for the greatest good

United States Department of Agriculture

Goose Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Legal Location: T16S R5E: 1-4, 9-15; T16S R6E Sec: 7-11, 14-18, 20-23

Willamette Meridian; Lane County, Oregon

for the greatest good

August

2015
Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of 

race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religión, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental 

status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in 

employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment 

activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor (click the hyperlink for list of EEO counselors) within 45 

days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.

ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at http://

www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. Send your completed complaint form or 

letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, 

by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA

through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you 

require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

for the greatest good
i- Goose Project Final EIS

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Goose Project

Willamette National Forest

Lane County, Oregon

August 2015

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: TERRY BAKER

McKenzie River District Ranger

Willamette National Forest

57600 McKenzie Hwy

McKenzie Bridge, OR 97413

541-822-7200

For Information Contact: ELYSIA RETZLAFF 

NEPA Planner

57600 McKenzie Highway

McKenzie Bridge, OR 97413

541-822-7203

Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45853

Abstract: This final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) contains the Willamette National Forest’s 

proposal to provide a sustainable supply of timber products, reduce hazardous fuels in the McKenzie 

Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, 

diversity, density and structure in 2,452 acres on the Willamette National Forest. The proposed project is 

located along Highways 126 and 242, near the community of McKenzie Bridge, Oregon. Three 

alternatives have been analyzed in this FEIS, a no action alternative (Alternative 1) and two action 

alternatives (Alternative 2 and Alternative 3). Alternative 2 proposes 2,452 acres of treatment; 1,592 acres 

of timber harvest, 502 acres of skips, and 358 acres of WUI fuels treatment. In Alternative 3 the Forest 

Service proposes 1,069 acres of treatment; 610 acres of timber harvest, 134 acres of skips, and 325 acres 

of WUI fuels treatment. Alternative 2 is the Forest Service proposed action and preferred alternative.
Readers Guide

ii- Goose Project Final EIS

Reader’s Guide

The McKenzie River Ranger District has prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State 

laws and regulations. This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that 

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized as outlined below:

• Summary

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need: This chapter describes the scope and objectives of the proposal as 

well as defines why the proposal is being made at this location and at this time.

• Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action: This section describes the proposed action 

as well as alternative methods for achieving the project’s purpose. Alternatives are designed to 

meet the project’s purpose and need and to address one or more significant issues related to the 

proposed action. This chapter also includes mitigation measures and a summary table of the 

environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

environment that would be affected by the proposed action as well as the environmental 

consequences of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. The analysis is 

organized by resource area.

• Chapter 4. List of Preparers: This section lists the names, together with their qualifications 

(expertise, experience, professional disciplines), of the persons who were primarily responsible 

for preparing the environmental impact statement. 

• Chapter 5. List of Agencies, Organizations, and persons to whom copies of the statement are sent

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented 

in the draft environmental impact statement.

• References

• Glossary

• Index

Additional documentation, including more detailed analysis of project area resources, can be found in the 

project planning record located at the McKenzie River Ranger District Office on the Willamette National 

Forest.
List of Acronyms

iii- Goose Project Final EIS

List of Acronyms

ACS..................Aquatic Conservation Strategy

AMA ................Adaptive Management Area

ARP..................Aggregate Recovery Percentage

B/C Ratio .........Benefit / Cost Ratio

BE ....................Biological Evaluation

BLM.................Bureau Of land Management

BMP.................Best Management Practices

BO....................Biological Opinion

C:N...................Carbon:Nitrogen ratio

CFR..................Code of Federal Regulations

CH....................Critical Habitat

CWPP...............Community Wildland Protection Plan

DBH.................Diameter Breast Height (4.5 feet above ground)

DEIS.................Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DEQ .................Department of Environmental Quality

DNA.................Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid

DTR .................Dominant Tree Release

EFH..................Essential Fish Habitat

EIS ...................Environmental Impact Statement

ESA..................Endangered Species Act

FEIS .................Final Environmental Impact Statement

FL.....................Flame Length

FM....................Fuel Model

FR.....................Fire Regime

FRCC ...............Fire Regime Condition Class

FS.....................Forest Service

FSH ..................Forest Service Handbook

FSM .................Forest Service Manual

FSVeg...............Forest Service Vegetation database

FVS ..................Forest Vegetation Simulation

GIS...................Geographic Information System

GPS ..................Global Positioning System

HE....................Habitat Effectiveness

HH....................Harvest Habitat

HUC.................Hydrologic Unit Code

IRA...................Inventoried Roadless Area
List of Acronyms

iv- Goose Project Final EIS

LAA .................Likely to Adversely Affect

LMRP...............Land and Resource Management Plan

LSR..................Late Successional Reserve

LWM................Large Woody Material

MA...................Management Allocation

MBF.................Thousand Board Feet

MIS ..................Management Indicator Species

MMBF .............Million Board Feet

MNRT ..............McKenzie National Recreation Trail

MSA.................Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MSNO..............Master Site Number

MVUM.............Motor Vehicle Use Map

NEPA ...............National Environmental Policy Act

NFF ..................National Forest Fund

NHPA...............National Historic Preservation Act

NLAA ..............Not Likely to Adversely Affect

NMFS...............National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA..............National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPV .................Net Present Value

NRHP...............National Register of Historic Places

NRIS ................Natural Resource Information System

NRT..................National Recreation Trail

NSO .................Northern Spotted Owl

NWFP ..............Northwest Forest Plan

ODF .................Oregon Department of Forestry

OFRI ................Oregon Forest Resources Institute

OHV.................Off-Highway Vehicle

PETS ................Proposed Endangered Threatened and Sensitive species

PFMC...............Pacific Fishery Management Council

PNW.................Pacific Northwest

PWA.................Potential Wilderness Area

Q100.................100 Year Flood Flows

RA32................Recovery Action 32

ROD.................Record of Decision

ROS .................Rate Of Spread (Fire and Fuels)

ROS..................Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

SDI...................Stand Density Index
List of Acronyms

v- Goose Project Final EIS

SDImax ............Maximum Stand Density Index

SIA...................Special Interest Area

SMS .................Scenery Management System

TL.....................Tolerance Level

TMDL..............Total Maximum Daily Load

UMR ................Upper McKenzie River

USDA...............United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS ............United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VMS.................Visual Management System

VQO.................Visual Quality Standard

WCS.................West Cascades South

WEPP...............Watershed Erosion Prediction Project model

WMU ...............Wildlife Management Unit

WUI .................Wildland-Urban Interface
vi- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents

vii- Goose Project Final EIS

Table of Contents

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need...................................................................................................... 11

1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................11

1.2 History of the Goose Project......................................................................................................................15

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action.....................................................................................................................15

1.4 Proposed Action.........................................................................................................................................18

1.5 Forest Plan and Management Direction ....................................................................................................22

1.6 Tribal Consultation.....................................................................................................................................27

1.7 Public Involvement Efforts.........................................................................................................................27

1.8 Consultation with other Agencies..............................................................................................................29

1.9 Issues Derived from Public Comments.......................................................................................................30

1.10 Decision Framework...................................................................................................................................31

Chapter 2 - Alternatives................................................................................................................ 33

2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action...........................................................................................................................33

2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ................................................................................................................33

2.3 Alternative 3 – No Harvest or Underburn in Fire Regenerated Stands......................................................38

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................................43

2.5 Project Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ........................................................................49

2.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ...............................................................59

2.7 Monitoring Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ............................................................................................61

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................ 63

3.1 Forest and Stand Structure ........................................................................................................................64

3.2 Fire and Fuels.............................................................................................................................................76

3.3 Soils............................................................................................................................................................83

3.4 Water Quality and Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................................87

3.5 Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................................118

3.6 Botany and Invasive Plants.......................................................................................................................177

3.7 Roads and Access.....................................................................................................................................185

3.8 Heritage Resources ..................................................................................................................................188

3.9 Scenic Quality...........................................................................................................................................191

3.10 Recreation ................................................................................................................................................197

3.11 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and Wilderness .................................................................................205

3.12 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................205

3.13 Economics ................................................................................................................................................207

3.14 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................210

3.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..................................................................................................................211

3.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources......................................................................211

3.17 Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Productivity .................................................................................212

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers....................................................................................................... 213

Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, Organizations, and Individuals Given Notice of 

Availability................................................................................................................................... 215

Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives ............................ 217

Appendix B – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Proposed Action...................... 223

Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders.................................. 227
Table of Contents

viii- Goose Project Final EIS

Appendix D – Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Relevant to the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................................................... 233

Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.................... 235

Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites.................................................................................... 245

Appendix G – Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).. 253

Appendix H – Changes between Draft and Final EIS................................................................... 293

References................................................................................................................................... 295

Glossary....................................................................................................................................... 309

Index............................................................................................................................................ 318

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of the Alternatives ......................................................................................................................2

Table 2. Summary of Direct Effects on Resources for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 ................................................4

Table 3. Changes to the Proposed Action since the 2010 Analysis.............................................................................18

Table 4. Proposed Action Treatments and Connected Actions..................................................................................20

Table 5. Land Management Areas (MA) in Project Area and Proposed Treatment Acres (Alternative 2) .................25

Table 6. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions –Alternative 2 .................................................33

Table 7. Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 2 .........................................................35

Table 8. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 3 ................................................38

Table 9. Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 3 .........................................................40

Table 10. Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................43

Table 11. Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves with Alternative 2 ..................................................................45

Table 12. Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves with Alternative 3 ..................................................................48

Table 13. Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3......................................................................................49

Table 14. Wildlife Tree Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3............59

Table 15. Down Wood Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ............60

Table 16. Survey and Manage Species Buffer Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3.........................61

Table 17. Special Habitat Buffer Mitigation Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3............................61

Table 18. Harvest Units by Alternative and Stand Age Classification .........................................................................67

Table 19. Average Stand Characteristics of Trees at Least 7 inch DBH1 .....................................................................68

Table 20. Comparison of Treatments (acres) by Alternative......................................................................................74

Table 21. Existing Fire Behavior..................................................................................................................................78

Table 22. Comparison of Fuels Treatments by Alternative ........................................................................................81

Table 23. Management Indicators for Assessing Effects to Soils................................................................................84

Table 24. Nutritional Quality of Various Types of Organic Matter (based on Murphy and Meehan 1991) ...............96

Table 25. Riparian Reserve Management on Federally Managed Lands..................................................................103

Table 26. Stream Temperatures in the Goose Project Area .....................................................................................105

Table 27. Estimated Recovery Levels in the Florence Creek- McKenzie River and Lost Creek Sub-watersheds Postimplementation (2020).....................................................................................................................................109
Table of Contents

ix- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 28. Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for the Goose Project Area ......................................................111

Table 29. Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative....................111

Table 30. Spotted Owl Habitat Type Distribution by Acres and Percent in Goose Project Area ...............................125

Table 31. Age Class Acres by Treatment Type – Alternative 2..................................................................................126

Table 32. Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type and Activity – Alternatives 2 and 3......................................128

Table 33. Current and Alternative 2 Post-Treatment Condition of Suitable Habitat in Northern Spotted Owl Home 

Ranges in the Goose Project Area ....................................................................................................................136

Table 34. Alternative 2 Proposed Activities in Spotted Owl Habitat within 0.5 miles and 1.2 miles of Known Owl 

Sites in the Goose Project Area ........................................................................................................................138

Table 35. Alternative 2 Effects to NSO Habitat as a Result of Habitat Modification by the Goose Project...............139

Table 36. Summary of Adverse Effects due to Spotted Owl Habitat Modification from the Goose Project.............141

Table 37. Summary of Northern Spotted Owl Site Effects from the Goose Project for Alternatives 2 and 3 ...........142

Table 38. Northern Spotted Owl Sites that may be Adversely Affected (harmed) Due to Disruption with the Goose 

Project...............................................................................................................................................................143

Table 39. Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type – Alternative 3 .....................................................................144

Table 40. Summary of Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 for Proposed Threatened and Sensitive Species..................151

Table 41. Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Willamette National Forest............................................157

Table 42. Wildlife Habitat Types in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed ..............................................................158

Table 43. Current Percentages of Landscape in Large Snags (>20inches dbh) in the Upper McKenzie River 5th Field 

Watershed for the WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Type......................................................................................158

Table 44. Large Snags/Acre at Various Tolerance Levels for the WLCH_OCA Habitat Type......................................159

Table 45. Current Levels of the Landscape Containing Various Levels of per Acre Large Logs (>20 inches dbh) in the 

Upper McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed for the WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Types.................................159

Table 46. Estimated percent of Forest Habitat Type (WHT) Meeting Snag Density Tolerance Levels for Key Wildlife 

Species..............................................................................................................................................................161

Table 47. Percent of Forest Habitat Meeting Downed Log Cover Tolerance Levels for Key Wildlife Species...........164

Table 48. HEI Analysis for Elk Habitat in the Goose Project Area-Current Condition................................................167

Table 49. Survey and Manage Botanical Species in the Goose Project Area.............................................................179

Table 50. Special Habitats in the Goose Project Area................................................................................................181

Table 51. Invasive Plants in the Goose Project Area .................................................................................................182

Table 52. VMS and SMS Objectives and Proposed Treatment Acres in Alternative 2...............................................192

Table 53. Management Areas and ROS Allocations Goose Project...........................................................................200

Table 54. Goose Project Area ROS Allocation Summary and Desired Conditions.....................................................200

Table 55. Estimated Economic Alternatives (1) (2) .......................................................................................................209

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map.....................................................................................................................................12

Figure 2. Goose Project Area ......................................................................................................................................13

Figure 3. 6th Field Watersheds within the Project Area ..............................................................................................14

Figure 4. Willamette Forest Plan Management Areas in the Goose Project Area......................................................23

Figure 5. Northwest Forest Plan Management Areas in the Goose Project Area ......................................................24

Figure 6. Map of Alternative 2 (West Half).................................................................................................................36

Figure 7. Map of Alternative 2 (East Half)...................................................................................................................37
Table of Contents

x- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 8. Map of Alternative 3 (West Half).................................................................................................................41

Figure 9. Map of Alternative 3 (East Half)...................................................................................................................42

Figure 10. Stand Age Classification in the Goose Project Area...................................................................................66

Figure 11. Visualization of Stand Before (left side) and After (right side) Thinning ...................................................70

Figure 12. Visualization of Thinning with Gaps...........................................................................................................71

Figure 13. Visualization of Single vs Multiple Tree Dominant Tree Release................................................................72

Figure 14. Visualization of Shelterwood with Reserves Pre (left side) and Post (right side) Treatment ....................72

Figure 15. Fire Regimes in the Goose Project Area ...................................................................................................77

Figure 16. Waterbodies, 6th Field HUC Sub-watersheds, and ESA-Threatened Bull Trout and Spring Chinook 

Salmon Critical Habitat within the Project Area .................................................................................................90

Figure 17. Desired Conditions for Late-seral Riparian Reserves.................................................................................92

Figure 18. Vegetation Classification of the Upper McKenzie Watershed*.................................................................93

Figure 19. Vegetation Classification within Riparian Reserves of the Project Area*..................................................94

Figure 20. Overstocked, Conifer-Dominant Stand in Riparian Reserves in the Project Area .....................................95

Figure 21. Properly Functioning Riparian Reserves in the Project Area .....................................................................95

Figure 22. Source Distance Curves for Study Area (Brenda and Bigelow 2014) .........................................................98

Figure 23. Treatment within Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2 (west)...................................................................100

Figure 24. Treatment within Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2 (east)....................................................................101

Figure 25. Projected Acres in Age Classes.................................................................................................................122

Figure 26. Comparison of Current Large (>19.9" DBH) Snag Densities in Westside Oregon Cascade Lowland 

Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions......................160

Figure 27. Comparison of Current (>9.9" DBH) Snag Densities in Westside Oregon Cascade Lowland 

Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions......................160

Figure 28. Comparison of Current % Cover of Large (>19.9" DBH) Downed Logs in Westside Oregon Cascade 

Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions .......163

Figure 29. Comparison of Current % Cover of Total (>4.9" DBH) Downed Logs in Westside Oregon Cascade Lowland 

Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions......................163

Figure 30. Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) Showing Short and Long Term Changes to Snags >10 inches in the 

Goose Project Area ...........................................................................................................................................165

Figure 31. Figure 10 Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) Showing Short and Long Term Changes to Snags >20 inches 

in the Goose Project Area.................................................................................................................................166

Figure 32. Goose Project Area Elk Emphasis Areas ...................................................................................................168

Figure 33. Visual Quality Objectives Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................195

Figure 34. Visual Quality Objectives Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................196

Figure 35. Recreation Sites and Management Areas in Goose Project Area.............................................................199
Summary

Goose Project Final EIS - 1

Summary

The McKenzie River Ranger District is proposing to provide a sustainable supply of timber products, 

reduce hazardous fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and actively manage 

stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure in 2,452 acres on the Willamette 

National Forest. The proposed project is located along Highways 126 and 242, near the community of 

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon. 

Purpose and Need

Provide a Sustainable Supply of Timber Products

The proposed project is needed to ensure the Willamette National Forest continues to supply a reliable 

supply of timber products as directed by the laws and guidance discussed in Section 1.3.1 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.

Reduce Hazardous Fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI)

Fire suppression over the past century has resulted in increased fuel loading throughout forest ecosystems.

This increased fuel loading consists of surface fuels, ladder fuels (small trees and brush that can carry fire

into larger tree crowns), and dense overstory canopies. The proposed project is needed to treat hazardous 

fuels in the McKenzie Bridge WUI to reduce potential wildfire impacts and risks to the many private 

dwellings and residents in the project area.

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. This would be achieved by 

increasing stand health and vigor, increasing the amount of early seral habitat, and increasing the potential 

for Riparian Reserves to function as late successional habitat.

Increase Stand Health and Vigor: Seventy-four percent of previously managed stands and fire regenerated 

stands proposed for harvest in the project area are classified as overstocked. Overstocked stands occur 

when trees are closely or densely 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. 

Thinning the overstocked stands would make more growing 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 structure diversity would be 

maintained or enhanced. 

Increase the Amount of Early Seral Habitat: A reduction in low severity and stand-replacing fires on the 

landscape over the past century, coupled with in-growth of openings created from historic timber 
Summary

2- Goose Project Final EIS

harvesting and stand replacing fires, has resulted in a reduced amount of early seral habitat in the project 

area. Currently, there is less than one percent early seral habitat (defined as less than 20 years old) in the 

project area. There is a need to enhance, create, and maintain early seral habitat to support wildlife species 

that have been documented to depend on early seral habitat, such as elk, black-tailed deer, rufous 

hummingbirds, olive-sided flycatchers, and a large number of butterfly and moth species. The proposed 

project would increase early seral habitat in the project area to approximately three percent.

Increase the Potential for Riparian Reserves to Function as Late Successional Habitat: Portions of 

Riparian Reserves within project 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. The proposed project is needed to 

maintain conditions in currently functioning portions of Riparian Reserves and in overstocked, coniferdominant portions lacking structural and species diversity, use silvicultural tools to acquire desired 

vegetation characteristics needed to more quickly attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives 

(Appendix E). Management of these stands would accelerate the ability of Riparian Reserves to provide 

important habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife and organic matter input, nutrient cycling, and large 

diameter wood to waterbodies and floodplains, while maintaining adequate stream shade, root strength 

and bank stability, and sediment filtration.

Alternatives

Three alternatives were analyzed in this FEIS; a no action alternative (Alternative 1) and two action 

alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3). The alternatives vary by the amount of treatment and the specific 

prescriptions to be implemented (Table 1). Alternative 2 is the proposed action and preferred alternative.

Table 1. Comparison of the Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Timber Harvest Treatments

Acres of Thinning outside Riparian 

Reserves 0 1,080 412

Acres of Thinning in Riparian Reserves 0 138 57

Acres of Regeneration Harvest 0 43 0

Acres of Gaps 0 281 111

Acres of Dominant Tree Release 0 50 30

Acres of Skips outside Riparian Reserves 0 173 45

Acres of Skips In Riparian Reserves 0 291 89

Total Acres of Timber Harvest Units

(includes skips) 0 2,056 744

Timber Volume Produced

(million board feet or MMBF) 0 ~35 ~9 

WUI Fuels Treatments- No Timber Harvest
Summary

Goose Project Final EIS - 3

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres of Natural Fuels Underburn outside 

Riparian Reserves 0 33 0

Acres of Natural Fuels Underburn within 

Riparian Reserves 0 0 0

Acres of Hazardous Fuels Treatments

outside Riparian Reserves 0 189 189

Acres of Hazardous Fuels Treatments 

within Riparian Reserves 0 136 136

Acres of Skips (associated with WUI

treatments) 0 38 0

Total Acres of WUI Treatments 0 396 325

Total Acres of Treated Units;

Timber Harvest and WUI 0 2,452 1,069

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Acres of Pile and Burn (mechanical and/ or 

hand treatments) 0 624 309

Acres of Post-Harvest Underburn 0 477 178

Road Activities Associated with Harvest

Miles of Temporary Road Construction 0 6.9 2.2

Miles of Roads Maintained 0 43 26

Acres by Harvest System

Helicopter Harvest 0 215 0

Skyline Harvest 0 582 112

Ground-based Harvest 0 795 498

Harvest Associated Planting, Snags, and Down Wood

Acres of Planting in Regeneration Harvest 0 43 0

Acres of Planting in Gaps 0 77 48

Acres of Natural Regeneration in Gaps 0 204 63

Snags and Down Wood

(occurs in regeneration units) 0

Retain or create 

up to 5 snags per 

acre and at least 

240 linear feet of 

down wood on 

approximately 43

acres.

0
Summary

4- Goose Project Final EIS

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Habitat

Acres2 of NSO Critical Habitat in Harvest 

Units (footprint acres including skips) 0 505 63

Acres3 of Suitable NSO Habitat in Harvest 

Units (footprint acres including skips) 0 445 0

Acres of NSO Dispersal Habitat in Harvest 

Units (footprint acres including skips) 0 1,508 660

Acres of NSO Non-Habitat in Harvest Units 

(footprint acres including skips) 0 103 85

Acres of Prescribed Underburn in 

NSO Habitat 

0 60- suitable habitat 0

Acres of Hazardous Fuels Reduction in 

NSO Habitat 0 295- suitable habitat

6- dispersal habitat

295- suitable habitat

6- dispersal habitat

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

: The above acres in NSO Critical Habitat have been reduced from those which were consulted on because units have been 

 dropped or modified.

3

: Two acres of spotted owl suitable habitat removal stated for Alternative 2 are for road building and a helicopter landing pad; the 

 trees within these two acres would be felled and left on-site.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table 2. Summary of Direct Effects on Resources for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Forest and Stand

Structure

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. High 

stocking density and canopy 

covers would continue to 

restrict regeneration of shade 

intolerant species such as 

Douglas-fir and sugar pine. 

The product value of trees 

harvested in the future would 

be reduced due to continued 

decline in diameter growth.

1,599 acres treated to reduce 

competition, increase growth 

rates and tree vigor, reduce 

mortality and risk of insect 

and disease attacks, and 

lower risk for stand replacing 

fires. Reduced densities 

would increase opportunities 

for regeneration of shade 

intolerant species such as 

Douglas-fir and sugar pine.

The product value of trees in 

the future would increase

with increased diameter 

growth.

609 acres treated to reduce 

competition, increase growth 

rates and tree vigor, reduce 

mortality and risk of insect 

and disease attacks, and 

lower risk for stand replacing 

fires. Reduced densities 

would increase opportunities 

for regeneration of shade 

intolerant species such as 

Douglas-fir and sugar pine.

The product value of trees in 

the future would increase

with increased diameter 

growth.
Summary

Goose Project Final EIS - 5

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Fire and Fuels No effect

Hazardous fuels in WUI

would be reduced. Timber 

harvest slash would follow 

Forest Plan standard and 

guidelines FW-212 and FW252 guidance. Returning fire 

would increase stand 

diversity and structure.

Hazardous fuels in WUI

would be reduced. Timber 

harvest slash would follow 

Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines FW-212 and FW252 guidance. Returning fire 

would increase stand 

diversity and structure.

Soil Productivity No effect

Nutrient availability and 

compaction would remain 

within the limits outlined in 

the standard and guidelines 

of the forest plan.

Nutrient availability and 

compaction would remain 

within the limits outlined in 

the standard and guidelines 

of the forest plan.

Water Quality and 

Quantity No effect

Water quality would be 

protected. Treatment of 

riparian vegetation would

meet TMDL requirements for 

temperature and sediment.

No increased flood flows are 

anticipated due to this project

Water quality would be 

protected. Treatment of 

riparian vegetation would

meet TMDL requirements for 

temperature and sediment.

No increased flood flows are 

anticipated due to this project

Upper Willamette 

River Chinook

Salmon

(Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit-ESU) 

No effect May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Upper Willamette 

River Chinook

Salmon

(Critical Habitat)

No effect May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Upper Willamette 

River Chinook

Salmon

(Essential Habitat)

No effect Will not adversely affect Will not adversely affect

Columbia River Bull 

Trout

(Distinct Population 

Segment-DPS)

No effect May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Columbia River Bull 

Trout

(Critical Habitat)

No effect May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Rainbow Trout

(Management 

Indicator Species)

No effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect

Coastal Cutthroat 

Trout (Management 

Indicator Species)

No effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect
Summary

6- Goose Project Final EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Caddisflies -

Rhyacophila 

chandleri, 

Rhyacophila leechi,

Namamyia plutonis

(R6 Sensitive)

No effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect

Northern Spotted 

Owl (ESA Threatened 

and Management 

Indicator Species)

No effect

Likely to adversely affect due 

to suitable habitat removal 

and noise disturbance; not 

likely to adversely affect due 

to removal of dispersal 

habitat.

No removal of suitable owl 

habitat; likely to adversely 

affect due to noise 

disturbance; not likely to 

adversely affect due to 

removal of dispersal habitat.

Northern Spotted 

Owl (Critical Habitat) No effect

May affect and likely to 

adversely affect due to 2-

acre temporary road 

construction and larger gaps 

in thinning units. May affect 

and not likely to adversely 

affect due to fuels reduction 

treatments.

May affect and likely to 

adversely affect due to larger 

gaps in thinning units.

American Peregrine 

Falcon (R6 Sensitive 

and Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact No impact No impact

Harlequin Duck (R6 

Sensitive) No impact

May impact due to noise 

disturbance, yet this is 

unlikely 

May impact due to noise 

disturbance, yet this is 

unlikely

Fisher 

(Proposed 

Threatened) 

No effect

No effect to fisher but may 

adversely affect potential 

habitat , large down wood 

enhancement on 505 acres 

may benefit potential habitat

No effect to fisher but may 

adversely affect potential 

habitat, large down wood 

enhancement on 63 acres 

may benefit potential habitat

Fringed Myotis and 

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat (R6 

Sensitive)

No impact

May adversely impact 

individuals, but would not 

result in a loss of viability in 

the project area, nor cause a 

trend toward federal listing.

Harvest in stands over 80 

No impact
Summary

Goose Project Final EIS - 7

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

years of age would degrade 

bat roosting habitat on 

approximately 424 acres.

Subsequent snag creation 

may offset this impact.

Johnson’s Hairstreak 

(R6 Sensitive) No impact

May adversely impact 

individuals, but would not 

result in a loss of viability in 

the project area, nor cause a 

trend toward federal listing.

Only a very small amount of 

western hemlock habitat 

would be affected by project 

activities and the goose units 

currently have no identified 

dwarf mistletoe.

No impact

Crater Lake Tightcoil 

(R6 Sensitive and 

Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact

No impact because all 

suitable habitat would be 

protected with a minimum of 

a 10m no-harvest and noburn buffer

No impact because all 

suitable habitat would be 

protected with a minimum of 

a 10m no-harvest and noburn buffer

Cascades Axetail 

Slug 

(R6 Sensitive)

No impact

May adversely impact 

individuals, but would not 

result in a loss of viability in 

the project area, nor cause a 

trend toward federal listing.

May adversely impact 

individuals, but would not 

result in a loss of viability in 

the project area, nor cause a 

trend toward federal listing.

Oregon Megomphix 

(Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact May impact suitable habitat 

on about 2,409 acres

May impact suitable habitat 

on about 1,069 acres

Red Tree Vole 

(Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact

Would remove or thin about 

424 (footprint) acres of 

higher quality habitat in 

stands over 80 years of age, 

and could impact 60 acres 

with prescribed underburn.

No impact to any 

documented nest areas. May 

also impact about 1,632 

(footprint) acres of lower 

quality habitat.

No impact to higher quality 

habitat, may impact about 

744 acres of lower quality 

habitat.

Great Gray Owl 

(Survey and Manage 

Species) 

No impact

Would create about 43 acres 

of high quality open foraging 

habitat, also 281 acres of 

small gaps may provide 

benefits

111 acres of small gaps may 

provide benefits
Summary

8- Goose Project Final EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Cavity Excavators

(Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact

Snag abundance may initially 

decline on 2,409 acres, and 

increase with post-harvest 

mitigation and enhancement

Snag abundance may initially 

decline on 1,069 acres, and 

increase with post-harvest 

mitigation and enhancement

Elk and Deer 

(Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact

Shelterwood harvest and 

small gaps should increase 

elk forage quality from “poor 

“to “higher-marginal” for 

about 20 years on 43 acres 

of regen and 281 acres of 

gaps, plus forage 

improvements on 1268 

thinned acres

Shelterwood harvest and 

small gaps should increase 

elk forage quality from “poor 

“to “higher-marginal” for 

about 20 years on 111 acres 

of gaps, plus forage 

improvements on 499 

thinned acres

Pileated Woodpecker 

(Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact

424 acres would be 

degraded in older forest 

stands over 80 years due to 

harvest, 60 acres of older 

stands may gain some snag 

habitat with underburning, 

but also may lose a minor 

number of snags individual 

tree mortality, and 325 acres 

 

 

325 acres would be 

degraded due to hazardous 

fuels treatments

Marten

(Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact No impact Beneficial effect

Bald Eagle 

(Management 

Indicator Species)

No impact No effect No effect

Northern Goshawk 

(Land birds

preferring older 

forest habitat) 

No impact

Removes about 43 acres of 

forest habitat between 80-

127 years, and thins about 

381 acres between 80-127 

years of age. Viable 

populations of goshawks and 

other migratory birds that use 

older conifer forests are 

expected to be maintained at 

the landscape level.

No impact to older forest 

habitat

Rufous 

Hummingbird, Purple 

Finch

(Land birds favoring 

shrub habitat in early 

seral conifer stands)

No impact

Creates about 374 acres of 

complex early seral habitat 

lasting about 20 years

Creates about 143 acres of 

complex early seral habitat 

lasting about 20 years
Summary

Goose Project Final EIS - 9

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Olive-sided 

Flycatcher (Land 

birds favoring forest 

openings with large 

snags)

No impact

Creates about 374 acres of 

complex early seral habitat 

lasting about 20 years, with 

planned snag mitigation and 

enhancement at the rate of 

0-5/acre

Creates about 143 acres of 

complex early seral habitat 

lasting about 20 years, with 

planned snag mitigation and 

enhancement at the rate of 

0-5/acre

Rare Plants No effect Will not adversely affect due 

to buffers

Will not adversely affect due 

to buffers

Fungi (Sensitive and 

Survey and Manage) No effect

Direct effects may include 

compaction and loss of host 

trees in timber harvest

treatment areas

Direct effects may include 

compaction and loss of host 

trees in timber harvest 

treatment areas

Special Habitats No effect No effect due to buffers No effect due to buffers

Invasive Plants No effect

Ground disturbance from 

harvest and roads would 

result in the creation of 

suitable habitat for invasive 

plants. 

Ground disturbance from 

harvest and roads would 

result in the creation of 

suitable habitat for invasive 

plants. 

Roads

Continued decline in road 

conditions on the 43 miles of 

roads associated with the 

project.

Would improve declining 

road conditions on an 

estimated 43 miles of road.

Would improve declining 

road conditions on an 

estimated 26 miles of road.

Heritage No effect Not likely to affect Not likely to affect

Scenic Quality No effect

No long term adverse effect 

to scenic quality would occur.

Short term adverse effects 

would occur adjacent to 

Frissell Trail and a viewpoint 

located on Highway 126.

Some improvement to 

scenery would occur 

adjacent to the secondary 

forest road system. 

No long term adverse effect 

to scenic quality. Some 

improvement to scenery 

would occur adjacent to the 

secondary forest road 

system but to a lesser 

degree than in Alternative 2.

Recreation No effect

Temporary adverse effects 

due to trail closures, 

increased noise, Frissell dust 

and log truck traffic during 

harvest activity. Long term 

beneficial effects include 

improved access to 

dispersed recreation areas 

due to road maintenance, 

improved scenery from 

secondary forest roads and 

an enlarged and improved 

trailhead parking area at 

Frissell trail.

Temporary adverse effects 

due to trail closures, 

increased noise, dust and log 

truck traffic during harvest 

activity. Long term beneficial 

effects include improved 

access to dispersed 

recreation areas due to road 

maintenance, improved 

scenery from secondary 

forest roads and an enlarged 

and improved trailhead 

parking area at Frissell trail.
Summary

10- Goose Project Final EIS

Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Wilderness No effect No effect No effect

Areas suitable for 

inclusion in the 

National Wilderness 

Preservation System

No effect

Area would be decreased by 

approximately 1,191 acres 

(11.5 %). Remaining area 

would be approximately 

9,162 acres. 

Area would be decreased by 

approximately 15 acres 

(.14%). Remaining area 

would be approximately 

10,338 acres. 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (IRA) No effect No effect No effect

Air Quality No effect

Impacts on air quality from 

smoke emissions would not 

exceed state mandated 

policy.

Impacts on air quality from 

smoke emissions would not 

exceed state mandated 

policy.

Economics

No contribution to local 

economy, forest sector jobs, 

or the National Forest Fund 

(NFF) would result. If not 

replaced by another project, 

Alternative 1 could contribute 

to a continued decline in 

forestry and milling related 

jobs.

Approximately 35 million 

board feet of timber would be 

contributed to local economy, 

forest sector jobs, and county

governments via timber 

revenue and the National 

Forest Fund (NFF) would 

result. Jobs associated with 

timber harvest and 

production would contribute 

to the local economy with 

direct and indirect jobs and 

increased tax revenue to the 

government from those jobs.

Approximately 9 million 

board feet of timber would be 

contributed to local economy, 

forest sector jobs, and county 

governments via timber 

revenue and the National 

Forest Fund (NFF) would 

result. Jobs associated with 

timber harvest and 

production would contribute 

to the local economy with 

direct and indirect jobs and 

increased tax revenue to the 

government from those jobs.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 11

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The McKenzie River Ranger District is proposing to provide a sustainable supply of timber, reduce 

hazardous fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and actively manage stands to 

improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure in 2,452 acres on the Willamette National 

Forest.

The project area encompasses 17,932 acres along Highways 126 and 242, near the community of 

McKenzie Bridge, Oregon (Figure 1 and 2). The project area is located in the Florence Creek-McKenzie 

River; Elk Creek-McKenzie River; and Lost Creek 6th field watersheds (Figure 3). The legal description 

is: Township 16 South, Range 5 East, Sections 1-4, 9-15; Township 16 South, Range 6 East, Sections 7-

11, 14-18, and 20-23. 

14,713 acres in the project area are managed by the Willamette National Forest with the remaining 3,219 

acres belonging to private land holders. The project area is composed mostly of a Douglas-fir and western 

hemlock overstory, with an understory shrub component of vine maple, salal, dwarf Oregon grape, sword 

fern and Pacific rhododendron. Prior to the 1940’s, fire was a dominant disturbance in the project area. 

Records indicate four large, stand replacing wildfires have occurred in the project area over the past 100 

years and approximately 69 smaller, low to moderate severity fires since the 1970s. More recently, timber 

harvest, including thinning, partial cut, and regeneration harvest has been the dominant disturbance in the 

project area over the last 100 years. 

The project area is popular for several recreational activities. Driving for pleasure (sightseeing) is a 

popular activity, primarily during the summer months when roads are open and free of snow. Two 

National Scenic Byways pass through the project area; the West Cascades National Scenic Byway and the 

McKenzie Pass-Santiam Pass National Scenic Byway. The McKenzie River flows through the project 

area between Belknap Springs and McKenzie Bridge Campground. The McKenzie River is regionally and 

nationally known for its outstanding recreational opportunities and scenery. Portions of the McKenzie 

River National Recreation Trail (4.5 miles) also pass through the project area. This trail receives very high 

use and is nationally renowned for hiking and mountain biking. Three developed campgrounds, 

McKenzie Bridge, Paradise, and Limberlost, as well as 15 dispersed camp sites are located in the project 

area.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

12- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 13

Figure 2. Goose Project Area
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

14- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 3. 6th Field Watersheds within the Project Area
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 15

1.2 History of the Goose Project

In 2010, the McKenzie River Ranger District prepared an Environmental Assessment and approved a 

subsequent Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Goose project. The 

Decision Notice, approved September 13, 2010, selected Alternative 2, which approved thinning on 1,443 

acres; dominant tree release on 11 acres; gap creation on 322 acres; regeneration harvest on 41 acres and 

skips on 283 acres.

In November 2010, three organizations appealed the Goose project. Two appellants, Cascadia Wildlands 

and Oregon Wild, requested that the Responsible Official withdraw the decision and issue a new one 

adopting Alternative 3. The third appellant, American Forest Resource Council, requested the decision be 

remanded and Alternative 2 be selected without modification. The Forest Service conducted an appeal 

review in accordance with 36 CFR 215 and regional procedures. On December 16, 2010, the Appeal 

Deciding Officer determined the 2010 Decision Notice was in compliance with law, regulation, and 

policy and denied the appellants requested relief. Implementation of the Goose project began in 2011 with 

the sale of three contracts for timber harvest and removal. Two timber sale contracts were awarded to 

Seneca Sawmill Company, and one to Freres Lumber Company Inc.

On May 12, 2012, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild filed a formal complaint against the Forest 

Service in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon 

Wild v. USFS), effectively halting the Goose project. The plaintiffs (Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon 

Wild) asserted the Forest Service failed to disclose environmental information, specifically habitat 

competition between the spotted owl and the barred owl and the consequences of logging in critical 

Riparian Reserves. Plaintiffs further asserted the project proposed actions may significantly affect the 

environment and therefore, under NEPA requirements, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should 

have been prepared. In March 2013, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann Aiken concluded that while the Forest 

Service did adequately disclose environmental information, the potentially significant effect to the 

environment from the Goose project triggered NEPA requirements that the Forest Service prepare an EIS.

Accordingly, the Forest Service was enjoined from going forward with the Goose project until an EIS was

prepared.

This final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared to revise the 2010 environmental 

analysis and decision for the Goose Project Environmental Assessment as directed by a 2013 U.S. District 

Court order. By preparing this FEIS, the Willamette National Forest is fulfilling agency policy and 

direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and 

State laws and regulations.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

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

hazardous fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and (3) Actively manage

stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and structure.

Provide a Sustainable Supply of Timber Products

Why Consider Taking Action: The proposed project is needed to 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. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

16- Goose Project Final EIS

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 longterm 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 35 MMBF to the Willamette National Forest PSQ target over a two year 

period (approximately 17.5 MMBF/year).

Reduce Hazardous Fuels in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI)

Why Consider Taking Action: The proposed project is needed to treat hazardous fuels in the McKenzie 

Bridge WUI to reduce potential wildfire impacts and risks to the many private dwellings and residents in 

the project area.

Existing Condition: Fire suppression over the past century has resulted in increased fuel loading 

throughout forest ecosystems. This increased fuel loading consists of surface fuels, ladder fuels (small 

trees and brush that can carry fire into larger tree crowns), and dense overstory canopies. Much of the 

Forest Service land surrounding communities and private residences in the project area currently exhibits 

a fuel profile conducive to high severity wildfires through continuous tree canopies, dense understory, 

and/or areas of high surface fuel loadings.

Desired Condition: Reduced horizontal and vertical continuity of fuels in and around the McKenzie 

Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface to decrease potential impacts and risks to people, structures, and 

resources in the event of a wildfire. 

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.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 17

Increase Stand Health and Vigor

Why Consider Taking Action: Seventy-four percent of previously managed stands and fire regenerated 

stands proposed for harvest in the project area are classified as overstocked. Overstocked stands occur 

when trees are closely or densely 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 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 

structure diversity would be maintained or enhanced. 

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

from 214 to 554 and averages 366 for all stands being considered for treatment in the Goose 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 within 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).

Existing Condition: Seventy-four percent of previously managed stands and fire regenerated stands

proposed for harvest in the project area are overstocked with an average SDI of 366 or 60 percent of 

SDImax. 

Desired Condition: Healthy, vigorous stands with an average SDI of 200. 

Increase the Amount of Early Seral Habitat

Why Consider Taking Action: Age class diversity in forest stands is important as some species of animals 

and plants depend on younger stages of forests for their feeding, nesting, and breeding requirements, 

whereas other species thrive in middle age or old forests. Early seral habitat (defined as less than 20 years 

old) is of key importance to an estimated 156 species of wildlife in the central Oregon Cascades (O’Neil 

et al 2001).

Historically, early seral habitat in the project area was created from stand-replacing fires and regeneration 

harvest. Changes in forest management on Federal lands in the past 30 years, including fire suppression 

and reduced regeneration harvest have resulted in fewer acres of early seral habitat creation. Additionally, 

fire suppression and reduced regeneration harvest have resulted in a much higher proportion of dense, 

closed canopy stands. Consequently, there is less structurally rich and diverse quality early seral habitat in 

the project area than in the past. Currently, early seral habitat within the Goose project area is only 

partially effective (marginal) at providing quality diverse early seral habitat due to the lack of vertical and 

horizontal stand structure. A small amount of early seral habitat is present surrounding rock outcrops in 

the higher elevations of the planning area. There are very few open meadows in the project area. 

There is a need to enhance, create, and maintain diverse quality and structurally rich early seral habitat to 

support wildlife species that have been documented to depend on early seral habitat, such as elk, blacktailed deer, rufous hummingbirds, olive-sided flycatchers, and a large number of butterfly and moth 

species. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

18- Goose Project Final EIS

Existing Condition: Less than one percent early seral habitat (defined as less than 20 years old) in the 

project area.

Desired Condition: Increase early seral habitat to approximately three percent in the project area.

Increase the Potential for Riparian Reserves to Function as Late Successional Habitat

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: Portions of Riparian Reserves within 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 more quickly attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Objectives (Appendix E).

1.4 Proposed Action

Changes to the Proposed Action since the 2010 Analysis 

Based on further review of existing data, additional field surveys, and reassessment of critical habitat for 

northern spotted owls, several changes have been made to the proposed action since the 2010 analysis.

Table 3 summarizes these changes.

Table 3. Changes to the Proposed Action since the 2010 Analysis

Unit Change Reason for Change

Timber Harvest Units

160,170, 180, 730 Dropped Determined not economically 

feasible due to low volume per acre

330 - portion that overlaps critical 

habitat Dropped Portions of unit designated as 

critical habitat

520 Dropped

Riparian buffers created slivers 

which made unit impractical to 

harvest

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Units

810 - portion that overlaps critical 

habitat Dropped

Portions of unit designated as 

critical habitat. Underburning would 

potentially harm two nest sites

830, 840, 970, 980, 981 Dropped Hazardous fuels treatments 

completed prior to lawsuit/injunction

880 Dropped Additional field surveys indicated no 

need for treatment

Riparian Reserves

90, 100, 200, 300, 420, 440, 450, 

470, 480, 490, 500, 570

No thinning within 172 feet* of 

waterbodies

Based on further review of existing 

data and additional field surveys, it 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 19

Unit Change Reason for Change

was determined that thinning is not 

needed within 172 feet of these 

waterbodies to achieve ACS 

Objectives

70, 320, 330, 340, 350 Dead and down wood creation 

added

Where current dead and down wood 

estimates are well below historic 

ranges, dead and down wood

creation is proposed so that 

important wildlife habitat needs are 

met

390 Harvest buffers on Class 4 streams 

expanded from 30 feet to 60 feet

Based on further review of existing 

data and additional field surveys, 

harvest buffers were expanded to 

account for a larger primary wood 

recruitment zone

600

Harvest buffer on fish-bearing 

stream (Class 2) expanded from 60 

feet to 172 feet

Based on further review of existing 

data and additional field surveys, it 

was determined that thinning is not 

needed within 172 feet of this 

stream to meet ACS Objectives

550

Harvest buffer on fish-bearing 

stream (Class 2) expanded from 60 

feet to 90 feet

Based on further review of existing 

data and additional field surveys, it 

was determined that thinning is not 

needed within 90 feet of this stream 

to meet ACS Objectives

All units with post-harvest fuels 

treatments near waterbodies (see 

Riparian Reserve Treatment Table 

for details)

Post-harvest fuels treatment buffers 

expanded from 30/60/90 feet 

(depending on stream class) to 

60/90/172 feet

Because harvest buffers changed 

on many units (as described above), 

the post-harvest fuels treatment 

buffers were also modified to match 

the harvest buffers for each 

waterbody

800, 820, 870, 930, 940, 950, 960, 

990

No natural fuels underburning or 

hazardous fuels treatments within 

172 feet* of waterbodies

Based on further review of existing 

data and additional field surveys, it 

was determined that hazardous 

fuels treatments are not needed 

within 172 feet of these waterbodies 

to meet ACS Objectives

Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) –

PWA and Forest Service Planning 

Directives

PWAs are hereby known as “areas 

that may be suitable for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness

Preservation System.” 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, 

Chapter 70 amended effective 

January 30, 2015, changing 

terminology and criteria for analysis 

of areas that may be suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System.

Transportation

Permanent Road Construction 

(1 Mile) Removed Units the road was designed to 

access were dropped or reduced

*172 feet is one site potential tree height for the project area, also known as the Stream Influence Zone
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

20- Goose Project Final EIS

Revised Proposed Action

The proposed action would treat approximately 2,452 acres in the project area. Harvest treatments

proposed include thinning, dominant tree release, gap creation, regeneration harvest and skips. Fuels

treatments include mechanical treatments, post-harvest underburn, natural fuels underburn, and hazardous 

fuels treatments. A detailed description of proposed treatments and project activities is located in 

Appendix A.

As stated in Section 1.3, the purpose and need for action includes:

1. Provide a sustainable supply of timber products;

2. Reduce hazardous fuel in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI); and

3. Actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and structure.

Table 4 illustrates the proposed treatments, connected actions, and the purpose and need they address. 

Table 4. Proposed Action Treatments and Connected Actions

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure

Proposed 

Action Purpose – Need Addressed

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 1,080 1, 2, 3

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 138 3

Regeneration Harvest Acres 43 1, 3

Gaps Acres 281 1, 2, 3

Dominant Tree Release Acres 50 1, 3

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 173 3

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 291 3

Total Acres 2,056 -

Estimated Volume MMBF ~35 1

WUI Fuels Treatments – No Timber Harvest

Natural Fuels Underburn outside Riparian 

Reserves Acres 33 2, 3

Natural Fuels Underburn in 

Riparian Reserves Acres 0 3

Hazardous Fuels Treatment outside Riparian 

Reserves Acres 189 2, 3

Hazardous Fuels Treatment in Riparian Reserves Acres 136 2, 3

Skips (associated with WUI) Acres 38 2, 3

Total WUI Fuels Treatment Acres 396
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 21

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure

Proposed 

Action Purpose – Need Addressed

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments )

2 Acres 624 2

Post-Harvest Underburn 3 Acres 477 2, 3

Connected Actions

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 215 -

Skyline Acres 582 -

Ground Acres 795 -

Transportation

Temporary Roads Miles 6.9 -

Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 43 -

Post-Harvest Planting

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres ~43 3

Planting in Gaps Acres ~77 3

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres ~204 3

Other 

• Subsoiling: Subsoiling would occur in harvest units where needed to keep compaction below Forest 

Standards and Guidelines for high compaction levels Subsoiling would also occur on skid roads located in 

regeneration harvest units and gaps. 

• Temporary Road Decommissioning: Temporary roads in the project area would be decommissioned upon 

completion of activities or connected activities such as firewood gathering. 

• Scarifying Temporary Roads: Soils may be scarified to aid in vegetation establishment. 

• Down Wood and Snag: At least 240 lineal feet per acre of decay class I and II material greater than 20” 

diameter and 20 feet in length would be retained within the regeneration harvest units. Where the preferred size 

of material is not available, 240 lineal feet per acre of the next largest trees proposed to be harvested would be 

left. On average 4 snags (or live trees for snag creation) per acre would also be left in the regeneration harvest 

units. 

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. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

22- Goose Project Final EIS

1.5 Forest Plan and Management Direction

This final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 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 was amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994), which established additional 

management areas, standards, and guidelines associated with Matrix, Riparian Reserves, Adaptive 

Management Areas, and Late-Successional Reserves. When there is overlap of management areas, the 

more restrictive standards and guidelines apply (Northwest Forest Plan 1994a p. A-6). Figure 4 and 5

illustrate the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan management areas. Table 5 displays Forest Plan 

management areas, Northwest Forest Plan land management areas and proposed action unit acres for the 

proposed action.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 23

Figure 4. Willamette Forest Plan Management Areas in the Goose Project Area
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

24- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 5. Northwest Forest Plan Management Areas in the Goose Project Area
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 25

Table 5. Land Management Areas (MA) in Project Area and Proposed Treatment Acres (Alternative 2)

Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Northwest Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Proposed Action Acres

Timber 

Harvest WUI Total

HJA Experimental Forest (3A) Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 3 0 0 0

Special Interest Areas (5A) 35 0 19 19

Special Interest Areas (5A) Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 744 21 230 232

Old Growth Groves (7) 72 0 0 0

Wildlife Habitat – Pileated 

Woodpecker (9B)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 91 0 0 0

Wildlife Habitat – Pileated 

Woodpecker (9B)

Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 216 0 0 0

Wildlife Habitat – Special Areas 

(9D) 149 0 0 0

Dispersed Recreation –

Semiprimitive Motorized (10C) 674 0 0 0

Dispersed Recreation –

Semiprimitive Motorized (10C)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 99 0 15 15

Dispersed Recreation –

Semiprimitive non-motorized 

(10E)

683 0 0 0

Scenic Modification Middleground 

(11A)

Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 544 0 0 0

Scenic Modification Middleground 

(11A)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 51 0 0 0

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground (11C) Matrix (14) 1,279 30 14 44

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground (11C)

Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 2,408 1003 99 1102

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground (11C) Late Successional Reserve (16A) 30 0 0 0

Scenic Partial Retention 

Middleground (11C)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 122 0 0 0

Scenic Retention Middleground 

(11E)

100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 285 0 0 0

Scenic Retention Middleground 

(11E)

Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 4,325 601 19 620

Scenic Retention Foreground 

(11F) Matrix (14) 146 0 0 0

Scenic Retention Foreground 

(11F)

Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 348 63 0 63

Administrative Use Site (13B) Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 81 0 0 0

Administrative Use Site (13B) 45 0 0 0
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

26- Goose Project Final EIS

Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Northwest Forest Plan

Management Areas (MA)

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Proposed Action Acres

Timber 

Harvest WUI Total

General Forest (14A) Matrix (14) 1,864 209 0 209

General Forest (14A) 100-acre Late Successional 

Reserve (16B) 110 0 0 0

General Forest (14A) Adaptive Management 

Area (17) 322 148 0 148

Riparian Areas (15) Riparian Reserves (15) 4,280 429 163 592

Private Land 

(not a management allocation) 3,206 0 0 0

Total Land Allocations2 17,932 2,056 396 2,452

1

: Skips (no harvest) 2

: Does not include Riparian Reserves which overlay other allocations.

The following management direction is relevant to management allocations with proposed treatments in 

the project area:

Forest Plan

Special Interest Areas (5A) within the project area that have proposed treatments include the McKenzie 

River Special Interest Area. The purpose of Special Interest Area is to preserve lands that contain 

exceptional scenic, cultural, biological, geological, or other unusual characteristics. Timber management 

may not be implemented for the purpose of programmed harvests, but it may be implemented for 

treatments that maintain or enhance the values identified in the Implementation Guides for these areas.

Dispersed Recreation- Semiprimitive Motorized (MA 10C) areas are to provide a full spectrum of 

recreation opportunities meeting the criteria for a Semiprimitive Motorized experience through the 

management of user activities and natural resource settings. These areas are to provide users the 

opportunity to experience a sense of solitude, tranquility, self-reliance and closeness to nature. These 

experiences are provided through activities involving the application of outdoor skills in an environment 

that offers some challenge and risk. These areas are also to provide for the conservation of unique 

geographic, topographic, biological, and ecological processes, as well as scenic, wildlife, recreation, and 

watershed values.

Scenic-Partial Retention Middleground (11C) 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 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 Middleground (11E) areas have an 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 level of scenic quality. This area may also be managed for other resource goals 

including maintenance of wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, watershed protection, and timber 

production.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 27

Scenic-Retention Foreground (11F) 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.

General Forest (14 A) consists of areas outside of other Land Management Allocation categories where 

most of the timber treatments occur to produce an optimum and sustainable yield of timber production 

that is compatible with multiple use objectives.

Northwest Forest Plan

General Forest-Matrix Lands (14A) consists of areas outside of other Northwest Forest Plan land 

allocation categories where intensive timber management takes place and most of the timber treatments 

occur to produce an optimum and sustainable yield of timber production that is compatible with multiple 

use objectives.

Riparian Reserves (MA 15) are areas where the conservation of aquatic and riparian-dependent, terrestrial 

resources receives primary emphasis. In these areas all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or 

potentially unstable areas are included and managed for the purpose of protecting the health of the aquatic 

system and its dependent species.

Managed Late Successional Reserves (MA 16B) are either mapped managed spotted owl pair areas or 

unmapped protection buffers. Manage pair areas are delineated for known northern spotted owl activity 

centers. Protection buffers are designed to protect certain rare and locally endemic species.

Adaptive Management Area (MA 17) 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.

1.6 Tribal Consultation 

Tribal consultation for the Goose project began in 2009 during the development of the environmental 

assessment. 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 November 2, 2009 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 Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde.

During development of the Goose project, a consultation package and invitation to comment was sent to 

the Tribes listed above on May 27, 2014. No comments were received. The Tribes were invited to 

provide comment on the DEIS during the 45-day comment period from March 6th through April 20th, 

2015 and to attend public meetings in Leaburg and McKenzie Bridge, Oregon in March of 2015. No 

comments were received. The Goose project has been presented at annual individual Willamette 

National Forest and Tribal meetings since 2010.

1.7 Public Involvement Efforts

Public involvement efforts during the development of the FEIS included public meetings, open-houses, 

scoping letters, field trips, meetings with interested parties and landowners, and publication of the project 

in the Willamette National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions and Willamette National Forest website.

Below is a timeline illustrating public involvement efforts for the Goose project:
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

28- Goose Project Final EIS

• April 30, 2014: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS published in the Federal Register

• April 24, 2014; May 1, 2014: District open-house public meetings at McKenzie Bridge, Oregon

• May 2, 2014: Public meeting to discuss Goose project held in McKenzie Bridge, Oregon

• May 9, 2014: Public meeting to discuss Goose project held in Leaburg, Oregon

• May 27, 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

• July1, 2014: Project published in the Willamette National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions

• March 6, 2015: Notice of Availability (NOA) and initiation of 45-day comment period for Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) published in the Federal Register

• March 9, 2015: Notice of Availability (NOA) and initiation of 45-day comment period for DEIS 

published in the Register Guard

• March 24, 2015: Public meeting to discuss Goose project held in Leaburg, Oregon

• March 25, 2015: Public meeting to discuss Goose project held in McKenzie Bridge, Oregon

• April 14, 2015: Public field trip to view and discuss Goose project.

Additionally, the McKenzie River District Ranger and other staff met with the McKenzie Clearwater 

Coalition, the Blue McKenzie Lions Club, Congressmen Peter DeFazio, staff from Senators Jeff Merkley 

and Ron Wyden’s office, and multiple landowners with property adjacent to the project area. The 

Responsible Official personally responded to over 150 emails and 50 phone calls regarding the project.

Members of the public, organizations, and state and federal agencies were invited to provide comments 

and concerns about the Goose project during the public scoping comment period from April 30th through 

June 16th, 2014. Scoping comments received varied from those that wanted more clarification on 

proposed activities to specific suggestions for project implementation. Scoping comments were used to 

help develop planning issues, alternatives, and effects analysis for the DEIS.

Members of the publics, organization, and state and federal agencies were invited to provide comment on 

the DEIS during the 45-day comment period from March 6th through April 20th, 2015. Approximately 

700 letters were received from members of the public, federal officials, public interest organizations, and 

private businesses. Comments received varied from general statements of support or opposition to 

requests for additional analysis. Comments on the DEIS and the corresponding responses are located in 

Appendix G. A complete record of all letters, including names and addresses of individuals, agencies, and 

organizations that submitted a letter during the 45-day comment period, is available online in the Goose 

EIS Public Reading Room at https://cara.ecosystemmanagement.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=45853

All correspondence and comments are available in the Project Record at the McKenzie River Ranger 

District office.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 29

1.8 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 completed during the development of the EA (2009-2010). In March 

2010, a final Biological Assessment was submitted to USFWS and NMFS. Letters of concurrence were 

received from USFWS (April 14, 2010) and NFMS (March 30, 2010) concurring with the determinations 

in the Biological Assessment. No conservation measures were issued. During development of this FEIS, it 

was determined that no additional consultation was required as only minor changes were made to the 

proposed action, mostly being more conservative (i.e. larger no-treatment buffers).

Northern Spotted Owl

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

completed in 2009 and evaluated by the USFWS in the 2009 Biological Opinion (FWS reference 13420-

2010-F-0001) signed November 25, 2009. Subsequently, Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl was 

modified with the 2012 Critical Habitat Rule. This resulted in reinitiation of consultation and an 

additional Biological Opinion (FWS Reference Number 01EOFW00-2013-F-0115) that addressed the 

effects to 2012 Critical Habitat for activities proposed by the Goose project. USFWS issued the additional 

Biological Opinion on April 22, 2013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

During project scoping, the EPA submitted a list of recommendations for analysis and project design. This 

letter was reviewed and recommendations incorporated as appropriate. Per Forest Service regulations, this 

FEIS will be filed with the EPA’s Office of Federal Activities in Washington, DC, who will publish a 

notice of availability in the Federal Register.

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 July 

2009. All known cultural sites in the Area of Potential Effect (project area) were protected by avoidance, 

resulting in a determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” on November 19, 2014. Documentation 

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

Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department

Segments of the McKenzie River are designated Oregon State Scenic Waterway, which is administered by 

the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. The State Scenic Waterway segments have a dual 

classification, with the west side of the McKenzie River classified as Scenic River Area and the east side 

of the river classified as Recreation River Area. Scenic Waterway Act and Commission rules require the 

evaluation of proposed development within 1⁄4 mile from each side of the river. Approval for timber 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

30- Goose Project Final EIS

harvest or salvage within this scenic waterway was requested May 29, 2012 and granted by Oregon State 

Parks and Recreation on September 28, 2012.

1.9 Issues Derived from Public Comments

A standardized content analysis process was conducted to analyze the letters received during the public 

scoping comment period. Content analysis was designed to extract comments from each letter received, 

evaluate similar comments from different letters, and identify topics or issues of concern. During 

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

Official, identified issues and separated them into three categories: “key” issues, “other” issues, and “out 

of scope” issues.

Key Issues

Key issues represent an unresolved conflict associated with potential environmental effects of the 

proposed action that cannot be resolved simply with mitigation or design features. Key issues are used to 

formulate alternatives and focus the analysis of environmental effects.

During the public scoping process, three key issues were identified from comments and questions: 

Key Issue #1: Harvest treatments and underburning should not occur in fire-regenerated stands

(i.e. naturally regenerated stands) 

Key Issue #2: Harvest treatments should not occur in stands over 80 years of age

Key Issue #3: No regeneration harvest (Shelterwood with Reserves) should occur

In response to these issues, Alternative 3 was developed, which eliminates harvest or underburning in 

fire-regenerated stands, harvest in stands over 80 years of age, and regeneration harvest. WUI treatments, 

other than underburning, would still occur in fire-regenerated stands and stands over 80 years of age.

Though three issues are listed above, only one measure of change will be used to compare the 

alternatives: 

Key Issue Measurement: Acres of fire-regenerated stands treated

Stands over 80 years of age in the project area are fire-regenerated stands, as are stands proposed for 

regeneration harvest. Therefore, measuring acres of fire-regenerated stands treated will encompass the 

stands over 80 years of age and those proposed for regeneration harvest.

Other Issues and Out of Scope Issues

Other issues are minor issues that do not result in development of alternatives or focus the analysis of 

environmental effects. In most cases, the IDT is able to address these issues by refining the design of a 

project (i.e. dropping a unit from the project) or applying a design feature (i.e. requiring buffers around 

streams). 

Out of Scope issues are those identified as being “out of scope” of this environmental analysis. These 

issues include those that are not or cannot be addressed or solved in this project-level analysis; issues 

already decided by law, regulation, or other higher level decisions; issues irrelevant to the decision being 

made; and/or issues that are conjectural or not supported by scientific evidence.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Goose Project Final EIS - 31

1.10 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 or another alternative;

• What specific design features are needed;

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

implemented and effective; and 

• 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.
32- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 33

Chapter 2 - Alternatives

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Goose 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.

Three alternatives have been analyzed for this project: Alternative 1 - No-Action; Alternative 2 - Proposed 

Action; and Alternative 3 - No Harvest or Underburn in Fire Regenerated Stands.

2.1 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 of the proposed action would not be met under Alternative 1, as no timber harvest or 

fuels treatments would be implemented. 

2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is the proposed action and was developed to fully meet the purpose and need for this project. 

Alternative 2 proposes to treat approximately 2,452 acres in the project area (Figure 6 and 7). Harvest 

treatments proposed include thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, regeneration harvest, and skips.

Harvest treatments would yield approximately 35 million board feet of timber. Post-harvest fuels treatments 

would include pile and burn and post-harvest underburn. Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fuels treatments 

would include natural fuels underburn and hazardous fuels treatments. Approximately 6.9 miles of 

temporary road construction would occur and approximately 43 miles of existing road would be maintained 

under Alternative 2.

Table 6 includes a summary of treatments and connected actions proposed under Alternative 2. A detailed 

description of proposed treatments and project activities is included in Appendix A. A detailed list of 

treatments for individual units is listed in Appendix B.

Table 6. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions –Alternative 2

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed4

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 1, 080 1, 2, 3

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 138 3

Regeneration Harvest Acres 43 1,3

Gaps Acres 281 1, 2, 3

Dominant Tree Release Acres 50 1, 3
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

34- Goose Project Final EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed4

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 173 3

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 291 3

Total Acres 2,056 -

Estimated Volume MMBF ~35 1

WUI Fuels Treatments – No Timber Harvest

Natural Fuels Underburn outside Riparian 

Reserves Acres 33 2, 3

Natural Fuels Underburn in 

Riparian Reserves Acres 0 3

Hazardous Fuels Treatment outside Riparian 

Reserves Acres 189 2, 3

Hazardous Fuels Treatment in Riparian Reserves Acres 136 2, 3

Skips (associated with WUI) Acres 38 2, 3

Total WUI Fuels Treatment Acres 396

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments )2 Acres 624 2

Post-Harvest Underburn 3 Acres 477 2, 3

Connected Actions

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 215 -

Skyline Acres 582 -

Ground Acres 795 -

Transportation

Temporary Roads Miles 6.9 -

Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 43 -

Post-Harvest Planting

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres ~43 3

Planting in Gaps Acres ~77 3

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres ~204 3

Other 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 35

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 2 Purpose – Need Addressed4

• Subsoiling: Subsoiling would occur in harvest units where needed to keep compaction below Forest 

Standards and Guidelines for high compaction levels. Subsoiling would also occur on skid roads located in 

regeneration harvest units and gaps. 

• Temporary Road Decommissioning: Temporary roads in the project area would be decommissioned upon 

completion of activities or connected activities such as firewood gathering. 

• Scarifying Temporary Roads: Soils may be scarified to aid in vegetation establishment. 

• Down Wood and Snag: At least 240 lineal feet per acre of decay class I and II material greater than 20” 

diameter and 20 feet in length would be retained within the regeneration harvest units. Where the preferred size 

of material is not available, 240 lineal feet per acre of the next largest trees proposed to be harvested would be 

left. On average 4 snags (or live trees for snag creation) per acre would also be left in the regeneration harvest 

units.

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- Reduce hazardous fuel in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI); 

and 3- Actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and/or structure.

Harvest treatments would occur in stands ranging from 27-127 years old. Approximately 342 harvest acres 

are in stands over 80 years old and 1,250 harvest acres are in stands under 80 years old. Fuels treatments 

would occur in stands ranging from 39-394 years old. Table 7 provides a summary of forest age classes and 

treatment acres for Alternative 2.

Table 7. Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 2 

<80 years old 80-120 years old >120 years old

Acres of Harvest Units 

(including skips) 1537 456 63

Acres Proposed for 

Harvest 1250 300 42

WUI Treatment Acres

(including skips) 6 0 390
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

36- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 6. Map of Alternative 2 (West Half)
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 37

Figure 7. Map of Alternative 2 (East Half)
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

38- Goose Project Final EIS

2.3 Alternative 3 – No Harvest or Underburn in Fire Regenerated

Stands

During the EIS scoping process, three key issues were identified from comments and questions: 

Key Issue #1: Harvest treatments and underburning should not occur in fire-regenerated stands (i.e. 

naturally regenerated stands) 

Key Issue #2: Harvest treatments should not occur in stands over 80 years of age

Key Issue #3: No regeneration harvest (Shelterwood with Reserves) should occur

In response to these issues, Alternative 3 was developed, which eliminates harvest and underburning in fireregenerated stands; harvest in stands over 80 years of age; and regeneration harvest. Stands over 80 years of 

age in the project area are fire-regenerated stands, as are stands proposed for regeneration harvest. Therefore, 

measuring acres of fire-regenerated stands treated will encompass the stands over 80 years of age and those 

proposed for regeneration harvest. WUI treatments would still occur in fire-regenerated stands and stands 

over 80 years of age.

Alternative 3 proposes to treat approximately 1,069 acres in the project area (Figure 8 and 9). Harvest 

treatments proposed include thinning, gap creation, dominant tree release, and skips. Harvest treatments 

would yield approximately 9 million board feet of timber. Post-harvest fuels treatments would include pile 

and burn and post-harvest underburn. Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fuels treatments would include 

natural fuels underburn and hazardous fuels treatments. Approximately 2.2 miles of temporary road 

construction would occur and approximately 26 miles of existing road would be maintained under 

Alternative 3.

Because no harvest or underburning would occur in fire-regenerated stands under Alternative 3, proposed 

acres for harvest treatment decrease by 1,312 acres from Alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes 170 fewer 

acres of gap creation; 20 acres fewer of dominant tree release; 749 fewer acres of thinning; 330 fewer acres 

of skips; and 43 fewer acres of regeneration harvest than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would reduce acres of 

post-harvest fuels treatments by 614 acres and reduce acres of WUI fuels treatments by 71 acres.

Table 8 includes a summary of treatments and connected actions proposed under Alternative 3. A detailed 

comparison of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is available in Section 2.4 – Comparison of Alternatives.

Table 8. Summary of Proposed Treatments and Connected Actions – Alternative 3

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 3 Purpose – Need Addressed4

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 412 1, 2, 3

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 57 3

Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 -

Gaps Acres 111 1, 2, 3

Dominant Tree Release Acres 30 1, 3

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 45 3
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 39

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 3 Purpose – Need Addressed4

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 89 3

Total Acres 744 -

Estimated Volume MMBF ~9 1

WUI Fuels Treatments – No Timber Harvest

Natural Fuels Underburn outside Riparian 

Reserves Acres 0 2, 3

Natural Fuels Underburn in 

Riparian Reserves Acres 0 3

Hazardous Fuels Treatment outside Riparian 

Reserves Acres 189 2, 3

Hazardous Fuels Treatment in Riparian Reserves Acres 136 2, 3

Skips (associated with WUI) Acres 0 2, 3

Total WUI Fuels Treatment Acres 325

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments )2 Acres 309 2

Post-Harvest Underburn 3 Acres 178 2, 3

Connected Actions

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 0 -

Skyline Acres 112 -

Ground Acres 498 -

Transportation

Temporary Roads Miles 2.2 -

Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 26 -

Post-Harvest Planting

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 -

Planting in Gaps Acres ~48 3

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres ~63 3

Other 

• Subsoiling: Subsoiling would occur in harvest units where needed to keep compaction below Forest 

Standards and Guidelines for high compaction levels. Subsoiling would also occur on skid roads located in 

regeneration harvest units and gaps. 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

40- Goose Project Final EIS

• Temporary Road Decommissioning: Temporary roads in the project area would be decommissioned upon 

completion of activities or connected activities such as firewood gathering. 

• Scarifying Temporary Roads: Soils may be scarified to aid in vegetation establishment. 

• Down Wood and Snag: At least 240 lineal feet per acre of decay class I and II material greater than 20” 

diameter and 20 feet in length would be retained within the regeneration harvest units. Where the preferred 

size of material is not available, 240 lineal feet per acre of the next largest trees proposed to be harvested 

would be left. On average 4 snags (or live trees for snag creation) per acre would also be left in the 

regeneration harvest units.

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- Reduce hazardous fuel in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI); 

and 3- Actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and/or structure.

Harvest treatments would occur in stands ranging from 27-63 years old. No harvest would occur in stands 

over 80 years old. Fuels treatments would occur in stands ranging from 39-394 years old. Table 9 provides a 

summary of forest age classes and treatment acres for Alternative 3.

Table 9. Summary of Forest Age Classes and Treatment Acres – Alternative 3 

<80 years old 80-120 years old >120 years old

Acres of Harvest Units 

(including skips) 744 0 0

Acres Proposed for 

Harvest 610 0 0

WUI Treatment Acres

(including skips) 6 0 319
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 41

Figure 8. Map of Alternative 3 (West Half)
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

42- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 9. Map of Alternative 3 (East Half)
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 43

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 10 summarizes and compares treatments and connected actions that would occur under each 

alternative.

Table 10. Comparison of Alternatives

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Timber Harvest Treatments

Thinning outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 1, 080 412

Thinning in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 138 57

Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 43 0

Gaps Acres 0 281 111

Dominant Tree Release Acres 0 50 30

Skips outside Riparian Reserves Acres 0 173 45

Skips in Riparian Reserves Acres 0 291 89

Total Acres 0 2,056 744

Estimated Volume MMBF 0 ~35 ~9

WUI Fuels Treatments – No Timber Harvest

Natural Fuels Underburn outside 

Riparian Reserves Acres 0 33 0

Natural Fuels Underburn in 

Riparian Reserves Acres 0 0 0

Hazardous Fuels Treatment outside 

Riparian Reserves Acres 0 189 189

Hazardous Fuels Treatment in 

Riparian Reserves Acres 0 136 136

Skips (associated with WUI) Acres 0 38 0

Total WUI Fuels Treatment Acres 0 396 325

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments1 in Timber Harvest Units

Pile and Burn (mechanical and/or hand 

treatments )2 Acres 0 624 309

Post-Harvest Underburn 3 Acres 0 477 178

Connected Actions

Harvest System

Helicopter Acres 0 215 0
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

44- Goose Project Final EIS

Proposed Activity Unit of 

Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Skyline Acres 0 582 112

Ground Acres 0 795 498

Transportation

Temporary Roads Miles 0 6.9 2.2

Road Maintenance/Haul Route Miles 0 43 26

Post-Harvest Planting

Planting in Regeneration Harvest Acres 0 ~43 0

Planting in Gaps Acres 0 ~77 ~48

Natural Regeneration in Gaps Acres 0 ~204 ~63

Key Issues 1, 2, and 3

Acres of treatment (harvest, skips, and 

gaps) in fire-regenerated stands Acres 0 1,312 0

Natural fuels underburn (WUI)

treatments in fire regenerated stands

(includes skips)

Acres 0 60 0

Hazardous fuels (WUI) treatments in 

fire regenerated stands Acres 0 325 325

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. 

Comparison of Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2 

and 3

The treatments proposed in Riparian Reserves for Alternative 2 and 3 are described and displayed below in 

Tables 11 and 12. All units were surveyed by fisheries, hydrology, wildlife, 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 no-treatment 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, unit-specific management 

prescriptions are grouped into five 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 (172 feet in 

the Headwaters McKenzie River Watershed). The portions of these Riparian Reserves within the stream 

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

Therefore, no management within one site potential tree height (172 feet) is recommended (except for Unit 

380; see Table 11). Thinning in the upland portion of Riparian Reserves (172-344 feet) of ponds and fish-
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 45

bearing streams, however, is recommended to improve vegetation species diversity and late forest structure

for wildlife.

Thinning for Vegetation Diversity: Stands within these Riparian Reserves are overstocked, coniferdominant, 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 

3.4.3) 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 ripariandependent wildlife.

Dead and Down Wood Creation: Stands within these Riparian Reserves are overstocked, conifer-dominant, 

lacking structural and species diversity, and not currently meeting ACSOs. 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. 

Natural Fuels Underburn: These late-seral Riparian Reserves are currently functioning and meeting 

ACSOs. Therefore, no underburning within Riparian Reserves is recommended. 

Hazardous Fuels Treatment: The near-stream portions of these late-seral Riparian Reserves are currently 

functioning and meeting ACSOs. Therefore, no management within one site potential tree height (172 feet) is 

recommended. Non-commercial thinning of trees and shrubs <10" in diameter in the upland portion (172-344 

feet), however, is recommended to reduce hazardous fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface and risk of high 

severity fire.

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

E.

Table 11. Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves with Alternative 2

Description Units Stream Class

Riparian 

Reserve

Boundary1 Thinning Treatment

GroundBased 

Equipment 

Buffer2

Fuels

Treatment

Buffer3

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.

90, 100, 

130, 

200, 

260, 

300, 

380, 

420, 

440, 

450, 

470, 

480, 

490, 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 1 & 2)

344 feet

No harvest within 

172'; >50% canopy 

closure from 172'-344'

172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet No harvest within 172' 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet No harvest within 172' 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

46- Goose Project Final EIS

Description Units Stream Class

Riparian 

Reserve

Boundary1 Thinning Treatment

GroundBased 

Equipment 

Buffer2

Fuels

Treatment

Buffer3

500, 

520, 

530, 570 Ponds 344 feet

No harvest within 

172'; >50% canopy 

closure from 172'-344'

172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Wetlands and 

Springs 172 feet

No harvest within 172' 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Unit 380 only: No 

harvest within 60' to 

improve elk forage 

closer to wetland; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-172'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Thinning for 

Vegetation 

Diversity 

Thinning to improve 

vegetation diversity 

for wildlife while 

protecting shade and 

wood recruitment 

zones.

10, 40, 

50, 60, 

80, 110, 

120, 

140, 

150, 

190, 

210, 

370, 

390, 

400, 

430, 

460, 

510, 

540, 

550*, 

590, 

600, 

640, 

650, 

660, 

710, 770

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 1 & 2)

344 feet

No harvest within 

172'; >50% canopy 

closure from 172'-344'

172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Unit 550 only: No 

harvest within 90'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 90'-344'

140 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 90' 

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet

No harvest within 60'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-172'

110 feet 

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet

No harvest within 30'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 30'-172'

80 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Unit 390 only: No 

harvest within 60' to 

account for larger 

wood recruitment 

zone; >50% canopy 

closure from 60'-172'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Ponds 344 feet

No harvest within 60'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-344'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Wetlands and 

Springs 172 feet

No harvest within 30'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 30'-172'

80 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Unit 400 only: No 

harvest within 60' for 

shade protection on 

perennial spring; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-172'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 47

Description Units Stream Class

Riparian 

Reserve

Boundary1 Thinning Treatment

GroundBased 

Equipment 

Buffer2

Fuels

Treatment

Buffer3

Dead and Down 

Wood Creation 

Thinning to improve 

vegetation diversity 

for wildlife while 

increasing dead and 

down wood 

abundance.

70, 320, 

330, 

340, 350

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet

No harvest within 60'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-172'; down 

wood creation of >8 

per acre and 2 snags 

per acre within RR

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet

No harvest within 30'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 30'-172'; down 

wood creation of >8 

per acre and 2 snags 

per acre within RR

80 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Wetlands and 

Springs 172 feet

No harvest within 30'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 30'-172'; down 

wood creation of >8 

per acre and 2 snags 

per acre within RR

80 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Natural Fuels

Underburn 

Low to moderate 

burning to 

reintroduce fire as a 

natural disturbance 

process, improve 

habitat for wildlife, 

and to reduce 

hazardous fuels in 

the Wildland-Urban

Interface.

800, 

810, 820

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet N/A N/A No underburn 

within 172' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet N/A N/A No underburn 

within 172' 

Hazardous Fuels

Treatments 

Non-commercial 

thinning of trees and 

shrubs <10" 

diameter to reduce 

hazardous fuels in 

the Wildland-Urban

Interface and risk of 

high severity fire.

870, 

930, 

940, 

950, 

960, 990

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 1 & 2)

344 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

Ponds 344 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

1 One site potential tree height is 172' as identified in the Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis.

2 No ground-based equipment within 50 feet of no-harvest buffer. For units with 172' no-harvest buffer, the equipment buffer is the same. 3 In addition to fuels treatment buffer, there would be no fireline construction within Riparian Reserves.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

48- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 12. Treatments Proposed in Riparian Reserves with Alternative 3

Description Units Stream Class

Riparian 

Reserve

Boundary1 Thinning Treatment

GroundBased 

Equipment 

Buffer2

Fuels

Treatment

Buffer3

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.

