertebrates. Rate of decay depends on chemical composition and is directly 

related to temperature. Generally, the greater the nitrogen and phosphorus content, the faster leaves 

and needles decay (Murphy and Meehan 1991).

Most animals require food with a carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio less than 17:1(Murphy and Meehan 

1991). During the first few days after a leaf enters the stream ecosystem, leaves lose about 15 percent of 

their weight as soluble matter that is leached into the stream. With a C:N ratio less than 5:1 leachate is 

highly liable and about 80 percent is quickly assimilated by stream bacteria. Leachate is taken up faster 

from deciduous leaves than from coniferous needles. Almost all (98 percent) red alder leachate is 

removed from the water within two days, whereas only 35-60 percent of Douglas-fir is removed in that 

time. This means that most leaf leachate is retained and rapidly processed in headwater streams, but 

some moves downstream without much processing (Murphy and Meehan 1991).

Leaves and needles need to be conditioned by microbes for about 30 days before invertebrates would 

consume them. Conditioning increases concentrations of nutrients in leaf detritus because microbes use 

nitrate and phosphate from stream water and carbon compounds from the leaf to build their own 

proteins thereby decreasing the C:N ratio of the detritus (Murphy and Meehan 1991). Almost all forms 

of allochthonous organic matter have a C:N ratio higher than 17:1 so they require microbial processing to 

enhance food quality. The quality of various forms of organic matter varies widely as measured by the 

C:N ratio or the percentage of lignin. At the low end of the spectrum are woody debris and conifer 

needles and at the high end are periphyton, macrophytes, and fast-decaying deciduous leaves (Murphy 

and Meehan 1991). See Table 43 below for more information on the differing C:N ratios of various types 

of organic matter that can enter the stream ecosystem.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 153

The following table provides information on the various forms of organic material (i.e. allochthonous 

material) that can enter a stream ecosystem. This table shows how hardwood leaves are more readily 

conditioned by microbes than are conifer needles and woody material due to their lower Carbon to 

Nitrogen ratio. Hardwood leaves are critical to stream ecosystem function and without thinning 

Alternative 1 would perpetuate the continued delivery of organic material that is of lower quality than 

hardwood leaves.

Table 43 Nutritional quality of various types of organic matter

Type of organic matter C:N ratio Lignin ( percent)

Woody debris (Douglas-fir)

Twigs 235:1 34

Bark 324:1 10

Wood 1,343:1 48

Needles 97:1 14

Leaves

Red alder 23:1 10

Big-leaf maple 62:1 17

Vine maple 77:1 8

Aquatic macrophytes 8:1

Periphyton 1-11:1

In the plantation units that are heavily stocked with monocultures of Douglas-fir, Alternative 1 would 

perpetuate the continued delivery of organic material that is of lower quality than that provided by 

hardwoods. In plantation units where a mix of hardwoods and conifers was observed, a beneficial variety 

of organic matter would continue to be delivered to streams. Relative to the Riparian Reserves where 

little or no hardwoods were observed, this variety of allochthonous material would provide a diverse set 

of materials available to the stream community as sources of energy.

No shade trees to perennial streams would be removed under this alternative so there would be no 

change in stream temperatures. In addition, without any activities occurring, no change is expected in 

the sediment regime and therefore, no effects to fish or aquatic invertebrate habitat would take place.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Riparian and In-channel Habitat Conditions

Timber harvest is prohibited in Riparian Reserves as directed by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 

except as needed to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation 

characteristics needed to attain ACS Objectives (NWFP Standards and Guides, TM 1(c)). Based on data 

gathered through field observations and stream reach assessments, it was determined that current 

conditions in some portions of the Riparian Reserves are outside the natural range of variability and are 

not meeting desired vegetation characteristics need to attain ACS Objectives. Thus, there is a need to 

treat parts of the Riparian Reserves to accelerate attainment of desired conditions. However, there are 

other areas within the project area which are currently meeting desired vegetation characteristics and 

treatment is not necessary.

There are some studies that have looked at the effects of thinning and gaps on riparian and aquatic 

habitats. One study by Wilzbach and others (2005) looked at the production of resident fish (rainbow 

and cutthroat trout) by adding salmon carcasses and by removing all the red alder and other hardwoods 
154 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

on both sides of the stream along a 100 meter (328 feet) reach. One of their findings was that in lightlimited settings where temperature gains associated with canopy opening are not problematic for 

aquatic resources, gains in salmonid production might be achieved by selective trimming of riparian 

hardwoods (Wilzbach et. al. 2005). This is not what is being proposed in the Lang Dam project (i.e. 

removing hardwoods). In fact, the concern with some of the Riparian Reserves in the project area is that 

there are little to no hardwoods so 120 acres of Riparian Reserve thinning is being proposed. By thinning 

along certain streams we expect that hardwoods would colonize the site and if they did not within 4 

years, then hardwoods would be planted (e.g. red alder, vine maple, and big leaf maple) to improve the 

quality of allochthonous sources of energy for the aquatic community. This improvement in the quality 

of allochthonous material would improve conditions for aquatic insects in the stream ecosystem. 

A recent study by Ruzicka and others (2014) looked at the management of riparian buffers and upslope 

thinning with downslope impacts. In their conclusion they write that they found an edge effect below 

upland thinning treatments that extended up to 15 meters (49 feet) into untreated riparian buffers. They 

stated that their study demonstrates that upland management can be used to influence riparian forests 

at the upland edge but only to a limited spatial extent. Such management practices may be enough to 

support the functional goals of riparian buffers such as maintaining potential in-stream coarse woody 

debris, stream temperature moderation, and nutrient uptake. Finally they found that maintaining lower 

tree densities directly above riparian areas may be especially beneficial if other methods to increase tree

growth and vigor such as thinning are not allowed directly in riparian management areas. Thinning in 

Riparian Reserves is being proposed to improve structural and vegetative diversity, not necessarily for

improved tree growth in the no-cut buffer as Ruzicka (2014) found. It would, however, be a benefit to 

some of the stands in very dense plantations where we have prescribed no cut buffers.

There would not be direct effects to MIS fish, ESA listed fish, or Strategic Species. This is due to the 

distance between harvest units and habitat for these species. In addition, no cut buffers would prevent 

direct effects. Thinning would have beneficial indirect effects to MIS fish, ESA listed fish, and Strategic 

Species because thinning would improve the quality of allochthonous sources of energy (i.e. increasing 

hardwood abundance) that reach stream channels.

It is not expected that stream temperatures would rise because of the no cut buffers that would remain, 

the steep gradient of the streams, the hyporheic activity caused by the complexity of cascade habitat, 

the condition of the stands downstream of thinning sites where shade would aid in recovery, and the 

eventual establishment of a hardwood stand that would provide effective shade in 5 to 10 years. 

Road work associated with the timber operations could generate sediment that could reach stream 

channels. This is especially true for replacement of culverts needed to bring the road into a condition 

that could accommodate timber haul.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 155

Table 44 Stream Culvert Installation or Replacement

Road Number New Culvert 

Diameter Streamflow

Height of Fill to be 

Removed Distance to LFH

feet feet

1900411 (MP 1.15) 18” Intermittent 4 5,280

1900411 (MP 1.70) 24” Perennial (non-fish) 8 9,240

1900447 (MP 0.34) 18” Intermittent 4 2,600

1900447 (MP 0.37) 18” Intermittent 6 2,600

Sediment delivery from road work is not expected to adversely affect MIS fish, ESA listed fish, or 

Strategic Species due to the distance of the treatments from streams with these species. The one culvert 

replacement (1900411 road MP 1.70) that is on a perennial stream is about 1.75 miles away from water 

with listed fish or designated critical habitat. This culvert is on non-fish bearing tributary to Cougar 

Creek. Some sediment would enter the creek when the culvert is replaced. The amount would be 

minimized by requiring that the stream be diverted around the road crossing and by implementing the 

work during the in-water work period for fish which is July 1- August 15 for this area. The same is true for 

the 1900411 (MP 1.15) and it is expected that there would be less impact due to the lower amount of fill 

to be removed and since it is an intermittent stream.