90, 100, 

440, 570

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 1 & 2)

344 feet

No harvest within 172'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 172'-344'

172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet No harvest within 172' 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Intermittent 

Streams (Class 

4)

172 feet No harvest within 172' 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Ponds 344 feet

No harvest within 172'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 172'-344'

172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Wetlands and 

Springs 172 feet No harvest within 172' 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Thinning for 

Vegetation 

Diversity 

Thinning to improve 

vegetation diversity 

for wildlife while 

protecting shade 

and wood 

recruitment zones.

40, 50, 

60, 80, 

110, 

140, 

150,

190, 

210, 

370, 

390, 

400, 

430, 

460, 

650, 

660, 

710, 770

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 1 & 2)

344 feet

No harvest within 172'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 172'-344'

172 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 172' 

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet

No harvest within 60'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-172'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet

No harvest within 30'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 30'-172'

80 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Unit 390 only: No 

harvest within 60' to 

account for larger 

wood recruitment 

zone; >50% canopy 

closure from 60'-172'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Ponds 344 feet

No harvest within 60'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-344'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Wetlands and 

Springs 172 feet

No harvest within 30'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 30'-172'

80 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Unit 400 only: No 

harvest within 60' to 

account for larger 

wood recruitment 

zone; >50% canopy 

closure from 60'-172'

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 49

Description Units Stream Class

Riparian 

Reserve

Boundary1 Thinning Treatment

GroundBased 

Equipment 

Buffer2

Fuels

Treatment

Buffer3

Dead and Down 

Wood Creation 

Thinning to improve 

vegetation diversity 

for wildlife while 

increasing dead and 

down wood 

abundance.

70

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet

No harvest within 60'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 60'-172'; down 

wood creation of >8 

per acre and 2 snags 

per acre within RR

110 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet

No harvest within 30'; 

>50% canopy closure 

from 30'-172'; down 

wood creation of >8 

per acre and 2 snags 

per acre within RR

80 feet

No fuels 

treatment or 

underburn 

within 60' 

Hazardous Fuels

Treatments 

Non-commercial 

thinning of trees and 

shrubs <10" 

diameter to reduce 

hazardous fuels in 

the Wildland-Urban

Interface and risk of 

high severity fire.

870, 

930, 

940, 

950, 

960, 990

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 1 & 2)

344 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

Perennial Non 

Fish-bearing 

Streams 

(Class 3)

172 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

Intermittent 

Streams 

(Class 4)

172 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

Ponds 344 feet N/A 172 feet

No fuels 

treatment 

within 172' 

1 One site potential tree height is 172' as identified in the Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis

2 No ground-based equipment within 50 feet of no-harvest buffer. For units with 172' no-harvest buffer, the equipment buffer is the 

same.

3 In addition to fuels treatment buffer, there would be no fireline construction within Riparian Reserves.

2.5 Project Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

The design features in Table 13 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 13. Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

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 

All harvest units where 

planting is to occur

(Refer to Appendix B)
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

50- Goose Project Final EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

more prominent in warmer drier sites.

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 

prescribed burning (FW-252). All harvest 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). All harvest 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.

All harvest units

7 Maintain forest structure and 

wildlife objectives

Follow burn prescription parameters so overstory 

mortality should not exceed 10 percent. Underburn units

8 Maintain forest structure and 

wildlife objectives

At least 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

Soils, Watershed and Fisheries

9 Reduce compaction and 

undesirable soil damage

Existing landings, , old primary skid roads,

previously compacted areas from legacy haul 

roads, and/or tractor fire lines would be utilized as 

much as possible prior to disturbing new areas.

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.

All harvest units

11 Minimize erosion and 

sedimentation

Native surfaced roads would be restricted from 

haul when soils are saturated or show signs of 

run-off.

All harvest units

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 within fish-bearing streams would 

Entire project area

(July 1st-August 15th)
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 51

Objective Design Feature Location

comply with Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) seasonal restrictions on instream work activities (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. 

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 occur when the road surface is either 

covered with a relatively continuous snow pack or 

frozen. Dust abatement of road surfaces would be 

used if roads become excessively dusty during the 

summer as determined by TSA.

All harvest units

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 

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.

All harvest units

16 Reduce off-site movement of 

sediment into drainage courses

Ground-based equipment used for yarding, 

processing, fuels treatment, or other project 

activities would operate only when soils are 

relatively dry or where water is not pooling. Over 

the snow operations may occur when there is a 

continuous snow pack at least 18 inches deep or 

when soils are sufficiently frozen to support 

equipment. Operations would be suspended 

before rainfall or precipitation results in off-site 

movement of sediment into drainage courses.

Ground based portions 

of harvest units

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. Existing skid trails 

that are outside drainages, seeps and springs that 

meet the needs of the yarding system should be 

used wherever possible.

Ground based portions 

of harvest units
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

52- Goose Project Final EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

18 Reduce compaction directly 

adjacent to stream channels.

Ground-based equipment should not be permitted 

off road within 50 feet of class 1, 2, 3 or 4 no-cut 

stream buffers or to the edge of the Riparian 

Reserves whichever is closer. 

Ground based portions 

of harvest units

19 Minimize impacts to stream 

channels.

Full suspension would be required when yarding 

over perennial stream channels. Where full 

suspension is not obtainable over intermittent 

streams (class 4), 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 

within 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

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. Water bars 

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

clear outlet on the downhill side. Where available 

in concentrations, slash should 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, regeneration units, as 

well as all temporary roads and landings should 

be sub-soiled to a depth of 18-24 inches or to 

bedrock.

All harvest units except 

100 and 410

23 Reduce compaction

All landings that have not been rocked, temporary 

haul, or primary skid roads utilized by the 

purchaser/logger should be sub-soiled to a depth 

of 18 to 24 inches or bedrock at the completion of 

logging activities. Additional post-harvest 

enhancement subsoiling is required in units 

approaching standard and guideline limits in

additional compacted areas not utilized by the 

Purchaser.

Units 100 and 410

24 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 sterile seed, 

native grasses, or weed free mulch.

All harvest units

25 Prevent sedimentation

Sub-soiling and waterbaring 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

erosion.

All harvest units
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 53

Objective Design Feature Location

26

Reduce soil disturbance and the 

risk of erosion in Riparian 

Reserves

Firelines for underburning would not be 

constructed within Riparian Reserves. Fire would 

only be allowed to back into the no-underburn 

buffers identified in the Riparian Reserve 

treatments tables.

All harvest units

27 Reestablish hydrologic and 

geologic processes

Temporary roads would be decommissioned after 

completion of project activities. Decommissioning

of temporary roads would include all of the 

following as applicable: removal of any rock, 

blocking the entrance, removal of culverts, outsloping the road surface, pulling back displaced 

material onto the road way, installation of water 

bars, re-vegetation of the road prism, and subsoiling of compacted surfaces.

All harvest units

28 Protect key riparian features and 

integrity

All existing down wood would be retained within 

Riparian Reserves to maintain aquatic objectives. All harvest units

29 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

30 Protect and enhance riparian 

features

Riparian Reserve treatments and buffers (see 

Table 11 and 12)

All harvest and WUI

units

Wildlife

31

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

32

Provide downed wood and 

emulate material seen following 

a natural disturbance

Up to five trees per acre would be left after harvest 

to ensure a minimum of 240 linear feet of downed 

wood in decay classes 1 and 21

. Tree diameters 

would be of the average size merchantable trees 

within the unit. Full tree lengths are preferred.

TSOs would work with purchasers to minimize 

disturbance of existing down wood See Table 15

for additional information.

Regeneration Units 

471, 691, 720

33

Improve down wood habitat 

conditions within Riparian 

Reserves

Provide a minimum of 8 down trees per acre 

(post-harvest) of the average size merchantable 

tree selected thinned riparian reserve areas, 

decay Class 1-2. See Table 15 for additional 

information.

Riparian Reserve 

portions of Units 70, 

320, 330, 340, and 

350

34

Provide a visual screen along 

heavily travel roads to reduce 

impacts to game.

Where operable, limit skid trails entering roads 

and skyline corridors to a spacing of no less than 

200 feet along roads.

Units adjacent to 

forest service roads 

2600-700, and 2643

35 Provide a visual screen along 

heavily travelled roads to reduce 

Within 50 foot, directionally fall away from the road 

to protect the non-merchantable trees and brushy 

Units adjacent to 

forest service roads 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

54- Goose Project Final EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

impacts to game. hiding cover. 2600-700, and 2643

36 Enhance downed wood within 

the landscape

Up to 5 trees per acre, of the average size 

merchantable tree within the unit, may be fallen 

after harvest with site specific recommendation by 

the district wildlife biologist. See Table 15 for 

additional information.

All Thinning Units

37

Provide snags and emulate 

effects of mortality following a 

natural disturbance

Retain or create 5 large snags per acre after 

logging, of the average size merchantable tree

Only decay Class 1-2 would count towards this 

total. Residual trees with diseases other than root 

rot may substitute for snag creation. One 

snag/acre would have “kerf cuts” in the trunk to 

provide habitat for roosting bats See Table 14 for 

additional information.

Regeneration Units

38 Improve snag habitat conditions 

within Riparian Reserves

Up to two trees per acre, of the average 

merchantable size within the unit, would be used 

for snag creation after harvest with site specific 

recommendation by the district wildlife biologist 

See Table 14 for additional information.

Riparian Reserve 

portions of Units 70, 

320, 330, 340, and 

350

39 Enhance snag levels within the 

landscape

Up to 5 trees per acre, of the average size within 

the unit, may be used for snag creation after 

harvest with site specific recommendation by the 

district wildlife biologist. See Table 14 for 

additional information.

All Thinning Units

40 Provide snags and emulate 

effects of mortality following fire

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.

All Harvest Units

41 Provide downed wood within the 

landscape

Danger trees felled during operations would be left 

on site for large woody material. All Harvest Units

42 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

43

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 general elk rifle season.

All harvest units with 

snag and/or large 

down wood placement 

and/ or enhancement

44 Reduce disturbance to nesting 

birds

When possible, conduct prescribed burning during 

the fall when conditions allow. Units with underburn

45 Reduce disturbance during 

nesting season of cavity nesters

Conduct roadside hazard felling outside the critical 

seasonal restriction period for cavity nesters which 

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.

All roadside hazard 

tree maintenance
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 55

Objective Design Feature Location

46

Reduce disturbance during 

critical nesting season of great 

gray owls

Restriction on falling trees, ground-based yarding, 

burning, and snag/large down wood enhancement 

from March 15-May 15.

Unit 740

47 Protect nesting osprey and their 

young

Restrict hazardous fuels treatment work from 

March 1-July 15. Unit 990

48

Reduce disturbance during 

nesting season of northern 

spotted owls

Restriction on falling trees, ground-based yarding, 

burning, and helicopter yarding from March 1-July 

15 is recommended.

Unit 10 

49 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

50 Maintain Johnson’s Hairstreak 

(butterfly) habitat

Mark for retention any identified western hemlock 

trees which contain dwarf mistletoe All harvest units

51 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

52 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

53

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

54 Reduce the introduction/spread 

of weeds

All road construction and logging equipment would 

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

55 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

56 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
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

56- Goose Project Final EIS

Objective Design Feature Location

57 Reduce the introduction/spread 

of weeds

Gaps would be placed to avoid infested areas

(USFS would provide map). All harvest units

58 Reduce the introduction of 

weeds

Use weed -free rock for all road construction and 

maintenance Entire project area

59 Reduce area for weeds to 

germinate

Minimize soil disturbance (minimize fireline 

construction, reuse old skid roads) to meet project 

objectives.

All harvest units

60 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

61 Reduce the introduction of 

weeds

Roads to be closed or decommissioned would be 

treated for invasive plants prior to closing. Entire project area

62 Protect known occurrences of 

survey and manage species

Buffers identified in Table 16 would be 

implemented. Presale would work with the district 

botanist.

Units identified in 

Table 16

63 Protect known special habitats

Buffers identified in Table 17 would be 

implemented. Presale would work with the district 

botanist.

Units identified in 

Table 17

64

Protect known special habitats 

and species associated with 

rock outcrops

Felling would be directional away from rock 

outcrop. No yarding across rock outcrop. All harvest units

65 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

66 Reduce the potential for spread 

of invasive plants

Minimize to the extent possible putting landings, 

yarding stations, staging and equipment storage 

areas, in weed infested areas. Provide timber and 

other contractors with a map of infestations in the 

pre-work process. 

All harvest units

Roads

67 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

68 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

69 Protect against sediment All road reopening, reconstruction and temporary Entire project area
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 57

Objective Design Feature Location

road building would occur when soils are relatively 

dry to avoid potential surface erosion of exposed 

soil.

70 Protect against sediment

All temporary roads shall be made hydrologically 

stable if not being used for extended periods of 

wet weather.

Entire project area

71 Protect against sediment

Apply rock surfacing on all native surfaced roads 

to be used in the wet season between November 

1 and May 31. The purchaser shall remove any 

rock used on temporary roads upon completion.

Entire project area

72 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 18-22” to ensure infiltration of 

surface runoff.

Entire project area

73 Protect road infrastructure

Without an agreement through the contract 

process, any road maintenance along haul routes, 

including placement of additional surface rock, 

blading, brushing, ditch relief culvert cleaning or 

addition of ditch relief culverts would occur prior to 

project implementation.

Entire project area

74 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

75 Reduce erosion and prevent 

channel migration

Stream crossings at Glenn Creek and Goose 

Creek will be reconstructed to pass 100 year flood 

flows and improve drainage and road surface 

runoff. Adjustments may occur to roadbed width, 

cross slope, horizontal and vertical alignment, and 

grades. An armored ford/dip would be 

constructed in Glenn Creek and the existing 

culvert in Goose Creek will be replaced with an 

armored ford/dip or culvert structure.

Road 2600275 in units 

270, 290, 300

Heritage Resources

76 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

77 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.

Therefore, contract clause BT6.24 must be 

Entire project area
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

58- Goose Project Final EIS 

Objective Design Feature Location

included in all project contracts.

78 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

79 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: 06180700038, 

06180700041, 06180700353, 06180100354, 

06180100602, 06180100603, 06180100604, 

06180100605, 06180100606, and 06180100609.

See: Zone 

Archaeologist

Scenic Quality

80 Minimize visual impacts

A 50ft. horizontal no harvest buffer will be 

maintained on either side of Frissell Trail and 

marking to delineate this buffer will be minimized 

to the extent possible. Slash piles and all 

boundary markers within 100 feet of trail or 

trailhead would be removed. A recreation 

specialist would be consulted during layout and 

prior to implementation. 

Units 460, 470, and 

480

81 Minimize visual impacts

Gaps will appear natural and will not be noticeable 

to the casual forest visitor. Gaps will be placed to 

mimic natural openings, and where possible, 

placed adjacent to natural features such as 

meadows or rock outcrops. 

Unit 10, 30, 110, 340, 

350, and 470. 

82 Minimize visual impacts

Temporary haul roads will be designed to blend 

into surrounding topography. Temporary haul 

roads will not be built perpendicular to the slope.

Unit 10

83 Minimize visual impacts West, east and lower boundary of unit will be 

blended to maintain natural appearance. Unit 10

84 Minimize visual impacts Upper edge of unit will be blended to maintain 

natural appearance. Unit 470

85 Minimize visual impacts

Where possible strive for an end product that is 

natural appearing and highlights the distinct 

natural and aesthetic character of these areas. 

Low or flush cut stumps at an angle 100 feet from 

highways, trails and recreation sites. Tree marking 

should be on the side of trees facing away from 

trails, roads and recreation sites.

All harvest unit 

treatments that are in 

visually sensitive areas 

(i.e., areas adjacent to 

Highway 126, Highway 

242, the McKenzie 

River National 

Recreation Trail, 

Frissell Trail and 

developed recreation 

sites).

86 Minimize visual impacts Gaps would be no larger than two acres.

Unit 110, 260, and 640

87 Improve scenic quality Individual tree selection within 300 feet of Highway Unit 110, 260 and 640
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 59

Objective Design Feature Location

126, highlighting large trees and special natural 

features.

Recreation

88 Reduce impacts to recreating 

public

Post an advance notice as applicable at: Paradise 

Campground, McKenzie Bridge Campground, 

Limberlost Campground, Frissell Trailhead, and 

McKenzie River National Recreation Trailheads 

within and upriver of the project area. Provide 

postings to recreation department for further 

dissemination and posting as appropriate.

Entire project area

89 Reduce impacts to recreating 

public.

No fuels treatments would occur in or adjacent to 

Paradise Campground, McKenzie Bridge 

Campground, and Limberlost Campground while 

campgrounds are open in fee status. A recreation 

specialist will be integrated into the design phase 

for fuels treatment units in or adjacent to these 

campgrounds.

Units 930, 940

Air Quality

90

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

91

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

92 Protect improvements of 

cooperators

Project activities in the vicinity of transmission 

lines and their access facilities would be 

coordinated with the Eugene Water & Electric 

Board prior to operations.

Entire project area

1 Discretionary design features that are funding-dependent

2.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Table 14. Wildlife Tree Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Unit Snag Creation per acre Unit Snag Creation per acre

10 1 470 2

70 2

2: RR only* 471 4*

130 2 480 2

200 2 490 2

260 2 500 2

300 2 520 2
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

60- Goose Project Final EIS

Unit Snag Creation per acre Unit Snag Creation per acre

320 2

2: RR only* 530 2

330 2

2: RR only* 550 2

340 2

2: RR only* 570 3

350 2

2: RR only* 580 3

380 2 690 3

390 2 691 4*

420 2 720 4*

450 2

* Mitigation (will occur). Enhancement recommendations may occur if funding is available.

Tree mitigation and enhancement techniques may include topping, girdling and/or inoculation. Table 14 also 

includes mitigation measures from recommended Riparian Reserve thinning that includes snag creation to 

benefit wildlife (also shown in Table 11 and Table 12). Snag creation would take place as a priority 

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

Table 15. Down Wood Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled for 

large down 

wood

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled 

for large 

down wood

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled 

for large 

down wood

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled 

for large 

down wood

10 5 260 3 440 3 630 3

30 5 270 0 450 3 640 3

40 5 280 3 460 3 650 3

50 5 290 3 470 3 660 3

60 5 300 3 471 5* 670 3

70 5

8 – RR Only* 310 0 480 3 680 3

80 5 320 3

8 – RR Only* 490 3 690 3

90 3 330 3

8 – RR Only* 500 3 691 5*

100 3 340 5

8 – RR Only* 510 3 700 3

110 0 350 5

8 – RR Only* 530 3 710 3

120 0 360 0 540 3 720 5*

130 3 370 3 550 3 740 3

140 0 380 3 570 3 760 3

150 3 390 3 580 3 770 3

190 3 400 0 590 3

200 3 410 3 600 3

210 3 420 3 610 3
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 61

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled for 

large down 

wood

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled 

for large 

down wood

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled 

for large 

down wood

Unit

Trees per 

acre to be 

left/felled 

for large 

down wood

220 3 430 0 620 3

* Mitigation (will occur). Enhancement recommendations may occur if funding is available.

The minimum amount to be left is 240 lineal feet/acre. Units proposed for regeneration harvest and those 

within Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl would have higher levels of down wood left/created to 

benefit the prey base of spotted owls. This table also includes mitigation measures from recommended 

riparian reserve thinning that includes large down wood creation to benefit wildlife, fish and water quality 

(also shown in Table 11 and Table 12). Down wood mitigation and enhancement would take place as a 

priority mitigation measure within Class 3 and 4 streams, as well as wetland and spring Riparian Reserves.

Table 16. Survey and Manage Species Buffer Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Units Sensitive Species Buffer Distance

10, 130, 380, 830, 970 Nephroma occultum 90 ft.

330, 410, 550, 640, 960, 970, 980 Peltigera pacifica 60 ft.

260, 830 Usnea longissima 180 ft.

Table 17. Special Habitat Buffer Mitigation Recommendations Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Units Special Habitat Buffer Distance*

5150, 90, 5750, 5750, 1550 seep/rock outcrop 60 ft.

5360, 400, 600, 680, 1030, 1330, 1950, 

1940, 1930, 1360, 1320, 1280, 5610, 

42, 420, 5230, 380, 640, 1060, 1030, 

1460, 1920, 110, 5460, 5260, 1200, 

1310, 1500, 1861, 1350

wetland/seep/swamp 60 ft.

5660, 1280 mesic meadow 60 ft.

5340, 150, 5450 vine maple talus 60 ft.

*No-disturbance buffer distance is based on Special Habitat Management Guide. Buffers would be expanded if Aquatic Resource 

Specialists deems them insufficient to maintain hydrologic function.

2.7 Monitoring Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

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.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

62- Goose Project Final EIS

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

Program provides a standard set of core best management practices and consistent documentation of the use 

and effectiveness of the practices. Post-implementation best management practices monitoring may include 

review of aquatic management zones, erosion prevention and control measures, cable and ground-based 

yarding operation effects, and site treatment.

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

monitoring at each Ranger District 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. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 63

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This section of the FEIS 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 (Chapter 4, 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 Goose 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 FEIS 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 FEIS. 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 of the 

proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64- Goose Project Final EIS

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 Goose project.

3.1 Forest and Stand Structure

3.1.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

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 (DTR), 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, DTR and regeneration harvest would 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.

3.1.2 Scale of Analysis

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

with the Goose project is the project area. The project area consists of 17,932 acres within the Florence 

Creek-McKenzie River, Elk Creek-McKenzie River, and Lost Creek 6th field watersheds. By using the 

project area, it is possible to evaluate potential impacts in an area large enough to encompass other 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 65

disturbances, both human and natural, and it is a logical analysis area to assess stand conditions based on 

plant associations.

3.1.3 Affected Environment

The project area consists of approximately 17,932 acres. 14,713 acres in the project area are managed by 

the Willamette National Forest with the remaining 3,219 acres belonging to private land holders. The 

project area is composed mostly of a Douglas-fir and western hemlock overstory with an understory shrub 

component of vine maple, salal, dwarf Oregon grape, sword fern and Pacific rhododendron.

Timber harvest including thinning, partial cut and regeneration harvest has been a dominant disturbance 

in the project area over the last 100 years. Previous timber harvest has occurred on approximately 4,161 

acres in the project area. Approximately 2,740 acres in the project area were modified with regenerationtype timber harvest, which is now in plantations less than 75 years old. Fire has also been a dominant 

disturbance in the project area. Records indicate four large, stand replacing wildfires have occurred in the 

project area over the past 100 years and an approximated 69 smaller, low to moderate severity fires since 

the 1970s.

Stand Age Classification

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

Service’s VEGIS database in addition to stand exam data collected 2010-2012. 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 (1990). 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 

mechanism 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 640 acres, or 3.7 

percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in the project area (Figure 10).

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). 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 (1990), these stands are 

classified as stem exclusion. The stem exclusion stage occurs after canopy closure, as the stand begins to 

differentiate into size classes and 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 governed 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 2,750 acres, or 15.7 

percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in the project area (Figure 10).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66- Goose Project Final EIS

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, 

crown 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 underburns fires over the last 2 centuries.

Understory re-initiation represents approximately 5,360 acres, or 30.7 percent of the forested lands 

administered by the Forest Service in the project area (Figure 10).

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

Stands in this category are characterized as old growth (Oliver and Larson, 1990) 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 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 tolerant species. Many of these stands have been 

previously salvage logged to remove wind throw and mortality. Old Growth represents approximately 

8,713 acres, or 49.9 percent of the forested lands administered by the Forest Service in the project area 

(Figure 10). 

Figure 10 illustrates the current stand age classifications in project area and Table 18 provides the 

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

alternative.

Figure 10. Stand Age Classification in the Goose Project Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 67

Table 18. Harvest Units by Alternative 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) 640 2,750 5,360 8,713

Alternative 2 (acres) 51 1,515 490 0

Alternative 3 (acres) 51 690 0 0

1

: Does not include non-forest areas such as meadows and rock outcrops

Stand Vigor and Growth

Stand Density Index

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

with the proposed action. Seventy-four percent (Table 18) of previously managed stands and fire 

regenerated stands proposed for harvest in the project area are second growth stands classified as being in 

the stem exclusion development stage (Oliver and Larson, 1990). Stands in this stage have dense crowns 

which block out the light to the forest floor and limit additional tree regeneration in the understory. Shadetolerant 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.

Stand vigor and growth is declining in these stands. Some trees have begun to die due to overcrowding 

and competition between trees for nutrient and light as evidenced by competition-induced mortality. The 

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

214 to 554 and averages 366 for all stands being considered for treatment in the Goose project area. In 

Douglas-fir, the maximum SDI (SDImax) is 595 (Reineke 1933). Using SDI helps translate current 

conditions to future objectives, such as reduced competition to maximize individual tree or stand growth.

As a stand reaches an SDI of about 149, or approximately 25 percent of SDImax, trees within 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). Lower SDImax 

numbers are more suited to maximize individual tree growth, while harvesting when SDI reaches around 

208-238, or 35-40 percent SDImax, the stand as a whole would have maximum growth.

Existing stand conditions were quantified using 2010-2012 stand exam data. The April 2014 version of 

Forest Vegetation Simulator (USDA Forest Service 2008, Pacific Northwest model with Western Cascade 

variant, revised April, 2014) was used to analyze stand data.

Previously Managed Stands 

Approximately 851 acres of previously managed stands are proposed for harvest in the proposed action.

Over about the last 80 years there has been approximately 2,740 acres (15 percent of the project area) of 

clearcut on federal lands within the project area. The earliest clearcut was harvested in the 1940’s while 

the most recent occurred in 1993. Most of these stands have received thinning through either precommercial or commercial thinning. Some appear to not have received any management since 

establishment. There has also been approximately 315 acres commercially thinned that was not associated 

with previous clearcuts.

In previously managed stands, the average age of the stand is 44 years old with the range between 27 and 

66 years old. Many of the stands are just starting to enter the stem exclusion stage or are already well in 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68- Goose Project Final EIS

the stem exclusion stage with SDI’s averaging 334. Little understory development and species diversity 

appears to be in the stands.

Fire Regenerated Stands

Approximately 1,205 acres of fire regenerated (naturally regenerated) stands are proposed for harvest in 

the proposed action. The project area has been shaped by wildfires as well as timber harvest over the past

100 years. Our fire records show that there have been four large fires within the planning area in the last 

century: two Sims Ranch Fires (approximately 1925 and 1935), North McKenzie Fire (approximately 

1949), and South McKenzie Fire (approximately 1949). Each of these fires were stand replacing events 

that left few residual trees. There also appears to have been stand replacing fires in the 1800’s. With no 

records to suggest otherwise, the stand replacing fires are believed to have been regenerated naturally 

with predominantly Douglas-fir. All of the fire regenerated stands are predominantly Douglas-fir with 

scattered hardwoods and very little species diversity in the overstory.

Many of these fire regenerated stands do not show signs of active management since regeneration 

occurred. However, some of the stands do have residual stumps representing either salvage logging or 

selective harvest. Our records show no harvest activity in the fire regenerated stands. Nevertheless, in 

many of these stands large (>30” dbh) residual cedars were cut and left on site. There is also old tractor 

skid roads in many of these stands, indicating forest products were removed from the area. With very little 

residual large snags and stumps located in the fire regenerated stands, a possible conclusion could be that 

there was multiple stand replacing fires that occurred in the area. If the fires occurred relatively shortly 

after each other, it would explain the lack of legacy features, which could have been consumed by the 

subsequent fire(s).

In the fire regenerated stands proposed for treatment, the average age is 81 years old with a range of 50 to 

127 years old. Because the majority of these stands are within the stem exclusion stage, only small 

amounts of understory development is apparent as the stands have started competition mortality. The fire 

regenerated stands proposed for harvest in the Goose project have an average SDI of 417 (Table 19) 

which is 70 percent of maximum SDI.

Table 19 illustrates average stand characteristics of previously managed and fire regenerated stands 

proposed for harvest in the project area.

Table 19. Average Stand Characteristics of Trees at Least 7 inch DBH1

Stand Type Trees Per 

Acer

Quadratic 

Mean 

Diameter

Average 

Stand

Height

Canopy 

Cover

Percent

Age Basel Area

Stand

Density 

Index

Fire Regenerated 146 19 102 64 81 270 417

Managed1 172 14 83 66 44 185 334

All 162 16 90 64 59 218 366

1

: Seven inches is the minimum DBH of a tree considered for harvest in the Goose project.

3.1.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 69

rates of mortality, higher risk for insect and disease attacks, and higher risk for stand replacing fires.

Decline in underrepresented species, like sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) and western red cedar (Thuja 

plicata), would continue. Shade tolerant species, like western hemlock, would eventually dominate the 

stand in absence of timber harvest and/or other disturbances. High stocking density and canopy covers 

would continue to restrict regeneration of shade intolerant species such as Douglas-fir and sugar pine. The 

diameter and product value of trees harvested in the future would be reduced without treatment.

The current shortage of early seral habitat for wildlife species would continue to decline (see Figure 25).

Low light levels in un-thinned stands would suppress development of shade-tolerant trees and limit 

understory vegetation. Tree mortality from overstocked stands and root disease would continue, and 

competition-induced mortality would increase, thus increasing small diameter <15” snags and down 

wood. The competition-induced mortality would not be available for commercial wood products. Fuel 

loading and fire risk in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) would increase as trees die and eventually 

fall over.

Alternative 2 and 3

The following treatments are used to describe the direct and indirect impacts for treatments that would 

occur with both action alternatives.

Thinning

Thinning would increase the health and vigor the remaining trees and help increase the stand’s 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 over time as the overstory crown closes. The 

canopy cover is estimated to increase two percent per year (Chan, 2006). This second generation of trees 

growing under the overstory canopy is expected to provide vertical, horizontal, age, and species diversity 

in the stand by primarily harvesting Douglas-fir which is over represented in the project area because of 

planting densities.

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. 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. Figure 11 provides 

visualization of a stand before and after thinning.

Thinning provides growing space for new trees to increase age, size and height diversity in a stand and at 

the project area scale. Young uniform stands such as the plantations and many natural stands proposed for 

treatment in the Goose project can be diversified with early thinning by allowing new generations of trees 

to establish. 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).

Treating mature stands (stands in understory re-initiation [81-180 years old])in the project area is 

expected to increase availability of resources such as sunlight to the forest floor for increased diversity of 

shrubs, herbs, and understory tree establishment and growth with the effects lasting up to about 15-20 

years as the overstory crown closes in (Chan, 2006). In addition to the understory response, increased 

growth in the overstory is expected to last up to about 25 year (Latham and Tappeiner, 2002). Williamson 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70- Goose Project Final EIS

(1982) found that 19 years after heavy thinning, a 100 year old thinned stand, had a 30 percent higher 

response to volume growth than did the control units. Thinning across all crown classes in a stand 

provides the longest term benefits to both large and small trees because of the time it takes to fill in the 

overstory canopy (Williamson and Price 1966). 

Heavier thinning would likely promote rapid growth of trees with characteristics normally associated with 

old trees in old-growth stands. The large older trees in a stand often showed signs of rapid growth in 

lower densities when they were 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, or canopy layer, 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 of less than one year would impact to understory vegetation and below ground 

fungi would be the mechanical damage from logging. These short-term adverse effects would be expected 

to recover within two years post-harvest as regrowth of herbs and shrubs occur. The removal of host trees 

and soil disturbance from the yarding operation impacts below ground fungi (Courtney et al 2004). This 

adverse effect is reduced by minimizing additional soil impacts with the use of designated skid trails with 

ground–based yarding systems and log-suspension capabilities of skyline and helicopter yarding systems.

Figure 11. Visualization of Stand Before (left side) and After (right side) Thinning

Gaps

Gaps would consist of approximate 1-3 acre openings with rolling edges where appropriate to avoid 

circles or square edges. Gaps would be randomly placed unless it was necessary to strategically place the 

openings for other resource needs such as minimizing conflict with logging systems, minimizing visual 

concerns, or to treat an identified root rot pocket. Within the stand, a thinning prescription would be 

applied to the area outside the gaps. Figure 12 provides a visualization of thinning with gaps.

The gaps would not be a conventional clear-cut treatment. The objective would be to leave some green 

trees in either scattered pockets and/or scattered throughout the opening post-harvest. These retention 

trees would be released to grow to encourage large tree development, future snag development, diversity 

in future stand structure, and development of future large down woody debris. In 30 to 60 years the stand 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 71

structure would be more complex with at least a two cohort stand making up the overstory. This would 

better mimic some late successional characteristics than what the current stand is projected to produce in 

the same time frame if no treatment occurred (Andrews et al. 2005). These areas would also provide early 

seral habitat on federal land in the project area. Retention trees that meet the criteria for a wildlife tree 

(i.e. Phellinus pini conks or other elements of wood decay, crooked tops, etc.), would serve as a natural 

wildlife tree and offset the need for enhancement however they would not be used for down wood 

enhancement.

By implementing gaps, the project would provide numerous benefits for many species of wildlife. 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, with gaps, provide more resources to herbs, 

shrubs, and broad-leaved plants which provide the foundation for food webs that contribute towards many 

different trophic levels in Pacific Northwest conifer forest (Hargar, 2007). 

Openings of this size should both facilitate stand treatments and help to assure satisfactory development 

of regeneration (Curtis and Carey, 1996). Because some of the gaps would be relatively small for 

regeneration of shade intolerant species, there would be an edge effect (shade from residual trees around 

the edge of the opening). Height growth would be greater near the center of the opening and away from 

any leave trees. The gaps would be expected to be re-forested in the future and allow a chance for shade 

intolerant species such as Douglas-fir to regenerate.

Figure 12. 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. 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 (accounting for drip-line of trees) 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. Sugar 

and white pine over 24” in size would be treated as a dominant tree.

DTR would result in open grown trees more likely to 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. Figure 13 provides a visualization of DTR.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 13. Visualization of Single vs Multiple Tree Dominant Tree Release

Regeneration Harvest – Shelterwood with Reserves

Regeneration harvest (shelterwood with reserves) would occur in stands that have reached at least 95 

percent culmination of mean annual increment. Although nothing can exactly mimic naturally occurring 

disturbance events, this harvest would create a small-scale disturbance in the analysis area somewhat 

similar to what may have occurred naturally. The objective would be to leave approximately 20 trees per 

acre following harvest to help establish a future stand by providing a beneficial microclimate, and 

contribute towards creating snags and down wood. Those residual trees not used for snag and down wood 

creation would be retained throughout the rotation. The residual trees would on average be larger trees 

including some with disease to promote natural processes. These residual trees would provide for future 

snag development, and down woody material to provide diversity in the future stand structure.

Even-aged systems provide an optimal seedling environment for the establishment and growth of the 

shade intolerant species presently on site. The residual live trees are used to provide seed and/or 

protection from environmental extremes. The residual green trees are well-dispersed through the unit to 

provide a consistent level of protection. The residual canopy would be composed of the largest trees in the 

stand, primarily Douglas-fir. As identified in the Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan, 

at least 15 percent of each stand (not including Riparian Reserves) would be retained in no-harvest 

patches to provide diversity and maintain existing snags (Northwest Forest Plan, pg. c-41). The retained 

patches would be scattered and variable in size. Stands treated as regeneration harvest would be treated 

for fuels reduction, and planted with a variety of tree species after harvest. Large wood on the forest floor 

would be maintained or enhanced. Numerous snags would either be maintained on site if not a hazard to 

logging operations, or enhanced through snag creation techniques. Figure 14 provides a visualization of 

regeneration harvest treatment. 

Figure 14. Visualization of Shelterwood with Reserves Pre (left side) and Post (right side) Treatment

Dominant Tree(s) Selected

Cut Radius around dominant tree(s)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 73

Skips

Skips are areas where no harvest would occur. Stands that are not harvested would provide diversity 

within the thinned stand. These areas would be allowed to have natural processes take place such as intertree 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 nonriparian 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.

Implementation of skips would be with hard boundaries flagged on the ground along unit boundaries and 

within 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.

Comparison of Effects from Alternative 2 and 3

Both action alternatives would have the same beneficial effects previously identified on treated acres (see 

Table 20). However, Alternative 3 would harvest fewer acres resulting in approximately 982 acres of fire 

regenerated stands remaining with a SDI of over 70 percent of maximum SDI. By maintain the high SDI, 

fire regenerated stands in Alternative 3 would show the same effects as Alternative 1, the No-Action 

alternative and none of the benefits associated with the Action alternatives.

Alternative 2 would use thinning and dominant tree release (DTR) on 1,268 acres 250 percent more acres 

than the 499 in Alternative 3, to improve or maintain growth and health of overstocked stands currently in 

stem exclusion. Thinning and DTR 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 1,549 acres with thinning, DTR, and gaps to promote the development of a 

diverse, multi-layered stands, whereas Alternative 3 would only treat 610 acre. 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 744 acre in Alternative 3, or 63 percent fewer acres than 2,013 associated 

with Alternative 2. Species richness for herbaceous species and total species richness across trees, shrubs, 

and herbaceous vegetation were greater in thinned stands than in un-thinned and old-growth stands

(Bailey et al 1998).

Moving acres into stand initiation, Alternative 2, Gaps, DTR, and regeneration harvest would provide for 

374 acres compared to 141 for Alternative 3. Those acres would provide for long term (80-100 years) 

sustainable timber production.

Through commercial harvest, fuel loading would increase on 610 acres with Alternative 3, compared to 

1,592 acres associated with Alternative 2. The fuels added would mostly be smaller in size from limbs 

and needles which typically decompose within 2-3 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74- Goose Project Final EIS

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 and on to old growth.

Table 20 compares the acreages proposed for treatment in each alternative. 

Table 20. Comparison of Treatments (acres) by Alternative

Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres of Thinning Outside Riparian 

Reserves 0 1,080 412

Acres of Thinning Within Riparian Reserves 0 138 57

Acres of Regeneration Harvest 0 43 0

Acres of Gaps 0 281 111

Acres of Dominant Tree Release 0 50 30

Acres of Skips Outside Riparian Reserves 0 173 45

Acres of Skips Within Riparian Reserves 0 291 89

Total Acres of Timber Harvest Units

(includes skips) 0 2,056 744

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

With implementation of Alternative 1, no cumulative effects to forest stand and structure would occur as 

the effects of Alternative 1 do not overlap in space and time with effects from any past, present or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Alternative 2 and 3

Effects to forest stand and structure from Alternatives 2 and 3 overlap in time and space with effects from 

two past projects - the Eagle Thin Project and the 13-Thin Project. The Eagle Thin Project was located 

directly west of the project area. Harvest was completed on Eagle Thin in 2014 and treated approximately 

176 acres with thinning similar to that of the Goose project. Harvest was completed on 13-Thin Project in 

2014. 13-Thin was located in the project area between the McKenzie River Ranger Station along Foley 

Ridge Road (FS Road 2643), and treated approximately 160 acres with thinning and small gaps. The Pass 

Thin Project was approved in 2014. Pass Thin contains acreage within and outside the project area, and it 

includes eight acres of thinning and three gaps in the project area.

Effects to increased age diversity (acres move back to stand initiation) on the landscape from activities 

associate with the Goose project would have a beneficial cumulative effect. By adding Goose’s acres to 

the acres of gaps associated with Pass Thin (3 acres), and 13-Thin (7 acres), Goose would cumulatively 

increase the acres of forest in the stand initiation stage within the project area to 384 and 151 acres for 

Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. 

In conjunction with Pass Thin, Eagle Thin, and 13-Thin the Goose project would cumulatively help 

maintain or enhance plant species, and diversity and composition in the project area on 2,403 and 1,091 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 75

acres for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. Additionally, the same acres would cumulatively promote 

crown differentiation.

When looked at with Pass Thin, Eagle Thin, and 13-Thin, treatments associated with Goose would reduce 

the time 1,939 and 957 acres for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively 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 because of the lag in time from harvest associated with 

the Goose project and the Pass Thin, Eagle Thin, and 13-Thin projects.

Connected Actions

The following actions and effects would occur with implementation of both Alternative 2 and 3.

Post-harvest Tree Planting

Reforestation would be required in both Alternatives. Alternative 2 would require approximately 120 

acres (approximately 43 acres with Shelterwood harvest and approximately 77 acres of gaps) and 

Alterative 3 would require approximately 48 acres associated with gaps. Reforestation would be expected 

to occur within five years of harvest, and occur from both tree planting and natural regeneration. Postharvest densities would be sufficiently low to allow shade-intolerant species such as Douglas-fir to 

regenerate in addition to increasing diversity with the ingrowth 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. Planting 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. An increase in species diversity in the planted stands would result as a mix of 

species which represent historic species composition would be planted.

Subsoiling

Subsoiling would occur when a unit has compaction levels above Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Subsoiling is beneficial to Forest and Stand structure because of reduced compaction and root growth, so 

increased growth is possible likely along skid trails and landings that have subsoiling. Skid roads in 

planting areas are expected to be subsoiled to a depth of 18-22 inches to reduce the effects of compaction 

with the exception of soils under a retention tree canopy because the roots of the given tree would be less 

disturbed. 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 possible likely along skid trails 

and landings that have treatment. Some adverse effects may occur if residual trees inadvertently have 

roots pruned during decommissioning.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76- Goose Project Final EIS

3.2 Fire and Fuels

3.2.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

Proposed actions for Alternative 2 would reduce slash following timber harvest, reduce understory fuels 

and ladder fuels along private and public boundaries and conduct natural fuels underburns (non-harvested 

units). All actions are with the McKenzie Bridge community Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) and would 

act as beneficial fuels reduction aiding in reducing risks to firefighters and public, structures and 

resources during wildfires. Forest structure and fuels would change through harvest and all fuels 

treatments to reduce activity generated fuels to within or below Forest Plan standards and guidelines and 

create variability of horizontal and vertical fuels (vegetation). Additionally, beneficial fire effects would 

occur from prescribed fire treatments as fire plays a natural and dynamic role in the forest ecosystem.

3.2.2 Scale of Analysis

Project and stand specific data, as well as landscape level data, were used due to the nature of fire as a

natural disturbance and how it moves across the landscape. Stand level information was used to identify 

and predict specific fuels characteristics and effects.

3.2.3 Affected Environment

Fire on the Landscape

Over the past 100 years, records indicate four large wildfires within the project area ranging in size from 

480 to 1,715 acres. Additionally, since 1970, records indicate there has been approximately 69 smaller, 

low to moderate severity fires within the project area ranging in size from .1 to 38 acres. All fires over the 

past 100 years were promptly suppressed and the larger ones most likely moved quickly and escaped 

initial fire suppression efforts. These past fires demonstrate wildfire will continue to occur across the 

project area and greater landscape that surrounds the community of McKenzie Bridge. Fire is a natural 

disturbance and the influences of human actions (development, fire suppression, and logging) over the 

past century have changed fire disturbances and processes across the project area. Fire regime models

(categorized at larger landscape scale than the project area) indicate the project area to be a mixture of 

Fire Regime (FR) I, III and V, with FR V found at higher elevations along Lookout Ridge. Fire regimes 

are described below. Figure 15 displays the fire regimes in the project area. 

• Fire Regime I: < 0 to 35-year fire return interval; low severity

• Fire Regime III: < 35 to 150-year fire return interval; mixed severity

• Fire Regime V: 150+-year fire return interval; high severity
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 77

Figure 15. Fire Regimes in the Goose Project Area

Of importance in fire regimes on the Willamette National Forest is the term mixed severity. Mixed 

severity explains the varying degrees of fire intensity (heat) and severity (mortality) that can occur given 

variations in topography, vegetation, and fire resilience of larger trees across a landscape. Mixed severity 

fires created a patchy mosaic of high and low severity burns spatially and temporally (Kertis et al. 2007); 

not every fire was stand replacing or one fire could show varying intensity and severity during the time 

period it burns. Studies near the project area also show that non-stand replacing fires, a mixed severity 

component, have been eliminated which affects stand structure and cohorts (Tepley et al. 2013). 

In addition to fire frequency and severity, fire disturbance at a landscape level is categorized into Fire 

Regime Condition Class (FRCC). The project area is predominately categorized as a FRCC2, meaning 

the area is moderately altered from the historical range of variability for fire interval (Kertis et al. 2007 

and Hann et al. 2001). Fire regime and historical FRCC are used as indicators to understand fires historic 

and current role in the ecosystem. However, fire has not played its natural role over the past 100+ years 

due to settlement, fire suppression, fire fighter and public safety and forest and natural resource 

management. Returning or maintaining FRCC1, not suppressing fire wildfires, is not a foreseeable goal

given these constraints.

The project area has a fire frequency of 1.6 fires per year (1970-2013) indicating that fire continues to 

occur in this area. The majority of fires are kept small (less than 10 acres) with fire suppression (data from 

Willamette National Forest fire reports 1970-2012). 

Fuel Profile and Fire Behavior

The majority of the federal lands located in the project area are represented as Fuel Model (FM) 8, 10, 

and 5. In addition to these fuel models, some private lands in the project area are also characterized by 

FM 11 and 12. 

• FM 8 represents closed canopy stands of short-needle conifers with light fuel loading and occasional 

concentrations of heavy fuel loading that can flare up. When fires ignite in this fuel model, fire spread 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78- Goose Project Final EIS

is generally slow with low flame lengths. Approximately 7,099 acres of FM 8 occur in the project 

area.

• FM 10 is representative of mixed conifer stands with heavy concentrations of dead down wood, > 3” 

diameter and/or dense understory. Ground fire behavior is higher intensity than fuel model 8 because 

of heavier fuel loading and ladder fuels. Torching of trees (fire in the crowns of trees) occurs more 

frequently. Approximately 4,866 acres of FM 10 occur in the project area.

• FM 5 is representative of young timber stands with Ceanothus velutinus being a common brush 

component. Shrubs or grass are often the same height as the conifers and can carry fire at high rates 

of spread. Approximately 2,534 acres of FM 5 occur in the project area.

• FM 11 and 12 is representative of light to moderate slash loads often occurring from timber harvest.

The continuity and amount of slash can increase fire behavior.

Fire behavior is from fuels, weather, and topography. Fire behavior was modeled using BehavePlus4 with 

fuels and topography inputs that correspond to the project area and summer fire weather data representing 

the hot, dry fire weather similar to 2009 and 2012 fire seasons. 

Table 21. Existing Fire Behavior

Fuel Model Rate of Spread*

(chains/hr)

Flame Length**

(feet)

Crown fire w/ % 

mortality

Spotting Potential 

(miles)

FM5

(existing condition) 65 10 Active 99*** 0.6

FM10

(existing condition) 23 9 Active14 0.7

FM12

(post-harvest) 34 13 Surface 97 0.7

FM8

(post fuels treatment)**** 6 2 Surface 8 0.5

* Rate of Spread (ROS) is the rate at which the head of the fire is moving or spreading (NWCG)

** Flame length (FL) is the spoken language in fire management but flame height is the referenced measurement which is 

measuring ground to the top of the flame vertically. Flame length measures “the length of the flame at the head of the fire 

measured from the middle of the combustion zone to the average position of the flame tip. Flame length is determined by the 

rate of spread and the intensity (heat per unit area) of the fire” (Andrews and Rothermel 1972).

*** Crown fire activity is displayed as Active, which means that fire is present in both the surface fuels and canopy fuels.

**** Post fuels treatment examines the fire behavior as FM8 because units would have lower fuel loading, higher CBH, and varying 

 canopy density.

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)

The project area surrounds private lands along the McKenzie River, the communities of McKenzie Bridge 

and Rainbow, and several other groups of homes, resorts and structures. These areas are considered WUI

based on the interface of forests and communities and the potential fire behavior surrounding the 

structures and community (USDA 2001; Silvis Lab website). The WUI interface boundary extends 1.5 

miles around structures and communities (Silvis Lab website). McKenzie Bridge and surrounding 

communities are in Lane County and are a part of the Lane County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(CWPP) (http://www.co.lane.or.us/Planning/CWPPtoc.html). 

The CWPP enables homeowners to reduce hazardous fuels within their property for wildfire protection of 

their homes. On private land the fuels reduction is supported through Oregon Department of Forestry 

(ODF). Within the project area there are also privately owned homes on leased Forest Service land and 

the evaluations conducted reveal these homes do not have defensible space as specified in the CWPP, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 79

Living with Fire (http://pnwfireprevention.com/prevention/living/) or Firewise (www.firewise.org) 

documents. Private homes have not been individually evaluated for this project but the boundaries 

between private and public land have been and defensible space or thinned forest structure to reduce

wildfire impacts and risks to the residents in the project area.

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 would not support reducing hazardous fuel loading within and around WUI areas. Through 

time, fuel loading would continue to increase and vegetation would continue through successional 

pathways. Surface fuel loading and canopy closure would continually increase thus escalating the 

potential for high severity wildfire across this landscape. Areas near private residences would not have 

any reduction in fuels to aid in reducing wildfire intensity and mitigating hazards for firefighters. FRCC 

would not be moved towards FRCC1, further reducing the natural forest resiliency to disturbance across 

this landscape. Alternative 1 would not meet the desired future conditions, reduce firefighting risks, or be 

cost effective due to suppression of high severity fires.

Alternative 2 

Post-harvest Fuels Treatments

Harvesting increases fuel loading within stands leading to increased potential wildfire behavior in the 

short term (approximately 5 or more years). Following a harvest, greater hazardous fuels condition exists 

for 1-5 years due to red needle slash and higher fine dead fuel loads. This slash has high ignition and 

spread potential. Potential fire behavior would be reduced or altered with fuels treatments occurring 1-2 

years post-harvest. Across the landscape the lack of variability in the horizontal and vertical fuel profile 

also increases the spread potential and intensity of wildfire. The proposed harvest and fuels treatments in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would change the fire and fuels environment by:

• Creating safer and more cost effective protection of life, structures, and resources through reducing 

the risk of potential high severity fires.

• Creating variability in the horizontal and vertical profile and reduce activity created fuels to within or 

below Forest Plan Standard and Guideline FW-212 and 252 values of 7-11 tons/acre; 

• Increasing fire tolerant conifers and reducing shade tolerant conifers through thinning and;

• Creating a mosaic and distribution of seral stages present in a mixed severity fire regime taking steps 

towards historic fire disturbance processes.

The proposed timber harvests would create varying amounts of timber slash in each unit. The increased 

fine fuel loading may reduce the success of initial attack suppression due to the fast rate of spread and 

larger flame lengths. Post-harvest fuels (slash) treatments would reduce the amount of fuel created from 

harvests to within or below maximum Forest Plan standards and guidelines for fuel loading of 7-11 

tons/acre for 0-3” diameter fuel. Fuels treatments are proposed to be within 1-2 years post-harvest. The 

reduction in fuel loading would reduce the potential wildfire behavior and move many of the stands from 

FM 10, 11, or 12 to FM 8.

Table 21 displays the changes in fire behavior within the units of treatment for existing, post-harvest, and 

post fuels treatment conditions. Hot and dry temperatures were used for the model runs. Fire behavior that 

exceeds four foot flame lengths requires engines, machinery or aerial support to reduce the risks to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80- Goose Project Final EIS

firefighters with hand tools. In all the units where post fuels treatments take place Forest Plan Standards

and Guidelines FW-212 and 252 would be met. The changes and reduction of fire behavior seen in FM10 

(existing condition) to FM8 (post-harvest and fuels treatments) and also FM12 (post-harvest with no fuels 

treatments) to FM8 helps to support the need to reduce fuels post-harvest and also to reduce ladder fuels 

and vegetation continuity (FM10 characteristics) in hazardous fuels treatments. 

Post-Harvest Underburning

Fire is a dynamic process that is influenced by multiple environmental factors such as wind, topography, 

temperature, humidity, available fuel and fuel moistures. Due to these influential factors that create and 

alter fire behavior, a chance exists to exceed objective parameters such as tree mortality or duff retention.

Therefore, design features have been included to ensure underburns would take place during the spring or 

fall when the results from the burn would not exceed soil and duff and large woody debris objectives.

These conditions help to retain sustainable levels of duff, soil coverage, and large woody debris often 

used by wildlife. Additionally, potential mortality of residual overstory trees may be reduced due to high 

live fuel moistures or slower burning techniques. The mortality of overstory trees for the post-harvest 

underburns should be kept to a minimum with an acceptable range of mortality from 0-10 percent. This 

range has been the approximate mortality range used over the past 10 years to maintain canopy cover for 

wildlife habitat and maintain stand stocking for future use.

Natural Fuels Underburn (only in Alternative 2)

Natural underburning is the proposed treatment in units 800, 810, and 820 (60 acres total including skips) 

in Alternative 2. There is no natural fuels underburn proposed in Alternative 3. This treatment would 

reduce surface fuel loading, raise canopy base height by reducing ladder fuels, and create variability in 

canopy density. The trees in these stands are older (120+ years) with large Douglas-fir (24+ in DBH) in 

the overstory. These larger older trees have thicker bark that would be able to withstand the heat 

associated with an underburn. Mortality would primarily be in the intermediate and understory trees; 

however some overstory tree mortality could occur as a result of individual or group tree torching.

Anticipated mortality for these stand would be: 0-10 percent for trees greater than 17” diameter at breast 

height (dbh); 10-20 percent in trees 13-16” dbh; 20-40 percent in trees 7-12” dbh; and 50-100 percent in 

trees less than 7” dbh Fuel models of these stands should change from a FM10 to FM8 resulting in 

decreased fire behavior in the event of a wildfire. Burned or killed trees would not be salvaged. 

All Underburns

Each prescribed burn would have an individual operation plan with specific prescription parameters that 

would be reviewed and signed by a silviculturalist and the line officer. In the event that fire behavior 

exceeds predicted parameters, burning operations would be immediately evaluated and adjusted to alter 

fire behavior. Underburns may require fire line to be dug to mineral soil around the perimeter of the burn 

unit to keep fire within unit boundaries. Fire line in Unit #740 that is visible from the Frissell trail should 

be re-habilitated following the burn.

All prescribed fire treatments would assist with creating variability across the landscape and underburns, 

specifically, would help to return fire as a disturbance process to individual stands. Prescribed fire occurs 

at a fine scale (stand) and not at a landscape level (project) which wildfires would naturally spread or 

create patches of different severity and intensity. Larger wildfires and prescribed fires would need to take 

place over time in order to create the full range of seral stage distribution across the landscape that is 

modeled under a FRCC1. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 81

Hand or Machine Piling and Burning

Piling and burning would be on 624 acres for Alternative 2. Slash concentrations within harvest units or 

along roads would be piled and covered. Hand, grapple, and landing piles are covered with regulatory 

plastic following construction. This creates a drier pocket of fuel in the middle of the pile and enables 

them to be burned in the late fall or early winter when there is very low risk of the piles spreading into 

other fuels. Fuels would be reduced to within or below maximum Forest Plan standard and guideline

levels if piling is conducted throughout the entire unit. Hand piling can be done through the entire unit 

however piling would be along unit boundaries or roads if entire unit is not piled. Piling along roads 

would help to reinforce roads as fire breaks.

Hazardous Fuels Treatments

Fuels treatments on Units 830, 840, 970, 980 and 981 (total of 180 acres) have already been implemented 

and completed following the final decision for Goose EA 2010. Non-commercial thinning would occur on 

approximately 325 acres located adjacent to private property, along Highway 126 and next to Limberlost 

Campground. Potential wildfire behavior would be reduced or altered by these treatments due to a 

decrease in surface fuel loading, reduction of ladder fuels, and variability in vegetation continuity 

following treatments. These changes enhance defensible space around private land and along the highway 

where human caused fire can result in wildfires. Following treatments, the resulting fuel profile would 

decrease the potential for ground fire to carry into tree canopies causing tree torching and producing 

embers that can land on roofs, one of the main ignition sources in the WUI.

The hazardous fuels treatments would create more defensible WUI and ultimately be a collaborative 

effort of public and private land owners. A reduction or change of vegetation next to homes (defensible 

space) or in vegetated pathways that lead to developments or structures (WUI) is important to aid State 

and Federal firefighters in suppression activities. The locations of Goose treatments coincide with the 

interface and would aid in the progress of WUI treatments in the community. Table 22 displays a 

comparison of fuels treatments by alternative. Alternative 2, and to a lesser extent Alternative 3, would 

offer the most change in hazardous fuels. 

Table 22. Comparison of Fuels Treatments by Alternative

Treatment Unit of Measure Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Post-Harvest Fuels Treatments (1)

Hand Piling Acres 0 199 43

Mechanical Treatments (2) Acres 0 425 266

Post-Harvest Underburn (3) Acres 0 477 178

WUI Treatments

Natural Fuels Underburn

(not including skips) Acres 0 33 0

Hazardous Fuels Treatment

(not including skips) Acres 0 325 325

Total Fuels Treatment Acres 0 1459 812

(1): Post-harvest fuels treatments methods may change depending on feasibility and funding. (2): Mechanical treatment may include: grapple piling in slash concentrations, 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82- Goose Project Final EIS

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would treat 647 acres less than Alternative 2 due to the reduction in harvest units and no 

natural fuels underburning. Acres treated are identified in Table 22. All fuels treatments described in 

Alternative 2 would apply to Alternative 3 except for the natural fuels underburns. The effects from the 

fuels treatments post-harvest or for hazardous fuels reduction would also be the same except for fewer 

acres. 

Changes to the larger project level scale for FRCC is not possible given current forest resource 

management, fire suppression and fire not able to play its natural role. However, within the individual 

units, fire would support ecological processes associated with fire. 

Alternative 2 and 3

McKenzie River Special Interest Area

Two hundred fifty-one acres of WUI treatments are proposed within the McKenzie River Special Interest 

Area (SIA). All WUI treatments would be consistent with SIA management goals to preserve exceptional 

scenic, cultural, biological, geological or other unusual characteristics. WUI treatments consist of thinning 

underbrush and ladder fuels (branches and smaller trees) and are consistent with Forest Plan direction 

(MA-5a-09) to suppress wildfires at the lowest acreage practicable in SIA’s. WUI treatments would be 

consistent with the management objective to reduce the severity of wildfires and accomplish enhancement 

program goals to actively manage stands to reduce the potential for undesirable stand replacing fires 

(McKenzie River Special Interest Area Implementation Guide).

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Effects to fire and fuels from actions proposed in the Goose project (Alternative 2 and 3) overlap in time 

and space with effects from the following past actions:

• 13 Thin: Grapple , hand piling, and burning on approximately 44 acres; completed 2014

• Eagle Hazardous Fuels Reductions: piling and burning on approximately 5 acres; completed 2014

• Goose Hazardous Fuels Reductions: hazardous fuels reduction on approximately 180 acres; 

completed 2014

• Highway 126/242 Corridor Hazardous Fuels Reduction: hazardous fuels reduction on 

approximately 131 acres; completed 2012-2014.

Fuels treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would occur on approximately 1,459 acres and 812 acres 

under Alternative 3. These treatments, combined with the treated acres from the past actions listed above, 

would result in fuels reduction on 1,819 acres under Alternative 2 and 1,172 under Alternative 3. The 

combined treatments of the proposed project and the actions listed above would be beneficial in that more 

hazardous fuels would be reduced, thereby decreasing potential impacts and risks to people, structures 

and resources in the event of a wildfire. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 83

3.3 Soils

3.3.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

No adverse effects to soil resources are expected to occur with use of design features and proper project 

implementation.

3.3.2 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, unless otherwise noted. 

Evaluating impacts and their potential significance between or among alternatives requires a discussion of 

the duration and intensity of those impacts. Often various words are utilized to describe those conditions. 

The following definitions apply to impacts in this section.

Duration 

Short-term: The effects last for a few weeks to one or two years;

Intermediate: The effects last from one or two years to about a decade:

Long-term: The effects last from about 10 years to several score years or longer.

Intensity

Low, negligible, little or no, minimal, minor: The impacts are essentially zero, at the lowest levels of 

detection, or very slight but still noticeable.

Moderate, reasonable: The impacts are readily apparent, but meet standards and guides.

Excessive, substantive, major, critical: The impact is moderately severe and likely approaches the upper 

limits of standards and guides. 

Significant, unacceptable: The impacts are severe, and likely exceed standards and guides or do not 

meet Best Management Practices.

3.3.3 Affected Environment

This project area is located within the Headwaters McKenzie River and Quartz Creek – McKenzie River 

5th field watersheds and lies completely within the Western Cascades physiographic region. More 

specifically, the basic rock strata in this area are basaltic andesite and andesite lava flows and flow 

breccias that represent younger events of the Western Cascade volcanic sequence (Walker and Duncan, 

1989). These volcanic units are mapped by Walker and Duncan (1989) as “Tfc” and include strata of 

Miocene age or about 17 to perhaps 10 million years old. In some parts of the study area, these older 

Western Cascade formations are overlain by ridge capping basalt and basaltic andesite of Pliocene or 

Miocene age (Walker and Duncan, 1989). These volcanic rocks are mapped by Walker and Duncan

(1989) as “Tb” and range from 10 to 4 million years old. 

In the last several million years, these rock formations have been extensively modified by stream erosion 

and mountain glaciation, especially with Pleistocene to Holocene glacial activity. Glacially derived soils 

are common in many units within this project. Ice cap glaciers probably covered the High Cascade 

platform many times during the Pleistocene, sometimes with sheets of ice hundreds of feet thick. During 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84- Goose Project Final EIS

the early and most extensive glacial periods, valley glaciers surged away from the large ice mounds along 

the Cascade crest and traveled south and west down the McKenzie River drainage or north and northwest 

out the South Fork drainage, as they acted as outlets for excess ice accumulation for the large ice 

platforms along the Cascade crest. 

The rocks and glacial deposits of these younger Tertiary volcanic strata and Pleistocene drift, moraine, 

and fluvioglacial material are generally quite stable in this project area. Because of extensive glacial 

scour, most volcanic rocks are usually not well weathered at this point. Residual soils are often relatively 

coarse grained, occasionally rocky, and usually contain few clays. Soils developed from glacial deposits, 

even on the steeper side slopes, are usually quite stable. Consequently, because of the gentle side slopes in 

the valley bottoms, the lack of very fine soil particles in most areas, especially the glacial and outwash 

soils, and the fact that glacial scour removed deeper pockets of fine-grained soils on much of the steep 

terrain, most soils 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. As well, the glacial and 

alluvial soils in the valley bottoms are very well drained, and permeability is rapid to very rapid in both 

the surface soil and subsurface soil layers. 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

percent on the gentler slopes to 40 to 80 percent 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 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 may have been 

under burnt instead of stand replacement. Consequently, natural accumulations of down woody debris 

may not have been prevalent in many parts of this project area. These conditions would vary across the 

landscape, depending on aspect, elevation, and slope position.

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The major short-term effects to soil productivity from harvest activity, as discussed in the Willamette 

National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 1990), include management indicators of 

displacement, compaction, nutrient loss, and instability (Table 23). The total area of cumulative 

detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 20 percent of the total acreage within the activity area, 

including roads and landings.

Table 23. Management Indicators for Assessing Effects to Soils

Issue Management Indicator Justification

Displacement

50 percent of topsoil or humus enriched soil horizons are 

removed from an area of 100 square feet that is at least 5 feet 

in width

FW-081 

Compaction

Increase in soil bulk density by at least 15 percent and/or a 

reduction in macropore space of 50 percent over the 

undisturbed soil

FW-081

Nutrient Loss Insufficient duff retention or large woody material to ensure 

adequate nutrient cycling FW-085
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 85

Issue Management Indicator Justification

Instability Increase in size, intensity or number of slope failures FW-086 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Stands would continue to develop. Many of the stands proposed for treatment currently have little 

understory vegetation because of the lack of sunlight to the forest floor. Intermediate and suppressed trees 

would slowly be removed from the stand through mortality and decay. In areas already compacted or 

disturbed by the initial entries, the soil building process would continue to return the soil to near preharvest conditions in the longer term. Short-term to intermediate term impacts from harvest, such as soil 

disturbance, dust (or mud), slash accumulation and disposal, and longer term impacts such as compaction 

and nutrient loss would not occur. Slope instability is not a geologic process that is generally active in this 

project area. Consequently, no effects to slope instability are anticipated whether the units are managed or 

not.

Alternative 2 and 3

Effects between both action alternatives would be the same except for acreage harvested. The major 

short-term impacts to soil productivity from harvest activity include displacement, compaction, nutrient 

loss, and instability. Forest-wide (FW) Standards and Guidelines (FW–081), state that the total area of 

cumulative detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 20 percent 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 reducing cumulative effects and ensuring long-term soil productivity. All 

prescriptions or design features discussed are designed to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the 

National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands 

(USDA, 2012).

Anticipated direct effects to the soils resource would be within Willamette National Forest Standards and 

Guidelines. Recommended suspension requirements would control the potential for unacceptable 

displacement. Most areas with side slopes less than 30 percent have been prescribed for ground based 

yarding systems. Compaction would be controlled by designated skid or forwarder roads, the use of 

existing roads as much as possible, and subsoiling. Skyline yarding with one end suspension has been 

prescribed for units or portions of units with side slopes greater that 30 percent to avoid excessive 

disturbance from heavy equipment. Potential nutrient loss would be controlled by duff retention 

standards. Slope stability would be maintained by deleting those areas or units where harvest could result 

in unstable soil conditions. For the most part, slope instability is not considered a concern in this project 

area. Potential cumulative effects from displacement, nutrient loss, and instability with previous 

management were not observed in the field reconnaissance, or those units were deleted from the project.

The primary previous impact to the soil resource from management is compaction, the effects of which 

can remain apparent for decades. The field investigation indicated that Unit 410 exceeded the Willamette 

National Forest FW-081 Standard of 20 percent of an activity area impacted by compaction. In addition, 

Unit 100 closely approached the standard. The remaining units were sufficiently within the standard. 

As mitigation in Units 100 and 410, all landings, temporary haul or primary skid roads utilized by the 

purchaser/logger would be subsoiled to a depth of 18 to 24 inches at the completion of logging activities. 

Additional enhancement subsoiling is required for heavily compacted areas not utilized by the Purchaser 

in these units. Subsoiling of landings and temporary roads or primary skid roads is required in all ground 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86- Goose Project Final EIS

based units to ensure that cumulative levels remain well below the 20 percent standard outlined in the 

Forest Plan. Some post-sale enhancement subsoiling is recommended for areas not utilized by the 

Purchaser in units that are approaching the 20 percent compaction standard. Monitoring of post-harvest 

subsoiling on similar projects with similar activities, indicates overall compaction is reduced by 4 to 10 

percent from initial levels. The recommended subsoiling method is by “munching” (lifting and breaking 

up compacted soil layers with an excavator) in order to reduce potential impacts from root pruning, to 

avoid concentrations of slash or down woody debris, and to reduce disruption from boulders or stumps. 

One of the goals with entry into all the units is to provide the opportunity to subsoil the existing skid 

roads as much as is practical in order to reduce compaction to lower levels. The objective is to remain 

below the 20 percent cumulative level, maintain long term soil productivity, and provide a level of erosion 

control that is consistent with Forest plan and State guidelines. With entry into any ground-based unit, 

evident skid or haul roads would be utilized before any new skid road is approved. All ground based 

yarding would require that either C6.41 and/or C6.42 (predesignated and preapproved / LTSR) contract 

clause(s) on ground based portions be strictly adhered to, and/or line pulling and directional falling would

be implemented, as appropriate.

Skyline operations in thinning units with small wood and intermediate supports usually impacts less than 

1 percent of the unit area. Skyline yarding with one end suspension is proposed for parts or all of many 

units. Most of these units had low existing compaction levels at generally less than 5 percent, at least in 

the areas of steeper side slopes. Skyline landings are primarily planned at old existing landings, road 

turnouts, and road junctions. Little new spur road would be required. Consequently, cumulative effects 

from existing compaction and skyline yarding are not anticipated for any individual unit.

Potential nutrient loss is primarily controlled by duff retention standards. Duff retention is the amount of 

duff thickness remaining after management activities are completed. Duff retention objectives would be 

specified for each unit to maintain nutrient cycling. Duff retention values range on the low end from 10-

30 percent to as much as 60 to 80 percent on sensitive slopes. 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 unmanaged stands, which maintain an intact live root mat and live canopy cover 

over most of the unit, could be lower and still achieve adequate soil protection. 

For all action alternatives, within the managed plantations, slash would be scattered in the units, piled and 

burned, or perhaps broadcast or under burned. Piling may occur by hand or with a grapple machine. 

Grapple piling occurs with a grapple not with a dozer brush rake. Grapple piling requires only one pass of 

the machine across the landscape, and the machine works while sitting on slash. Extensive monitoring of 

grapple machine piling operations indicates that little or no additional compaction or displacement occurs, 

when properly implemented. In many cases only a few acres of any particular unit are hand piled or 

machine piled. 

Burning the piled slash may develop sufficient heat to affect the underlying soil. However, the hotter 

portions of pile burning involve only a very small part of the acreage in any unit, usually less than 1 

percent of the area. Also 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 and not cumulative because of the limited overall acreage involved. 

Another aspect of long term nutrient availability and ectomycorrhizal formation is the amount of larger 

woody material retained on site. 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). At this time, site specific needs would be considered commensurate with wildlife 

objectives as outlined in FW-212a and FW-213a (as amended). Concentrations of larger down logs that 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 87

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 

are not anticipated. 

This portion of the Upper McKenzie drainage on the McKenzie River Ranger District primarily contains 

stable, productive soils. Active slope instability from either debris chutes or slump / earth flow complexes 

does not usually occur. Two small proposed units are to be deleted from project consideration because of 

numerous existing debris chute concerns, and the northern boundary of Unit 250 would need to be moved 

down the hill to avoid potentially highly unstable soil areas. Soils / Geology personnel should assist in the 

layout of this unit. The recent intense rainstorms from 1996 to 2000 generated one in-unit, instability 

within this project area. This failure, found in Unit 10, is a result of excessive saturation from road 

drainage and not a function of inherent slope instability of the soils in the unit. Given the sideboards in 

the discussion above, potential slope instability with proposed management is not considered a concern in 

any other unit.

Cumulative Effects

The primary previous impact to the soil resource from management is compaction, the effects of which 

can remain apparent for decades. Potential cumulative effects from displacement, nutrient loss, and 

instability with previous management were not observed in the field reconnaissance, or those units were 

dropped. Existing compaction levels have been documented and discussed for the various units. The 

impacts are evaluated on a unit-by-unit basis, and are generally the same in any given unit for all action 

alternatives, unless otherwise noted. The 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. It is possible that some ground based units may approach or exceed the 20 percent

standard at the completion of yarding, grapple piling, and pile burning. Specifically, Units 100 and 410 

have subsoiling as a mitigation to insure compaction is reduced to more acceptable levels. In addition for 

most ground based units, some Purchaser subsoiling is recommended as enhancement to lower 

compaction amounts further. The objective is to remain below the 20 percent cumulative level, maintain 

long-term soil productivity, and provide a level of erosion control that is consistent with State guidelines. 

Prescriptions for soil protection and watershed considerations take into account past and predicted future 

land management activities. No single unit measure of long-term soil productivity is widely used.

Information on the survival and growth of planted seedlings may indicate short-term changes in site 

productivity. However, the relationship of short-term changes to long-term productivity is not fully 

understood. Experience indicates that the potential impacts on soils are best evaluated on a site-specific, 

project-by-project basis. The major soils concerns—compaction, nutrient loss, displacement and 

instability—are most effectively reviewed for short- and long-term effects at the project level. With 

proper project implementation, unacceptable cumulative effects on soils are not anticipated from the 

action alternatives.

3.4 Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

3.4.1 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, private 

development, and recreation throughout much of the project area. 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 fish and wildlife habitat and productivity are in a somewhat impaired condition, 

primarily due to the presence of dams, the increasing development along river corridors, the removal of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88- Goose Project Final EIS

large woody material from the streams and floodplains, and lack of vegetation diversity. These conditions 

need to improve in order to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) Objectives (Appendix E) 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 – would slowly develop over time 

(several decades) and depend solely on natural thinning events (stem exclusion mortality and 

disturbance). Active restoration of riparian stands that currently do not meet (ACS) Objectives would not 

occur. 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. Alternative 1 would 

result in little or no change to impaired habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic species. 

Alternative 2 would commercially thin 138 acres of Riparian Reserves to reduce the density of

overstocked riparian stands, increase species diversity and structural complexity, and accelerate tree 

growth to more quickly attain ACS Objectives. This alternative would largely protect future in-stream 

wood sources, due to no-treatment buffers, but may reduce short-term (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 3 would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with minor differences. Fewer units would be 

harvested and therefore only 57 acres of Riparian Reserves would be treated and fewer roads would be 

upgraded. Due to project design features, protection measures, and enhancement treatments, Alternative 3

would result in beneficial changes to habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic species , but not as 

much as Alternative 2.

Alternative 2, with potentially the largest impact, was evaluated for effects on ESA- listed fish, bull trout 

and spring Chinook salmon, and their designated Critical Habitat. Potential project effects on population, 

habitat and non-habitat indicators were evaluated. Although some project activities may have minor 

adverse effects at the site scale, the effects to their habitat are considered to be either insignificant or 

discountable. The effects determination is described as May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Upper 

Willamette River spring Chinook salmon and Columbia River bull trout and their designated Critical 

Habitat.

3.4.2 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 

Florence Creek-McKenzie River and Lost Creek 6th Field Sub-watersheds within the Headwaters 

McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed, and a small portion of the Elk Creek-McKenzie River 6th Field Subwatershed within the Quartz Creek-McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed (Figure 16).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 89

3.4.3 Assessment Methodology

Data on current and historic watershed condition was gathered from the Upper McKenzie Watershed 

Analysis (1995) and through GIS analysis of a USFS vegetation database (FSVeg) and high resolution 

satellite imagery (WorldView2).

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 other waterbodies that 

may not be mapped on the GIS layer. When waterbodies were found, they were mapped with GPS 

devices all the way through the unit and down to their terminus with another waterbody. Notes on each 

waterbody commonly include, but are not limited to: stream class and presence of fish, stream width, 

dominant substrate, stream gradient, surface connection (or lack of) to another waterbody, size and 

abundance of functioning large woody material (LWM) in channel (i.e. forming pools, retaining 

sediment), and characteristics of adjacent riparian stand (e.g. diameter of trees, amount and diversity of 

understory vegetation, amount of hardwood species). 

Based on stream and riparian characteristics, a recommendation was made for no-treatment buffers and 

other potential treatments (e.g. down wood creation) for each waterbody. After surveys were conducted 

individually, fisheries, hydrology, wildlife, and botany specialists met as a team to discuss findings and 

come up with an integrated Riparian Reserve management plan for each unit.

3.4.4 Affected Environment – Riparian Conditions

The portion of the project area within the Florence Creek-McKenzie River and Elk Creek-McKenzie 

River Sub-watersheds is located in the Western Cascades Geological Province and marks the lower extent 

of Pleistocene glaciations in the McKenzie River Sub-basin. The porous glacial deposits are hundreds of 

feet deep providing a low gradient barrier between the McKenzie River and the steep slopes above and 

thus infrequently allow tributary channels to make surface water connection to the McKenzie River. 

Much of the Lost Creek Sub-watershed drains gently sloping terrain of the High Cascades and has a large 

water storage capacity contributing to a stable, even flow regime. In general, the streams within the 

project area drain into the McKenzie River where public drinking water is one of the beneficial uses.

Most of the streams throughout the project area are moderate to high gradient (> 2 percent) first to fourth 

order streams. Boulders and large wood are key components found in these types of step/pool channels.

Primary streams within the Florence Creek-McKenzie River and Lost Creek Sub-watersheds include the 

McKenzie River and Lost Creek as well as small tributaries – Florence Creek, Goose Creek, Powers 

Creek, Glen Creek, White Branch, and various unnamed streams. Figure 16 shows the location of streams 

within the project area and sub-watersheds. The 1964 and 1996 floods had complex effects on stream 

channels and riparian areas. Evidence of channel aggradation, bank failures, diverted channels, and 

altered riparian areas can be seen throughout the project area. In recent years, the channel conditions have 

been relatively stable.

The project area has been shaped by fires as well as timber harvest within the last 100 years. Fire records 

show that there have been four fires within the planning area, two Sims Ranch Fires, North McKenzie 

Fire, and South McKenzie Fire. All produced stand replacing fires with very few residual trees left within 

the stands. With no records to suggest otherwise, the stand replacing fires are believed to have been 

regenerated naturally with predominantly Douglas-fir. Many of these fire regenerated stands do not show 

signs of active management since the stands regenerated, however many of the stands do have residual 

stumps where either salvage logging or selective harvest has taken place over the last century. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 16. Waterbodies, 6th Field HUC Sub-watersheds, and ESA-Threatened Bull Trout and Spring Chinook 

Salmon Critical Habitat 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 that occurred prior to implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan resulted in removal of riparian vegetation that provided large wood and shade to 

the small tributary streams in the project area. 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). Stand densities in the project area range from 79 to 362, with an 

average of 189. Additionally, Pollock et al. (2005) found that “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 may be 

limiting nutrient cycling, deciduous organic matter input to waterbodies, and habitat for ripariandependent wildlife. 