The culvert replacements on the 1900447 road (MP 0.34 and 0.37) are on intermittent streams but are 

closer to listed fish habitat than the culverts on the 1900411 road. It is not expected that any of the 

sediment from the culvert replacements on the 1900447 road would reach any creek with MIS fish, ESA 

listed fish, or Strategic Species. This is because the streams on the 1900447 road drain into a swale that 

was created by the fill material placed on Strube Flat. Water from these creeks drains into a vegetated 

swale where it is ponded up against the fill on Strube Flat. It then enters the ground water system before 

reaching the South Fork. That is, there is no overland or surface flows from these two channels to 

streams where MIS fish, ESA listed fish, or Strategic Species reside.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

There are no expected cumulative effects from the No Action alternative to fish, aquatic insects, or 

aquatic snails.

Alternative 2

All recent and planned timber harvest, riparian habitat complexity development, and road 

decommissioning projects were and would be designed with similar protection measures, design 

features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects to water quality and aquatic resources. 

Each of the projects listed in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to 

the Cumulative Effects Analysis (Appendix D) were analyzed for effects to sediment.

The 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction project is a “past action” in the subwatershed. This project was 

monitored in the field by the Willamette Forest Leadership Team (FLT), the forest interdisciplinary team 

(IDT), and the ranger district IDT on June 9, 2016. During that field review it was determined that no 

sediment entered any waterway with that project and that all riparian vegetation was protected.

Projects that are ongoing (7-Thin Stewardship Reoffer, Buck Thin, and the Bonneville Power 

Administration’s ongoing maintenance of their transmission line) were considered when analyzing 

sediment effects on the environment for the Lang Dam project and were included in the WEPP model 

run.

The ongoing thinning projects were analyzed for their effects to listed fish and designated critical habitat 

and it was found that those projects “may affect but would not adversely affect” listed fish or their 

designated critical habitat. Cumulatively, it is not expected that any effects would be realized when taken 
156 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

into account with the Lang Dam project due to project design criteria found in those Environmental 

Analyses. The aggregate recovery percentage (ARP) analysis conducted for Lang Dam shows that there 

would not be any considerable increase in peak flows in the project area due to ongoing actions and 

Lang Dam.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions have been taken into account in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Based on the field review of the 410 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction project, it is not expected that any 

sediment would enter waterways with the Lower 19 Road Hazardous Fuels Reduction project and that 

riparian vegetation would be protected. 

The Green Mountain project would produce sediment and improve organic material that is delivered to 

streams but it is located above (upstream) of Cougar Dam. Cougar Reservoir and Dam block sediment 

and coarse organic material from reaching the South Fork McKenzie River therefore the effects of 

sediment and vegetation improvements from Lang Dam and Green Mountain do not overlap spatially.

The Lower South Fork Floodplain and Enhancement project would add approximately 250,000 cubic 

yards of sediment to a 4.5 mile stretch of the South Fork McKenzie River below (downstream) Cougar 

Dam to improve spawning habitat conditions for native fishes and to reconnect off-channel habitats and 

the floodplain to the South Fork channel. The Lang Dam project would produce approximately 36 cubic 

yards of sediment in addition to the 250,000 cubic yards that would be placed with the Lower South Fork 

project. At present the lower South Fork McKenzie River is severely sediment supply limited due to the 

presence of Cougar Dam since its construction in 1963. This has placed the sediment regime in the lower 

South Fork McKenzie River outside of the range of natural variability. Even with the addition of sediment 

from Lang Dam and the Lower South Fork project, the sediment regime in the lower South Fork would 

be within the range of natural variability.

The South Fork McKenzie River Watershed Analysis (1994) found that riparian vegetation below Cougar 

Dam was being lost due to the effects of the dam on the disturbance regime. The Lower South Fork 

Floodplain and Enhancement Project would restore off-channel habitats and would improve the 

connectivity of the South Fork McKenzie River to its floodplain. This would improve conditions for 

hardwood trees that are typically riparian dependent (e.g. red alder and cottonwood). Cumulatively, the 

effects of the Lower South Fork and the Lang Dam project would increase the area and number of 

hardwood trees in the Cougar Creek – South Fork McKenzie 6th field subwatershed and would be 

beneficial to the stream ecosystem.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Bull trout and Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon are both listed as threatened on the 

Endangered Species list. Both species can be found below Cougar Dam. The fisheries Biological 

Assessment (BA) found that the Lang Dam project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” 

(NLAA) bull trout, Upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon, or their designated critical habitat. The BA is 

available upon request and is located in the project records.