The Riparian Reserve along the McKenzie River includes sections of paved roads, aggregate roads, and 

consists mostly of private land and residences. There are pockets of mature forest, but most of the land 

has been impacted by management and recreation. The Lost Creek Riparian Reserve consists of mostly 

forest land with some private land and recreational impacts. Private land, residences and roads along the 

McKenzie River corridor through the project area have impacted large wood recruitment. Heavy boater 

recreation along the McKenzie River has led to the removal of wood that presents safety hazards. A study 

conducted by Minear (1994), found that there has been a reduction in pool forming elements (i.e. large 

wood) in the McKenzie River and noted a 19 percent decrease over the study area since 1938. Recent 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 91

wood counts in the McKenzie River average about 10 pieces per mile; this is considered very low 

abundance. A stream survey conducted on Lost Creek in 2003, counted 25 pieces of large woody material 

per mile. Smaller pieces were more abundant. This may be due to a large fire in the past century that 

burned stream adjacent conifers along most of the length of Lost Creek. Little is known of wood counts in

the streams within project area units since few are fish-bearing 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.

Fire has been suppressed in the Upper McKenzie watershed for over 100 years and there is evidence of a 

lack of early-seral vegetation. Within Riparian Reserves, there is currently <2 percent early-seral 

vegetation (<20 years old) and the natural range of variability is 3-30 percent. A large component of earlyseral vegetation is deciduous and herbaceous, particularly within riparian areas (Gregory et al. 1991). In 

the western hemlock plant series, which makes up most of the project area, redstem ceanothus and 

snowbrush – both deciduous shrubs – tend to dominate early-seral stands, along with beargrass, fireweed, 

big leaf huckleberry, and bracken fern (Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis 1995). In addition, there are 

three dams – Carmen, Smith, and Trail Bridge – in the Upper McKenzie watershed that have greatly 

diminished flooding in the McKenzie and Smith Rivers. The elimination of this disturbance has also 

contributed to a decline in early-seral vegetation within Riparian Reserves (Minear 1994).

Within the project area, late-seral vegetation is currently at the lower end of the natural range of 

variability (Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis 1995). In late-seral stands, shrubs and herbs are reinitiated as conifers die and create gaps in the canopy. Late-seral understory species include twinflower, 

vanilla leaf, dwarf Oregon grape, and big leaf huckleberry. In the Douglas-fir plant series, understory 

vegetation is often comprised of golden chinquapin, oceanspray, salal, dwarf Oregon grape, whipple vine, 

and grasses. A recent 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 west 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 percent cover values of 15-64

percent. Additionally, valley cross-sections (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. 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, and 

soil fertility (Compton et al. 2003); and wildlife benefits. Figure 17 illustrates desired conditions for lateseral Riparian Reserves. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 17. Desired Conditions for Late-seral Riparian Reserves

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. This is further supported by analysis of existing vegetation using high resolution satellite 

imagery. WorldView 2 imagery has eight multispectral bands including the Red-Edge band, which 

improves the accuracy of remotely sensed plant studies. The analysis is based on the fact that chlorophyll 

in living plant material strongly absorbs visible light and strongly reflects near-infrared light. Because 

deciduous vegetation has higher chlorophyll production than conifers, the imagery helps distinguish 

between coniferous and deciduous vegetation. A commercial computer software program called 

eCognition is then used to generate polygon boundaries around the different vegetation types

distinguished in the WorldView 2 imagery. The polygons were then classified into eight different classes: 

conifer dominant, deciduous tree (>2 meters tall) dominant, deciduous shrub (<2 meters tall) dominant, 

mixed conifer and deciduous, large wildfires since 2011, water, snow or glacier, and other (non-forest, 

bare ground, grass, etc.). Based on results of this analysis, approximately 86 percent of Riparian Reserves

in the Upper McKenzie watershed are conifer dominant and only 1 percent are deciduous dominant (trees 

and shrubs).

Approximately 2 percent are mixed conifer and deciduous, 3 percent are within a recently burned area, 

and 8 percent are non-forest. Figure 18 shows the classified vegetation for the entire Upper McKenzie 

Watershed. Within the project area, approximately 77 percent of Riparian Reserves are conifer dominant; 

3 percent are deciduous dominant (trees and shrubs). Approximately 15 percent are mixed conifer and 

deciduous, which occur primarily in late-seral stands along the McKenzie River. Figure 19 shows the 

classified vegetation for Riparian Reserves within the project area. The results of this landscape-scale 

analysis reveal a very low abundance of deciduous species and are corroborated by surveys at the stand 

scale, where dense conifers dominate Riparian Reserves and there is often a lack of understory 

development and species diversity. Figure 20 illustrates typical overstocked stands in the project area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 93

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 21 illustrates properly functioning conditions within 

Riparian Reserves in the project area.

Figure 18. Vegetation Classification of the Upper McKenzie Watershed*
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 19. Vegetation Classification within Riparian Reserves of the Project Area*

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 will 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. Most animals require food with a carbon:nitrogen (C:N) ratio less 

than 17:1. 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 quality end of the 

spectrum are woody debris and conifer needles and at the high quality end are periphyton, macrophytes, 

and fast-decaying deciduous leaves. Table 24 shows the nutritional quality of various types of organic 

matter in increasing order.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 95

Figure 20. Overstocked, Conifer-Dominant Stand in Riparian Reserves in the Project Area 

Figure 21. Properly Functioning Riparian Reserves in the Project Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 24. Nutritional Quality of Various Types of Organic Matter (based on Murphy and Meehan 1991)

Type of organic matter C:N ratio Lignin (%)

Woody debris (Douglas-fir)

Wood 1,343:1 48

Bark 324:1 10

Twigs 235:1 34

Needles 97:1 14

Leaves

Vine maple 77:1 8

Big-leaf maple 62:1 17

Red alder 23:1 10

Aquatic macrophytes 8:1

Periphyton 1-11:1

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.

Though the trend is slow, the overall aquatic habitat is improving in the project area as the riparian 

vegetation recovers towards more natural conditions.

3.4.5 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 large enough wood to remain stable in channels. 

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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 97

(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. 

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). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

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, maintaining and/or 

restoring 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 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.

The body of literature on wood recruitment zones is considerable. Wood recruitment zones 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), 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 22 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. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 22. Source Distance Curves for Study Area (Brenda and Bigelow 2014)

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 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.

Based on these findings, in 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, 

a primary wood recruitment zone of 30 feet from each side of the stream channel was defined. It is 

believed that in stands of this density and size, a 30-foot no-harvest buffer on small, intermittent (Class 4) 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 99

streams would protect at least 90 percent of trees that could potentially be recruited to the stream channel

and would be sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. Because all perennial waterbodies 

(Class 1, 2, and 3) have 60-foot shade protection buffers, the primary wood recruitment zones would also 

be protected. In stands with average tree heights greater than 95 feet, wood recruitment zones of at least 

60 feet were defined. In many cases where vegetation objectives were already being met, no silvicultural 

treatments were proposed within Riparian Reserves (see Table 11 and Table 12). Figure 23 and Figure 24

show where treatments are proposed within Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 23. Treatment within Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2 (west) 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 101

Figure 24. Treatment within Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2 (east)
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102- Goose Project Final EIS

Numerous studies have been conducted that address both the specific roles of down wood in ecosystem as 

well as its ecological function for wildlife and aquatic species. However, it is less easy to quantify the 

exact levels of down wood expected to have occur assuming there were no human impact to the forest 

since these are subject to many variants. Only 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 LWM 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. A summary can be found in Tables 11, 12, 14, and 15. 

Protecting at least 90 percent of potential wood inputs would maintain ACS Objectives related to instream wood while allowing for treatments to improve vegetation and accelerate the growth of future instream wood. For the portions of Riparian Reserves where thinning is proposed, the primary and 

secondary shade zones on all perennial streams (Class 1, 2, and 3) and wetlands as well as the primary 

wood recruitment zones would be maintained in a state that provides adequate protection. On most 

intermittent streams (Class 4) and wetlands, the wood recruitment zones would be protected, and where 

treatment is recommended inside those zones, dead and down wood objectives would be met through 

special treatments. Across the project area, current levels of down wood are within estimated historical 

ranges (see Wildlife Section for more information). However within specific treatment units where 

current estimates are well below historic ranges, down wood creation is proposed so that habitat needs are 

met at a site specific as well as a landscape level.

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 both action alternatives

most stands where thinning would occur within Riparian Reserves are under 80 years old. Thinning

within Riparian Reserves of stands over 80 would occur in only three units in Alternative 2 (Units 130, 

210, 380; all under 100 years old; approximately nine acres total) and only one unit in Alternative 3 (Unit 

210; 93 years old; approximately four acres total). These stands have structure and species composition 

very similar to younger (60-80 year old) plantations. Both units 130 and 380 are fire-regenerated stands 

but show signs of having been historically salvage logged with other human-caused impacts which likely 

influenced the current stand condition.

Riparian Reserve treatments in fire regenerated stands would occur only in Alternative 2 in the following 

units: 10, 120, 130, 260, 300, 320, 330, 340, 350, 380, 510, 530, 540, 550, 590, 600, 640, and 940. 

Similar to young managed stands in the project area, these fire regenerated stands are in the stem 

exclusion stage, where small amounts of understory development is apparent and there is very little 

species diversity. Average trees per acre in these stands is 193, higher than the average 172 trees per acre 

found in managed stands. The average Stand Density Index is 417, higher than 334 found in managed 

stands. Because these fire regenerated stands are more heavily stocked than managed stands and the

existing lack of complexity and diversity may be limiting nutrient cycling, deciduous organic matter input 

to waterbodies, and habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife, treatments were proposed. Treatment within 

Riparian Reserves of the other fire regenerated stands was deemed unnecessary to meet ACS Objectives.

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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 103

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-harvest 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.

Because Alternative 2 has more thinning in Riparian Reserves than Alternative 3, 138 and 57 acres 

respectively, the benefits in Alternative 2 would be greater. Table 25 shows acres proposed by treatment 

type for each alternative. 

In Alternative 2, portions of Riparian Reserves in Units 70, 320, 330 340 and 350 (all under 80 years old) 

would be thinned to increase vegetation diversity. In addition to thinning, dead wood creation of at least 2 

additional snags per acre and down wood creation of at least 8 trees per acre is proposed in order to 

increase the immediate dead and down wood component. In Alternative 3, only Unit 70 would have dead 

and down wood creation.

Natural fuels underburning was considered within Riparian Reserves of proposed Units 800, 810, 820; 

but these late-seral forests are currently functioning and meeting ACS Objectives. Therefore, no 

underburning within Riparian Reserves is recommended in these units. Since underburning would occur 

in the unit outside of Riparian Reserves, fire would be allowed to back into the no-treatment buffers to 

eliminate the need to dig a fireline and cause soil disturbance. Based on past experience, firefighters have 

been very successful at extinguishing fire near the no-treatment buffer using water instead.

Hazardous fuels treatment was also considered within Riparian Reserves of proposed units 870, 930, 940, 

950, 960, and 990. Conditions within the stream influence zone (0-172 feet) were already meeting ACS 

Objectives, so no treatment was recommended. In the outer portions of Riparian Reserves (172-344 feet) 

on Class 1 and 2 streams, non-commercial thinning of trees and shrubs <10" diameter was recommended 

to reduce hazardous fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface and risk of high severity fire.

There are approximately 4,280 acres of Riparian Reserves within the project area. Table 25 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 25. Riparian Reserve Management on Federally Managed Lands

Total Acres of Riparian 

Reserve within the 

Project Area

Activity

Proposed for Treatment (Acres)

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3

4,280

Thinning 0 138 57

Dead and Down Wood Creation 0 24 3

Fuels Treatment 0 264 85

No Treatment (within the units) 429 291 89

Wherever possible, temporary roads would be located on ridge tops or gentle slopes or would utilize 

previously disturbed locations not decommissioned with historic logging. Those segments located within 

the Riparian Reserves would be located well outside of the primary shade zone or cross perpendicular to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104- Goose Project Final EIS

the stream. Approximately 0.85 miles and 0.46 miles of temporary roads are proposed within the Riparian 

Reserves for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. This is approximately 2 – 4 acres of ground disturbance.

There are five proposed temporary road crossings which are needed to access portions of units. Impacts to 

large wood are expected to be similar to those of thinning treatments. All temporary road crossings would

be removed and all temporary roads in Riparian Reserves would be decommissioned after treatment 

activities are completed.

In summary, the adverse impacts of thinning on in-stream large wood and future recruitment would be 

very minor at the watershed, project, and reach scales because only 138 and 57 acres (3 percent and 1

percent of the project area) of Riparian Reserves would be thinned in Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, 

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 and wood recruitment. The beneficial impacts 

of thinning on riparian forest structure and diversity would be minor at the watershed scale due to the 

limited area of treatment (<1 percent), but would have measureable beneficial impacts at the project and 

unit scales. Benefits of thinning are well documented, would start occurring within 3-5 years, and would 

persist for decades. The proposed management of Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2 and 3 would not 

deter attainment of and would largely benefit ACS Objectives. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy

compliance document (Appendix E) explains how each Objective is maintained or improved.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

All recent and planned timber harvest and hazardous fuels reduction projects were and will be designed 

with similar protection measures, design features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects 

to water quality and aquatic resources. 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 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 Goose 

project would not measurably contribute to impaired riparian conditions.

Eugene Water and Electric Board’s transmission line corridor runs through the project area and crosses 

approximately 17 streams in the project area. This corridor is maintained in an early-seral condition, 

reducing shade and potential wood recruitment. The total area of adverse effect within Riparian Reserves

of the project area is approximately 10 acres (0.2 percent). This minor amount of affected area combined 

with the minor impacts expected from the Goose project would not measurably contribute to impaired 

riparian conditions.

Private timber lands are present 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.

3.4.6 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 105

Stream temperature data were collected at three locations in the project area during the summer months 

(June through September) for a minimum of 3 years beginning in 2008 and were compared to control 

streams. The control stream temperature data were collected for a minimum of two seasons with a 

maximum of nine seasons. Control streams were selected because they are relatively un-impacted and 

were thought to be hydrologically and geologically similar to streams in the project area. A summary of 

the data is provided in Table 26.

Table 26. Stream Temperatures in the Goose Project Area

Control Streams

Lowest 7-Day 

Average Daily 

MaxTemp. °C*

Highest 7-Day 

Average Daily Max 

Temp. °C*

Range of 

Values °C

Composite Average 

Value °C

Walker Creek 14.4 16.3 1.9 14.8

Cone Creek 16.6 19.5 2.9 17.3

Non-Control Streams

McKenzie River 

(below Trailbridge) 8.9 10.2 1.3 9.7

Florence 12.6 13.8 1.2 13.0

Glenn 18.7 21.5 2.8 19.7

Powers 13.4 13.7 0.3 13.6

* Maximum 7-day average

Existing condition for temperature in the project area varies widely – both between the control streams

and between control and non-control streams. Much of this variability is due to the geomorphology of the 

stream channels. Florence Creek and Powers Creek are lower than control streams by about 1.2-3.7 o C.

There are numerous factors that influence this temperature variability between streams. One of the main 

factors is attributable to the deeper glacial soils improving hyporheic exchange (cooling influence of 

groundwater) within the Florence and Powers Creek drainages. In contrast, Glenn Creek is on average 3o 

C warmer than the baseline control conditions. Due to the intermittent flow pattern of the stream (varying 

between Class 4 and Class 3 conditions), sensor deployment sites were limited and often more exposed to 

overhead sunlight during parts of the day. 

Changes in the range of maximum temperatures from one water year to the next are attributable to interannual differences in precipitation and stream flows. The annual timing of the maximum temperature 

occurred between July and August in all instances. This suggests that any past management impacted only 

the increased value for maximum temperature and has not affected inter-annual variability or annual 

timing of peak temperatures.

Under section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters.

Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list was finalized in December 2012 and is the currently effective 303(d) list. 

Oregon's 2012 Integrated Report and 303(d) list is waiting for EPA review. According to the 2010 report 

the upper portions of the McKenzie River are listed as Category 4A: Water quality limited but the TMDLs 

have been approved and it has been delisted (Oregon DEQ. 2010. 303(d) List of Impaired Waters). Mill 

Creek which is just west of the project area is also listed as Category 4A for rearing (17.8° C). White 

Branch is listed as Attaining which means all the water quality criteria are being met.

3.4.5 Environmental Consequences – Stream Shade and Temperature
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106- Goose Project Final EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

With the implementation of this Alternative, removal of shade in the Riparian Reserves would not occur.

Water temperatures in streams in the project area would continue to recover toward more natural levels 

with the reestablishment of riparian vegetation that was disturbed or removed by management activities 

prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. However, with the increased risk of high severity 

wildfire, which can be carried more easily through dense stands, stand replacing fire could potentially

affect water quality in the future. The corresponding loss of vegetation and duff could affect temperatures 

and microclimates around the edges of perennial 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 affected 

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.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

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 TMDL 

Implementation Strategies – Evaluation of the adequacy of the Northwest Forest Plan Riparian Reserves 

to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards” (USDA 2012). All 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. 

To comply with the stream temperature standards, no-treatment 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 

significant 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 many cases, buffer distances less than one site potential tree height 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 

significantly 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 Riparian Reserves, conifer

densities are high and would benefit from thinning. Some of the streams in the project area are less than 3 

feet wide and others have very coarse substrate. The effective shade needed is typically less for these 

types of streams. Several papers have been published recently indicating that hyporheic flow, not just 

shade, has a significant influence on stream temperature. Janishch et al. (2012) found that the canopy 

cover of “buffers” was not a strong variable for temperature in small (< 7feet wide) headwater streams.

Instead, the streams with course-textured 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 plays in stream temperatures and was used to further establish notreatment buffer recommendations. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 107

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 significant an issue. However, 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 

microclimate would also be preserved since the gradients are strongest within the first 20-30 feet 

(Anderson 2007) and a portion of the canopy closure 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. 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. Fish bearing perennial streams 

(Class 2) are provided with a minimum of a 90-foot no-harvest buffer to retain effective stream shade.

Where there is risk of high thermal loading, soil stability, and desired stand characteristics present, notreatment buffers are wider.

There are five proposed temporary stream crossings as part of Alternative 2 – four Class 4 streams (Units 

110, 420, 510, 590) and one Class 3 (Unit 480). In Alternative 3 there is only one temporary stream 

crossing over a Class 4 stream (Unit 110). Class 4 streams are dry during the summer when water 

temperature is typically a concern. At the Class 3 stream, the width of the clearing needed to establish the 

crossings would not create a detrimental change in temperature or shade because the primary and 

secondary shade zones of the adjacent riparian area would retain sufficient canopy closure to provide 

shade to this narrow stream. A few short segments of other temporary roads would enter the outer portion 

of Riparian Reserves but not cross any streams and would remain outside the primary shade zone.

Historic skid roads would be used where possible. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after 

completion of treatment activities. Decommissioning would include the removal of any stream crossings, 

subsoiling compacted surfaces, waterbarring as needed, and revegetating with native species. This would

allow for historically compacted areas to be re-used then properly sub-soiled and re-vegetated in order to 

reduce overall compaction levels. 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 13 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.

No long-term (> 5-10 years) increases of stream temperature are anticipated within the project area as a 

result of these alternatives. 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. 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 protect microclimate also.

Due to protection of primary and secondary shade zones, stream temperatures within the project area 

would continue to recover toward more natural levels as riparian vegetation re-grows and stream bed 

complexity increases with the natural addition of large wood. Thinning within the secondary shade zone 

of over-stocked plantations with small diameter riparian trees would increase growth of the remaining 

trees. Over time, stream temperatures would be maintained and shade would increase due to both natural 

vegetative recovery in the primary shade zones and treatment induced tree growth in the secondary shade 

zones.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108- Goose Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

All recent and planned timber harvest and hazardous fuels reduction projects were and will be designed 

with similar protection measures, design features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects 

to stream temperature. Each of the past projects listed in Appendix D were analyzed for effects to riparian 

condition and were found to have no effect. Ongoing timber harvest on private lands follow the Oregon 

Forest Practice Rules; and since most of the streams flowing out of private lands are intermittent or 

ephemeral streams, temperature degradation is not expected within the watershed.

Eugene Water and Electric Board’s transmission line corridor runs through the project area and crosses 

approximately 17 streams in the project area. This corridor is maintained in an early-seral condition thus 

reducing shade and has the potential to increase localized stream temperatures on the perennial streams. 

The total area of adverse effect within Riparian Reserves of the project area is approximately 10 acres 

(0.2 percent). This minor amount of affected area combined with the minor impacts expected from the 

Goose project would not measurably contribute to impaired stream temperatures to any measurable 

degree. 

3.4.7 Affected Environment – Stream Flow/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 (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 subwatersheds to prevent significant alteration of peak flow regimes as a result of management activities.

Recovery generally occurs when stand diameters average 8” dbh and crown closures exceed 70 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 Florence CreekMcKenzie River and Lost Creek Sub-watersheds stand at about 92.5 percent as of 2014, and are far above 

the Forest Plan Midpoints of 75 percent and 70 percent respectively. No vegetation management is 

proposed in the Elk Creek-McKenzie River Sub-watershed, so effects to ARP levels were not calculated. 

3.4.8 Environmental Consequences – Stream Flow/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 alternate drainages. These alterations to stream flows would 

not be improved with the implementation of this Alternative due to the lack of road maintenance and 

storage. However, the effects would be localized to a few yards downstream.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Table 27 summarizes levels of recovery immediately after implementation of the project for each of the 

alternatives. Completion of implementation is estimated to occur by 2020.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 109

Table 27. Estimated Recovery Levels in the Florence Creek- McKenzie River and Lost Creek Sub-watersheds 

Post-implementation (2020)

Sub-watershed Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Midpoint ARP

Florence Creek-McKenzie 

River 94.7 90.6 92.5 75

Lost Creek 95.7 93.5 93.7 70

ARP levels are maintained above recommended midpoint values for all alternatives in the affected subwatersheds 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.

Additionally, several miles of roads are currently in poor condition and funnel water to stream crossings 

or into alternate drainages. These alterations to stream flows would be improved and upgraded with the 

implementation of this Alternative. However, the effects would be localized to a few yards downstream.

Overall, there would be no adverse impact to stream flow timing or duration through the implementation 

of these alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

ARP levels would remain well above the midpoint values and there are no reasonably foreseeable future 

actions within the project area that would result in effects that differ from those already disclosed for each 

of the alternatives.

3.4.9 Affected Environment – Sedimentation

The majority of the geologic terrain and soils within the project area are not inherently prone to extensive 

erosion unless disturbed as discussed in the Soils Specialist Report (located in the project file). However, 

this area has many streams dissecting the project area which resulted in numerous stream crossings during 

construction of the original road system. 

Since implementation of the Forest Plan in 1990, road maintenance activities have worked to eliminate 

many unstable fill situations. Even so, roads continue to be the largest source of human-caused 

sedimentation in the project area, and a few old roads still carry water during winter storm events 

essentially extending the stream system and occasionally diverting flow from natural stream channels.

Additional impacts to streams within the project areas include failing culverts and displacement from 

steep road walls. Other stream reaches have been completely covered by historic logging debris. Road 

densities over 3.5 miles of road per square mile are considered “Not Properly Functioning” (FEMAT 

1993). Road densities are about 3.1 and 3.5 miles per square mile in Florence Creek-McKenzie River and 

Lost Creek 6th field Sub-watersheds, respectively.

In addition, past timber harvest methods resulted in compaction levels varying from 5 percent to 15

percent for most of the units harvested with ground based logging systems. However, two units were 

approaching the 20 percent maximum allowed by the Forest Standards and Guidelines (Soils Specialist 

Report). With increasing levels of compaction, there is an increased risk of surface erosion.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110- Goose Project Final EIS

Based on observations of existing road conditions during field reconnaissance for the project, sediment 

outputs from roads were estimated using the roads module of the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project 

(WEPP) model. The current sediment yield from roads is estimated at 127 cubic yards per year for the 

project area. Actual yields cannot be accurately calculated since there are numerous annual and interannual 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.

3.4.10 Environmental Consequences – Sedimentation

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Rates of road related sediment yield were estimated to gradually increase, but eventually stabilize 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 would occur.

Harvest activity on the portion of private land within the project area would continue as would use of 

shared roads. Table 28 provides a comparison of sediment outputs between all alternatives.

Alternatives 2 and 3

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 structure 

needs to handle. Less water on the road translates to less sediment-carrying capacity.

Road work associated with the Goose project would also include replacement of a number of 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 

average fill volume is around 250 cubic yards. This material is at risk of entering the streams and 

potentially generating debris torrents if the existing culverts fail.

However, replacement would require in-stream work in these locations. Work would be done during nonflow periods for intermittent streams, and engineering practices such as sediment barriers and flow bypass 

would minimize impacts on perennial streams. Flows in perennial streams are all expected to be less than 

1.0 cubic feet per second when work occurs, 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 111

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, 

haul route activity, and temporary road decommissioning. Results were calculated to estimate sediment 

production rates during the implementation of the project as well as conditions following completion of 

the project. Table 28 shows the estimates of sediment production rates based on WEPP.

For both of the action alternatives, annual sediment yield increases during harvest activities. This 

represents an incremental 27.5 - 28.4 percent increased contribution of sediment that cumulatively adds to 

the 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.

Both action Alternatives show a decrease in sediment yield post-operation due in part to maintenance,

temporary road decommissioning, and storage.

Table 28. Estimates of Sediment Production Rates for the Goose Project Area

Sediment Production Alternative 1 Alternative 2

during harvest

Alternative 2

after harvest

Alternative 3

during harvest

Alternative 3

after harvest

Gross Road Sediment 

Yield (yd3/year) 102 131 101 130 102

Net increase/decrease --- 29 -1 28 -0.5

% increase/decrease --- 28.4 -0.6 27.5 -0.5

Approximately 6.9 miles of temporary road construction would occur with Alternative 2 and 2.2 miles

with Alternative 3. This represents approximately 30 acres and 9 acres of ground disturbance respectively.

All temporary roads would be stabilized with erosion control measures as necessary for the wet season to 

minimize accumulation of runoff and transport of sediment, and they would be fully decommissioned 

after the project is complete. Decommissioning would include the removal of all stream crossings, 

subsoiling the compacted surface, and revegetating with native species.

Table 29 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. 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. The maximum estimate of sediment yields 

from the culvert replacements would be approximately 12 cubic yards for Alternative 2 and 3. In 

comparison, the estimated volume of fill stabilized is 2000 cubic yards for Alternative 2. Either 

Alternative 2 or 3 would reduce the potential for runoff effects and culvert failures that may affect 

Riparian Reserves or water quality.

Table 29. Approximate Culvert Replacements in Perennial and Intermittent Streams by Alternative

Alternative Stream Type Number of Culverts 

Installed/Replaced/Removed

Cubic Yards of 

Fill Stabilized

Sediment Yields from 

Culvert Replacements 

(Cubic Yards)

Alternative 1 None 0 0 0

Alternative 2

and 3

Perennial 1 250 0.5-1.5

Intermittent 7 1,750 3.5-10.5
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112- Goose Project Final EIS

Alternative Stream Type Number of Culverts 

Installed/Replaced/Removed

Cubic Yards of 

Fill Stabilized

Sediment Yields from 

Culvert Replacements 

(Cubic Yards)

Total 8 2,000 4.0-12.0

Most harvest-related sediment input to streams comes from skid trails, historic roads that were poorly 

located, 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 (Rashin et al. 2006, Lakel et al. 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 and 3 designate additional equipment exclusion 

zones wider than the no-harvest buffers which would essentially eliminate any routing of water from the 

logging operations

The McKenzie River Sub-basin, including the project area, provides municipal water to the City of 

Eugene by way of the Eugene Water and Electric Board’s intake at Hayden Bridge, approximately 60 

miles downstream from the project area. Sedimentation and associated turbidity are the most likely 

consequences of the Goose project that could adversely affect municipal water quality, but with the design 

features as well as Best Management Practices, adverse effects are not anticipated.

By implementing the activities associated with the Goose project, overall human caused sediment input 

would decrease only slightly (< 0.6 percent) from current levels. 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. Risk of road and 

fill failures during major storm events would be reduced as well. Overall, implementation of these 

alternatives would reduce management-caused sedimentation within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3

All recent and planned timber harvest projects were and would be designed with similar protection 

measures, design features, and Best Management Practices that minimize effects to stream. 

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 requires a different set of standards and BMPs to reduce 

sedimentation into the waterways.

Eugene Water and Electric Board’s transmission line corridor runs through the project area and crosses 

approximately 17 streams in the project area. This corridor is maintained in an early-seral condition. The 

total area affected within Riparian Reserves of the project area is approximately 10 acres (0.2 percent of 

the project area). Where the transmission line crosses the streams, most of the side slopes are well 

vegetated which reduces the risk of sedimentation. Overall, the lines only add minor adverse impacts, and 

the Goose project would not cumulatively contribute to impaired conditions. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 113

3.4.11 Affected Environment – Fisheries, Aquatic Insects, and In-stream 

Habitat

Management Indicator Species

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 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 fishes on 

the McKenzie River Ranger District are spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, and coastal 

cutthroat trout.

Native rainbow trout are river dwelling in the main stem McKenzie River and larger tributaries including

Lost Creek. Lost Creek is a major upper McKenzie Sub-basin tributary, providing significant habitat for 

all life stages of resident rainbow trout. It also serves as spawning and rearing habitat for fluvial rainbow 

trout that spend most of their adult life in the McKenzie River. The robustness of rainbow trout 

populations is believed to be diminished. The combination of habitat condition, and ODFW stocking of 

non-native rainbow trout and introduced summer steelhead, is believed to suppress native rainbow trout 

abundance in the project area through competition with non-native species.

Native coastal cutthroat trout are the most widely distributed fish in the McKenzie River Sub-basin, 

ranging from headwater streams to the mainstem McKenzie River (Class 1 and 2 perennial and 

intermittent fish-bearing streams). Previous timber management in riparian areas has affected aquatic 

habitat quality by altering the quantity, size and recruitment source of large woody material, which can 

affect substrate storage, habitat composition (e.g. pools, riffles, off channel habitat) and water 

temperature.

ESA Listed Species 

Native spring Chinook salmon migration, spawning and rearing occur in the mainstem McKenzie River 

and Lost Creek in the project area. This distribution overlaps current and historic bull trout distribution in 

the project area, used mostly for foraging and as a migration corridor to upstream spawning areas. Both of 

these species are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

Low gradient reaches of the McKenzie River and Lost Creek in the project area are used as spawning 

habitat by spring Chinook salmon. Spawning in these reaches occurs in September and October, with fry 

emergence about 3 months later. 

The McKenzie River Sub-basin provides habitat for the largest remaining population of wild spring 

Chinook salmon in the Willamette Basin. High water quality in the form of cold water temperature and 

high habitat quality remaining in the upper sub-basin provides the largest remaining core area for spring 

Chinook salmon reproduction and rearing in the basin. The project area portion of the sub-basin 

historically provided greater quantity and quality habitat with a greater level of channel complexity and 

off-channel area. River adjacent development (rural residential development and bank hardening), 

reduced large wood recruitment potential, and modified flow, sediment and wood routing regimes (as 

modified by dams and roads), have diminished salmon production in the project area. 

Bull trout use the McKenzie River and Lost Creek within the project area as a migratory corridor and as 

sub-adult and adult foraging habitat. River temperatures are naturally too warm in these reaches to 

provide bull trout spawning and early rearing habitat. Bull trout migration through the project area, en 

route to spawning habitat, occurs upstream beginning in late spring and downstream following 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114- Goose Project Final EIS

completion of spawning in fall. Historic channel complexity is expected to have provided greater quantity 

and quality for prey species, particularly spring Chinook salmon, and for greater numbers of foraging bull 

trout. For more details see Fisheries Biological Assessment located in the project file.

More detailed information on ESA-listed fish use of the watershed and project area is described in the 

Fisheries Biological Assessment, located in the project file. 

Aquatic Insects

Three aquatic insects found on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list have been documented on the 

Willamette National Forest. These aquatic insects are all caddisflies and little is known about them. A 

short summary of the distribution and known habitat associations are provided below. 

Rhyacophila chandleri: In Oregon, this species is documented on Willamette, Deschutes, and Umpqua 

National Forests. It is documented on the Willamette National Forest as a rare insect on the H.J. Andrews 

Experimental Forest. The entire Rhyacophila genus, whose name is derived from the Greek roots rhyaco 

(stream or torrent) and philia (fondness), is confined to running water. In the Cascade Mountains of 

Oregon, this species is associated with very cold, larger spring-fed streams (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 2012). Elevations of known populations range from around 1219 to 

1700 m (4000 to 5600 ft.) in Oregon. The larval behavior and diet of R. chandleri is not known, but 

probably similar to others in the Rhyacophila verrula-group. While most Rhyacophila larvae are obligate 

predators, feeding on aquatic invertebrates, members of the verrula-group are unique in having 

phytophagous diets (i.e. feeding on plant material) consisting largely of filamentous algae, diatoms, 

detritus, bryophytes, liverworts, and/or other non-animal material (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management 2011 and 2012).

Rhyacophila leechi: In Oregon, R. leechi is documented to occur on the Willamette National Forest and 

on Bureau of Land Management land in the Medford District. Adults have been collected from springs 

and cold, spring-fed streams. This species appears to require colder water temperatures than the common 

and more widely distributed Rhyacophila. verrula, and is likely confined to smaller, headwater streams 

and springs (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2011). Oregon sites range in 

elevation from 440 to 980 m (1444 to 3210 ft.). The larval behavior and diet of R. leechi is not known, but 

probably similar to others in the Rhyacophila verrula-group. While most Rhyacophila larvae are obligate 

predators, feeding on aquatic invertebrates, members of the verrula-group are unique in having 

phytophagous diets (i.e. feeding on plant material) consisting largely of filamentous algae, diatoms, 

detritus, bryophytes, liverworts, and/or other non-animal material (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management 2011 and 2012).

Namamyia plutonis: This species of caddisfly occur in the Coast and Cascade Ranges of Oregon and 

California (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2010). Populations tend to be 

extremely localized and are patchily distributed. Currently, fewer than 30 locations are known to contain 

this caddisfly, which occurs in low numbers. Namamyia plutonis can be found associated with small 

streams in densely forested old growth or mature forests, but the majority of the documented occurrences 

are between 30 and 50 years old. Most species of trichopterans have very specific preferences regarding 

water temperature, flow, oxygen levels and substrate characteristics.

Sampling for these species has not been done in the project area, so it is unknown if they occur there. The 

McKenzie River and Lost Creek are the type of habitat that R. chandleri requires for survival (i.e. large 

spring-fed rivers), so that habitat is treated as potentially occupied. Rhyacophila leechi may prefer small, 

headwater streams and springs and could be found in the project area. Namamyia plutonis tend to be 

found associated with small streams in mid-seral and old growth forests and could also be found in the 

project area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 115

In-stream Habitat 

The condition of many in-stream habitat elements contributes to overall aquatic habitat quality. These 

elements include, but are not limited to:

Stream Temperature Large Woody Material

Dissolved Oxygen/Turbidity Pool Frequency and Quality

Chemicals/Nutrients Off-Channel Habitat

Riparian Structural and Species Diversity Refugia

Physical Barriers Streambank Condition

Substrate Composition Floodplain Connectivity

Stream temperature for most streams in the watershed is functioning properly and shade continues to 

recover from historic timber harvest. Dissolved oxygen is high, turbidity and fine sediment delivery is 

relatively low, and there is no indication of chemical contamination. The overall lack of deciduous and 

herbaceous vegetation (discussed in detail in Section 3.4.2) may be impacting stream ecosystems. Due to 

the relatively low carbon:nitrogen ratio, deciduous litterfall is much more readily usable and nutritious to 

the aquatic foodweb than is conifer litterfall. The current imbalance may be limiting stream productivity.

Three dams in the watershed act as physical barriers to fish migration and delivery of wood and sediment 

to downstream reaches. This has a major impact on substrate composition and habitat quality for aquatic 

communities. In-stream large wood frequency in the McKenzie River and many tributaries is considered 

to be below historic levels and not properly functioning – mostly due to the decrease in size of recruited 

wood, the inability for wood to move downstream of dams, and the fact that wood frequently gets cut out 

of the mainstem McKenzie River for safe boating. The lack of large wood impacts pool frequency and 

quality, off-channel habitat, refugia, and floodplain connectivity which are all not functioning properly. 

Streambank condition is good throughout the watershed due to high vegetative growth. In general, the 

habitat elements that contribute to quality fish habitat are in a somewhat impaired condition, primarily 

due to the presence of dams, the increasing development along river corridors and the removal of large 

woody material. These conditions need to improve in order to maintain and increase native fish 

populations in the watershed. For a detailed discussion of the project area on each of the elements listed 

above see the Fisheries Biological Assessment located in the project file.

3.4.12 Environmental Consequences – Fisheries, Aquatic Insects, and Instream Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects

The management activities proposed have the potential to affect the habitat elements listed above, 

particularly stream temperature, water quality and quantity, riparian structural and species diversity, and

large woody material which creates pools, off-channel habitat, refugia, and floodplain connectivity. 

Because salmonids and caddisflies depend on the functioning of these habitat elements, the effects to 

habitat elements and how they may impact biota are analyzed. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would result in little or no change to the habitat elements listed above. Stream temperatures

would continue to recover toward more natural levels. Landscape delivery of fine sediment, as modified 

by the road and stream crossing network, would remain as it is and subject only to scheduled 

maintenance. The No-Action alternative would leave deteriorating roads and culverts untreated, yielding 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116- Goose Project Final EIS

fine sediment similar to current levels. The current levels would remain within the range of conditions 

necessary to sustain native aquatic biota, but not optimally so. Periodic stream crossing failures may 

occur at undersized and outdated culverts, potentially delivering large pulses of fine sediment to fish 

bearing reaches. Culvert failures may induce stresses on resident fish populations, but not at magnitudes 

that would be expected to extirpate local populations. Depending on proximity to listed fish habitat, 

particularly spawning habitat, culvert failures could result in take of listed fish. High sediment loads may 

also impact sensitive caddisfly populations and other native biota.

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 

(Appendix E), 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 large enough wood to remain stable in channels. Implementing the No-Action 

alternative would maintain slower tree growth rates than the action alternatives.

The No-Action alternative would not benefit from thinning to enhance vegetation. 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. Active 

restoration of riparian stands that currently do not meet ACS Objectives would not occur. 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.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

The Riparian Reserve management strategy outlined in Chapters 1 and 2 was specifically designed to 

accelerate complex forest structure while protecting and enhancing the habitat elements important to 

aquatic biota. No-harvest and no-treatment buffers on all streams were established to minimize effects to 

aquatic species and their habitat. Project design features in Chapter 2, Table 2.8 were incorporated into all 

activities to similarly protect aquatic resources. Due to these project design features, protection measures, 

and enhancement treatments, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in short-term “negligible”, “discountable”, 

or “insignificant” (official terms used in the Fisheries Biological Assessment) negative effects as well as 

beneficial effects to the habitat elements listed above. For a detailed discussion of how the project actions

affect each habitat element, see the Fisheries Biological Assessment located in the project file.

Thinning outside the primary shade zone and limiting thinning in the secondary shade zone of perennial 

streams would protect stream shade and temperature within the project area. See the Stream Shade and 

Temperature Section for details. 

Based on hydrologic analysis, changes in flow regimes, including peak flows, are not anticipated from 

proposed activities. Aggregate Recovery Percentage (ARP) levels, which are used to calculate the 

potential increase of peak flows, 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 117

Sediment delivery is expected to increase during project implementation while culverts are being installed 

and replaced and road maintenance is occurring. There could be a short term (immediately after the first 

rain of the season) turbidity effect but juvenile and adult salmonids appear to be little affected by 

ephemerally high concentrations of suspended sediments that occur during most storms and episodes of 

snow melt (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Once the project is complete, sediment production rates return to 

slightly less than pre-project conditions. Either Alternative 2 or 3 would reduce the potential for runoff 

effects and culvert failures that may affect Riparian Reserves or water quality. See the Sedimentation 

Section for details. Soil disturbance is likely to occur when trees are felled and yarded with ground-based 

or cable logging systems. Much of this erosion would be localized and is not expected to enter stream 

channels. Sediment that is transported to stream channels is expected to be minor because the majority of 

sediment would be trapped within the no-harvest buffers before it reaches the streams. The project was 

designed to minimize the amount of sediment that may enter a stream channel and be transported to fish 

habitat. Distance of timber harvest activity to fish habitat, the presence of a glacial terrace to facilitate 

sediment deposition, and in most cases, absence of surface connection between harvest activity and fish 

habitat further reduces risk of fine sediment transport. There may be adverse effects to suspended 

sediment and substrate at the site-scale, but the probability of sediment reaching and affecting fish habitat

is discountable.

Thinning outside of the primary wood recruitment zone was designed to retain the majority of potential 

wood (>90 percent) while achieving desired vegetation characteristics that support productive aquatic 

communities. The action alternatives may have a slightly lower rate of in-stream wood recruitment than 

the No-Action alternative, but the benefits to vegetation diversity and accelerated tree growth would be 

greater. Debris torrents and material migrating to ESA-listed fish habitat are not a prevalent habitat 

forming process in the project area due to the wide, flat glacial terrace found along the McKenzie River 

and Lost Creek that acts as a depositional area before reaching the channel. Instead, the major wood 

recruitment process on the McKenzie River and Lost Creek is stream adjacent recruitment. There are no 

commercial thinning activities in the action alternatives adjacent to ESA-listed fish habitat and only six 

units adjacent to other fish-bearing streams with Management Indicator Species (MIS). The probability 

that thinning in Riparian Reserves would adversely affect water quality, habitat complexity, sediment 

storage capacity or floodplain processes in fish–bearing streams is very low. These potential effects on 

ESA-listed fish, MIS, and sensitive caddisflies are not expected to be measureable for the following 

reasons:

• About half of the streams draining out of harvest units do not have surface connection to ESA-listed 

fish habitat. This is due to the porous and permeable nature of the glacial fill in the McKenzie River 

valley. Valley fills have been drilled to 146 feet in the Blue River area, and 175 feet in the McKenzie 

Bridge area (Williamson 1961 as cited in the Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis 1995).

• Of the streams that do have surface connection to ESA-listed fish habitat, most of them are 

intercepted by roads. If debris makes it past those roads, the flat glacial terrace acts as a depositional 

area and stores most of the debris before reaching listed fish habitat. 

• There are only six units adjacent to fish-bearing streams with MIS (Units 90, 130, 150, 530, 550, and 

600) and primary wood recruitment zones are protected on all of them. Full stream influence zone 

protection (172 feet) would occur on half of them (Units 90, 130, and 530).

Hazardous fuels treatment units are located adjacent to the McKenzie River and Lost Creek, but no 

treatment would occur within the steam influence zone (0-172 feet). Therefore, there would be no impacts

to ESA-listed fish or MIS or their habitat from these activities. 

Conditions in currently functioning portions of Riparian Reserves would be maintained. In overstocked, 

conifer-dominant portions lacking structural and species diversity, thinning would occur in upland units 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118- Goose Project Final EIS

with tributary streams to ESA-listed fish habitat and along six units with MIS. The desired benefit of 

thinning in Riparian Reserves is to improve stand structure, vegetation diversity, and accelerate 

development of large diameter trees to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain ACS 

Objectives (Appendix E). Management of these stands 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 ripariandependent wildlife. As this landscape rarely transports the products of disturbance, recruited material has 

little opportunity to migrate to ESA-listed fish habitat. Improvements in riparian stand diversity are 

expected to be of greatest benefit to MIS, primarily cutthroat trout.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3 Cumulative Effects

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 minimize effects 

to water quality and aquatic resources. Each of the past projects listed 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 Goose project would

not measurably contribute to impaired riparian conditions.

Eugene Water and Electric Board’s transmission line corridor runs through the project area and crosses 

approximately 17 streams in the project area. This corridor is maintained in an early-seral condition, 

reducing shade and potential wood recruitment. The total area of adverse effect within Riparian Reserves

of the project area is approximately 10 acres (0.2 percent). This minor amount of affected area combined 

with the minor impacts expected from the Goose project would not measurably contribute to impaired 

riparian conditions. 

3.5 Wildlife

3.5.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

Summary of Effects: The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 were compared to the No-Action alternative

(Alternative 1) for the following wildlife species or categories: a) Northern Spotted Owl, b) Proposed 

Threatened species, c) Forest Service Sensitive Species, d) Survey and Manage species, e) Willamette 

National Forest Management Indicator Species, and f) Migratory Birds.

Northern spotted owl: Alternative 2 would harvest approximately 445 acres of suitable habitat, 

approximately1,508 acres of dispersal habitat, and approximately 103 acres of non-habitat. Alternative 3 

would not harvest any suitable habitat, approximately 660 acres of dispersal habitat, and approximately 

85 acres of non-habitat. Alternative 2 would also prescribe underburn in approximately 60 acres of 

suitable habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would implement hazardous fuels reduction in approximately 295 

acres of suitable habitat, approximately six acres of dispersal habitat, and approximately 24 acres of nonhabitat.

The Goose project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2009).

Alternative 2 proposes to remove about two acres of high-quality suitable habitat in Critical Habitat (CH) 

for a temporary road of about 0.25 miles in length and two helicopter landing sites where logs would be 

delivered. The road and landings are needed to facilitate the harvest of Unit 10. The habitat removed is 

older forest that meets the characteristics of RA-32 (USFWS 2011). This road construction may affect 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 119

and is likely to adversely affect 2012 CH because it would reduce the ability of CH to provide high 

quality suitable spotted owl habitat. Building the road and landing to access and thin the 392-acre Unit 10 

would facilitate improving this habitat in the long-term (>25 years) by promoting faster tree growth and 

increased stand complexity.

Fuel Reduction Treatments (WUI) are planned on about 21 acres of suitable and four acres of non-habitat, 

respectively, within 2012 CH. WUI Fuel Reduction Treatments in suitable and non-habitat may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat because they would maintain the 

current functionality of suitable habitat, and would not delay the development of dispersal and forage 

habitat in non-habitat.

The planned commercial thinning in CH for the Goose project would not adversely affect dispersal 

habitat and would have mostly beneficial effects on future foraging and nesting/roosting habitat.

However, because about 54 acres in total of larger gaps that are being created to benefit early seral habitat 

would measurably delay the development of future foraging habitat, the proposed Harvest Habitat 

Maintain thinning may affect and is likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat.

Proposed Threatened species: Fisher is not likely to currently inhabit the project area and thus, any 

effects to potential habitat are unlikely to occur. Older forest habitat modification may impact future 

potential habitat. With the potential for large down wood creation where it is currently scarce, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 may benefit potential Fisher habitat.

There would be a long-term benefit (>50 years) to future potential habitat from planned large down wood 

placement within approximately 505 acres with Alternative 2, and approximately 63 acres with 

Alternative 3. Recommended down wood enhancement for other units would also benefit potential Fisher 

habitat. Alternative 2 would harvest approximately 424 acres of forests over 80 years of age, which may 

impact future potential habitat because it would open stands and remove portions of the future down 

wood sources.

Forest Service Sensitive species: For Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s big-eared bats, Johnson’s 

Hairstreak butterfly, Cascade Axetail slug, and Harlequin Duck, Alternatives 2 and 3, considering direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects, may impact individuals or their habitat, but are expected to maintain 

viable populations within the project area and at the Forest-scale, and are not likely to result in a trend to 

federal Endangered Species Act listing. The likelihood of noise disturbance or work occurring near the 

McKenzie River with the Harlequin Duck present is unlikely, but there could be temporary displacement 

if they are using habitat in the project area while project activities take place. There would be no impacts 

to the Crater Lake Tightcoil because all suitable habitat would be protected with a minimum of a 10m noharvest and no-burn buffer. There would be no impact to the American Peregrine Falcon because no nest 

sites are known within disturbance distance of the project area. 

Survey and Manage species: Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact suitable Oregon Megomphix habitat at 

low and moderate elevations below 3000’ on approximately 2,409 and approximately 1,069 acres, which 

is about 17 and 8 percent, respectively, of the suitable habitat in the project area (about 13,925 acres 

below 3000’). While this may impact individual Megomphix snails, it is not expected to result in any 

issues for population viability of this species. Alternatives 2 and 3 would remove or thin approximately 

424 and approximately 14 acres (footprint acres with skips included), respectively, of red tree vole habitat 

in stands over 80 years of age, but would not affect any documented red tree vole nest areas. Alternatives 

2 and 3 would reduce red tree vole habitat quality with the hazardous fuels reduction activities on 

approximately 325 acres of stands over 80 years of age. Alternative 2 may also downgrade red tree vole 

habitat quality on 60 acres with natural fuels underburning in stands over 80 years of age. Alternative 2 

would create approximately 43 acres of open habitat with the proposed regeneration harvest, which may 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120- Goose Project Final EIS

enhance opportunities for Great Gray Owl foraging. Small gaps totaling approximately 281 acres may 

also improve Great Gray Owl foraging habitat opportunities. Alternative 3 would show less overall 

improvements for Great Gray Owl foraging habitat with approximately 111 acres of gaps created which 

may provide open foraging habitat opportunities.

Willamette National Forest Management Indicator Species: Cavity Excavators and Deadwood 

Abundance-Many of the plantations proposed for thinning in both alternatives have low or no large snags 

present currently, so few large snags are expected to be lost within those. Most of the snags that would be 

lost are within the 447 acres of older forested stands over 80 years of age that are part of Alternative 2.

Some additional snags may be lost in the younger stands or in areas directly adjacent to them if they pose 

a safety hazard to the logging operation. Goose design features to create variable levels of snags ranging 

from 0-5 snags/acre (Table 13), and protect existing snags where possible would mitigate this effect. Also, 

the design features (Table 13) recommend post-harvest monitoring and falling 0-5 trees per acre if these 

levels are not present (Table 13), therefore, downed wood levels would initially increase on up to 4,405 

and 3,961 acres of forest in Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. The proposed Goose harvest alternatives 

would affect snags and downed logs on about 6 percent of the project area, and Alternatives 2 and 3 are 

both expected to maintain population viability of cavity excavator species in the project area, and not 

contribute to any loss of viability of these species at the Forest scale.

Elk- Based on an elk nutritional model (Rowland et al. 2013), regeneration harvest and small gaps in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 should increase elk forage quality from “poor “to “higher-marginal” for about 20 

years on 932 and 473 acres, respectively.

Marten- Overall impacts to marten with Alternative 2 are judged to be discountable because of the 

extremely limited extent that unit 10 would affect the preferred higher elevation montane mixed forest 

that marten prefer. The recommended wildlife tree and large down wood habitat creation would improve 

these stands as marten habitat in the short-term (up to 50 years). Alternative 3 would not impact marten.

Migratory Birds-Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide 932 and 473 acres, respectively, of complex early 

seral habitat. This would benefit migratory birds which favor shrub habitat in early seral conifer stands, 

such as the Rufous hummingbird and purple finch. Snag retention and creation would benefit species such 

as olive-sided flycatcher, which favor forest openings with large snags.. Alternative 2 would allow some

natural regeneration, with about 210 acres of 1-3 acre gaps not planted following harvest. This would 

benefit migratory birds that use this complex early seral habitat.

3.5.2 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for early seral wildlife habitat 

includes three 6th field watersheds (Lost Creek, Florence Creek-McKenzie River, and Elk CreekMcKenzie River) and the project area. The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects for snags and down wood includes the project activity units and the Upper McKenzie 

River 5th field Watershed. The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects 

sensitive species, migratory land birds, and terrestrial MIS species was the project activity units and the 

project area. For threatened northern spotted owls, a 0.5 and 1.2 mile radius buffer around all pair activity 

centers for the spotted owl within the project area was used to determine available amounts of suitable 

and dispersal habitat. The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for elk

habitat includes the project activity units and four emphasis areas which management activities would 

occur in. These emphasis areas were used for the scope of analysis because of established ratings for elk 

habitat as described in the Willamette National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. These emphasis 

areas do include private lands.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 121

3.5.3 Affected Environment – Early Seral Habitat for Wildlife

Age class diversity in forest stands is important as some species of animals and plants depend on younger 

stages of forests for their feeding, nesting, and breeding requirements, whereas other species thrive in 

middle age or old forests. Early seral habitat (defined as less than 20 years old) is of key importance to an 

estimated 156 species of wildlife in the central Oregon Cascades.

Historically, early seral habitat in the project area was created from stand-replacing fires and regeneration 

harvest. Changes in forest management on Federal lands in the past 30 years, including fire suppression 

and reduced regeneration harvest have resulted in fewer acres of early seral habitat creation. Additionally,

fire suppression and reduced regeneration harvest have resulted in a much higher proportion of dense, 

closed canopy stands. Consequently, there is less structurally rich and diverse quality early seral habitat in 

the project area than in the past. Currently, early seral habitat within the Goose project area is only 

partially effective (marginal) at providing quality diverse early seral habitat due to the lack of vertical and 

horizontal stand structure. A small amount of early seral habitat is present surrounding rock outcrops in 

the higher elevations of the planning area. There are very few open meadows in the project area.

The Goose project area occurs in three 6th field watersheds: Lost Creek, Florence Creek-McKenzie River, 

and Elk Creek-McKenzie River. Within these watersheds, approximately 30,164 acres of forest land are 

managed by the Forest Service. Within this 30,164 acres only 43 acres (0.14%) is early seral habitat (less 

than 20 years old). Of the 43 acres of early seral habitat in these watersheds, 15 acres occur in the Goose 

project area. Eight acres are located in the Lost Creek watershed; six in the Florence Creek-McKenzie 

River watershed; and one in the Elk Creek-McKenzie River watershed. 

3.5.4 Environmental Consequences – Early Seral Habitat for Wildlife

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

With implementation of Alternative 1, the amount of diverse early seral habitat in the Goose project area 

would continue to decrease over time as stands move from the early to mid-seral stage (Figure 25). The 

currently existing 43 acres of early seral habitat would transition to a mid-seral stage by about 2035, 

leaving no early seral habitat within the Goose project area. Natural tree mortality (insects, disease, 

wildfire, or blowdown) within Goose units is not expected to be significant or likely to produce many 

openings in the short-term (approximately 10 years) future, resulting in no noticeable increase in early 

seral habitat across the landscape.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 25. Projected Acres in Age Classes1

Alternative 2

Diverse early seral habitat would be created by cutting a total of approximately 281 acres of 1-to-3 acre 

gaps, approximately 43 acres of regeneration harvest, and approximately 50 acres of dominant tree 

releases (DTR). DTR would be lower quality early seral habitat due to the small 1/4 to 1/3 acre size of the 

openings. In total, the above treatments would increase the early seral habitat from approximately 43

acres to approximately 420 acres on federal land in the Goose project area. At the watershed level, this 

would increase early seral habitat from 0.14 percent to 1.5 percent. At the project level, this would 

increase early seral habitat from 0.11 percent to 3.2 percent. These acres would be expected to provide 

early seral habitat for 15-20 years. Post-harvest underburning would better improve shrub and forb 

development, and support the occurrence of more high quality early seral habitat.

Commercial thinning on approximately 1,218 acres would also increase use of the highly stocked forests 

and make them more suitable to a wider range of early seral-dependent wildlife species, compared to the 

current dense closed canopy condition. The 60 acres of the natural fuels underburn proposed would also 

supply lower quality early seral habitat through the fire disturbance. The commercial thinning and 

underburning would provide lower quality early seral habitat because stands would not be thinned 

heavily, and not enough light would reach the forest floor to create the high quality early seral habitat that 

many species rely on. The overall impact of the proposed action is that dense closed canopy mid-seral 

forests would be thinned to a more open condition with gaps that would provide diverse early seral 

habitat. These more open habitat conditions associated with the thinning are expected to last 

approximately 15-20 years, depending on the site and final canopy cover. Some species that would benefit 

from increased understory vegetation include Roosevelt elk, black-tailed deer, turkey vulture, sharpshinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, California quail, long- and short-eared owls, Vaux’s swift, Anna’s 

hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, western bluebird, olive-sided flycatcher, as well as the overall avian 

biodiversity.

 1 Acreage of age class 0-20 years old (early seral habitat) in the project area was 46 acres in 2014 and 43 acres in 2015.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 123

Harvesting fire regenerated stands with Alternative 2 would produce early seral habitat, compared to not

harvesting in fire regenerated stands, and responds to the Purpose and Need 1.3.3 to Actively Manage 

Stands to Improve Conditions, Diversity, Density and Structure. The fire regenerated stands are in the 

stem exclusion stage, which is the least productive for early seral species.

Alternative 3

The effects of Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2, with Alternative 3 having fewer acres proposed 

for harvesting and underburning. There would be less acres of diverse early seral habitat created with 

Alternative 3. Early seral wildlife habitat would be created in approximately 111 acres of gaps and 

approximately 30 acres of dominant tree releases which would increase the total acres of early seral 

habitat to approximately 187 acres on Forest Service land in the Goose project area (approximately one

percent). 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

The Goose project would be the first project to include any regeneration timber harvest on Forest Service 

lands in the project area since the early 1990s. No complex early seral habitat has been created by wild 

fires in the project area in the past 50 years. A 38 acre fire burned in the 1970s; however, it was mostly an 

understory burn that did not produce much early seral habitat. Two recently completed projects near the 

Goose project area (13 Thin and Eagle Timber Sales) included small gap treatments that created 

approximately 336 acres of early seral habitat. Cumulatively, early seral habitat created from the Goose 

project, 13 Thin, and Eagle Timber Sales would provide approximately 756 acres of early seral habitat. 

3.5.7 Affected Environment – Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened)

The northern spotted owl is a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that 

uses forest habitat in the project area. The effects of the various proposed actions for the Goose project

were addressed by the Willamette National Forest (2009) and evaluated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) in the 2009 Biological Opinion (BO)(FWS reference 13420-2010-F-0001).

Subsequently, Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl was modified with the 2012 Critical Habitat 

Rule (USFWS 2012). This resulted in reinitiation of consultation (Willamette National Forest 2013) and 

an additional Biological Opinion (USFWS 2013)(FWS Reference Number 01EOFW00-2013-F-0115). 

This BO fulfills the Forest Service’s legal requirement with respect to Section 7 of ESA for the Goose 

project. This FEIS tiers to this BO, as well as the Biological Assessment and letter requesting conference 

conversion after the designation of Critical Habitat (USDA Forest Service 2012) that supported the 

consultation. A summary of the effects of the alternatives on the northern spotted owl is provided in this 

section.

Consultation on the northern spotted owl was 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 predicted owl sites. All spotted owl sites consulted on were based on current and historic information. 

A total of thirteen current and historic owl sites were consulted on and occur within 1.2 miles of the 

proposed harvest, prescribed natural fire, or hazardous fuels reduction units (USFWS 2010).

Interspecies Competition: The barred owl occurs throughout the Willamette National Forest. Competition 

with barred owls has been found to be an important threat to northern spotted owls (USFWS 2011). In 

western Oregon, both species prefer forests older than 120 years of age. The larger and more aggressive 

barred owls can displace spotted owls where they establish territories (Wiens 2012). Wiens (2012) has 

recommended retaining conifer forests older than 120 years of age as a method to reduce interspecific 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124- Goose Project Final EIS

competition between the owl species. Where barred owls occur, he has found that spotted owl survival 

significantly declines as the percent of forests >120 years of age in the general home range drops below 

35 percent. 

Northern spotted owl habitat is classified as:

1. 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, multi-species 

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 Goose 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.

2. 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.

3. Non-habitat refers to land which is capable of growing habitat, but does not currently function as 

either suitable or dispersal habitat.

The Goose units contain a mix of forest stand age classes and were classified into non-habitat, dispersal, 

and suitable spotted owl habitat based on aerial photos and field reviews conducted in 2009. Owl habitat 

mapping estimates there are currently about 7,337 acres of suitable habitat (50 percent), 4,363 acres of 

dispersal habitat (30 percent), and 2,978 acres of non-habitat (20 percent) in the project area (Table 30). In 

addition, there are 3,219 acres of private land scattered in a block like fashion throughout the center of the 

project area. These private lands make up about 18 percent of the total project area and are assumed to be 

non-habitat for spotted owls, thus were not incorporated into the spotted owl analysis or numbers 

represented in Table 30 shown below.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 125

Table 30. Spotted Owl Habitat Type Distribution by Acres and Percent in Goose Project Area

Goose Project Area

Suitable Acres Dispersal Acres Non-Habitat Acres 1Total

7,337 or 50% 4,363 or 30% 2,978 or 20% 14,678

(100%)

1 These acres are only a reflection of spotted owl habitat classifications within the project area and do not reflect all the acres in the 

project area; they do not include acres which are highly unlikely to function as spotted owl habitat such as large rock outcrops, or 

private lands. There are an estimated 35 acres of non-capable lands and 3,219 acre of private lands in the project area.

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) 

centered on an activity center (i.e. nest site). 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 (USDI USFWS et al. 

2008). 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 (USDI USFWS et al. 2008). 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 (USDI USFWS et al. 2008). 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 (USDI USFWS et al. 2008). There are no proposed units that 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 (USDI USFWS 

et al. 2008). Owls may successfully fledge young when suitable habitat drops below these percentages, 

but the likelihood of this decreases as suitable habitat declines.

3.5.8 Environmental Consequences – Northern Spotted Owl (Threatened)

The effects of the Goose project on the northern spotted owl are described below by:

♦ Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

♦ Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

♦ Known Owl Sites

♦ Disruption
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126- Goose Project Final EIS

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on spotted owl habitat. 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 

Alternative 2 would treat a mix of age classes with various treatment types to meet the purpose and need 

of the Goose project. Table 31 displays Alternative 2 proposed treatments by age class, treated acres, and 

type of treatment. Table 32 shows treated acres by spotted owl habitat 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 these treatments. 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 the Crater Lake Tightcoil or water quality, botanical concerns, and/or landscape skips.

Thus, effects to owls have been reduced compared to the overall unit footprint acres shown below. These 

effects are dependent on where they lay on the landscape, and how they connect to other habitat types.

Table 31. Age Class Acres by Treatment Type – Alternative 2

Regeneration (Shelterwood) Units Actual Acres of Regeneration-Shelterwood

(skips included)

15-40 years 0

41-80 years 0

81-127 years 43

Total 43

Thinning Units Actual Acres of Treatment Thinning,

Gaps, Skips and Dominant Tree Release

15-40 years 297

41-80 years 1,020

81-127 years 232

Total 2,003

Prescribed Underburning Units Treatment Acres

Over 120 years old 60

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Units Treatment Acres

Over 120 years old 325

Treatments in Suitable Habitat: Alternative 2 would remove about 43 acres or less than 1 percent of 

suitable owl habitat in the project area, making the habitat unsuitable for spotted owls. In about 40 years 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 127

post-harvest, these stands would develop into dispersal habitat. Retention of 25 large trees per acre with a 

regeneration shelterwood harvest would allow these stands 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. This would especially be true if large snags and down wood are present.

Alternative 2 proposes three underburn units. The intent of these treatments is to return fire to the 

ecosystem. Units 800, 810, and 820 totaling 60 acres are currently functioning as suitable spotted owl 

habitat. The return of fire to these stands may downgrade the habitat to a 40 percent canopy closure and 

thus a dispersal habitat function. This may affect and is likely to adversely affect and harm two northern 

spotted owl sites (Willamette National Forest 2009, p.47).

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 include hazardous fuels reduction on about 295 acres of suitable owl habitat.

While removal of the <10” diameter understory may affect habitat for the spotted owl prey base in the 

understory, overall suitable habitat functionality is expected to be retained.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat: About 1,508 acres of dispersal habitat would be moderately or heavily 

thinned. 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. Dispersal habitat units with proposed 

regeneration harvest treatments would reach dispersal habitat conditions about 40 years post-harvest. 

Thinning harvest treatments are planned on 1,508 acres or 35 percent of the dispersal habitat in the project 

area. Thinning of dispersal habitat would benefit overall forest structural development and improve longterm (>25 years) spotted owl habitat conditions. Post-harvest snag and large down wood habitat 

mitigation and enhancement in the 43 acres of regeneration harvest and 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 103 acres (~three percent) of forest stands that are currently 

non-habitat for spotted owls in the project area would be thinned. This treatment would benefit spotted 

owls because forest structure would be improved over the current condition. Thinning of these stands 

would allow them to 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 and longer term.

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 with the exception of a temporary spur road that would harvest about 2 acres of suitable owl habitat 

to provide access to unit 10. This road is also within 2012 Critical Habitat and is discussed under that 

section below.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 32. Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type and Activity – Alternatives 2 and 3

Spotted Owl 

Habitat Type(s) Suitable Acres Dispersal Acres Non-habitat Acres

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Harvest Acres 445 0 1,508 660 103 85

Prescribed 

Underburning 60 0 0 0 0 0

Hazardous Fuels

Reduction 295 295 6 6 24 24

Total Treated 

Acres 800 295 1,514 666 127 109

Alternative 3

Treatments in Suitable Habitat: Alternative 3 does not harvest or underburn any suitable spotted owl 

habitat. Not harvesting the currently suitable owl habitat would maintain this habitat and the structural 

dead wood elements. At the same time, not thinning these stands would also not improve stand diversity 

and structure in the short term (approximately 10 years). Over time (after about 20-30 years or more), 

these stands would grow into higher quality suitable owl habitat by natural stand competition which 

would allow for growth of larger trees and provide some dead wood mortality which would benefit the 

prey base of spotted owls. In the short and long term, suitable owl habitat functionality would be 

maintained.

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 include hazardous fuels reduction on about 295 acres of suitable owl habitat.

While removal of the <10” diameter understory may affect habitat for the spotted owl prey base in the 

understory, overall suitable habitat functionality is expected to be retained.

Treatments in Dispersal Habitat: About 660 acres of dispersal habitat would be moderately or heavily 

thinned. 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. Dispersal habitat units with proposed 

regeneration harvest treatments would reach dispersal habitat conditions about 40 years post-harvest. 

Thinning harvest treatments are planned on 660 acres or 15 percent of the dispersal habitat in the project 

area. Thinning of dispersal habitat would benefit overall forest structural development and improve longterm (>25 years) spotted owl habitat conditions. Post-harvest snag and large down wood habitat 

mitigation and 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 83 acres (~three percent) of forest stands that are currently 

non-habitat for spotted owls in the project area would be thinned. This treatment would benefit spotted 

owls because forest structure would be improved over the current condition. Thinning of these stands 

would allow them to 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 and longer term.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 129

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct on spotted owl habitat, so there are no cumulative effects to be 

considered.

Alternative 2

In considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternative 2 may affect and is likely to adversely 

affect northern spotted owl habitat, but would not jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. 

There are no other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects that would remove older forest habitat in 

that watershed. Alternative 2 would not preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls and the 

landscape would still support provide suitable and dispersal spotted owl habitat post-treatment.

Alternative 3

Similar to Alternative 2, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternative 3 may affect 

spotted owl habitat, but would not jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. Alternative 3 

would not preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls and the landscape would still support nesting 

spotted owls and dispersal post-treatment.

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (CH)

The Goose project was planned and consulted on prior to the release of the (revised) 2012 Critical Habitat

boundaries. After the revised 2012 northern spotted owl critical habitat rule was released, the project was 

re-evaluated and it was determined that a portion of the project was located in 2012 Critical Habitat Unit 

West Cascades South, subunit WCS 3, which totals approximately 319,736 acres. Reinitiation of 

consultation for that portion of the Goose project within the revised Critical Habitat and effects to 

northern spotted owl habitat took place (Willamette National Forest 2013; USFWS 2013) (FWS 

reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0115). Alternatives 2 and 3 were slightly modified to reduce effects in 

Critical Habitat (Willamette National Forest 2013, p. 11):

Unit 810 was planned as a 12-acre underburn in a stand of suitable habitat. The intent was to reintroduce a 

low-intensity fire into this stand. Because prescribed fire is not an exact science, there was a small 

possibility that the burning would temporarily reduce the stand to dispersal habitat. This could occur if 

there is mortality to overstory canopy trees such that the canopy cover would become too open (<60

percent) to be considered suitable spotted owl habitat. Depending on the severity of the overstory canopy 

loss and the size of the burned habitat patch, this habitat could again become suitable habitat once the 

understory closes back in which could occur within 40 years if the patch is small, i.e. under three acres. If 

the burned area is larger, it could take 80-100 years for the habitat to again be suitable spotted owl habitat.

The temporary loss of this suitable habitat would contribute to harm to two nest sites (MSNO 2034 and 

2836) for which incidental take was received. Because of the CH designation, the Forest Service has 

decided to drop this unit from underburning. Note: Only the portion of this unit which was within CH has 

been dropped, the remaining 17 acres would still be underburned.

Three minor mapping errors totaling 1.4 acres in units 60, 160, and 330 will be corrected. These are the 

results of imprecise GIS database mapping.

The following summary of effects and discussion (Alternative 2) is specific to treatments which would 

occur in Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Unit Cascades South, subunit WCS3. It should be noted 

that some of these treatment acres and effects have been discussed previously, although those discussions

included additional acres and areas not within designated critical habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130- Goose Project Final EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no effect on spotted owl Critical Habitat. 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

Suitable Habitat Removal for Road Construction in Suitable RA32 Habitat in Critical Habitat

About two acres of high-quality suitable habitat are proposed for removal in WCS 3 for a temporary road 

of about 0.25 miles in length and two helicopter landing sites where logs would be delivered. The road 

and landings are needed to facilitate the harvest of Unit 10. The habitat removed is forest that meets the 

characteristics of Recovery Action 32. Following harvest in Unit 10, the road and landings would be 

closed and allowed to regenerate. This action was evaluated in detail in the original Biological Opinion 

for the Goose Timber Sale (USFWS 2009). Loss of two acres of suitable habitat was determined to have 

an adverse effect to owls, and this activity may affect, and is likely to adversely affect 2012 CH.

USFWS (ibid.:109) concluded that two acres was a very small fraction of the total RA32 habitat available 

on the Forest. The road and landing was needed to conduct variable density thinning in Unit 10. Unit 10 is 

a 392-acre, fire-regenerated stand of dispersal habitat that is in poor timber health, slowly-growing, and 

susceptible to disease, insect outbreaks, and fire. The proposed thinning is expected to promote multiple 

canopies, faster tree growth, and greater stand complexity. USFWS (ibid.) concluded that treatment 

planned in Unit 10 would benefit future owl critical habitat. The loss of two acres to road and landing 

construction is the only older forest habitat that is impacted in WCS 3 by the Goose project.

Recovery Action 32 was developed to address the threat from barred owls. Interspecific competition 

between barred and spotted owls is a complex situation that is difficult to quantify. Wiens (2012, Figure 

3.12 p. 100) has developed a predictive relationship of 6-month survival based on the proportion of old 

(>120 years) forest in the home range. He has found that survival rates for spotted owls begin to decline 

when the proportion of old forest in the home range drops below 35 percent. A loss of two acres 

represents only a 0.07 percent change in the proportion of old forest habitat in a 1.2-mile radius home 

range. Based on the information provided by Wiens (2012), this very small decrease in old forest habitat 

would not produce a measureable change in spotted owl survival nor a meaningful increase in 

competition with barred owls.

Recovery Action 32 in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011: III-67) recommends that land 

managers work with USFWS to maintain and restore RA32 habitat while allowing threats such as fire and 

insects to be addressed by restoration management activities. Both the 2011 Recovery Plan and the 2012 

CH rule encourage restoration activities such as the treatment of Unit 10. The impact to two acres of RA 

32 habitat is consistent with the 2011 Recovery Plan and the 2012 CH rule due to the long-term (>25 

years) benefit to owl habitat from treating Unit 10. However, the proposed 2-acre road construction may 

affect, and is likely to adversely affect 2012 CH because it would reduce the ability of CH to provide high 

quality suitable spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2013).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 131

Harvest Habitat Maintain-Dispersal and Non-habitat in Critical Habitat

The objectives of the commercial thinning in stands less than 80 years of age, as identified in the Goose 

Project Environmental Assessment (USFS 2010) and including those that are now in 2012 CH, were to 

increase stand health and vigor, increase the potential for Riparian Reserves to function as late 

successional habitat, provide a sustainable supply of timber products, and, where larger gaps were 

created, increase the amount of early seral habitat. About 506 and 7 acres of Harvest Habitat Maintain 

thinning is planned in dispersal and non-habitat, respectively, in CH Subunit WCS 3, all in AMA.

Commercial thinning is expected to increase diameter growth and crown development of retained trees by 

reducing competition for resources. In dispersal and non-habitat, this treatment is expected to facilitate the 

growth of trees that would become nest and roost trees sooner than if no treatment occurred. In stands of 

dispersal habitat that are commercially thinned, there would be some short-term (7-10years) reduction in 

cover used for dispersal habitat. Also the reduction in overstory and mid-story cover would likely cause a 

short-term (7-10 years) reduction in the abundance of owl prey species that facilitates use of the stand for 

dispersal. None of these reductions is expected to prevent use of the stand for dispersal habitat by owls in 

short-term (7-10 years). Thinning is expected to provide greater structural complexity and prey abundance 

in the long-term (>25 years) than if left untreated. In non-habitat, the treatments would not delay the 

development of dispersal habitat and are expected to accelerate it by growing trees faster and creating 

space under the canopy of densely-stocked stands for owls to fly and hunt. Dead wood is retained 

following Forest Plan standards, and additional snags and downed wood creation planned in Units 10 and 

30 would help provide for a spotted owl prey base. 

About 54 acres of the commercial thinning in dispersal habitat in CH are gaps greater than one acre in 

size that are designed with the purpose of maintaining early seral habitat. These areas would only have 

about 6 trees/acre retained in the openings. These openings are large enough that it is expected that they 

would limit future use as red tree vole and flying squirrel habitat until the second release of conifers has 

grown up to where it would provide for those species. The loss of these two key prey species is expected 

to delay the development of future foraging habitat for at least several decades in those openings. This 

delay is expected to adversely affect CH. The remaining portions of the thinned units are expected to 

provide higher quality future foraging habitat than if left untreated.

The trees retained in the gaps are expected to develop large, deep crown structures that would provide 

future sites for roosting and possibly nesting. The forest that regenerates in the gaps, with only about 6 

leave trees/acre, would initially have fewer future large trees than typical late successional forests which 

average 8 or more such trees (USFS 1986). While the number of large trees would be less, gap creation, 

as designed for the Goose project, should not delay the development of future roosting and nesting habitat 

because some suitable structures are expected to be provided.

The 7 acres of commercial thinning in non-habitat is expected to have long-term (>10 years) beneficial 

effects by increasing tree diameter growth and crown development which would accelerate the 

development of nest and roost structures and foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. These treatments have 

no gaps greater than one acre.

Overall, commercial thinning is a beneficial example of active forest management addressed in Recovery 

Action 10 because the treatments foster long-term (>10 years) forest health resiliency and restoration. The 

actions are consistent with long-term (>30 years) restoration goals of the Recovery Plan. The actions do 

not affect the management of existing large, continuous blocks of late-successional forests and would 

accelerate the development of some mid-seral habitat toward old forest conditions, especially the 392-acre 

stand that comprises Unit 10. The proposed commercial thinning is consistent with new ecological 

forestry for moist forests that recommends thinning younger forests to accelerate development of 

structural complexity (Franklin and Johnson 2012). The larger gaps created on about 54 acres responds
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132- Goose Project Final EIS

beneficially to new concepts of ecological forestry to address needs of early seral species (Swanson et al. 

2010, Franklin and Johnson 2012). The NSO Recovery Plan recognizes a need for active forestry to 

improve ecological conditions including restoration of high-quality early seral habitat (e.g. USFWS 

2011:III-46). The CH rule (USFWS 2012:146) recommends that such treatments occur in stands that are 

not high-value owl habitat and in land designations where more traditional forest management is 

conducted. The planned gaps in the Goose project in young dispersal habitat avoid high-value owl habitat 

according to the CH recommendation. It should be noted that the Goose project was developed before the 

designation of 2012 proposed and final CH. The commercial thinning would not impair the functionality 

of any owl home ranges.

The planned commercial thinning in CH for the Goose project would not adversely affect dispersal 

habitat and would have mostly beneficial effects on future foraging and nesting/roosting habitat.

However, because about 54 acres of larger gaps that are being created to benefit early seral habitat would

measurably delay the development of future foraging habitat, the proposed Harvest Habitat Maintain 

thinning may affect and is likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat.

WUI Fuel Reduction Treatment in Critical Habitat

About 23 and 4 acres of WUI Fuel Reduction Treatment are planned in suitable and non-habitat, 

respectively, in 2012 CH. The treatment is intended to reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of 

fuels to create defensible space near human-built structures. The BO for this activity (USFWS 2009:94) 

found that removal of small diameter material less than 7 inches (in diameter) for the chipping and 

burning would maintain the functionality of the suitable habitat after treatment. In addition, the treatment 

would reduce the risk of unintended burning of the habitat. The NSO Recovery Plan and the CH rule both 

recognize that treatments may be needed to reduce fire risks in spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, 2012).

Because the treatments reduce understory cover, but maintain the overall functionality of the habitat, the 

WUI Fuel Reduction Treatments in suitable and non-habitat may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat.