The rationale for this finding is: The amount of sediment delivered to streams from past, present, and 

foreseeable future use would not affect adversely affect habitat downstream of the dam due to the 

distance of the actions to listed fish habitat. No shade trees on perennial streams would be removed and 

no adverse impacts to peak flows would be realized.

On June 22, 2016 the Forest Service presented the Lang Dam project to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if they concur with the effects determination 

of NLAA. At that meeting the two fisheries agencies agreed with the effects determination of NLAA. A

Biological Assessment (BA) will be submitted by the Forest Service to the two fish services. They will 

write the Forest Service a letter of concurrence (LOC) that will complete the ESA consultation process. 
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 157

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act:

Essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is 

designated in all areas except above impassible dams (Cougar Dam in the South Fork McKenzie River; 

and Blue River Dam), and natural migration barriers. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act reauthorization in 1996 established a new requirement for essential fish habitat that 

requires Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service on activities that may 

adversely affect essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat for the Pacific coast salmon fishery means 

those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable 

salmon fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. The species designated in the 

McKenzie River is spring Chinook salmon.

Essential Fish Habitat would not be adversely affected by the Lang Dam project due to the same reasons 

there would be no adverse effects to listed fish or their habitat.

Management Indicator Species 

The Willamette Forest Plan recognized anadromous and resident salmonids as economically important 

species and designated them as management indicator species for riparian habitat and water quality. 

Salmonid fish are good indicators because they are predators in the stream ecosystem. This means that 

they are not only affected by the physical conditions of their habitat but also by the metabolic energy 

pathways in the watershed from primary production to decomposition. The most common salmonid 

sport fish that have habitat on the McKenzie River Ranger District are spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, 

rainbow trout, and coastal cutthroat trout. 

Management Indicator Fish Viability Statement: The Lang Dam Project would maintain habitat 

conditions for aquatic management indicator species in the project area. Riparian Reserve design 

measures would serve to prevent direct and indirect effects to management indicator fish species and 

their habitat in the South Fork McKenzie River and Cougar Creek. Based on conditions inventoried during 

stream surveys, the road network in the project area has not had effects that have created conditions 

that have substantially affected spawning habitat, embryo incubation, and emergence of trout fry. 

Therefore, the Lang Dam Project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the 

Willamette National Forest for these management indicator fish species.

3.13 Climate Change

Summary of Effects Analysis

The proposed action would affect about 645 acres of forest. This includes 467 acres to be thinned, gap 

creation of 39 acres, 26 acres of Dominant Tree Release (DTR) and leave skips of 24 acres. The 

commercial thinning of smaller trees from most units would result in the retention of about 40 percent 

of the original trees. The 39 acres of gaps and 26 acres of DTR’s in multiple units would retain some 

existing trees, and about 17 acres of the gaps would be planted to preferred species to increase diversity. 

See Appendix E for detailed unit treatments.

Climate change is a global phenomenon because major greenhouse gasses (GHG) mix well throughout 

the planet’s lower atmosphere (IPCC, 2013). Considering emissions of GHG in 2010 were estimated at 49 

± 4.5 gigatonnes globally (IPCC, 2014) and 6.9 gigatonnes nationally (US EPA, 2015), a project of this 

magnitude makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and national 

scales, the proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change 

would be negligible. In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the 

proposed action’s contribution to cumulative effects on greenhouse gasses and climate change would 

also be negligible.
158 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has summarized the contributions to climate 

change of global human activity sectors in its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014). In 2010,

anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several sectors:

• Industry, transportation, and building – 41%

• Energy production – 35% 

• Agriculture – 12%. 

• Forestry and other land uses – 12% 

There is agreement that the forestry sector contribution has declined over the last decade (IPCC, 2014; 

Smith et al., 2014; FAOSTAT, 2013). The main activity in this sector associated with GHG emissions is 

deforestation, which is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and 

grassland into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC, 2000). 