Effects to Nest Patches and Nesting Pairs in Critical Habitat

The original consultation for the Goose project showed no activities planned within the 300-meter nest 

patch of known and predicted owl sites (USFWS 2009). After unit layout, about 0.19 acres of Unit 10 

overlap the 300-meter radius perimeter around MSNO 2034 in one area that is now in CH. The overlap 

extends about 75 feet into the nest circle perimeter and would thin dispersal habitat maintaining the 

habitat as dispersal. The habitat where the overlap occurs is on the edge of a rocky area that is separated 

from the forest stand surrounding the nest by about 100 meters of small patches of open meadows 

separated by stringers of trees. Thus, although Unit 10 is slightly within a hypothetical 300-meter nest 

patch, it is actually separated from the actual nest patch by topography and natural separations between 

the forest blocks comprising Unit 10 and the nest patch, respectively. The original consultation for the 

Goose project included incidental take for two seasons at MSNO 2034 (incorrectly written as MSNO 

2036 on USFWS 2009:114 of the BO) due to helicopter yarding disturbances, and included incidental 

take due to harm to MSNO 2036 caused by loss of suitable habitat from treatment activities mostly 

outside of what is not 2012 CH. The current layout of Unit 10 and its effects to owl nesting habitat and 

MSNO 2034 is consistent with the original consultation for the project.

Alternative 3

Suitable Habitat Removal for Road Construction in Suitable RA32 Habitat within Critical Habitat

There would be no removal of any suitable spotted owl habitat or RA32 habitat with Alternative 3.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 133

Harvest Habitat Maintain-Dispersal and Non-habitat in Critical Habitat

The objectives of the commercial thinning in stands less than 80 years of age, as identified in the Goose 

Project Environmental Assessment (USFS 2010) and including those that are now in 2012 CH, were to 

increase stand health and vigor, increase the potential for Riparian Reserves to function as late 

successional habitat, provide a sustainable supply of timber products, and, where larger gaps were 

created, increase the amount of early seral habitat. About 63 acres of Harvest Habitat Maintain thinning is 

planned in dispersal habitat in CH Subunit WCS 3, all in AMA, compared to 505 acres in Alternative 2.

Commercial thinning is expected to increase diameter growth and crown development of retained trees by 

reducing competition for resources. In dispersal habitat, this treatment is expected to facilitate the growth 

of trees that would become nest and roost trees sooner than if no treatment occurred. In stands of dispersal 

habitat that are commercially thinned, there would be some short-term (7-10years) reduction in cover 

used for dispersal habitat. Also the reduction in overstory and mid-story cover would likely cause a shortterm (7-10 years) reduction in the abundance of owl prey species that facilitates use of the stand for 

dispersal. None of these reductions is expected to prevent use of the stand for dispersal habitat by owls in 

short-term (7-10 years). Thinning is expected to provide greater structural complexity and prey abundance 

in the long-term (>25 years) than if left untreated. 

About 10 acres of commercial thinning in dispersal habitat in CH are gaps greater than one acre in size 

that are designed with the purpose of maintaining early seral habitat. These areas would only have about 6 

trees/acre retained in the openings. These openings are large enough that it is expected that they would

limit future use as red tree vole and flying squirrel habitat until the second release of conifers has grown 

up to where it would provide for those species. The loss of these two key prey species in these habitat 

patches is expected to delay the development of future foraging habitat for at least several decades in 

those openings. This delay is expected to adversely affect CH. The remaining portions of the thinned units 

are expected to provide higher quality future foraging habitat than if left untreated.

Trees retained in the gaps are expected to develop large, deep crown structures that would provide future 

sites for roosting and possibly nesting. The forest that regenerates in the gaps, with only about 6 leave 

trees/acre, would initially have fewer future large trees than typical late successional forests which 

average 8 or more such trees (USFS 1986). While the number of large trees would be less, gap creation, 

as designed for the Goose project, should not delay the development of future roosting and nesting habitat 

because some suitable structures are expected to be provided.

The planned commercial thinning in CH for the Goose project would not adversely affect dispersal 

habitat and would have mostly beneficial effects on future foraging and nesting/roosting habitat.

However, because about 10 acres of larger gaps that are being created to benefit early seral habitat would

measurably delay the development of future foraging habitat, the proposed Harvest Habitat Maintain 

thinning may affect and is likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat.

WUI Fuel Reduction Treatment in Critical Habitat

About 23 and 4 acres of WUI Fuel Reduction Treatment are planned in suitable and non-habitat, 

respectively, in 2012 CH (units 950 and parts of 960). The treatment is intended to reduce the vertical and 

horizontal continuity of fuels to create defensible space near human-built structures. The BO for this 

activity (USFWS 2009:94) found that removal of small diameter material less than 7 inches (in diameter) 

for the chipping and burning would maintain the functionality of the suitable habitat after treatment. In 

addition, the treatment would reduce the risk of unintended burning of the habitat. The NSO Recovery 

Plan and the CH rule both recognize that treatments may be needed to reduce fire risks in spotted owl 

habitat (USFWS 2011, 2012). Because the treatments reduce understory cover, but maintain the overall 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134- Goose Project Final EIS

functionality of the habitat, the WUI Fuel Reduction Treatments in suitable and non-habitat may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat.

Effects to Nest Patches and Nesting Pairs in Critical Habitat

There would be no effects to any spotted owl nest patches or nesting pairs in Critical Habitat with 

Alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or private activities (not involving Federal activities)

that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 

CFR 402.02 Definitions). A Memorandum to the Director of Fish and Wildlife Service, August 27, 1982, 

Cumulative Effects to be Considered Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act set forth the legal 

requirements for consideration by federal agencies of the cumulative effects:

“A non-federal action is reasonably certain to occur if the action requires approval of a state or local 

resource or land use control agency and such agencies have approved the action, and the project is ready 

to proceed...these indicators must show more than the possibility that the non-federal project will occur; 

they must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that it will occur.”

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effects to Critical Habitat from Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

One Critical Habitat Subunit, WCS 3, is affected by the proposed Goose actions. The environmental 

baseline includes the habitat effects of all projects in that Subunit that the Forest Service is aware of 

having been consulted at the time the Goose Supplemental BA was prepared. West Cascades South 

Subunit 3 (WCS 3) contains about 319,736 acres (USFWS 2012:217-218) that are nearly all in federal 

ownership, except for 184 acres of State lands that are managed primarily for recreation. The Forest 

Service is not aware of any foreseeable actions on these State lands that would affect critical habitat. This 

BA addresses silviculture treatments on about 542 acres in this CH subunit, which represents 0.17 percent

of the subunit. About 7 and 506 acres of proposed treatments are precommercial thinning in young 

plantations (non-habitat) and dispersal habitat, respectively, that would largely maintain the current 

habitat function and do not affect the function of any owl home ranges. About 27 acres of planned WUI

Fuel Treatment are also expected to maintain the functionality of the existing habitat. However, about 54 

acres of gaps larger than one acre that would be created in thinning units in dispersal habitat would likely 

delay the development of future foraging habitat for several decades or more on those acres.

Two acres of high-quality suitable habitat would be lost to construction of a temporary road and two 

helicopter landing sites needed to efficiently harvest Unit 10. This loss of suitable habitat represents 0.001

percent of the suitable habitat in WCS 3 and would have a negligible effect to overall owl habitat within 

the CH subunit and a negligible effect on increased competition between barred owls and spotted owls.

Thinning in Unit 10 would likely result in long-term improvements to dispersal and suitable habitat on 

about 306 acres (calculated from the unit acres minus the acres of planned skips and gaps). Over 189,000 

acres of suitable habitat and 130 functional spotted owl territories with habitat above threshold levels 

would remain in WSC 3 after implementation of the Goose project (Willamette National Forest 2013).

None of the planned activities would create any barriers to or hinder owl movement across the subunit or

CH unit.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 135

Given the amount of suitable habitat and functional home ranges that would remain after implementation, 

WCS3 would continue to provide demographic support to overall northern spotted owl populations and 

continue to provide north-south connectivity for owls between subunits in Unit 6 (West Cascades South).

Because the Goose project would remove 2 acres of suitable habitat and delay the development of 

foraging habitat on about 54 acres where larger gaps are created, the Goose project may affect and is 

likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted owl critical habitat.

In considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the Goose project may affect and is likely to 

adversely affect northern spotted owls, but would not jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted 

owl. There are no other reasonably foreseeable or ongoing projects that would remove older forest habitat 

in that watershed. USFWS considered the effects of the Goose project on interspecific competition 

between barred owls and spotted owls in determining that the Goose project would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of spotted owls or adversely modify their critical habitat (USFWS 2012, p.37-39).

Adverse effects from helicopter noise are possible but limited to one owl site. Alternative 2 would not 

preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls and the landscape would still support nesting spotted 

owls and dispersal post-treatment.

Alternative 3

Similar to Alternative 2, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternative 3 may affect and 

is likely to adversely affect owls due to gap creation in Critical Habitat, but would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the spotted owl. Alternative 3 would not preclude meeting recovery goals for 

spotted owls and the landscape would still support nesting spotted owls and dispersal post-treatment.

Known Owl Sites

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because Alternative 1 does not implement any future actions, there would be no effects on any known 

owl sites.

Alternative 2 

While much of the project area is annually surveyed as part of the HJ Andrews Owl Demography Study, 

and many owl sites have been verified in recent years, others have not had evidence of pairs present in 

many years. 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. 

Tables 33, 34, and 35 below display suitable and dispersal spotted owl habitat acres that would be 

removed or downgraded with Alternative 2 of the Goose project. It should be noted that acres shown are 

those which were used for the USFWS consultation (Willamette National Forest 2009) and have been 

reduced since that time due to small areas that were dropped within units for various resource concerns.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 33. Current and Alternative 2 Post-Treatment Condition of Suitable Habitat in Northern Spotted Owl Home Ranges in the Goose Project Area

Project Name MSNO

Current NSO Habitat Post Treatment NSO Habitat

300 meter (nest) 0.5 miles (core) 1.2 miles (home) 0.5 miles (core area) 1.2 miles (home range)

300 m 

acres

% 

suitable

0.5 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

1.2 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

Suitable 

acres 

reduced

0.5 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

Suitable 

acres 

reduced

1.2 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

Goose

0106 70 100% 452 90% 1,805 62% 0 452 90% 0 1,805 62%

0835 45 64% 202 40% 9442 33% 0 202 40% 9 9356 32%

0836 54 77% 273 54% 1,757 61% 0 273 54% 0 1,757 61%

2034 54 78% 244 49% 1,020 35% 0 244 49% 104 917 32%

2035 41 58% 344 68% 1,545 53% 2 342 68% 122 1,424 49%

2417 26 37% 312 62% 1,318 46% 0 312 62% 0 1,318 46%

2442 22 31% 162 32% 1,266 44% 0 162 32% 0 1,266 44%

2825 38 54% 314 62% 1,551 54% 23 292 58% 58 1,493 52%

2827 34 49% 223 44% 1,378 48% 0 223 44% 0 1,378 48%

 2 Of these, 39 acres are on private land, shown in BioMapper (Davis and Lint 2005) as “suitable habitat”

2 Note acres shown are those used for the 2009 USFWS consultation. Suitable habitat acres reduced within the home range of MSNO 2836 have now been reduced to 18, with 

1,141 acres remaining post treatment.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Goose Project Final EIS - 137

Project Name MSNO

Current NSO Habitat Post Treatment NSO Habitat

300 meter (nest) 0.5 miles (core) 1.2 miles (home) 0.5 miles (core area) 1.2 miles (home range)

300 m 

acres

% 

suitable

0.5 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

1.2 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

Suitable 

acres 

reduced

0.5 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

Suitable 

acres 

reduced

1.2 mi 

acres

% 

suitable

2829 70 100% 392 78% 1,939 67% 0 392 78% 0 1,939 67%

2836 49 70% 256 51% 1,159 40% 0 256 51% 302 1,129 39%

3400 69 99% 332 66% 1,611 56% 0 332 66% 1 1,610 56%

3963 59 84% 398 79% 1,871 65% 0 398 79% 16 1,856 64%

No habitat is treated within the 300 meter nest patch. Master Site Numbers (MSNOs) anticipated to be harmed due to proposed suitable removal or downgrade to dispersal habitat in 

core areas or home ranges are shown in bold. Core areas below threshold of 50% suitable habitat are shown in orange. Home ranges below the 40% suitable habitat threshold are 

shown in pink. In post-treatment spotted owl habitat, those sites already below threshold levels (USFWS et al., 2008) but where no suitable habitat would be removed under this 

assessment are shown in a lighter shade of color (Willamette National Forest 2009).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 34. Alternative 2 Proposed Activities in Spotted Owl Habitat within 0.5 miles and 1.2 miles of Known 

Owl Sites in the Goose Project Area

Acres outside affected known or predicted owl sites are not shown in this table (Willamette National Forest 2009).

MSNO Treatment Current NSO 

Habitat Matrix AMA Admin withdrawn

Total 

(Acres)

0835 HH Maintained Dispersal 11 11

0836

HH Remove Dispersal 6 6

WUI Suitable 1 1

2034

HH Remove Dispersal 10 10

HH Maintained Dispersal 91 91

2035 HH Downgrade Suitable 2 2

2825 HH Remove Suitable 23 23

2836 HH Maintained Dispersal 2 2

0106 HH Maintained Dispersal 8 8

0835

HH Remove

Suitable 7 7

Dispersal 49 49

HH Downgrade Suitable 2 2

HH Maintain Dispersal 24 133 157

WUI

Suitable 14 14

Dispersal 6 6

0836

HH Remove Dispersal 118 118

WUI Suitable 20 34 53

20341

HH Remove Dispersal 31 31

HH Downgrade Suitable 102 102

HH Maintain Dispersal 751 751

Underburn

Suitable 75 75

Dispersal 4 4

Road Construction Suitable 2 2

2035

HH Remove Suitable 11 11

HH Downgrade Suitable 110 110

HH Maintain Dispersal 54 54

2417

HH Maintain Dispersal 107 107

WUI Suitable 130 130

2825

HH Remove

Suitable 41 41

Dispersal 143 52 195

HH Downgrade Suitable 17 17

HH Maintained Dispersal 23 20 43

WUI Suitable 22 22

2829 WUI Suitable 1 6 7

28362

HH Remove Dispersal 1 1

HH Maintain Dispersal 338 338

Underburn

Suitable 29 29

Dispersal 3 3
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 139

MSNO Treatment Current NSO 

Habitat Matrix AMA Admin withdrawn

Total 

(Acres)

Road Construction Suitable 2 2

3400

HH Maintain Dispersal 8 8

Road Construction Suitable 1 1

3963 HH Downgrade Suitable 16 16 1 Note acres shown are those used in the 2009 USFWS consultation. Suitable habitat acres treated in the home range of MSNO 

2034 have been reduced to 57. This is due to a portion of the underburning in unit 810 being dropped due to being within Critical 

Habitat. 2

Note acres shown are those used in the 2009 USFWS consultation. Suitable habitat acres treated in the home range of MSNO 

2836 have been reduced to 13. This is due to a portion of the underburning in unit 810 being dropped due to being within Critical 

Habitat. 

Table 35. Alternative 2 Effects to NSO Habitat as a Result of Habitat Modification by the Goose Project 

Project Name Activity Current 

NSO Habitat

Post-Treatment

NSO Habitat

LAA

(acres)

NLAA

(acres)

Total

(acres)

Goose

HH Remove

Suitable Non-habitat 78 78

Dispersal Non-habitat 371 371

HH Downgrade Suitable Dispersal 331 331

HH Maintain Dispersal Dispersal 1,351 1,351

Underburn

Suitable Dispersal 751 75

Dispersal Non-habitat 4 4

WUI Fuels

Treatment

Suitable Suitable 447 447

Dispersal Dispersal 164 164

Road Construction Suitable Non-habitat 2 2

HH Maintain Dispersal Dispersal 990 990

Road Construction Suitable Non-habitat 61 61

Grand Total (acres) 547 3,327 3,874

(Willamette National Forest 2009, p.35)

1 Note acres shown are those used in the 2009 USFWS consultation. Suitable habitat acres treated with the underburning in unit 

810 have been reduced to 56 due to being within Critical Habitat. 

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. 

There are no known or predicted spotted owl sites within 1.2 miles of unit 420 (27 acres). Goose units 

471, 691, and 720 are within the home ranges of three known sites: MSNO 2035, MSNO 0835 and 

MSNO 2825. The proposed harvest would reduce canopy closure to 20 percent in MSNO 0835 thereby 

removing 10 acres of suitable habitat in this known site. The proposed harvest would reduce canopy 

closure to 20 percent in MSNO 2035 which would modify eleven acres of suitable into non-habitat. After 

treatment, this known site would have suitable habitat above the 50 percent threshold in the core area, but 

just under the 50 percent suitable habitat within the home range (49 percent) which indicates that this site 

may become unstable. Therefore, this activity may affect and is likely to adversely affect this known site 

by removing suitable habitat. However, it is not expected to harm this known site (USFWS 2009, p.78).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140- Goose Project Final EIS

Units 720 and 691 would remove 23 acres of suitable habitat within the 0.5 mile core area and an 

additional 14 acres in the 1.2 mile home range. Therefore, proposed removal of 37 acres of suitable 

habitat may affect and is likely to adversely affect MSNO 2825 due to habitat loss. However, it is not 

expected to harm this known site since it is expected to remain viable after treatment, with suitable habitat 

above thresholds in both its core area and home range (USFWS 2009, p.78).

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 Goose project units (USFWS 2009).

There are nine units within the Goose project that would remove 371 acres of dispersal habitat to a postharvest canopy closure of 30 percent for the purpose of enhancing big game forage. These are fast 

growing stands and are expected to increase in canopy closure by about 2 percent per year, achieving 

dispersal habitat again in 5-6 years after harvest. These nine units are: 60, 70, 620, 640, 650, 710, 750, 

760, and 770. They fall within MSNO 0835, MSNO 0836, MSNO 2034, MSNO 2825, and MSNO 2836.

Effects of Harvest Habitat Downgraded to Known NSO Sites

Harvest Habitat Downgrade in suitable habitat may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the spotted owl 

because such thinning would modify northern spotted owl suitable habitat to the extent that it no longer 

serves the function of nesting, roosting and foraging. It may, however, continue to function as dispersal 

habitat (USFWS 2009).

There are nine units within the Goose project that would downgrade 331 acres of suitable habitat to a 

post-harvest canopy closure of 40 percent. These units are: 300, 320, 330, 380, 450, 470, 480, 680, and 

690. These units fall within five owl home ranges: MSNO 0835, MSNO 2034, MSNO 2035, MSNO 

2825, and MSNO 3963. MSNO 0835 and MSNO 2034 are deficient in suitable habitat within their home 

ranges: 

Effects of Harvest 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 Goose project, only dispersal habitat would be treated under this activity (USFWS 2009).

1351 acres of a dispersal harvest habitat maintained treatment is proposed, that would result in a postharvest canopy closure of at least 40 percent. Table 34 displays known sites that have home ranges that 

overlap these treatment units. There are no predicted sites in the Goose project. 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 2009).

Effects of Underburn to Known NSO Sites

Underburning may affect and is likely to adversely affect spotted owls both directly and indirectly since 

suitable habitat is expected to be downgraded to dispersal habitat. In dispersal, underburning may affect 

but is not likely to adversely affect (direct) spotted owls because although dispersal habitat may be 

removed, dispersal is not limiting in the area (USFWS 2009).

Three underburn units are proposed in the Goose project. The intent of these treatments is to return fire to 

the ecosystem. Units 800, 810, and 820 totaling 75 acres are currently functioning as suitable spotted owl 

habitat. The return of fire to these stands is expected to downgrade the habitat to a 40 percent canopy 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 141

closure and thus a dispersal habitat function. These underburn units are within the home range of MSNO 

2034 and MSNO 2838.

Effects of WUI Fuels Treatment to Known NSO Sites

WUI Fuels Treatments occur in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) in order reduce the susceptibility of 

human built structures to wildfires by creating a defensible space in the WUI. This treatment proposes to 

reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels by either chipping or pile burning. This treatment is 

not expected to change the functionality of the current spotted owl habitat. Since habitat functionality 

remains the same, this treatment may affect but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls directly nor 

indirectly.

The following Goose units or portions of: 840, 870, 880, 900, 920, 930, 940, 950, 960, 970, 980, 981, 990 

are proposed for Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fuels treatments. The WUI fuels project is intended to 

reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels to create more defensible space near human built 

structures. A total of 447 acres of WUI Fuels treatments are proposed within suitable habitat. The removal 

of small diameter material less than 7” dbh for the chipping or burning is expected to maintain the 

functionality of the suitable habitat after treatment. In addition, the risk of fire ignition is reduced, and 

firefighter safety is increased by the creation of a defensible space in the WUI area.

The Goose WUI fuels reduction units are within the home ranges of MSNO 0835, MSNO 0836, MSNO 

2417, MSNO 2825, and MSNO 2829.

Habitat Effects Summary Goose Project

A summary of the adverse actions anticipated by the Goose project due to habitat modification is shown

in Table 36. A summary of northern spotted owl known sites adversely affected by habitat modification 

and associated activities which may result in harm to the northern spotted owl are listed in Table 37 below 

by known site number. Additional details about known owl sites and potential effects are located in 

Appendix F.

For the reasons discussed above and in USFWS et al. (2008), the habitat removal effects caused by these 

proposed actions are expected to harm three pairs of known spotted owls.

Table 36. Summary of Adverse Effects due to Spotted Owl Habitat Modification from the Goose Project 

Project Name Proposed Activity Current Habitat 

Type

Post-treatment 

Habitat LAA (Acres)

Goose

HH Remove Suitable non-habitat 78

HH Downgrade Suitable dispersal 331

Underburn Suitable dispersal 75

Removal-Road Suitable non-habitat 2

Grand Total (acres) 486

(Willamette National Forest 2009,p.64).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 37. Summary of Northern Spotted Owl Site Effects from the Goose Project for Alternatives 2 and 3

NSO Site Alternative 2 Adverse Effect? Alternative 3 Effect

0835 Likely to adversely affect due to 

habitat modification (suitable and 

dispersal habitat removal)

Not likely to adversely affect due 

to habitat modification (dispersal 

habitat removed and downgraded)

2034 Habitat modification (suitable 

habitat downgrade and removal of 

2 acres for road) & disruption

Not likely to adversely affect due 

to habitat modification (dispersal 

habitat removed and downgraded)

2836 Habitat modification (suitable 

habitat downgrade by 

underburning and dispersal habitat 

removal)

Not likely to adversely affect due 

to habitat modification (dispersal 

habitat removed and downgraded)

Alternative 3

The effects of Alternative 3 on spotted owl sites are less than those of Alternative 2 (Table 37). Effects to 

the three individual owl sites that have adverse effects under Alternative 2 are discussed below. Thinning

less dispersal habitat with Alternative 3 would continue to provide more dense habitat for flying squirrels.

These stands would continue to grow slowly and not show improved structural habitat conditions for 

many more decades. Snag and large down wood habitat conditions would not be improved.

MSNO 0835: Alternative 3 would not harvest unit 600 (dispersal habitat) within the 0.5 mile core of this 

owl site. In addition, units 590, 620, 630, and 691 are not harvested within the 1.2 mile home range 

compared to Alternative 2. All of these units consist of dispersal habitat with the exception of unit 691 

which has about 12 acres of suitable owl habitat. Alternative 3 would include the same WUI fuels 

treatment within 28 acres of suitable habitat within the home range. After treatment, this known site 

would remain below optimal levels of suitable in both its core area and home range. The proposed WUI 

fuels treatment of 28 acres of suitable habitat may affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern 

spotted owls since habitat functionality would not change after treatment.

MSNO 2034: The main difference to this owl site between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is that it 

Alternative 3 would not include the 392 acre unit 10 (dispersal habitat) nor the 2-acre new road that 

would need to be constructed to access this unit. Effects to this owl site would be reduced compared to 

Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 does not harvest an additional 217 acres of dispersal habitat 

within the home range of this pair. Alternative 3 would also not include 60 acres of prescribed 

underburning within the home range of this owl site. The above activities may affect but are not likely to 

adversely affect the northern spotted owl.

MSNO 2836: The main difference to this owl site between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is that it 

Alternative 3 would not include the approximately 200 acres of unit 10 that are within the 1.2 mile home 

range of this unit, nor would it include the 2-acre new road that would need to be constructed to access 

unit 10. Effects to this owl site would be reduced compared to Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 

does not harvest unit 30 (22 acres of dispersal habitat) within the home range of this pair. Finally, 

Alternative 3 would not include the underburning of unit 800 which is within the owl site’s 1.2 mile home 

range. The above activities may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Since there would be no effects with Alternative 1, there are no cumulative effects to consider.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 143

Alternative 2 and 3

Cumulative effects of other habitat modification activities within the 0.5 mile core area and 1.2 mile home 

range areas of the individual owl sites discussed above were considered in the current NSO habitat 

analysis displayed in Table 33. Considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternative 2 may 

affect and is likely to adversely affect spotted owls. Alternative 3 may affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect spotted owls. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would not jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted 

owl, nor would they preclude meeting recovery goals for spotted owls. The landscape would still support 

nesting spotted owls and dispersal post-treatment.

Disruption

When logistically feasible, proposed activities are modified to avoid disrupting spotted owls. Activities 

may be moved beyond the disruption distance of known nest sites or predicted nest patches, conducted 

outside the disruption period or implemented during years when survey protocol determines that nest sites 

are unoccupied (USFWS 2012b).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There would be no disruption effects to spotted owls with Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

The Goose project may use a Type 1 helicopter to log unit 10 during the early nesting season due to 

scheduling difficulties for helicopters and economics. Because unit 10 is located near a historic owl site, 

this potential use of a helicopter was consulted on (USFWS 2012a). A summary of the USFWS 

consultation is shown in Table 38 which displays the helicopter unit, and owl site that may be affected by 

noise disturbance during the nesting season. One owl site is within 440 yards, and use of a helicopter 

during the critical nesting season may affect, and is likely to adversely affect (LAA) this owl pair if they 

are nesting due to noise disturbance.

Table 38. Northern Spotted Owl Sites that may be Adversely Affected (harmed) Due to Disruption with the 

Goose Project 

NSO Site 

Number

Unit Number Number of breeding seasons

during which disruption may occur 

(including post-harvest activities).

Source of Disruption Acres associated 

with disruption

2034 10 2

Helicopter Type 1

Post harvest pile 

burning

5

(Willamette National Forest 2009, p.35)

Note: The source of disruption should also have included prescribed underburning. 

The Design Features in Chapter 2 display recommended seasonal restrictions for spotted owls during the 

critical nesting season. It should be noted that the seasonal restriction for unit 10 is a recommendation, not 

a requirement. In many such cases when helicopters are used, it is difficult to schedule them around 

seasonal restrictions. Annual project monitoring reports would track the actual effects and report these 

back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This project may cause disruption (harm) to one known owl 

sites for two seasons due to helicopter noise and post-harvest pile burning during the nesting season.

However, it should be noted that site 2034 is annually surveyed by the Oregon Cooperative Wildlife 

Research Unit, and has not been found nesting since 2004, so the chances of successful nesting in the 

projected two years of operation are quite low.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144- Goose Project Final EIS

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would not harvest unit 10, thus, there would be no noise disturbance effects to the northern 

spotted owl.

Alternative 3 would have similar effects on forest structure and response as described in Alternative 2 for 

similar treatments. Alternative 3 does not include any suitable spotted owl habitat treatments, thus, the 

effects of this alternative on spotted owls are less than those of Alternative 2. Table 39 below shows the 

number of acres proposed for treatment by spotted owl habitat type. 

Table 39. Treated Acres by Spotted Owl Habitat Type – Alternative 3

Spotted Owl Habitat 

Type(s) Suitable Dispersal Non-habitat

Treated Acres 0 acres 660 acres 85 acres

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Since Alternative 1 would have not cause any noise disturbance effects to spotted owls, there are no 

cumulative effects to be considered.

Alternative 2

The only other currently ongoing project in the project area is the Eagle Timber Sale Project which would 

remove about 176 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat, but had no noise disturbance effects to the 

northern spotted owl. There are no other reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area that would 

cause noise disturbance at this time.

Other past projects that have affected the northern spotted owl and its’ habitat in the project area include 

the removal of approximately 764 acres of suitable owl habitat, and thinning of approximately 336 acres 

of dispersal habitat (Appendix D), all of which used seasonal restrictions as needed to prevent noise 

disturbance to known spotted owl activity centers during the critical breeding season between March 1-

July 15. None of the other currently ongoing or past projects caused noise disturbance effects to known 

northern spotted owl activity centers during the critical breeding season. In considering direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects, noise disturbance from the Goose project may affect and is likely to adversely 

affect northern spotted owls, but would not jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. 

Alternative 3

Since Alternative 3 would have not cause any noise disturbance effects to known spotted owl sites, there

are no cumulative effects to be considered.

3.5.9 Affected Environment – 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 will not become 

federally threatened or endangered. Effects of the alternatives on Forest Service sensitive species are 

considered in a project Wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE). This environmental impact statement tiers to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 145

the analysis in the BE and provides a summary of the effects in Table 40. One proposed threatened, and 

six 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 on this species will be 

limited to the table below and the Survey and Manage species discussion section.

Fisher

It is unlikely that fishers occur in the project area. While there have been three 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. Currently USFWS has not 

designated proposed critical habitat for the fisher in any portion of its range.

American Peregrine Falcon

Preferred nesting sites for peregrines are sheer cliffs 75 feet or more in height having horizontal ledges or 

small caves. Foraging is associated with a variety of open and forested habitats, however it is most closely 

associated with riparian settings. Numerous potential nest sites and occupied territories occur on the 

Willamette National Forest.

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.

Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

Peak conditions for the Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly exist in old-growth and late successional forests.

Younger forests that contain dwarf mistletoe may also have the potential to support populations. No dwarf 

mistletoe was seen during field reviews of the proposed Goose units in 2009. Currently there are about 

10,037 acres of potential habitat for the butterfly species in the project area (or 56 percent), and 404,500 

acres of potential habitat on the Willamette National Forest (22.5 percent of total forest acres). 

Cascade Axetail Slug

The Cascade axetail slug (Carinacauda stormi) is a recently described genus and species that is endemic 

to the northern west side of the Oregon Cascade Range (Leonard et al. 2011). It occurs within a restricted 

range that includes portions of the Mt Hood National Forest, Salem BLM, and the Willamette National 

Forest (Burke 2013, Young and Doerr 2011). The slug is associated with needle litter duff in Douglasfir/western hemlock forests with a vine maple understory, which is a wide-spread habitat type on the 

Forest. The slugs have been found in forests ranging in age from about 30 years to old-growth (Young et 

al. 2010). Although it has a regionally restricted range, it appears to be relatively common within its range 

on the Willamette National Forest (Doerr and Young 2009, Young et al. 2010). Only a very small percent 

of the slug habitat, on the Forest and within the project area, has been surveyed to date. Regardless of this 

fact, the species has been detected at 394 sites on the Forest. This detection rate indicates that there are 

thousands of sites on the Forest where this species occurs. Strategic surveys have been conducted for this 

species, and the nearest known location to the Goose project area is about 1 mile to the south in the lower 

Horse Creek watershed. Four individual Cascade Axetail Slugs were found at this site in 2010 (U.S. 

Forest Service 2014, NRIS database accessed 10/21/2014). Additional locations are to the west and south 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146- Goose Project Final EIS

in the South Fork McKenzie River watershed, and many locations to the north in the Blue River 

Watershed. There are no known locations to the east of the project area or in the entire Headwater 

McKenzie River Watershed.

3.5.10 Environmental Consequences - Proposed Threatened and Forest 

Service Sensitive Wildlife

All Proposed Threatened and Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would have no impact on any sensitive or proposed threatened species. 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 second layer 

of conifers, moving these stands towards late-successional habitat which would benefit fishers and bats.

The older stands in the Goose area would continue to develop towards old-growth, which should improve 

future habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak, fringed myotis, and Townsend’s big-eared bats. Potential habitat 

for the fisher would also improve over time in these stands.

Fisher

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2

Because only one fisher location is currently known on the Willamette National Forest, and it is unlikely 

that this species would occur in the project area, this project is judged to pose a No Effect to fisher.

Alternative 2 may adversely impact potential fisher habitat due to older forest habitat modification, but is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Alternative 2 of the Goose Timber sale 

units includes 426 acres of stands over 80 years old, some of which are up to 122 years old. The older 

stands contain higher quality potential habitat for this species. Regeneration harvest 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 (Hayes and Lewis 2006, p. 13).

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. 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 5 percent of 2 hypothetical female fisher home ranges 

based on where units over 80 years of age are clustered. Less than 2 percent of 2 hypothetical male fisher 

home ranges may be impacted.

Alternative 2 also proposes 60 acres of natural fuels underburn. While the burn itself may result in the 

habitat becoming less suitable if down wood is burned, some would remain unburned, and in the longer 

term (>50 years), the additional dead wood that could be created from the underburning may benefit 

fisher. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would include about 325 acres of hazardous fuels treatments in older 

stands which may reduce fisher habitat quality by reducing hiding cover. However, those treatments 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 147

would take place in the Wildland-Urban Interface which is generally less secluded and is not likely to 

provide potential habitat for the fisher.

The management recommendation to leave and/or create large down wood may ensure habitat 

requirements of this species are met. The planned downed wood enhancement within 505 acres of spotted 

owl Critical Habitat with Alternative 2, and 63 acres with Alternative 3 would provide long-term (>50

years) potential future habitat benefits. Additional down wood habitat enhancement within the other units 

as recommended in the design features (Chapter 2) would also provide benefits.

Conferencing of the proposed action (Alternative 2) is only required if the action is likely to jeopardize 

the species. However, if the fisher is listed, the Forest Service may need to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on the effects of the Goose project on this species. If there is a final listing determination, 

it should clarify what portion of the historic range would require consultation.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would not impact any stands over 80 years of age, and thus would be unlikely to have an 

impact on potential fisher habitat. Thinning of the younger stands with subsequent down wood creation in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 may improve down wood habitat conditions and may thus provide a minor benefit to 

Fishers, if they occur in the area.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would retain sufficient habitat to provide for fishers should they reestablish in the 

area in the future.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3 

Other past projects that have modified potential fisher habitat in the project area include the removal of 

approximately 764 acres of high quality mature forest habitat, and thinning of approximately 336 acres of 

lower quality second growth plantations (Appendix D). The Pass Thin Project is currently in the planning 

stages and would thin approximately 21 acres of younger and lower quality potential fisher. Ongoing 

maintenance of the powerline that crosses the project area also permanently removes approximately eight

miles or 151 acres of future potential fisher habitat. Sixth field watersheds to the west, east and south of 

the project area have similar levels of potential fisher habitat fragmentation and similar habitat quality.

The Lookout sixth field watershed to the north has lower levels of potential fisher habitat fragmentation 

and higher habitat quality based on fragmentation and the amount of mature and old-growth forest habitat.

Considering the Goose project as well as past, present, and reasonably certain future projects, 

approximately 53 percent of the project area would remain in forest habitat greater than 80 years of age, 

which should provide for the potential habitat needs of the fisher.

American Peregrine Falcon

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

There would be no measurable effect impact on this species. Logging would result in slightly different 

prey and availability of prey in and around the units, but the overall prey base for peregrine falcons is not 

expected to decline. With the implementation of seasonal restrictions as recommended in the BE, there 

would be no impact to peregrine falcons from either Alternative 2 or 3. The proposed logging and other 

activities occur outside a peregrine primary and secondary zone, however some proposed units do occur 

within the tertiary zone. The use of helicopters is judged to have a higher degree of disturbance to nesting 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148- Goose Project Final EIS

peregrine falcons than ground-based operations. While some of the proposed Goose Alternative 2 units 

that would use helicopters do overlap the tertiary zone, they are located on the outer perimeter of the 3-

mile radius. All proposed activities would occur at a sufficient distance from nesting habitat such that any 

disturbance potential would be avoided (Pagel 1992).

There would be no effect to peregrine falcons from the other activities proposed with Alternatives 2 and 3 

which include harvest, hazardous fuels reduction, prescribed underburning, road maintenance, or 

temporary road construction. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Other past and ongoing projects (Appendix D) have altered forest structure and composition in the Goose 

project area, which has altered the species composition and availability of peregrine prey. The cumulative 

effects of these projects, combined with effects from the Goose project, would still provide for the 

foraging needs of peregrine falcons.

Townsend’s Big-Eared and Fringed Myotis Bats 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 would create 324 and 111 acres, respectively, of open forested habitat with some 

larger trees and snags (gaps and regeneration harvest acres). An additional 1,218 and 469 acres would be 

thinned with Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively (harvest acres excluding skips). The site-specific effect of 

this change to bat foraging habitat is uncertain, and could range from adverse to beneficial. The 

magnitude of the effects on foraging habitat at the landscape and forest level scales are minimal, however, 

because Alternatives 2 and 3 harvest acres affect 9 and 3 percent of the project area, respectively, and less 

than 0.01 percent of the Willamette National Forest. Hazardous fuels treatments would not impact bat 

habitat.

The Goose units contain some large snags and decadent features that might provide potential tree roost 

sites for bats, but at a lower abundance than would be found in old-growth forests. Proposed timber 

harvest in the stands over 80 years of age in Alternative 2 would retain some of the larger trees and a few 

large snags, but the harvest and possible subsequent underburns would largely degrade bat roosting tree 

habitat on about 424 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.

Prescribed underburning may create additional snags that might be used by bats after 10 or more years. In 

addition, snag creation is planned for the 43 acres of proposed regen stands in Alternative 2 (Units 471, 

691, and 720), and is recommended for the thinning stands at the rate of 1-4/acre.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

The evaluation above incorporates past Forest Service activities in the 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. The only other currently 

ongoing activity in the project area that could result in impacts to bat habitat is the Eagle Timber Sale 

which would log about 54 acres in stands with trees over 18” in diameter. Together with the proposed 

Goose project, Alternative 2 would result in impacts to 480 acres of older forests or approximately three
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 149

percent of the project area. Viability would still be maintained throughout the project area, and the Goose 

project would not cause a trend toward federal listing.

Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2

The 424 harvest acres and 2 acres of road construction in stands over 80 years in Alternative 2 are 

potential habitat for this species. In addition, potential habitat exists in the proposed prescribed 

underburning stands (units 800, 810, and 820=60 acres), as well as the hazardous fuels reduction units 

(850, 860, 870, 900, 930, 940, 950, 960, 980, and 990=325 acres). No dwarf mistletoe was located during 

stand exams (Rudisill pers. comm.), nor was any detected during field surveys. The habitat in the harvest 

units is currently considered low-quality for the Johnson’s hairstreak. As the Goose stands age, however, 

western hemlock would become more dominant and the possibility of dwarf mistletoe establishment 

should increase.

The 43 acres of regeneration harvest with leave trees (Units 471, 691, and 720) proposed in Action 

Alternative 2 would adversely impact potential habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak by removing understory 

and overstory trees. Immediately following logging, fewer hemlock trees would remain so there would be 

fewer sites where dwarf mistletoe could establish. Also, mistletoe spreads more rapidly in multistoried 

stands since the understory trees are showered by mistletoe seeds from plants in the overstory (USDA 

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region). The regeneration harvest would remove the various levels of 

canopies that currently exist in the stand. However, western hemlock would readily regenerate in the 

understory following treatment. By 80 years post-treatment and continuing as the stands age, it is 

expected that there would be a large component of western hemlock that would be suitable for dwarf 

mistletoe establishment and thus potential habitat for the Johnson’s hairstreak.

About 381 acres over 80 years of age would be thinned with Alternative 2, which would have a smaller 

effect to potential Johnson’s hairstreak habitat than the 43 acres of regeneration harvest, because the 

thinning prescription is designed to retain the largest overstory trees in most cases. In the future, these 

largest stand trees could develop dwarf mistletoe which may become Johnson’s hairstreak habitat.

Thus, Alternative 2 would impact potential Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly habitat on 424 acres for about 

80 years. An additional 2 acres of forest stands over 80 years of age would be removed for a temporary 

road to access unit 10, and may have some understory tree regeneration, yet the compacted road may slow 

tree growth. An evaluation of stands greater than 80 years of age in the project area shows that about 56 

percent is potential habitat for the Johnson’s Hairstreak.

Alternative 2 would impact approximately five percent and approximately 0.1 percent of the estimated 

potential Johnson’s hairstreak habitat in the project area with harvest activities, and on the Willamette 

National Forest, respectively. This includes both harvest activities (424 acres) as well as the prescribed 

natural fuels underburn (60 acres), totaling 484 acres.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would not impact Johnson’s Hairstreak habitat because all stands to be harvested would be 

under 80 years of age and the natural fuels underburn is not included, and thus the impacts would not be

measurable because the chances of the younger stands having any dwarf mistletoe are very low. Some 

individual trees containing dwarf mistletoe may be felled if there are hazard trees along the haul route.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150- Goose Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

The other reasonably foreseeable harvest activity in the watershed that would affect some older trees is 

the Eagle Timber Sale which would log about 54 acres in stands over 18” diameter. Because the majority 

of the potential habitat would be unaffected by activities, Johnson’s hairstreak viability is expected to be 

maintained at the 6th field watershed level and within the broader project area for both action alternatives, 

considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Because viability would be maintained at the 

watershed level, the proposed actions are not expected to affect viability at the larger Forest scale, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing.

Cascade Axetail Slug

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

With Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts, if any, are expected to be minor due to the apparently wide range of 

habitat types this species may use and the relatively small size of this project within the larger Upper

McKenzie River Watershed. Species viability on a large scale would continue to persist. It is unknown if 

localized populations may be temporarily impacted due to ground disturbance.

Regeneration harvest, underburning, prescribed natural fire, and hazardous fuels treatments in Alternative 

2 would degrade habitat for Cascade Axetail Slugs and may result in loss of the species at those sites, 

although one individual was found at a site that recently burned, indicating an ability to persist after low 

severity fires (Doerr and Young 2009). The species has been found in Douglas fir-western hemlock 

forests with a vine maple understory which is a common habitat type on the Willamette National Forest.

Only a very small amount of the suitable Cascades Axetail Slug habitat on the forest has been surveyed to 

date, and the species has been detected at 394 sites on the Forest. This detection rate indicates that there 

are thousands of sites on the Forest where this species occurs.

Commercial thinning in Alternatives 2 and 3 may degrade habitat for Cascades Axetail Slugs, but is not 

expected to result in loss of the species at the stand level because the species occurs in a wide range of 

forest age classes and thinning would retain some overhead forest canopy, leaf litter, and existing 

understory plant species. Because thinning could increase vine maple understory abundance, it could have 

potential benefits to slug habitat although this has not been studied. The large down wood enhancement 

work being recommended for many of the thinning units may also benefit Cascades Axetail Slug habitat 

by providing additional ground hiding cover that retains needed moisture. The proposed Goose Action 

Alternatives would not impact any known documented site for Cascades Axetail Slugs.

Because the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Action Alternatives would impact only a small 

percentage of the Cascades Axetail Slugs that occur in the project area, Alternatives 2 and 3 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.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

One other ongoing project, the Eagle Timber Sale, would thin about 176 acres in suitable Cascades 

Axetail habitat. The planned Pass Thin Project would thin an additional 21 acres that may impact this 

species. While impacts to the Cascades Axetail Slug cannot be excluded, they are expected to be very 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 151

minor and cannot be measured. Some impacts could occur from ground disturbance. There are other 

actions in the project area that may add to, but are not expected to impact or add towards cumulative 

effects on the slug species (see Appendix D).

Table 40 provides a summary of effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 for Proposed Threatened and Sensitive 

Species which occur or have potential habitat in the project area.

Table 40. Summary of Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 for Proposed Threatened and Sensitive Species

Species Effect Determination For 

Alts. 2 and 3* Rationale For Determination

Fisher

No short-term effect with 

potential long-term (>10 years) 

beneficial impact

Fishers are unlikely to occur in the project area 

and the scale of the alternatives, which would 

impact between <5 percent of 2 hypothetical 

female home ranges, would not preclude them 

from reestablishing in the watershed, and effects 

to this species are unlikely to occur. Potential 

denning habitat would be retained in all 

hypothetical home ranges. In the long-term over 

10 years, potential Fisher habitat quality may 

benefit from underburning and large down wood 

enhancement.

American Peregrine Falcon No Impact

No activities planned in primary or secondary 

home range, on very outer perimeter of tertiary 

home range and not judged to pose an impact. 

Proposed harvest treatments would be neutral to 

falcon foraging habitat.

Fringed Myotis (bat) and 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bats MAII**

Effects on foraging habitat and potential tree 

roosting and natal habitat is minor at the project 

area, watershed and Forest scale. Probablility that 

an occupied roost or natal site would be fallen 

during logging or hazard tree felling operations is 

low.

Johnson’s Hairstreak 

(butterfly) MAII**

Only a very small amount of western hemlock 

habitat would be affected by project activities and 

the Goose Units currently have no identified dwarf 

mistletoe, which hosts larval stage.

Crater Lake Tightcoil MAII**

Survey data has only detected this species at a 

single location on the Willamette National Forest 

and streamside buffers would exceed the 

recommended 10 meters in suitable habitat..

Cascades Axetail Slug MAII**

Survey data indicates that this endemic species is 

relatively abundant within its’ restricted range. 

Proposed activities, plus other past, present, and 

reasonably forseeable actions, would impact only 

a small portion of the known and likely occupied 

sites in the project area, watershed and on the 

Forest.

*Alternative 1 would have No Impact on any Sensitive Species.

**MAII: May Adversely Impact Individuals, but would not result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a 

trend towards federal listing. See project Biological Evaluation for a more detailed analysis.

3.5.11 Affected Environment – 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152- Goose Project Final EIS

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.

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 bigleaf 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. There are no records of the Oregon 

Megomphix in the project area. 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

Project surveys for the red tree vole were conducted in 2009 and 2015 all proposed Alternative 2 stands 

over 80 years of age as required by the Red Tree Vole Survey Protocol Version 3.0 (Forest Service and 

BLM 2012). 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).”

These 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).

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.

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 Alternatives 2 and 3 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 153

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).

NRIS, the Forest Service web-based wildlife sighting database, currently shows four records of Great 

Gray Owls in the project area. While Great Gray Owl surveys have not been systematically conducted in 

the project area, an area including and around the lower Foley Seed Orchard is suspected of being used as 

a nesting territory since the 1990s. Protocol surveys have not been conducted since the 1990s, but Great 

Gray Owls have been seen in or near the lower Foley Seed Orchard on multiple occasions since then 

through 2014. The other historic Great Gray Owl sightings in the project area are in the eastern portion, 

and not near any proposed units. With the exception of the lower Foley Seed Orchard which is a very 

open tree plantation with wide spacing and a grassy understory, much of the historic foraging habitat in 

the project area that existed in the 1990s has now grown into dense stands that are no longer suitable for 

foraging. The suspected nest location is within disturbance distance of some of the Goose Alternative 2

and 3 units. 

Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail

This species is associated with areas within 10 meters of perennial wetlands and riparian areas (Duncan et 

al. 2003).

Mollusk surveys were not required for the Goose 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.

3.5.12 Environmental Consequences – Survey and Manage Species

All Survey and Manage Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Oregon Megomphix snail, red tree vole, great gray owl, or 

Crater Lake Tightcoil snail.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Since Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Oregon Megomphix snail, red tree vole, great gray owl,

or Crater Lake Tightcoil snail, there are no cumulative effects to be considered.

Oregon Megomphix

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Alternative 2 may impact suitable Oregon Megomphix habitat at low and moderate elevations below 

3000’ on about 2,409 acres, which is about 17 percent of the suitable habitat in the project area (about 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154- Goose Project Final EIS

13,925 acres below 3000’). The impacts of Alternative 3 on Megomphix habitat are somewhat less than 

Alternative 2, impacting about 1,069 acres of suitable habitat. This is about 8 percent of the suitable 

Megomphix snail habitat in the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

While this project may impact individual Megomphix snails, it is not expected to result in any issues for 

population viability of this species. The NRIS database accessed on August 6, 2014 shows over 163 

records of the Oregon Megomphix on the Willamette National Forest. These 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. Impacts to individuals may occur, but overall population viability 

would not be impacted. Effects to Megomphix from any other actions proposed in the Goose project do 

not overlap in time and space with effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions; 

therefore, the Goose project has no further cumulative effects on the Oregon Megomphix.

Red Tree Vole

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would remove or thin approximately 424 (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 higher quality red tree vole habitat.

There are currently about 7,337 acres of higher quality red tree vole habitat in the project area, and 

Alternative 2 would remove or thin about 6 percent. Because of the number of overstory trees that are 

being left, the harvest units would return to conditions matching the description of suitable red tree vole 

habitat (Forest Service and BLM 2012) in about 50-60 years. About 2,003 (footprint) acres of lower 

quality red tree vole habitat in stands under 80 years of age would also be impacted. While nests in 

younger stands are less likely to be present, they may still be present. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would only remove about 2 acres of stands over 80 years of age, which may be higher 

quality red tree vole habitat, due to the temporary road construction needed for access to unit 10. About 

744 acres of lower quality red tree vole habitat in stands under 80 years of age would be downgraded 

from the harvest operation.

Both alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce red tree vole habitat quality with the hazardous fuels reduction 

activities on approximately 325 acres of stands over 80 years of age. Alternative 2 may also downgrade 

red tree vole habitat quality on 60 acres with natural fuels underburning in stands over 80 years of age.

Because Alternatives 2 and 3 adhere to the 2001 Survey and Manage direction and protect all known red 

tree vole sites, and, cumulatively, only a very small amount of higher quality red tree habitat would be 

affected, both alternatives are expected to maintain red tree vole persistence and viability within the 

project area.

Cumulative Effects
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 155

Alternative 2 and 3

No red tree vole nests are currently known from the project area. Past timber sales that had completed red 

tree vole surveys include Nugget, Pebble, and Cup (under the Foley Ridge Landscape Management 

Project), and none were found. The recently completed Eagle Timber Sale was surveyed for red tree voles 

and none were found. Red tree voles either do not occur in the project area or are so rare they cannot be 

found. 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.

Great Gray Owl

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would create about 324 acres of open habitat (43 acres of regeneration harvest and 281 acres 

of gaps) which may enhance opportunities for great gray owl foraging. On the west slope of the Cascades, 

regeneration harvests initiate 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 (Quintana-Coyer et al. 2004).

Proposed unit 720 is a 90 year old, natural stand with some remnant overstory trees in close vicinity of 

the lower Foley Seed Orchard which is planned for a regeneration harvest. The prescription would leave a 

minimum of 15 percent canopy cover plus additional trees for snag creation. The largest overstory trees 

would be retained in most cases, which are the trees which could be used by Great Gray Owls for nesting.

The stand has been designed around a small 13-acre patch of older forest which would not be harvested 

and contains Great Gray Owl nesting habitat, including large overstory trees with diverse structure and 

potential nesting platforms. Opening up unit 720 would supplement the currently existing foraging habitat 

in the Foley Seed Orchard. Thinning unit 740, which is directly adjacent to the seed orchard may also 

provide some additional lower quality foraging opportunities. Nesting habitat would be maintained, and 

foraging opportunities would improve. 

The most critical time for disturbance to nesting Great Gray Owls is during egg-laying and incubation, 

which is generally March 15 - May 15, and thus a seasonal operating restriction is recommended for 

Alternative 2 units 720 and 740 to protect nesting birds and their young (See Table 13 Design Features).

This seasonal operating restriction is centered around the area where Great Gray Owls were observed in 

the 1990s and continue to be observed once or more almost every year, during various times of the year.

Great Gray Owls in the western Cascades Province generally nest in trees with a diameter breast height 

ranging from 38-42 inches that are within 220 meters/656 feet near open, grassy areas (Quintana-Coyer et 

al. 2004). With a seasonal restriction in place, any young of the year that may be present in the area 

during logging or burning operations would be mobile, and impacts would be short term and limited to 

possible displacement. Without a seasonal restriction, the adult owls could abandon a nest long enough to 

result in a nest failure for the year(s) of operation.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would create about 111 acres of open foraging habitat for Great Gray Owls with the 

proposed small gap treatments. Unit 720 would not be harvested in the Great Gray Owl use area and no 

additional high quality foraging habitat would be created. Thinning unit 740 would provide some 

additional lower quality foraging habitat opportunities. The lower Foley Seed Orchard would continue to 

provide foraging habitat opportunities. A seasonal restriction for unit 740 would adequately protect any 

nearby nesting Great Gray Owls and their young.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156- Goose Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

There have been about 764 acres of timber harvest between 1993 and 2014 in the project area. These 

recent harvests may have created some openings or thinned young stands which may benefit Great Gray 

Owl foraging habitat quality. The recently completed 13 Thin Timber may provide some additional small 

scale gap habitat useable by Great Gray Owls. The recently completed Eagle timber sale harvested about 

176 acres and is unlikely to benefit Great Gray Owls because there have never been any observations in 

the western portion of the project area. Effects to Great Gray Owls from any other actions proposed in the 

Goose project do not overlap in time and space with effects from any past, present or reasonably 

foreseeable future actions; therefore, the Goose project has no further cumulative effects on Great Gray 

Owls. 

Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

For all proposed units in both Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be no treatment within 10 meters of 

perennially wet areas, and there should be no impact on 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 10m riparian buffer area following the management 

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 the species should not be compromised.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Effects to Crater Lake Tightcoil from actions proposed in the Goose project do not overlap in time and 

space with effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions; therefore, the Goose 

project has no cumulative effects on Crater Lake Tightcoil. 

3.5.13 Affected Environmental – Management Indicator Species

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 41). A requirement is that viable populations of MIS be maintained at the 

Forest Level. The effects of the alternatives on northern spotted owl are addressed above in a specific 

section for that species. The effects of the alternatives on peregrine falcons are also addressed above in 

the section on Forest Service Sensitive Species. The project Biological Evaluation concluded 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 157

Table 41. Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Willamette National Forest

Indicator Species Indicator Habitat Reason Selected in 1990

cavity excavators1 dead and decaying trees ecological indicator, limited habitat

elk winter range commonly hunted

deer winter range commonly hunted

pileated woodpecker old growth and mature conifers ecological indicator, limited habitat

marten old growth and mature conifers ecological indicator, limited habitat

northern spotted owl2 old growth and mature conifers ecological indicator, limited habitat, 

proposed threatened species2

bald eagle3 old growth conifers near large bodies 

of water federally threatened species3

peregrine falcon3 cliff nesting habitat near abundant 

prey federally endangered species3

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 Goose 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─2010 indicate stable populations in Oregon for red-breasted nuthatch, 

hairy woodpecker, and downy wood pecker and increasing population trends for pileated woodpecker and 

red-breasted sapsucker (Sauer et al. 2012). A decline in northern flicker has been detected from 1996-

2010. 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). Despite a recent decline in numbers, northern flickers are well 

above population levels that would suggest a viability concern.

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 Upper McKenzie River watershed (59,969 acres) was used to evaluate 

deadwood at the landscape level for this project.

The median historic condition for this watershed was estimated using levels of snags and downed logs 

found in strategic plots in unlogged stands of various ages and an estimate of the normal distribution of 

seral stages derived from the assumed fire return interval. Median values are the mid-point where half of 

the time deadwood levels would be at or higher than that value and about half the time they would be at 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158- Goose Project Final EIS

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 evaluates deadwood levels by wildlife habitat type. The Upper McKenzie River watershed 

contains five different wildlife habitat types (Table 42). Treatment units within the Goose 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.

Table 42. Wildlife Habitat Types in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed

Wildlife Habitat Type Acres

Eastside (Interior) Mixed Conifer Forest (EMC_ECB) 66

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (MMC) 124,394

Open Parkland (PARK) 5

Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest (WLCH_C) 59,969

Westside Douglas-fir Forest (WODF) 7,180

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.

An analysis was conducted at the forest level for all 5th field watersheds to determine the estimated 

current percentages of the landscape that contains various levels of large snag (>20 inches dbh) habitat 

(April 2013). Table 43 displays the results by Wildlife Habitat Type for the Upper McKenzie River 5th 

field watershed and shows where we are currently outside the estimated range of natural variability for 

large snags. There are currently just 11 percent of the acres in the tolerance level 80plus 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 as shown in Table 44.

There have been a total of 801 wildlife trees created in various harvest units throughout history within the 

project area to mitigate for the loss of snags from timber harvest and ongoing fire suppression activities.

Treatments used were blasting (164 trees), girdling (161 trees), girdle and inoculate (58 trees), inoculate 

(62 trees), sawtop (205 trees), and sawtop and inoculate (151 trees). 

Table 43. Current Percentages of Landscape in Large Snags (>20inches dbh) in the Upper McKenzie River 5th

Field Watershed for the WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Type

HUC_10 HU_10_NAME Wildlife 

Habitat Type tl0to30 tl30to50 tl50to80 tl80plus Total Acres

1709000402 Upper McKenzie 

River

WLCH_OCA 22564 

(38%)

9784 

(16%)

20967 

(35%)

6654 

(11%)

59969
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 159

HUC_10 HU_10_NAME Wildlife 

Habitat Type tl0to30 tl30to50 tl50to80 tl80plus Total Acres

Median Historic Condition for Willamette National 

Forest (historic variability in parentheses)

30 

(15-45)

20 

(10-30)

30 

(15-45)

20 

(10-30)

Table 44. Large Snags/Acre at Various Tolerance Levels for the WLCH_OCA Habitat Type

Tolerance Limit

30 50 80

WCHL LG Snags/acre

large tree stands 4.25 6.11 11.66

small to medium tree stands 2.1 4.41 10.6

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 45 displays an analysis of the current levels of the Upper 

McKenzie River 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 45. Current Levels of the Landscape Containing Various Levels of per Acre Large Logs (>20 inches 

dbh) in the Upper McKenzie River 5th Field Watershed for the WLCH_OCA Wildlife Habitat Types

HUC_10 HU_10_NAME Wildlife 

Habitat Type 0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 Over 8

1709000403 Upper McKenzie 

River

WLCH_OCA 32% 22% 19% 13% 6% 7%

Snags in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest Habitat Type

Snags:

For Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed, the estimated median 

number of large snags (>19.9” dbh) is 3/acre compared to an estimated historic median reference 

condition of 5/acre for the Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests of the Oregon Cascades (Figure 

26).

For Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed, the estimated median 

number of snags (>9.9” dbh) is 8/acre compared to an estimated historic median reference condition of 

12/acre for the Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests of the Oregon Cascades (Figure 27). 

Wildlife Relationship on Snag and Downed Log Abundance:

DECAID provides a compilation of studies showing relationships of snag and downed wood abundance 

to wildlife occupancy of the site for a variety of wildlife species. These are expressed as tolerance levels.

For example, the 50 percent tolerance level for large snags for nesting pileated woodpeckers is 7/acre for 

Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests of the Oregon Cascades. This number indicates that half of 

pileated woodpeckers studied in this wildlife habitat would be expected to nest at sites with 7 or fewer 

large (>19.9” dbh) snags/acre. Many factors influence the population density and habitat selection of 

species that are associated with dead wood abundance. In general though, the greater the abundance of 

snags and downed wood and the larger the snags and downed logs, the higher quality habitat conditions 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160- Goose Project Final EIS

for the “dead wood dependent” species, and standards and guidelines for retaining snags and downed 

wood were developed around these relationships.

Snags densities above the 50 percent tolerance level were used to estimate the amount of high-quality 

habitat for the species, while the amount of habitat meeting the 30−50 percent tolerance interval were 

used to represent the amount of “moderate quality” dead wood habitat.

Figure 26. Comparison of Current Large (>19.9" DBH) Snag Densities in Westside Oregon Cascade Lowland 

Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions

Figure 27. Comparison of Current (>9.9" DBH) Snag Densities in Westside Oregon Cascade Lowland 

Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 161

Species-specific information in DECAID was reviewed for species found in the project watershed with 

snag and downed wood relationship studies comparable to the forest inventory plot data. From these 

studies, selections were made for TES species, MIS species, and key prey species of northern spotted owl 

and compared species tolerance levels to estimated current and historic snag and downed wood 

abundance. DECAID provided tolerance levels for the following species:

1. Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests of the Oregon Cascades: 

a. pileated woodpeckers-MIS (large snag density at nesting and foraging sites, large log 

cover *at foraging sites) and 

b. northern flying squirrel-important prey for NSO (total snag densities and total log 

cover** in occupied habitat)

*DECAID shows information for % total log cover >19.9 cm dbh compared to >19.9” dbh in the 

inventoried plot data.

**DECAID shows information for % total log cover >3.9” dbh compared to >4.9” dbh in the 

inventoried plot data. Only the 50% tolerance level is given in DECAID for % total log cover for 

marten. 

Tables 46 and 47 show estimated current acres of each wildlife habitat type (WHT) in different snag and 

downed wood densities based on Gradient Nearest Neighbor analysis of forest inventory plot data 

(LEMMA 2009) for the watershed. A historic reference condition is also developed using snag and 

downed wood abundance derived from plot data in unmanaged stands throughout the habitat type and an 

assumed fire regime interval for the watershed that estimates the average amount of the habitat in 

different successional stages. This information is calculated for both total snags (>9.9” dbh) and downed 

logs (>4.9” dbh) and for large (>19.9” dbh) logs and snags. Snag data are given as snags/acre and downed 

wood data are given as percent of cover.

Table 46. Estimated percent of Forest Habitat Type (WHT) Meeting Snag Density Tolerance Levels for Key 

Wildlife Species

Current Condition vs. DECAID Historic Reference Condition, UMR Watershed

Habitat and Wildlife Species Use Dead Wood Feature

Wildlife 

Tolerance 

Level

Percent of Habitat Meeting T. L.

Current 

Condition

DECAID Historic 

Reference

Westside Lowland 

Conifer/Hardwoods, Oregon 

Cascades

Pileated Woodpecker

Nesting Sites Snags>19.9”dbh >30 T. L. 34% 51%

Snags>19.9”dbh >50% T. L. 19% 32%

Foraging Sites Snags>19.9”dbh >30% T. L. 17% 27%

Snags>19.9”dbh >50% T. L. 4% 13%
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162- Goose Project Final EIS

Current Condition vs. DECAID Historic Reference Condition, UMR Watershed

Habitat and Wildlife Species Use Dead Wood Feature

Wildlife 

Tolerance 

Level

Percent of Habitat Meeting T. L.

Current 

Condition

DECAID Historic 

Reference

Northern Flying Squirrel

Occupied stand Snags>9.9”dbh >30% T. L. 64% 82%

Snags>9.9”dbh >50% T. L. 41% 58%

The large snag analysis suggests that currently the UMR watershed is below historical levels for large 

snags in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat and providing less nesting and foraging habitat for 

pileated woodpeckers than was provided in the estimated historic condition (Table 46). Only an estimated 

19 percent of this habitat meets or exceeds large (>19.9” dbh) snag densities at the 50 percent tolerance 

level for pileated woodpecker nesting sites compared to 32 percent of the estimated historic habitat. Only 

an estimated four percent of the habitat meets or exceeds large snag densities at that tolerance level for 

pileated woodpecker foraging sites compared to 13 percent of the estimated historic habitat.

The total snag analysis also shows that currently the UMR watershed is below historical levels for snags 

in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat and providing less snag habitat for northern flying 

squirrels than was provided in the estimated historic condition (Table 46). Only an estimated 41 percent

of this habitat meets or exceeds total (>9.9” dbh) snag densities at the 50 percent tolerance level for 

occupied northern flying squirrel sites compared to 58 percent of the estimated historic habitat.

Downed Logs:

For Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the UMR Watershed, the estimated median percent cover of

large logs (>19.9” dbh) is 3 percent compared to an estimated historic median reference condition of 1.5

percent for the Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests of the Oregon Cascades (Figure 28).

For Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the UMRWatershed, the estimated median percent cover of 

downed logs (>4.9” dbh) is 4.5 percent compared to an estimated historic median reference condition of 5

percent for the Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests of the Oregon Cascades (Figure 29). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 163

Figure 28. Comparison of Current % Cover of Large (>19.9" DBH) Downed Logs in Westside Oregon Cascade 

Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions

Figure 29. Comparison of Current % Cover of Total (>4.9" DBH) Downed Logs in Westside Oregon Cascade 

Lowland Conifer/Hardwood Forests in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed to Reference Conditions
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 47. Percent of Forest Habitat Meeting Downed Log Cover Tolerance Levels for Key Wildlife Species

Current Condition vs. DECAID Estimated Historic Reference Condition, UMR Watershed

Habitat and Wildlife Species Use Dead Wood Feature

Wildlife 

Tolerance 

Level

% of Habitat Meeting T. L.

Current 

Condition

DECAID Historic 

Reference

Westside Lowland 

Conifer/Hardwoods, Oregon 

Cascades

Pileated Woodpecker

Foraging Sites Logs>19.9”dbh* >30% T. L. >56%* >48%*

Logs>19.9”dbh* >50% T. L. >46%* >33%*

Northern Flying Squirrel

Occupied stand Logs>4.9”dbh** >30% T. L. 61% 72%

Logs>4.9”dbh** >50% T. L. 39% 36%

*DECAID shows information for % total log cover >19.9 cm dbh compared to >19.9” dbh in the inventoried plot data.

Thus the % of habitat in the above the tolerance limit is substantially underestimated, but is shown to compare the 

relative difference between the current and historic condition. 

**DECAID shows information for % total log cover >3.9” dbh compared to >4.9” dbh in the inventoried plot data.

Thus the % of habitat in the above the tolerance limit is somewhat underestimated. Only the 50 percent tolerance 

level is given in DECAID for % total log cover for marten. 

The downed log analysis indicates that currently the UMR watershed is above historical levels for large 

downed log cover in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat (Figure 5) and is providing more large 

downed log foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers than was provided in the estimated historic 

condition (Table 47). Currently an estimated 46 percent of this habitat meets or exceeds large log cover at 

the 50 percent tolerance level for pileated woodpecker foraging sites compared to 33 percent of the 

estimated historic habitat.

The downed log analysis indicates that currently the UMR watershed is slightly below historical levels for 

total smaller downed log cover in Westside Lowland Conifer/Hardwood habitat, but providing 

comparable amounts of downed log habitat for northern flying squirrels as was provided in the estimated 

historic condition. Currently an estimated 39 percent of this habitat meets or exceeds total downed log 

cover at the 50 percent tolerance level for northern flying squirrels habitat compared to 36 percent of the 

estimated historic habitat (Table 47).

Represented below are Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) model runs used to display snags/acre over 

time showing the No-Action alternative and the two action Alternatives 2 and 3 (Figures 30 and 31).

Stand exam data was used to assess current snag numbers. The gray shaded area represents the 30-80 

tolerance levels from DecAID.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 165

Figure 30. Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) Showing Short and Long Term Changes to Snags >10 inches 

in the Goose Project Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 31. Figure 10 Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) Showing Short and Long Term Changes to Snags 

>20 inches in the Goose Project Area

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 National Forest are important factors in this 

decline.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 167

Table 48. HEI Analysis for Elk Habitat in the Goose Project Area-Current Condition

Emphasis Area 

Name

Emphasis 

Rating

Results for Model Variables*

HEs Her HEc HEf Overall 

HEI

Florence High 0.73 0.44 0.49 0.33 0.48

Belknap-Paradise Moderate 0.67 0.65 0.49 0.39 0.54

N. Side Horse Moderate 0.80 0.42 0.47 0.27 0.45

White Branch Moderate 0.39 0.61 0.34 0.56 0.46

Target Levels:

High Emphasis Area - Individual Index: >0.5 Overall Index: >0.6.

Moderate Emphasis Area - Individual Index: >0.4 Overall Index: >0.5.

Low Emphasis Area - Individual Index: >0.2 Overall Index: increase any variable <0.2.

Values shown in yellow shaded boxes are below recommended minimum threshold levels in the Willamette 

National Forest Plan.

1 Elk were once also thought to require thermal cover in order to maintain body temperature. Recent work in northeast Oregon 

has shown this is not the case (Cook et al. 1998). No beneficial effects of thermal cover were demonstrated.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 32. Goose Project Area Elk Emphasis Areas

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 Goose planning area includes portions of four designated emphasis 

areas: Florence, Belknap-Paradise, North side Horse, and White Branch (Figure 32). The Florence 

emphasis area has a high quality rating while the other three areas are rated as moderate. These areas are 

managed for elk habitat under guidance from the Willamette Forest Plan Standards and guidelines (FW137) with the assumption that providing high quality elk habitat would adequately address the needs for 

black-tailed deer. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 169

Elk Model for Goose 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 black-tailed deer (Parker et al. 

1999).

The Wisdom model was developed to evaluate landscape areas where quality forage areas were provided 

primarily by clear cutting and associated post-harvest burning and fertilization. With the dramatic decline 

in regeneration timber harvest under the Northwest Forest Plan, there has been a corresponding decline in 

high-quality elk forage habitat. This trend, coupled with recent studies, has increased the importance of 

providing foraging habitat for elk.

A drawback of the Wisdom model is that forage is evaluated based on the average value of defined forage 

areas and does not consider the amount of forage provided. Areas that provide meaningful forage are not 

considered in the forage effectiveness calculations. For example, providing substantial acres of 

temporarily improved elk and deer forage conditions by commercial thinning may result in a lower forage 

score in the Wisdom model. Research shows that commercial thinning, especially the proposed gaps and 

dominant tree release treatments to a lesser extent, would improve the quantity of understory herbaceous 

and shrub forage (Beggs and Puettman 2003). This is judged to benefit forage conditions for elk and deer 

within the analysis area regardless of the average forage value derived from the Wisdom model.

Another example for which the model does not effectively show results due to the averaging nature of the 

values is for cover values. If thermal habitat is thinned and temporarily loses its’ thermal value, the model 

increases the cover value because a greater amount of remaining cover may be optimal cover. Table 48

displays the current condition of habitat values for patch size and spacing (HEs), open road density (HEr), 

cover quality (HEc), forage quality (HEf), and overall habitat quality (HEI) for elk habitat. The 

insensitivity of the Elk Model to reflect changes in habitat is apparent when trying to compare HE values 

for various Alternatives. Therefore a description of changes is reflected in the narrative below in reference 

to the current HE values found in Table 48.

Past harvest activities have shaped the landscape in terms of the types of elk habitat. Harvest treatments 

were primarily regeneration, which included clearcuts and 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170- Goose Project Final EIS

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).

Marten

Marten are members of the weasel family that prefer mature and old conifer-dominant 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. An 

ongoing carnivore detection study in the Mt Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness

Areas on the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests found all sites sampled above that elevation to be 

occupied by marten (Hiller and McFadden-Hiller 2013).

3.5.14 Environmental Consequences – Management Indicator Species

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.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Snag abundance may initially decline on 2,058 and 746 acres of forest in Alternatives 2 and 3, 

respectively. It should be noted that these acres exceed the total harvested acres shown in Table 2.5 

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. Many of the plantations 

proposed for thinning in both alternatives have low or no large snags present currently, so few large snags 

are expected to be lost in those areas. Goose design features (Tables 2.8 and 2.9) to create snags in the 

regeneration units in Alternative 2 (Units 690, 691, and 720) as well as the thinned portions of Riparian 

Reserves (Units 70, 320, 330, 340, and 350) , and protect existing snags where possible would mitigate 

this effect. Down wood mitigation would also occur in the thinned portions of Riparian Reserves (Units 

70, 320, 330, 340, and 350). In addition, there is a design feature to enhance snag and down wood habitat 

in other units (Tables 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.10).

For the regeneration harvest units, these recommendations would retain snags in the harvest units at 100 

percent population potential (Neitro et al. 1985), well above the minimum Forest Plan standard of 40 

percent. Areas with relatively higher levels of snags may also increase over time, especially within those 

units that had a higher number of snags to be created recommended. In the long-term over many decades, 

there would be fewer snags on the stands to be managed under the Goose project compared to Alternative 

1 (Figure 3.5.10). Prescribed underburning and wildlife tree treatments would help improve this habitat.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 171

With the Goose project design features (Table 13 ) that recommend post-harvest monitoring and falling 0-

5 trees per acre if these levels are not present, downed wood levels would initially increase on 2,058 and 

746 acres of forest in Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. The level of dead wood creation would exceed 

the minimum levels needed under Forest Plan standards and guidelines for regeneration harvest. Created 

snags would also contribute to future dead wood in the units, but, long-term over 100 years or more, there 

would be less downed wood in the harvested acres compared to Alternative 1because timber harvest 

would remove much of the future deadwood source. 

The proposed Goose harvest alternatives would affect snags and downed logs on about 11 percent of the 

project area with Alternative 2, and about 4 percent with Alternative 3. The only other timber harvest 

which is currently reasonably foreseeable on Forest Service lands in the project area is the Eagle Timber 

Sale which would harvest an additional 176 acres. Clearcut harvesting is expected to continue on the 

3,219 acres of private lands in the northwest area of the watershed. These private lands are mostly 

previously logged forests with current low levels of snags and downed logs. Considering cumulative 

effects, downed wood levels in the Upper McKenzie River watershed are expected to remain within 

historic levels and increase over time as past regeneration harvest areas on federal lands mature. Snag

levels in the watershed are expected to remain within the historic range of variability in the Westside 

Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat. Snag levels are expected to increase over time as past 

regeneration harvest areas on federal lands develop towards mature and older forest stages.

Because leave trees would be retained, and snags and downed logs would be created well above minimum 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, the proposed Goose 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 created 

by the proposed silviculture treatments.

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). Assuming that suitable owl habitat 

would be preferred pileated woodpecker habitat, Alternative 2 would degrade 424 acres and remove 2 

acres, or about 6 percent of this habitat in the project area. Alternative 3 would not harvest any suitable 

spotted owl habitat and would thus not degrade any pileated woodpecker habitat. While the 60 acres of 

prescribed underburning in both alternatives may burn a few individual snags if they are a safety hazard 

during the burning, additional snag habitat is also expected to be created through a minor amount of 

individual tree mortality. This would benefit dead wood dependent species and the overall ecology of the 

landscape.

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, Alternatives 2 

and 3 would degrade 11 and 4 percent of the habitat in the project area, respectively. Hazard tree removal 

along the haul route is also expected to result in a very slight additional decrease in snag habitat within 

the planning area. The recently completed Eagle and 13 Thin Timber Sales thinned about 336 acres of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172- Goose Project Final EIS

forest habitat in the project area which resulted in the loss of some cavity nester habitat. The Pass Thin 

Project, which is currently being planned, would also thin about 21 acres and could result in minor loss of 

snags. The private lands that make up 18 percent of the project area are expected to remain relatively poor 

habitat for cavity excavator MIS and pileated woodpeckers. Because Alternatives 2 and 3 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,. Alternatives 2 and 3 are both expected to maintain population viability of cavity 

excavator species and pileated woodpeckers in the project area and 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 current low quality big game forage levels in the project area. Current 

trends of elk habitat development would occur naturally over time with Alternative 1. Existing elk 

foraging habitat within open plantations would continue growing denser into hiding cover and then into 

thermal cover. Some of the current foraging habitat areas are in higher elevation frost pockets that may be 

maintained in a long-term (>50 years) foraging habitat condition. The few very, small meadow habitats 

would undergo slight levels of tree encroachment. With Alternative 1, current elk effectiveness ratings 

would not change significantly within the next few decades. While the overall amount of low quality 

forage may continue to decrease herd health, there may also more elk damage issues in local home 

gardens in the Goose project area.

In ten years, forage availability would be expected to decrease 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 50 

years, approximately 30 percent 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. No foreseeable timber or fuels management activities are scheduled to occur in the analysis area 

that could contribute to incremental cumulative effects on elk habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Commercial thinning on 1,218 acres (Alternative 2) and 469 acres (Alternative 3) would change the 

function of elk habitat from thermal cover to mostly lower quality thermal cover that contains small 

inclusions of forage areas. Units with a final canopy 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. There are three units 

proposed for regeneration harvest with Alternative 2 that would contribute approximately 43 acres of high 

quality big game forage potential and are expected to provide early seral habitat for 15-20 years.

Early seral foraging habitat would also be created by cutting 1-to-3 acre gaps within thinning units to 

provide small forage openings totaling 281 acres with Alternative 2, and 111 acres with Alternative 3. Gap 

forage values would remain higher longer, than in the thinned matrix and adaptive management areas 

surrounding the gaps, depending on tree regeneration within the created gaps. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 173

There are seven units: 60, 70, 620, 640, 710, 760, and 770 that have been proposed for enhancement for 

big game forage. The canopy cover in these units would be reduced to approximately 30 percent to allow 

sunlight to reach the forest floor and stimulate forage species for big game.

Additional benefits to forage quality would occur in the units proposed for post-harvest under burning

(477 acres with Alternative 2, and 178 acres with Alternative 3), which would stimulate understory 

vegetation growth. Post-harvest underburning, would provide greater benefit to elk and other species 

dependent on early seral habitat. This action is not apparent in the model results because the Wisdom 

model does not consider the effects of under burning on a commercially thinned area. After thinning 

thermal habitat quality would be low for several years. At 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.

Alternative 2 would include approximately one mile of new road construction with the road being stored 

after completion of harvest activities in comparison to no new road construction with Alternative 3.There 

would be no change to open road densities for either Alternative 2 or 3. Implementation of either action 

alternative would result in an increase in disturbance throughout the implementation timeframe of this 

project (2-10 years) due to an additional seven 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. 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

It is expected that with Alternative 1, most of the higher quality elk and deer habitat would be created at 

the lower elevations on private land. Combined with other ongoing projects such as the recently 

completed 13 Thin and Eagle Timber Sales, as well as the future Pass Thin Project, elk forage habitat 

conditions would continue to remain at an overall low quality within the Goose project area.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Past actions that have improved elk habitat in the project area include approximately 764 acres of 

commercial thinning that occurred between 1993 and 2014, some of which included heavier thins and 

small gaps which improves elk forage conditions more than moderate thinning. Forage created by timber 

harvest generally lasts about 15-20 years until the stands growth into dense plantations that provide les 

forage. The recently completed 13 Thin and Eagle Timber Sales also improved about 336 acres of forage 

habitat conditions and included small gap treatments. Other foreseeable actions that would modify habitat 

in these Elk Emphasis Areas include the 21 acre Pass Thin Project which would thin a second growth 

plantation and result in improved forage habitat conditions. In the context of the Emphasis Areas and 

adjacent 5th field watersheds, the Goose project effects would result in a minor contribution to cumulative 

effects that have already occurred from past management actions surrounding the project area. Given 

what is currently 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174- Goose Project Final EIS

Marten

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1would 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 thin about 55 acres above 4000’ elevation with unit 10, however, due to the south 

facing aspect this area does not qualify as montane conifer habitat which appears to a preferred forest type 

used by marten. Unit 10 tops out on Lookout Ridge and due to the south facing aspect, does not qualify as 

montane conifer forest habitat suitable for marten. Unit 10 connects with the east-west ridge which 

contains more of the montane habitat type on the north side. Other than unit 10, the remaining Goose 

units are in Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat below 4000’ elevation and are thought to 

be marginal marten habitat due to forest type and elevation.

With the mitigation and enhancement activities for wildlife tree and down log creation activities, 

structural elements that make up higher quality marten habitat would be improved which may benefit 

marten. Because of the extremely limited extent that the Goose project would affect the preferred higher 

elevation montane mixed forest habitat, overall impacts to marten are judged to be discountable. With 

implementation of the Goose project, the long-term (>50 years) viability of marten populations is 

expected to continue to persist across the Willamette National Forest in this habitat type.

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would neither include any regeneration harvest, nor would it include unit 10 which is the 

only unit that has any area above 4000’ elevation where marten would generally occur. For this reason, 

Alternative 3 would not impact marten.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Because there are no impacts to marten, the Goose project has no cumulative effects on this species.

3.5.19 Affected Environment – Migratory Birds

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 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 shortor 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 some 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 proposed treatment 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 175

units are addressed in this section. These four species are northern goshawk, Rufous hummingbird, olivesided 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.

3.5.20 Environmental Consequences – Migratory Birds

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1would have no direct effect on migratory bird habitat and would not increase habitat for 

early-seral species. The Goose units would continue to develop towards old growth forest conditions, 

resulting in improved nesting and foraging habitat for northern goshawks and other species that prefer this 

habitat.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would remove about 45 acres over 80 and up to 127 years of age, and thin about 381 acres 

over 80 and up to 127 years of age. These older stands 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 Goose units. Protocol 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 include about 281 acres of 1-3 acre gaps, and about 50 acres of dominant tree 

releases. About 204 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. Gaps located more than 1⁄2 mile from 

a road may 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’ 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.

Lower elevation gaps are expected to close in faster than higher elevation gaps. The species mix in the 

lower elevation gaps would differ somewhat from the gaps above 3500’. Lower elevation gaps would 

include vine maple, deerbrush, red alder, Oregon grape, red huckleberry and native grasses and forbs. The 

higher elevation gap species may include huckleberry, beargrass, vine maple, native grasses and many 

flowering forbs, the seeds of which benefit some species of migratory birds, as well as pollinators.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176- Goose Project Final EIS

Alternative 3

No regeneration harvest or open early seral habitat would be created with Alternative 3. Benefits to 

migratory birds that use complex early seral habitats would occur with the 143 acres of proposed 1-3 acre 

gaps in thinning units, as well as the about 30 acres of dominant tree releases. This alternative would 

provide fewer benefits to early seral dependent land birds than Alternative 2.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Both action alternatives are consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty MOU. Seasonal restrictions are 

recommended in the Goose design features (Table 13) to conduct hazard tree falling outside the critical 

nesting season, as well as tree felling, yarding and prescribed unit underburning on specific units to 

protect owls. This would minimize disturbances to nesting migratory birds and reduce the likelihood of 

harm to individual birds. It is not operationally feasible to seasonally restrict falling operations in every 

harvest unit. Designs features to retain existing snags where possible, and to retain live trees, create snags, 

and fall trees for dead wood sources would provide structural features migratory birds would use.

There is a design feature (Table 13) to consider late winter or fall for prescribed underburning which 

would reduce impacts to nesting birds and their young. The traditional timeframe for spring underburning 

between March and late June coincides with the nesting period for most migratory birds. Fire in harvest 

units during nesting season may cause nest abandonment or mortality of eggs or juveniles. In past years, 

late winter weather has frequently created favorable conditions for underburning. There are opportunities 

to also consider early fall for prescribed underburning post-harvest unit, topographical, as weather and 

operational conditions allow. It is unlikely that all prescribed underburning units could be fall burned 

because the weather window for successful implementation is usually very short, and does not even occur 

in some years.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide 374 and 143 acres, respectively, of complex early seral habitat. These 

acres include regeneration harvest, dominant tree release (DTR), and gaps. Migratory birds which favor 

shrub habitat in early seral conifer stands, such as the Rufous hummingbird and purple finch, would 

benefit for about 20 years or until dense conifer regrowth reestablishes in the units. Species, such as olivesided flycatcher, which favor forest openings with large snags, would likely benefit for as long as the 

snags remain, which could be 30 or more years. Alternative 3 would have the same beneficial effects on 

migratory birds although fewer acres (111 acres) of gaps would be created and left unplanted.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

The Goose project would be the first project to include any regeneration timber harvest in the project area

since the early 1990s on FS lands, and no other regeneration harvest is reasonably foreseeable on the 

federal lands in this watershed. No complex early seral habitat has been created by wild fires in the 

project area in the past 50 years. A 38 acre fire burned in the 1970s, however it was mostly an understory 

burn that produced new snag habitat, but did not produce much early seral habitat. Two recently 

completed projects that included small gap treatments that benefit the above-discussed migratory bird 

species are the 13 Thin and Eagle Timber Sales of about 336 acres. Cumulatively, the proposed Goose 

project would provide early seral habitat in approximately three percent (Alternative 2), and 

approximately one percent (Alternative 3) of the 17,932 acre project area. An increase in 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 18 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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 177

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 47 percent of the project area

would remain older forested habitat over 200 years old. Alternative 3 would not modify any older 

forested habitat with the exception of the hazardous fuels reduction and prescribed natural fire stands.

Those latter treatments would still maintain older forested habitats and provide overall benefits to the 

health of those habitats.

3.6 Botany and Invasive Plants

3.6.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

There would be no adverse effects on botanical resources from proposed actions. Sensitive species and 

special habitats in the area would be protected with no-disturbance buffers. Project design features would 

be used to mitigate any introduction of invasive plants.

3.6.2 Scale of Analysis

The scale of analysis for botanical resources is limited to the treated units. 

3.6.3 Affected Environment – Sensitive Botanical Species

Current management direction mandates conservation of several categories of sensitive plants on the 

Willamette National Forest. Sensitive species are protected by USDA Forest Service regulations and 

manual direction (FSM 2672.4).

Numerous sensitive plants on the Regional Forester’s Botanical Species list for the Willamette National 

Forest have potential to occur in the project area, which encompasses a wide range of western Cascade 

forest habitats. The project area was surveyed summer 2009, using intuitive controlled surveys, in which 

the surveyor traversed through the project area to achieve a representative cross section of all the major 

habitats and topographic features, looking for the target species while in route between different areas.

When the surveyor arrived at an area of potential habitat, which was defined in the pre-field review or 

encountered during the field visit, a complete survey for the target species was made. Surveys found no 

listed sensitive botanical species in the project area.

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences – Sensitive Botanical Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1, 2 and 3

Surveys performed in 2009 indicated no listed sensitive botanical species occur in the project area;

therefore, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects are expected to occur from Alternative 1, 2 or 3. 

3.6.5 Affected Environment – Survey and Manage Botanical Species 

Survey and Manage species are old growth associated species that are genuinely rare or because of lack of 

information about them, the agencies do not know if they would be adequately protected by other 

elements of the Northwest Forest Plan. The complete list of Survey and Manage species that have 

potential habitat within the project area is in the Botanical Resource Report which is located within the 

project file and is available upon request.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178- Goose Project Final EIS

The project area was surveyed summer 2009, using intuitive controlled surveys, in which the surveyor 

traversed through the project area to achieve a representative cross section of all the major habitats and 

topographic features, looking for the target species while in route between different areas. When the 

surveyor arrived at an area of potential habitat, which was defined in the pre-field review or encountered 

during the field visit, a complete survey for the target species was made. Surveys found three Survey and 

Manage lichens in the project area:

• Nephroma occultum can be found in old growth and younger forests of Douglas fir and western 

hemlock below 3000 feet elevation. It is usually seen on branches fallen from high in the canopy, 

but found growing near the forest floor where the forest is somewhat open. It is threatened by loss 

of old-growth habitat and microclimatic changes brought on by nearby logging, changes in 

understory humidity, insect defoliation, and fire.

• Peltigera pacifica grows on soil, moss, rocks, logs, and tree boles in moist forests from low 

elevations to about 2,200 feet. At higher elevations, it is found in creek draws and on forested 

lake shores. It is threatened by narrowing of riparian buffers.

• Usnea longissima occurs in old-growth and late-successional conifer stands, hardwood stands, 

and riparian areas where humidity is high. Forest management practices that harvest host trees 

may threaten existing populations.

Table 49 provides additional information about these lichen species and the units where they are located

in the project area.

3.6.6 Environmental Consequences – Survey and Manage Botanical 

Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

No habitat modification would occur with selecting this alternative because no host trees would be 

removed and there would be no fragmentation as a result of timber harvest. The Survey and Manage 

populations documented in the project area would continue to exist while there is suitable habitat. 

Alternative 1 may affect known populations of Survey and Manage lichens should the forest stand 

conditions deteriorate because of inter-tree competition where these species are found and the habitat can 

no longer sustain a viable population. The Survey and Manage species found in the project area all 

depend on old-growth conifer forests for suitable habitat. No-Action would eventually produce suitable 

habitat for these species, but without management the known populations may be extirpated before this 

occurs. 

Alternative 2 & 3

The action alternatives would have no direct effect on Survey and Manage species because known sites 

would be buffered from harvest and ground disturbing activities. These buffers would maintain the 

microclimate, hydrology, and prevent damage to the areas during project implementation. Without the nodisturbance mitigation, reduced cover could potentially decrease humidity and increase temperature, thus 

altering microsite conditions conducive for Survey and Manage plant growth and vigor. 

Habitat fragmentation is a conservation concern for sensitive lichen species in the project area. Many 

lichens have patchy distribution, even in suitable habitat, suggesting they have limited dispersal 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 179

capability. Regardless of protection buffers, habitat fragmentation occurs naturally as trees die and 

canopy openings are created; as well as a result of timber management. The no-disturbance buffers are 

expected to serve as refugia for known sites and to maintain habitat for propagule dispersal. 

Lichenologists do not have a clear understanding how smoke and atmospheric change affects lichens; but 

they know these plants are sensitive to such changes. These changes may affect reproductive vigor. 

Lichen populations in units proposed for post-harvest underburning could be at some risk of impacts from 

changes in air quality from fuels treatments (McCune & Geiser 1997). Higher than expected fire intensity 

from underburning may affect rare lichen species, but it is not likely to contribute toward federal listing of 

any species. 

The 464 acres of skips in and adjacent to riparian area are expected to serve as suitable habitat for lichens 

dependent microsites associated with old growth stand and structure.

Table 49. Survey and Manage Botanical Species in the Goose Project Area

Proposed Unit Survey and Manage Species No-Disturbance Buffer

10, 130, 380, 830, 970 Nephroma occultum 90 ft.

330, 410, 550, 640, 960, 970, 980 Peltigera pacifica 60 ft.

240, 250/260, 830 Usnea longissima 180 ft.

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1, 2 and 3

Effects to Survey and Manage species from actions proposed in the Goose project do not overlap in time 

and space with effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions; therefore, the 

Goose project has no cumulative effects on Survey and Manage species. 

3.6.7 Affected Environment – Sensitive and Survey and Manage Fungi 

Species

Sensitive Fungi Species

No surveys were required for fungi species in 2009 due to infeasibility of a single season and single year 

surveys (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004). Suitable habitat for these 

fungi does exist in the project area; therefore it is assumed that these species are likely to occur and could 

be impacted. A complete list of these species can be found in the botanical resource report on file at the 

McKenzie River Ranger District. 

Survey and Manage Fungi Species

No surveys were required for fungi species in 2009 due to infeasibility of a single season and single year 

surveys (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004). Suitable habitat for these 

fungi does exist in the project area; therefore it is assumed that these species are likely to occur and could 

be impacted. A complete list of these species can be found in the Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and 

Guidelines.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180- Goose Project Final EIS

3.6.8 Environmental Consequences – Sensitive and Survey and Manage 

Fungi Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

No effects to Sensitive or Survey and Manage fungi species would occur with Alternative 1, as no actions 

that could potentially affect these species would occur.

Alternative 2 and 3

Single surveys for fungi are not feasible, except for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus. Without knowing for 

certain the presence or absence of these fungi in the Goose planning area, a reasonable assumption is 

there would be some localized effects to individuals from activities proposed in the Goose FEIS. These 

actions may affect individuals, but they are not likely to contribute toward a trend requiring cause federal 

listing. 

Effects to Sensitive and Survey and Manage fungi could occur from compaction, loss of host trees, and 

fuels treatments. Research has found fungal reproduction was not significantly affected at the 40 percent

retention level, but was almost eliminated at the 15 percent retention level. (Luoma, et al. 2004). The 

Goose project proposes harvest under both action alternatives. However, Alternative 2 proposes 

treatments (i.e. regeneration harvest) that would reduce tree retention in some stands closer to the 15

percent threshold where effects to sensitive fungi have been observed.

Timber harvest could impact fungi in the planning area through soil compaction and microclimatic 

change by increasing the effects of solar radiation through canopy removal (Griffiths and Swanson, 

2001). The gaps proposed in both alternatives would essentially have the same effect of regeneration 

harvest proposed in Alternative 2, but to lesser degree based on spatial impact. Alteration of seral stage 

creates 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). 

Gaps could have additional effects on rare fungi species potentially occurring in the planning area by 

removing host trees of from their inoculum source. Ectomycorrhizal root tip density drops greatly when 

the 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 meters (approximately 33 feet) from the next skip should be assumed to have some impact 

on fungi propagation. 

Both natural fuels and post-harvest underburning have potential to affect Sensitive and Survey and 

Management fungi species. Research indicates diversity in ectomycorrhizal species, live root biomass, 

and duff levels are reduced by prescribed fire, compared to non-burned treatments (Smith, et al., 2005). It 

should also be noted, 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 may kill fungi in mineral 

soil (Dahlberg, 2002). The burn season would 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 would likely have effects 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). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 181

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1, 2 and 3

Effects to Sensitive and Survey and Manage fungi species from actions proposed in the Goose project do 

not overlap in time and space with effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions; 

therefore, the Goose project has no cumulative effects on Sensitive and Survey and Manage fungi species. 

3.6.9 Affected Environment – Special Habitats

Special habitats are non-forested habitats that are limited in size and distribution across the landscape. 

Small, scattered habitats play important roles not only for full-time 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 these features can be created by a natural 

disturbances and processes. Table 50 illustrates which special habitats occurs in units proposed for 

treatment in the Goose project. 

Table 50. Special Habitats in the Goose Project Area

Units Special Habitat Buffer Distance*

5150, 90, 5750, 5750, 1550 seep/rock outcrop 60 ft.

5360, 400, 600, 680, 1030, 1330, 1950, 

1940, 1930, 1360, 1320, 1280, 5610, 

42, 420, 5230, 380, 640, 1060, 1030, 

1460, 1920, 110, 5460, 5260, 1200, 

1310, 1500, 1861, 1350

wetland/seep/swamp 60 ft.

5660, 1280 mesic meadow 60 ft.

5340, 150, 5450 vine maple talus 60 ft.

*No-disturbance buffer distance is based on Special Habitat Management Guide. Buffers would be expanded if Aquatic Resource 

Specialists deems them insufficient to maintain hydrologic function.

3.6.10 Environmental Consequences – Special Habitats

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no measurable effect to rock special habitats with selecting Alternative 1. These features 

are expected to persist on the landscape and it is assumed only natural weathering would change 

conditions at these sites. Alternative 1 may affect the meadow habitats in units 1280 and 5660 because it 

does not propose to harvest timber and would therefore not remove seed sources that contribute to 

encroachment. 

Alternative 2 and 3

Alternative 2 and 3 would have no effect on special habitats. Special habitats would be buffered from 

harvest and ground disturbing activities which would protect and maintain the microclimate and 

hydrology, and prevent damage to the areas during project implementation. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182- Goose Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Effects to meadow habitat from actions proposed in Alternative 1 do not overlap in time and space with 

effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions; therefore, Alternative 1 has no 

cumulative effects on meadow habitats.

Alternative 2 and 3

There would be no effect to special habitats in the project area with the action alternatives because of the 

no-disturbance buffer mitigation; therefore, there would be no cumulative effect from the proposed 

actions.

3.6.11 Affected Environment - Invasive Plants 

Several populations of invasive plants are present in the 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. 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. 

In the project area false brome is mainly found on road shoulders, but it is in some proposed harvest units. 

Similar management actions in the Foley Ridge area have contributed to the 519 acres of false brome 

currently found in Horse Creek watershed, which is adjacent to the Upper McKenzie watershed. 

Consequently, it is assumed that false brome would likely become established in all suitable habitats 

adjacent to established populations. 

Grasses and forbs are often the first plants to colonize early seral habitats, with shrubs and trees becoming 

established later as the stand mature. Though less palatable than native forage, false brome is browsed, 

and then passed through manure. The seed can also get embedded in their fur. Most foraging wildlife 

species cover large areas, as such, there is potential to spread invasive plants throughout their respective 

range. See Table 51 for invasive plants in the project area.

Table 51. Invasive Plants in the Goose Project Area

Invasive Species Proposed Unit

False brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum)

80, 90, 110, 180, 210, 240, 250, 260, 380, 390, 

440,450, 460, 480, 540, 550, 570, 580,610, 620, 

640, 650, 660, 690, 700,710, 720, 730, 740, 750, 

760, 770, 900, 910, 920, 981

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) 40, 660

Herb Robert

(Geranium robertianum) 260, 830, 890

Reed Canarygrass

(Phalaris arundinacea) 250, 830
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 183

Invasive Species Proposed Unit

Blackberry species

(Rubus armenicus/R.lacinatus) 290,400, 390, 840, 1490, 1861, 410

Deadly nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) 260

English ivy 

(Hedra helix) 260, 370, 530, 830

Deptford pink 

(Dianthus armeria.) 40, 460

3.6.12 Environmental Consequences – Invasive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no effects to invasive plants with Alternative 1. 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 fuels treatment activities. 

Because Alternative 1 does not propose thinning, temporary road construction, or fuels 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 project area would remain highest priority in 

receiving treatment and monitoring, as determined by the District Botanist.

Alternative 2 and 3

In most cases, invasive plant effects in this range 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. Ground disturbance from harvest would have an adverse effect on invasive plants 

because it creates disturbed areas. 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 that 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 potentially spread false brome to 218 acres of early seral habitat above and beyond 

the commercial thinning acres; in addition to, 43 acres regeneration harvest. Regeneration harvest would 

leave 6-15 trees per acre depending on land allocation and would result in larger swaths of available 

ground for false brome establishment. False brome is known to establish along disturbed margins and 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184- Goose Project Final EIS

spreads into adjacent habitats, invading successfully under a range of environmental conditions including 

shade and high nutrients (Holmes, et al. 2008). 

It is assumed the 324 acres of regeneration harvest and gaps proposed under Alternative 2 would become 

likely infested. 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 would 

be washed 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. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 2 and 3

The cumulative effects analysis area for invasive plants is the 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. Eugene Water and 

Electric Board maintain a power line corridor that accesses parts of the project area. The vegetation 

management activities associated with the power line includes manual and mechanical treatments for 

invasive plants and is beneficial in reducing the effect of maintaining the infrastructure. The Goose 

project proposes 1,592 acres of timber harvest and 6.9 miles of temporary road construction. Twenty-one 

acres in Pass Thin will be harvested winter 2014-2015 under Categorical Exclusion with temporary road 

not exceeding 0.5 mile.

One past management action which has contributed to the current invasive plant condition is 1,100 acres 

of timber harvest from 1993 through the present. This includes implementation of projects analyzed in 

Foley Ridge and Bridge Thin Environmental Assessments. Temporary roads were constructed with these 

projects but they 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.

Invasive plants are spread by many vectors and at least one species can be found on any given road within 

the project area. The project area currently includes approximately 82.4 miles or 602 gross acres of 

Forest, county, State, and private road (one road mile equals 7.3 acres, based on 30 feet distances from 

center line). Based on personal knowledge of the Goose, Foley Ridge and Bridge Thin projects, invasive 

plant populations are mainly confined to roads and landings. 

Unlike managed stands and temporary roads, permanent roads persist as long as the infrastructure is 

needed and tend recover slower than other sites due to disturbance and usage patterns. The Goose FEIS

does not propose permanent road construction; therefore the project would not add on to the existing 

gross acreage of invasive plants found along roads. Though difficult to quantify, competitive seeding is 

effective at mitigating the effect of temporary roads on invasive plants; but it assumed there would be 

some new invasive plant establishment because native seed viability and germination rates vary. 

It is not known exactly how much of the 1,121 acres previously harvested is infested with invasive plants. 

In a managed stand, the effect of harvest on invasive plants is greatest at the onset when light and soil 

resources are most available and decreases over time as canopy cover and native plant competition 

increases. Depending on site productivity, the recovery time for a managed stand to sufficiently to shade 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 185

out invasive species may take up to 20 years or more because trees grow slower than forbs and shrubs. 

Design features such as pressure washing implementation equipment, using rock sources free of invasive 

plants, and minimizing soil disturbance by using existing skid trails are effective mitigation measures and 

lessen the effect of spreading invasive plants as a result of harvest. Experience with past timber projects 

indicates invasive plants would likely become established in some of the harvested units, but it is not 

known for certain the acreage that would be infested. 

In summary, timber harvest and related activities have contributed to the current condition of invasive 

plants, but they are not solely responsible since wildlife is a known vector of invasive plants. Not 

counting active sales, most temporary roads from previous harvest have been re-vegetated and 

decommissioned, so they do not currently exist on the landscape. The effect of constructing 6.9 miles of 

temporary road analyzed in the proposed action would be of the greatest intensity during implementation, 

but the duration of these effects should be lessened over time and with the design features.

The proposed action would add 1,592 gross acres of potential invasive plant habitat in addition to the 

existing 1,121 acres from past management; however the infested net acreage is not known. Project 

design features would mitigate most of the human-caused effects (i.e. harvest and roads) from 

implementing the project, but it is not possible to totally prevent invasive plants from spreading. Aside 

from variability in seeding and germination, harvest units with prescriptions that promote early seral 

vegetation are likely to attract foraging wildlife which could spread invasive plants to these areas. 

3.7 Roads and Access

3.7.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 2 would have approximately 6.9 miles and Alternative 3 would have approximately 2.2 miles 

of temporary road built within the project area. Implementation of either action alternative would result in 

a temporary increase of potential sediment delivery due to additional miles of temporary roads and 

increased traffic to access the treatment stands. Temporary roads would be decommissioned once 

activities are completed and would not change road miles or access in the long term.

3.7.2 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 Goose project area.

3.7.3 Affected Environment

The project area includes approximately 58.5 miles of forest roads; approximately 13.5 miles of state 

highways; 5.4 miles of county roads; and an estimated 5.0 miles of private roads and driveways. The 

Forest road system in the project area includes 14.5 miles of collector roads, 44.0 miles of local roads and 

no arterial roads. Highway 126 and 242 serve as arterial roads in the project area. 

In and near the project area, past management activities have provided the current network of forest roads, 

mainly from timber sales from Forest Service and private timberlands. The current road system provides

access to conduct a wide variety of forest management and fire protection activities in the area.

Specifically, the forest roads provide access to Eugene Water and Electric Board power line and 

communication facilities, Lane County public disposal site “McKenzie Bridge” the McKenzie River 

National Recreation Trail, the Frissell Trail, McKenzie Bridge Campground, Paradise Campground,

Limberlost Campground and various dispersed campsites. These roads also allow access for firewood and 

special forest products gathering.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186- Goose Project Final EIS

Highways 126 and 242 bisect the planning area. Both are double lane roads paved with asphalt surfacing.

Both of these highways are designated as Scenic Byways. Project activity units are located on both the 

north and south sides of the highway corridor. Roads 2633, 2638 and 2643 provide the primary access to 

the National Forest land within the project area.

30.6 miles of “key” forest roads identified in the Roads Analysis Report (USDA, 2003) occur in the 

project area. The Roads Analysis Report identified a need for these roads for long-term management of 

the Forest, and for access to recreation opportunities, administrative sites, and private lands. Key roads 

are the priority roads that are typically open to the public and maintained for vehicular traffic. They 

provide the long-term transportation network necessary to meet forest management objectives. Key roads 

and secondary roads are primarily surfaced with crushed rock.

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, culvert and drainage ditch maintenance and road surface 

repair on many of the key and secondary roads in the project area. Under Alternative 2 and 3, there are 

drainage improvements which would need to be implemented prior to commercial haul, to protect water 

quality. Many of the culverts on the roads are in poor condition or undersized, and are in need of 

replacement. Additional deferred maintenance is expected in the future unless maintenance budget 

funding is improved. 

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

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 off-highway vehicles (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 and 3

Road Maintenance

Road maintenance would occur on 43 miles of road with Alternative 2 and 26 miles of road with 

Alternative 3. 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 blading, ditch maintenance, culvert replacement, surface rocking, and/or installing dips or 

waterbars which would result in the proper drainage and safe use of the roads (see Design Features Table 

13). Brushing roads would increase sight distance and increase visibility for safer driving. Removing 

ditch slough (accumulated soil) to predetermined disposal locations would reduce the likelihood of 

spreading invasive plants. There are miscellaneous segments, in both alternatives, of low standard roads

identified as potential haul routes throughout the planning area that would require minor road width 

adjustments and road surface rehabilitation to support commercial haul.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 187

Maintenance proposed with Alternative 2 and 3 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 one to two seasons. Attention would be paid 

during road maintenance activities to minimize potential delivery to adjacent streams and Best 

Management Practices (BMP) 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 be administered so as to not adversely affect stream flows.

Alternative 3 would maintain less miles of road than Alternative 2 because it would have less haul routes 

associated with these activities. The use of fewer roads in the project area may continue the backlog of 

needed road maintenance activities. The number of miles open to public access would remain unchanged. 

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 (approximately 24.9 miles in 

Alternative 2 and 11.1 miles in Alternative 3would be restricted while treatment activities are taking 

place.

To address the identified concerns along Road 2600275 regarding the potential for both Glenn Creek and 

Goose Creek stream crossings becoming blocked with debris or relocated bed load, causing channel 

migration, the following design features would be implemented prior to harvest activities:

• During road reconstruction the existing road geometry including roadbed width, cross slope, 

horizontal and vertical alignment and grades would require adjustment to improve driver safety,

create a safe distance between the current roadway and existing power poles, improve drainage and 

road surface runoff. 

• The stream crossings would be designed to pass 100 year flood flows. This would incorporate the 

design and construction of an armored ford/dip in Glenn Creek and the replacement of the existing 

culvert in Goose Creek with an armored ford/dip or culvert structure.

Temporary Spur Roads

Alternative 2 and 3 require construction of temporary spur roads. Alternative 2 would have approximately 

6.9 miles and Alternative 3 would have approximately 2.2 miles of temporary roads built within the 

project area. Implementation of either action Alternative would result in a temporary increase of 

disturbance due to additional miles of temporary roads and increased traffic to access the treatment 

stands. All temporary roads would be decommissioned 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 towers that were used to log 

large tracts of land. Current thinning activity usually utilizes small, mobile, road-based yarders.

Temporary spur road construction has been kept to a minimum in both action alternatives, 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.

Upon completion of all project activities, the open road density within the project area would not change.

The open road density of Forest Service roads would remain approximately 1.7 miles per square mile. All 

currently closed system roads (approximately. 0.20 miles) that would be re-opened and utilized for timber 

haul 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 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188- Goose Project Final EIS

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.

Cumulative Effects

Past management actions have created 58.5 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. Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide necessary road maintenance on the haul routes and roads used 

for other treatment activities. Maintenance proposed under these alternatives, combined with the 

maintenance that occurred with the 13 Thin Timber Sale and Eagle Timber Sale (past projects overlapping 

project area) would continue to improve the road system, reducing sedimentation and increasing safety.

3.8 Heritage Resources

3.8.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

No effects are expected for activities associated with Alternative 1, 2, or 3. 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 are already in place for this project 

(see Design Features Chapter 2).

3.8.2 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for heritage resources includes 

the project’s active units, road construction, landings, and hazardous fuels activities within the Goose 

project. An archaeological survey of the Goose 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 is the principal manner for implementing the mandated goals.

3.8.3 Assessment Methodology

An archaeological survey of the Goose project was conducted in 2009. A systematic surface pedestrian 

search was the principal manner for implementing the above stated mandated goals. The field survey of 

Goose project was performed by ten crew members, utilized on different days, from early May to midJuly 2009 following the Willamette National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan guidelines.

Pedestrian 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. One-by-one meter shovel scrapes made with entrenching tools exposed mineral soil every 

20 to 30 meters in areas where dense vegetation limited ground visibility. Bearing orientations were 

followed to the best of abilities, but adjustments in orientation, spacing intervals, and shovel scrape 

spacing were made in order to avoid dangerous or unreasonable conditions (e.g., exceptionally steep 

slopes or impenetrable vegetation). Approximately 1650 acres were surveyed consisting of about 1350 

high probability and 300 low probability acres.

3.8.4 Affected Environment

There are 31 cultural sites recorded within the project area that are considered eligible or potentially 

eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and must be protected from all ground 

disturbing project activities or evaluated to determine their eligibility to the NRHP. Four of these sites 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 189

were previously located and monitored under this project and six cultural sites were newly discovered 

during the survey.

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 et al., 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), McKenzie River Valley History (Williams, 1988) 

and numerous other publications.

Cultural History

Ethnographic research indicates that highly mobile prehistoric and early historic Indian groups, probably 

the Molala, Kalapuya, and their ancestors used the western Cascade Mountains for the main purposes of 

seasonal hunting, fishing, and plant gathering. Ethnographic evidence also suggests that the Molala 

Indians were indigenous to the area and lived during the winter along low elevation streams, accessing the 

uplands during the summer and fall to hunt game and gather berries and other important plant resources.

The Molala are linguistically related to Willamette Valley groups, but are thought to be composed of

montane-based bands who were living in the western Oregon Cascades during the historic period.

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). Unfortunately, Indian contact with trappers, 

missionaries, military expeditions and settlers also brought them into contact with European diseases such 

as smallpox and influenza, which decimated their populations.

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 Molala 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.

Pre-contact Indian use in the area is reflected in the cultural material they left behind including chipped 

obsidian lithic scatters and obsidian lithic isolates, representing tool use, modification, or manufacture 

related to hunting and gathering. These sites are protected through avoidance from project activities.

Historic use 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. Pre-field research 

uncovered six historic features that exist within or in close proximity of the project boundaries. Of these 

six features, three are trails, two are roads, and one is a forest camp. The trails are Foley Ridge Trail, 

Frissell Point Trail, and an unnamed trail, the roads are the Deschutes Wagon Road and Scott’s Road, and 

the forest camp is the Limberlost Forest Camp (used today by forest visitors).

3.8.5 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

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.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190- Goose Project Final EIS

Alternative 2

Timber harvest, new and temporary road construction, ground base and skyline yarding and post-harvest 

fuels treatment would be greater under this alternative producing an increased amount of 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 would be in place (see Table 13), 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 prospecti and contracts. The contract clause outlines the 

procedures to follow in the event cultural resources are discovered during timber sale operations. 

Alternative 3

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in 982 less acres of ground disturbance due to timber 

harvest, 4.7 less miles of ground disturbed from temporary road construction, 299 less acres of under 

burning slash and fire line construction, and 315 acres less of pile and burn slash Based on these numbers, 

Alternative 3 would result in less ground disturbance from harvest thinning activities and thus less 

potential for inadvertent damage to the integrity of cultural resources which were not discovered during 

initial survey. Since appropriate and approved surveys have been conducted and cultural site protection 

measures are already in place (see Design Features, Chapter 2, Table 13), 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 that 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 prospecti and contracts. The contract clause outlines the procedures to follow in the 

event cultural resources are discovered during timber sale operations.

Therefore, no adverse effects are anticipated from either Alternative 2 or 3 due to the avoidance of known 

cultural resources and the application of timber sale contract clause BT6.24 (or its equivalent).

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2 and 3

Previous impacts to the area have mainly included road construction, timber harvest activities and 

wildfires. Timber harvest and the associated road/landing building have been the primary recent activities 

shaping the Goose project landscape. There has been approximately 3055 acres of harvest on federal 

grounds within the project, and 72 percent of the treatments have been regeneration harvests occurring 

prior to 1994. The earliest clearcut was harvested in the 1940’s. Some of these stands have since received 

thinning and some have not.

Over the past 100 years, records indicate four large wildfires within the project area ranging in size from 

480 to 1,715 acres. Additionally, since 1970, records indicate there has been approximately 69 smaller, 

low to moderate severity fires within the project area ranging in size from .1 to 38 acres.

Some of the above activities exposed cultural sites and damaged some of the integrity of some of the 

known sites within the project area. Based on past archaeological excavation work, we do know that the 

extent of damage from timber sale harvest usually occurred at a depth of 20 to 40cm. Most of the timber 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 191

sale harvest damage to cultural sites occurred during actions undertaken by the Forest Service prior to the 

President signing Executive Order 11593 and implementation of Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (See Affected Environment). During this period prior to the mid to late

1970s, the Forest Service was not required to hire professional archaeologists to conduct cultural resource 

surveys. Thus few sites were known on the Forest. If cultural sites are discovered during the current 

Goose project then project activities would be suspended in the area of the find, until the archaeologist 

can determine the extent of the damage and determine further course of action if necessary. 

Based on a review of the past, present and foreseeable projects listed in Appendix D, there are no 

additional cumulative effects anticipated to occur to the known cultural sites from any of the proposed 

actions under the Goose project since appropriate and approved surveys and cultural site protection 

measures are already in place for this project (see Design Features, Chapter 2, Table 13).

3.9 Scenic Quality

3.9.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 would have no adverse effect on scenic quality because no harvest treatments would occur 

under this alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would not have long term adverse effects to scenic quality however short term 

adverse effects to Frissell Trail would occur. These effects would be minimized by design features and 

would gradually fade over time as vegetative recovery takes place. Overall, the proposed activities are 

expected to result in a more visually interesting forest structure, increased depth of view into the forest, 

and a more diverse mix of vegetative species. The proposed actions would have no long term adverse 

effects to visually sensitive management areas and proposed treatments would be consistent with Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines. 

3.9.2 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Scenic Quality is the 

McKenzie viewshed within the project area.

3.9.3 Affected Environment

The Goose project area lies within the McKenzie viewshed corridor. This viewshed is an important visual 

corridor as it is adjacent to multiple travel corridors that are considered sensitive to scenic quality. Two 

National Scenic Byways pass through the project area; the West Cascades National Scenic Byway and the 

McKenzie Pass-Santiam Pass National Scenic Byway. Portions of the McKenzie River, a designated State 

Scenic Waterway and Forest Special Interest Area (SIA), pass through the project area between Belknap

hot springs and the McKenzie Bridge Campground. Portions of the McKenzie River National Recreation 

Trail (4.5 miles) and Frissell Trail (5.5 miles) are within the project area. 

Visual Management System

The Visual Management System (VMS) is the primary means for planning and management of the 

Willamette National Forest’s scenic resources. The VMS was used to inventory and categorize Forest 

landscape zones of relative scenic importance in the Forest Plan. The zones were based on attractiveness, 

proximity to travelways and use areas, and the concern Forest users have for scenic quality. These zones

were then assigned one of five Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) that represent relative degrees of 

acceptable alterations of the natural landscape. The VQOs for the Goose project area include retention, 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192- Goose Project Final EIS

partial-retention and maximum modification. These VQOs are illustrated in Figure 33 and 34 and 

described in detail in Table 52. 

Scenery Management System 

The Scenery Management System (SMS) is an updated methodology (1996) used by the Forest Service to 

provide a visual impact assessment of effects to the scenic resources which integrates social impacts to 

recreation visitors with physical impacts to the visitor experience. SMS objectives are described in terms 

of Scenic Integrity Levels which describe existing conditions and whether the landscape is visually 

perceived to be “complete” or not.

While the current Forest Plan is tiered to the VMS system, the SMS has also been used in this analysis to 

facilitate this change in methodology. Table 52 describes the five VMS/VQO categories, associated SMS 

categories, and the proposed treatment acres in each category with Alternative 2. 

Table 52. VMS and SMS Objectives and Proposed Treatment Acres in Alternative 2

VMS

(SMS)

Category

Visual Quality Objectives

(VMS)

Scenic Integrity Levels 

(SMS)

Proposed

Treatment Acres in 

Alternative 2

Preservation

(very high) Provides for ecological change only

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

Timber Harvest: 0

Fuels Treatments: 0

Retention 

(high)

In general, human activities are not 

evident to the casual forest visitor

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.

Timber Harvest: 664

Fuels Treatments: 283

Partial Retention 

(moderate)

In general, human activities may be 

evident but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape

Landscape character appears 

slightly altered. Noticeable 

deviations must remain visually 

subordinate to the landscape 

character being viewed

Timber Harvest: 1033

Fuels Treatments: 113

Modification 

(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.

Timber Harvest: 0

Fuels Treatments: 0

Maximum 

Modification 

(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.

Timber Harvest: 357

Fuels Treatments: 0
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 193

3.9.4 Environmental Consequences

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 standards and guidelines applicable to the management areas and 

related visual quality objectives (VQO) in the Goose project.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Scenic quality in the project area would continue to be unaffected by timber harvest under Alternative 1 

because no treatments are proposed under this alternative. Natural processes would continue unaffected 

by management actions and the potential benefits of timber harvest to scenery would not be realized. 

Short term adverse effects to scenery associated with timber harvest activity to Frissell Trail would not 

occur. Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on scenic quality in the project area and all 

VQO’s would remain consistent with Forest Plan direction.

Alternative 2 and 3 

Thinning harvests and intermediate harvest treatments, including fuels treatments would result in larger 

diameters and crowns of residual trees due to increased growing space and are expected to accelerate 

stand development toward a more natural range of conditions and would increase scenic diversity in the 

project area. Proposed openings (gaps) would be placed to mimic natural openings, and where possible, 

placed adjacent to natural features such as meadows or rock outcrops. Opening perimeters would be in 

shapes that respond to the natural landscape. Gap size and cumulative acreage of gaps within 

management areas would meet standard and guidelines for timber management as identified in the Forest 

Plan. Harvest unit boundaries would be blended (feathered) and would be designed with the visual 

landscape in mind to minimize straight lines and follow contours and natural features. When possible, 

temporary roads would be designed to blend into surrounding topography. Hazardous fuels treatments in

visually sensitive areas would result in a natural appearance and help to improve the depth of view into 

the forest. 

For those visitors traveling the forest road system through or adjacent to harvest units in the project area, 

short term direct effects to visual quality would be limited to dust and possibly noise from transporting 

forest products on unpaved forest roads. After harvest treatments exposed stumps and slash piles would 

be noticeable but would fade as vegetative recovery takes place. Benefits to scenic byways include less 

dense forest stands providing increased depth of view into the surrounding forest, larger size of remaining 

trees and richer mosaic of tree and vegetation diversity.

Boaters on the McKenzie River have a similar viewing corridor as highway travelers because the road 

roughly parallels the river. Both travel corridors are considered important travel routes where viewing 

scenery may be a key component of the visitor experience. The predominance of dense forest along the 

river banks and a recessed field of view (deeply incised river channel) restricts visibility into the project 

area even more so than from the highway. Visible harvest areas would be predominantly thinning or fuels 

units with a high percentage of canopy retention and these units would be viewed at middle-ground 

distances (.5-4 miles) where the degree of discernible detail is low. 

Short term impacts to scenery along Frissell Trail would include exposed stumps and slash piles however 

these potential impacts would be mitigated by design features which would require a 50 foot no harvest 

buffer on either side of the trail, and removal, mastication or burning of slash piles within 100ft. of the 

trail. Tree marking would be required to be placed on the side of trees facing away from the trail and 

boundary markers within 100ft. of the trail would be removed after project implementation. Trail buffer 

marking would be minimized to the extent possible. The trail head parking area would be used as a 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194- Goose Project Final EIS

landing site and exposed stumps, slash piles, marked trees, log piles and equipment tracks would be 

noticeable in the short term after harvest activities but would be subject to the same design features for the 

trail and are expected to be largely unnoticeable when vegetative recovery takes place.

Three units (471, 691, and 720) are proposed for regeneration harvest in Alternative 2. Unit 471 is 

located down slope from Frissell Trail and would likely be visible, though partially screened by 

vegetation. Due to its location lower on the slope; it’s meandering, more natural appearing edge; and 

relative size for the management area and location; it is expected to meet retention. Unit 691 and 720 are 

categorized as maximum modification. All units proposed for regeneration harvest would conform to 

timber management objectives for individual unit size and overall percentage of regeneration harvest 

permitted within the management areas where they are proposed. No regeneration harvest would occur in 

Alternative 3. 

Two hundred fifty-one acres of WUI treatments are proposed within the McKenzie River SIA under 

Alternative 2. The proposed treatments would not adversely affect the exceptional or unusual scenic 

characteristics that contribute to this areas unique character. Fuels reduction treatments consist of thinning 

underbrush and ladder fuels (branches and smaller trees) and are consistent with Forest Plan direction 

(MA-5a-09) to suppress wildfires at the lowest acreage practicable in SIA’s. Fuels reduction treatments 

would be consistent with the management objective to reduce the severity of wildfires in the wild land 

urban interface and accomplish enhancement program goals to actively manage stands to reduce the 

potential for undesirable stand replacing fires (McKenzie River Special Interest Area Implementation 

Guide). No harvest activities are proposed within the SIA.

Overall, the proposed activities are expected to result in a more visually interesting forest structure, 

increased depth of view into the forest, and a more diverse mix of vegetative species. The proposed 

actions would have no long term adverse effects to visually sensitive management areas and proposed 

treatments would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Design features are included in 

Chapter 2 to ensure Visual Quality Objectives and Scenic Integrity Levels as described in Table 54 are 

maintained.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 195

Figure 33. Visual Quality Objectives Alternative 2
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196- Goose Project Final EIS

Figure 34. Visual Quality Objectives Alternative 3
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 197

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

No direct or indirect effects would occur under Alternative 1; therefore, no cumulative effects would

occur under Alternative 

Alternative 2 and 3

Past and present natural and human caused disturbances or modifications (including fire, disease, timber 

harvest, fire suppression, prescribed fire treatments, power line corridors, a golf course, 

residence/business development, and road development) are visible within and adjacent to the project 

area. From 1993 to present, approximately 764 acres in the project area have been harvested, however 

vegetation has regrown in the majority of these previously harvested areas so no long-term adverse 

incremental cumulative effects to scenic quality are anticipated.

3.10 Recreation

3.10.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on recreation. Alternative 2 and 3 would 

have temporary adverse effects due to trail closures, increased noise and dust and log truck traffic during 

harvest activity. Benefits of timber harvest activity would include improved access to dispersed recreation 

areas due to road maintenance, improved scenery from secondary forest roads and an enlarged and 

improved trailhead parking area at Frissell Trail.

3.10.2 Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale used to assess direct, indirect and cumulative effects to recreation is the Goose 

project planning area which includes the project activity units and those portions of Florence CreekMcKenzie River, Elk Creek-McKenzie River and Lost Creek 6th Field watersheds.

3.10.3 Affected Environment

The project area is popular for both developed and dispersed recreation activities including: camping, 

hiking, hunting, fishing, bicycling, boating, picnicking, berry picking, viewing scenery, and driving for 

pleasure. Portions of the West Cascades National Scenic Byway and McKenzie Pass-Santiam Pass 

National Scenic Byway are within the project area. The forested slopes along the McKenzie River (a 

portion of which is designated Oregon State Scenic Waterway) form an important scenic backdrop for the 

byways and river corridor.

Visitor use in the project area is largely driven by river-dependent recreation activities. Commercial and 

private non-motorized boating opportunities (i.e., kayaks, rafts, and drift boats) are extremely popular.

Several developed boat launches provide river access and/or day use facilities like picnic tables, 

restrooms and garbage service. Seasonal fishing (from the bank and/or boat) is very popular with local 

residents and visitors. Hiking and mountain biking are very popular activities on the McKenzie River 

National Recreation Trail. Several day use areas and interpretive sites along highway 126 and 242 provide 

opportunities to learn about the area, enjoy a picnic or go for a short hike on a developed trail. There are 

48 special use permits for river and trail outfitter/guides within the project area as well as numerous 

recreation residences (summer homes).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198- Goose Project Final EIS

Highway 242 is part of the McKenzie Pass-Santiam Pass National Scenic Byway and is a very popular 

route for scenic driving and road cycling. It is not uncommon to find the roads busy with individual or 

group road cyclists during the summer months. Those same cyclists also share the road with those

choosing to enjoy the scenery from the comfort of their car. 

Overnight camping occurs in many places and in many forms in the project area including at unmanaged 

dispersed campsites and at developed campgrounds or resort style private accommodations (Figure 35).

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, Semi-primitive Non-motorized, Semi-primitive 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 

53 displays the ROS classes and treatment acres for each alternative within the project area. Table 54 

displays ROS allocations and desired conditions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 199

Figure 35. Recreation Sites and Management Areas in Goose Project Area
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200- Goose Project Final EIS

Table 53. Management Areas and ROS Allocations Goose Project

Management Allocation (MA) ROS Allocation

Acres in 

Alternative 2 

Treatment

Units

Acres in 

Alternative 3 

Treatment

Units

Matrix (MA 14A) – Max Modification Roaded Modified 209 157

Special Interest Areas (MA 5A) Roaded Natural 19 19

Special Interest Areas (MA 5A/17) Roaded Natural 232 232

Matrix - Scenic Partial Retention Middleground 

(MA14A/MA11C) Roaded Natural 44 44

Riparian Reserves (MA 15) Roaded Natural 713 338

Adaptive Management Reserve (MA 17) – Scenic Partial 

Retention Middleground 11C Roaded Natural 1,102 469

Adaptive Management Reserve (MA 17) – Scenic 

Middleground 11E Roaded Natural 620 38

Adaptive Management Reserve (MA 17) – Scenic Retention 

Foreground 11F Roaded Natural 63 31

Adaptive Management Reserve (MA 17) – Max Modification 

14A Roaded Natural 148 66

100-acre Late Successional Reserve (MA 16B) - Dispersed 

Recreation – Semiprimitive Motorized (MA 10C)

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 15 15

Table 54. Goose Project Area ROS Allocation Summary and Desired Conditions

ROS Class Treatment

Acres

Desired Condition 

for setting

Desired Condition for Activities

Roaded 

Modified

Alt 2: 209 

acres

Opportunity to get away 

from others, but with easy 

access

Environment will appear 

substantially modified

Access and travel is 

conventional motorized 

vehicle

Shape and blend 

vegetation alterations, 

foreground should be 

natural appearing

Access for people with disabilities is a moderate 

challenge 

Rustic facilities provide some comfort and site 

protection

Moderate site modification can occur

Alt 3: 157 

acres

Roaded Natural Alt 2: 2,709 

acres

Opportunity to affiliate with 

others but with some 

chance for privacy

Access for people with disabilities is difficult

No on site facilities except occasional signing site 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 201

ROS Class Treatment

Acres

Desired Condition 

for setting

Desired Condition for Activities

Alt 3: 1005 

acres

Some obvious control of 

users

Mostly natural appearing 

setting

Vegetation modification 

done to maintain desired 

visual characteristics

modification by users

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized

Alt 2 and 3: 

15 acres

Moderate probability of 

experiencing solitude, 

closeness to nature, 

tranquility. High degree of 

self-reliance, challenge and 

risk in using motorized 

equipment. Predominantly 

naturally appearing 

environment.

Access for people with disabilities is difficult.

Rustic and rudimentary facilities primarily for site 

protection using native material.

Recreational Driving/Road Access

Driving for pleasure (sightseeing) is a popular activity within the project area, primarily during the 

summer months when roads are open and free of snow. There are two National Scenic Byways in the 

project area; the West Cascades National Scenic Byway and the McKenzie Pass-Santiam Pass National 

Scenic Byway. Visitors enjoying these routes will sometimes stop along their drive to picnic at one of 

several developed sites, visit interpretive sites, or choose their own special place to relax before 

continuing on their journey. In addition to scenic driving on byways, visitors also drive other Forest 

Service roads for pleasure; this use fluctuates from very light on most dead end roads to moderate use on 

secondary and connector roads, with increased use during the hunting season. 

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use on the forest road system in the project area is not common because 

numerous higher quality riding areas exist on the district including the Santiam Pass Recreation Area 

which provides a designated OHV trail system that supports summer and winter OHV use. 

The Lane County public transportation system services a daily bus route through the McKenzie River 

valley that terminates at the McKenzie River Ranger Station. Visitors can get within easy walking 

distance to some prime fishing spots and the McKenzie River National Recreation Trail for hiking and 

biking. The bus also provides limited bicycle transport, allowing mountain bikers and road cyclists an 

easy method of getting to their desired starting point.

Developed Recreation Sites

McKenzie Bridge, Paradise, and Limberlost are the three developed campgrounds within the project area. 

Paradise Campground is extremely popular and provides 64 campsites, a boat launch, McKenzie River 

trail access and a day use area with an amphitheater. McKenzie Bridge Campground is near the 

community of McKenzie Bridge and has 20 campsites, two day use areas and a boat launch. Limberlost 

Campground is a small campground on highway 242 and provides a more primitive experience with just 

12 campsites along a small creek with restroom and garbage facilities.

Dispersed Camping

There are 15 known dispersed campsites within the project area. These sites are usually associated with 

favorite hunting areas or are areas with some interesting natural features such as fresh water streams, 

lakes, rock formations or an appealing forest environment. There are two high use campsites along
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202- Goose Project Final EIS

Highway 242 which provide access to Lost Creek and have an appealing forest environment with 

associated camping areas. The remaining sites are moderate to low use and are primarily in the more 

upland areas of the watershed and tend to be used by hunters during hunting season.

Trails

The entire McKenzie River National Recreation Trail (McKenzie River NRT) is 26 miles in length with 

an upper trail head near Clear Lake and lower trail head near the McKenzie River Ranger District office. 

The McKenzie River NRT provides multiple access points throughout its length at a variety of developed 

recreation sites and trailheads allowing for a wide variety of route and transportation options. 

Approximately 4.5 miles of the McKenzie River NRT are within the project area (Figure 38). The Frissell 

Trail is 5.5 miles in length and leads to Lookout Ridge and Frissell Mountain along the northern boundary 

of the project area. The entire trail is located in the project area, though only .85 miles are located in units 

proposed for treatment (Figure 38). Frissell Trail receives low use, while the McKenzie River NRT 

receives very high use and is nationally renowned for hiking and mountain biking.

Although a lower use trail, Frissell Trail is the closest trail to the community of McKenzie Bridge and 

because it is south facing the lower trail section remains accessible for a large portion of the year. Over 

time Frissell trail has deteriorated due to lack of maintenance but also due to narrowing trail benching due 

to sloughing terrain and erosion at creek crossings. The parking area has also expanded outside the 

established area onto sensitive natural ground. These expansion areas are experiencing vegetation loss, 

erosion and soil compaction.

Special Interest Areas/State Scenic Waterway

The McKenzie River is regionally and nationally renowned for its outstanding recreational opportunities 

and scenery. The segment between Belknap Springs and McKenzie Bridge Campground falls within the 

project area. The McKenzie River Special Interest Area (SIA), managed for scenery, fisheries, water 

quality, and recreation, is located in the project area. Segments of the McKenzie River are designated 

Oregon State Scenic Waterway, which is administered by the Oregon State Parks and Recreation 

Department. The State Scenic Waterway segments have a dual classification, with the west side of the 

McKenzie River classified as Scenic River Area and the east side of the river classified as Recreation 

River Area.

3.10.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Recreation use of the National Forest in the project area would remain unchanged with the No-Action

alternative. The recreating public would continue to use the project area for recreational purposes, and 

would continue current use of developed and dispersed campsites, day use areas, interpretive sites, boat 

launches, trails, and roads. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effect on recreation 

within the project area.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Recreational Driving/Road Access

Short term effects of proposed timber harvesting, log truck hauling, and fuels treatments would include 

the following during timber harvest: localized road closures, and disruption to hunting, hiking, camping, 

and driving in some areas. The logging activity, hauling, and fuels treatments would likely cause noise 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 203

and dust or smoke disturbances in some instances. No permanent roads would be constructed and no 

roads would be permanently closed as a result of the Goose project. Alternative 2 would construct 6.9 

miles of temporary road and Alternative 3 would construct 2.2 miles. Road maintenance on secondary 

roads in the project area would improve ride quality and comfort for visitors seeking recreation 

opportunities in the area. Alternative 2 would maintain approximately 43 miles of road and Alternative 3 

would maintain approximately 26 miles.

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is not a recreational activity commonly pursued in the project area so 

displacement of OHV use is expected to be minimal. There is an OHV oriented trail system available on 

the district (Santiam Pass Recreation Area) and numerous other OHV opportunities exist on the district 

and forest road system.

Developed Recreation Sites

Hazardous Fuels Treatments would occur within the scenic corridor, adjacent to and within developed 

campgrounds, and around several of the recreation residences in the project area. These treatments would

have short term direct effects such as increased noise during treatment periods. Slash piles would be 

noticeable immediately after treatments have occurred but would be burned, masticated and spread or

removed. Stumps and other indicators of harvest activity would become less noticeable after vegetation 

recovery takes place (3-6 years). Overall, positive benefits would result from hazardous fuels treatments 

because of scenery improvements (increased depth of view into the forest) and for fire safety (reduced 

fuel loads). Proposed fuels treatments in unit 990 and 940 would improve public safety in Paradise and 

Limberlost campgrounds by reducing wildfire risk. A recreation specialist would be involved during the 

layout phase to ensure screening vegetation and other recreation assets are protected. Design features 

stipulate that no fuels treatments would take place when the campgrounds are open to ensure public 

access to these areas is not affected.

Dispersed Camping

Vehicle access miles would remain the same for Alternative 2 and improved access from road 

maintenance would occur on approximately 43 miles in Alternative 2 and 26 miles in Alternative 3. This 

would improve access to much of the project area, improving safety and driving comfort for road users

who are seeking dispersed camping opportunities. Indirect effects of these improvements may include 

increased dispersed camping use and other activities in areas previously not used due to poor road 

conditions.

Trails

Frissell Trail and the trail head parking area would be closed while logging activity is underway to ensure 

public safety. Unit 460 encompasses the trail head parking area and the trail passes through units 470 and 

480. Pre-sale tree and sale area boundary marking would be placed on the side of trees facing away from 

the trail to reduce visibility. Logging slash, skid trails and exposed stumps would be noticeable in the 

short term after harvest activity has concluded but would become less noticeable over time (3-6 years) as 

vegetative recovery takes place. Helicopter logging would be the harvest method used for units adjacent 

to the trail so there would be no damage to the trail tread. Design features would require removal, 

mastication or burning of logging slash, low cutting or angle cutting away from trail stumps near the trail 

and removal of timber sale boundary markers. A recreation trails specialist would be integrated into the 

layout phase prior to project implementation.

Frissell is a Class 3 trail that requires that a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Partial Retention be 

maintained (see Chapter 3.9 Scenic Quality). No scheduled even aged harvest treatments are proposed 

adjacent to Frissell Trail and would be consistent with forest plan direction that specifies that scheduled 

even aged harvest should not exceed seven percent of the suitable available area for Class 3 trails during 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204- Goose Project Final EIS

the first 10 years following forest plan implementation (Willamette National Forest Land and Resources 

Management Plan; FW-046). Thinning treatments would be consistent with the VQO and design criteria 

would ensure that secondary impacts to visual quality associated with thinning treatments (logging slash, 

stumps and boundary markers) are mitigated. 

Longer term beneficial effects to the trail as a result of project implementation would include an expanded 

and improved parking area at the trailhead and improved road access. Multiple trails and hiking 

opportunities are located nearby to accommodate the small amount of displaced use that would occur due 

to the closure of Frissell Trail during harvest activities. 

In Alternative 3 units 470 and 480 would be dropped altogether. This would reduce direct and indirect 

effects by reducing trail closure times and the amount of log truck haul on access roads. Unit 460 would 

be retained in Alternative 3 so the lower trailhead and trail would still need to be closed during harvest 

activity. The duration of these effects would only last during implementation of the stand treatments.

No timber harvest or fuels reduction treatments are proposed adjacent to the McKenzie River National 

Recreation Trail (MNRT) so no direct effects to the trail would occur. Scenery would be maintained 

throughout those portions of the MNRT trail corridor in the project area (see Chapter 3.9 Scenic Quality). 

Special Interest Area/State Scenic Waterway

Two hundred fifty-one acres of WUI treatments are proposed within the SIA under Alternative 2 and 

would be consistent with SIA management goals to preserve exceptional scenic, cultural, biological, 

geological or other unusual characteristics. Fuels reduction treatments consist of thinning underbrush and 

ladder fuels (branches and smaller trees) and are consistent with Forest Plan direction (MA-5a-09) to 

suppress wildfires at the lowest acreage practicable in SIA’s. Fuels reduction treatments would be 

consistent with the management objective to reduce the severity of wildfires in the wild land urban 

interface and accomplish enhancement program goals to actively manage stands to reduce the potential 

for undesirable stand replacing fires (McKenzie River Special Interest Area Implementation Guide). No 

harvest activities are proposed within the SIA.

Scenic Waterway Act and Commission rules require the evaluation of proposed development within 1⁄4 

mile from each side of the river in a State Scenic Waterway. The McKenzie River Ranger District 

consulted with Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department; approval for timber harvest or salvage 

within this scenic waterway was requested May 29, 2012 and granted by Oregon State Parks and 

Recreation on September 28, 2012.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

No direct or indirect effects to recreation would occur under Alternative 1 because no timber harvest is 

proposed under this alternative; therefore, no cumulative effects would occur.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Past and present natural and human caused disturbances or modifications including timber harvest and 

road construction are evident throughout the project area. Two timber sales have been recently completed 

in the project area and one is reasonably foreseeable. These three projects are the Foley Thin, 13 Thin and 

Pass Thin. These projects would add to incremental improvements to road conditions in the project area

through maintenance activities, which may cumulatively increase dispersed recreation in the project area. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 205

3.11 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and Wilderness

3.11.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

No Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) or designated Wilderness is in or adjacent to the Goose project 

area; therefore, no effects to IRA or Wilderness would occur from the of the Goose project.

3.11.2 Overview

Below is a definition and brief description of the correct terms as set forth by current law, regulation, 

agency policy, and the Willamette Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.

Wilderness: A wilderness area is designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act of 1964 

and other wilderness acts. Wilderness is undeveloped Federal land retaining primeval character and 

influence without permanent improvements or human habitation (Willamette Forest Plan, page III-133). 

Wilderness recommendation and designation occurs at the forest planning level. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA): These areas were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule in a set of inventoried roadless area maps (contained in Forest Service Roadless 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) and identified by the Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C; however some 

localized, minor differences in boundaries may exist. 

3.11.3 Affected Environment

No IRAs or Wilderness areas are in or adjacent to the Goose project area.

3.11.4 Environmental Consequences

No IRAs or Wilderness areas are in or adjacent to the Goose project area; therefore, no effects to IRA or 

Wilderness would occur from the of the Goose project.

3.12 Air Quality

3.12.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

The Blue River and McKenzie Bridge communities may experience smoke during the evening hours 

following the prescribed fires as diurnal wind patterns may carry smoke down the valley. Emissions 

created from Alternative 2 and 3 would be short term (approximately 2-5 days) and would vary in amount 

during the day and night time (less at night but more localized) depending on the fuels consumed and 

weather. Class 1 Airshed guidelines would be met. Wildfire smoke emissions are not short term and can

impact communities and adjacent airsheds. Suppression efforts would still occur within and near the 

project area under Alternative 1, 2 and 3.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206- Goose Project Final EIS

3.12.2 Scale of Analysis

The area defined for direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis is the treatment units in the project 

area, as well as, the larger landscape where smoke emissions can travel. These are the location of the 

Design Areas and the Class I Airsheds. Acreage used for the wildfire calculation was 1,592 acres, the 

number of harvest and treated acres in Alternative 2.

3.12.3 Affected Environment

The State of Oregon has been delegated authority for attainment standards set by the 1990 Clean Air Act 

and the 1977 Clean Air Act and its amendments. To regulate these standards, the state developed the 

Oregon Smoke Management Plan and the State Implementation Plan. These are guidelines and 

regulations for prescribed fire smoke emissions in Oregon. The Willamette National Forest has adopted 

this plan for emission control in Oregon (Forest Plan, 1990).

Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA) and Class I Airsheds are priority areas regulated in order to 

protect air quality. Eugene/Springfield, Redmond, and Oakridge are the closest SSRAs to the project area

(42, 50, and 30 miles respectively). Three Sisters Wilderness and Mt. Washington Wilderness are the 

closest Class I Airsheds to the project area (3 and 7 miles respectively). Class I Airsheds must be 

protected from visibility impairment July 1 through September 15. 

3.12.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action 

If no management actions took place in the project area no air quality impacts would occur in a scheduled 

timeframe. However, the risk of wildfire would still exist. In the event of a wildfire, air quality impacts 

are considerably higher than prescribed fire. Smoke emissions are not short term and can often last for 

many weeks or months, as witnessed during the Puzzle and GW Fires in 2006 and 2007, respectively. 

Smoke emissions from wildfire are more likely to heavily impact communities and contribute to harmful, 

concentrated levels of particulate matter, posing risk to community residents, forest users, and firefighters. 

Alternative 2 and 3

Prescribed fire of activity fuels in the project area would comply with Oregon Smoke Management Plan 

regulations. Smoke emissions would be mitigated based on the timing of the burns, seasonality, forecasted 

transport wind direction, and weather. Regulations enforce specific days which are suitable to burn in 

relation to other land owners burning or weather forecasts. 

Recreationists and some local residents near project area may be temporarily impacted by smoke from the 

prescribed fire underburns or pile burning. In the Oregon Smoke Management Plan, non-harmful 

concentrations of drift smoke are considered nuisance smoke (Oregon SMP 1995). Mitigation measures, 

such as signing along roads or near treatment areas, would be made prior to burning. 

Smoke emissions were predicted using the estimates from the debris prediction tables and FOFEM (First 

Order Fire Effects Model version 5.0). This model calculates particulate matter1 (PM 2.5 and 10 

micrometers) emitted based on the amount of fuel consumed using fuel loading, fuel moistures and 

 1 Particulate matter also known as particle pollution or PM, is a microscopic complex mixture of extremely small particles and 

liquid droplets and contains a “number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, 

soil or dust particles, and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). Fine particles, such as those found in smoke and 

haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller (EPA website).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 207

seasons (spring, summer, etc.). Fuel inputs were from the predicted post-harvest data and spring weather 

conditions were used for the prescribed fire, while summer weather was used for the wildfire runs. 

The model outputs show 100 percent of the 1, 10 and 100 hour (0-.25, .25-1 and 1-3 inch diameter, 

respectively) consumed. However, from past experience, fuels treatments consume approximately 80

percent of the fine fuels (0-1 inch diameter), 60 percent of the 1-3 inch fuels and only about 20 percent of 

the 3-9 inch. Large woody debris >9 inches diameter is often too moist to be consumed. For example, 

Unit 80 is predicted to have 13.2 tons/acre of 0-3 inch fuel post-harvest. During the prescribed underburn 

of this unit, emissions are estimated at 5.85 tons of PM 10 and 5.39 tons of PM2.5. (See Fire/Fuels/Air 

Quality Specialist Report for all unit predictions).

The projected smoke emissions associated with activities in the project area would be substantially lower 

(less than 32 percent) than if a wildfire occurred on the same acreage. It is also important to note that 

prescribed burning in each unit would take place at different times, sometimes years apart, so the 

concentration of the smoke would be far less than if a large wildfire should occur. Alternative 3 would 

produce roughly one-third as much particulate matter than Alternative 2 due to the reduction in treatment 

acres.

Effects to air quality from actions proposed in the Goose project do not overlap in time and space with 

effects from any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions; therefore, the Goose project has no 

cumulative effects on air quality.

3.13 Economics

3.13.1 Summary of Effects Analysis

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a positive benefit/cost ratio which would generate sufficient stumpage 

funds to pay for restoration activities, both required and optional. Alternative 2 would has a benefit/cost 

ratio of 1.30 or 17.1 percent larger than 1.11 for Alternative 3. In a matter of fiscal return on investment, 

Alternative 2 would cover all costs plus return approximately $4.6 million to the treasury while 

Alternative 3 would cover all costs plus return approximately $0.5 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.

3.13.2 Scale of Analysis

The scale used to evaluate Economics associated with the Goose 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.

3.13.3 Affected Environment

The project area is situated along Highway 126 around the community of McKenzie Bridge, Oregon.

Highway 126, a major travel route for commercial and recreation traffic passing through this community, 

follows along the McKenzie River.

The economy of the local communities from the Springfield urban-growth boundary to McKenzie Bridge 

depends on a mixture of tourism, recreation, timber industry, and Forest Service jobs for stability. Local 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208- Goose Project Final EIS

businesses that rely on tourism and recreation include: multiple inns and lodges, restaurants, stores, and 

gas stations, along with outfitters and guides. Timber industry jobs include a variety of forestry and mill 

jobs. Tourism and recreational activities connected with National Forest lands have been on the increase 

in recent years for the upper McKenzie River area. Employment connected with tourism and recreationrelated 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 and 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). The same OFRI report states on pg. 41, that approximately 10.8 jobs are created 

with each incremental increase in million board feet made available for harvest. These jobs are direct 

effect jobs, or those associated in 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).

After the original Goose Environmental Analysis was signed in 2010, three timber sales were sold which 

tiered to the analysis before the courts enjoined the decision. No harvest has occurred in association with 

these three sales. Based on selling values, these three sales would contribute approximately $561,000 

dollars to the county for public services in addition to approximately $1.5 million which would provide 

funds to help restore stands in the project area.

3.13.4 Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct economic effects of the alternatives are displayed in Table 55. 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 value of 

benefits divided by the present value of costs. 

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 Goose project were not replaced by another project, the No-Action alternative 

could contribute to a continued decline in forestry and milling related jobs. The Forest Service would be 

responsible to replace the timber volume associated with the three sold sales, or pay damages incurred by 

the purchaser.

Alternative 2 and 3

All action Alternatives are economically viable, considering current selling values, timber volume per 

acre, yarding systems required, the proposed temporary road construction and system road maintenance 

needed, and the identified post-timber harvest projects identified in this analysis. The economic analysis 

utilized to make this determination is available in the Goose project analysis file 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 55, Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

provide a positive benefit/cost ratio.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 209

In general, the primary effect on timber harvest-related employment would occur from commercial timber 

harvest associated with the action alternatives from an estimated selling year of 2015 through a final 

harvest year of around 2019. As Table 55 indicates, both action alternatives would provide some 

opportunity for timber harvest-related employment. Alternative 2 would provide a higher net value than 

Alternative 3. Table 55 below discloses costs and revenues and the estimated present net value of each of 

the action Alternatives.

Though the combined economic benefit from implementation of any of the action alternatives is expected 

to be positive, each of the action alternatives from the Goose project would have a localized beneficial 

effect for the socio-economic environment of western and central Oregon with a greater impact to Lane 

County. Both action Alternatives would also have a benefit in the form of revenues going towards the 

National Forest Fund (NFF). Portions of revenue generated by the sale of timber from the action 

Alternatives would be available to the county for roads and schools. Alternative 2 would be expected to 

generate more than eight times the revenue generated with Alternative 3 due to MBF produced and acres 

harvested to spread the costs over (Table 55).

With the implementation of Alternative 2, the Forest Service would be able to maintain the timber sales 

under contract. Contract modifications would be required due to design criteria and riparian reserve 

change, however any minor volume discrepancies would not require complete contract termination or that 

the Forest Service replace the timber volume associated with the three sold sales, or pay damages incurred 

by the purchaser. Alternative 3 would require extensive contract modification of two sales as units not 

included in this alternative would require replacement of timber volume and/or the potential of the Forest 

Service to pay damages incurred by the purchaser. Additionally, because of dropping units from 

Alternative 2 to Alternative 3, one sale would no longer be implementable in its entirety and would 

require the Forest Service to replace the timber volume and/or pay damages incurred by the purchaser.

Table 55. Estimated Economic Alternatives (1) (2)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Timber volume 

produced (MMBF) 0 ~35 ~9 

Discounted Cost (3) $500,000 $15,506,951 $4,902,399

Discounted 

Revenues $0 $20,109,226 $5,448,583

Net Present Value 

(NPV) --- $4,602,275 $546,184

NPV per acre --- $2,891 $895

Benefit/Cost Ratio --- 1.30 1.11

(1) Revenue based on the 2014 2st quarter Oregon Department of Forestry pond values that have been discounted at 4 percent from 2014 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.

(3) Costs include approximate planning cost for the Goose project.

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). Current levels of employment in the wood products sector would not be affected. If the Goose 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210- Goose Project Final EIS

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 and 3 

No past projects overlap in time of space with the Goose project, however, Pass Thin is a project 

reasonably foreseeable in the project area which would contribute .26 MMBF to the local economy.

Alternative 2, the proposed action, would provide approximately 35 MMBF of timber to the local timber 

market, while Alternative 3 which would produce approximately 9 MMBF of timber. This project, when 

combined with Pass Thin would contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect of sustaining the wood 

products infrastructure in Lane and surrounding counties, while having a cumulative beneficial effect on 

timber harvest-related employment by providing timber to the local markets.

Cumulatively, Pass Thin plus implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 would be beneficial in the form 

of revenues going towards the National Forest Fund (NFF). The minimum fund that is required to go to 

NFF is 25 percent of the received money from the timber sale. Alternative 3 would produce around 12

percent of the funds that Alternative 2 would produce.

3.14 Climate Change

The proposed action (Alternative 2) would treat approximately 2,452 acres in the project area. Harvest 

treatments proposed include commercial thinning, dominant tree release, gap creation, regeneration 

harvest and skips. Fuels treatments include mechanical treatments, post-harvest underburn, natural fuels 

underburn, and hazardous fuels 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 was 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. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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% 

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). The Goose 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 long-term. US forests sequestered 757.1 megatonnes of carbon 

dioxide after accounting for emissions from fires and soils in 2010 (US EPA, 2015). There is agreement 

that the forestry sector contribution has declined over the last decade (IPCC, 2014; Smith et al., 2014; 

FAOSTAT, 2013). 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Goose Project Final EIS - 211

However there is growing concern over the impacts of climate change on US 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 

will have major effect on these forests’ role in the carbon cycle (Joyce et al. 2014).

The 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 improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure with thinning, gaps, and 

dominant tree release. Thinning the overstocked stands would make more growing space and resources 

available to the remaining trees, resulting in decreased tree stress and development towards larger 

diameter stands. 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 it would 

improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure, allowing the forest to adapt, persist and 

function better over time and into the future.

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, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

2000). Projects that create forests or improve forest conditions and capacity to grow trees are positive 

factors in carbon sequestration. The proposed action (Alternative 2) falls into this category.

3.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Implementation of any of the alternatives, including the No-Action alternative, would inevitably result in 

some adverse environmental effects. The severity of the effects would be minimized by adhering to the 

direction in the management prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines in Chapter IV of the Willamette 

Forest Plan, as amended the Northwest Forest Plan, and additional design features proposed in Chapter 2

of this document. These potential adverse environmental effects are discussed at length under each 

resource section.

3.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

“Irreversible" commitment of resources refers to a loss of future options with nonrenewable resources. An 

"Irretrievable" commitment of resources refers to loss of opportunity due to a particular choice of 

resource uses. 

The soil and water protection measures identified in the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, design 

features in Chapter 2, and Best Management Practices are designed to avoid or minimize the potential for 

irreversible losses from the proposed management actions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212- Goose Project Final EIS

Concerning threatened and endangered plant, wildlife, and fish species, a determination has been made 

that the proposed actions would not result in irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that 

foreclose formulation or implementation of reasonable or prudent alternatives.

With all action Alternatives (2 and 3): Tree removal would result in an irretrievable loss of the value of 

removed trees for wildlife habitat, soil productivity, and other values. Little irreversible loss of soil 

should occur due to extensive design features associated with timber harvest and prescribed fire (tractor 

harvest only on slopes less than 35 percent, skyline yarding with partial or full suspension to meet Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines, etc.).

3.17 Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR §1502.16). This includes using all 

practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to 

foster and promote general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can 

exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requires of present and future 

generations of Americans (42 CFR § 101(a)). 

The Forest Plan establishes a sustained yield of resource outputs while maintaining productivity of 

resources. The specific direction and mitigation measures included in the Forest Plan and Northwest 

Forest Plan ensure the long-term productivity of resources will not be impaired by the application of 

short-term management practices. Additionally, project Design Features, Mitigation and Enhancement, 

and Monitoring (Section 2.5, 2.6, 2.7) 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.
Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

Goose Project Final EIS - 213

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

Bonny Hammons - Hydrologist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District

Contribution: Hydrology Analysis

Education / Experience: B.A. Forestry, minor Environmental Ethics: Humboldt State University. Seven

years of experience with the USFS (Lassen, Willamette) as a hydrologist.

Burtchell Thomas – Botanist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District

Contribution: Botanical Resource Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Environmental Biology, minor Botany (1996): University Arkansas – Pine 

Bluff. 16 years of experience with USFS (Jefferson-Washington, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Gifford Pinchot, 

Willamette) as botanist and biological science technician.

Cara Kelly – Archeologist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District

Contribution: Heritage Resources Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Anthropology: University of Oregon, MAIS, Anthropology, B.S.

Geography: Oregon State University. 26 years of experience with the USFS (Willamette) as an 

archeologist. 

Doug Shank – Forest Geologist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest,

Contribution: Soils Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Geology: Youngstown State University, M.S. Geology: Arizona State 

University. 35 years of experience with the USFS (Willamette, Siuslaw) as an engineering geologist, 

district ranger, district geologist and forest geologist.

Dave Sanders – Recreation Planner

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District

Contribution: Recreation, scenery and Wilderness analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Natural Resources Management: University of Alaska, Fairbanks. One year 

as Wilderness Sea Kayak Ranger on Tongass National Forest; 10 years as Wilderness Ranger Program 

manager for Chugach National Forest; four years as Developed and Dispersed Recreation Program 

Manager.

Elysia Retzlaff – NEPA Planner

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District

Contribution: Project Lead, Writer/Editor, NEPA compliance

Education/Experience: B.S. Geography and GIS: University of Utah, Master of Natural Resources: Utah 

State University, NEPA Certification: Utah State University. Five years of experience with USFS 

(Chugach, San Juan, Willamette) as Planning and NEPA Coordinator.

Günther Castillon – Forest Silviculturist

USDA Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest,

Contribution: Team Lead until June 2014

Education / Experience: B.S. Natural Resources Management, Forest Science: University of WisconsinMadison. Two years Project Manager, Willamette National Forest; five years Assistant Forest 

Silviculturist, Rogue River –Siskiyou National Forest; four years Silviculturist, Huron -Manistee National 
Chapter 4 – List of Preparers

214- Goose Project Final EIS

Forest; one year Forester, Huron-Manistee National Forest; one year Forester, Green Mountain – Finger 

Lakes National Forest; two years Research Assistant, Forest Ecology and Management Laboratory.

James Rudisill – Certified Silviculturist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District 

Contribution: Forest and Stand Structure Analysis, Economic Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Natural Resources: Humboldt State University. 11 years of experience with 

USFS (San Bernardino and Willamette); three years private forestry; two years technical manager 

Environmental Systems Resource Institute (ESRI).

Jessica Dole – Forest Landscape Architect

USDA Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest

Contribution: Scenic Analysis and review of Chapter 3.9 – Scenic Quality

Education / Experience: B.S. Environmental Studies: University of Oregon; Master of Landscape 

Architecture: Cornell University; Registered Landscape Architect: State of Oregon. 26 years of 

experience with USFS as a landscape architect (Klamath, Okanogan, Siuslaw).

Kate Meyer – Fisheries Biologist 

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District

Contribution: Fisheries Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Environmental Studies: Southern Oregon University; Professional 

Certificate in River Restoration: Portland State University. Eight years of experience with USFS 

(Willamette) in fisheries biology.