This project does not fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested 

land would not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands are being 

retained and thinned to maintain a vigorous condition that supports trees, and sequesters carbon longterm. U.S. forests sequestered 757.1 megatons of carbon dioxide after accounting for emissions from 

fires and soils in 2010 (US EPA, 2015). However there is growing concern over the impacts of climate 

change on U.S. forests and their current status as a carbon sink. There is strong evidence of a 

relationship between increasing temperatures and large tree mortality events in forests of the western

United States. There is widespread recognition that climate change is increasing the size and frequency 

of droughts, fires, and insect/disease outbreaks, which would have a major effect on these forests’ role 

in the carbon cycle (Joyce et al., 2014).

The Lang Dam project is in line with the suggested practice of reducing forest disturbance effects found 

in the National Climate Assessment for public and private forests (Joyce et al., 2014). Here specifically, 

the project proposes to reduce stand densities to increase stand health, vigor, species diversity, and 

resiliency (see Vegetation section for additional objectives). The release of carbon associated with this 

project is justified given the overall change in condition increases forest resistance to release of much 

greater quantities of carbon from wildfire, drought, insects/disease, or a combination of these 

disturbance types (Millar et al., 2007). This project is also consistent with options presented by the IPCC 

for minimizing the impacts of climate change on forest carbon and represents a potential synergy 

between adaptation measures and mitigation. Actions aimed at enhancing forest resilience to climate 

change by reducing the potential for large-scale, catastrophic disturbances such as wildfire also prevents 

release of GHG and enhances carbon stocks (Smith et al., 2014).

The proposed action is consistent with these recommendations because thinning accelerates the 

development of large diameter trees and promotes vigorously growing, healthy stands (Tappeiner et al., 

2007). Planting 69.5 acres with blister rust-resistant sugar pine and western white pine, as well as 

incense cedar (all are drought and fire tolerant species) from gap and complex early seral habitat 

creation would result in a more resilient and diverse tree species mix.

Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in three main ways: (1) by 

increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or destruction (avoided 

deforestation), and (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests). Land-use changes, 

specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale in forests’ role as 

sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, 2000). Projects that create forests or improve 

forest conditions and capacity to grow trees are positive factors in carbon sequestration. The proposed 

action falls into this category.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 159

3.14 Economics

Summary of Effects

Alternatives 2 would have a positive benefit/cost ratio which would generate sufficient stumpage funds 

to pay for restoration activities. Alternative 2 would has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.33. In a matter of fiscal 

return on investment, Alternative 2 would cover all costs associated with implementation of the project, 

and additionally return approximately $1.1 million to the treasury. 

Alternative 1 would not contribute to local economy, forest sector jobs, or the National Forest Fund 

(NFF) which in turn contributes directly to local governments. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have beneficial 

direct effects to the local economy, forest sector jobs, and the NFF.

Scale of Analysis

The scale used to evaluate Economics associated with the Lang Dam project is Lane County, Oregon. The 

project lies entirely within the county and funds generated would contribute towards county payments. 

A majority of the purchasers who participate in timber sales on the McKenzie River Ranger District have 

offices and/or manufacturing facilities in Lane County.

Affected Environment

The Lang Dam project area straddles the end of National Forest Road 1900, Aufderheide Drive, south of 

Highway 126 between the communities of McKenzie Bridge and Blue River, 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: multiple inns and lodges, restaurants, stores, and 

gas stations, along with outfitters and guides. Forest industry jobs include logging and mill jobs, but also 

include other natural resource specialists, for example wildlife biologist, botanist, hydrologist, 

archaeologist, and fisheries biologist. Tourism and recreational activities connected with National Forest 

lands have been increasing in recent years in 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, as well as the jobs which are dependent on other industries 

to spend money. The economic impacts of forest sector jobs contribute approximately 5.4 percent, or 