Kenny Gabriel – Civil Engineering Technician

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District 

Contribution: Roads and Access Analysis 

Education / Experience: Certificate of Completion in Technical Drafting: Lane Community College. 15 

years of experience with USFS (Willamette) in civil engineering/ transportation and 10 years of 

experience with USFS (Willamette) in road maintenance.

Mei Lin Lantz – Fire and Fuels Specialist

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District

Contribution: Fire and Fuels, and Air Quality Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Forestry: University of California Berkeley. 16 years’ experience with USFS 

(Umatilla, Siuslaw, Ochoco, Willamette); as a firefighter and fire and fuels management.

Ruby Seitz – Wildlife Biologist 

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie River Ranger District, 

Contribution: Wildlife Analysis

Education / Experience: B.S. Wildlife Management, Minor in Fisheries: Humboldt State University, B.A. 

Liberal Studies: San Diego State University. 25 years of experience with USFS (Willamette ) as a wildlife 

biologist.

Additional Support and consultation was provided by the following individuals: 

Ray Rivera, Fisheries Biologist Katie Isacksen, Public Affairs

Jude McHugh, Forest Public Affairs Shane Kamrath, Wildlife Biologist & Staff Liaison

Dan Fleming, Logging Systems Specialist Suzanne Schindler, Forest Planner

Tim Fox, Heritage Technician Starr Sullivan, Civil Engineering Technician

Anita Leach, Sweet Home Ranger District, Planner
Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, Organizations and Individuals Given Notice of Availability

Goose Project Final EIS - 215

Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, 

Organizations, and Individuals Given Notice of 

Availability

The agencies, governments, organizations, and individuals listed below were notified of the availability of 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prior to the 45-day comment period, as well as the 

availability and of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the associated Draft Record of 

Decision (ROD) and pre-decisional administrative review (objection) period. A complete list of 

recipients, including names and contact information, is available in the Goose project file at the 

McKenzie River Ranger District.

Agencies and Governments

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Eugene City Council

Eugene Water and Electric Board

Klamath Tribes

Lane County

Linn County

Office of Congressman Peter DeFazio

Office of Senator Jeff Merkley

Office of Senator Ron Wyden

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation

Springfield City Council

United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Organizations

American Forest Resource Council

Cascadia Wildlands Project

Forest Conservation Council

Forest Issues, Many Rivers Group, Sierra Club

Giustina Land & Timber

Giustina Resources

Lane County Audubon Society

McKenzie Clearwater Coalition

McKenzie Flyfishers

McKenzie River Chamber Of Commerce

Mule Deer Foundation

Native Forest Council

North American Butterfly Association

Obsidians

Oregon Council, Federation of Flyfishers
Chapter 5 – List of Agencies, Governments, Organizations and Individuals Given Notice of Availability

216- Goose Project Final EIS

Oregon Hunters Association

Oregon Nordic Club, Willamette Chapter

Oregon Society of American Foresters

Oregon Wild

Pacific Crest Trail Association

Quail Unlimited

River Reflections

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Rosboro Lumber Co.

Santiam Wilderness Committee

Individuals

Over 1,500 people, including interested parties, stakeholders, landowners, and individuals that provided 

comments during project scoping and the DEIS 45-day comment period have been notified via email and 

letter of FEIS and ROD availability. A complete list of recipients, including names and contact 

information, is available in the Goose project file at the McKenzie River Ranger District.
Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 217

Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the 

Action Alternatives

Proposed treatments for the Goose project area are thinning, gaps, skips, Dominant Tree Release (DTR), 

regeneration harvest (Shelterwood with Reserves), natural fuels underburn, hazardous fuels treatment, and 

various post-harvest fuels reduction treatments.

Activities Common to Thinning

Thinning would maintain/increase the health and vigor of the remaining trees not harvested. Skips and 

gaps ranging between 1-3 acres (see Gaps, and DTR description below) would be placed in many of the 

stands to promote vertical and horizontal diversity (see Appendix B for a unit by unit prescription). The 

use of skips and gaps would be part of an un-even aged management approach. Un-even aged 

management would not be applied to all stands; some may not contain any gaps. 

Conifer trees would be removed through commercial thinning across all size classes, but would primarily 

consist of smaller diameter trees. Sugar pine and white pine would not be removed from the stand; 

however they may be cut for operational purposes. Generally, remnant large woody debris on the forest 

floor would be maintained or increased throughout the stand. Snags would be maintained on site if not a 

hazard to logging operations.

Project generated fuels may be removed with treatments such as biomass utilization, piling and burning, 

underburning, mastication, firewood collection, or chipping. However, not every acre harvested would 

have fuels treatments prescribed. Areas which are projected to be below the standards and guidelines 

(FW-212 and 252) presented by the Forest Plan would likely have minimal fuels treatments prescribed. 

All post-harvest fuels treatments would reduce fuel loads within the stand.

Activities Common to Gaps and Regeneration Harvest 

Retention trees would be left (see description below for specifics) in openings to function as legacy trees 

that would benefit a variety of resources. Live retained trees would be released to encourage large tree 

development, future snag creation, diversity in future stand structure, and development of future large 

down woody debris. 

Retention trees may be spaced both sparsely throughout the opening and also in clumps, increasing the 

diversity across the landscape. Emphasis would be placed on retaining multiple desired retention tree 

species where feasible. Live trees with ‘elements of wood decay’ may be selected as retention trees, 

which could include trees with features like dead tops, broken tops and heart rot. This would increase the 

diversity of the prescriptions across the landscape. 

Live retention trees may or may not be used as snag (wildlife) enhancement projects; however, retention

trees meeting criteria for wildlife trees (i.e. having Phellinus pini conks or other elements of wood decay) 

would serve as a wildlife tree and offset the need for further enhancement. In stands where snags or down 

woody material would be created after harvest, additional trees may be left that can be utilized. Snags 

would be maintained on site, if not a hazard to logging operations.

Thinning Descriptions

Thinning: Thinning treatments would reduce canopy cover within a stand between approximately 30-60

percent. The residual stand, post-harvest (not including gaps put in the stand), would have approximately 

25-55 percent of the maximum Stand Density Index (SDI) (see Chapter 3.1for discussion on SDI). The 
Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

218- Goose Project Final EIS

prescription aims to stay below 55 percent SDImax, which is where inner tree mortality likely begins to 

occur (Tappeiner et al. 2007). Gaps, dominant tree releases, as well as skips (areas not harvested) would 

likely be placed in the stands being commercially thinned. 

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 over time as the overstory crown closes. The 

canopy cover is estimated to increase 2 percent per year (Chan, 2006). This second generation of trees 

growing under the overstory canopy is expected to provide vertical, horizontal, age, and species diversity 

in the stand by primarily harvesting Douglas-fir which is over represented in the project area because of 

planting densities.

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. 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.

Thinning provides growing space for new trees to increase age, size and height diversity in a stand and at 

the project area scale. Young uniform stands such as the plantations and many natural stands proposed for 

treatment in the Goose project can be diversified with early thinning by allowing new generations of trees 

to establish. 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).

Treating mature stands in the Goose project is expected to increase availability of resources such as 

sunlight to the forest floor for increased diversity of shrubs, herbs, and understory tree establishment and 

growth with the effects lasting up to about 15-20 years as the overstory crown closes in (Chan, 2006). In 

addition to the understory response, increased growth in the overstory is expected to last up to about 25 

year (Latham and Tappeiner, 2002). Williamson (1982) found that 19 years after heavy thinning, a 100 

year old thinned stand, had a 30 percent higher response to volume growth than did the control units.

Thinning across all crown classes in a stand provides the longest term benefits to both large and small 

trees because of the time it takes to fill in the overstory canopy (Williamson and Price 1966). 

Heavier thinning would likely promote rapid growth of trees with characteristics normally associated with 

old trees in old-growth stands. The large older trees in a stand often showed signs of rapid growth in 

lower densities when they were 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, or canopy layer, 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.
Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 219

A short-term (less than one year) impact to understory vegetation and below ground fungi could occur 

from logging. These short-term adverse effects would be expected to recover within two years postharvest as regrowth of herbs and shrubs occur. The removal of host trees and soil disturbance from the 

yarding operation impacts below ground fungi (Courtney et al 2004). This adverse effect is reduced by 

minimizing additional soil impacts with the use of designated skid trails with ground–based yarding 

systems and log-suspension capabilities of skyline and helicopter yarding systems.

Gaps (GS): Gaps would be randomly placed unless it was necessary to strategically place the openings 

within a stand for other resource benefits such as minimizing conflict for current and/or expected future 

logging operations. Gaps may also be placed to provide higher quality early seral habitat for wildlife 

species like big game, or to provide scenic vistas. The gaps would be randomly shaped following features 

of the landscape when available, and would range in size from approximately 1-3 acres. When a root rot 

pocket is identified, a gap would be placed with a 50-foot buffer established around the outside of the root 

rot pocket which could result in a gap larger than three acres. 

Gaps would be placed in stands that have been identified as potentially higher quality early seral habitat 

areas by our district wildlife biologist and to provide for horizontal and vertical diversity in stands. A 

thinning prescription would be applied to the area outside the gaps.

Gaps would not be a conventional clear-cut treatment. The objective would be to leave some green trees 

in either scattered pockets and/or scattered throughout the opening post-harvest. These retention trees 

would be released to grow to encourage large tree development, future snag development, diversity in 

future stand structure, and development of future large down woody debris. In 30 to 60 years the stand 

structure would be more complex with at least a two cohort stand making up the overstory. This would 

better mimic some late successional characteristics than what the current stand is projected to produce in 

the same time frame if no treatment occurred (Andrews et al. 2005).

Dominant Tree Release (DTR): DTR is a method that replicates small disturbances and increases 

structural variability. This prescription would provide for growth of dominant trees to promote the 

distribution of larger trees scattered throughout the stands. The area around the dominant tree would be 

cut to a radius of one chain (66 feet) from the bole of the dominant tree to nearest bole of another tree. 

Sugar pine, white pine, and western red cedar, would not be cut in the DTR. The one chain radius would 

result in an approximate 1⁄4 acre opening in the crown (from canopy to canopy) placed around the tree. For 

units having DTR’s there would be anywhere from 2-8 dominate trees selected. DTR trees would be 

randomly placed throughout stands, including riparian areas when the objective within the riparian area 

includes treatment. 

Trees selected for DTR would be the largest trees that best represent site potential in a given area. When 

under represented species are identified in a stand, the DTR may target these species such as sugar pine, 

white pine, and western red cedar as the dominate tree to be released. Although the underrepresented 

species may not be a dominant tree, they would represent the dominant trees of their particular species 

and help increase diversity. Occasionally a group of two trees would be selected in one DTR. The canopy 

cover of the stand would be adjusted based on the 1⁄4 acre DTR having a canopy cover of 4 percent.

Within all units, a sugar pine would be used as the dominant tree in an effort to help promote sugar pine’s 

health and vigor as well as regeneration. Sugar pine that are 24” dbh and larger with a maximum of 5 

trees selected per 10 acres would be used as Dominant Tree Release. All trees within a radius of one chain 

from the bole of the sugar pine would be cut and removed regardless of species with the exception of 

another sugar pine located within the cut area or a tree greater than the DBH of the sugar pine selected.
Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

220- Goose Project Final EIS

No Harvest Skips (NH): No harvest skips are areas within units that would not have trees removed 

however some trees within a skip may have trees cut and left on site such as in skyline corridors. There 

may also be wildlife trees or down wood created within these areas. These areas are either no harvest 

buffer around Riparian Reserves, cultural sites, and sensitive species, or are areas that are randomly 

selected to allow for natural succession to take place. 

Regeneration Harvest - Shelterwood with Reserves

Silviculturally these stands are currently at the culmination of mean annual increment. All stands are 

currently experiencing inter-tree competition, which creates stand stress and makes them susceptible to 

insect and disease outbreaks. 

On average there would be 20 trees retained per acre to help establish a future stand by providing a 

beneficial microclimate, and contribute towards creating snags and down wood. The regeneration harvest

would result in more complex stand structure in 30 to 50 years with a two aged canopy layer that more 

closely mirrors what may have happened with natural disturbances on the landscape. 

The residual canopy would be composed of the largest trees in the stand, primarily Douglas-fir. As 

identified in the Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan, at least 15 percent of each stand

(not including Riparian Reserves) would be retained in no-harvest patches to provide diversity and 

maintain existing snags (Northwest Forest Plan, pg. c-41). The retained patches would be scattered and 

variable in size. Large wood on the forest floor would be maintained or enhanced. Numerous snags would 

either be maintained on site if not a hazard to logging operations, or enhanced through snag creation 

techniques. Retention areas would be set aside with no commercial products removed from the area. Snag

and down woody debris creation would likely occur in the retention area and count towards the average 

snags and down woody debris within unit (Northwest Forest Plan, p. C-41).

Stands treated as regeneration harvest would be treated for fuels reduction and planted with a variety of 

tree species after harvest.

Post-Harvest Tree Planting

Reforestation would be expected to occur within five years of harvest, and occur from both tree planting 

and natural regeneration. 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 ingrowth of species 

such as western white pine and western red cedar. Skid roads in planting areas are expected to be 

subsoiled to a depth of 18-22 inches to reduce the effects of compaction with the exception of soils under 

a retention tree canopy because the roots of the given tree would be less disturbed. Compaction from skid 

roads has not shown a reduction in residual tree growth (Miller et al, 2007). Slash and other debris would 

be utilized as shade and as a deterrent to browse by ungulates. Planting 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. No additional effects would be realized by completion of this project because planting has been 

accounted for in the Forest and Stand Structure analysis.

Natural regeneration is unpredictable based on timing of cone crops and occupation of the site by 

competing vegetation, therefore surveys would occur around three years after treatment to verify 

minimum stocking levels in the natural regeneration. If surveys show less than 200 trees per acre are 

present, planting with western red cedar, white pine, sugar pine, and/or Douglas-fir would occur to 

augment the natural regeneration. 
Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

Goose Project Final EIS - 221

Fuels Treatments Description

Post-harvest fuels treatments are intended to reduce fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). 

Treatments are guided by the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Maximum Acceptable Fuel 

Loadings of downed woody material. These guidelines are as follows (FW-212 and FW-252): 

Within the proposed harvest units it is estimated (from field surveys and photo series) that current surface 

fuel loading on average is below the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. However, in many stands postharvest fuel loadings are projected to be above standards and guidelines.

Proposed post-harvest fuels treatments would consist of 

hand treatments, yarding tops, mechanical treatments 

and/or underburning. Underburns may require the 

construction of handlines around the unit perimeter. 

These are created prior to the burn and aid in containing 

the prescribed fire within the unit boundaries. Handlines 

are created by scraping fuel back to an approximate 18” 

mineral soil line and scattering fuels that lie within about 

10 feet of the proposed line. If units are located on a steep slope waterbars are created within the fireline 

to reduce erosion potential. 

The implementation of fuels treatment may vary in method from what is the proposed in the alternatives 

to meet standards and guidelines (i.e. grapple piling instead of underburning). However, the implemented 

fuels treatments would remain within the range of effects analyzed in the Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Hand Treatments and Mechanical Treatment: Hand treatments require manually hand piling created 

slash that is ≥1 inch in diameter and ≥3 feet in length. Mechanical treatments use machines to pile or 

chip/mulch fuels. Slash piles may occur within the unit or at landing(s). Piles would generally be placed 

in locations to minimize the damage of residual standing snags or live trees; however some piles could be 

located to cause tree mortality to create snags for wildlife habitat. Piles would then be burned at a later 

date after the slash has sufficiently dried and conditions would not allow fire to spread to surrounding 

area.

Hand, grapple, and landing piles are covered with approved plastic following construction. This creates a 

drier pocket of fuel in the middle of the pile and enables them to be burned in the late fall or early winter 

when there is very low risk of the piles spreading into other fuels. 

Yarding Tops: Yarding tops occurs during harvest operations. Tree tops are removed from the harvest 

unit to the landing areas. The tops are then separated where they can either be utilized (i.e. firewood or 

biomass) or piled for future burning. This treatment aids in reducing the post-harvest fuel loading within 

the harvest unit. 

Post-Harvest Underburn: Post-harvest underburns are intended to reduce fuels created by harvest 

activities and help promote structural and biological diversity in stands. Low-to-moderate intensity 

surface fire would reduce competition of shade tolerant species within the residual stand. Underburning 

would comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines in regards to consumption of fuels and 

maintaining down-woody material, duff cover, and snags. Spring-like burning conditions would reduce 

the risk of burning large woody material because of high moisture content and provide conditions for 

lower fire intensity meeting fuels treatment standards and guidelines. An objective for the post-harvest 

underburning would be to minimize overstory tree mortality; however, some mortality of 0 to 10 percent

would be acceptable. Mortality trees that occur adjacent to roads may be removed for safety reasons.

Allowable Downed Woody Material

Diameter Tons/Acre

0-3” 7-11

3”-9” 8-12

9”-16” 18-20

>16” 8-15 pieces/acre >20ft.
Appendix A – Proposed Treatment Descriptions for the Action Alternatives

222- Goose Project Final EIS

Natural Fuels Underburn: The purpose of this treatment is to reduce fuels and raise tree canopy base 

height in WUI as well as re-introduce fire as a natural disturbance process into the landscape. These 

stands have not been commercially harvested. The stands are generally older (120+ years) and include 

large trees (>24” DBH) with well-developed bark that can better withstand fire along with smaller 

understory trees that can act as a ladder for fire to move from the surface into tree canopies. These stands 

should be burned in spring-like conditions where large woody debris, duff, and live green trees have 

higher fuel moisture that reduces their potential to burn. The underburning prescription should be a lowto-moderate intensity surface (ground/understory) fire with possible torching of individual trees or small 

groups of trees (about 3-5 trees) causing tree mortality. Mortality would primarily be in the intermediate 

and understory trees. Some hand cutting of smaller trees (<4 inch dbh) may be done prior to burning to 

aid with burning and keeping overstory mortality within prescribed parameters. Underburning these 

stands is the preferred method of treatment not only to reduce hazardous fuel loading but to return fire to 

the ecosystem as a natural disturbance process. When using fire as a tool on the landscape there is always 

a chance for the fire to create higher mortality due to variability in environmental conditions. Anticipated 

mortality would be around 0-10 percent in trees 17” dbh and larger; 10-20 percent in trees 13-16” dbh; 

20-40 percent in trees 7-12” dbh; and 50-100 percent in trees less than 7” dbh. These units could be 

underburned independently or in conjunction with surrounding harvest units. Mortality trees that occur 

adjacent to roads may be removed for safety.

Hazardous Fuels Treatments: This prescription would reduce fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface 

through non-commercial methods. The primary objectives are to reduce ladder fuels and surface fuel 

loads (horizontal and vertical continuity). Stands with this treatment are generally older (>120yrs old) and 

would focus on cutting trees and shrubs no greater than 10 inches at DBH. Changes to the fuel and stand 

structure would reduce potential wildfire behavior in the McKenzie Bridge Wildland-Urban Interface. 

Treatments include: cutting/thinning, hand piling and burning, chipping, mastication, or firewood. 

Roads Treatments

Road Maintenance: For all action alternatives, existing forest roads needed for harvest activity would be 

maintained to allow safe access to harvest areas and to reduce adverse impacts to resources. Road 

maintenance associated with haul routes would result in decreased maintenance cost, improved safety, 

and reduced potential for resource damage related to degraded roads that would be needed for current and 

future resource management. Road maintenance activities may include felling danger trees, clearing and 

grubbing, replacing drainage structures, asphalt pavement patching, repairing holes in the roadbed, 

reconstructing ditches, application of dust abatement material, and placement of aggregate surfacing.

Temporary Road Construction and Decommissioning: Temporary roads would be created in both 

action alternatives. These roads would be placed in areas to minimize impacts to resources and would be 

decommissioned after use. Previously disturbed sites would be utilized where possible. The initial effects 

of the construction would be compacted soils; 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 

possible along skid trails and landings that have treatment.
Appendix B– Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Proposed Action

Goose Project Final EIS - 223

Appendix B – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Proposed 

Action

Unit Acres

Harvest Prescription Acres(1) Logging System Acres(2)

Post-Harvest Fuel

Treatment Acres(3) Est. Vol.

(MBF)

Est. MBF per

Harvest Acre

Skips Thin DTR SH Gaps H Sk G MT HP UB

10 392 80 266 46 100 212 0 80 6744 22

30 22 2 13 7 20 0 0 11 312 16

40 49 3 42 4 0 15 31 17 10 389 8

50 17 2 15 0 15 0 3 146 10

60 10 3 5 2 0 7 0 4 95 14

70 22 1 14 2 5 0 0 21 21 403 19

80 19 1 15 3 0 0 18 18 248 14

90 78 27 33 6 12 0 13 38 20 2 915 18

100 40 18 16 6 0 8 14 15 377 17

110 62 23 32 7 0 0 39 39 580 15

120 10 1 8 1 0 6 3 3 91 10

130 23 13 7 3 0 0 10 10 431 43

140 5 2 5 0 0 5 2 39 8

150 18 2 11 5 0 0 16 10 126 8

190 26 4 17 2 3 0 17 5 6 4 302 14

200 8 6 0 2 0 0 2 2 86 43

210 10 2 5 3 0 0 8 7 122 15

220 10 1 7 2 0 3 6 5 134 15

260 36 25 11 0 9 2 4 5 158 14

270 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 44 22

280 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 32 16

290 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 11 6

300 63 21 28 14 0 21 21 31 10 1751 42

310 6 1 4 1 0 0 5 5 58 12

320 33 4 24 5 0 22 7 7 15 896 31

330 17 7 5 5 4 6 0 10 592 59

340 17 6 5 6 11 0 0 3 439 40

350 18 8 5 5 10 0 0 3 495 50

360 9 3 6 0 0 6 6 33 6

370 9 0 8 1 0 0 9 9 109 12
Appendix B– Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Proposed Action

224- Goose Project Final EIS

Unit Acres

Harvest Prescription Acres(1) Logging System Acres(2)

Post-Harvest Fuel

Treatment Acres(3) Est. Vol.

(MBF)

Est. MBF per

Harvest Acre

Skips Thin DTR SH Gaps H Sk G MT HP UB

380 69 34 20 15 0 25 10 35 2096 60

390 10 2 6 2 0 4 4 8 222 28

400 4 1 3 0 0 3 3 12 4

410 8 1 7 0 0 7 7 74 11

420 27 9 17 1 0 0 18 9 172 10

430 15 1 14 0 0 14 9 5 85 6

440 12 3 8 1 0 9 0 6 39 4

450 28 18 10 1 7 2 2 5 240 24

460 19 10 8 1 0 9 0 7 232 26

470 60 13 39 8 47 0 0 55 1396 30

471 11 3 0 8 4 0 4 4 297 37

480 45 15 24 6 0 0 30 30 1235 41

490 8 4 4 0 0 4 4 13 3

500 21 6 15 6 0 9 15 644 43

510 13 1 12 0 0 12 12 99 8

530 80 18 49 13 4 27 31 20 12 1252 20

540 8 1 7 0 0 7 7 83 12

550 18 4 12 2 0 9 5 5 4 400 29

570 19 2 14 3 0 7 10 10 2 285 17

580 14 0 11 3 0 0 14 14 243 17

590 6 1 5 0 0 5 5 68 14

600 61 3 43 2 13 0 44 14 14 1257 22

610 26 2 16 2 6 0 0 24 20 420 18

620 51 7 27 17 0 0 44 48 1002 23

630 24 2 15 2 5 0 22 0 8 431 20

640 79 12 59 2 6 8 42 17 70 1366 20

650 22 4 13 5 0 0 18 18 243 14

660 34 1 26 1 6 0 0 33 25 602 18

670 6 1 4 1 0 0 5 5 61 12

680 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 20 10

690 15 0 11 1 3 0 15 0 15 438 29

691 12 2 0 10 0 3 7 10 214 21

700 12 1 9 2 0 0 11 9 129 12

710 68 7 41 2 18 0 0 61 61 1124 18

720 29 4 0 25 0 0 25 25 957 38
Appendix B– Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the Proposed Action

Goose Project Final EIS - 225

Unit Acres

Harvest Prescription Acres(1) Logging System Acres(2)

Post-Harvest Fuel

Treatment Acres(3) Est. Vol.

(MBF)

Est. MBF per

Harvest Acre

Skips Thin DTR SH Gaps H Sk G MT HP UB

740 8 0 7 1 0 0 8 3 59 7

760 25 0 18 7 0 0 25 25 480 19

770 50 5 30 15 0 5 40 45 820 18

Total 2056 464 1218 50 43 281 215 582 795 425 199 477 34968 22

-1 Skips: Riparian and Non-Riparian Skips, Thin: Riparian and Non-Riparian Thinning, DTR: Dominant Tree Release, SH: Shelterwood Harvest, Gaps

-2 H – Helicopter, Sk – Skyline, G – Ground Includes harvested acres, not skips

-3 MT – Mechanical Treatment, HP – Hand Pile, UB – Underburn actual numbers would be dependent on feasibility and funding at harvest

Alternative 3 has same unit prescriptions. Units for Alternative 3 are: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 140, 150, 190, 210, 220, 310, 360, 370, 390, 400, 410, 430, 440, 460,

570, 580, 610, 650, 660, 670, 680, 700, 710, 740, 760, and 770.
226- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

Goose Project Final EIS - 227

Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and 

Executive Orders

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 – NEPA establishes the format and content 

requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. Preparation of the Goose FEIS was prepared 

in full compliance with these requirements.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 1976 –All proposed timber harvest units are planned 

to occur on suitable land. If regeneration harvest is implemented the sites would be capable of restocking 

within 5 years of harvest by either natural or artificial means. All units were considered for potential 

uneven-aged management. Proposed commercial thinning would increase the rate of growth of remaining 

trees. Some locations would favor species or age classes most valuable to wildlife. The resultant reduced 

stress on residual trees would make treated stands less susceptible to pest-caused damage. Design features 

have been identified to protect site productivity, soils, and water quality.

The burning of activity fuels would reduce long-lasting hazards from wildfire and reduce the risk of pest 

outbreaks over the project area as a whole. Air quality would be maintained at a level that would meet 

applicable Federal, State, and local standards. All proposed activities would provide sufficient habitat to 

maintain viable populations of fish and wildlife. Critical habitat for threatened or endangered species 

would be protected through avoidance. The action alternatives would accelerate development of forest 

habitats that are currently deficient within the analysis area to enhance the diversity of plant and animal 

communities in the long-term. See discussions under the applicable resource sections above, for further 

support that proposed activities that would comply with the seven requirements associated with vegetative 

manipulation (36 CFR 219.27(b)), riparian areas (36 CFR 219.27(e)), and soil and water (36 CFR 

219.27(f)).

Forest Plan Consistency – Actions analyzed in the Goose FEIS are consistent with a broad range of 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that have been discussed and disclosed throughout the document.

The timber stand treatments associated with the project are consistent with the goals and management 

direction analyzed in the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and 

Record of Decision. Road improvements are designed to be consistent with the 1994 Northwest Forest 

Plan amendments to the Forest Plan and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy - The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is 

an integral part of the Northwest Forest Plan and was developed to maintain and restore the ecological 

health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands through implementation of four components: 

1) riparian reserves 2) key watersheds 3) watershed analysis 4) watershed restoration. Based on the 

analysis presented in this FEIS and Appendix E, the ACS Objectives would be met in each alternative.

The Preservation of Antiquities Act, June 1906 and the National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended, October 1966 – Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 

(amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992) is the foremost legislation governing the treatment of historic 

properties (a.k.a. heritage or cultural resources) during project planning and implementation. Other legal 

framework considered the effects of its actions on heritage resources is listed below:

♦ 36 CFR800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 

♦ 36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), and 

♦ 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources), and
Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

228- Goose Project Final EIS

♦ Executive Order 13007 – Sacred Sites

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 July 2009. All known cultural sites 

in the Area of Potential Effect (project area) were protected by avoidance, resulting in a determination of 

“No Historic Properties Affected” on November 19, 2014. Documentation was provided by SHPO and 

copies have been retained in the Forest and District Heritage files.

Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977 – The alternatives are designed to meet the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility 

standards. This project is consistent with by the 1990 Clean Air Act and the 1977 Clean Air Act and its 

amendments (See Chapter 3.2 and 3.12).

The Clean Water Act, 1987 – This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed 

projects. Compliance with the Clean Water Act would be accomplished through planning, application and 

monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Based on the analysis presented in this FEIS, TMDL 

requirements for the McKenzie Basin would be met in each alternative (See Chapter 3.4).

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), December 1973 – The ESA establishes a policy that all federal 

agencies would seek to conserve endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife and plants.

Biological Evaluations for plants and wildlife have been prepared, which describes possible effects and 

impacts of the proposed action on sensitive, and other species of concern that may be present in the 

project area. A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for the northern spotted owl, and for bull trout, 

and spring Chinook salmon.

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

for Upper Willamette River spring Chinook salmon and Columbia River bull trout was completed during 

the development of the EA (2009-2010). In March 2010, a final Biological Assessment was submitted to 

USFWS. A letter of concurrence was received from April 14, 2010 concurring with the determinations in 

the Biological Assessment (below). No conservation measures were issued. During development of this 

FEIS, it was determined that no additional consultation was required as only minor changes were made to 

the proposed action, mostly being more conservative (i.e. larger no-treatment buffers).

Upper Willamette River spring Chinook Salmon 

(Evolutionarily Significant Unit-ESU) 

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Upper Willamette River spring Chinook Salmon 

(Critical Habitat)

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Upper Willamette River spring Chinook Salmon 

(Essential Habitat)

Will Not Adversely Affect

Bull Trout (Distinct Population Segment-DPS) May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Bull Trout (Critical Habitat) May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

Goose Project Final EIS - 229

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

completed in 2009 and evaluated by the USFWS in the 2009 Biological Opinion (FWS reference 13420-

2010-F-0001) signed November 25, 2009. Subsequently, Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl was 

modified with the 2012 Critical Habitat Rule. This resulted in reinitiation of consultation and an 

additional Biological Opinion (FWS Reference Number 01EOFW00-2013-F-0115) that addressed the 

effects to 2012 Critical Habitat for activities proposed by the Goose project. USFWS issued an additional 

Biological Opinion with the following determinations on April 22, 2013.

Goose Project May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect the 

Northern Spotted Owl-May Result in Harm to 2 

Spotted Owl Sites due to Habitat Modification

from Thinning, Underburning, and Disruption, 

Incidental Take to 5 owls (2 pairs and 1 resident 

single)

Goose Project Not Likely to Jeopardize the Continued Existence 

of the Spotted Owl

Road Construction in Suitable RA32 Habitat within 

2012 Critical Habitat (~2 acres or 0.25 miles)

May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect

Critical Habitat

Fuels Reduction Treatments (WUI) in 2012 Critical 

Habitat (21 acres of suitable and 4 acres of nonhabitat)

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Critical Habitat

Commercial Thinning in Critical Habitat (dispersal 

habitat)

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect, 

mostly Beneficial Effects on Future Foraging and 

Nesting/Roosting Habitat in Critical Habitat

Commercial Thinning in Critical Habitat (54 acres 

of gaps)

May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect 

Critical Habitat

Effects due to Disruption May Affect and Likely to Adversely Affect

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 1976 (MSA) – The MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires the identification of habitat 

“essential” to conserve and enhance the federal fishery resources that are fished commercially. The 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook, 

coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon in their Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, issued 

September 27, 2000. The interim final rule implementing the EFH provision of the MSA (62 FR 66531) 

requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service for any action that may 

adversely affect EFH. The Goose project is located in the Upper McKenzie River Watershed, which is 

included in the waters designated as EFH for spring Chinook salmon by the PFMC.

Informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Upper Willamette River 

spring Chinook salmon and Columbia River bull trout was completed during the development of the 

Goose EA (2009-2010). In March 2010, a final Biological Assessment was submitted to NMFS and a
Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

230- Goose Project Final EIS

letter of concurrence was received March 30, 2010 concurring with the determinations in the Biological 

Assessment (listed above under ESA). No conservation measures were issued. During development of 

this FEIS, it was determined that no additional consultation was required as only minor changes were 

made to the proposed action, mostly being more conservative (i.e. larger no-treatment buffers).

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Public Law 91-173, as amended by Public Law 95-164.

Development of Rock Quarries would conform to the requirements of the act, which sets forth mandatory 

safety and health standards for each surface metal or nonmetal mine. The purpose for the standards is to 

protect life by preventing accidents and promoting health and safety.

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness –No inventoried roadless areas or designated wilderness is 

within or adjacent to the project area

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland – No prime farmland, rangeland, or forestland occurs 

within the project area. 

Survey and Manage Species – The action alternatives comply with the Northwest 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. Pre-disturbance 

surveys were conducted and site management applied consistent with the January 2001 species list. 

Management Indicator Species (Aquatic) – 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. The most common salmonid sport fish that occur on the 

McKenzie River Ranger District are spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, rainbow trout, and coastal 

cutthroat trout. The Goose project would maintain and improve habitat conditions for aquatic 

Management Indicator Species in the project area. Therefore, the Goose project would not contribute to a 

negative trend in viability of these species.

Management Indicator Species (Terrestrial)– The Willamette Forest Plan recognized elk and deer as 

economically important species that are commonly hunted, and designated them as management indicator 

species for winter range. Designated management indicator species for old growth and mature conifers 

are pileated woodpecker, marten, and northern spotted owl. The bald eagle was selected as a management 

indicator species for old growth conifers near large bodies of water, and the peregrine falcon was selected 

as a management indicator species for cliff nesting habitat. The Goose project would maintain habitat 

conditions for elk, deer, pileated woodpeckers, marten, bald eagles and peregrine falcons in the project 

area. The Goose project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for any of the terrestrial 

wildlife management indicator species. 

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and Wetlands – Executive Order 11988 requires 

government agencies to take actions that reduce the risk of loss due to floods, to minimize the impact of 

floods on human health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served 

by floodplains. Proposed harvest treatments would not occur within 100-year floodplains. Executive 

Order 11990 requires government agencies to take actions that minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands. Streamside riparian areas, seeps, springs, and other wet habitats exist in the 

project area. These areas would be either avoided, or managed according to the amended Willamette 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Riparian Reserves would also be protected with design features. As 

a result, proposed treatments would be consistent with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies 

adopt strategies to address environmental justice concerns within the context of agency operations. With 

implementation of either action alternatives, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse 
Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

Goose Project Final EIS - 231

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. Nearby communities 

would mainly be affected by economic impacts connected with contractors implementing harvest, road 

reconstruction, tree thinning, planting, and other fuels treatment activities. Racial and cultural minority 

groups could also be prevalent in the work forces that implement activities. Contracts contain clauses that 

address worker safety.

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fishing – The June 7, 1995, Executive Order requires 

government agencies to strengthen efforts to improve fisheries conservation and provide for more and 

better recreational fishing opportunities, and to develop a new policy to promote compatibility between 

the protection of endangered species and recreational fisheries, and to develop a comprehensive 

Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan. Proposed activities in the project area would promote 

the restoration of riparian function in stands in corridor and headwater aquatic reserves and to develop 

additional large wood to stream reaches that currently lack adequate amounts. This would improve fish 

habitat and would provide better future fishing opportunities for the public.

Executive Order 13186: Migratory Birds – 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 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service requires, during NEPA planning, that the FS, to the extent practical, evaluate and balance longterm 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 some 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, birds that are 

Management Indicator Species and 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 proposed treatment units are addressed in Chapter 3. 

Seasonal restrictions are recommended in the Goose design features (Table 13) to conduct hazard tree 

falling outside the critical nesting season, as well as tree felling, yarding and prescribed unit underburning 

on specific units to protect owls. This would minimize disturbances to nesting migratory birds and reduce 

the likelihood of harm to individual birds. Design features to retain existing snags where possible, and to 

retain live trees, create snags, and fall trees for dead wood sources would provide structural features 

migratory birds would use. There is a design feature (Table 13) to consider late winter or fall for 

prescribed underburning which would reduce impacts to nesting birds and their young.

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation – August 17, 2007, 

Executive Order requires Federal agencies “to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting 

opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.” The proposed creation and 

enhancement of early seral habitat in both action alternatives in the project area would improve forage for 

game species and provide better hunting opportunities for the public.

Other Jurisdictions – There are a number of other agencies responsible for management of resources 

within the project area. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for management of 

fish and wildlife populations, whereas the Forest Service manages the habitat for these animals. The 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been contacted regarding this analysis and Brian Wolfer, a 

biologist with the agency, attend a 2014 public meeting.
Appendix C – Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

232- Goose Project Final EIS

Proposed harvest treatments within riparian areas have been designed to comply with “Sufficiency 

Analysis for Stream Temperature – Evaluation of the adequacy of the Northwest Forest Plan Riparian 

Reserves to achieve and maintain stream temperature water quality standards” (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI BLM, 2004). This document was prepared in collaboration with Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality and United States Environmental Protection Agency to provide documentation of 

Northwest Forest Plan compliance with the Clean Water Act with regard to state water quality standards 

for stream temperatures. As such, it redeems several of the Forest Service responsibilities identified in a

“Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service and Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality To Meet State and Federal Water Quality Rules and Regulations” (USDA Forest 

Service and Oregon DEQ, May 2002). The Sufficiency Analysis provides current scientific guidance for 

management of riparian vegetation to provide effective stream shade, including appropriate methods of 

managing young stands for riparian objectives other than shade, such as production of large wood for 

future recruitment.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Forestry are responsible for 

regulating all prescribed burning operations. The USDA Forest Service Region 6 has a Memorandum of 

Understanding with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Forestry, and 

the USDI Bureau of Land Management regarding limits on emissions, as well as reporting procedures. All 

burning would comply with the State of Oregon's Smoke Management Implementation Plan and, for 

greater specificity, see the memorandum of understanding mentioned above.

Segments of the McKenzie River are designated Oregon State Scenic Waterway, which is administered by 

the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. The State Scenic Waterway segments have a dual 

classification, with the west side of the McKenzie River classified as Scenic River Area and the east side 

of the river classified as Recreation River Area. Scenic Waterway Act and Commission rules require the 

evaluation of proposed development within 1⁄4 mile from each side of the river. Approval for timber 

harvest or salvage within this scenic waterway was requested May 29, 2012 and granted by Oregon State 

Parks and Recreation on September 28, 2012.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential – Some form of energy would be necessary for 

projects requiring use of mechanized equipment. Commercial thinning and some partial cutting units 

would involve both heavy and small machines for yarding logs during the implementation period. 

Projects such as road reconstruction and maintenance could require heavy machinery for a small amount 

of time. Both possibilities would result in minor energy consumption. Alternatives that harvest trees could 

create supplies of firewood as a by-product, which would contribute to a supply of energy for the local 

community for home heating.
Appendix D – Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

Goose Project Final EIS - 233

Appendix D – Past, Present and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future Actions Relevant to the 

Cumulative Effects Analysis

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 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)

The table below provides a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

overlap in time and space with the Goose project and could contribute cumulative effects to the resources 

in the project area.

Action Agency Description Resources Affected

Past Actions

Foley Ridge 

Landscape 

Management Project 

(EA)

USFS

13 Thin Timber Sale

Timber harvest

Completed 2014

Approximately 160 Acres

13 Thin Hazardous Fuels Reduction

Grapple, hand piling and burning 

Completed 2014

Approximately 44 acres

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants
Appendix D – Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Relevant to the Cumulative Effects Analysis

234- Goose Project Final EIS

Action Agency Description Resources Affected

Past Actions

Bridge Thin Project 

(EA) USFS

Eagle Timber Sale

Timber harvest

Completed 2014

Approximately 176 Acres

Eagle Hazardous Fuels Reductions

Pile and burn

Completed 2014

Approximately 5 acres

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Goose Project (EA)–

Hazardous Fuel 

Reduction

USFS

Hazardous fuels reduction 

approved and implemented in units 830, 

840, 970, 980/981

Completed 2014

Approximately 180 acres

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Highway 126/242 

Corridor- Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction

USFS

Highway 126/242 Corridor Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction 

Completed 2012 and 2013

Approximately 120 acres

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Timber Harvest

1993-2014 USFS

Approximately 764 acres in the proposed 

project area have been harvested.

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants

Present Actions (ongoing)

Powerline

Eugene Water 

and Electric 

Board

Powerline runs through the project area

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants, Scenery

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Pass Thin Project 

(CE) USFS

Pass Thin Timber Sale 

Thinning in gaps 

Sale in Winter 2014-2015

Approximately 21 acres

Vegetation, Soil, Water, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Roads 

and Access 

Management, Invasive 

Plants, Scenery
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Goose Project Final EIS - 235

Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Introduction

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy was developed to restore and maintain the ecological health of 

watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. A goal of this strategy is to 

maintain a "natural" disturbance regime. In addition, management activities must comply with nine 

objectives that are included in the strategy. A variety of tactics to accomplish these goals and objectives 

are incorporated into four primary components. These components are:

1. Riparian Reserves

2. Key Watersheds

3. Watershed Analysis

4. Watershed Restoration

These four components, along with Late Successional Reserves, are designed to operate together to 

maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems (Record of 

Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents 

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl - USFS, BLM 1994, (ROD), pages B9-B12).

The Four Components

Riparian Reserves

The Northwest Forest Plan defined Riparian Reserves as “portions of watersheds where ripariandependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and guidelines apply” (ROD 

page B12). Riparian Reserves include those portions of a watershed directly coupled to streams, ponds, 

lakes, and wetlands - that is, the portions of a watershed required for maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, 

and ecologic processes that directly affect standing and flowing water (ROD pgs. B-12 and B-13).

The Riparian Reserve network in the project area totals about 4,820 acres. The Watershed Analysis made 

no final recommendations to adjust Riparian Reserve widths for waterbodies in the watershed, retaining 

the initial Reserve widths (based off of local site potential tree height) from the ROD for all waterbodies.

During analysis for the Goose project, no reductions of Riparian Reserve widths along any waterbodies 

were proposed. However, silvicultural treatments were proposed within Riparian Reserves for some units 

in order to improve structural and species diversity. Timber harvest is generally prohibited within 

Riparian Reserves, but there are three exceptions provided in the ROD, one of which is Standard and 

Guideline TM-1(c):

Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs)

TM-1(c). Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Reserves to control stocking, reestablish and 

manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives.

Standard and Guideline TM-1(c) in the Northwest Forest Plan (1994) provides direction on when 

silvicultural activities can take place in Riparian Reserves. The McKenzie River Ranger District’s task is 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

236- Goose Project Final EIS

to review all the Riparian Reserves in the project area and at both the unit and landscape levels to

determine if treatment is warranted. Based on field investigations and a landscape level analysis of stand 

age and deciduous vegetation composition, recommendations were developed for each Riparian Reserve.

Treatments within Riparian Reserves are proposed where stands are dense, overstocked, and coniferdominant 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. In other 

portions of Riparian Reserves, however, there is higher structural and species diversity and riparian stands 

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, and habitat for ripariandependent wildlife. Treatments were not recommended in these areas.

Key Watersheds

The Northwest Forest Plan created an overlay of Key Watersheds that are intended to provide refugia for 

at-risk stocks of anadromous salmonids and resident fish species. Refugia are a cornerstone of the 

conservation strategy for these species, consisting of watersheds that provide high quality habitat or are 

expected to provide habitat. Two different levels of protection, or tiers, are identified, as well as non-Key 

Watersheds (ROD page B19). In Key Watersheds, completion of a watershed analysis is required prior to 

most management activities. The project area is located within the Florence Creek-McKenzie River, Elk

Creek-McKenzie River, and Lost Creek 6th Field Sub-watersheds. Only Lost Creek is a Key Watershed.

One of the important components of Key Watershed is that there must be no net gain in roads. However, 

no new permanent roads are proposed with this project

Watershed Analysis and Watershed Restoration

The Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis (WA) was prepared for the McKenzie River Ranger District in 

1995. The watershed was characterized in terms of past and current conditions, and a synthesis discussion 

was provided to guide development of management proposals to maintain and restore watershed 

conditions.

The Goose project has incorporated information from the WA into the project design. Current vegetative 

landscape patterns reflect past management activities that did not consider what the landscape might look 

like under natural disturbance regimes. Many of the proposed actions seek to create vegetative patterns, 

late successional stand structure, and fuel loading that would have been typical of this landscape under the 

natural disturbance regimes that historically occurred in the area. 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

The previous discussions highlighted the consistency of the Goose project with the four components of 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The management objective for Riparian Reserves in the project area is 

to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) 

Objectives as directed in the Northwest Forest Plan. This section will outline how the activities proposed 

in the alternatives conform to the nine objectives. The information presented is summarized from 

Chapters 2 and 3 of the Environmental Impact Statement, where greater detail can be found.

In some cases, maintaining and/or restoring 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 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Goose Project Final EIS - 237

development. Removal of overstory density, however, could potentially lead to increased thermal loading 

or reduction of wood volume available for recruitment if not designed correctly for the specific site. 

Because of these trade-offs, the McKenzie River Ranger District’s interdisciplinary team carefully 

balance conflicting objectives based on characteristics of each waterbody and adjacent riparian area.

Based on data gathered through landscape and stream reach assessments 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 manage certain 

parts of Riparian Reserves. Other areas, however, are currently meeting desired vegetation characteristics 

and management is not necessary. 

Objective #1 - Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations 

and communities are uniquely adapted.

Alternative 1 (No Action) – This alternative would maintain landscape complexity at the current 

condition. Several hundred acres of Riparian Reserves would remain as dense, overstocked, coniferdominant stands with very little structural and species diversity and understory development until natural 

processes create openings and down wood. This could take several decades. Waterbodies would continue 

to experience low volume and small size classes of in-stream wood but would maintain upland down 

wood numbers.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Proposed treatments would occur on 138 acres and are designed to 

accelerate the development of: (1) early-seral forest, which has been declining in the watershed as a result 

of fire suppression and historic land management, (2) older forest structure (e.g. large trees, large dead 

trees, spatial structure and compositional heterogeneity, etc.), which was dramatically reduced in the last 

century by historic land management, and (3) a greater abundance of deciduous and herbaceous species, 

which have subsequently declined with the loss of early- and late-seral forest. Though no regeneration 

harvest is proposed within Riparian Reserves, upland regeneration treatments would enhance early-seral 

habitat within the watershed and the overall diversity and complexity across the landscape. Treatments to 

accelerate late forest structure are proposed within some portions of Riparian Reserves. These thinning 

treatments were designed to emulate, to the extent possible, conditions under a natural fire regime.

Primary shade and wood recruitment zones would be protected on every waterbody and existing high 

quality habitat within Riparian Reserves would be maintained within no-treatment buffers. The objective 

is to provide a balance between the maintenance of existing habitat for species, populations, and 

communities, with opportunities to develop landscape scale features with distribution, diversity and 

complexity of the historical landscapes. This includes aquatic and riparian elements of the landscape. 

Approximately 138 acres of Riparian Reserves are proposed for active treatment rather than passive 

restoration.

Additionally, about 4,140 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the project area would remain untreated -

over 96 percent.

Alternative 3 – The effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 with the exception that only 

about 57 acres would be treated. Fewer acres would be treatments outside the Riparian Reserves and there 

would be no early-seral creation.

Objective #2 - Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between 

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, 

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide

chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history 

requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

238- Goose Project Final EIS

Alterative 1 (No Action) –Failing culverts and inadequately maintained roads would continue to affect the 

ability of some aquatic species to disperse. Otherwise, implementation of this alternative would maintain 

existing spatial and temporal connectivity.

Alterative 2 (Proposed Action) – Riparian Reserves, as established by the Record of Decision for the 

Northwest Forest Plan and re-assessed in the Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis have been 

incorporated into the design of all treatment units where waterbodies occur. Active treatments are 

proposed within Riparian Reserves on approximately 138 acres where they have the potential to enhance 

functions such as the development of future large wood, stand structural diversity, vegetative species 

richness and diversity, and other late- successional characteristics. Road treatments include upgrades of

stream crossings to accommodate 100-year flood events so that these events can flow through the 

landscape unimpeded and without the risk of catastrophic fill failures and provide for better aquatic 

organism passage. Stream-adjacent riparian corridors would be maintained through no-treatment buffers 

and outer portions of some Riparian Reserves would be treated to improve late forest structure for 

wildlife. 

Alternative 3 – Implementation of this alterative incorporates many of the same elements as Alternative 2.

Fewer culverts would be upgraded though most of these are on intermittent streams high up on the slopes 

where fewer aquatic species reside. Also 81 fewer acres of riparian thinning would occur.

Objective #3 - Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including 

shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Implementation of this alternative would maintain existing conditions. Roads 

and drainage features would continue to fail creating potential for damage to channel integrity. Large instream wood levels in plantations would remain low for several decades until natural processes occurred 

to create it. Small wood levels would remain at normal to high levels as the stands develop. The ability of 

some streams to store gravels and fine sediment would be greatly reduced during this time which would 

continue to affect channel morphology.

Alterative 2 (Proposed Action) – All proposed treatments were designed with channel stability in mind.

All harvest activities minimize the use of ground disturbing equipment in and around waterbodies, and 

provide for retention of all vegetation that is contributing to the stability of banks and channels. Where 

aerial yarding methods are prescribed, full suspension is required when yarding over perennial streams to 

prevent disturbance of stream banks and channels. Trees cut for skyline corridors would be retained on 

site as down woody material.

Roads are a known potential source of damage to stream habitat, where improper design or location, or 

inadequate maintenance results in failures or roadway erosion. The Goose project addresses this concern 

by upgrading numerous culverts. Approximately 43 miles of maintenance and reconstruction of portions 

of the existing road network that are in poor condition, replacement of undersized or old culverts, 

drainage improvement, and application of aggregate where necessary would reduce chronic, low 

amplitude sources of fine sediment from the existing transportation system, and the potential of crossing 

fill failures. This would reduce the possibility of gravels and cobbles becoming embedded in fine 

materials in the stream channel bottoms. The majority of temporary roads would be located on ridge tops 

or gentle slopes or utilize previously disturbed locations not decommissioned with historic logging.

Approximately 6.9 miles of temporary roads would be constructed on stable locations, and all of these 

would be obliterated following harvest activities. Those segments located within the Riparian Reserves

would be located well outside of the primary shade zone or cross perpendicular to the stream.

Approximately 0.85 miles of temporary roads are proposed within the Riparian Reserves which is 

approximately 4 acres of ground disturbance. There are five proposed temporary road crossings which 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Goose Project Final EIS - 239

are needed to access portions of units. Typical rates of revegetation start occurring within two decades 

from natural regeneration if the stand is not scheduled for replanting.

Alterative 3 – Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with the 

exception of fewer road miles maintained (only 26 miles) which may result in impacts to the streams 

along other roads. Fewer miles of temporary roads (only 2.2 miles) are proposed, and only about 0.46 

miles (about 2 acres) of those are within the Riparian Reserves.

Objective #4 – Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic 

and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, 

physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and 

migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Alterative 1 (No Action) – Implementation of this alternative would maintain existing water quality 

conditions including current levels of shade for stream temperatures. Full water quality recovery could 

take several years to several decades in streams hit heavily by historic logging (clear-cutting to the stream 

edge) and stream “cleaning” (removal of in-stream wood).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Approximately 138 acres of Riparian Reserves are proposed for active 

treatment. Implementation of this would do nothing to immediately improve water quality. However, a

primary objective of any treatment within the Riparian Reserves is to maintain compliance with the 

Regional Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Strategy so that stream temperatures are 

not detrimentally impacted. Over 4,140 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the project area would 

remain untreated. Where vegetative treatments are proposed within Riparian Reserves, effective stream 

shading is retained at levels sufficient to maintain water temperature. A minimum of 50 percent canopy 

closure (approximately 40 percent canopy cover) is preserved throughout the Riparian Reserve to help 

p0rotect the secondary shade zone and the maintain microclimates. No-harvest buffers were developed to 

preserve the primary shade zone, and most of the Class 3 streams and perennial waterbodies have a 

minimum 60-foot no-harvest buffer based off of slope, vegetation size, and stream width. For a list of 

Design Features that protect water quality, refer to Table 13.

Alternative 3 – Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2. Design 

features for protecting stream-side shade and water quality is the same though there are 81 fewer acres 

proposed for thinning in Alternative 3. As with Alternative 2, treatments have been designed to comply 

with the Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy.

Objective #5 – Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input,

storage, and transport.

Alterative 1 (No Action) – Large portions of the project area have not been previously logged which helps 

provide for landscape processes that are dominated by nature rather than humans. Implementation of this 

alternative would maintain existing anthropogenic sediment input at their current levels for potentially 

several years. However, Alternative 1 would not correct existing road erosion problems nor reduce the 

risk of future road or culvert failure.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Project related activities are intended to maintain and restore the 

physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations, as 

discussed above under ACS Objective #3. These elements would also provide protection of water quality 

from the introduction of sediment into streams.
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

240- Goose Project Final EIS

Roads are a known potential source of damage to stream habitat, where improper design or location, or 

inadequate maintenance results in failures or roadway erosion. The Goose project addresses this concern 

by upgrading numerous culverts and ensuring no new permanent road construction. Approximately 43 

miles of maintenance and reconstruction of portions of the existing road network that are in poor 

condition, replacement of undersized or old culverts, drainage improvement, and application of aggregate 

where necessary, would reduce chronic, low amplitude sources of fine sediment from the existing 

transportation system, and the potential of crossing fill failures. This would reduce the possibility of 

gravels and cobbles becoming embedded in fine materials in the stream channel bottoms. During culvert 

replacement, some sediment may enter the stream system. However, the amount would be minimized by 

following Best Management Practices (BMPs), and the impact to the aquatic ecosystem would be 

relatively short lived (1-2 seasons) and only a few yards downstream. Approximately 6.9 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed on stable locations, and all of these would be obliterated following 

harvest activities. Approximately 0.85 miles of temporary roads are proposed within the Riparian 

Reserves which is approximately 4 acres of ground disturbance.

All proposed treatments were designed with sediment transport potential in mind. All harvest activities 

follow BMP guidelines and restrict the use of ground disturbing equipment in and around streams. This 

reduces the potential of water routing along skid roads and overland flow due to high compaction levels.

Where aerial yarding methods are prescribed, full suspension is required when yarding over perennial 

streams to prevent disturbance of stream banks and channels. Trees cut for skyline corridors would be 

retained on site as down woody material. 

Alternative 3 – Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with the 

exception of fewer road miles maintained or reconstructed. This may result in impacts to the streams 

along roads not repaired. Fewer miles of temporary roads (only 2.2 miles) are proposed, and only about 

0.46 miles (about 2 acres) of those are within the Riparian Reserves.

Objective #6 – Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, 

aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The 

timing, magnitude, duration and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be 

protected.

Alterative 1 (No Action) – Large portions of the project area remain unlogged. This helps provide for 

landscape processes that are dominated by nature rather than humans. Implementation of this alternative 

would maintain existing in-stream flows.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – This alternative maintains current canopy cover at levels well above the 

maximum mid-point Aggregate Recovery Percentage (ARP). Therefore, no altered flows are anticipated 

from implementation of this alterative.

Alternative 3 – Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2, and no 

altered flows are anticipated.

Objective #7 – Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation 

and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

Alterative 1 (No Action) – As mentioned in previous objective, large portions of the project area remain 

unlogged which helps provide for natural landscape processes. Implementation of this alternative would 

maintain existing floodplain inundations and water table elevations.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Implementation of a landscape design that is intended to restore 

vegetative structures within young dense stands, landscape patterns, and disturbance regimes to a more 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Goose Project Final EIS - 241

natural condition would result in watershed conditions that more closely resemble those under which 

historic stream flow conditions developed. 

Floodplains and wetland areas were excluded from consideration for harvest activities and where 

treatment units occur adjacent to these features, ground based equipment that could impact the soil and 

result in altered groundwater movement are restricted. 

Alternative 3 – Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2.

Objective #8 - Maintain and restore the species compositions and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal 

regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel 

migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain 

physical complexity and stability.

Alternative 1 (No Action) – This alternative would maintain landscape complexity at the current 

condition. Over a hundred acres of Riparian Reserves would remain in dense homogenous stand 

conditions until natural processes created openings in which hardwoods and understory species could 

thrive. This could take several decades. Some habitats would continue to experience low volumes of large 

in-stream and terrestrial down wood. However, small wood levels would remain at normal to high levels 

as stands develop.

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 large enough wood to remain stable in channels. 

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. 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. A large 

disturbance event has the potential to reduce vegetation, large woody material, and stream shade across 

large areas of Riparian Reserves.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Alternative 2 would commercially thin 138 acres of Riparian Reserves

to reduce the density of overstocked riparian stands, increase species diversity and structural complexity, 

and accelerate tree growth. Selected streams were chosen for their vegetation characteristics at the stream 

catchment scale and at the stream reach scale. 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

242- Goose Project Final EIS

This activity would have the short term effect (years to a couple of decades) of reducing coarse woody 

material loading in the Riparian Reserve outside the no-harvest buffer. To develop stream-specific 

riparian treatments that attain this objective, large woody material (LWM) source areas were calculated at 

various distances from each stream channel in each unit. LWM recruitment zones and associated notreatment buffers were defined based on effective tree heights. Protecting at least 90 percent of potential 

wood inputs would maintain ACS Objectives related to in-stream wood while allowing for treatments to 

improve vegetation diversity and accelerate the growth of future in-stream wood. Where management is 

recommended inside those zones, dead and down wood objectives would be met through supplemental 

fall-and-leave treatments. Overall, LWM values would remain within the range of natural variability, and 

abundant overstory would be retained for future wood input sufficient to sustain physical complexity.

In many cases where vegetation objectives were already being met, no silvicultural treatments were 

proposed with Riparian Reserves.

The actual wetlands and floodplain areas that are critical to nutrient filtering are eliminated from 

treatment areas and use of ground disturbing equipment adjacent to them is restricted.

Use of low severity fire to reduce fuel loading and wildfire risk is restricted to the edges of Riparian 

Reserves where the risk of adverse effects on ground cover and duff retention cannot impact water quality

and nutrient availability.

The majority of temporary roads would be located on ridge tops or gentle slopes or utilize previously 

disturbed locations not decommissioned with historic logging. Those segments located within the 

Riparian Reserves would be located well outside of the primary shade zone or cross perpendicular to the 

stream. Approximately 0.85 miles of temporary roads are proposed within the Riparian Reserves. This is 

approximately 4 acres of ground disturbance. There are five proposed temporary road crossings which are 

needed to access portions of units. Impacts to large wood are expected to be similar to those of thinning 

treatments. Typical rates of revegetation start occurring within two decades from natural regeneration if 

the stand is not scheduled for replanting.

Over 4,140 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the project area would remain untreated and provide 

landscape-scale diversity. The impact of thinning on the long-term riparian forest structure and wood 

recruitment would be minor at the watershed scale, but would have positive impacts at the project scale. 

Aquatic habitats currently characterized as simplified may be expected to improve in substrate storage 

and habitat complexity over time thus improving their ability to meet aquatic life history needs at the site 

scale. In summary, any proposed management of Riparian Reserves in Alternative 2 would not deter 

attainment of and would largely benefit ACS Objectives. 

Alternative 3 - Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with the 

exception there are fewer acres (81 acres less) proposed for thinning in Alternative 3. Fewer miles of 

temporary roads (only 2.2 miles) are proposed, and only about 0.46 miles (about 2 acres) of those are 

within the Riparian Reserves.

Objective #9 – Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Alternative 1 (No Action) – This alternative would maintain current habitat conditions for both aquatic 

and riparian-dependent species. Many of the aquatic and riparian-dependent species need complex stand 

structures like those found in old-growth stands in order to thrive while others need younger seral stages.

However, several hundred acres of Riparian Reserves would remain in dense homogenous stand 

conditions until natural processes created openings in which hardwoods and understory species could 
Appendix E – Evaluation for Consistency with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy

Goose Project Final EIS - 243

thrive. This could take several decades. Meanwhile aquatic and terrestrial habitats would continue to 

experience low volumes of large down wood and a lack of deciduous leaf litter in many stands.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – Approximately 138 acres of Riparian Reserves are proposed for active 

treatment rather while over 4,140 acres of Riparian Reserves throughout the project area would remain 

untreated and provide landscape-scale diversity. In addition, this project complies with the Northwest 

Forest Plan and all of its applicable standards and guidelines. Objective #9 is expected to maintain and 

restore late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, and provide adequate viability levels for all 

late successional species including species listed in the FSEIS ROD Table C-3. As discussed in the other 

Objectives above, some stands in Riparian Reserves are proposed for treatment to encourage development 

of large wood and late successional stand structure and species diversity. This would help to create a rich 

variety of habitats for native species. Adequate amounts of down woody debris would be retained on site.

The McKenzie River and its numerous tributaries provide excellent habitat for native fish. This is due to 

the cold, clean water and the gravels produced from the tributary streams. The alternative is designed to 

maintain or enhance these attributes. Additionally, upgrades to several culverts would provide better 

dispersal opportunities to aquatic invertebrates and salamanders.

Alternative 3 - Implementation of this alternative would have similar effects as Alternative 2 with the 

exception that Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres (81 acres less) of Riparian Reserve thinning and fewer 

miles of road maintenance/repairs (only 26 instead of 43 miles).
244- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites

Goose Project Final EIS - 245

Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites 

Alternative 2

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. 

There are no known or predicted spotted owl sites within 1.2 miles of unit 420 (27 acres). Goose units 

471, 691, and 720 are within the home ranges of three known sites: MSNO 2035, MSNO 0835 and 

MSNO 2825.

Silviculturally, these stands have reached the stand competition stage and are currently at the Culmination 

of Mean Annual Increment, which is required by law before regeneration of a stand can occur on federal 

lands. Competition creates stand stress and makes them susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks. The 

silvicultural prescription would not be a conventional clear-cut treatment. The objective would be to leave 

15-30 green trees per acre in both scattered pockets as well as scattered throughout the stand post-harvest. 

These retention trees would be released to grow and to encourage development of large trees, snag 

creation, diversity in future stand structure, and development of future large down woody debris. In 30 to 

50 years, the stand structure is expected to be more complex and more closely mimic late successional 

forests than what the current stand is projected to produce in the same time frame if left on its current 

trajectory. 

MSNO 0835: The latest data from this site is a resident single northern spotted owl found in 1990. A 100 

acre Late Successional Reserve (LSR) is established around this site. This site is currently deficient in 

suitable habitat in both the core area (40 percent) and home range (31 percent). About 50 percent of this 

site is in either private land (16 percent) or in non-habitat status (34 percent). The BioMapper model, used 

in the ten-year report for the Northwest Forest Plan (Davis and Lint 2005), models suitable habitat on 

private and non-forest land. It shows about 39 acres of suitable habitat on private land. This increases to 

total percent of suitable habitat within the home range of this site by only 2 percent (from 31 percent to 33

percent). 

Ten acres of suitable habitat in Unit 690 falls within the home range of this site. It is the determination of 

the unit biologist that this is a marginal site at best. Therefore this site may only marginally contribute to 

reproduction as demographic studies have shown correlation between lack of suitable habitat within the 

home range and unsuccessful breeding (USFWS et al. 2008). 

The proposed harvest would reduce canopy closure to 20 percent thereby removing 10 acres of suitable 

habitat in this known site. This activity may affect and is likely to adversely affect and harm the northern 

spotted owls at this known site since suitable habitat would be removed from a site that currently has 

limited suitable habitat, thereby increasing the amount of time it would take for this home range to return 

to optimal level (USFWS 2009, p.77-78).

MSNO 2035: The most recent data for this site is a nesting pair from 2004. This known site is currently 

above suitable habitat threshold levels in the core area (68 percent) and home range (53 percent). A 100-

acre Late Successional Reserve (LSR) was established around this site. Eleven acres of suitable habitat in 

Unit 471 fall within the home range of MSNO 2035. The proposed harvest would reduce canopy closure 

to 20 percent, which would modify these eleven acres of suitable into non-habitat. After treatment, this 

known site would have suitable habitat above the 50 percent threshold in the core area, but just under the 
Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites

246- Goose Project Final EIS

50 percent suitable habitat within the home range (49 percent) which indicates that this site may become 

unstable. Therefore, this activity may affect and is likely to adversely affect this known site by removing 

suitable habitat. However, it is not expected to harm this known site (USFWS 2009, p.78).

MSNO 2825: The latest data for this site was a non-nesting pair located in 1991. A 100-acre LSR was 

established adjacent to this site. About 32 percent of the home range of this site is located in LSR (100-

acre LSR 2825 and large LSR RO218). About 28 percent is currently on private land (1 percent) or in 

non-habitat status (27 percent). Units 720 and 691 would remove 23 acres of suitable habitat within the 

0.5 mile core area and an additional 14 acres in the 1.2 mile home range. Therefore, proposed removal of 

37 acres of suitable habitat may affect and is likely to adversely affect MSNO 2825 due to habitat loss. 

However, it is not expected to harm this known site since it is expected to remain viable after treatment, 

with suitable habitat above thresholds in both its core area and home range (USFWS 2009, p.78).

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 Goose project units (USFWS 2009).

There are nine units within the Goose project that would remove 371 acres of dispersal habitat to a postharvest canopy closure of 30 percent for the purpose of enhancing big game forage. These are fast 

growing stands and are expected to increase in canopy closure by about 2 percent per year, achieving 

dispersal habitat again in 5-6 years after harvest.

These nine units are: 60, 70, 620, 640, 650, 710, 750, 760, and 770. They fall within the five owl home 

ranges discussed below, two of which are deficient in amount of suitable habitat within their home ranges 

(MSNO 0835 and MSNO 2034).

MSNO 0835: This known site represents a resident single northern spotted owl found in 1990. A 100 acre 

Late Successional Reserve (LSR) was established around this site. This site is currently deficient in 

suitable habitat in both the core area (40 percent) and home range (33 percent). About 50 percent of this 

site is in either private land (16 percent) or in non-habitat status (34 percent). The BioMapper model 

(Davis and Lint 2005) shows about 39 acres of suitable habitat on private land as of 2005, but this is not 

sufficient to help create a viable site. Unit 620 (51 acres) falls within the home range of this site. 

It is the determination of the unit biologist that this is a marginal site at best and by locating dispersal 

habitat removal projects in marginal sites, overall adverse effects to northern spotted owls would be 

minimized. The proposed harvest would reduce marginal dispersal habitat canopy closure to 30 percent, 

but since dispersal is not limiting in the area and the stand is not contributing to suitable foraging habitat 

for this home range, this part of the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect 

northern spotted owls. 

MSNO 0836: This site contains a nesting pair (2004) and has an associated established 100 acre Late 

Successional Reserve (LSR). Current suitable habitat acreages are above threshold levels for the core area 

(54 percent) and the home range area (61 percent). Five acres of unit 770 are within the core area (0.5 

miles), the remainder of unit 770 along with units 750 and 760 (115 acres) are within the home range (1.2 

miles). The proposed removal of 120 acres of dispersal habitat to a 30 percent canopy closure may affect 

but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls as the stand is not contributing to suitable 

foraging habitat for this home range and dispersal habitat is not limited in the area.
Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites

Goose Project Final EIS - 247

MSNO 2034: The latest data for this site shows a 2004 nesting pair. A 100 acre Late Successional 

Reserve (LSR) has been established around this site. This site is currently deficient in suitable habitat in 

both the core area (49 percent) and home range (35 percent). About 24 percent of this site is in non-habitat 

status. Units 60 (10 acres) falls within the core (0.5 miles) and unit 70 (22 acres) falls within the home 

range of this site. The proposed harvest would reduce marginal dispersal habitat canopy closure to 30

percent in the short term and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls.

MSNO 2825: The latest data for this site was a non-nesting pair located in 1991. A 100-acre LSR was 

established adjacent to this site. About 32 percent of the home range of this site is located in LSR (100-

acre LSR 2825 and large LSR RO218). About 28 percent is currently on private land (1 percent) or in 

non-habitat status (27 percent). Units 620, 640, 650, 710, 750,760 and 770 would remove 340 acres of 

dispersal habitat within the home range. After treatment, this known site would remain above optimal 

levels of suitable in both its core area (58 percent) and home range (52 percent) and dispersal is not 

limiting in the area. Therefore, proposed removal of 340 acres of dispersal habitat may affect but is not 

likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls.

MSNO 2836: This non-nesting pair from 1999 has an established 100-acre Late Successional Reserve 

(LSR). About 22 percent of this home range in is non-habitat status. Unit 60 would treat about one acre of 

dispersal within this home range. This proposed treatment may affect but is not likely to adversely affect

this known owl site since dispersal is not limiting in the area and the stand is not contributing to suitable 

foraging habitat for this home range.

Effects of Harvest Habitat Downgraded to Known NSO Sites

Harvest Habitat Downgrade in suitable habitat may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the spotted owl 

because such thinning would modify northern spotted owl suitable habitat to the extent that it no longer 

serves the function of nesting, roosting and foraging. It may, however, continue to function as dispersal 

habitat (USFWS 2009).

There are nine units within the Goose project that would downgrade 331 acres of suitable habitat to a 

post-harvest canopy closure of 40 percent. These units are: 300, 320, 330, 380, 450, 470, 480, 680, and 

690. These units fall within five owl home ranges, two of which are deficient in suitable habitat within 

their home ranges: MSNO 0835 and MSNO 2034.

MSNO 0835: This known site represents a resident single northern spotted owl found in 1990. A 100 acre 

Late Successional Reserve (LSR) was established around this site. This site is currently deficient in 

suitable habitat in both the core area (40 percent) and home range (33 percent - includes 39 acres of 

suitable habitat on private land from BioMapper). About 50 percent of this site is in either private land (16

percent) or in non-habitat status (34 percent). Portions (totaling 2 acres) of Units 680 and 690 fall within 

the home range of this site. 

It is the determination of the unit biologist that this is a marginal site at best and by locating suitable 

habitat downgrading projects in marginal sites, overall adverse effect to northern spotted owls would be 

minimized. However, the proposed harvest would downgrade suitable habitat by reducing canopy closure 

to 40 percent and therefore may affect and is likely to adversely affect and harm this spotted owl site by 

reducing already limited suitable owl habitat.

MSNO 2034: The latest data for this site shows a 2004 nesting pair. A 100 acre Late Successional 

Reserve (LSR) has been established around this site. This site is currently deficient in suitable habitat in 

both the core area (49 percent) and home range (35 percent). About 24 percent of this site is in non-habitat 

status. 
Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites

248- Goose Project Final EIS

A portion of units 300 (47 acres) and units 320 and 330 (50 acres) falls within the home range of this site. 

The proposed harvest would reduce suitable habitat to a canopy closure of 40 percent. This downgrading 

of suitable habitat to dispersal would reduce the already limited suitable owl habitat at this site and 

therefore may affect and is likely to adversely affect and harm this spotted owl site.

MSNO 2035: The most recent data for this site is an evening pair from 1997. This site currently has 

sufficient suitable habitat both within the core area (68 percent) and the home range (53 percent) to be 

considered a stable site. A 100 acre Late Successional Reserve (LSR) was established around this site. A 

portion of unit 450 (7 acres) and units 470 and 480 (105 acres) fall within the home range of MSNO 

2035. 

The proposed harvest would downgrade suitable habitat to dispersal habitat by reducing the canopy 

closure to 40 percent. This would not affect the percentage of suitable within the 0.5 mile core area, but 

would reduce the percentage of suitable habitat within the 1.2 mile home range to 49 percent, which 

would change it to an “unstable” site (with < 50 percent suitable but ≥ 40 percent suitable within the 

home range). However, this difference in amount of suitable would not rise to the level of harm (< 40

percent suitable habitat within the home range). Therefore, this activity may affect and is likely to 

adversely affect northern spotted owls because suitable habitat would be removed, but because sufficient 

suitable habitat remains for this owl site after treatment, this site is not expected to be harmed by the 

proposed action.

MSNO 2825: The latest data for this site was a non-nesting pair located in 1991. A 100-acre LSR was 

established associated to this site. About 32 percent of the home range of this site is located in LSR (100-

acre LSR 2825 and large LSR RO218). About 28 percent is currently on private land (1 percent) or in 

non-habitat status (27 percent). Units 680 and 690 would reduce 27 acres of suitable habitat to a 40

percent canopy closure within the home range. After treatment, this known site would remain above 

stable threshold levels of suitable in both its core area and home range. Proposed removal of 27 acres of 

suitable habitat may affect and is likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls by removing suitable 

habitat, but this site is not expected to be harmed by such action.

MSNO 3963: The most recent data for this site is a day-time resident single from 1991. The amount of 

suitable habitat at this site is sufficient to support a stable owl pair, with 79 percent suitable habitat in the 

core area and 65 percent suitable in the home range. A portion of unit 470 (18 acres) falls within the 

home range of this site. The proposed harvest would downgrade suitable to dispersal habitat by reducing 

the canopy closure to 40 percent. However, this site is expected to remain stable after harvest, with 79

percent suitable in the core area and 64 percent suitable in the home range. Therefore, this activity may 

affect and is likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls by removing suitable habitat, but this site is 

not expected to be harmed by such action.

Effects of Harvest 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 Goose project, only dispersal habitat would be treated under this activity (USFWS 2009).

1351 acres of a dispersal harvest habitat maintained treatment is proposed, that would result in a postharvest canopy closure of at least 40 percent. Table 34 displays known sites that have home ranges that 

overlap these treatment units. There are no predicted sites in the Goose project. 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 2009).
Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites

Goose Project Final EIS - 249

Effects of Underburn to Known NSO Sites

Underburning may affect and is likely to adversely affect spotted owls both directly and indirectly since 

suitable habitat is expected to be downgraded to dispersal habitat. In dispersal, underburning may affect 

but is not likely to adversely affect (direct) spotted owls because although dispersal habitat may be 

removed, dispersal is not limiting in the area (USFWS 2009).

Three underburn units are proposed in the Goose project. The intent of these treatments is to return fire to 

the ecosystem. Units 800, 810, and 820 totaling 75 acres are currently functioning as suitable spotted owl 

habitat. The return of fire to these stands is expected to downgrade the habitat to a 40 percent canopy 

closure and thus a dispersal habitat function. These underburn units are within the home range of MSNO 

2034 and MSNO 2838.

MSNO 2034: The latest data for this site shows a 2004 nesting pair. A 100 acre Late Successional 

Reserve (LSR) has been established around this site. This site is currently deficient in suitable habitat in 

both the core area (49 percent) and home range (35 percent). About 24 percent of this site is in non-habitat 

status. 15 acres of unit 810 and 27 acres unit 820 fall within the home range of this site. Suitable habitat 

would be reduced to dispersal habitat within the home range. This would reduce the amount of suitable 

habitat in the home range from 35 percent to 31 percent. 

It is the determination of the unit biologist that this is a marginal site at best and by locating suitable 

habitat downgrading projects in marginal sites, overall adverse effect to northern spotted owls would be 

minimized. However, the proposed harvest would reduce suitable habitat within the home range by 4

percent and therefore may affect and is likely to adversely affect and harm this site due to reduction of 

already limited suitable habitat.

MSNO 2836: The latest data for this site is a nesting pair in 1999. This pair has an associated established 

100-acre Late Successional Reserve (LSR). About 22 percent of this home range in is non-habitat status. 

Unit 800 (14 acres) and part of unit 810 (15 acres) would underburn suitable habitat and reduce it to 

dispersal habitat within this home range, reducing suitable habitat within the home range to 39 percent . 

Since this is below the “harm” threshold, the proposed actions may affect and are likely to adversely 

affect and harm northern spotted owls by reducing suitable habitat in a site which already has limited 

suitable habitat available in its home range.

Effects of WUI Fuels Treatment to Known NSO Sites

WUI Fuels Treatments occur in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) in order reduce the susceptibility of 

human built structures to wildfires by creating a defensible space in the WUI. This treatment proposes to 

reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels by either chipping or pile burning. This treatment is 

not expected to change the functionality of the current spotted owl habitat. Since habitat functionality 

remains the same, this treatment may affect but is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls directly nor 

indirectly.

The following Goose units or portions of: 840, 870, 880, 900, 920, 930, 940, 950, 960, 970, 980, 981, 990 

are proposed for Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fuels treatments. The WUI fuels project is intended to 

reduce the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels to create more defensible space near human built 

structures. A total of 447 acres of WUI Fuels treatments are proposed within suitable habitat. The removal 

of small diameter material less than 7” dbh for the chipping or burning is expected to maintain the 

functionality of the suitable habitat after treatment. In addition, the risk of fire ignition is reduced, and 

firefighter safety is increased by the creation of a defensible space in the WUI area.

The Goose WUI fuels reduction units are within the home ranges of MSNO 0835, MSNO 0836, MSNO 

2417, MSNO 2825, and MSNO 2829.
Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites

250- Goose Project Final EIS

MSNO 0835: This known site represents a resident single northern spotted owl found in 1990. A 100 acre 

Late Successional Reserve (LSR) is established around this site. This site is currently deficient in suitable 

habitat in both the core area (40 percent) and home range (31 percent). About 50 percent of this site is in 

either private land (16 percent) or in non-habitat status (34 percent). The BioMapper model, used in the 

ten-year report for the Northwest Forest Plan (Davis and Lint 2005), models suitable habitat on private 

and non-forest land. It shows about 39 acres of suitable habitat on private land. This increases to total 

percent of suitable habitat within the home range of this site by only 2 percent (from 31 percent to 33

percent). 