6,595 jobs to Lane County, in addition to approximately 11.5 percent or $1.2 billion to the county’s 

economic base (OFRI 2012, pg. 55).Approximately 10.8 jobs are created with each incremental increase 

in million board feet made available for harvest (OFRI 2012, pg. 41) These jobs are direct effect jobs, or 

those associated with the harvest, indirect effect jobs, or those businesses that supply goods associated 

with harvest, and induced effect jobs, or those who work in the broader economy who benefit when 

people with direct or indirect jobs spend money (OFRI 2012, pg. 21).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct economic effects of the alternatives are displayed in Table 45. A standard criterion for 

deciding whether a government program can be justified on economic principles is present net value 

(NPV) – the discounted monetized value of expected net benefits (OMB A-94). Another standard 

criterion for economic efficiency is the benefit/cost ratio (B/C ratio) which is the product of the present 
160 Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment

value of benefits divided by the present value of costs. The B/C ratio shows the return (positive number) 

or loss (negative number) associated with every dollar spent for the project.

Alternative 1 

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 Lang Dam project were not replaced by another project, the no 

action alternative could contribute to a continued decline in forestry and milling related jobs.

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 is 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 used to 

make this determination is available in the Lang Dam project record at the McKenzie River Ranger 

District office. Based on the expected return to the Federal government plus the value of restoration 

activities potentially funded by stumpage shown in Table 45, Alternative 2 would provide a beneficial 

benefit/cost ratio.

In general, the primary effect on timber harvest-related employment would occur from commercial 

timber harvest associated with the action alternative from an estimated selling year of 2017. As Table 45

indicates, Alternative 2 would provide some opportunity for timber harvest-related employment, and 

higher revenues with a Net Present Value (NPV) value of approximately $1,113,857.

The combined economic benefit from implementation of Alternative 2 is expected to be positive, and 

would be expected to have a localized beneficial effect for the socio-economic environment of western 

and central Oregon with a greater impact to Lane County. Alternative 2 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 Alternative 2 would be available to the county for roads and schools.

Table 45 Estimated Economic Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Net Timber volume 

produced (MMBF) 0 ~ 8

Discounted Cost $0 $3,363,143

Discounted 

Revenues $0 $4,477,0001

Net Present Value 

(NPV) --- $1,113,8572

NPV per acre --- $2,094

Benefit/Cost Ratio --- 1.33

1 - Revenue based on the 2016 1st quarter Oregon Department of Forestry pond values that have been discounted at 4 percent from 

2015 until implementation.

2 - All values are for comparative purposes only. Actual values would be dependent on market values during time of sale and cost of 

associated activities at that time.
Lang Dam –Draft Environmental Assessment 161

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would not have any economic cumulative effects, because there is no overlap in space and 

time with effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

3.15 Agencies and Persons Consulted 

The Forest Service consulted many individuals, federal, state, tribal, and local agencies during the 

development of this environmental assessment. Scoping emails and letters were sent out to

approximately 150 individuals and organizations. 

Tribal consultation information and non-Forest Service individuals with whom the agency engaged in 

discussions as part of the EA can be found in Chapter 1 under Tribal Consultation and Public Involvement

Efforts. Structured consultation with agencies such as the State Historic Preservation Office, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and other state agencies can be found in Appendix A: Compliance with Forest Plan, 

Laws, and Regulations. This list of contacts can be found in the project record and is available upon 

request at the McKenzie River Ranger District. 

The Table 46 contains the names and positions of who contributed to the Lang Dam analysis and EA.

Table 46 Core Interdisciplinary Team Members:

James Rudisill, Silviculturist Shane Kamrath, Natural 

Resources Staff Officer

Mei Lin Lantz, Fire/Fuels Kenny Gabriel,

Engineering 

Cara Kelly, Archeologist Ruby Seitz, Wildlife 

Biologist

Bonny Hammons, Hydrologist Shadie Nimer, Forester

Rob Lawler, Hydrologist Dave Sanders, Recreation 

Nick Grant, Hydrologist Burt Thomas, Botanist

Elysia Retzlaff, IDT Leader, NEPA Planner Doug Shank, Geologist

Joanie Schmidgall, IDT Leader, NEPA Planner Terry Baker, District 

Ranger

Dean Schlichting, IDT Leader, NEPA Planner Ray Rivera, Fish Biologist