Parts of units 880 and 920 would involve a WUI fuels treatment within 28 acres of suitable habitat within 

the home range. After treatment, this known site would remain below optimal levels of suitable in both its 

core area and home range. The proposed WUI fuels treatment of 28 acres of suitable habitat may affect 

but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls since habitat functionality would not change 

after treatment.

MSNO 0836: This site contains a nesting pair and has an established 100 acre Late Successional Reserve 

LSR. Current suitable habitat acreages are above threshold levels for the core area (51 percent) and the 

home range area (40 percent). Part of unit 981 and unit 990 would involve a WUI fuels treatment within 

46 acres of suitable habitat within the home range. After treatment, this known site would remain above 

optimal levels of suitable in both its core area and home range. The proposed WUI fuels treatment of 46 

acres of suitable habitat may affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls since habitat 

functionality would not change after treatment.

MSNO 2417: This site was last located in 2006. A 100-acre LSR was established adjacent to this site. 

Current acreages for the core (62 percent) and the home range (46 percent) are above threshold levels. 

Units 930 and part of 940 would involve a WUI fuels treatment within 118 acres of suitable habitat 

within the home range. After treatment, this known site would remain above optimal levels of suitable in 

both its core area and home range. The proposed WUI fuels treatment of 118 acres of suitable habitat may 

affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls since habitat functionality would not 

change after treatment.

MSNO 2825: The latest data for this site was a non-nesting pair located in 1991. A 100-acre LSR was 

established adjacent to this site. About 32 percent of the home range of this site is located in LSR (100-

acre LSR 2825 and large LSR RO218). About 28 percent is currently on private land (1 percent) or in 

non-habitat status (27 percent). Current acreages for the core (62 percent) and the home range (54

percent) are above threshold levels. Units 970 and part of 980 would involve a WUI fuels treatment 

within 26 acres of suitable habitat within the home range. After treatment, this known site would remain 

above optimal levels of suitable in both its core area and home range. The proposed WUI fuels treatment 

of 26 acres of suitable habitat may affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls since 

habitat functionality would not change after treatment.

MSNO 2829: The latest data for this site was a pair located in 1991. A 100-acre LSR was established 

adjacent to this site. Current acreages for the core area (78 percent) and the home range (67 percent) are 

well above threshold levels. A portion of unit 95 would involve a WUI fuels treatment within 7 acres of 

suitable habitat within the home range. After treatment, this known site would remain above optimal 

levels of suitable in both its core area and home range. The proposed WUI fuels treatment of 7 acres of 

suitable habitat may affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls since habitat 

functionality would not change after treatment.
Appendix F – Effects to Known Owl Sites

Goose Project Final EIS - 251

Alternative 3

The effects of Alternative 3 on spotted owl sites are less than those of Alternative 2 (Table 37). Effects to 

the three individual owl sites that have adverse effects under Alternative 2 are discussed below. Thinning 

less dispersal habitat with Alternative 3 would continue to provide more dense habitat for flying squirrels. 

These stands would continue to grow slowly and not show improved structural habitat conditions for 

many more decades. Snag and large down wood habitat conditions would not be improved.

MSNO 0835: Alternative 3 would not harvest unit 600 (dispersal habitat) within the 0.5 mile core of this 

owl site. In addition, units 590, 620, 630, and 691 are not harvested within the 1.2 mile home range 

compared to Alternative 2. All of these units consist of dispersal habitat with the exception of unit 691 

which has about 12 acres of suitable owl habitat. Alternative 3 would include the same WUI fuels 

treatment within 28 acres of suitable habitat within the home range. After treatment, this known site 

would remain below optimal levels of suitable in both its core area and home range. The proposed WUI 

fuels treatment of 28 acres of suitable habitat may affect but is not likely to adversely affect northern 

spotted owls since habitat functionality would not change after treatment.

MSNO 2034: The main difference to this owl site between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is that it 

Alternative 3 would not include the 392 acre unit 10 (dispersal habitat) nor the 2-acre new road that 

would need to be constructed to access this unit. Effects to this owl site would be reduced compared to 

Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 does not harvest an additional 217 acres of dispersal habitat 

within the home range of this pair. Alternative 3 would also not include 60 acres of prescribed 

underburning within the home range of this owl site. The above activities may affect but are not likely to 

adversely affect the northern spotted owl.

MSNO 2836: The main difference to this owl site between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is that it 

Alternative 3 would not include the 200 acres of unit 10 that are within the 1.2 mile home range of this 

unit, nor would it include the 2-acre new road that would need to be constructed to access unit 10. Effects 

to this owl site would be reduced compared to Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 does not harvest 

unit 30 (22 acres of dispersal habitat) within the home range of this pair. Finally, Alternative 3 would not 

include the underburning of unit 800 which is within the owl site’s 1.2 mile home range. The above 

activities may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl.
252- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 253

Appendix G – Response to Comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

Introduction

The McKenzie River Ranger District provided the public with a 45-day comment period for the Goose 

Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comment period began on March 6 2015, 

and ended on April 20, 2015. Approximately 700 letters were received from members of the public, 

federal officials, public interest organizations, and private businesses. Of these letters, approximately 550 

were form letters; the remaining 150 letters consisted of original responses or form letters with additional 

original text.

Content Analysis

A standardized content analysis process was conducted to analyze the public letters received on the DEIS. 

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

from different letters, and identify topics of concern. Additionally, content analysis ensures that every 

comment is considered fairly and accurately represents the breadth and depth of the public’s viewpoints. 

All letters and comments have been treated equally. They are not weighted by status of respondents or 

organizational affiliation and it does not matter if an idea was expressed by hundreds of people or a single 

person. 

During the content analysis process, each letter was assigned a unique tracking number. Content analysts 

then read letters in their entirety and proceeded to identify discrete comments within them. Each letter 

may have contained anywhere from one to fifty comments. Each comment was coded based on a 

particular concern, resource consideration, or proposed management action expressed. 

How to Use This Comment Response Document

While all comments were reviewed and considered, only specific written comments as defined in 36 CFR 

218.2 received a detailed response in the document below. Examples of specific written comments 

include those comments that provided new information; identified a new issue; identified a different way 

to meet the purpose and need; pointed out a flaw in the analysis; or identified a different source of 

credible research. General statements of support, opposition, or alternative preferences; comments 

outside the scope of the project; comments pertaining to issues already decided by law regulation or 

policy; or comments already addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are not 

included.

In some cases, comments may have been summarized or paraphrased and similar comments may have 

been grouped into public concern statements. Pages, chapters, or sections cited within the response to 

comments refer to the Goose Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) unless otherwise 

noted.

A complete record of all letters, including names and addresses of individuals, agencies, and 

organizations that submitted a letter during the 45-day comment period, is available online in the Goose 

EIS Public Reading Room at https://cara.ecosystemmanagement.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=45853 or in the project file located at the McKenzie 

River Ranger District.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

254- Goose Project Final EIS

Response to Comments

Comment 

Number Comment Response

Purpose and Need

1 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Rewrite the 

P&N contained in this DEIS to include goals that will improve the amenity 

resources (i.e. fish/wildlife habitat, soils, recreation, visuals etc.) in the sale 

area. Provide the public with references and citations from best science 

literature showing how and why the Proposed Action activities will 

improve, restore and enhance the health of these amenity resources. 

These new P&N goals may or may not be achieved by commercial 

logging.

As stated in Section 1.3, the purpose and need for the Goose project is to 

provide a sustainable supply of timber products, reduce hazardous fuels, 

and actively manage stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, 

density, and structure. While this purpose and need may not explicitly 

state improvement to amenity resources such as fish, wildlife, soils, 

recreation, and visuals, the Goose project was designed to benefit these 

resources whenever possible. Please refer to Chapter 2 (Tables 13-17) 

and Chapter 3 of the FEIS for information on how amenity resources will 

be protected and improved with the Goose project.

2 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Either: 1) 

remove the following statement from the P&N: "Provide a Sustainable 

Supply of Timber Products The proposed project is needed to ensure the 

Willamette National Forest continues to supply a reliable supply of timber 

products as directed by the laws and guidance discussed in Section 1.3.1 

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." OR 2) offer the sale as an SBA sale, OR 3) 

include the following papers (referenced above) in their entirety in an 

Appendix to the NEPA document. Line-officers must not withhold such 

important information from the public. Congress promulgated laws to 

prevent zealous federal officials from behaving in such a manner to 

feather their nest. "The Economic Impact of Trails-Forest Recreation's 

Growing Impact" "Seeing Forests for their Green: Economic Benefits of 

Forest Protection, Recreation, and Restoration", "The Economic Impact 

of Preserving Washington's Roadless National Forests" "Logging has 

undercut meaning of 'multiple use' "Seeing Forests for their Green: 

Economic Benefits of Forest Protection, Recreation, and Restoration" 

U.S. Undersecretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons' speech to the National 

Trails Training Partnership "Logging expansion won't help rural 

communities"

As stated in Section 1.3 of the FEIS, several laws direct and allow the 

Forest Service to provide the sustainable harvest of trees from the 

Nation's forests. 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 the local and regional economies. The 

Goose Project is compatible with multiple use objectives and meets 

environmental requirements for soil, water, air, and wildlife habitat quality. 

3 I notice in the EIS that the only goals mentioned are timber harvest related 

goals such as timber supply, fuel removal, and "creation of early serial 

stage habitat". Where are the other goals of "multiple use" management 

Many of the goals mentioned by the commenter are those addressed in 

the Forest Plan and Northwest Forest Plan and are thereby incorporated 

at the project level. The Goose project has been designed in such a way 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 255

Comment 

Number Comment Response

such as "protection of old growth habitat", "maintenance of late stage 

serial habitat", "preservation of river corridor integrity", etc.

that it takes into consideration multiple uses, protection of old growth, and 

preservation of river corridor integrity. For this particular project (and 

project area), the purpose and need for action is to provide a sustainable 

supply of timber products, reduce hazardous fuels, and actively manage 

stands to improve stand conditions, diversity, density, and structure. 

Proposed Action

4 It does not appear that much has changed in the newest proposal and 

Alternative 2 since the project was stopped two years ago. The Goose 

project would still log in riparian areas, wilderness areas, and roadless 

areas. I am disappointed and shocked that you are putting forth this 

proposal again.

No Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) or designated Wilderness are within 

or adjacent to the Goose project area.

In the March 2013 court decision of Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild 

vs. USFS, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann Aiken concluded that while the 

Forest Service did adequately disclose environmental information, the 

potentially significant effect to the environment from the Goose project 

triggered NEPA requirements that the Forest Service prepare an EIS. 

Accordingly, the Forest Service was enjoined from going forward with the 

Goose project until an EIS was prepared. This final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) has been prepared to revise the 2010 environmental 

analysis and decision for the Goose Project Environmental Assessment as 

directed by a 2013 U.S. District Court order. By preparing this FEIS, the 

Willamette National Forest is fulfilling agency policy and direction to 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other

relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.

Several changes to the proposed action have occurred since the original 

2010 analysis and are documented in Section 1.4.1. 

5 Ranger Baker, your Proposed Action does not respond to the Purpose &

Need. Therefore, it must be rejected. There is no legitimate science that 

shows logging and road construction will satisfy your purposes for this 

sale quoted below. Indeed, logging and road construction will significantly 

degrade these sale goals: "Increase the Potential for Riparian Reserves 

to Function as Late Successional Habitat" (page 17) The Goose timber 

sale will significantly degrade the resources you claim your sale will 

improve and restore: Indeed, hundreds of scientists quoted in the

Opposing View Attachments show your Proposed Action will significantly 

degrade the resources you claim your sale will improve and restore. The 

The opposing views and references provided have been reviewed and no 

opposing scientific views have been found indicating the proposed action 

does not respond to the purpose and need for the Goose project. 

Chapter 3 and Appendix E of the FEIS include extensive analysis and 

discussion (including references) demonstrating how the proposed action 

will benefit Riparian Reserves.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

256- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

References section contains no literature indicating logging and road 

construction will benefit riparian reserves, Request for changes to be 

made to the final NEPA document: Analyze another alternative in detail 

that responds to the goal described in the Purpose & Need. The P&N 

must be modified to do this by eliminating any and all reference to timber 

harvest.

6 We recommend withdrawing unit 420 and its sub parcels 422 and 421 

from Alternative 2 for the following reasons: 

• Parcel 422: This parcel has some unique features that make it 

particularly vulnerable. On its east border, Giustina Resources 

did a clear cut approximately 13 years ago. Over the years 

easterly winds have funneled through this area, consistently 

causing blown down trees. To mitigate the accumulated fuels, the 

forest service has allowed me permits to remove some of the 

blown down trees to reduce woody debris on the ground. There 

are 6 more trees down as recently as February 2015. We predict 

that the prescribed mechanical treatments and tree removal in 

this area will make existing trees even more unstable increasing 

the likelihood of further blow-down and degradation of the health 

of that area. Further, there are two mature Sugar Pines and at 

least one seedling needing protection. The Sugar Pines are 

marked to save but we do not believe the seedlings have been 

identified . Also, to the south of this unit is a riparian area and we 

fear that the mechanical applications identified in 422 will 

degrade the sensitive spring and riparian area that has been set 

aside for preservation. 

• Parcels 421 and 420: There are many mature trees in this area 

creating a canopy approaching old grown characteristics. Few 

fuels are on the ground. In the natural openings to the forest 

floor, smaller trees are growing creating a good substructure to 

replace the older trees as they die. Natural occurring snags and 

old stumps are creating great habitat for wildlife. Visibility is great 

on the ground for several hundred yards and moss covers the 

ground in this nutrient rich environment. Any treatment to this 

area will detract from its' healthy natural state.

Unit 420 has been dropped from the Goose project.

Public Involvement

7 Ranger Baker, please post your responses to public comments online as The FEIS and draft Record of Decision, which includes the Response to 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 257

Comment 

Number Comment Response

well as maintaining a hardcopy in the Project File. Members of the public 

who submit comments on a draft NEPA document make the effort to read 

the NEPA document closely and take the time to compose comments that 

reflect their issues. Ranger Baker, unless you respond to these comments 

and allow the public to read your responses they don't know if their 

comments were read and "considered." Also, the USFS is legally 

required to provide meaningful responses to all "responsible opposing 

views" submitted by the public. Most opposing views contained in the 

attachments below would be found in a court of law to be "responsible" 

because they are authored by Ph.D. scientists who are experts in their 

fields. Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: 

Post your meaningful, specific responses to the comments contained in 

this document online. Ranger Baker, if you choose not to allow the public 

to read your responses to their comments online then consider this a FOIA 

for your responses. Assure that they are posted within a day or 2 of the 

date the final EA is released and the objection period begins. Consider 

this an official FOIA request. Your FOIA person will know what to do.

Comments herein, are available at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45853. All comments received on 

the Goose Project during the 45-day comment period are available in the 

Public Comment Reading Room at https://cara.ecosystemmanagement.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=45853.

FOIA requests must be in writing and submitted to the region that is 

responsible for the information you are requesting. Details on submitting a 

FOIA request can be found at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/foia/makearequest.htm

8 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Include an 

electronic response to each responsible opposing view contained in the 

Opposing Views Attachments and post these responses online for the 

public to examine. The only legal way to avoid responding is to explain 

why the opposing view is irresponsible.

The opposing views and references provided have been reviewed and no 

opposing scientific views have been found. The commenter cites some 

documents that are not peer reviewed scientific studies but are opinion 

papers or web postings. Scientific papers provided are partially quoted or 

taken out of context of the study as a whole or misinterpreted. These 

documents provide no scientific evidence to inform the public further or for 

respective resource specialists to consider any new or opposing scientific 

view that would help them reanalyze the Alternatives' effect on resources 

The documents provided by the commenter are in the project file and can 

be viewed in the Public Comment Reading Room at 

https://cara.ecosystemmanagement.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=45853.

9 The vast majority of the input the public has had an opportunity to submit 

up to this point does not appear in the EIS.

Members of the public, organizations, and state and federal agencies 

were invited to provide comments and concerns about the Goose project 

during the public scoping comment period from April 30th through June 

16th, 2014. Scoping comments received varied from those that wanted 

more clarification on proposed activities to specific suggestions for project 

implementation. Scoping comments were used to help develop planning 

issues, alternatives, effects analysis, and design features. 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

258- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

The McKenzie River Ranger District provided the public with a 45-day 

comment period for the Goose project Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS). The comment period began on March 6th 2015, and 

ended on April 20th, 2015. Each comment received was carefully 

reviewed and considered and many of the suggestions or requests have 

been incorporated into the FEIS and the draft Record of Decision.

Key Issues

10 You reject and dispose of some comments submitted by the public by 

categorizing them as "other issues" and simultaneously violating every 

public involvement law contained in NEPA and NFMA. Why? 

NEPA requires federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on 

the key issues related to a proposed action. The Interdisciplinary Team 

(IDT), with involvement and approval from the Responsible Official, is 

responsible for determining these key issues and modifying the project 

design or developing alternatives to respond to these key issues. Other 

issues are minor issues that do not result in development of alternatives or 

focus the analysis of environmental effects. In most cases, the IDT is able 

to address these issues by refining the design of a project (i.e. dropping a 

unit from the project) or applying a mitigation measure (i.e. requiring 

buffers around streams). Out of Scope issues are those identified as 

being “out of scope” of this environmental analysis. These issues include 

those that are not or cannot be addressed or solved in this project-level 

analysis; issues already decided by law, regulation, or other higher level 

decisions; issues irrelevant to the decision being made; and/or issues that 

are conjectural or not supported by scientific evidence. The description of 

issues in Chapter 1 has been modified for clarification.

11 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Assure that 

all issues identified by the public are listed in the body of the NEPA 

document posted online. The Responsible Official should discuss each 

issue and describe how the timber sale will be modified to eliminate any 

chance that resource harm will occur to the resource at issue. Under no 

circumstances should any issue declared an "other issue" be hidden away 

in the Project File at the District.

Please see response to comment 6-2. 

A complete record of all letters, including names and addresses of 

individuals, agencies, and organizations that submitted a letter during the 

public scoping period and 45-day comment period, is available in the 

project file located at the McKenzie River Ranger District.

Decision Framework

12 Timber sale contracts agreed to before the new analysis should not 

influence the Forest Service’ decision on how to proceed with this project.

While timber sale contracts agreed to before the new analysis are 

considered, they do not define or drive the decision. The decision is 

based on public and agency comments, the effects analysis in the FEIS, 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 259

Comment 

Number Comment Response

supporting reports and documentation, and all applicable laws, 

regulations, and policies. 

Alternatives

13 The Forest Service should include an alternative that does not include 

logging this beautiful habitat.

The Goose project analyzed a No-Action alternative (Alternative 1). 

Effects Analysis

14 Ranger Baker, there are 7 quotes from high-level USFS Washington 

Office employees assuring the public that new projects will be based on 

"best science." The attachments to these comments include quotes by 

over 500 Ph.D. scientists (not affiliated with the USDA) who describe how 

and why logging damages other resources in the forest. Please explain 

why the statements and expressed need of several USFS timber 

employees is better science than the experts.

The opposing views and references provided have been reviewed and no 

opposing scientific views have been found. The commenter cites some 

documents that are not peer reviewed scientific studies but are opinion 

papers or web postings. Scientific papers provided are partially quoted or 

taken out of context of the study as a whole or misinterpreted. 

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 in the FEIS. Referenced material is a 

consideration of the best available science.

15 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Include 

some source documents from the Opposing Views Attachments in the 

References section. Also, cite the specific quotes presented for the source 

literature chosen by this member of the public in the text. Finally, include 

clickable links to each Opposing Views Attachments you choose to include 

in your reference section. The public deserves to be informed of this 

information so they can make an informed decision to support or oppose 

the timber sale based on complete data.

The opposing views and references provided have been reviewed and no 

opposing scientific views have been found. The commenter cites some 

documents that are not peer reviewed scientific studies but are opinion 

papers or web postings. Scientific papers provided are partially quoted or 

taken out of context of the study as a whole or misinterpreted. These 

documents provide no scientific evidence to inform the public further or for 

respective resource specialists to consider any new or opposing scientific 

view that would help them reanalyze the Alternatives' effect on resources 

The documents provided by the commenter are in the project file and can 

be viewed in the Public Comment Reading Room at 

https://cara.ecosystemmanagement.org/Public//ReadingRoom?Project=45853.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

260- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

Forest and Stand Structure

16 The DEIS indicates there will be clearcutting associated with the Proposed 

Action. Of course you hide the fact that you intend to clearcut 43 acres 

by referring to it only as regeneration. Competent USFS line-officers break 

this down into clearcut, seedtree and shelterwood. Request for changes 

to be made to the final NEPA document: * provide data and text 

demonstrating that soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be 

irreversibly damaged by clearcutting, * include a tradeoff analysis that 

weighs public acceptance of clearcutting vs. the regeneration success of 

seed tree and shelterwood prescriptions, * provide data, text and maps 

demonstrating that protection is provided for streams, stream-banks, 

lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in 

water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of 

sediment, * provide data and maps demonstrating that cut blocks, 

patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with 

the natural terrain, and * provide data and text demonstrating that 

clearcutting is the optimum silvicultural prescription for the area. * include 

an explanation describing how and why the Goose clearcuts will be more 

pleasing to the public than the clearcut photos in Opposing Views 

Attachment #26

No clearcut treatments are proposed in the Goose project. Please refer to 

Section 3.1 and Appendix A for a detailed description of proposed 

treatments. Please refer to Section 3.3 and 3.4 for a detailed discussion 

on the direct and indirect effects on water, aquatic resources, and soils. 

17 "Regeneration" and "variable retention" harvests have nearly the same 

negative impacts as clearcuts, and we don't need more of these on the 

landscape.

“Regeneration” is an overarching term which has many factions of which 

“variable retention” is one. Variable retention is not part of this project. 

Please refer to section 3.1.4 and Appendix A for a discussion of the direct 

and indirect effects of Shelterwood with Reserves, the method of 

regeneration harvest used in this project. 

18 Although we would like to see the Willamette National Forest take more 

substantial steps towards implementing the type of regeneration harvest 

treatments that their current management plan directs, we do appreciate 

the McKenzie RD proposing treatments that will yield wood products our 

members can utilize, as well as treatments that will address the 

sustainability of the timber resources by implementing a small amount of 

regeneration harvest. In our opinion, it is impossible to manage timber 

resources sustainably in the absence of regeneration harvest on the 

landscape. The Forest Service cannot thin forever. Ultimately the Forest 

Service will run out of stands to thin, and by that point the forest age-class 

distribution will be far out of balance to the point where the reliability and 

sustainability of its timber supplies will be compromised.

As stated in Section 1.3, one purpose and need for the Goose project is to 

provide a sustainable supply of timber products. To meet this need, the 

project proposes some Shelterwood with Reserves (Section 3.1.4) to 

move towards sustainability based on a more balanced harvest consisting 

of both regeneration harvest and selective harvest (i.e. thinning).
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 261

Comment 

Number Comment Response

19 We continuously opposes the use of arbitrary limitations (age, diameter, 

etc.) on any vegetation management proposal, particularly in the Matrix 

land allocation. We support treatments that are based upon actual stand 

characteristics rather than such random values, which we believe to be 

unsound. The 80-year age limitation used to develop Alternative 3 is 

flawed in that it assumes that there exists an inherent difference between 

stands above and below that value. As a forester who visits nearly every 

federal vegetation management project on the west side of Oregon I have 

seen 81 year old stands in need of density management treatment, and 79 

year old stands not in need of treatment. I'm not entirely sure how this 80-

year value became the ultimate base-line for stand evaluation, but I do 

know, based upon my field experience, that it is of little use toward making 

sensible vegetation management decisions.

NEPA requires a range of alternatives be analyzed. Alternative 3 was 

developed in response to issues raised during public scoping (see Section 

2.3). Tables 6, 8, and 10 illustrate how the different alternatives meet the 

purpose and need of the Goose project.

20 The large gap cuts proposed in Alternative 2 could play a small but 

important role in addressing the issue of sustainable timber supply, which 

is a serious concern of AFRC. The difficulty that the Forest Service has 

had implementing any type of regeneration harvest over the past 20 years 

has resulted in an imbalanced age-class distribution, which is illustrated 

well on Figures 10 & 11 of the Goose EIS. This imbalance leads to the 

question of where future timber products off National Forest Land will 

come from, and also whether the Forest Service is meeting the intent of 

laws such as the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. The 281 acres of gap 

cuts, and the early seral habitat they could provide, are important to 

addressing this imbalance. They also address the issue of diversity and 

structure identified in the purpose & need for this project, especially 

considering the 464 acres of skips included. So we encourage the 

McKenzie River District to fully implement these openings by selecting and 

implementing Alternative 2 rather than incorporating elements of 

Alternative 3 that would reduce the level of openings in the project area 

and hamper the level of diversity that could be achieved.

NEPA requires a range of alternatives be analyzed. Alternative 3 was 

developed in response to issues raised during public scoping (see Section 

2.3). Tables 6, 8, and 10 illustrate how the different alternatives meet the 

purpose and need of the Goose project.

21 I would recommend that no gap or skip harvests be implemented in this 

alternative. It is my understanding that a skip or gap harvest is where an 

area is clear cut and areas of forest are left in-between the clear cut areas 

for regeneration. The cutting of these strips would have a negative impact 

on the Northern Spotted Owl Species in the area. It would also encourage 

the growth of invasive species in the area. Also, I can't imagine that in an 

area under such public scrutiny the use of any clear cut system would be 

recommended.

No clearcut treatments are proposed in the Goose project. Please refer to 

Section 3.1 and Appendix A for a detailed description of proposed 

treatments, including gaps and skips. Please refer to Section 3.5 for a 

detailed discussion of direct or indirect effects on the Northern Spotted 

Owl.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

262- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

22 I would suggest implementing the gaps surrounding the skips to act as a 

fire break since the skips would be more prone to large fires because of 

the buildup of fuels. Making sure to have a separation from old growth 

dense forest and the urban interface by placing the gaps there would be a 

good approach.

Placement of gaps would be random unless needed for a specific reason, 

as identified in Section 3.1.4.

23 I am not opposed to logging. But as I have seen the old growth forest 

ecosystem dwindle. I do see a need to continue saving well scattered 

Old Growth Reserves for their special beauty and biodiversity. I would 

therefore urge you to select Alternative 3 avoiding the true Old Growth 

Stands for the Goose Timber Sale Project.

Although some mature trees are proposed for logging, no “old growth” 

stands are proposed in the Goose project. PNW-447 (USDA 1986) 

provides criteria for defining old growth and has been used for this project. 

Please refer to section 3.1.3 and Table 18 for additional information.

24 National Forests in Oregon are riddled with hundreds of thousands of 

acres of second-growth stands, already roaded and logged, waiting for 

restoration via thinning. The Willamette should devote its apparently 

available staff to this important task, not cast about in search of the last 

ancient and roadless forest stands it can locate.

Although some mature trees are proposed for logging, no “old growth” 

stands are proposed in this project. PNW-447 (USDA 1986) provides 

criteria for defining old growth which has been used in this project. No 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) or designated Wilderness is within or 

adjacent to the project area. 

While thinning is appropriate in many situations, thinning alone will not 

meet the specific purpose and need of the Goose project (Section 1.3). In 

order to provide a sustainable supply of timber products and improve 

stand conditions, diversity, density and structure, a variety of harvest 

treatments are required. Using a variety of harvest treatments, such as 

regeneration harvest and selective harvest, moves the project area and 

Forest as a whole towards more balanced conditions and successional 

stages, providing benefits to vegetation, wildlife, and overall health of the 

forest.

25 With such little old growth left, shouldn't the timber production come from 

only the young dense stands that are in need of ecological restoration? It 

has been said that the management of mature trees to lessen the density 

and increase individual tree size but looking at the large trunks and high 

canopy already established the forest seems to be doing just fine.

Although some mature trees are proposed for logging, no “old growth” 

stands are proposed in this project. PNW-447 (USDA 1986) provides 

criteria for defining old growth which has been used in this project. 

While thinning is appropriate in many situations, thinning alone will not 

meet the specific purpose and need of the Goose project (Section 1.3). In 

order to provide a sustainable supply of timber products and improve 

stand conditions, diversity, density and structure, a variety of harvest 

treatments are required. Using a variety of harvest treatments, such as 

regeneration harvest and selective harvest, moves the project area and 

Forest as a whole towards more balanced conditions and successional 

stages, providing benefits to vegetation, wildlife, and overall health of the 

forest.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 263

Comment 

Number Comment Response

26 I lived on King Road in Bob Drury's old house after my step mom inherited 

it. Are you going after that old growth? Seriously, to me the worst thing 

you could do is log old growth anywhere in the public’s eye. It just seems 

like you have taken a personal stance on getting the lower land old growth 

cut and sold. I don't have a lot of problems with logging second growth but 

I think that the logging of old growth should stop. I mean you have the 

roads for the second growth already established. The mills are retooled for 

second growth. It's more of an ego thing nowadays for cutting and hauling 

one log loads. I used to walk by the scaling shack while tons of old growth 

zipped in and out of there. Then Melva took it home for a pigpen. Please 

stop logging the old growth, the riparian sections by the rivers and 

streams, and do your part to ensure clean excellent cascade aquifer water 

for generations to come.

Although some mature trees are proposed for logging, no “old growth” 

stands are proposed in the Goose project. PNW-447 (USDA 1986) 

provides criteria for defining old growth and has been used for this project. 

Please refer to section 3.1.3 and Table 18 for additional information.

27 One of the main reasons presented for this project is the reduction of 

hazardous fuels that would increase the intensity and duration of any 

wildfire occurrence. This produces the question of, why are there 

hundreds of acres of older forest cutting proposed when the great majority 

of their fuel remains suspended high above ground?

Although some mature trees are proposed for logging, no “old growth” 

trees are proposed in this project. PNW-447 (USDA 1986) provides 

criteria for defining old growth which has been used in this project. Stands 

proposed for hazardous fuels treatments are in the Wildland-Urban

Interface (WUI). Reducing hazardous fuels in these stands has the 

potential to reduce or alter wildfire behavior through a decrease in surface 

fuel loading and reduction of ladder fuels. 

28 Appropriate harvesting systems can also be used to achieve an 

economically viable sale and increase the revenues to the government. 

We would like to see flexibility in the EIS and contract to allow a variety of 

equipment access to the sale areas. We feel that there are several ways 

to properly harvest any piece of ground, and certain restrictive language 

can limit some potential bidders, thus driving the bid value down. We 

encourage the Forest Service to conduct an economic analysis early in 

their planning process to explore the viability of each stand treatment. 

Including language in the EIS and contract that specifies damage 

tolerance levels rather than firm restrictions gives the operator flexibility to 

utilize their equipment to its maximum efficiencies.

The McKenzie River Ranger District aims for flexibility while analyzing the 

effects of the most impactful harvest system on a unit (i.e. analyze for 

ground based fellerbunchers on both yard and helicopter units if 

conditions are favorable). Design features have been included in the 

project design to allow for flexibility by setting upper thresholds of 

acceptability based on slopes and access. Please refer to Chapter 2, 

Table 13, Design Feature 17 for additional information.

Fire and Fuels

29 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Please do 

the following to save homes and maybe human lives: 1) send letters to 

those who live in the WUI offering USFS help to remove fine fuels within 

100 yards of their property providing they provide written permission. 2) 

The Willamette National Forest partners and collaborates with the Oregon 

Department of Forestry (ODF) who carries out the objectives of the Lane 

County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The majority of 

home owners in the project Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) are familiar 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

264- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

distribute handouts and flyers to the people living in the WUI that 

summarize Dr. Cohen's research findings including his discovery that fine 

fuels removal near homes is much more effective than hazardous fuels 

removal at reducing wildfire damage to homes. 3) announce a 

workshop/training session to study and become familiar with Dr. Cohen's 

work and conclusions. To reach as many local residents as possible the 

final EIS should clearly indicate the USFS will accomplish #1 to #3 above 

and include the timeframes.

with and support Firewise and WUI projects that have occurred over the 

last 10 years. ODF has provided private land owners with pamphlets and 

community meetings (which we have attended) to educate them about fire 

and emphasize the importance of fuels reduction on their property. The 

Forest Service is responsible for reducing hazardous fuels on public land 

along private property boundaries and in the WUI. 

30 My concern is with the burning of biofuels rather than chipping them on 

site, collecting them for biofuel use, chipping them to be sold, or some 

other intelligent use of recycling rather than adding to the particulate 

matter in the atmosphere.

Chipping is often used on projects or in areas where a truck towing a 

chipper can access the units or fuels that are pulled to a point of access 

for the chipper. If areas are inaccessible with the chipper, we pile and 

burn the fuels. Pile and burn is done when the fuels are dry which creates 

lower emissions than if they are wet. Biomass has been considered but 

as of right now the expense of collecting fuels (and maintaining the 

supply) creates difficulties for biomass to be an economically feasible 

choice. 

31 I believe the Forest Service can meet the need for the projects urban fire 

management without logging in old-growth forests. Timber harvest as 

proposed in Alternative 3 would address the need to timber production. 

Moreover, the USFS could partner and support the Lane County Firewise 

Incentive Program 

http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/LMD/Firewise/Pages/default.

aspx to address the concern about fire.

Although some mature trees are proposed for logging, no “old growth” 

stands are proposed in the Goose project. PNW-447 (USDA 1986) 

provides criteria for defining old growth and has been used for this project. 

Please refer to section 3.1.3 and Table 18 for additional information.

The Willamette National Forest partners and collaborates with the Oregon 

Department of Forestry (ODF) who carries out the objectives of the Lane 

County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The majority of 

home owners in the project Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) are familiar 

with and support Firewise and WUI projects that have occurred over the 

last 10 years. 

32 I would recommend that pile and burn procedure not be implemented. It is 

my understanding that under the current alternative three, 309 acres of 

land are going to receive this treatment. The piling and burning of CWD 

not only has a negative impact on soil microbes in the area, but also 

releases large amounts of carbon into the air. It is unclear in the plan how 

the Forest Service will implement this strategy.

All harvest units will have some form of post-harvest slash (fuels) 

treatments. The hand or mechanical treatments scheduled could change 

to underburns due to diameter of trees and location and timing of the sale. 

Some of the mechanical treatments could include mastication or chipping 

which would reduce the amount of fuel burned post-harvest. In all the units 

where post fuels treatments take place, Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines (FW-212 and 252) would be met.

Pile burning harvest slash at the landings does create soil impacts but 

these are in areas along the road or in the landings which have already 

been impacted by operations. Piles that are built well and stay dry 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 265

Comment 

Number Comment Response

through the winter (covered) will burn more quickly and thoroughly, 

reducing the amount of particulate matter emitted. If slash is left within the 

units and a wildfire occurs, the particulate matter emitted would be greater 

due to the risk of wildfire spreading throughout the entire unit and into 

adjacent areas. With the potential for higher severity and intensity fires, 

and an increase in crown fire, firefighters cannot safely suppress the 

wildfire thus leading to a higher probability of the wildfire increasing in size 

and creating greater risks to people, the community and natural resources.

Soils

33 The EIS specifically cites other established logging roads that run through 

this area as major sources of soil compaction. It is especially concerning 

that the accumulative effects of this compaction are reported to be above 

ecosystem thresholds in some areas.

Past monitoring of post-harvest subsoiling has shown that compaction can 

be reduced 4-10 percent of the initial levels. As mitigation in Units 100 

and 410, all landings, temporary haul or primary skid roads utilized by the 

purchaser/logger would be subsoiled to a depth of 18 to 24 inches at the 

completion of logging activities. Additional enhancement subsoiling is 

required for heavily compacted areas not utilized by the Purchaser in 

these units. Subsoiling of landings and primary haul or skid roads is 

required in all ground based units to ensure that cumulative levels remain 

well below the 20 percent standard outlined in the Forest Plan. Some 

post-sale enhancement subsoiling is recommended for areas not utilized 

by the Purchaser in units approaching Standard and Guideline compaction 

levels. Mitigation as described above would result in reduced compaction 

levels; as such, the end result of the Goose project is that no compaction 

standards will be violated. Please refer to Chapter 2, Table 13, Design 

Feature 22 and 23 and Section 3.3.4 for additional information. 

34 The DEIS concedes that soil compaction standards will be violated 

through the implementation of Alternative 2. Speculative mitigation from 

sub-soiling efforts is not sufficient. If soil compaction standards will be 

violated, the responsible logging and road construction units that impact 

these degraded areas must be dropped from the project.

Monitoring of post-harvest subsoiling has shown that compaction can be 

reduced 4-10 percent of the initial levels. As mitigation in Units 100 and 

410, all primary landings, temporary haul or principal skid roads utilized by 

the purchaser/logger would be subsoiled to a depth of 18 to 24 inches at 

the completion of logging activities. Additional enhancement subsoiling is 

required for heavily compacted areas not utilized by the Purchaser in 

these units. Subsoiling of landings and primary haul or skid roads is 

required in all ground based units to ensure that cumulative levels remain 

well below the 20 percent standard outlined in the Forest Plan. Some 

post-sale enhancement subsoiling is recommended for areas not utilized 

by the Purchaser in units approaching Standard and Guideline compaction 

levels. Mitigation as described above would result in reduced compaction 

levels; as such, the end result of the Goose project is that no compaction 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

266- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

standards will be violated. Please refer to Chapter 2, Table 13, Design

Feature 22 and 23 and Section 3.3.4 for additional information. 

Water Quality and Aquatic Resources

35 Section 10 covers a large number of acres and this may lead to lots of 

water in the headwaters of these streams to pick up lots of sediment and 

increase the stream flow. With respect to storm water runoff and erosion 

of sediments and sedimentation I would suggest only treating some of the 

riparian areas and not all of them in section 10.

A variety of no-treatment buffers are prescribed for Unit 10 in order to 

avoid sediment delivery into streams and potential increased stream flow. 

Please see Section 2.4, Table 11 for more information.

36 We sit to the south side of lookout mountain. The riparian areas extend 

along the base of the mountain. This is a clean, fresh water spring fed 

hillside that the Goose project transects. Any major disturbance on any 

Industrial scale will have increasing negative consequences as Alternative 

would have on our community. As a 40 year resident who explored the 

1976-77 flooding my neighbors and I following the water flow as it came 

off the mountain. We followed the main flooding up the hillside where a 

power line road and a clear cut above it were both contributing to the 

flooding below. While the clear cutting above increased the runoff, it was 

the power line road which allowed Glen creek (just to the east) to 

dispersed and emptying into Goose creek drainage thus flooding everyone 

below. This problem was verified at the Glen creek culvert on North Bank 

Road when it was 1/2 full going in ( and a direct shot to the river)while all 

of Taylor flat (Goose creek) was virtually under water. I've tried a 

number of times to get this addressed and have never been successful. If 

Alternative 2 is selected our hydrological problems will become much 

worse, we can count on it.

Analysis conducted for the Goose project indicated that thinning of stands 

would not increase peak flows. Additionally, the portion of the power line 

road discussed in the comment will be significantly upgraded, particularly 

at the stream crossings. These upgrades will improve flood water 

passage in order to avoid future alteration of stream channels. Please 

refer to Chapter 2, Table 13, Design Feature 75 for additional information.

37 The analysis of not logging riparian reserves says "Accelerated restoration 

of riparian stands that currently do not meet ACS Objectives would not be 

accomplished." This is incomplete and misleading. The NWFP says that 

logging is prohibited unless "needed." Here logging is designed to 

accelerate changes that are already happening naturally. This logging will 

have adverse effects that are avoided by relying on natural processes. 

See Lutz. J.A. 2005. The Contribution of Mortality to Early Coniferous 

Forest Development. MS Thesis. University of Washington. 

http://faculty.washington.edu/chalpern/Lutz_2005.pdf. This 

mischaracterization of the baseline condition is a violation of NEPA. 

Please revisit this analysis in the FEIS.

It is clearly stated in Section 3.5.5 that desired conditions could eventually 

be achieved by allowing natural processes to occur, but that it would occur 

over a longer timeframe relative to active restoration: "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." 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 267

Comment 

Number Comment Response

Watershed Restoration is one of the four components of the ACS. The 

strategy states that "active silvicultural programs will be necessary to 

restore large conifers in Riparian Reserves. Appropriate practices may 

include...thinning densely-stocked young stands to encourage 

development of large conifers..." (ACS B-121). The strategy further states 

that "the most important components of a watershed restoration program 

are control and prevention of road-related runoff and sediment production, 

restoration of the conditions of riparian vegetation, and restoration of instream habitat complexity". Thinning is described as one tool for achieving 

restoration goals so that ACS objectives can be met. Both active and 

passive restoration are prescribed in this project area. See Appendix E for 

further details about how these activities will meet ACS Objectives.

38 DEIS (p 95) says about the no action alternative "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." This is a flawed and incomplete statement. The FS has not taken 

a hard look that would reveal, that fire, insects and disease are all 

essential processes that create and maintain healthy forests. These 

processes are NOT problems, but rather solutions to the alleged dense 

conditions within stands. The FS also failed to recognize that forests within 

riparian reserves are generally less prone to "high severity" effects from 

fire and insects, because the conditions on lower slopes tend to be 

relatively cool and moist and less windy which tends to moderate fire 

effects. Also, trees living on lower slopes near streams tend to be less 

water stressed and better able to defend themselves from insects.

Clarification of this statement and associated references have been added 

to Section 3.4.5. 

39 DEIS (P 100) says that logging will occur in 9 acres of riparian reserves 

over 80 years old. "Thinning within Riparian Reserves of stands over 80 

would occur in only three units in Alternative 2 (Units 130, 210, 380; all 

under 100 years old; approximately nine acres total). These stands have 

structure and species composition very similar to younger (60-80 year old) 

plantations. Both units 130 and 380 are fire-regenerated stands but show 

signs of having been historically salvage logged with other human-caused 

impacts which likely influenced the current stand condition." We strongly 

object to logging riparian reserve stands over 80 years old. There is just 

no need. The superficial resemblance to younger stands is not a reason to 

log these older stands. At this age, stand growth has slowed and they 

need to hold onto their biomass and let it begin accumulating in live and 

dead pools. Logging will export valuable habitat structure and it will 

Careful thought and analysis was used when developing Riparian Reserve 

management strategies. We looked at stand conditions for each 

waterbody and made recommendations based on several factors, not just 

age. Studies and forest stand classifications have shown that the 

maximum mean annual increment (an indication of tree growth) is 

achieved much later than 80 years in these types of stands (and soil type)

(see Section 3.1). This suggests that in some stands, 80 years is an 

arbitrary delineation, and that there is significant stand and structural 

resemblance to younger stands. Riparian Reserve prescriptions were 

developed on a unit by unit basis to meet the distinct needs of the stream 

habitat and surrounding vegetation. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.5, we acknowledge that "based on a review of 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

268- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

increase stand vigor and delay recruitment of dead wood which is critical 

both instream as well as upland portions of riparian reserves. Natural 

processes are operating to develop high quality habitat without the need 

for intervention. Once stands reach 80 years old the FS need to put much 

more focus on the first three words of the NWFP standards for riparian 

reserves "TM-1. Prohibit timber harvest," (NWFP ROD p C-31)

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." 

We then explain that "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 both action alternatives most 

stands where thinning would occur within Riparian Reserves are under 80 

years old. Thinning within Riparian Reserves of stands over 80 would 

occur in only three units in Alternative 2 (Units 130, 210, 380; all under 

100 years old; approximately nine acres total) and only one unit in 

Alternative 3 (Unit 210; 93 years old; approximately four acres total). 

These stands have structure and species composition very similar to 

younger (60-80 year old) plantations." 

Stand data is then described for two of the units, Units 130 and 380, as 

part of fire regenerated stands: "Similar to young managed stands in the 

project area, these fire regenerated stands are in the stem exclusion 

stage, where small amounts of understory development is apparent and 

there is very little species diversity. Average trees per acre in these stands 

is 193, higher than the average 172 trees per acre found in managed 

stands. The average Stand Density Index is 417, higher than 334 found in 

managed stands. Because these fire regenerated stands are more heavily 

stocked than managed stands and the existing lack of complexity and 

diversity may be limiting nutrient cycling, deciduous organic matter input to 

waterbodies, and habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife, treatments were 

proposed."

40 DEIS (p 100) discussion of the action alternatives says "Protecting at least 

90 percent of potential wood inputs would maintain ACS Objectives 

related to instream wood while allowing for treatments to improve 

vegetation and accelerate the growth of future instream wood." There are 

several problems with this. First, it allows a 10% reduction in instream 

wood recruitment which violates the "do not retard" standard of the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Second, it emphasizes wood recruitment 

In regard to the first and second concern, we acknowledge in Section

3.4.5 that "in some cases, maintaining and/or restoring 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 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 269

Comment 

Number Comment Response

instream while ignoring the equally important need for wood recruitment in 

the upland portion of the riparian reserves. Third, it perpetuates the myth 

that thinning enhances future wood recruitment, when in reality any 

increase in very large wood in the distant future comes that the expense of 

significant reduction in wood recruitment in functional sizes classes. The 

FS failed to take a hard look at this.

silvicultural tool is to remove overstory density to encourage understory 

growth and structural development. Removal of 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." 

We then explain on page 102 that "protecting at least 90 percent of 

potential wood inputs would maintain ACS Objectives related to in-stream 

wood while allowing for treatments to improve vegetation and accelerate 

the growth of future in-stream wood. For the portions of Riparian Reserves 

where thinning is proposed, the primary and secondary shade zones on all 

perennial streams (Class 1, 2, and 3) and wetlands as well as the primary 

wood recruitment zones would be maintained in a state that provides 

adequate protection. On most intermittent streams (Class 4) and wetlands, 

the wood recruitment zones would be protected, and where treatment is 

recommended inside those zones, dead and down wood objectives would 

be met through special treatments. Across the project area, current levels 

of down wood are within estimated historical ranges (see Wildlife Section 

for more information). However within specific treatment units where 

current estimates are well below historic ranges, down wood creation is 

proposed so that habitat needs are met at a site specific as well as a 

landscape level." 

In regard to the third concern, a hard look was taken and is discussed on 

page 96: "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 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

270- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

low for most streams in the project area and is largely due to the lack of 

large enough wood to remain stable in channels." 

Additionally, as discussed on page 91, "many of these stands were set on 

a management-induced trajectory that has led to artificially dense, coniferdominant 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). Stand densities in the project area 

range from 79 to 362, with an average of 189." Therefore, down wood 

resulting from continued stand development is expected to be 

considerably higher in these stands than typically found in naturally 

regenerated stands. 

41 DEIS (P 100) says "dead and down wood objectives would be met" What 

objectives? No objectives are specified or quantified. From an ecological 

perspective there is no such thing as too much wood. Current standards 

for snags and dead wood are outdated. More dead wood is needed to 

meet a wider variety of life needs and more green trees are needed over 

time to recruit that dead wood. The FS can't continue to manage against 

dead wood while its standards are known to be inadequate. 

Clarification/quantification of these objectives can be found in Section 

2.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, and 3.5.13. Prescriptions for snags and down wood 

were developed based on modeling using the Forest Vegetation Simulator 

(FVS). These prescriptions are summarized in Chapter 2, in Tables 11, 

12, 14, and 15. 

42 The agency often claims that logging in riparian reserves is necessary to 

improve attributes other than large wood. However, these benefits are 

often minor and transitory, and do not outweigh the significant long-term 

adverse effect of logging on recruitment of dead wood. The agency must 

focus on the most significant contributions of vegetation toward ACS 

objectives and the most significant effects of logging on the ACS 

objectives. If the agency intends to log in riparian reserves to increase 

some nebulous goal like "vegetation diversity and complexity," then please 

explain why the biophysical indicators for the ACS objectives do not 

include any mention of vegetation diversity or complexity. 

The ACS Objectives look at a wide variety of important attributes in 

Riparian Reserves. All aspects were developed to be considered and 

balanced. ACS Objective #8 specifically mentions the importance of 

species and structural diversity of plant communities : "Maintain and 

restore the species compositions and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer 

and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of 

surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply 

amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain 

physical complexity and stability." It is important to note that all nine 

Objectives list equally valuable attributes found in healthy, functioning 

Riparian Reserves. How this project's various alternatives will affect all

attributes described in the ACS Objectives can be found in Appendix E.

43 I would like to see that no riparian areas be harvested. While your plan 

sates that the TMDL in waterways will not exceed the limit, any harvest in 

this area will affect the water quality of the waterways. The economic 

gains of harvest in this area can’t outweigh the potential problems of 

Treatment prescriptions and buffers in Riparian Reserves were developed 

in order to avoid detrimental impacts to water quality by way of 

temperature, nutrient availability, light availability, flow alterations, etc. 

Please refer to Section 3.4 for detailed information on protecting water 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 271

Comment 

Number Comment Response

harvesting in the riparian zones. A buffer area should be implemented 

where no harvest occurs.

quality.

Wildlife

44 The Forest Service needs to begin analyzing the impacts of timber harvest 

and associated road construction on wolves and other returning predator 

species including wolverines at higher elevations. While habitat limitations 

generally do not exist for wolves because they are habitat generalists, the 

Final EIS should address potential impacts to these species associated 

with road constructions and densities. Although wolves are not officially 

verified on the Willamette, they are heading this direction, and the Forest 

needs to begin modeling and anticipating effects on the species. We have 

seen from other National Forests that deal with wolves that increasing 

road densities in an area leads to increasing hunting/poaching 

opportunities for wolves and other predators.

No new permanent roads are proposed in the Goose project; therefore, 

road densities will not increase. 

There is currently no resident wolf population on the Willamette National 

Forest, and thus they are not on our current Region 6 Strategic Species 

List. If a resident wolf population does establish itself in the future and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists wolves as present in 

counties overlapping with the Willamette National Forest, we will include 

them in our consultation and biological assessment on future projects and 

work with other agencies to recover the population. 

While it is possible that a wolverine may travel through the Willamette 

National Forest, no one has been able to document a wolverine from a 

photograph or DNA. Two years of carnivore surveys conducted in suitable 

wolverine habitat in 2013 and 2014 did not detect any wolverines. 

Additionally, the Goose project area does not provide the higher elevation, 

more secluded habitat that wolverines require. The Montane Red Fox 

has not yet been officially listed and is not on the current Region 6 

Strategic Species List. The Montane Red Fox is known to occur above 

4000’ feet elevation near the Cascade crest, and thus does not inhabit the 

Goose project area. Fishers are discussed in Sections 3.5.9 and 3.5.10. 

45 The DEIS fails to take a hard look at the effects of logging suitable owl 

habitat. In particular, DEIS (p 125) fails to fully and accurately disclose the 

effects of 373 acres of commercial harvest in suitable owl habitat. The 

invasion of the barred owl changes the assumptions that underlie the 

allowance of logging in the matrix land allocation in the Northwest Forest 

Plan. The 1994 analysis assumed that all suitable habitat would be 

available to spotted owls, but now much of the available habitat is 

occupied and defended by barred owls. When territorial competing 

species are involved it is axiomatic that more habitat will increase the 

chances of co-existence, while less habitat will increase the changes of 

adverse competitive interactions. The FS can no longer tier to the 

cumulative effects analysis in the 1994 FSEIS to support logging suitable 

habitat.

The 373 acres referred to by the commenter are stands between the ages 

of 81-127 determined not to meet the stand quality of suitable owl habitat, 

and were classified as dispersal habitat. Several errors were found in 

Table 31 and have been corrected in the FEIS. Please refer to Section

3.5.7 where suitable, dispersal, and non-habitat for spotted owls is 

described in detail. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discusses the significant amount of 

uncertainty regarding the effects of forest management on habitat 

competition between the owls, ultimately concluding that "the Northwest 

Forest Plan in concert with the guidelines from the Northern Spotted Owl 

Recovery Plan still provides the backbone for the federal contribution to 

spotted owl recovery even with the uncertainty surrounding the effect of 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

272- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

the barred owls on spotted owls.” (2009 Biological Opinion – FWS 

reference 13420-2010-F-001)

The FEIS includes discussion of barred owls and interspecific competition 

between barred owls and spotted owls in Section 3.5.7 and 3.5.8.

46 The invasion of the barred owl represents new information that has not 

received plan level NEPA analysis. USFS cannot rely on FWS 

recommendation to conserve just a subset of high quality nesting, 

roosting, foraging habitat, because the recovery plan never went through 

NEPA. In essence, the FS is using Recovery Action 32 as a de facto plan 

amendment to justify logging in suitable habitat that is not yet "high 

quality." The FS cannot adopt a plan amendment without following NFMA 

and NEPA procedures. When the agency discovers that its plans are out 

of date and adopts new strategies, the agency must follow NEPA and 

NFMA procedures to amend its forest plan. 

The Goose EIS has followed all applicable legal requirements, including 

NFMA, NEPA, and ESA (Appendix C - Compliance with Laws, 

Regulations and Executive Orders). Plan level NEPA analysis regarding 

the invasion of the barred owl is outside the scope of this project.

The 2011 Recovery Plan and 2012 Critical Habitat Rule encourage land 

managers to maintain and restore owl habitat. Approximately two acres of 

RA32 habitat would be removed for temporary road construction to access 

Unit 10. Unit 10 is a 392-acre stand of dispersal habitat that is in poor 

timber health, growing slowly, and highly susceptible to disease, insect 

outbreaks and fire. The treatments proposed in Unit 10 are expected to 

promote multiple canopies, faster tree growth, greater stand complexity, 

and reduce threats from insects, disease, and fire. The USFWS 

concluded that treatment planned in Unit 10 would benefit future owl 

critical habitat. The removal of two acres of RA32 habitat is consistent 

with the 2011 Recovery Plan and the 2012 Critical Habitat rule and was 

evaluated in the USFWS Biological Assessment. 

47 The forest service states part of the initiative is to “actively manage stands 

to improve stand conditions, diversity, density and structure.” I find one 

problem with this statement, the northern spotted owl, an endangered 

species, is in greatest abundance within the old growth forests of this area 

in the northwest. Alternatives 2 and 3 call for the removal of large areas of 

timber and they will not discriminate in favor of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

With a combined 1,700 pairs of Northern Spotted Owl in Oregon and 

Washington, the removal of old growth forests will surely decimate this 

already small population because it is the same reason (habitat removal) 

that they are in this position in the first place.

With the federally threatened status of the Northern Spotted Owl, wildlife 

biologists and others who work for the U.S. Forest Service spend a 

considerable amount of time working in support of its' recovery. A 

thorough analysis of the effects of this project to the spotted owl has been 

conducted, including a Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 

2012) that was sent to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for ESA 

consultation, and the resulting Biological Opinion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2013), which has been documented in the Goose EIS. All 

applicable laws and standards are being followed, including those in the 

2011 Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. While the proposed project 

would remove suitable and dispersal habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, 

the project was designed to avoid significant effects: no habitat removal 

within 300m nest patches, thinning of dispersal habitat which may allow 

these stands to better develop future habitat structures, and only about 25 

acres of habitat removal within known 0.5 mile nest cores (Table 33). 

48 According to the Western Environmental Law Center, there are 454 While 454 acres of suitable owl habit occurs in the Goose project area, 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 273

Comment 

Number Comment Response

acres of suitable spotted owl habitat within the proposed project area. 

Though this number may seem small compared to the size of the forest, 

spotted owl habitat is already highly fragmented. Destruction of this habitat 

will result in heightened competition between the spotted owl and the 

invasive, more aggressive barred owl.

only 43 acres (less than one percent of suitable owl habitat in the project 

area) would be removed. A thorough analysis of the effects to the spotted 

owl has been conducted and is documented in Section 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 of 

the FEIS. 

49 The EIS identifies that the project would also reduce red tree vole habitat; 

we consider the difference between acres of habitat disturbed to be 

significant (~424 acres in alternative 2 vs. ~ 14 acres in alternative 3.)

The Goose project follows all applicable rules and regulations for the 

Northwest Forest Plan concerning protection and management of red tree 

voles. Red tree vole protocol surveys were conducted in the Goose 

project area as required in 2010 and again in 2015. No active red tree 

vole nests were found. 

50 It appears from the DEIS that some of the red tree vole surveys being 

relied upon by the agency are from 2009. Red tree vole surveys are only 

valid for 5 years. These surveys need to be conducted again, and are 

especially important given that in this region, voles are considered 

extremely rare.

The Goose project follows all applicable rules and regulations for the 

Northwest Forest Plan concerning protection and management of red tree 

voles. Red tree vole protocol surveys were conducted in the Goose 

project area as required in 2010 and again in 2015. No active red tree 

vole nests were found. 

51 I do not agree with your plan to take huge old trees to make gaps for elk 

grazing. I do not think the elk appreciate you using them as an excuse to 

remove old growth forest. I imagine there are other lands with younger 

trees that would be suitable. I imagine the elk are wondering what the 

setup is anyway. BLAME them for cutting old growth then hunt them to 

death. The elk do not need your kind of help.

Although some mature trees are proposed for logging, no “old growth” 

stands are proposed in the Goose project. PNW-447 (USDA 1986) 

provides criteria for defining old growth and has been used for this project. 

Elk and deer are important big game hunting species in Oregon. The 

project area is in the state-designated McKenzie Wildlife Management Unit 

(WMU). Since the publication 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 the WMU. Reduced 

forage quality and quantity due to the reduction in clearcut logging on the 

National Forest are important factors in this decline. There is a public 

demand for elk hunting in Oregon and the Forest Service regularly 

receives public comments about the lack of elk forage. While forage 

levels are not likely to increase to historic levels due to a wide variety of 

other issues, management plans that guide actions on the Willamette 

National Forest support a certain level of diverse early seral habitat. 

52 There may be an increased risk of extinction if certain precautions are not 

taken into consideration. According to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

the intent is to "halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, 

whatever the cost." By removing habitat that is home to species that are 

endangered or threatened is against laws of the United States

With the federally threatened status of the Northern Spotted Owl, wildlife 

biologists and others who work for the U.S. Forest Service spend a 

considerable amount of time working in support of its' recovery. A 

thorough analysis of the effects of this project to the spotted owl has been 

conducted, including a Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 

2012) that was sent to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consultation, 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

274- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

and the resulting Biological Opinion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013), 

which has been documented in the Goose EIS. All applicable laws and 

standards are being followed, including those in the 2011 Northern 

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan.

53 Owl populations are declining rapidly, and speculative approaches to 

enhancing habitat in the distant future through commercial logging are 

hastening their demise, especially when that involves downgrading viable 

habitat that's already in short supply. For instance, a statement is made in 

the EIS that removing dispersal habitat is acceptable, because "sufficient 

habitat would remain in the area to facilitate owl dispersal". This kind of 

rationalization is highly speculative, unproven, and is what led to a 

precipitous decline in owl populations in the first place.

The effects of the Goose project on owl populations were analyzed in 

detail in Section 3.5.7 and Appendix F. The statement that "sufficient 

habitat would remain to facilitate owl dispersal" is based on the knowledge 

that spotted owls have been documented to successfully disperse across 

a variety of different landscapes, including across openings. Wildlife 

biologists review the current and future landscape for each alternative and 

determine if dispersal habitat would be adequately connected. This was 

found to be the case for each of the thirteen spotted owl activity centers in 

the Goose project area. Commercial thinning will not impair the 

functionality of any owl home ranges as stated in the discussion in the 

Biological Opinion, 6.1.3 Harvest Habitat Maintain - Dispersal and Nonhabitat, pp. 42-43 (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2012). The removal of two 

acres of suitable habitat in Critical Habitat (CH), the maintenance of 22.5 

acres of suitable habitat and 506 acres of dispersal habitat will not impact 

the ability of spotted owls to move across the landscape, though the 

degradation of dispersal habitat within 54 acres of dispersal habitat may 

reduce prey base and delay development of late and old structure in 

localized areas (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2012, p.45). While some 

small adverse effects will occur at the stand scale from the degradation of 

dispersal habitat, these effects are considered insignificant at the subunit 

and unit scales (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2012, p.45).

54 Thinning prescriptions are far too severe. Reducing canopy cover to 20% 

within harvest units renders habitat inhospitable to many forest dependent 

species, specifically Northern Spotted Owls and two of their primary prey 

species, flying squirrels and red tree voles. A recent study by Todd Wilson 

demonstrates that thinning negatively affects flying squirrel populations in 

proportion to the severity of the prescription. Red tree voles prefer closed 

canopy conditions for survival and dispersal. The ESA mandates that 

agencies manage forests for the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl. A 

serious effort to recover owl populations would require maintaining 

suitable habitat for their prey base in an area greater than the current 

home range of each nesting site, to allow for dispersal.

Effects of the Goose project on the northern spotted owl are discussed in 

detail in Section 3.5.7 and 3.5.8. The Forest Service is required to 

balance the needs of the northern spotted owl with a host of other species 

that have conflicting habitat requirements. A wildlife biologist participates 

in the planning of each project and provides input that follows current 

rules, regulations, guidelines, the best available science, and uses their 

professional judgement. Spotted owl recovery is a key decision factor on 

each proposed logging project, and is considered by the entire district 

team. As described in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern 

Spotted Owl, there are a broad range of factors that are affecting owls and 

different criteria that can be applied to aid in their recovery. Key forest 

stands are not logged and are protected to provide for the needs of owls 

and their prey. This does not imply that every stand will be preserved in 

perpetuity. Our formal consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 275

Comment 

Number Comment Response

Service for each project that may affect the northern spotted owl allows 

the Forest Service to review each proposed project, consider effects and 

how to minimize said effects. No suitable habitat is being removed from 

the Goose project area around known spotted owl pairs that do not meet 

the threshold 50% suitable habitat requirement within the 0.5 mile home 

range radius.

55 The data on competition between the snowy and barred owls is sparse 

and there is little certainty that the disturbance of the forest would not 

favor the barred owl. The long period of time in which there would be a 

loss of spotted owl foraging habitat (as documented in the EIS) is 

concerning as it provides a greater window of time in which the protected 

owl is vulnerable to competition from the more generalist barred owl.

Since there are no known sightings of snowy owls on the Willamette 

National Forest, and they are even somewhat unusual when they do occur 

in Oregon, we assume the commenter intended to comment about the 

competition between the northern spotted owl and barred owl. While we 

agree that there are unknowns, it is not within the scope of the Goose 

project to conduct research to evaluate competition between the owls and 

other unknown variables. Consultation with USFWS was completed as 

required for the Goose project. Please refer to Section 3.5.7, 3.5.8 and 

Appendix F for a detailed discussion of potential effects to northern 

spotted owls from the Goose project. Please refer to the USFWS revised 

recovery plan for additional information on competition between the 

northern spotted owl and barred owl at 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recover

y/Library/Documents/RevisedNSORecPlan2011.pdf

56 The DEIS suggests the active management will increase early seral 

habitat in the future necessary for a number of species. In the biological 

assessment there are no wildlife population numbers and no mention of 

wildlife species at all with the exception of the critically threatened Bull 

Trout and Spring Chinook Salmon species. Is it known if there needs to be 

an increase in populations such as elk, deer, grey fox, black bear, bobcat, 

and several bird species; with no research or study conducted why is this 

part of the reasoning for the project when these species could be thriving 

in current conditions?

Based on the commenter’s description of the biological assessment, it 

would appear you reviewed the fish Biological Assessment. There is also 

a wildlife Biological Assessment that was prepared for the Northern 

Spotted Owl and a wildlife Biological Evaluation discusses all species on 

the U.S. Forest Service Region 6 Strategic Species list with habitat on the 

Willamette National forest. These documents can be viewed online at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45853. Section 3.5.9 through 

3.5.20 includes discussion of the effects to some of the species the 

commenter mentioned including elk, deer, and several bird species. 

57 We are skeptical of the “MAII” effect determined for several of the species, 

including bat species, examined in the biological assessment. Although 

the proposed logging activity may not “cause a trend toward federal 

listing”, the “adversely impact individuals”  finding s 

insouciantly dismissed. Conservation biologists acknowledge the 

cumulative and numerous threats to biodiversity, and the importance of 

conserving multiple thriving populations of wildlife to allow a high degree 

of confidence that species can persist into the future. Since smaller 

The Forest Service places more emphasis on individual species 

management once a species is listed as threatened or endangered. Other 

than the threatened northern spotted owl, none of the other wildlife 

species with suitable habitat in the Goose project area has been formally 

listed at this time. The topic of individual species management vs. 

ecosystem management is regularly highlighted in the conservation 

biology literature, and the Forest Service has taken a position of 

implementing both where it is reasonable and feasible. In the case of the 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

276- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

populations are more susceptible to ecological threats, environmental and 

demographic stochasticity, and loss of genetic diversity, it is sound policy 

to prevent the loss of individuals from the population. The EIS fails to 

address this prudent approach.

sensitive bat species in the Goose project area, we cannot rule out that 

suitable roosting habitat snags would not be lost with the Goose action 

alternatives. In past harvest projects, any known bat roosting snags/trees 

have been protected. None are known in the Goose project area.

58 AFRC believes that the context that the Northwest Forest Plan focused on 

was the landscape. Therefore we like to see individual projects that 

consider the affected environment in the context of the entire landscape. 

The discussion on the affects to Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Unit 

(CHU) appears to be considering a different context, one that reduces the 

landscape down to individual acres. The summary of effects analysis on 

page 116 of the Goose EIS states that "because about 54 acres in total of 

larger gaps that are being created would measurably delay the 

development of future foraging habitat, the proposed Harvest Habitat

Maintain thinning may affect and is likely to adversely affect 2012 spotted 

owl critical habitat." It is disturbing that the scale for NSO habitat analysis 

has been lowered down to a gap cut as small as a single acre, particularly 

in the case of a variable density thinning (VDT) treatment. By design, a 

VDT treatment considers an entire stand and prescribes variable 

treatments throughout the stand; this results in varying degrees of 

thinning, gaps and skips. A paper by Jerry Franklin in 2002 titled 

"Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems 

with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example" 

described this approach well. Here on page 417 the authors suggest that 

ecologically, it is more useful to view an entire treatment area, including 

both harvested and unharvested areas, as a functional stand consisting of 

a mosaic of structural units. When considering the gap cuts on several 

stands/units on the Goose project, a prudent scale would be, at the 

minimum (the landscape level would be optimal), the stand level, similar to 

what Franklin described above. At the stand level the proposed gaps are a 

component of a larger variable density thinning treatment that contains 

gaps and skips. In this context the skips within the proposed treatment 

units would receive equal consideration as the gaps in the NSO CHU 

affects analysis. At the landscape level, the 12,000+ acres of untreated 

land in the project area could receive consideration. We strongly urge the 

Forest Service to start considering the effects of their vegetation 

management treatments in the proper context identified by their LRMP, 

which is the landscape.

The criteria for determining whether an action is likely to adversely affect

critical habitat (CH) are established in the Final CH rule for NSO (50 CFR 

Part 17, Vol 77, No. 233, Dec. 4, 2012, pages 71939-71940) in the section 

entitled “Determining Whether an Action is Likely to Adversely Affect 

Critical Habitat”). This section notes the changes in effect determination to 

CH from the 1992 critical habitat to the 2008 critical habitat (forest stand 

as appropriate scale) to the 2012 proposed critical habitat. The final rule 

says there are many variables to consider in determining if an action is 

adverse or not and that there is not a “one size fits all” set of rules due to 

differences in habitat types, project types, and habitat needs across the 

range of the owl. The “determination should be conducted at a scale that 

is relevant to the northern spotted owl life-history functions supplied by the 

Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) and affected by the project” (p. 

71939). The rule notes that this localized scale differs from the scale used 

to determine if the action will destroy or modify CH (discussed below). 

The rule provides guidance that Level 1 teams are encouraged to consider 

when addressing the scale of adverse effects. For PCE 4 (habitat to 

support the transience and colonization phase of dispersal) the Final Rule 

indicates the use of a larger scale than other PCEs with suggested 

potential scales being 5th field landscapes, 6th field landscapes, dispersal 

corridors, or a relevant landform (p. 71939). For PCEs 2 (habitat that 

provides for nesting and roosting) and PCEs 3 (habitat that provides for 

foraging), a more localized landscape is indicated with suggestions that 

level 1 teams consider the stand scale, a 500-acre circle, or other 

appropriate localized scale (op cit).

For the Goose BA on reconsultation on 2012 CH, the stand scale was 

used to access effects for PCEs 2 and 3 (nesting/roosting and foraging 

habitat), with a minimum stand size of one acre. That scale was consistent 

with the method used by the Willamette Province Level 1 Team for 

addressing effects to habitat for northern spotted owl consultation at that 

time. We note AFRC’s objection and the Franklin citation that the one 

acre scale is too small to define a stand. Their comments will be 

forwarded to the Level 1 Team for their consideration. The Goose BA on 

reconsultation on 2012 CH concluded that the project adversely affected 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 277

Comment 

Number Comment Response

CH by removal of 2 acres of suitable habitat for road construction and 

because 54 acres of gaps greater than one acre in dispersal habitat would 

delay the development of future foraging habitat on those acres where the 

openings were created.

When a BA identifies that the project may result in an adverse effect to 

CH, the USFWS prepares a Biological Opinion (BO) to determine if the 

action will destroy or adversely modify CH. Adverse modification of CH is 

an ESA term akin to jeopardy and means CH is altered directly or 

indirectly in a manner that reduces the value of the CH for the survival and 

recovery of the listed species. The criteria for determining whether an 

action will destroy or adversely modify CH are established in the Final CH 

rule for NSO (50 CFR Part 17, Vol 77, No. 233, Dec. 4, 2012, pages 

71940-71941) in the section entitled “Determining Whether an Action Will 

Destroy or Adversely Modify Critical Habitat”). This determination is done 

at the scale of the action area, the affected CH subunit(s), the affected CH 

unit(s), and the range of the entire designated NSO CH (p. 71940). If the 

BO concludes (as in the case of the Goose Project) that the action will not 

destroy or modify CH, the action can be conducted under the ESA (op. 

cit.). The assessment scale for determining adverse modification of CH is 

more in line with the landscape scale of the Northwest Forest Plan cited by 

AFRC.

59 AFRC has general concerns with the entire effects determination to the 

NSO CHU in the Goose EIS; these effects are described on pages 127-

131. Our main concerns are similar to those described in the previous 

paragraph, which has to do with the scale of analysis. It is disturbing to us 

that the removal of a mere 2 acres of suitable NSO habitat triggers a 

"likely to adversely affect" determination on the CHU. Based on some 

discussion on page 128 of the EIS it seems as though the Forest Service 

agrees: A loss of two acres represents only a 0.07 percent change in the 

proportion of old forest habitat in a 1.2 mile radius home range. Based on 

the information provided by Wiens (2012), this very small decrease in old 

forest habitat would not produce a measurable change in spotted owl 

survival or a meaningful increase in competition with barred owls. Yet this 

immeasurable change in NSO habitat results in an adverse effect to the 

CHU. In the context of the Critical Habitat subunit WCS 3, which is 

319,736 acres, this 2 acre reduction represents 0.0000063% of the 

subunit. Does the McKenzie RD truly believe that such a minute reduction 

As noted in response to comment 58, the final CH rule set no definitive 

size for determination of adverse effects to CH and Level 1 teams 

continue to evaluate the issues of scale in making effect determinations. 

Also there are concerns with the effects of thinning stands (including 

creating gaps) on flying squirrels and red tree voles. As noted in the 

Goose BA on reconsultation on 2012 CH (p. 18), there is uncertainty with 

the long-term effects of opening up stands by thinning on flying squirrels 

and red tree voles and that negative impacts may persist for a number of 

decades. That uncertainty influenced the determination of adverse effects 

to critical habitat from the creation of 54 acres of gaps greater than one 

acre in dispersal habitat for the Goose project. As noted above, these 

adverse effects did not rise to the level of adverse modification of critical 

habitat which evaluated effects at the Critical Habitat Subunit and other 

larger scales as determined by the Goose Reinitiation BO for 

Reconsultation on 2012 CH (USFWS reference 01EOFW00-2013-F0115). In that assessment, the small percentage of the CH in the subunit 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

278- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

constitutes a "likely to adversely affect" determination? The Final Critical 

Habitat Rule published on Dec. 4, 2012 states that: "Actions with effects 

to the PCEs, physical or biological features, or other essential habitat 

qualities of northern spotted owl critical habitat that are discountable, 

insignificant, or wholly beneficial would be considered not likely to 

adversely affect critical habitat, and do not require formal consultation if 

the Service concurs in writing with that Federal action agency 

determination. (FR Vol 77 No 233 Page 71938)" Page 129 of the EIS 

goes on to state that "gaps greater than one acre in size€¦.are large 

enough that they would limit future use as red tree vole and flying squirrel 

habitat€¦which would delay the development of future foraging habitat for 

at least several decades. This delay is expected to adversely affect CH." 

Page 130 clarifies that "the planned gaps in the Goose Project in young

dispersal habitat avoid high-value owl habitat." By this standard, if the 

USFS proposes to implement a 1.1 acre gap (which would represent 

0.0000034% of the WCS 3 subunit) in this CHU, the result would be an 

adverse effect to said CHU. These numbers are difficult for AFRC to 

comprehend. It appears based on the Goose EIS that the bar for adverse 

effects to the NSO CHU has been set at a single acre of forest that is 

unsuitable low-value owl habitat. In our opinion this effects analysis 

disregards best available science, the 2012 Final Critical Habitat Rule as 

well as common sense.

that was affected (<0.2%) was considered in the determination that the 

action was insignificant at the subunit scale (BO, p. 44).

Early Seral Habitat

60 It appears from the DEIS that the Forest Service will be converting 3% of 

the project area to early seral forest. The DEIS states that less than 1% of 

the project area is currently early-seral habitat. Does this figure include 

private lands? Does it estimate or consider nearby private lands where 

logging is anticipated to occur?

Information regarding logging on private lands is not public information. 

Estimating “anticipated logging” is not possible as the Forest Service 

cannot predict when or where logging activities may occur on nearby 

private land.

While some private lands may provide early seral habitat, they do not 

often provide structurally rich early seral habitat. Diverse quality and 

structurally rich early seral habitat is of key importance to the estimated 

156 species of wildlife that depend on it. Additionally, private timber lands 

may only provide early seral habitat for five to ten years, as compared to 

15-20 years on Forest Service lands.

61 The Forest Service is jumping the gun by attempting to convert scarce 

older forest into your early-seral forest without first justifying its creation 

through historical evidence or conducting a full accounting of what is being 

Although not specifically stated in the DEIS, analysis of early seral 

conditions was performed at the watershed level and at the project level. 

Corrections have been made to Chapter 1 and Chapter 3.5 to clarify the 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 279

Comment 

Number Comment Response

provided by agricultural lands, private forest lands, roadsides, 

transmission lines, etc. It is simply not sufficient to say that there was 

anywhere from 5% to 30% of the entire Pacific Northwest in early-seral 

conditions in the past to justify its creation in west-side Cascade highelevation rainforest. The Forest Service must use its project area level or 

at the very least watershed level of analysis.

level of analysis. 

As stated in Swanson et al. 2014, “The percentage of the regional 

landscapes of the Pacific Northwest in early succession was historically 

highly variable in space and time, but reconstructions demonstrate a 

greater than 50 percent reduction in the proportion of the landscape in a 

pre-canopy closure condition when comparing the 19th and 20th centuries 

to the present.” They go on to state: “When the focus is further restricted 

to structurally complex early-seral pre-forest conditions, such as those 

generated by natural disturbances and with abundant biological legacies, 

the proportion of the modern landscape in such a condition is even more 

likely lower than in the past. As in many commodity-producing forest 

regions, harvest created younger classes are currently well represented in 

the PNW, but widespread management practices have emphasized 

dense, homogenous conifer establishment and rapid canopy closure in 

young stands, effectively truncating or skipping the early-seral pre-forest 

stage.” 

The Goose project area occurs in three 6th field watersheds: Lost Creek, 

Florence Creek-McKenzie River, and Elk Creek-McKenzie River. Within 

these watersheds, approximately 30,164 acres of forest land are managed 

by the Forest Service. Within this 30,164 acres only 43 acres (0.14%) is 

less than 20 years old. 

Of the 43 acres of early seral habitat in these watersheds, 15 acres occur 

in the Goose project area. Eight acres are located in the Lost Creek 

watershed; six in the Florence Creek-McKenzie River watershed; and one 

in the Elk Creek-McKenzie River watershed. The Goose project would 

create approximately 420 acres of early seral habitat with gaps, 

regeneration harvest, and dominant tree release. At the watershed level, 

this would increase early seral habitat from 0.14 percent to 1.5 percent. At 

the project level, this would increase early seral habitat from 0.11 percent 

to 3.2 percent. 

Of interest, 12,087 acres (40.1%) of Forest Service land in these 

watersheds is old growth 180 years or older.

62 The DEIS is misleading because it mixes spatial scales. The DEIS (p.2) 

says “Currently, there is less than one percent early seral habitat (defined 

as less than 20 year old) in the project area. At any point in time, a forest 

Corrections have been made in Chapter 1 and 3.5 to clarify spatial scales 

and levels of analysis for early seral habitat. 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

280- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

landscape in the Pacific Northwest (east and west of the Cascades 

Range) should be composed of 5-20 percent early seral habitat (Swanson 

2012).” The 5-20 percent range applies to a larger landscape than just the 

project area. Landscapes varied much more widely at smaller spatial 

scales. 

63 The analysis in the DEIS does not predict or attempt to analyze the 

amount of early seral that will be created in the Pacific Northwest from fire. 

There are an ever-increasing amount of fires across the landscape but the 

Forest Service and BLM continue to salvage log these stands. If the 

agency is serious about the need for high value early seral habitat, it 

should not be salvage logging, and the analysis should model and predict 

the amount to be created by future fires, taking into account the increasing 

frequency and severity of these fires from climate change. 

At this time, it is not possible to model or predict when and where a fire will 

occur or how large it will be. As such, it is not possible to predict how 

much early seral habitat will be created from fires that have not yet 

occurred.

Roads and Access

64 Ranger Baker, if you were really concerned about aquatic species' health 

you would indicate in the final EIS that all newly constructed temporary 

roads will be obliterated after use and apply the obliteration method that 

returns the ground to the natural angle of repose and eliminates the 

running surface. Not doing so clearly indicates you have no intent of using 

the road temporarily. Comment: Roads that will be used again in the 

future must be constructed to system road standards with surfacing and a 

ditch to reduce sediment generation. If the final EIS does not clearly 

indicate that your proposed temporary roads will be obliterated such that a 

running surface no longer exists, it will show you plan to allow these 

temporary roads to pump sediment for decades until the so-called 

temporary road is used again for the next timber sale. Please become 

familiar with the Clean Water Act.

"Decommissioning" as described in the Draft and Final EIS is consistent 

with the most common definitions of "obliteration" including those 

described in several articles the commenter referenced in his letter. 

Please see Chapter 2, Table 13, Design Feature 27 and definitions 

included in the Glossary for additional information.

65 Temporary roads would be decommissioned after completion of project 

activities. Decommissioning of temporary roads would include one or more 

of the following: removal of any 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. " Comment: Since temporary 

roads are out sloped with no ditch, sediment that is generated during 

precipitation events, finds its way to streams and harms the aquatic 

resources for decades after initial construction â€¦ unless the road is 

"Decommissioning" as described in the Draft and Final EIS is consistent 

with the most common definitions of "obliteration" including those 

described in several articles the commenter referenced in his letter. 

Please see Chapter 2, Table 13, Design Feature 27 and definitions 

included in the Glossary for additional information.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 281

Comment 

Number Comment Response

obliterated. No other post-use treatment method (including 

decommissioning as described above) is as effective at eliminating 

damage to aquatic resources and subsurface water flow as obliteration. 

You know this. The reason you aren't obliterating the temp roads is 

because you plan to use them again when the area is logged next time. 

Indeed, the line-officers on the Willamette National Forest do not construct 

temporary roads.

66 After the temp roads are obliterated or decommissioned they must be 

monitored over time to assure they are not generating sediment. This 

DEIS contains no such monitoring plan. The forest service discusses the 

need to monitor road decommissioning methods: "Several national 

forests have developed road decommissioning monitoring plans. This 

report builds on their hard work and careful thought to creating a 

successful monitoring plan. Instead of advocating one method or process 

for each monitoring project and budget, this document enables selection 

of the monitoring technique(s) for each situation.

The Forest Service recently published a technical guide titled: National 

Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National 

Forest System Land (FS 990a). This guide provides forms and protocols 

that are used for post-project monitoring.

67 The DEIS mentions nothing about the need to secure NPDES permits for 

the roads planned to be constructed for this timber sale. Ranger Baker, 

the DEIS contains nothing to indicate temp road monitoring will occur as 

part of this project. Why?

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in 

Decker v. NEDC in 2013; the State of Oregon does not require NPDES 

permits for roads associated with logging.

68 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Indicate all 

temporary roads will be obliterated after use making sure to define road 

obliteration using the statement below (or something similar) to eliminate 

confusion: When roads are obliterated the road running surface is 

completely eliminated from the landscape. Full recontouring is 

accomplished by recovering all available fill and placing it back in the 

cutbank until the surrounding terrain is fully matched. Include a link to 

the NPDES permits for the roads planned to be constructed for this timber 

sale. Also, assure the final NEPA document describes the road 

obliteration monitoring plan to assure the sediment is being reduced as 

expected, and indicate the Willamette National Forest will budget funding 

for the monitoring. 

Please see response to comment 64, 65, 66, and 67.

69 The Forest Service is building extensive new roads with this project. The 

Final EIS should analyze the potential impacts on recreation new roads 

will have on this high use area. New roads not only attract illegal off road 

vehicle use but also attract trash dumping, firearm waste, littering, and 

other illegal activity. These activities could impact the desirability of the 

No new permanent roads are proposed in the project. Any temporary 

roads will be decommissioned which includes eliminating accessibility.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

282- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

area and its appeal to recreationists. These activities and construction 

could also impact the wilderness character of the area. Please address 

these issues in the final EIS.

70 The EIS states that temporary roads will be decommissioned and existing 

roads will be enhanced. It does not detail the certainty of budget to 

accomplish these plans.

Temporary road decommissioning is a required design feature of the 

proposed project (see Table 13). Funding for decommissioning of 

temporary roads and enhancement of existing roads is secured through 

the timber sale contract.

71 The impacts from new roads will be significant, and create a future burden 

on road maintenance efforts. The additional vehicle traffic will increase the 

impacts on many of the forest landscape values.

The future burden on road maintenance efforts was considered during 

development of the proposed project. As a result, no new permanent 

roads are proposed. Temporary roads would be decommissioned upon 

completion of the project which eliminates the need for road maintenance 

and would not increase vehicle traffic.

Heritage Resources

72 The Forest Service states in its DEIS that historical cultural and 

archeological sites have been discovered nearby and were damaged by 

past timber harvest activities. The DEIS is vague however in disclosing 

how further damage to other potential sites is going to be prevented. It 

appears no comprehensive or even strategic archaeological surveys were 

conducted to determine whether or not there was a potential site that 

would certainly be impacted by commercial logging and road building 

activities. It seems unlikely that logging employees will be able to 

properly identify or recognize these sites during ongoing commercial 

operations, the DEIS's plan of dealing with these sites when they are 

found during logging is insufficient given that other sites have been found 

in the project area previously.

A systematic surface pedestrian archeological survey was performed by 

ten crew members in 2009. Details of the archaeological survey and 

methodology were included in the DEIS and can be found in the FEIS in 

Section 3.8.3. The Goose project was designed to avoid and protect all 

cultural sites identified in the survey. Design Features 75-78 (Chapter 2, 

Table 13) have been put in place to protect any unidentified cultural 

resources encountered during the course of the project.

Scenery

73 The proposed regeneration harvests are illegal because they subvert 

natural landscape appearances to timber generation. The regeneration 

units are proposed for Management Area 11e, where "multiple use 

activities [timber harvest] will be conducted in such a way that they are 

completely subordinate to the character of the natural landscape and not 

evident to the casual Forest visitor." Where the proposed gap creation 

never over a few acres may blend with the natural landscape, large 

clearcuts at least 10 acres in size and even some of the larger gaps will 

Regeneration harvest is not proposed in Management Area 11e. Units 

proposed for regeneration harvest do not have frontal views and are not 

visible from Highway 126. 

Treatments proposed in Management Area 11e would meet all Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines for scenic resources. Treatments proposed 

in Management Area 11e will be conducted in such a way that they are 

completely subordinate to the character of the natural landscape and not 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 283

Comment 

Number Comment Response

certainly be noticeable for decades to come. This, as recognized in the 

DEIS, is one of Oregon most scenic passages, and the Willamette Forest 

Plan limits even aged management to areas of 3 acres with frontal views. 

Some of the regeneration harvest units have frontal views, and are 

completely visible from Highway 126..

evident to the casual Forest visitor. 

Recreation

74 Approximately 1250 acres which would be logged in the event the USFS 

should choose alternative 2, is located along a popular hiking trail. It is a 

roadless tract and has the potential for wilderness designation. The forest 

in this area is unparalleled in its pristine beauty, has generally minimal 

underbrush, vigorous health, year round and seasonal creeks with the 

canopy at a very high level, is naturally fire and disease resistant. The EIS 

states that the public would benefit in its ability to enjoy this area because 

the road leading to it would be better to travel with more scenic vistas and 

a bigger parking lot. Those people who would seek out pristine wilderness 

do not typically do so because of the size of the parking lot or the quality 

of the road. They're attracted by natural unspoiled beauty. Logging this 

area would not enhance the appeal to the recreationist, it would simply 

spoil the experience. The only conceivable justification for logging this 

section is the dollar value of the timber. If in fact this area represents an 

insignificant percentage of the land the USFS manages in the area, it 

would seem that the highest and best use of this area would be left to the 

recreation oriented public and logs should be extracted from areas not 

otherwise accessible to the public or as scenically desirable as is this 

tract.

No Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) or designated Wilderness is within 

or adjacent to the project area. Inventory of areas that may be suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System has been 

dropped from the Goose project. Please see response to comment 79 for 

additional information.

Approximately .85 miles of the Frissell Trail passes through units proposed 

for treatment in the Goose project. Unit 460 encompasses the trail head 

parking area and the trail passes through units 470 and 480. Design 

features have been put in place to protect Frissell Trail during and after 

implementation of the Goose project (see Chapter 2, Table 13, Design 

Feature 80). Road improvements associated with harvest activity would 

improve the comfort and quality of the access road to the trailhead. The 

current parking area is small requiring vehicles to park on steeply inclined 

slopes off of the road bed which results in resource damage and creates 

congestion when multiple vehicles are parked. Improvements to the road 

and parking area will result in better access to the trailhead, less damage 

to resources, and increased safety for trail users. Improved road and 

trailhead conditions are not expected to significantly increase use of 

Frissell Trail and will generally serve to enhance access to those visitors 

that do seek this trail out as a recreational opportunity.

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and Wilderness 

75 Please also drop all proposed logging units within unroaded areas, and 

pay special attention to minimizing impacts to Wilderness or roadless 

areas when logging nearby.

No Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) or designated Wilderness are within 

or adjacent to the Goose project area.

76 Before logging roadless areas the agency should consider the impacts to 

all the values of roadless areas, including: (1) High quality or undisturbed 

soil, water, and air; (2) Sources of public drinking water; (3) Diversity of 

plant and animal communities; (4) Habitat for threatened, endangered, 

No Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) or designated Wilderness are within 

or adjacent to the Goose project area.
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

284- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land; (5) Primitive, semiprimitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation; (6) Reference landscapes; (7) Natural appearing landscapes 

with high scenic quality; (8) Traditional cultural properties and sacred 

sites; and (9) Other locally identified unique characteristics. 36 CFR 

Â§294.11

77 It's nice that the FS has prepared an EIS to consider the effects of logging 

in the 10,000 acre Lookout Mountain unroaded area, but the DEIS fails to 

take a hard look at the science about the value of these areas and fails to 

fully disclose the adverse effects of logging and the many ecological 

benefits of letting these forests under the influence of natural processes. 

Former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack recognizes the value of 

National Forest roadless areas: "Roadless areas preserve essential 

watersheds and help ensure an abundant supply of clean drinking water. 

These large areas of undisturbed forests provide diverse habitats for 

sensitive and endangered wildlife. In addition, roadless areas provide 

other critical ecological services, such as carbon storage, and operate as 

effective barriers to invasive species, while also providing social values 

such as scenic landscapes and a host of recreational opportunities. 

The Lookout Mountain unroaded area referenced by the commenter is not 

recognized by the USFS. No inventoried roadless areas or designated 

wilderness is within or adjacent to the Goose project area. 

78 Please take a harder look at the wilderness and roadless area values and 

balancing of these values in the FEIS.

No Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) or designated Wilderness are within 

or adjacent to the Goose project area.

Areas that May Be Suitable for Inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS)

79 AFRC is concerned and a bit confused by the consideration of "areas that 

may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System" in this analysis. The EIS acknowledges on page 211 that "the 

wilderness recommendation process typically occurs during forest 

planning, in some cases the first step, inventory, occurs at project level 

analysis." However, based on your handbook, we disagree. In fact, the 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) that is referenced in this affects analysis 

is titled "Land Management Planning". FSH 1909.12 states in its heading: 

"This handbook provides procedural guidance for implementing land 

management planning direction for the 2012 planning rule (77 FR 21165, 

April 9, 2012). The primary use is for interdisciplinary team members and 

line officers responsible for planning." We are unclear as to how utilizing 

and referencing a FSH section on land management planning is 

Inventory of “areas that may be suitable for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System” has been dropped from the Goose 

project. 

Previous USFS direction in Region 6 directed forests to perform an 

inventory of areas that may be suitable for inclusion in the NWPS during 

project level analysis. On January 30, 2015, the USFS released new 

directives that clearly state inventory, evaluation, and recommendation of 

areas that may be suitable for inclusion in the NWPS shall occur during 

forest plan development or revisions (FSH 1090.12).

The Responsible Official for the Goose Project originally made the 

determination to keep the “inventory” of these potentially suitable areas in 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 285

Comment 

Number Comment Response

appropriate at the project level. NEPA's primary purpose is to aid in 

informed decision making. We feel that the discussion and consideration 

of potential wilderness areas is contrary to this notion, and in fact may 

result in unsound decision making.

the Goose DEIS because it was included in the Goose Environmental 

Assessment and subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact and 

Decision Notice and was a point of concern that constituted “significance” 

base on Judge Aiken’s ruling in Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild vs 

USFS. However, after evaluating multiple public comments addressing 

this issue and further review of the new directives, the Responsible Official 

has determined that inventory of areas that may be suitable for inclusion in 

the NWPS shall be done at the forest planning level as directed by FHS 

1909.12. As such, the inventory has been dropped from the Goose 

project. 

80 The FS continues to rely on a flawed inventory of potential wilderness 

areas. The DEIS says "A 200 foot setback for all forest roads and a 500 

foot setback from highways, which is the standard boundary distance for 

current wilderness areas on the Willamette National Forest. The 200 foot 

buffer was also applied to power lines." Instead of excluding areas simply 

because they are near a road, the Forest Service must follow its internal 

guidance (effective 1/30/2015) for "broad and inclusive" identification of 

potential wilderness, and public involvement in that process. The FS 

Planning Handbook says: The primary function of the inventory step is to 

efficiently, effectively, and transparently identify all lands in the plan area 

that may have wilderness characteristics as defined in the Wilderness Act.

Please see response to comment 79.

81 The Responsible Official shall ensure that the Interdisciplinary Team 

documents the evaluation. “The intent is to ensure that the process for 

inventory and evaluation is transparent and accessible to the public for 

input and feedback.” Evaluate the degree to which the area has 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or for a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. The word "or" means that an area only has to possess 

one or the other. The area does not have to possess outstanding 

opportunities for both elements, nor does it need to have outstanding 

opportunities on every acre.

Please see response to comment 79.

Economics

82 The Forest Service should model and quantify the financial benefits 

generated from tourism in the community, and discuss potential impacts to 

this revenue from the project's implementation.

An analysis of financial benefits generated from tourism is beyond the 

scope of this project. Currently, there is no data or information available to 

suggest tourism in the upper McKenzie River area is impacted by logging 

activities. Tourism and recreational activities connected with Forest 

Service lands continue to increase in the upper McKenzie River area. 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

286- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

83 This EIS should, but does not, disclose an economic analysis of the 

comparative values of resource extraction and the considerable 

contribution to local economies in Oregon from tourism and recreation.

An economic analysis of the comparative values of resource extraction 

and the considerable contribution to local economies in Oregon from 

tourism and recreation is beyond the scope of this project.

Climate Change

84 The NEPA analysis should start with an accurate and up-to-date inventory 

of carbon storage and carbon flows on federal land. This is required by 

NFMA and FLPMA. 

An inventory of carbon storage and carbon flows on Federal land is 

beyond the scope of this project.

A baseline estimate of carbon stocks in forests and harvested wood 

products for National Forest System Units in the Pacific Northwest Region 

was released on March 6, 2015. Total forest ecosystem carbon stored in 

the Pacific Northwest Region increased from 2005 to 2013, with 2304 

teragrams (Tg) in 2005 and reaching 2370 Tg in 2013. The Willamette 

National forest stored the largest amount of carbon in the region, 

approximately 243 Tg in 2005 and 248 Tg in 2013 (USDA 2015). 

85 The DEIS did not adequately address the effect on climate change from 

this timber sale or its impact on climate change from surrounding and 

adjacent timber harvest.

Considering emissions of GHG in 2010 was 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. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the 

contributions to climate change of global human activity sectors in its Fifth 

Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). In 2010, anthropogenic (humancaused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several 

sectors: industry, transportation, and building – 41%; energy production 

accounts – 35%; agriculture – 12%; forestry and other land uses accounts 

– 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 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 287

Comment 

Number Comment Response

landscapes (IPCC 2000). This Goose project does not fall within any of 

these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested land will 

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 long-term. US forests 

sequestered 757.1 megatonnes of carbon dioxide after accounting for 

emissions from fires and soils in 2010 (US EPA, 2015).

86 Deforestation contributes significantly to a loss of carbon storage and 

increased instability in climate regulation. Though the contribution of this 

project to deforestation may seem small, our reaction to it can have an 

impact on the precedent we set for future logging projects. In a time of 

rapid climate change and ecosystem vulnerability, we cannot afford to be 

losing what forests we have left.

Deforestation is defined as permanent removal of all trees, most notably 

the conversion of forest and grassland into agricultural land or developed 

landscapes (IPCC 2000). Forested land in the Goose project area will not 

be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. Forest stands are 

being treated to maintain a vigorous condition that supports trees and 

sequesters carbon long-term.

List of Preparers

87 The DEIS does not list an IDT member with the education, experience or 

knowledge to adequately and professionally assess and divulge the 

environmental effects of sale implementation in on scenery. The public 

expects the USFS to staff their IDTs with professionals who specialize in 

the resources they represent. Chapter 3 contains a section describing 

the effects to Scenic Quality from implementing the Goose timber sale, yet 

there is no landscape architect listed as an IDT member. Request for 

changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Add a landscape 

architect to the IDT and have him/her professionally assess and re-write 

and effects of logging and roading activities on the scenery resource. Also, 

assure that this landscape architect is named as an IDT member.

A licensed landscape architect (LA) performed a scenery evaluation and 

reviewed Chapter 3.9 – Scenic Quality between the DEIS and FEIS. 

Recommendations made by the LA have been incorporated into project 

design (e.g. 28 gaps changed to thinning in Unit 10 to maintain scenery 

objectives). Design features have been added to Chapter 2.6 to ensure 

scenic quality and integrity is maintained. The LA has been added to the 

interdisciplinary team and included in the List of Preparers. Please see 

Chapter 3.9 and the List of Preparers for additional information. 

88 Request for changes to be made to the final NEPA document: Rewrite the 

Environmental Consequences Chapter with new IDT members and 

instruct them to 1) include accurate, professional, complete, honest effects 

disclosures, and 2) provide unbiased, independent science (not authored 

by a USDA employee) that supports the natural resource effects 

disclosures. 

The effects of the Goose project were analyzed by professional natural 

resource, recreation, and cultural specialists. The effects of each 

alternative were predicted based on science literature and professional 

experience of the IDT specialists. The conclusions of the IDT specialists 

are based on the best available science and current understanding. 

Appendices

89 At page 30 you say: "Other issues are represented and expressed in Thank you for pointing out the error regarding Appendix F. This has been 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

288- Goose Project Final EIS

Comment 

Number Comment Response

Appendix F, where you can find specific comments about the proposed 

action and responses." Appendix F contains 6 pages of effects to known 

owl sites. Appendix F does not contain the word "issues."

corrected in the FEIS. 
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 289
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

290- Goose Project Final EIS
Appendix G – Response to Comments on the DEIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 291
292- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix H – Changes between Draft and Final EIS

Goose Project Final EIS - 293

Appendix H – Changes between Draft and Final EIS

In response to public comment and a comprehensive internal review, multiple changes were made 

between publication of the Goose Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and this Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Most of the changes were minor in nature and focused on 

grammatical corrections, editorial formatting, and clarification of data previously presented. These minor 

changes are not included here.

In some situations, more substantive changes were required to clarify issues, expand on analysis, or 

provide additional information. Substantive changes are outlined in the table below. This FEIS prevails 

regarding any differences or conflicts with the DEIS.

Location in DEIS Change between DEIS and FEIS

Chapter 1

Section 1.1 Legal description corrected.

Section 1.7 Updated to reflect additional public involvement between DEIS 

and FEIS.

Section 1.9.1 Content added for clarification of key issues, other issues, and 

out of scope issues.

Chapter 2

Section 2.5 Design features added to protect soils, roads, and scenic quality.

Chapter 3

Section 3.1.4 Figure 11 moved to Section 3.5.4.

Section 3.2.4 Corrections made to WUI treatment acres in Table 22. 

Hazardous fuels treatments completed in 2014 added to 

cumulative effects analysis.

Section 3.3.4 Information added to clarify soils conditions in Unit 100 and 410.

Section 3.5.3 Information added to clarify scale of analysis.

Section 3.5.8 Corrections made to age class acres in Table 31.

Section 3.9 Figure 33, 35, and 36 removed. Figure 34 and 37 updated. 

Viewpoint analysis removed. Information added to clarify visual 

quality objectives. 

Section 3.11 Inventory of areas that may be suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System removed from project.

Section 3.14 Information added to reflect updated IPCC reports.

Chapter 4

List of Preparers Forest Landscape Architect added to List of Preparers.

Chapter 5

List of Agencies, Governments 

and Individuals

Updated to include information regarding DEIS 45-day comment 

period.

Appendices

Appendices Appendix G – Response to Comments added.

Appendix H – Changes between DEIS and FEIS added. 
294- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
References

Goose Project Final EIS - 295

References

Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington DC.

Agee, James K., Carl N. Skinner. 2005. Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction Treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management. Vol. 211, Issues 1-2, 6 June 2005. Pages 83-96.

Allan, J.D., M.S. Wipfli, J.P. Caouette, A. Prussian, and J. Rodgers. 2003. Influence of streamside 

vegetation on inputs of terrestrial invertebrates to salmonid food webs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences, 60: 309-320.

Allen, J. D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Academic Publishers, 

Norwell, MA. 388 p.

Altman, B., and J. Hagar. 2007. Rainforest birds: a land manager’s guide to breeding bird habitat in 

young conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. U. S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006-5304. 60 p.

Anderson, P. D., D. J. Larson, and S. S. Chan. 2007. Riparian buffer and density management influences 

on microclimate of young headwater forests of western Oregon. Forest Science, 53(2): 254-269.

Beechie, T. J., G. Pess, P. Kennard, R.E. Bilby, and S. Bolton. 2000. Modeling recovery rates and 

pathways for woody debris recruitment in northwestern Washington streams. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management, 20(2): 436-452.

Benda, L and P. Bigelow. 2014. On the patterns and processes of wood in northern California streams. 

Geomorphology, 209: 79-97.

Benda, L. and J. Sias. 2003. A quantitative framework for evaluating the mass balance of wood in 

streams. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management, 172:1-16. 

Benda, L., D. Miller, K. Andras, P. Bigelow, G. Reeves, and D. Michael. 2007. NetMap: a new tool in 

support of watershed science and resource management. Forest Science. 53(2): 206-219.

Benda, L., K. Andras, D. Miller, and P. Bigelow. 2004. Confluence effects in rivers: Interactions of basin 

scale, network geometry, and disturbance regimes, Water Resources Research, 40: W05402. doi:

10.1029/2003WR002583. 

Berglund, H. and B. Gunnar Jonsson. 2003. Nested plant and fungal communities; the importance of area 

and habitat quality in maximizing species capture in boreal old-growth forests. Biological 

Conservation 12 (2003): 319-328.

Beschta, R. L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and 

aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Streamside management: forestry and fishery 

interactions, 57: 191-232.

Blakeley-Smith, Matt and Thomas N. Kaye. 2008. Mowing, Mulching, and Seeding to Control False 

brome on the Eugene District, BLM, Oregon. pg 18.

Brown, G. W., and J.T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of clear-cutting on stream temperature. Water Resources 

Research, 6(4): 1133-1139.
References

296- Goose Project Final EIS

Brown, James K., Snell, J.A. Kendal. 1980. Handbook for Prediction Residue Weight of Pacific 

Northwest Conifers. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

GTR. PNW-103.

Bryan, T. and E. D. Forsman. (1987). Distribution, abundance, and habitat of Great Gray Owls in south 

central Oregon. The Murrelet, 68, 45-49.

Burke,T. E. 2013. Land snails and slugs of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 344 p.

Byrd, K.B., V.T. Parker, D. R. Vogler, and K. W. Cullings. 2000. The influence of clear-cutting on 

ectomycorrhizal fungus diversity in a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stand, Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyoming, and Gallatin National Forest, Montana. Canadian Journal of Botany 78: 149-156.

Carey, A.B., Kershner, J., Biswell, B. and de Toledo, L.D. 1999a Ecological scale and forest development: 

squirrels, dietary fungi, and vascular plants in managed and unmanaged forests. Wildland 

Monographs. 142, 1-71.

Cascades of Oregon, final progress report for field season 1 (Oct 2012–May 2013). Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon, USA. Project video available at: 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/images/video_gallery/forest_carnivore_research_project.asp

Compton, J.E., M.R. Church, S.T. Larned, and W.E. Hogsett. 2003. Nitrogen export from forested 

watersheds in the Oregon Coast Range: the role of N2-fixing red alder. Ecosystems, 6 (8): 773-785.

Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C. Cook, R. A. Riggs, T. Delcurto, L. D. Bryant, and L. L. Irwin. 2004.

Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife 

Monographs 155: 1-61.

Cummins, K.W. 2002. Riparian-stream linkage paradigm. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein 

Limnologie, 28: 49-58.

Dahlberg, A. 2002. Effects of fire on ectomycorrhizal fungi in Fennoscandian boreal forests. Silva 

Fennica 36(1): 69-80.

Dahlberg, A., J. Schimmel, A.F.S. Taylor, and H. Johannesson. 2001. Post-fire legacy of ectomycorrhizal 

fungal communities in the Swedish boreal forest in relation to fire severity and logging intensity.

Biological Conservation 100:151-161.

Danehy, R.J., S.S. Chan, G.T. Lester, R.B. Langshaw, and T.R. Turner. 2007. Periphyton and 

Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Structure in Headwaters Bordered by Mature, Thinned, and Clearcut 

Douglas-Fir Stands. Forest Science, 53(2): 294-307.

Davis, R. and J. Lint. 2005. Habitat status and trends. Pages 21–82 in J. Lint (technical coordinator), 

Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl 

populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-648, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Note: BioMapper data is available at 

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/data-maps/nso-data-maps.shtml

Dimling, Jennifer and Cindy McCain. 1996. Willamette National Forest Special Habitat Management 

Guide. Pacific Northwest Region. 
References

Goose Project Final EIS - 297

Doerr, J. 2012. Process to Identify Stands Addressed by Recovery Action 32 in the Willamette National 

Forest. Unpublished report, Willamette National Forest, Supervisors Office, Springfield, OR.

Doerr, J. and T. Young. 2009. FY2009 ISSSP surveys for salamander slug [aka Axetail Slug] (Gliabates 

oregonius) in the Upper Blue River drainage of the McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette 

National Forest. Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of 

Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 7/22/2013 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml]

Duncan, J. R. and P. H. Hayward. (1994). Review of technical knowledge: Great Gray Owls. Pp. 159-175 

in Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner eds. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: 

A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol of survey and manage 

terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. ISSSP publication. Bureau of 

Land Management, Roseburg, Oregon. 70 pp.

Durall, D.M., S. Gamiet, S.W. Simard, L. Kudrna, S.M. Sakakibara. 2006. Effects of clearcut logging and 

tree species composition on the diversity and community composition of epigeous fruit bodies formed 

by ectomycorrhizal fungi. Canadian Journal of Botany 84(6):966-980.

FAOSTAT (2013). FAOSTAT database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

http://faostat.fao.org

Feller, M.C. (1981). Effects of clearcutting and slashburning on stream temperatures in southwestern 

British Columbia. Watershed Resources Bulletin, 17: 863-867.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993-2003. Forest ecosystem management: 

an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-071.

Forsman, E. D., and 26 others. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls. Studies in Avian 

Biology No. 40, Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 103 p. 

Fourth-order watershed in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33: 1363–1370.

Franklin, J. F., and K. N. Johnson. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific 

Northwest. Journal of Forestry. December 2012. 11 p.

Franklin, J.E., Lindenmayer, D., MacMahon, J.A., Mckee, A. Magnuson, J., Perry, D.A. et al. 2000. 

Threads of continuity. Conservation Biology Practice 1, 9-16.

Garmin, S.L., et al. 2003. Accelerating development of late-successinal conditions in young managed 

Douglas-fir stands: a simulation study. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-557, Portland, OR.

Gomi, T., R.D. Moore, and A.S. Dhakal. 2006. Headwater stream temperature response to clear-cut 

harvesting with different riparian treatments, coastal British Columbia, Canada. Water Resources 

Research, 42(8).

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian 

Zones. BioScience, 41 (8): 540-551.
References

298- Goose Project Final EIS

Griffiths, R.P., A.K. Swanson. 2001. Forest soil characteristics in a chronosequence of harvested Douglasfir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(11):1871-1879.

Habek, J. R. (1994). Dynamics of forest communities used by Great Gray Owls. Pp. 176-201 in Hayward, 

G. D. and Verner, J. (eds.). Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A 

technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Hann, Wendel, Havlina, Doug, Shlisky, Ayn, et al. 2003. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy Fire 

Regime Condition Class website .USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature 

Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management [frcc.gov]

Harr, R. D., and R.L. Fredriksen. 1988. Water quality after logging small watersheds within the Bull Run 

watershed, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(5): 1103-1111.

Harrington, C.A., S.D. Roberts, and L.C. Brodie. 2005. Tree and understory responses to variable density 

thinning in western Washington. In: Peterson, C.E., Maguire, D.A. (Eds.), Balancing Ecosystem 

Values. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR, pp. 97–106. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 635.

Harvey, Alan E., Martin F. Jurgensen, Michael J. Larson, Joyce A. Schlieter. 1986. Distribution of active 

ectomycorrhizal short roots in forest soils of the inland Northwest: Effects of site and disturbance. 

USDA INT-374. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Hiller, T. L., and J. E. McFadden-Hiller. 2013. Wolverine-forest carnivore research in the northern

Holmes, Susan E., Bitty A. Roy, Jim P. Reed, and Bart R. Johnson. 2008. Context-Dependent Pattern and 

Process: The Distribution and Competitive Dynamics of and Invasive Grass, Brachypodium 

sylvaticum Biological Invasions. Master’s Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Hoover, S., L. Shannon, and J. Ackerman. 2007. The effect of riparian condition on invertebrate drift in 

mountain streams. Aquatic Sciences. 69: 544 – 553.

Hoover, T. M., X. Pinto, and J.S. Richardson. 2011. Riparian canopy type, management history, and 

successional stage control fluxes of plant litter to streams. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 

41(7): 1394-1404.

Institute for Applied Ecology-False Brome Working Group, Oregon, USA. http:// 

www.appliedeco.org/invasive-species-resources-FBWG

IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, 

R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

IPCC 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, 

G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley 

(eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
References

Goose Project Final EIS - 299

IPCC 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use 

Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=0

Janisch, J. E., S.E. Wondzell, and W.J. Ehinger. 2012. Headwater stream temperature: Interpreting 

response after logging, with and without riparian buffers, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 270: 302-313.

Johnson, D. H., and T. A. O’Neil (eds.). 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington.

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 736 p.

Johnson, S. L. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Stream temperature responses to forest harvest and debris flows in 

western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(S2): 30-39.

Johnston, N. T., S.A. Bird, D.L. Hogan, and E.A. MacIsaac. 2011. Mechanisms and source distances for 

the input of large woody debris to forested streams in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research, 41(11): 2231-2246.

Joyce, L.A., S.W. Running, D.D. Breshears, V.H. Dale, R.W. Malmsheimer, R.N. Sampson, B. Sohngen,

C.W. Woodall. 2014. Chapter 7: Forests. In: Melillo, Jerry; Richmond, Terese (T.C.); Yohe, Gary, 

eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program: 176–194.

Kay, C.E. 2007. Are lightning fires unnatural? A comparison of aboriginal and lightning ignition rates in 

the United States. Pages 16–28 in R.E. Masters and K.E.M. Galley (eds.). Proceedings of the 23rd 

Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Grassland and Shrubland Ecosystems. Tall Timbers 

Research Station, Tallahassee, FL

Kertis, Jane et.al. 2007. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). Documentation to accompany the 

Documentation of the NW Oregon FRCC grid. USDA Forest Service. Region 6. NW Oregon FRCC 

Workgroup. 

Kiffney, P, and P. Roni. 2007. Relationships between Productivity, Physical Habitat, and aquatic 

Invertebrate and Vertebrate Populations of Forest Streams: An Information-Theoretic Approach. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1088–1103.

Lacki, M. J., J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, Eds. 2007. Bats in forests: conservation and management. John 

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 329 p.

Lakel, W. A., W.M. Aust, M.C. Bolding, C.A. Dolloff, P. Keyser, and R. Feldt. 2010. Sediment trapping 

by streamside management zones of various widths after forest harvest and site preparation. Forest 

Science, 56(6): 541-551.

Lane County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). 

http://www.co.lane.or.us/Planning/CWPPtoc.htm

Legard, Harold A. and Meyer, LeRoy C., 1973: Willamette National Forest Soil Resource Inventory, 

Pacific Northwest Region, 167 p.

Leonard, W. P., L. Chichester, Casey H. Richart, and T. A. Young. 2011. Securicauda hermani and 

Carinacauda stormi, two new genera and species of slug from the Pacific Northwest of the United 

States (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora: Arionidae), with notes on Gliabates oregonius Webb 1959.

Zootaxa 2746: 43─56.
References

300- Goose Project Final EIS

Levno, A. and J. Rothacher. 1967. Increases in maximum stream temperatures after logging in old-growth 

Douglas-fir watersheds. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, US Department of 

Agriculture.

Liquori, M., L. Benda, D. Ganz, D. Martin, and R. Coats. 2008. Scientific literature review of forest 

management effects on riparian functions for anadromous salmonids. Prepared by Sound Watershed 

Consulting for the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Oakland, CA.

Macdonald, J. S., E.A. MacIsaac, and H.E. Herunter. 2003. The effect of variable-retention riparian buffer 

zones on water temperatures in small headwater streams in sub-boreal forest ecosystems of British 

Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33(8): 1371-1382.

Manning, T., J.Hagar and B.C. McComb. 2012. Thinning of Young Douglas-fir Forests Decreases Density 

of Northern Flying Squirrels in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 264, 

pp. 115-124. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112711006025

Marshall, D. B., M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general reference.

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 768 p.

Maxwell, Wayne G., Ward, Franklin R., 1980. Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues in 

Common Vegetation Types of the Pacific Northwest. USDA. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report. PNW 105.

McCain, Cindy. 2005. Riparian Plant Communities of Northwest Oregon: Streamside Plant Communities. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. Technical 

Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-01-05.

McCune, Bruce and Linda Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Introduction page x.

McDade, M. H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin, and J.V. Sickle. 1990. Source distances for 

coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research, 20(3): 326-330.

Means, J. E., Swanson, F. J., 1996. Fire History and Landscape Restoration in Douglas-fir Ecosystems of 

Western Oregon in Hardy, Colin C., Arno, Stephen F., eds. The use of fire in forest restoration. USDA 

Forest Service GTR INT-GTR-341. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Meleason, M. A., S.V. Gregory, and J.P. Bolte. 2003. Implications of riparian management strategies on 

wood in streams of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications, 13(5): 1212-1221.

Minear, Paula J. 1994. Historical Change in Channel Form and Riparian Vegetation of the McKenzie 

River, Oregon. Masters Thesis submitted to Oregon State University.

Murphy, M.L. and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19: 17-46.

Musslewhite, J. and M.S. Wipfli. 2004. Effects of alternatives to clearcutting on invertebrate and detritus 

transport from headwaters in southeastern Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-602. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Nakano, S., and M. Murakami. 2001. Reciprocal subsidies: dynamic interdependence between terrestrial 

and aquatic food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. U.S.A.: 166–170.
References

Goose Project Final EIS - 301

Neitro, W. A., R. W. Mannan, D. Taylor, V. W. Binkley, B. G. Marcot, F. F. Wagner, and S. P. Cline.

1985. Snags (wildlife trees). Pages 129─169. In Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests 

of western Oregon and Washington. Part 1-Chapter Narratives. U.S. Forest Service. Region 6, 

Portland, Oregon. 332 p.

Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy: Evaluation of the Northwest Forest 

Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 2005. USFS and BLM.

O'Neil, Thomas A., et al. 2001. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat Relationship in Oregon and Washington. 

Northwest Habitat Institute. In D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat 

Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1979. Oregon Visibility Protection Plan. OAR 340-200-

0040. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1995. Oregon Smoke management Plan. Amended. ORS 477.515. 

Ormsbee, P. 2013. Region 6 Bat Center of Excellence Leader (retired), Willamette National 

Forest. Personal communication on July 19, 2013, to Joe Doerr, Forest Wildlife Biologist. Willamette 

National Forest, Springfield, Oregon. 

Pabst, R.J., M.N. Goslin, S.L. Garman, and T.A. Spies. 2008. Calibrating and testing a gap model for 

simulating forest management in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Ecology and Management, 256: 

958–972.

Pabst, R.J., T.A. Spies, M.N. Goslin, and S.L. Garman. 2003. Development of late-successional forest 

structures after thinning young stands: A simulation study for the Oregon Coast Range. Poster 

presented at 2003 meeting of the North American Forest Ecology Workshop, Corvallis, OR. 

Pagel, J.E. (Ed.). 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific 

Northwest in Proceedings- Symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, 16-17 Jan. 

1991. Rogue River National Forest, 125 pp.

Pauchard, A., & Alaback, P.B. (2004). Influence of elevation, land use and landscape context on patterns 

of alient plant invasions along roadsides in protected areas of south-central Chile. Conservation 

Biology, 18, 238-248.

Pettit, N.E. and R.J. Naiman. (2007). Fire in the riparian zone: characteristics and ecological 

consequences. Ecosystems, 10:673-687.

Pickering, C., A. Mount. 2009. Do tourist disperse weed seed? A global review of unintentional humanmediated terrestrial seed dispersal on clothing, vehicles, and horses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Vol. 18, No. 2, March 2010, 239-256.

Pickering, C.M., Hill, W., & Bear, R. (2007). Indirect impacts of nature based tourism and recreation: 

Associaton between infrastructure and exotic plants in Kosciuszko National Park. Journal of 

Ecotoursim, 6, 146-157.

Piper, Susan. 2006. Kmax Sound Reading, Olympic National Forest. Preliminary unpublished report. 

Olympic National Forest.

Platt, M. and R. Goggans. (1991). Report on breeding season observations of Great Gray Owls on the 

Willamette National Forest. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
References

302- Goose Project Final EIS

Poage, N.J. and J.C. Tappeiner. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of old-growth 

Douglas-fir trees in Western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Resouces, 32: 1232-1243.

Pollock, M. M., T. J. Beechie, S. S. Chan, and R. Bigley. 2005. Monitoring restoration of riparian forests. 

Pages 67-96 in Roni, P. (Ed.) Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries 

Society. Bethesda, Maryland.

Pollock, M. M., T.J. Beechie, and H. Imaki. 2012. Using reference conditions in ecosystem restoration: an 

example for riparian conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. Ecosphere, 3(11), art98.

Quintana-Coyer, Deborah; R.P. Gerhardt; M.D. Broyles; J.A. Dillon; C.F. Friesen; S.A. Godwin, and

S.D. Kamrath. 2004. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the Range of the Northwest 

Forest Plan, Version 3.0. 52 p. 

Rashin, E. B., C.J. Clishe, A.T. Loch, and J.M. Bell. 2006. Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for 

controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. October. 1307-1327.

Reeves, G.H., K.M. Burnett, and E.V. McGarry. 2003. Sources of large wood in the main stem of a 

Richardson, J. and R. Danehy. 2007. A Synthesis of the Ecology of Headwater Streams and their Riparian 

Zones in Temperate Forests. Forest Science 53(2):131–147.

Robison, E.G. and R.L. Beschta. 1990. Characteristics of coarse woody debris for several coastal streams 

of southeast Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 47: 1684-1693.

Romero, N., R. E. Gresswell, and J. Li. 2005. Changing patterns in coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki clarki) diet and prey in a gradient of deciduous canopies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, 62:1797-1807.

Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D. L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 

2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Page

594 in D. H. Johnson, and T. A. O’Neil, editors. Wildlife–habitat relationships in Oregon and 

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, USA.

Rowland, M., and 8 others. 2013. User guidelines for application, summary, and interpretation of 

westside elk nutrition and habitat use models. Draft Version 2.0. U. S. Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, La Grande, Oregon. N. p.

Roy, Dr. Barbara A. Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 

97403-Personal Communication-Goose Interdisciplinary Team Presentation, December 2009-

Willamette National Supervisor’s Office.

Ruzicka, K.J. Jr., K.J. Pueltmann, and D.H. Olson. 2014 in press. Management of Riparian Buffers: 

Upslope Thinning with Downslope Impacts. Forest Science.

Safford, H.D., et al. 2009. Effects of Fuel Treatments on Fire Severity in an Area of Wildland-Urban 

Interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Forest Ecology and Management. (2009), 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.024.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2012. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1996─2011. Version 07.03.2013. U. S. 
References

Goose Project Final EIS - 303

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. [accessed 8/21/2013 from 

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs.html] 

Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use 

with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. USDA Forest Service GTR. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort 

Collins, CO. 72 p.

Sedell, J. R. and C. N. Dahm. 1984. Catastrophic disturbances to stream ecosystems: volcanism and clearcut logging. Pages 531-539 in M. J. Klug and C. A. Reddy, editors. Current perspectives in microbial 

ecology. East Lansing and American Society of Microbiology, Washington, D.C.

Shortreed, K.R.S. and J.G. Stockner. 1983. Periphyton biomass and species composition in a coastal 

rainforest stream in British Columbia: effects of environmental changes caused by logging. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 40: 1887-1895.

Silvis Lab. WUI definitions. University of Wisconsin: Forest and Wildlife Ecology. website: 

http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/library/WUIDefinitions2.asp

Smith P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E. A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. 

House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranath, C. W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. 

Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello. 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use 

(AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group 

III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., 

R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. 

Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 121 pp.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf

Smith, J. E., D. McKay, G. Brenner, J. McIver, J. W. Spatafora. 2005. Early impacts of forest restoration 

treatments on the ectomycorrhizal fungal community and fine root biomass in a mixed conifer forest. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 42 (3): 526-535.

Snell, J.A. Kendall; Browns, J. K. 1980. Handbook to Predict Residue Weight of Pacific Northwest 

Conifers. USDA GTR. PNW-103

South Fork McKenzie Watershed Analysis. (1994, revised in 2011). Willamette National Forest.

Spies, T., M. Pollock, G. Reeves, and T. Beechie. 2013. Effects of riparian thinning on wood recruitment: 

A scientific synthesis. Science Review Team Wood Recruitment Subgroup.

Stovall, J. P., W.S. Keeton, and C.E. Kraft. 2009. Late-successional riparian forest structure results in 

heterogeneous periphyton distributions in low-order streams. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 

39(12): 2343-2354.

Swanson, M.E. 2012. Early seral forest in the pacific northwest: a literature review and synthesis of 

current science. Produced for Willamette National Forest, Mckenzie Bridge, Oregon.

Swanson, M. E., J. F. Franklin, R. L Beschta, C. M. Crisafulli, D. A. DellaSala, R. L Hutto, D. B. 

Lindenmayer, and F. J. Swanson. 2010. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional 

ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers Ecological Environment 2010: doi:10.1890/090157. 

Swanson, M.E., N.M. Studevant, J.L. Campbell, and D.C. Donato. 2014. Biological associates of earlyseral pre-forest in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 324:160-171.
References

304- Goose Project Final EIS

Swift Jr, L. W. and J.B. Messer. 1971. Forest cuttings raise temperatures of small streams in the southern 

Appalachians. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 26(3): 111-116.

Tappeiner, J.C., D. Huffman, T. Marshal, A. Spies, and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Density, ages, and growth rates 

in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research., 27:

638-648.

Teensma, Peter D. 1996. Integrating Fire Management Into Land Management Planning for Westside 

Forests in Hardy, Colin C.; Arno, Stephen F., eds.. The use of fire in forest restoration. USDA Forest 

Service GTR. INT-GTR-341. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Tepley, Alan, et.al. 2013. Fire-mediated pathways of stand development in Douglas-fir/western 

hemlock forests of the Pacific Northwest. USA Ecology, 94(8), 2013, pp. 1729–1743.

Tollefson, J.E., F.J. Swanson, and J.H. Cissel. 2004. Fire severity in intermittent stream drainages, 

western Cascade Range, Oregon. Northwest Science, 78(3):186-190.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN). (2000). IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss 

casused by alien species. Geneva: Species Survival Commission, Invasive Species Specialist Group, 

IUCN.

Upper McKenzie Watershed Analysis. 1995. Willamette National Forest.

Upper McKenzie Watershed Assessment. 1995. pg. 41

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Baseline estimates of carbon stocks in forests and harvest wood products 

for National forest System units; Pacific Northwest Region. 48pp. Whitepaper.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, 

and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

[accessed 6/11/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/].

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting formal conference 

conversion (with new Critical Habitat designation).

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Monitoring and evaluation report: Willamette National Forest-Fiscal Year 

2011. Supervisor’s Office, Springfield, Oregon. 86 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. FSH 1909.12-Land Management Planning Handbook. Chapter 70-

Wilderness Evaluation.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Field guide to riparian plant communities in northwestern Oregon. Forest 

Service Pacific Northwest Region. January 2005. Page 70-94.

USDA, Forest Service. 1992. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Landscape Aesthetics; A Handbook for 

Scenery Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 533 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Final environmental impact statement for Land and Resource Management 

Plan: Willamette National Forest. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. N.p.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Willamette National Forest.
References

Goose Project Final EIS - 305

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Interim definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests in 

the Pacific Northwest and California. PNWS Research Note PNW-447.

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and 

Washington, part 1-chapter narratives. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 332 p.

USDA. National Fire Plan. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2013. Incorporating migratory and 

resident bird concerns into the National Environmental Policy Act process. Unpublished report.

Region 6, Portland, Oregon. N.p.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Species Fact Sheet: Rhyacophila 

chandleri. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012. Survey protocol for the red 

tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus, Version 3.0. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 52 p.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/sp-RedTreeVole-v3-0-2012-11.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Species Fact Sheet: Rhyacophila 

leechi. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Species Fact Sheet: Namamyia 

plutonis. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001. Record of decision and 

standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other 

mitigation measures standards and guidelines. Region 6, Portland, Oregon. 59p + 86p.

USDA Forest Service and USDI. 2001. Federal Register. 66:751. January 4, 2001.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000a. Management Recommendations 

for Lobaria linita (Ach.) Rabenh. Version 2.0. Portland, Oregon. Available: http://www.or.blm.gov/

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999. Management 

recommendations for the Oregon red tree vole, Arborimus longicaudus, Version 2.0. Region 6, 

Portland, Oregon. 25 p. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/mr-rtv-v2-2000-09-

att1.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999. Management 

Recommendations for Terrestrial Mollusk Species, Megomphix hemphilli, Version 2.0. Region 6, 

Portland, Oregon. 39 p. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/mr-ig-megomphixhemphilli-2000.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1994. Record of decision for 

amendments to Forest Service and BLM planning documents within the range of the northern spotted 

owl and Standards and Guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth 

forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Region 6, Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Biological Opinion Regarding the Effects of Habitat Modification

Activities within the Goose Timber Sale on the Willamette National Forest that May Affect and are 

Likely to Adversely Affect Revised 2012 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat (FWS Reference 

Number 01EOFW00-2013-F-F0115). 60 p. 
References

306- Goose Project Final EIS

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of 

revised critical habitat for the northern spotted owl: final rule. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Protocol for surveying proposed management activities that may 

impact northern spotted owls. Revised January 9, 2012. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, 

OR

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Biological Opinion Regarding the Effects of Habitat Modification

Activities on the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and its Critical Habitat within the 

Willamette National Forest, FY 2010-2011 (FWS Reference Number 13420-2010-F-0001). 131 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department 

of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 

85 pp. [Online version available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service. 2008.

Methodology for Estimating the Number of Northern Spotted Owls Affected by Proposed Federal 

Actions, Version 2.0. 34 p.

US EPA 2015. US Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2013. Executive Summary. 

EPA 430-R15-004 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 27 pp.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, 

Berkeley. 668 p.

Walker, George W. and Duncan, Robert A., 1989, Geologic Map of the Salem 1 (degree) by 2 (degree) 

Quadrangle, Western Oregon: Miscellaneous Investigations Series, U. S. Geological Survey, 1989G.

Warren, D.R., W.S. Keeton, H.A. Bechtold, and E.J. Rosi-Marshall. 2013. Comparing streambed light 

availability and canopy cover in streams with old-growth versus early-mature riparian forests in 

western Oregon. Aquatic Sciences, 75:547-558.

Waters, J.R., K.S. McKelvey, C.J. Zabel, and W.W. Oliver. 1994. The effects of thinning and broadcast 

burning on sporocarp production of hypogeous fungi. Can. J. For. Res. 24: 1516-1522.

Webster, J. R. and E. F. Benfield. 1986. Vascular Plant Breakdown in Freshwater Ecosystems. Annual

Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 17:567-94

Wiens, J. D. 2012. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted owls and 

barred owls in western Oregon. PhD Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Willamette National Forest: Detroit Ranger District, McKenzie (River) Ranger District, Sweet Home 

Ranger District. 2009. Biological Assessment for LAA Projects with the Potential to Modify the 

Habitat of northern spotted owls. 118 p.
References

Goose Project Final EIS - 307

Williamson, Richard L. 1982. Response to commercial thinning in a 110-year-old Douglas-fir stand. Res. 

Pap. PNW-RP-296. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p.

Wilzbach, M.A., B.C. Harvey, J.L. White, and R.J. Nakamoto. 2005. Effects of riparian canopy opening 

and salmon carcass addition on the abundance and growth of resident salmonids. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62: 58–67. 

Wimberly, M. C., T. A. Speis, C. J. Long, and C. Whitlock. 2000. Simulating historical variability in the 

amount of old forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Conservation Biology 14: 167-180.

Wipfli, M.S. 1997. Terrestrial invertebrates as salmonid prey and nitrogen sources in streams: contrasting 

old-growth and young-growth riparian forests in southeastern Alaska, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 1259–1269.

Wipfli, M.S. and Gregovich, D.P. 2002. Export of invertebrates and detritus from fishless headwater 

streams in southeastern Alaska: implications for downstream salmonid production. Freshwater 

Biology, 47: 957-969.

Young, T., and J. Doerr. 2011. FY2011 ISSSP report for salamander slug and secondary mollusk and 

amphibian species purposive surveys on Middle Fork Ranger District of the Willamette National 

Forest and on the Cascade portion of the Eugene Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished Report, 

Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest 

Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 7/22/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/speciesindex/fauna-invertebrates.shtml] 

Young, T., J. Doerr, R. Price, and R. Davis. 2010. FY2010 ISSSP report on two salamander slug survey 

projects. Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land 

Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 7/22/2013 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml
308- Goose Project Final EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Glossary

Goose Project Final EIS - 309

Glossary

A

Advanced Regeneration - Small trees, usually less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing under 

mature trees prior to planned harvest activities.

Air Quality The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most frequently in 

connection with "standards" of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. Used instead of "air 

pollution" when referring to programs.

Allochthonous Energy Sources - Allochthonous energy sources are those derived from outside the 

stream system, that is, from the terrestrial environment. Leaves, twigs, fruits, etc. are typical forms that 

enter the water by direct litterfall or lateral leaf blow.

Ambient Air Quality- defined under the Clean Air Act as the air quality outside of industrial site 

boundaries.

Arterial Road – A forest road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other 

arterial roads or public highways. 

Autochthonous Energy Sources Autochthonous energy sources are those derived from within the stream 

system. During photosynthesis, for example, primary producers form organic carbon compounds out of 

carbon dioxide and inorganic matter. The energy they produce is important for the community because it 

may be transferred to higher trophic levels via consumption.

C

Canopy - The uppermost spreading branchy layer of a forest.

Canopy Base Height – The height above the ground of the first canopy layer where the density of the 

crown mass within the layer is great enough to support vertical movement of a fire. Low canopy base 

heights have been shown to initiate crown fire behavior.

Canopy Bulk Density - Canopy bulk density (CBD) describes the density of available canopy fuel in a 

stand. It is defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per canopy volume unit.

Canopy Cover - Canopy cover is a measure of the percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection 

of the tree canopy.

Canopy Closure - Canopy closure is the proportion of the sky hemisphere (measured from all angles) 

obscured by vegetation when viewed by a single point. Closure is affected by tree heights and canopy 

widths and takes into account light interception and other factors that influence microhabitat.

Chain – A standard measurement equal to 66 feet.

Class I Airsheds - Geographic areas designed by the Clean Air Act subject to the most stringent 

restrictions on allowable increment of air quality deterioration. Class I areas include Forest Service 

wildernesses and nation memorial parks over 5,000 acres, National Parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

international parks, as well as other designated lands.

Cohort – A group of trees developing after a single disturbance, commonly consisting of trees of similar 

age, although it can include a considerable range of tree ages of seedling or sprout origin and trees that 

predate the disturbance.
Glossary

310- Goose Project Final EIS

Condition Classes - A function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes. Condition class 1 

is within or near historical conditions; class 3 is significantly altered from historical regimes.

Contiguous- In close proximity to or near.

Core Area - 0.5 mile (radius circle) around a known or predicted owl site, which delineates the area most 

heavily used during the nesting season for nesting, foraging and rearing young. Bingham & Noon (1997) 

defined the core area as that portion of a northern spotted owl home range that received disproportionately 

high use for nesting, roosting and access to prey; they suggested that 60-70 percent of owl reproducing 

season activity occurred in about 20 percent of the home range. Although Courtney et al. (2004:5-5) 

observed that core area sizes varied greatly among owls, Thrailkill (pers. com.) determined that Bingham 

& Noon 1997, Wagner & Anthony 1999, Franklin et al. 2000 and Irwin et al. 2004 collectively suggested 

a core area of about 500 acres.

Collector Road - A forest road that serves smaller land areas than an arterial road. Usually connects 

forest arterial roads to local forest roads or terminal facilities. (FSH 7709.54, no longer in print)

Critical Habitat (NSO)– The critical habitat designation is conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and is based on the current status and recent scientific research on northern spotted owl 

populations. Critical habitat was identified for specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, and which may require special management considerations or protection. For 

the northern spotted owl, these features include particular forest types that are used or likely to be used by 

northern spotted owls for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing habitat. In addition, the best available 

information was used to identify those areas that are otherwise determined to be essential to the 

conservation of the species. A habitat network was identified that meets the following criteria:

• Ensures sufficient habitat to support stable, healthy populations across the range, and also within 

each of the 11 recovery units

• Ensures distribution of northern spotted owl populations across the range of habitat conditions 

used by the species

• Incorporates uncertainty, including potential effects of barred owls, climate change, and wildfire 

disturbance risk

• Recognizes that these protections are meant to work in concert with other recovery actions, such 

as barred owl management.

Critical Habitat (Fish) - On September 30, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical 

habitat for bull trout throughout their U.S. range. Approximately 18,795 miles of streams and 488,252 

acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Nevada were designated as 

critical habitat for the wide-ranging fish. In Washington, 754 miles of marine shoreline also were 

designated. The designation, developed by a team of federal scientists with input from peers outside the 

agency, is intended to provide sufficient habitat to allow for genetic and life history diversity, ensure bull 

trout are well distributed across representative habitats, ensure sufficient connectivity among populations 

and allow for the ability to address threats facing the species.

On September 2, 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service designated critical habitat for the Upper 

Willamette River chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit, which includes naturally spawned 

spring-run Chinook salmon originating from the Clackamas River and from the Willamette River and its 

tributaries above Willamette Falls. Also, spring-run Chinook salmon from six artificial propagation 

programs:

• McKenzie River Hatchery Program (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Stock 

#23)
Glossary

Goose Project Final EIS - 311

• Marion Forks Hatchery/North Fork Santiam River Program (ODFW Stock #21)

• South Santiam Hatchery Program (ODFW Stock #24) in the South Fork Santiam River and 

Mollala River

• Willamette Hatchery Program (ODFW Stock #22)

• Clackamas Hatchery Program (ODFW Stock #19)

Within these areas, the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of these ESUs are 

those sites and habitat components that support one or more life stages, including freshwater spawning 

and rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, estuarine areas, nearshore marine areas, and offshore 

marine areas.

Crop Trees -Trees which are considered suitable to meet long term management objectives for an 

analysis area. These may also be referred to as healthy or manageable trees. This may include both the 

physical make-up of the tree as well as the species.

Cycle - As applied to uneven-aged management, it is the time interval between harvest entries. It should 

be noted that harvest entries in uneven-aged management are to leave residual levels of growing stock 

which should not need treatment for at least one cycle length.

D

Desirable Species - Any species of plant or animal which is considered to be compatible with meeting 

management goals and objectives.

Discounted Cost - Value of all cost associated with a project over its lifetime multiplied by a discount 

rate to determine the costs at today’s worth.

Discounted Revenue - Value of all revenue associated with a project over its lifetime multiplied by a 

discount rate to determine the value today.

Net Present Value - Difference in Discounted Revenue and Discounted Cost to evaluate if a project 

would have a positive or negative return on investment.

Disturbance - Events that disrupt the stand structure and/or change resource availability or the physical 

environment (Oliver 1996).

Diameter Breast Height (DBH) – Diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet up from the ground on the uphill 

side.

E

Early Seral - Plants which inhabit a disturbed site within the first few years subsequent to the 

disturbance.

Early Seral Habitat – A forest structural condition that lasts 15-20 years after a human disturbance such 

as timber harvest, or natural disturbance such as wildfire. This structural condition can provide valuable 

wildlife habitat components including grasses, flowering forbs, hardwoods, and dead wood habitat

structures.

Emissions - A release of combustion gases and aerosols into the atmosphere.

F

Fire Behavior – The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography.
Glossary

312- Goose Project Final EIS

Fire Intensity -The product of the available heat of combustion per unit of ground and the rate of spread 

of the fire, interpreted as the heat released per unit of time for each unit length of fire edge. The primary 

unit is British thermal unit (Btu) per second per foot (Btu/sec/ft) of fire front. Also, the rate of heat release 

per unit time per unit length of fire front. Numerically, it is the product of the heat yield, the quantity of 

fuel consumed in the fire front, and the rate of spread.

Fire Regime - A function of the historical frequency of fire and the degree of severity of those fires.

Fire Regime Condition Class - Depiction of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes, 

possibly resulting in alternations of key ecosystem components. These classes categorize and describe 

vegetation composition and structure conditions that currently exist inside the Fire Regime Groups. Based 

on the coarse-scale national data, they serve as generalized wildfire rankings. The risk of loss of key 

ecosystem components from wildfires increases from Condition Class 1 (lowest risk) to Condition Class 3 

(highest risk).

Fire Severity - Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; loosely, a product of fire 

intensity and residence time.

Flame Length - The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the 

flame (generally the ground surface), an indicator of fire intensity.

Fuel Class - Part of the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS). Group of fuels possessing 

common characteristics. Dead fuels are grouped according to 1-, 10-, 100-, and 1000-hour time lag, and 

living fuels are grouped as herbaceous (annual or perennial) or woody.

Fuels - Vegetative matter, dead or alive, that burns in a fire. It is broadly characterized by the following 

categories:

• Surface or ground fuels are within a foot or so of the ground surface.

• Ladder fuels exist when you have a continuous vertical arrangement of fuel that allows fire to 

easily go from ground level into the tree canopy.

• Crown fuels are the tree limbs and leaves that can burn with enough heat and/or wind.

• Live fuels are the green (live) herbs and shrubs.

Fuel Models - Simulated fuel complex for which all fuel descriptors required for the solution of a 

mathematical rate of spread model have been specified.

G

Group Selection - A stand management method in which silviculturists identify groups of trees which 

need to be removed from a stand of trees in order to meet management objectives.

H

Habitat Modification; Habitat Downgraded: Refers to silvicultural activities that change spotted owl 

suitable habitat to dispersal habitat; Habitat Removed: Refers to silvicultural activities that 1) Alter 

spotted owl suitable habitat such that it no longer supports nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (i.e., 

suitable habitat becomes non-habitat after treatment) or 2) Alter spotted owl dispersal habitat so that the 

habitat no longer supports dispersal (i.e., dispersal habitat becomes non-habitat after treatment).
Glossary

Goose Project Final EIS - 313

Home Range - An estimated area for habitat use of a spotted owl pair. For the Oregon Cascades, this 

estimate is 1.2 miles (radius circle) around a known or predicted owl site (Thomas et al. 1990, USDI et al. 

2008).

Hyporheic Flow - Hyporheic flow is the mixing of shallow groundwater and surface beneath and 

alongside a stream bed.

I

Individual Tree Selection - A stand management method in which silviculturists identify individual trees 

that need to be removed from a stand of trees. In this method, specific types, sizes, or qualities of trees are 

identified for either removing from the stand or remaining in the stand.

Initial Attack – The fire suppression effort that takes place as soon as possible following a wildland fire 

report.

Invasive Weed – see Noxious Weeds

K

Known Owl Site - A site that was or is occupied by a pair or resident single as defined by the survey 

protocol (1990-2012). The specific site location is determined by the unit biologist based on the best 

and/or most recent information. 

L

Ladder Fuels – Fuels that provide vertical continuity between the ground and tree crowns which create a 

pathway for a surface fire to move into the overstory tree crowns.

Local Road – A forest road that connects terminal facilities with forest collector, forest arterial or public 

highways. Usually forest local roads are single purpose transportation facilities. (FSH 7709.54, no longer 

in print)

M

Macrophyte - A macrophyte is an aquatic plant that grows in or near water and is emergent, submergent, 

or floating. In lakes and streams macrophytes provide cover for fish and substrate for aquatic 

invertebrates, produce oxygen, and act as food for some fish and wildlife.

Mechanical Thinning - Reducing the number of trees in a stand using a factor which is independent of 

tree quality. The use of spacing for thinning is one type of mechanical treatment. For example, the closest 

tree to the points of a 15' by 15' grid would be left, regardless of tree quality.

Microbes - A microbe is a microscopic organism, which may be a single cell or multicellular organism. 

Microbes are very diverse and include all the bacteria and archaea and almost all the protozoa. They also 

include some members of the fungi, algae, and animals such as rotifers.

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) – A map reflecting designated roads, trails and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System. (36 CFR 261.2)

Multi-Cohort – a stand with two or more age classes or cohorts.
Glossary

314- Goose Project Final EIS

N

Nest Patch (or Stand) - 300 meters (radius circle) around a known or predicted owl site, where a spotted 

owl would be likely to select a nest tree. This is based on habitat usage of spotted owls within the Central 

Cascades Study Area, located on the Willamette National Forest.

Net Present Value - Difference in Discounted Revenue and Discounted Cost to evaluate if a project 

would have a positive or negative return on investment.

Noxious Weeds (Invasive species) - Non- native plants listed by the State that generally have either 

economic or ecosystem impacts, or are poisonous to wildlife and/or livestock. They aggressively invade 

disturbed areas such as fires, road sides, and construction areas.

O

Obligate Predator - When the word is used as an adjective, obligate means "by necessity" (the antonym 

is facultative) and is used mainly in biology. An obligate predator is an organism whose survival is 

dependent on consumption of other animals. In the case of aquatic insects these organisms would 

primarily eat other insects.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) – Describes all those vehicles designed for off-highway use and which are 

classified as one of four classes of ATV in Oregon. (OHV Guide 2014)

P

Particulate Matter - known as particle pollution or PM, is a microscopic complex mixture of extremely 

small particles and liquid droplets and contains a “number of components, including acids (such as 

nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust particles, and allergens (such as fragments of 

pollen or mold spores). Fine particles, such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter and smaller (EPA website).

Percentile Weather - The weather conditions that can be expected of X% of the days during a fire 

season. The standard percent’s are Low (0%-15%), Moderate (16%-89%), High (90%-96%) and Extreme 

(97%+). For example, low percentile weather is the average suite of weather conditions that would occur 

less than 15% of the time.

Periphyton - Periphyton is a complex mixture of algae, cyanobacteria, heterotrophic microbes, and 

detritus that is attached to submerged surfaces in most aquatic ecosystems. It serves as an important food 

source for invertebrates, tadpoles, and some fish.

Phytophagous - Feeding on plant material. This term is typically used when referring to insects.

Predicted Owl Site - An area able to support resident spotted owls (i.e. a potential breeding pair) as 

determined by the USDI et al. (2008) northern spotted owl occupancy template. This is used for 

determining effects to spotted owls where survey data are insufficient.

Prescribed Fire Burn Plan - A plan required for each fire application ignited by management. Plans are 

documents prepared by qualified personnel, approved by the agency administrator, and include criteria for 

the conditions under which the fire would be conducted (a prescription). Plan content varies among the 

agencies.

Prescribed Fire - Fire which is planned and used as a tool to meet specific management objectives.
Glossary

Goose Project Final EIS - 315

Probably Sale Quantity (PSQ - 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.

Primitive Unconfined Recreation- From the Wilderness Act of 1964 and which describes the concept of 

freely accessed recreational opportunities with minimal interruption to such activity either physically, 

socially or due to administrative actions implemented by a land management agency such as seasonal 

closures, group size restrictions, fees, permitting systems or other restrictions.

Probability of Ignition (POI) - The chance that a firebrand would cause an ignition when it lands on 

receptive fuels.

Problem Fire - Problem fires are wildfires that, because of extreme fire behavior, present a high risk to 

human safety and loss of forest resources.

R

Rate of Spread (Fire Behavior) - The relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal dimensions. It 

is expressed as rate of increase of the total perimeter of the fire, as rate of forward spread of the fire front, 

or as rate of increase in area, depending on the intended use of the information. Usually it is expressed in 

chains or acres per hour for a specific period in the fire's history.

Redd - A fish nest made of gravel, consisting of a depression hydraulically dug by a fish for egg 

deposition (and then filled) and associated gravel mounds.

Remnant trees - Large to giant-diameter trees within younger-aged stands, that lived through past natural 

fire disturbances, or were retained after logging. Amounts and distribution of remnant trees within 

younger stands may be highly variable.

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail. (36 CFR 

212.1)

Road Decommissioning – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a 

more natural state. (36 CFR 212.1)

Rotation - A pre-determined time frame in which an even-aged forest stand would reach maturity and be 

harvested.

S

Sag Pond - A sag pond is a body of water collected in the lowest parts of a depression formed either near 

the head scarp of rotational landslides or between two strands of an active strike-slip fault. Hidden Lake 

sits on a deep seated earthflow and is technically a sag pond.

Salvage - Activity, usually removal or chipping, of tree material killed by a disturbance event such as 

insects, fire, wind, etc. Where possible, this material is used as some form of forest product of commercial 

value, such as firewood, pulp, and/or chips.

Seral Stages - Seral stage describes the phase of development of a plant community. Early seral species 

are those species you would expect to find on a site soon after a major disturbance, like fire. These are 

species such as pines, Douglas- fir, snowbrush, fireweed, etc. They are generally shade intolerant species. 
Glossary

316- Goose Project Final EIS

Late seral are the species that can come in under a fully developed vegetative canopy, such as true firs, 

prince's pine, lichens, etc.

Silviculture -The theory and practice of directing forest establishment, composition, and growth for the 

production of forest resources to meet specific management objectives. The word is derived from the 

Latin word silva, which means "forest" and from cultura, which means "to develop and care for." So, it is 

the development and caring for the forest.

Silviculturist - One, who plans, assists in and supervises the implementation of silviculture projects. The 

Silviculturist determines (prescribes) the vegetative treatments necessary to meet the objectives for 

vegetation on a given site.

Site - A specific location where management activity is considered, planned, or operating.

Site Potential - The specific ability of a site to grow vegetation. It includes the soil, topographic, and 

climatic conditions that determine the resources available for growing vegetation.

Site Preparation - The removing or rearranging of vegetation or woody debris to meet specific 

management objectives. Most often it is used to describe the process(es) used to expose mineral soil areas 

suitable for planting or seeding desirable species of plants.

Slash - Debris resulting from such natural events as wind, fire, or snow breakage; or such human 

activities as road construction, logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting. It includes logs, chunks, bark, 

branches, stumps, and broken understory trees or brush.

Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA) - Area in which smoke from outside sources is intolerable, for 

reasons such as heavy population, existing air pollution, or intensive recreation or tourist use.

Soundscape- Geographic region as defined by the audible sounds associated within it.

Spotted Owl Habitat Types – Suitable habitat consists 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, multi-species 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. Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to those of nesting and 

roosting habitat, but such habitat may not always support successfully nesting pairs (USFWS 2011c, p. A10).

Dispersal habitat consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection 

from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities (USFWS 2011c, p. A-10). It consists 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, 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 (in which case it would be classified as suitable 

habitat).

Suitable habitat can also function as dispersal habitat as it supports both territorial and dispersing spotted 

owls. However, in this document, dispersal habitat generally refers to stands that are 40-79 years old.

Stand - A group of trees of similar canopy structure, species composition, and/or size growing on a 

continuous area. A stand is distinct from neighboring stands in structure, growing conditions, or 
Glossary

Goose Project Final EIS - 317

management objectives. Stand age for this project is averaged and based on trees of commercial size 

which is seven inch DBH and greater.

Stand Density Index – SDI – A relative density measure based on the relationship between mean tree 

size and number of trees per unit area in a stand (Reineke 1933).

Stand Dynamics - The changes in forest stand structure with time, including stand behavior during and 

after disturbances (Oliver 1996).

Stand Structure - The physical and temporal distribution of trees and other plants in a stand (Oliver

1996).

Stratum – A distinct layer of vegetation within a forest community; canopy layer.

Stream Classes - Class 1 and 2 = perennial fish bearing streams; Class 3 = perennial non-fish bearing 

streams; Class 4 = intermittent, seasonally flowing streams.

Suppression - All the work of extinguishing or confining a fire beginning with its discovery.

T

“Take” of ESA listed species - Take: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by USFWS to include 

significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by 

significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by 

USFWS as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly 

disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.

Thinning - Any cutting or removal of vegetation (trees, brush, etc.) resulting in a reduction of 

competition for water, light, and/or nutrients between individual plants. Commercial thinning refers to 

removing material that has an established dollar value on the open market and can be sold with at least a 

minimal net value sufficient to pay for the thinning activity.

Torching - The burning of the foliage of a single tree or a small group of trees, from the bottom up. Also, 

single tree torching is one tree and group torching is more than one tree often a patch of multiple trees 

torching.

Total Maxium Daily Load (TMDL) - TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of 

a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that 

load among the various sources of that pollutant.

Treatment - A term used to broadly refer to the management actions made to meet management 

objectives. It may include thinning, cutting of undesirable trees, prescribed fire, salvage, or any 

manipulation of the vegetative conditions. In addition, intentionally excluding a portion of a stand from 

harvest is a management action, or treatment.

Trees per Acre (TPA) – The number of trees on an acre of land.

U

Underburn - Using prescribed fire under the canopy of an existing stand of trees.

Undesirable Species - Any species of plant or animal which is NOT considered to be compatible with 

meeting management goals and objectives.
Index

318- Goose Project Final EIS

Index

A

Adaptive Management Area, 22, 27

Age Class, 17, 35, 40, 65, 66, 67, 121, 122, 126, 313

Air Quality, 10, 59, 205, 207, 214, 309

Aquatic Conservation Strategy, iii, 44, 88, 104, 227, 235, 

236, 301

B

Barred Owl, 310

Bull Trout, 5, 29, 228

C

Canopy Cover, 68, 309, 316

Cavity Excavators, 8, 120, 157, 170

Chinook, 5, 29, 88, 113, 114, 228, 229, 230

Class 1 Airshed, 59, 205

Climate Change, 310

Compaction, 75, 84, 85, 220

Critical Habitat, iii, 4, 5, 6, 29, 61, 88, 118, 123, 125, 127, 

129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 147, 228, 229, 

304, 305, 306, 310

Cumulative Effects, 63, 64, 74, 82, 87, 104, 108, 109, 112, 

118, 123, 129, 134, 142, 144, 147, 148, 150, 153, 154, 

156, 171, 173, 174, 176, 188, 190, 197, 204, 206, 209, 

233

Cutthroat Trout, 5

D

Dead Wood, 62, 161, 164

Dead Wood Habitat, 62, 311

Dispersal Habitat, 4, 127, 128

Dominant Tree Release, iii, 2, 20, 33, 38, 43, 71, 72, 74, 

126, 219, 225

Down Wood, 3, 21, 35, 39, 45, 47, 49, 60, 103

E

Early Seral Habitat, 121, 311

Economics, 10, 207

Elk, 8, 11, 55, 64, 88, 89, 108, 120, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 

173, 197, 236

Enhancement, 59, 60, 61

ESA, iii, 6, 29, 88, 113, 114, 117, 118, 123, 174, 228, 229, 

230, 231, 317

F

Fire Behavior, 77, 78, 311, 315

Fire Regenerated, 33, 38, 68

Fire Regime, iii, 76, 77, 298, 299, 312

Fire Severity, 302, 312

Forest Plan, 5, 22, 23, 25, 26, 59, 62, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

106, 108, 109, 113, 120, 131, 152, 153, 166, 168, 169, 

170, 171, 193, 194, 198, 204, 211, 214, 217, 221, 227, 

230, 232, 301

Fuel Class, 312

Fuels, iv, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 20, 21, 34, 35, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 

48, 49, 50, 61, 65, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 103, 106, 126, 128, 

139, 192, 194, 203, 204, 207, 210, 214, 221, 222, 229, 

233, 234, 312, 313

G

Gaps, 2, 3, 20, 21, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44, 56, 64, 70, 71, 73, 

74, 126, 175, 217, 218, 219, 223, 225

H

Habitat Modification, 139, 141, 229, 305, 306, 312

I

Invasive Weed, 313

Inventoried Roadless Area, iii, 10, 230

K

Key Issues, 30, 44

Known Owl Site, 125, 135, 138, 313

L

Land Management Areas, 25

M

Management Indicator Species, iv, 5, 6, 8, 113, 117, 118, 

120, 156, 157, 170, 174, 230, 231

Mitigation, 22, 59, 60, 61, 175, 206, 230

N

Northern Spotted Owl, iv, 4, 6, 22, 29, 61, 118, 123, 125, 

126, 129, 136, 142, 143, 229, 235, 305, 306

Northwest Forest Plan, iv, 22, 25, 27, 72, 90, 97, 104, 106, 

151, 152, 153, 169, 211, 220, 227, 230, 232, 235, 236, 

238, 239, 243, 296, 297, 301, 302

O

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV), 201, 203
Index

Goose Project Final EIS - 319

P

Potential Wilderness Area, iv, 19

Probable Sale Quantity, 1

Proposed Action, ii, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28, 33, 223, 237, 238, 

239, 240, 241, 243

Purpose and Need, ii, 1, 11, 15, 123

R

Regeneration Harvest, 2, 3, 20, 21, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44, 

74, 220

Riparian Conditions, 89, 96

Riparian Reserves, 2, 3, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 33, 34, 38, 

39, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 60, 61, 74, 88, 90, 91, 

92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 

112, 117, 118, 131, 133, 170, 200, 220, 230, 232, 235, 

236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242

S

Salmon, 5, 29, 228, 229

Scenery, v, 191, 204, 234, 304

Silviculture, 316

Skips, 2, 3, 20, 26, 34, 38, 39, 43, 64, 73, 74, 217, 220, 223, 

225

Snag, 8, 21, 35, 39, 54, 59, 60, 120, 142, 146, 159, 160, 

161, 170, 171, 220

Soils, 21, 35, 39, 50, 83, 84, 87, 109, 112, 213

Special Interest Area (SIA), 82, 202

Stand, iv, v, 1, 4, 16, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 90, 95, 

102, 164, 217, 220, 314, 316, 317

Stand Density Index, iv, v, 67, 68, 102, 217, 317

Stream Classes, 317

Suitable Habitat, 126, 128, 130, 132, 136

T

Thinning, 2, 20, 33, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 54, 64, 

69, 70, 73, 74, 102, 103, 107, 116, 117, 126, 127, 128, 

131, 133, 134, 142, 147, 155, 193, 204, 217, 218, 225, 

229, 234, 300, 302, 313, 317

Treatment, 5, 19, 20, 25, 34, 35, 39, 40, 43, 45, 48, 81, 102, 

103, 126, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 158, 192, 200, 

217, 221, 223, 225, 317

Trout, 5

U

Underburn, 3, 4, 20, 21, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 50, 80, 

81, 138, 139, 141, 221, 222, 225, 317

W

Wilderness, 10, 170, 206, 213, 230, 304, 315

Wildland Urban Interface, i, 1, 11, 18, 20, 35, 40, 45, 47, 

49, 78, 103

WUI, i, v, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25, 30, 34, 35, 38, 

39, 40, 43, 44, 53, 69, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 119, 132, 133, 

134, 138, 139, 142, 194, 204, 221, 222, 229, 303